Do you have to be mentally ill to kill people?

Not necessarily. Being a self absorbed narcissist that feels like a victim because he is not getting what he thinks he deserves from his over inflated sense of entitlement is enough for some to go off the deep end and take their rage out on others. Look at Elliot Rogers last year and the Santa Barbara shootings. He felt that he was above everyone else and his narcissistic rage at not being one of the cool guys that could get the hot chicks sent him into a murderous rage.

When adult children have temper tantrums people can die.

I assume you are talking about civilians. Hope so. Maybe I should go get myself checked out.

I’m thinking a “Whitey” Bulger not that he crazy but he killed for business and control. He seems to be a rational (not crazy) person.

I’m not entirely sure, but I feel like someone obviously has to have something wrong with their head to think it’s okay to kill another person. Like, they could have sadistic personality disorder or something. Just I highly doubt anyone in their right mind kills another person.

@Coloma Could that be Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Which would means he’s mentally ill in some way.

@Misspegasister28 Yes, but I don’t think they have NPD classified anymore on the DSM.
Anti-social traits can go with it as well, to one degree or another.

I think it’s like two intersecting circles.
Not all mentally-ill people kill or hurt, obviously, and not all killers are mentally ill, of course.

Sadly, no. You just have to be greedy or uncaring.

I think all mass murderers are by definition mentally ill. Other kinds of murderers, like those who murder their abusers, may not be.

The senseless slaughter of random strangers goes a long way toward convincing me of wiring problems in the shooters. And there isn’t a single one of these things that I can recall that wasn’t perpetrated by someone previously diagnosed as mentally disturbed. And those shooters who survive their rampage are invariably declared crazy as a bedbug. But I’ll tell you what’s REALLY insane. It’s 250 million firearms in a land of paltry mental healthcare where deliberately stupid laws guarantee that ANYONE can get a gun.

- do non-mentally-ill (or perhaps, rational) people ever kill? Yes they do. There are many, many examples of ‘sane’ people killing others. Soldiers and police officers for example. However, even people such as Ted Bundy were not deemed insane. I consider a mental illness to be a disorder diagnosed using a standardised set of criteria. Not just behaviour that is outside perceived norms.

- does killing people (especially a mass killing) by definition make you mentally ill? No. Their behaviour might not be acceptable to the majority, but that doesn’t make them insane.

- is labelling someone ‘mentally ill’ in this context masking a deeper societal problem? Who is doing the labelling? If people in authority are attaching these labels that would be a problem. If it’s people who have no legitimate knowledge about mental health, or any power to suggest or implement policy, then it suggests a need for education rather than a social problem.

Define “mentally ill”.

That right there is a problem, especially as many things that qualify as “mental illness” are not things that lead to shooting rampages. Depression is a mental illness, but one that would probably deprive one of the motivation to even pick up a gun, and a higher likelihood of turning it on themselves without harming others. Some would consider migraines to be a mental illness.

Plus it opens the gates for abuse; for example, finding credible scientific evidence of the link between sociopathy and voting Republican and using that to declare Conservatives “mentally ill”. (~Not that anyone would ever abuse power like that.) It would require some pretty massive oversight to keep it from getting tyrannical.

Personally, I feel that “mentally ill” is somewhat context sensitive. In the context of killing people, I would define it broadly as, “an imminent physical threat to the safety of others for no just reason”. If one is under the delusion that people with glasses are alien invaders from Betelgeuse and wishes to use their second amendment rights to save humanity by plugging us four-eyed people, then I think it safe to say that that person is mentally ill. If, on the other hand, you have an otherwise upstanding citizen who wishes to carry a sidearm for protection due to a distrust of the effectiveness of police, that person is likely merely a concerned (but mentally healthy) citizen.

* * * * *
”[D]o non-mentally-ill (or perhaps, rational) people ever kill?”

Fairly often, actually. That’s pretty much the definition of Voluntary Manslaughter, a.k.a. Third-degree Murder.

”[D]oes killing people (especially a mass killing) by definition make you mentally ill?”

Not by definition, though it often does lead there. Taking a life is something that leaves a mark on you, and some people can’t handle that strain even in the most justified of killings like self defense. It’s rare to find someone who has killed another human under any conditions and not been scarred by it. Some feel intense guilt that leads to depression. Many police and military vets wind up that way. Others try to save their sanity by becoming detached and less empathetic (some would argue less “human”).
Still, there are others who can kill while still having enough respect for the sanctity of human life to not be a sociopath.

”[I]s labelling someone ‘mentally ill’ in this context masking a deeper societal problem?”

Very much so, and it’s something that we’ve barely seen the tip of the iceberg on.

YES. Outside of self defense and the defense of something institutional that you take stock in intentionally killing another human for any reason represents the very nature of mental illness.

Nope, not in my opinion. And yes, automatically labelling someone as mentally ill after they’ve killed a lot of people is not only irresponsible, it’s dangerous, because I do feel that it only masks a deeper societal problem. That’s not to say that people who are mentally ill never have and never will kill people in the same fashion. But it’s too easy and doesn’t actually analyze a real problem, and instead pawns off horrible violence onto those who are already stigmatized by society.

No.

Have you ever met a soldier who has been on active duty? No, you don’t have to be mentally ill to kill. But certain mental illnesses can drastically increase the chances of someone becoming homocidal.

I would say yes in mass shootings. A rational person would consider that they could be killed in the act of killing a large group of people and certainly go to jail and that no matter how they slice it, there is nothing to gain. Momentary happiness followed by death or prison and even momentary fame. With all the mass shootings these days, fame for shooting people is short lived. People go on with their day and forget who these loser were and even why they killed these people. Only the family members and cops and courts will remember, but that is hardly long term global fame. So what do them gain? Suicide by cop? So out come is dead and gone or just gone and forgotten because a few days later someone else or something else will be the headline.
So my point is that it would be hard to say that the person was sane at the time. It could be momentary insanity but it’s still insanity.
A sane/ reasonable /rational person would reason that none of those things matter and that the best revenge in life is to live your life well. Revenge in the form of murdering large groups of unknown people doesn’t fix one thing in your life.
This isn’t a slip of common sense, like stealing from someone you hate or robbing a bank next to a police station. This is usually a suicide attempt or the person is so delusional that they think they are going to get away with it. So I would have to vote, nut case.

To kill someone you do not have to be mentally ill. In this politically correct world I am not sure why people who are moderately mentally diminished even allow that to go unchecked. People kill people all of the time for various reasons, most go unreported or end up a blurb on page 10 where no one notices. When the perp is killed in a shootout with cops or he takes himself out, robbing society of getting their 10 pounds of flesh, they villainize him/her by calling them mentally ill or a monster, because that is all they have left in lack of bringing him/her to justice.

yes, no exceptions.

@ragingloli Seriously? Even the members of the police force who take down active shooters?

@FireMadeFlesh
Especially them.

@ragingloli
This is a topic about which I have personally given a lot of thought
When mentally sick people kill, they are not bothered by it. They do it because they have a purpose that engages their interests in a fashion that you or I could never understand. Their cause is their own. They have no comrades or innocents whose lives they want to protect. They are singularly selfish in that regard. They have an “agenda” that is so personal that most of us would not totally understand it.
Some people kill with a reasoned purpose.
I can identify with this, having done it. I am speaking generally of cops and soldiers (I am not a cop).
We have killed because we believe that if it gets to the point where we kill somebody, somebody else who is more innocent and more deserving might have a chance to live. That might be a civilian, that might be your buddy or it could be somebody else who simply does not comprehend the evil that all of us innocents face daily, but from which we should be shielded from, because people are, day to day, general innocent. The principle is the same. Killing is troubling. It something you never really “get over” but in a certain context, as stated, it is reconcilable in the soul.
The moral test of one who kills is the reaction of their conscience. If they are mentally sick, their killing is satisfying. If they are normal, their killing requires introspection in order to be healthy.
But, according to you, it is all the same. You think that everyone who kills is a psychotic killer.
I do not believe that you really see it that way. I think you are simply saying that in order to please your little constituency on Fluther and to be popular in your peculiar fashion.
But if you really believe it, who will bother to save you if you need saving? What if everybody who could protect you simply writes you off as a loser?
You are protected by your anonymity on Fluther. I bet you hope in the end, if it all turns to shit, somebody might kill in order to save you.
And if not, why not end it all right now?
Just sayin

@ragingloli In your opinion then, does society require mentally ill people to be in particular positions?

It takes a special level of self delusion to convince yourself that murder is justified. Hence mental illness.
The only difference between a soldier and a common murderer is that the murderer knows he is a criminal, while the soldier fancies himself a hero.

~That sort of extremist thought isn’t a sign of mental illness in itself though. No, the majority of the world is mentally ill and the extremists are the only remotely sane ones.

If someone is going to harm me or is in the process of harming me or my friends or family, I’d like someone to come along and harm them and kill them if need be. If that person is cop or military, then so be it. Call them what you want, I’d be grateful for the intervention.

More often than not many people close to these whack-job mass shooters know these perps are unhinged and I don’t have a rational explanation why these same people do little to bring this persons raging issues to light. Yes I can see how a parent wants to protect their child and pray it wasn’t so….but there had to be professional therapists involved who did not pull the trigger to alert authorities that we have a ticking time bomb in our midsts. Maybe Hippa laws need to be loosened to protect Dr’s et all from law suits to enable them to have a route to report suspicious patient behaviors without litigious reprisal.

The official also said the mother of 26-year-old gunman Christopher Harper-Mercer has told investigators he was struggling with some mental health issues.”

@ragingloli The only difference between a soldier and a common murderer is that the murderer knows he is a criminal, while the soldier fancies himself a hero.
I do not believe everyone who \kills another even if they intended on doing it an planned to know or believe they are criminals. Ellie Nesler did not fancy herself a criminal, and neither does some in society, they in fact, hail her as a hero. I do not believe Sammy “The Bull” Gravano from what I have seen, did not think himself crazy. The only difference was the body count and who the victim(s) were. Nesler murdered someone people wanted to hate because of what he alleged to have done, guilt never had the chance to materialize, Gravano murdered people who were believed threats, or those who interfered with money making by not being cooperative. While Gravano might have known he was in a criminal organization, others in the same structure, only low-level street type, don’t feel they are criminals popping a rival or someone who disrespected them or their group.

@ragingloli Ok, I’ll play along with your delusion. Let’s say a group of mentally ill murders are sweeping through the country, killing anyone who looks at them. How do you deal with this situation? Do you resign yourself to death, or find some mentally ill people sympathetic to your cause who are willing to kill on your behalf?

@FireMadeFlesh
I have several realistic solutions in mind on how to solve that problem without killing.
Strain your little brain a little, and see with how many you can come up.

@ragingloli As the Athenians told the Melians, “the strong do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must”. If you refuse to use lethal force when it is appropriate, you make yourself weak, and will suffer what you must. No serious conflict has ever been de-escalated without a realistic threat of force behind it.

Therefore there are only three outcomes that are possible in this scenario. First, lethal force. Second, capitulation. Third, non-lethal force, such as tranquillisers and forced incarceration/deportation. The first is unpalatable to you, the second is immoral through inaction, and the third is unrealistic if the enemy are even moderately skilled. What does that leave?

@ragingloli Yeah, about that….

I’m wondering if you realize how many things have been invented that have found uses for the torture or killing of other people. Strain your brain a little and see if you can’t come up with at least three ways each of your solutions can (and, if used, would) go wrong.

Hint – you might want to brush up on your physics, electrical engineering, chemistry, anatomy, and psychology if you want evena chance at seeing how it’d work in the real world.

@FireMadeFlesh
Let us turn that around. Lethal force is immoral, capitulation is unpalatable to you, and non-lethal force does not quench your deranged blood thirst.
Rubber bullets, tasers, water throwers, riot shields and batons, tear gas, these are all realistic.
Not only are they realistic, they are practical as they have been used successfully in riot control. Want to get fancy, get a sonic weapon.
But you do not care, because you want to kill, kill, kill.
And you continue to make excuses in order to “justify” you bloodlust.
If you were to go by “it could go wrong”, you might as well drop a nuclear bomb on them.
To quote Ripley: “Nuke the entire site from orbit—it’s the only way to be sure”

@ragingloli The physics of rubber bullets are against them, especially since the proper procedure involves avoiding firing them directly at targets, instead bouncing them off the ground. Truth is, they’ve killed and maimed enough people that some human rights groups aren’t very happy.

Tasers follow the same deal only moreso as there are some out there who think that their alleged non-lethality makes it okay to use for torture. The Taser also seriously underestimates the number of people out there with heart problems. There are quite a few people who died “resisting arrest” after a few DOZEN tasings.

Tear gas? I don’t know if you are aware of why there are international bans on chemical weapons, but tear gas illustrates a few of the reasons well. Then again, I suppose that you are fine with using a weapon that is actually prohibited on the battlefield in actual, officially declared full-on war and see no problem with hitting rioters with a weapon that is deemed too inhumane to use on combatants.

They all have been misused repeatedly, sometimes deliberately, sometimes merely in accordance with design flaws. You are an idealist with no sense of science or history and thus I feel safe disregarding your opinions on this issue in the future until such time as I see that you actually understand the facts about it.

And once again, nothing but the most tenuous of excuses to stick to your inhuman “shoot first, ask questions never” ideology.
Things like this remind me that I am talking to americans.

@ragingloli Where did I say I agreed with that philosophy? All I said was that you are an idealist and pointed out quite a few examples of where your “proven alternatives” have not only not worked, but in some cases been considered abuses against human rights.

But you’re obviously too wrapped up in your ideology to even listen well enough to see whether someone is agreeing with you or not.

Tell ya what; since I cannot handle certain forms of cognitive dissonance, I’m going to leave now so you can continue to claim I said anything that you want. I’ll just overlook the fact that you consider being tased to death or drowning on one’s own blood from a rubber bullet through the lung to be humane alternatives, step out of this thread and let you have your la-la delusions that rubber bullets, tear gas, and tasers are safe despite considerable evidence (including a pretty nasty body count) to the contrary.

@jerv
Never did I even imply that non-lethal forms of suppression are completely safe or make the target fall asleep in a pink puff of smoke.
Everything has its risks, especially if used incorrectly, but it does not change the fact that they are still preferrable to using nearly 100% lethal weapons.
And I am not sure what sort of drugs you have to take to think that I find it more humane to be tased to death.

You are not rational, or concerned about facts.
You are a creationist trying to pick at inconsistencies in the evidence for evolution so you can dismiss the entire theory in one fell swoop.
And your claim about the cultural difference between a “liberal northerner” and a hillbilly texan? Not as big as you like to believe.

@ragingloli I do not have bloodlust, nor am I from the United States. I am however, a martial artist. I have trained for several years in non-lethal combat. And the key concept in combat is proportional force. If I’m being threatened by a drunk with a bottle, I’ll walk away. If I’m being attacked by a street fighter, I’ll fight him until I have an opening to escape. If protesters are throwing stones, riot gear is appropriate. But riot police can’t do a thing against trained killers. Kevlar stops rubber bullets and tazers. Water cannons are useless against a dispersed force.

All the riot gear you mention is designed for taking on massed protesters, or at worst criminals acting alone. Consider an invading military force. Imagine you are on the Polish border in 1939. What is a rubber bullet going to do against an armoured infantryman? What is a water cannon going to do against a tank?

Your idealism is unrealistic. Force must be met with force proportional to the threat.

@FireMadeFlesh Taking it a bit further when the unruly are met with proportional force how quickly they change their tune..

@Cruiser Haha you just made my day! That’s gold!