PPEcel
cope and seethe
-
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
- Posts
- 29,096
So today, Justice Anne Molloy found Minassian guilty for murdering 10 normies and the attempted murder of another 16.
The full 69-page ruling can be read here. Much of it is a discussion of the jurisprudence surrounding autism, mental disorders, and criminal responsibility (as AM's lawyers tried to use his autism as a defence), but here's where the analysis of AM's motivations get interesting:
It is for this reason that Molloy decided to refer to Minassian as "John Doe" in her judgement.
Ultimately, she determined that Minassian was intellectually capable of knowing that murder was legally and morally wrong, and that he was able to rationally evaluate what he was doing, thereby making him criminally responsible.
The full 69-page ruling can be read here. Much of it is a discussion of the jurisprudence surrounding autism, mental disorders, and criminal responsibility (as AM's lawyers tried to use his autism as a defence), but here's where the analysis of AM's motivations get interesting:
Nevertheless, I am inclined to accept the assessment of all of the experts that [Minassian] did lie to the police about much of the incel motivation he talked about and that the incel movement was not in fact a primary driving force behind the attack. I note as well that [Minassian]’s father commented that when his son was talking to Det. Thomas, he was using the tone of voice and demeanour that he would use when doing a presentation, as if he was acting a part.
I am confident that [Minassian] started fantasizing about school shootings and mass murders from the time he was in high school. He has a wealth of knowledge about those kinds of killings and the people who carry them out. From the details he knows, it is also clear that he has spent considerable time on chatrooms and other internet sites devoted to mass murders and incel followers. He is clearly fascinated by, and to a degree obsessed with, Elliot Rodger and his manifesto. However, [Minassian] shows none of the venom typical of incel followers. Although frustrated and disappointed that women did not appear to be interested in him, he has never expressed hatred, or even anger, towards women, not even in his initial statement to the police. Likewise, he did not at the time, and has not since, shown any pleasure or sense of satisfaction to have killed or injured women, apart from the notoriety it has brought to him. Accordingly, I agree with the assessors that [Minassian]’s story to the police about the attack being an “incel rebellion” was a lie.
I am drawn to the conclusion that there was no one clear motivator. [Minassian] was profoundly lonely and felt hopeless. He saw nothing in his future but failure, both in social relationships and work. He wanted to be seen. He wanted to be known, and talked about. He saw no way to accomplish that except through a spectacular act of violence. He had been musing about mass murder for years, to varying degrees. Convinced that he was about to fail in his first real job and live a life of obscurity and dependence, he decided instead to achieve fame and notoriety even if it meant dying in the process. I am sure that resentment towards women who were never interested him was a factor in this attack, but not the driving force. Instead, as he told every assessor, he piggybacked on the incel movement to ratchet up his own notoriety.
Why did he do it? There is a long answer. There were multiple factors at play as I have described above, as well as the impact of his ASD, and possibly desensitization as a result of the depraved internet sites he frequented. But there is also a short answer, a bottom line: he did it to become famous.
It is for this reason that Molloy decided to refer to Minassian as "John Doe" in her judgement.
Ultimately, she determined that Minassian was intellectually capable of knowing that murder was legally and morally wrong, and that he was able to rationally evaluate what he was doing, thereby making him criminally responsible.
Dr. Bradford obtained similar information from [Minassian]. [Minassian] told Dr. Bradford that “to kill is extremely immoral” and that his actions would “be seen as morally terrible by anybody in the community.”
[Minassian] has repeatedly told everyone he spoke to that he knew his actions constituted first-degree murder and also that he knew what he had done would be condemned by everyone in society, with the possible exception of some fringe groups on the internet. He described the social norm that killing is wrong as an “ingrained” pillar that he had learned from his family and at school. He variously referred to his attack as “devastating,” “despicable,” “shocking,” “morally terrible,” “a horrible thing,” and “irredeemable.” He said that he knew these acts were morally wrong.
He chose to commit the crimes anyway, because it was what he really wanted to do. This was the exercise of free will by a rational brain, capable of choosing between right and wrong. He freely chose the option that was morally wrong, knowing what the consequences would be for himself, and for everybody else. It does not matter that he does not have remorse, nor empathize with the victims. Lack of empathy for the suffering of victims, even an incapacity to empathize for whatever reason, does not constitute a defence under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.