Arizona shooter pleads not guilty

I think the district attorney requested the trial to be moved to Tucson because all of the victims and witnesses are here. Phoenix is only 100 miles away but could prove to very inconvenient for the trial.

My Coffee shop is about 500 feet from the superior court building in Tucson, if they move the trial it will be an absolute circus down here.
 
What does he need to do in order to go to trial pleading mental illness?

He has no diagnosis that we're aware of, partially due to confidentiality, but what's more it seems this was a planned attack.

You can be mentally ill but still capable of planned assaults, depending on the illness/treatment for the illness, which he may or may not have had.
 
Lowpro said:
What does he need to do in order to go to trial pleading mental illness?

He has no diagnosis that we're aware of, partially due to confidentiality, but what's more it seems this was a planned attack.

You can be mentally ill but still capable of planned assaults, depending on the illness/treatment for the illness, which he may or may not have had.
Click to expand...

He does not have to do anything to plead mental illness. It is his right to plead his case however he wants. But proving that his mental illness is a major mitigating factor in his crime..that is another story.
Both sides will have shrinks as expert witnesses.
 
Last edited:
I was under the assumption, before this attack, that being severally mentally ill automatically made you ineligible for trial. But then I read about Jeffrey Dahmer, Colin Fergeson, and David Berkowitz, and discovered this is simply not true. Mentally ill people, even severally mentally ill, can indeed stand trial for murder.
 
I think he is so mentally unwell he doesn't even know he is mentally unwell.
 
WildCat said:
Why would you think that?
Click to expand...

Who knows, but it's not exactly the first time Thunder has formed an opinion with no basis in fact. It's not even the first time he's done so about this incident.

His mental illness will be proven or not at the trial.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly not. The court doesn't care if you're mentally ill. It cares if you're fit for trial, and if you're legally insane. Being mentally ill doesn't necessarily make you either unfit for trial or legally insane.
 
Last edited:
I always thought that in trial the lawyer could argue that the defendant was mentally insane and incapable of using logic to understand the consequences of his actions.
 
KingMerv00 said:
That is not true. The insanity defense is an affirmative defense. If he chooses to work that angle, the burden of proof will shift to him and he will have to prove he is insane.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. But I meant that the court would almost have to let him use that defense if he so chose;he did not have to meet any requirements.
 
KingMerv00 said:
That is not true. The insanity defense is an affirmative defense. If he chooses to work that angle, the burden of proof will shift to him and he will have to prove he is insane.
Click to expand...

Isn't he already pleading not guilty by reason of insanity?

I may be naive, but it is pretty obvious he did shoot and kill all those people.

How else could he possibly plead not guilty, or is it just a legal bargaining thing?
 
Tatyana said:
Isn't he already pleading not guilty by reason of insanity?

I may be naive, but it is pretty obvious he did shoot and kill all those people.

How else could he possibly plead not guilty, or is it just a legal bargaining thing?
Click to expand...

Maybe he pled not guilty to go through the theatre of a trial so he can speak out against the Government he (crazed as he is) believes is controlling his grammar through dreams.

He'll put the SYSTEM ON TRIAL!
 
dudalb said:
I stand corrected. But I meant that the court would almost have to let him use that defense if he so chose;he did not have to meet any requirements.
Click to expand...

That is basically correct. The court will let you defend yourself however you like 99.999% of the time, even if it is bound to cost you your freedom.
 
KingMerv00 said:
That is basically correct. The court will let you defend yourself however you like 99.999% of the time, even if it is bound to cost you your freedom.
Click to expand...

yea, if he chose to represent himself, I can imagine the Loughner trial looking something like the Colin Ferguson trial in 1993

When he represented himself asking people, "Did you see who shot you?"...and they responded, "Yes, it was you".
 
If he goes for an affirmative defense, I'm imagining his lawyer just running his youtube videos for an hour straight and saying "nothing further."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom