James Holmes' Dark Knight Rises Shooting Motive Is Not Insanity

How comfortable is it to understand the motive to murder? It is not comfortable and most people view the world in the way which best reflects upon themselves. Facing reality and truth can be difficult for this reason. It is much easier to pigeonhole a person or event as "crazy" in order to separate it from your life and make believe that it could never happen to you. It is called denial and we all use it.

James Holmes is being called "crazy" for this reason, we are in denial. So here is some cold water:

James Holmes is a homegrown terrorist not simply a "nut job". Violence, even war, is simply politics by other means. The apparent goal of the attack on the movie is to shut it down.

(This fits with control theory: "our acts have the same goal, gaining control of our environment." It also fits with the theoretical goal of evil: "to gain control of mankind," hence socialism: communism and fascism, and other forms of slavery.)

Stifling speech and shouting down opposition is globally a common leftist political tactic. This implies that Holmes is either anti-corporate or seeks revenge against the anti-Occupy message of the movie. Thus many political people immediately look to the Occupy movement for the motive.

Other motives also being floated include:

• 'He is a nut-job who thinks that he is the movie character named The Joker.'
• 'He was on anti-depressants' which lead to violent behavior as your brain is depleted of chemicals responsible for 'good feelings'.
• 'He wanted to become famous.'
• Available guns made him do it. (Sen. Diane Feinstein CA. Democrat )
• It was an Obama administration plot to promote the U.N. Small Arms Treaty being pushed in the U.S. Senate. A treaty with the constitutional weight to strip away the Second Amendment right to bare arms.
• There is no motive and you cannot understand these types of events.

These motives simply do not add up. Holmes studied neuroscience and understands that America loves movies. Attacking a movie theater hits Americans in a place of comfort, refuge and happiness. Everyone has been to a movie theater. Associating fear with a common destination is an act of terrorism.

(Fellow SLOB Left Coast Rebel discusses the fear of movie theater terrorists.)

Holmes did not dress like The Joker. The character played by Health Ledger in the previous Dark Knight movie has yellow/green hair, and wore bright colors. Can anyone recall the character wearing a gas mask?

The closest joker connection is to the video game Arkham City which takes place in an abandoned movie theater. The Monarch, outside of which Bruce Wayne's parents were killed. Unless the motive for the shooting is to create a real-life Batman,  Holmes is not playing the movie villain.

Per the Colorado legal definition of Insanity, James Holmes is not insane.

Colorado uses the M'Naghten Rule:

Under the M'Naghten rule, a criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged criminal act, the defendant was so deranged that she did not know the nature or quality of her actions or, if she knew the nature and quality of her actions, she was so deranged that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.

Holmes planned the attack for a reason. The planning took up to 4 months. Common usage of the term "crazy" refers to people in an extremely agitated state. The shooter is not "crazy" by common usage, and does not seem to fit the M'Nagthen rule.

Further, the Colorado legislature has reportedly made acts born of revenge, hate and anger exempt from the insanity defense.

..care should be taken not to confuse such mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives, and kindred evil conditions, for when the act is induced by any of these causes the person is accountable to the law

Insanity is an individual legal defense. There is an eye witness report that the shooter had help.

It has been countered by police chief Dan Oats:

We have no information that he acted with anyone else at this time.

Police Chief Oats also added "serious calculation and deliberation on his part", "the FBI has been helpful" and "investigators are working on" where the money came from.
(Fellow SLOB WC Varones is reporting that the National Institute of Health was the source of funding for James Holmes.)

The FBI and DHS have been warning about terrorist attacks on theaters since two Islamic terrorist attacks in early April 2012 (nearly 4 months ago). Here is an FBI Roll Call Release published on 17 May declaring that terrorists are "interested in attacking theaters". Click here for pdf:

Americans have a very visual reason to associate the attack with Occupy Wall Street even if it is jumping to a conclusion. It would be naive to believe that the promoted imagery of the movement does not hold an associative meaning or strategic aim.

My personal belief is that many of the occupiers share common concerns about the direction of society, the country and the world. While it may be a tea party sentiment, hopefully occupy understands freedom lost in America will soon mean its loss for all humanity. It is unimaginable to believe that the thousands of years of human struggle against slavery and rule is lost on an entire political movement.

It is this belief that focuses my attention on the difference in tactics used by occupy and the tea party. Tactics that will be used by the political left to justify assaults on free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to bare arms and to promote government powered "protection from fear" in larger society. All of these goals were originally hoisted upon the peaceful members of the tea party. The difference between the two movements is the origin and branding of occupy as pro-violence. The term "Occupy" is in itself designed to incite fearful images of military forces conquering and oppressing.

The real problem is in Washington. Wall Street is just a symbol used to create false hope in the belief that destroying our economic system will lead to freedom. Our individual freedom based system is the best ever conceived. Free markets are what liberate people in order to bring real hope through economic freedom. "Taking from the rich" will only lead to everyone being poor and the loss of hope for a better life.