Originally Posted by Hadding
Donald, I think you may be making your opponents' work too easy by overstating your case.
That word insane is a bit tricky.
Consider the case of Charles Whitman, the 25-year-old former Marine who murdered his wife and mother, then mounted the clocktower at the University of Texas, Austin, and shot 44 people (of whom 12 died).
Whitman was completely lucid
and knew what he was doing.
It's apparent from a note that he left before going to the university:
I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts
Was Charles Whitman sane or insane? He had no problems of cognition but he was gripped by strange impulses. He was lucid and he knew what he was doing, but according to what he wrote, he felt as if he were demonically possessed. The autopsy showed a large, malignant brain-tumor.
The argument that the cheerleaders use is that since Steele seemed lucid he could not have been "insane," which would mean that Charles Whitman was not insane either.
This is why I prefer to avoid that word.
You make a good point but the Steele cheerleaders need a jolt to wake them up. I prefer to remember the words of Jesus in their case:"Father forgive them for they know not what they do.". I can't get these fools to read the thread. Not a single one of them has read the transcript and files on the case but they bash me.
This is the worse case of crazy that I have seen including the Whitman brain tumor case. I worked for UT then and distinctly remember walking past the pools of blood on the steps as the Mexican janitors were mopping them up. At least Whitman knew what he was shooting at. Steele had no way of knowing who he would kill.