Dylann Roof's lawyers appeal death sentence citing autism

Post Reply New Topic

Evidence, please?

This thread is about the truth ….

1. Autistic people are greatly abused.
2. *Autism Defense* makes sense if such abuse leads to a criminal action.

I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS.

A. A few years ago my neighbor called the police and said I did something and that I am "ret*d".

The police officer asked me like 10 times, "ARE YOU ret*d"? I would not answer. Do you know how that feels? Later, I don't know what you call it, I was in a hyper-state feeling traumatized by it. I wanted to do something like smear dog poo on his house., however, I didn't.

B. I vandalized a business.

My car broke down, and I had it towed to a car shop. After my mom paid the bill, the employees admitted they ripped me off, and told me to not say I attended college, because that encourages people to rip you off. I was driving back from the college.

I felt traumatized by this.

Many years later, suddenly, with no pre-planning, at like 8pm at night, without having thought about that incident in many years, the thought of revenge popped into my mind. I got paint, and spent like 30 mins painting the cars and business a new color.

autism - abuse - criminal action seems obvious to me.

You can't abuse people, and expect a good outcome.

That's absolutely evil and nothing I would encourage...but I'd kind of like to see pictures. You know; for science.

You either chose to commit those crimes, or you failed to choose to not commit those crimes. Either way, the choice was yours.

The "Many years later" part indicates that your crimes were not a direct result of their crimes against you, and a prosecuting attorney could even make a valid case that you had spent the intervening years planning and plotting your revenge while waiting for just the right moment to strike.

Do not assume that your choices and actions define us all.

I couldn't agree more.

But, since you say this thread is about the truth, the truth is we don't know if Roof is on the spectrum, if he was abused or if he suffers from PTSD.

As someone who is diagnosed with both and suffered quite extreme abuse (especially by these days' standards) in my childhood and youth, I wonder why do you think I didn't go on a racially motivated murder rampage?

I had plenty of opportunities for revenge while in the military. Being around lethal weapons and devices gave me ample means to do so. I also had motive and opportunity.

Means - Motive - Opportunity: The Crime Triangle.

The only thing that kept me back was the choice I made to simply live with the insults and injuries, and then get over them. What motivated that choice was remembering the abuse that I had suffered, and how that abuse made me feel. I did not want to hurt those people, but I sure wanted them to apologize ... not that they ever did, of course.

Funny thing ... most of those people have since engaged in some degree of self-destruction, from taking lethal risks to suffering the shame and embarrassment of being caught committing crimes and the subsequent arrests, arraignments, trials, convictions, sentencing, and incarcerations.

My vindication came through their own choices and actions, not through mine.

Ultimatlely this is all about Roof's attorney's doing there constitutional obligation and trying to save his life.And if a person has a mental or intellectual defect or disorder they can not be put to death and that is the law.Either way Roof is going to die in prison, it's just a matter of how soon.

As to whether or whether not autism causes crime is not really relevent,it's a legal issue that Roof's lawyers must deal with,the bar is very high for mitigating factors and the death penalty,even small mitigating factors can commute a death sentence and thats all Roof's attorney's are trying to accomplish.

The attorney's,judges and Roof himself does not care what is or is not an excuse or cause of crime,only can a mitigating factor be significant enough to commute a death sentence to life in prison,it's a strictly legal issue,nothing more.

Yes, I recognise all of this. I had the opportunity for revenge, sometimes (often in my youth) the desire, the means to do it... I did my military service and had a permit for hunting rifles (no handguns allowed here or in my birth country).

I also recognize the desire for people to at least admit what they did if not make amends. And some fared poorly, some actually succeeded in life and probably keep abusing others.

I'm an excellent shooter and I'm still strong and in top shape. I still have the means and the opportunity, but not the desire.

I really wonder - since The Robot seems to want to take a serious part in this discussion - why does she think people like us didn't act on such impulses or desires?

You are 100% right.

But since all we can do is wait and see, I want to give TheRobotLives the benefit of a doubt that she's being honest about the very adamant position she's representing here and I'd like to understand what exactly is she trying to say: should autistic people literally get away with murder? should being on the spectrum and a history of abuse qualify as an attenuating circumstance even in premeditated murder? why do some people can go through these things (still no proof that Roof did) and not go that way? etc.

Call it intellectual curiosity if you will, at first I thought she was trolling, but I think she should be given the chance to explain where she's coming from.

What does or does not excuse a crime or bad act is such a grey area,if there even are any excuses for crimes or bad acts.An intense philosophical question,one I am not qualified to answer,but "Therobotlives" has a certain point that a society is haunted by it's most forgotten members often through crime.As to whether that excuse crime,I would say the communities safety from harm is a valid priority and take presidence over any one individuals sitiuation in life.

One thing that excuses a person from from criminal prosecution is if the death was the result of self-defense while the person was being assaulted.

For example, if Charlie slashes Bill with a knife, and Bill immediately punches Charlie in the face causing Charlie to suffer a fatal ischemic stroke, Bill is responsible for Charlie's death, but will likely not be criminally prosecuted for murder due to his actions being "self-defense".

However, if instead Bill manages to stagger away and take the time receive medical help and recover from his wound, and later confronts Charlie and kills him, the prosecution could easily charge Bill with Premeditated Murder in the 1st Degree, which is a capital crime, and could result in Bill being executed by the State.

This is completely aside from the fact that Bill could still be the defendant in civil court from Charlie's relatives as they seek compensatory and punitive damages from Bill for causing Charlie's death.

His defence team using all legal avenues....

Would you expect them to do anything else? After all, they are defense lawyers. They are there to prevent retribution from replacing criminal justice.

No that was my point...

You don't seem to acknowledge it.

The alienation that comes with autism can certainly get us involved with fringe groups. With these groups forming online, autism is not a barrier to inclusion. This is the only way I can think that autism may have played a role here. But in this case, he seems to be troubled far beyond any ASD he has.

He seemed to want to prove himself a cold-blooded killer. He was adverse to using any psychological defense for his trial. He particularly opposed the autism label. From wikipedia: Roof, who denies having autism, told Ballenger [the judge] that he "would rather die" than rely on autism defense, stating "it would ruin me" and "everybody would think I am a weirdo.".