autistic 19 year old charged with murdering his mother

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe she posted on here also looking for support and advice. Its just very sad

If it was Uncontrolled negative emotions what would cause this? They was no one else living in the house.

the trouble with situations where the perpetrator has some sort of cognitive impairment is that it is difficult to discern whether they knew what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway or whether they weren't actually capable of reasoning at all in the event that culminated in someone's death or injury.

Even with the NTs you have the mitigating circumstance of 'crimes of passion'. It is recognised that all humans can at times fall prey to their own unchecked emotions.

Nobody actually teaches us how to recognise or cope with our emotions - have you noticed that?

of course, I agree with all who have pointed out that it is not helpful to associate autism with the crime - it is purely circumstantial, otherwise, the percentage of autism-related crime would be much higher.

I am also very curious as to what had led this young man to react so violently. I am not a fan of blaming the victim but I do believe in value of increasing understanding.

This woman did amazing work for children/adult special needs she set up surf to heal, the first sensory cinema, coffee mornings every month for the members parents of the local autism group she set up. Ipads for mobile phones and second hand books the list goes on.
Advised parents and that includes myself, she was involved with setting up a campaign to open up an secondary school (High School) for children with autism which is badly need. She did struggle with getting a placement for him regardless of all her good work. I am perplexed it doesn't make sense.

^ that all sounds to me like she just couldn't accept him the way he way was. I never really understand people who campaign because someone close to them has an issue - they won't solve the issue of the loved one by solving other people's issues. But I do understand that other people can benefit and that's a good thing, obviously.

There has been a group already set up to support Patrick in his legal battle this is been set up by all the people that his mother did and was supporting before this very tragic situation.

Maybe they will be no answer to this one just pray now that her son is treated correctly within the legal system. Hope that the police and prosecution won't see this as an open shut case.

This strikes close to home because when I was 14 and psychotic I engaged in serious violence, though thankfully I didn't kill anyone. I was fortunate to receive mental health treatment subsequent to that, spending more than 6 months in residential care, and only spent an hour in a jail cell. I was fortunate that I was able to reconcile with my victim.

I hope it didn't come across as if I were excusing the behaviour of this young man although I really do hope he gets a fair treatment as I would hope for anyone in similar situation.

As someone who strongly suspects being on the asperger's spectrum, I wonder if I may ask this - why is it that the whole community gets affected when something like this happens? I really don't understand? Is it because people are afraid for their own safety? I have often had to listen to my family go on an on after some incident that had nothing to do with them/us happens and I just could never understand why they were choosing to make themselves upset over something that didn't even happen to them.

I apologise if this is very insensitive, only, it's one of those things I never seem to be able to understand sufficiently so as to internalise the correct behaviour/response when it happens.

Because when an autistic person is labeled as violent or a violent person is labeled as autistic, NTs start to make the connection in a generalized way: "If that autistic person killed someone then any autistic person is likely to kill someone!" And this has actually happened even in situations where the person in question was not autistic (which is to say, most situations in which someone was identified as autistic when they were not actually autistic).

People aren't looking at that specific event as impacting them directly, but the repercussions of that event affecting them negatively, which is something that really does happen.

So it makes victim blaming okay in those situations I see. I just see the irony here because I have seen members here justifying autistic being abusers and then one aspie teen murdering her father but yet they turn around and rant about victim blaming when they have done pot kettle black. But yet when anyone else does murderer abuse, no one blames it on the victim but yet when it comes to an autistic person, victim blaming becomes okay and it's "victim blaming" if you blame the abuser and the killer if they were autistic. I noticed the same when a 15 year old aspie teen was shot in self defense when he charged after them with a knife and people called it victim blaming when people said the teen brought it upon himself instead of the other way around. What is wrong with this picture? Can anyone see it? It always infuriates me.

What you just wrote is incredibly lacking in nuance on the topic. It's not a one size fits all principle that you can treat every situation as identical. Asking if there was abuse prior to the killing is not in fact victim blaming, because the majority of murders committed by children of any age are a response to abuse. The other two most likely causes (but less likely than that one) are severe mental illness and psychopathy.

However, I am not saying that this means the person should have been killed or deserved to be killed. I am pretty much against murder as a thing, except in situations where your life depends on it. It's like with men murdering women (often out of jealousy, to punish her for leaving him, etc) nearly always involve an abusive situation that has reached the point of the abuser killing his victim. Women who kill men, however, tend to be victims of that man's abuse until they finally do it to end the abuse and the fear, etc. So these situations - statistically speaking - are not equivalent. Similarly, children who kill parents are rarely equivalent to parents who kill children, because adults tend to have all the power and child abuse is a real thing and the most common reason for children to kill a parent is in response to abuse.

The thing about Issy Stapleton is that all signs pointed to her mother being abusive toward Issy before attempting to kill Issy. Of course her mother didn't present herself as an abuser, but her writing about Issy was dehumanizing, invasive, and to some extent voyeuristic. Certainly, she said that Issy's violence drove her to attempting to kill her, but the thing about autistic children who are murdered is that their parents always have a "reasonable explanation" as to why they finally did it. So if like 99 parents who killed their autistic children say they did it for certain reasons, the press calls for sympathy for them for those reasons, etc. and then we get the 100th autistic child who was almost murdered with the same reasons given as to why, as to why the parent deserves our sympathy, we're suddenly supposed to say "Oh, this one time is clearly different!"

Another thing about this situation is that the press is not likely to present the autistic person as someone who killed for understandable reasons - but if they do, they will draw on the same narrative they draw on to justify parents killing their autistic children. In this case, however, the explanations will focus on how this woman's death could have been prevented.

great another thing the media can say that autism makes people murders

Gun control laws in the US or lack thereof factor enormously, I'm afraid...

No.

Yeah, because people totally couldn't kill people without a firearm.

Mental illness
firearms
drugs
religion
{insert a million other easy to blame things here}

Some people are just bad people whom do bad things, and they'll always do it and they'll always be around. That's the thing people have to accept (well, they don't have to, but it's the right thing).

A professor named R.J. Rummel has estimated that around 160 million innocent people were killed by their own governments, in peacetime, in the twentieth century. I have no idea how many were killed by criminals in the same time period, but it would be negligible in comparison. So, those who advocated gun control over homicides really should be pushing to have guns taken away from government. It's just one more way the gun grabbers have to resort to fraudulent arguments to maintain their position.

It is also the case that I own some of the most lethal firearms it is legal for American civilians to own, and never once have they attacked anybody. It is people who kill--or don't kill--not guns.

On the same day as the Sandy Hook murder, a man in China rampaged through a school with a knife. At Sandy Hook, 28 people (including Adam Lanza and his mother) were killed, two survived with injuries.

The attack in China resulted in injuring 22 children and one elderly adult. No deaths. Another knife attack is mentioned which had three deaths.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... tacks.html

Yes, it is true that you can kill people without using guns. But it is not accurate to make this claim without acknowledging that guns make killing people a heck of a lot easier. I would argue that it is often outright dishonest to ignore that fact. Or that nations where guns are more strictly controlled have lower murder rates (with crimes involving firearms significantly reduced).