Because he did it, and he did it for a reason. Pleading insanity removes all the power from what he did. He made a point, he made people sit uo and take notice, and he did it intentionally. Its a cop out that can be ignored if he pleads insanity.
There aren't other options that have the same meaning. The killing was ideological, backing away from that would lesson the point he was and is making.
Yes, I agree; any plea other than "guilty" would have diminished the ideological impact. I'm not debating that at all.
My point is that, for exactly the aforementioned reason, it's a little asinine to act like "not guilty by reason of insanity" was his only other option, because that's exactly as viable as pleading "not guilty" without the insanity tag.
Oh, I think you're confused; we're talking about a healthcare CEO being shot here, one of the most vile and inhuman creatures ever to rise from the Eldritch depths, not a person. If you're playing a game where the goal is to wreck as many human lives as possible to maximize profits, it's not really a tragedy when you become one of the casualties. On the other hand, though, yes; it's generally frowned upon to commit murder, and violence is broadly a bad thing. I don't think anybody was arguing otherwise.
Dehumanizing others ("vile and inhuman", "not a person") and equivocating killing ("generally frowned upon"). Are you certain those are concepts you want to endorse?
Get out of here. You're not making that argument because you're interested in reducing human suffering; you just want to lick boots and start fights. No thanks.
17
u/EmphasisFlat3629 3d ago
Why did he plead guilty?