British Labour MP shot near Leeds (mod warning in first post)

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ah would you get it a rest, wes. Nobody is saying the evidence is conclusively proven. But he does have a history of mental illness and he's done something that appears psychotic, in the colloquial sense of the word, but also perhaps the medical.

It's a bit like when that woman came forward with information about Philip Cairns. I think the majority of people believe that she doesn't deserve stigma, because there's an understanding that she's a former sexual abuse victim.

The point being, proven factual evidence is generally considered an unreasonable expectation when discussing some major tragedy. However, we are entitled to have reasonably-formed suspicions.

So when a man with a history of mental illness performs a psychotic act, totally disproportionately, it's reasonable to form a strong suspicion that he's mentally-ill again.

If it was done by a Muslim being just that would have sufficed for some here

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's also those of us on the left who genuinely think it's an insult to Jo Cox's memory to politicise her death.

Her death is political. Only fools are going on about each other side 'politicizing' it.

She was a politician, murdered by a man diametrically opposed to her views and ideals. How is such an assassination not political? =/

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Yes but to portray them as animal rights activists who just want to cuddle the sheep and limit immigration is bogus and really insulting to anyone with a brain.

No they are very much anti-Islam. Certainly not people that would attack an English woman or encourage it.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of Islamophobic vile spewed by the far-right in Britain.

There are a lot of vile Muslims in England. That's why.

stefanovich wrote: »

No they are very much anti-Islam. Certainly not people that would attack and English woman or encourage it.

Paul Golding ... Lovely fella ......... If your white

Please stop embarrassing yourself with that Britain first crap

weisses wrote: »

Paul Golding ... Lovely fella ......... If your white

Please stop embarrassing yourself with that Britain first crap

I'm absolutely not embarrassed and its not crap.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Are you saying that anyone who uses a gun or a knife to kill or attempt to kill someone is not completely sane or rational?

Well, therein lies the crux of the issue of crime and criminal behavior, doesn't it? It's not just my theories, mind, there has been quite a lot written on that subject.

I think it probably comes down to the mode of action and if there's a rational reason behind it. A person who commits a crime to be caught and martyred for a cause, is, arguably, making a rational and considered action with full knowledge of the ramifications thereof; thus, s/he's sane. In that case, they will probably do it publically for maximum attention and maximum coverage for the resultant martyrdom (be it imprisonment, execution or whatever else).

A person who commits a crime for monetary gain or out of jealousy or revenge or love or whathaveyou is again making a rational decision, knows what will happen if they get caught and will generally go out of their way to ensure they don't - knowledge of the crime, knowledge of the ramifications.

A person who runs up to someone in public shouting ideologies and shooting and stabbing someone who is a relative stranger to them out of, at best, misplaced patriotism and at worst, a malevolent ideology-based brainwashing (whether intentionally ingrained, as in the case of Islamic extremist converts, or accidentally ingrained, which may be the case here, since generally even far-right extreme nationalists don't actually advocate murder), is not acting rationally, does not -appear- to have full knowledge of the ramifications and leans much more towards psychosis; i.e., becoming out of touch with external reality and following an internal one.

However, there is a final point on what the difference is between the first example and the last. Where's the cut-off point? Sanity is something that can only really be decided by comparison. The majority are sane, or at least acceptably insane enough to be considered "normal". Abnormal insanity has to be significantly different to that norm. A lot of people would reckon martyrs to be batty for a cause. He had a cause. Whether or not he intended to be caught to raise awareness of the end of Britain, to be a martyr for the cause of British republicanism is something only he can answer.

It is generally held that random public murder is not a normal part of society though, and that the trains of thought that lead one to feel it is an acceptable way of going about things are also abnormal and suggest a lack of a similar level of sanity to the majority of the population.

TLDR: Dunno, ask a psychologist :P