Family of six killed by depressed and suicidal 19-year-old

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/psychotic-depression-underrecognized-undertreatedand-dangerous


Approximately 20% of people with depression suffer psychosis. ONE IN FIVE DEPRESSIVE PEOPLE SUFFER WITH PSYCHOSIS. It is often undiagnosed and can be very dangerous. Please open your mind and recognize that SUICIDE is also violence, against the self - not to mention that a suicide in the family often leads to more suicides in the family, this has been extensively studied too.

And sometimes, as in the case that forms this thread, a suicidal psychotic depressive takes others in the act.


Our national conversation about mental illness needs to get way beyond head patting and an obsessive focus on not hurting anyone’s feelings.

Gun control isn’t the answer to many of the horrific mass shootings we have seen recently, where guns were purchased legally and within a framework of background checks.



We have a MENTAL ILLNESS CRISIS in this country. We need financial resources and frank conversation.

Oh Donald, it's time for your nap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the note text that has been posted so far, he sounds like a psychopath.

The correct term is sociopath. This guy is undeniably a sociopath--he gets very little sympathy from me. Anyone with that level of detached planning to murder his own family (who he admits tried to help him!) is probably also a skilled liar. I don't believe he cut himself with an intention to kill himself but rather to get attention--which he did.

This kid is a monster. He should be jailed for the rest of his life in a facility that also provides counseling (which so jails do have, btw). He does sound like stone cold incel without the overt hatred of women part--as someone stated upthread. It's horrific.

What do you think is the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

The overwhelming majority of cutting has nothing to do with suicidal ideation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the note text that has been posted so far, he sounds like a psychopath.

The correct term is sociopath. This guy is undeniably a sociopath--he gets very little sympathy from me. Anyone with that level of detached planning to murder his own family (who he admits tried to help him!) is probably also a skilled liar. I don't believe he cut himself with an intention to kill himself but rather to get attention--which he did.

This kid is a monster. He should be jailed for the rest of his life in a facility that also provides counseling (which so jails do have, btw). He does sound like stone cold incel without the overt hatred of women part--as someone stated upthread. It's horrific.

First of all, he can’t be jailed because HE’S DEAD.

Secondly, you are obviously ill informed about mental illness because you can’t diagnose someone from one letter. He could have suffered from depressive psychosis, which afflicts 1 in 5 people with depression and can lead to suicide AND homicide.

I can’t tell if the people posting all this garbage/spurious diagnoses on this thread are just terrified of mental illness, or are just willfully ignorant asses. There is actual research done - voluminous research - on the links between unstable mental illness and violence. A person can kill others while mentally ill and not be a sociopath.

Honestly it’s incredibly disheartening to read some of these posts. YOU folks are the ones putting people with mental illness into a box and labeling them MONSTERS, not me. A serious discussion about the reasons why mental illness results in violent acts is what is warranted here, not this dismissing these young men as monsters and washing your hands of it. That kind of attitude is what gets us a broken mental healthcare system like the one we currently have. Many of you seem only to want to acknowledge clinical depression that is ‘garden variety’ MDD or PPD and not to acknowledge the extremes that DO exist and in far more than ‘less than one percent’ of cases. Minimizing the potential for aberrant behavior is how we end up with incidents like this and like Adam Lanza and dozens of other mass shooters with known mental illness that have come before. You can’t just call them all sociopaths because they simply weren’t.

[Anonymous]

The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study recently completed in the United States (1,18,19) has made a concerted effort to address these problems, so it stands out as the most sophisticated attempt to date to disentangle these complex interrelationships. Because they collected extensive follow-up data on a large cohort of subjects (N=1,136), the temporal sequencing of important events is clear. Because they used multiple measures of violence, including patient self-report, they have minimized the information bias characterizing past work. The innovative use of same-neighbour comparison subjects eliminates confounding from broad environmental influences such as socio-demographic or economic factors that may have exaggerated differences in past research.

In this study, the prevalence of violence among those with a major mental disorder who did not abuse substances was indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighbourhood controls. A concurrent substance abuse disorder doubled the risk of violence. Those with schizophrenia had the lowest occurrence of violence over the course of the year (14.8%), compared to those with a bipolar disorder (22.0%) or major depression (28.5%).

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/#!po=1.25000

NOT ‘less than one percent’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the note text that has been posted so far, he sounds like a psychopath.

The correct term is sociopath. This guy is undeniably a sociopath--he gets very little sympathy from me. Anyone with that level of detached planning to murder his own family (who he admits tried to help him!) is probably also a skilled liar. I don't believe he cut himself with an intention to kill himself but rather to get attention--which he did.

This kid is a monster. He should be jailed for the rest of his life in a facility that also provides counseling (which so jails do have, btw). He does sound like stone cold incel without the overt hatred of women part--as someone stated upthread. It's horrific.

First of all, he can’t be jailed because HE’S DEAD.

Secondly, you are obviously ill informed about mental illness because you can’t diagnose someone from one letter. He could have suffered from depressive psychosis, which afflicts 1 in 5 people with depression and can lead to suicide AND homicide.

I can’t tell if the people posting all this garbage/spurious diagnoses on this thread are just terrified of mental illness, or are just willfully ignorant asses. There is actual research done - voluminous research - on the links between unstable mental illness and violence. A person can kill others while mentally ill and not be a sociopath.

Honestly it’s incredibly disheartening to read some of these posts. YOU folks are the ones putting people with mental illness into a box and labeling them MONSTERS, not me. A serious discussion about the reasons why mental illness results in violent acts is what is warranted here, not this dismissing these young men as monsters and washing your hands of it. That kind of attitude is what gets us a broken mental healthcare system like the one we currently have. Many of you seem only to want to acknowledge clinical depression that is ‘garden variety’ MDD or PPD and not to acknowledge the extremes that DO exist and in far more than ‘less than one percent’ of cases. Minimizing the potential for aberrant behavior is how we end up with incidents like this and like Adam Lanza and dozens of other mass shooters with known mental illness that have come before. You can’t just call them all sociopaths because they simply weren’t.

These guys are basically less sexually explicit incels. Yes, they are disturbed just as all incel murderers are. Yes, it’s absolutely different than a schizophrenic or otherwise psychotic person committing an act of violence. There is no compelling indication he was psychotic and regardless, two of them planned this together. Spare me the lecture not to diagnose because I am talking on an anon message board not submitting a forensic eval.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study recently completed in the United States (1,18,19) has made a concerted effort to address these problems, so it stands out as the most sophisticated attempt to date to disentangle these complex interrelationships. Because they collected extensive follow-up data on a large cohort of subjects (N=1,136), the temporal sequencing of important events is clear. Because they used multiple measures of violence, including patient self-report, they have minimized the information bias characterizing past work. The innovative use of same-neighbour comparison subjects eliminates confounding from broad environmental influences such as socio-demographic or economic factors that may have exaggerated differences in past research.

In this study, the prevalence of violence among those with a major mental disorder who did not abuse substances was indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighbourhood controls. A concurrent substance abuse disorder doubled the risk of violence. Those with schizophrenia had the lowest occurrence of violence over the course of the year (14.8%), compared to those with a bipolar disorder (22.0%) or major depression (28.5%).

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/#!po=1.25000

NOT ‘less than one percent’

Indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighborhood controls. Your entire theory of how to identify who is dangerous is defeated by this piece!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study recently completed in the United States (1,18,19) has made a concerted effort to address these problems, so it stands out as the most sophisticated attempt to date to disentangle these complex interrelationships. Because they collected extensive follow-up data on a large cohort of subjects (N=1,136), the temporal sequencing of important events is clear. Because they used multiple measures of violence, including patient self-report, they have minimized the information bias characterizing past work. The innovative use of same-neighbour comparison subjects eliminates confounding from broad environmental influences such as socio-demographic or economic factors that may have exaggerated differences in past research.

In this study, the prevalence of violence among those with a major mental disorder who did not abuse substances was indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighbourhood controls. A concurrent substance abuse disorder doubled the risk of violence. Those with schizophrenia had the lowest occurrence of violence over the course of the year (14.8%), compared to those with a bipolar disorder (22.0%) or major depression (28.5%).

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/#!po=1.25000

NOT ‘less than one percent’

Indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighborhood controls. Your entire theory of how to identify who is dangerous is defeated by this piece!

No it isn’t. Are you seriously so dense? My premise is that mental illness does lead to violence in a substantial number of cases - the literature I’ve cited proves this, and it entirely refutes the person here who has repeatedly posted that major depressives engage in violence at a rate of less than one percent - when the rate is actually almost 30%!

For all the bragging about academic pedigrees here, there seem to be a lot of folks incapable of basic reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Actually that piece makes a much stronger case that if anyone is going to be screened out of gun possession, it should be substance abusers, not people with other mental health diagnoses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study recently completed in the United States (1,18,19) has made a concerted effort to address these problems, so it stands out as the most sophisticated attempt to date to disentangle these complex interrelationships. Because they collected extensive follow-up data on a large cohort of subjects (N=1,136), the temporal sequencing of important events is clear. Because they used multiple measures of violence, including patient self-report, they have minimized the information bias characterizing past work. The innovative use of same-neighbour comparison subjects eliminates confounding from broad environmental influences such as socio-demographic or economic factors that may have exaggerated differences in past research.

In this study, the prevalence of violence among those with a major mental disorder who did not abuse substances was indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighbourhood controls. A concurrent substance abuse disorder doubled the risk of violence. Those with schizophrenia had the lowest occurrence of violence over the course of the year (14.8%), compared to those with a bipolar disorder (22.0%) or major depression (28.5%).

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/#!po=1.25000

NOT ‘less than one percent’

Indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighborhood controls. Your entire theory of how to identify who is dangerous is defeated by this piece!

No it isn’t. Are you seriously so dense? My premise is that mental illness does lead to violence in a substantial number of cases - the literature I’ve cited proves this, and it entirely refutes the person here who has repeatedly posted that major depressives engage in violence at a rate of less than one percent - when the rate is actually almost 30%!

For all the bragging about academic pedigrees here, there seem to be a lot of folks incapable of basic reading comprehension.

1% or 24% is not my argument with you. The point is that based on this piece, if you establish a screen for gun ownership that consists of mental health diagnosis, on the theory that mental illness diagnoses identify the people who are likeliest to commit gun violence, you're not doing anything more to mitigate violence than you would if your screen were for people without mental health diagnoses.

The screen that would do the most to keep guns out of the hands of people with a propensity to violence, according to this data, would be a screen for substance abuse.

[Anonymous]

For years the NRA has pushed for state legislation that would prevent doctors from even asking about gun ownership-that’s like not allowing doctors to ask about smoking history. Let’s start by making any politician supporting absurd ideas like that unelectable.

[Anonymous]

I WAS NEVER TALKING ABOUT GUN CONTROL!

I was talking about the link between violence and mental illness. Stop moving the goalposts. Poster has repeatedly excoriated me for stating exactly the TRUTH and FACTS about the rates of violence among those who are mentally ill, and repeatedly stated that 99% or more of people with mental illness are not violent, a clear and dangerous lie.

Finally, the only thing I did state about gun control remains true: that it won’t screen out many of the unstable mentally ill people who purchase guns legally - like the Colorado grocery store shooter and the young men in this thread - because the prohibition only applies to people who have been involuntarily committed due to mental illness and that is exceedingly rare. With the exception of states that have passed red flag laws, most mentally ill people won’t be subject to a prohibition on purchasing guns and ammunition under current gun control laws.

And yes, substance abuse is a primary factor behind violent acts and as anyone who actually knows anything about mental illness knows, there is a very high rate of self-medicating and co-occurring mental health disorder and substance abuse disorder, and as the sentence you’ve not highlighted makes clear, in that situation the rate of violence among the mentally ill DOUBLES.

This is not a game. Getting one up on me isn’t the objective, unless you are just an asshole. And you won’t ‘win’ anyway because you are peddling lies. What matters here is that we have serious discussions in our communities about the mental health crisis that is rampant in our country.

Maybe you won’t care until your kids go back to school and are subject to the other end of a gun held by an unstable mentally ill schoolmate. Or at the grocery store. Or Walmart. Or synagogue. Or the movies.

Stop playing games. This isn’t funny.

[Anonymous]

This thread is about a homicide by gun committed by someone who was--let us say provisionally--mentally ill. If you want a thread that isn't about those all three of those factors, start a new thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about a homicide by gun committed by someone who was--let us say provisionally--mentally ill. If you want a thread that isn't about those all three of those factors, start a new thread.

From my first post on page one I have responded to all the factors involved in the incident described in the original post, with reason and actual facts based in current mental health research - and I have provided the links to those reputable sources of information.

I haven’t given armchair diagnoses without sufficient evidence to override the diagnosis given to the young man who wrote that letter by the mental health professionals who treated him. I haven’t called the mentally ill ‘monsters’. I haven’t peddled lies and arrogant opinions formed without adequate education or training. That’s all you. And shame on you.

[Anonymous]

I think you're confusing DCUM with Congress. Also, you sound kinda nutty yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you're confusing DCUM with Congress. Also, you sound kinda nutty yourself.

You’re contemptible.