[BlackElk]

Our system of justice depends upon the standard that conviction MUST be based upon evidence that proves guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The police in Colorado Springs have some of the evidence necessary to convict. They know that Dear was the shooter and that he killed three and injured a number of others (8?). What they do not apparently have is reliable evidence as to his motives. He obviously had opportunity and the means to commit the crimes.

What we want to believe does not matter in the slightest. What matters is motive, opportunity and means and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The operative word being REASONABLE. His actual sanity is also an issue if he makes it an issue. Did he know what he was doing and that it was wrongful behavior? I have forgotten the more formal expression of that rule. If he was genuinely whackadinghoy at the time of the offenses, he goes to the looney bin until he is competent to stand trial or considered healed.

[Jack Straw from Wichita]

You’re absolutely correct, and what folks don’t seem to understand is if the police or DA or mayor make any statements of fact that later turn off to be false, well there’s this SOB’s reasonable doubt argument and he could walk.

[Dr. Sivana]

Did he know what he was doing and that it was wrongful behavior? I have forgotten the more formal expression of that rule.

Do you mean M'Naghten rules?