Posted on 12/16/2012 12:53:37 PM PST by jimbo123
Less than a week before her son would launch his horrifying attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School, gun-loving mom Nancy Lanza knew "she was losing him" and that "he was getting worse."
-snip-
Adam, who the coroner's office said Sunday shot Nancy Lanza, 54, several times in the head before unleashing a nightmarish attack that killed 20 schoolchildren and six others Friday, was prone to hurting himself, the drinking buddy said.
"Nancy told me he was burning himself with a lighter. In the ankles or arms or something," he recalled of a conversation they had about a year ago. "It was like he was trying to feel something."
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
How far has our society fallen?
too far. nutcases have rights that prevent society from placing them in an environment that can prevent them from hurting themselves or anyone else.
We'll see. Maybe that was the trigger?? Maybe they were going back in his school records???
Since he was in the school the day before arguing with 4 persons (3 are dead), I'd say LE and others know what this was all about.
Back in the day, and in many other countries today, that behavior would have gotten him sent to the loony bin.
Back in the day, and in many other countries today, that behavior would have gotten him sent to the loony bin.
Codependent mother. I have known two people like this. Oftentimes mothers will take up the “cause” of a mentally ill son to the point that it goes against their husbands (this couple got divorced in 2009, which I believe was around the time the kid, Adam, was about to turn 18).
However, in her defense, I will say that she probably couldn’t have gotten him comitted no matter what she did. I’m sure she was scared of him (which is probably really why she had the guns) but she had done what mothers frequently do, which is go out and cry “my baby,” when some thug is being carted off for murders or even torture murders of multiple victims.
It’s a mother thing. But that’s why we have got to have policies that protect society and not the sensibilities of overprotective (and soon to be dead) mothers. Strangely enough, the one person these protected madmen always hate most is the mother who has protected them. She was the first one he killed.
Exactly!! Having worked in a big city ER for 20 years,an ER that was located a couple of hundred yards from a large state psychiatric hospital,I could tell you stories about psych patients that would make the hair on your toes curl.
Knowing her son was mentally ill, why would she have taught him to shoot, and why were the guns accessible to him?
What kind of BS journalism is that?
New York Daily News, what a crap rag.
NO agenda here folks, it was the "gun loving moms fault"
Horrors, I read she was a prepper too!
I saw the ME on TV last night, choking back tears, the shots were fired from a rifle, with tissue tearing bullets.
Though he prefaced that by saying the info was too "clinical" and maybe it shouldn't be said, he said it anyway.
This isn't about the kids or the families or even the survivors, it's all agenda driven now.
Interesting—and I’d think quite possible.
Mom apparently spent a lot of time drinking at a bar. And Dad apparently hadn’t had contact with his nutcase son in over 2 years.
Well, do you, punk?
” gun-loving “
“drinking buddy”
no bias here.........much
The US Supreme Court (1975) made involuntary detention a tough thing to do. She probably lacked sufficient evidence.
Because some journalist said so. I'm not saying she didn't but does anyone know for a fact that she had been recently taking him to the range with her?
Why wasn’t he sent to a mental hospital long ago? They knew for years the kid was a danger.
It was extremely irresponsible. It seems that she didn’t take gun ownership or her son’s mental health issues seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.