Now that we have more information one can make a more informed judgement of the situation. Substance abuse (and dependence), anger issues, and, most importantly, the concussions. They're contributing factors, but, as with everyone else that commits murder, the ultimate responsibility lies with him. There's no doubt that people along the line failed him, but that's not the point because he has taken someone else's life. I'm still bothered, however, with the diminutive assumption that because he is capable of committing a heinous act (in this case murder, domestic violence, etc.) that we should all rush to judge him and label him a bad person especially in this case given that he was not in a right state of mind under the influence, concussed, and (likely) dealing with CTE. Myself, though, I take it a step further. Many individuals for whatever reason are unwilling to accept that people (to put it bluntly) are capable of committing unspeakable acts without actually being a "bad person"; yet, for whatever reason, we seek to define anyone who has committed murder, become ensnared by addiction, or any other arbitrary label that we see fit. Am I saying that all murderers are good people? No. But I am telling you that, to simplify it, at least one "murderer" since the beginning of time was a good person, disproving the illogical notion that murderer="bad person". My clarification is obviously an oversimplification but it's meant to convey a point: that we label others as "scum" in order to convince ourselves that we are not capable of doing the same things when really all humans are. Want psychological precedence? Read about Germans who killed innocents during the Holocaust "merely because they were following orders" and the Stanford Prison Experiment.
1) You're calling for a legal definition of insanity but you're ignoring the provided definition of sociopathy without acknowledgement (I must assume you didn't see it). You're failing to explain the fact that a legal definition of mental insanity is only applicable in the court of law as precedence for pleading not guilty due to mental insanity. Mental insanity and mental illness are two completely different things. Thunder and lightning. 2) DSM is a handbook for psychiatrists to define and diagnose specific mental illnesses. ASPD isn't "caused by mental illness" because it by itself is a personality disorder and a mental illness. 3) If your argument were true then how can a serial killer argue mental insanity?
Yes Dr. freud, we know what the dsm is. we also know that jovan had no such diagnoses and we know that he he had an argument, shot his baby momma 9 times and fled the scene of that crime in his bentley. Scumbag behavior and whether or not he had "mental issues" or was drunk at the time that doesn't make him any less of a scumbag.
1) If everyone here knew what it was then why was it incorrectly cited to prove that something wasn't a mental illness? 2) Did I at any point say that Jovan had any such diagnosis? Why are you arguing with yourself? 3) Why are you calling his girlfriend his "baby momma"? That's xenophobic and borderline racist. Respect the dead. R.I.P. Kasandra Perkins 4) Read the post above the one you quoted before you just revert to dismissive buzzwords.
no, I am talking about the legal and medical definition, of which without it every behavior could be argued as a repercussion of mental illness. a serial killer can argue anything they want, it is a matter of whether they actually suffer from it. By your argument, all acts of violence or anti-social behavior would be because of mental illness.
1) Whatever you argued supported the notion that ASPD (just like all other personality disorders) is a form of mental illness. Also, there's no "medical" definition of insanity as one would think: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is. You're wrong. 2) That's why there are doctors to diagnose suspected serial killers not guilty by reason of mental insanity before trial. But you aren't definitionally a serial killer unless you have ASPD or something very similar combined w/ PTSD. 3) I did not argue that, nor does my logic fit that. Explain yourself or you're incorrect. I said that because serial killers suffer from ASPD and, because you argued that ASPD is not a mental illness, one could conclude using your logic that serial killers aren't mentally ill. That's just downright idiotic.
Interesting report on belcher from a guy who remembered him as a bully and a jerk from back in the day in west bab - not a pretty picture and this sounds legit. http://www.schnittshow.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=124415&article=10613083 Then there is this report of prior altercations at UMaine. http://www.pressherald.com/news/Jov...ndow-while-at-Maine.html?pageType=mobile&id=1
Did I say anywhere in ANY of my posts that Belcher was insane??? All I said was that it's completely reasonable to question the mental health of somebody when an event like that happens. People keep blowing my comments out of proportion and attributing positions and stances to my comments that I have not taken. Good grief!!! Look I don't give a fuck what the legal definition of insane is. I wasn't using "insane" as the legal definition. I was simply saying that questioning somebody's mental health after this is justified. It's not saying that the act is fine or he's not to blame, or stating anything definitively about the situation itself. These situations are complicated. It's never just black and white. That's how I was using the term. Sorry if it's not exactly the way you want it to be. It's a general term and has more than one meaning, like many words in the English language. Get over it.
i wonder what steps this person took to fix his own personal life rather than wait for his employer to do that for him.
Posthumously diagnosed with CTE. Very sad story. For years the NFL denied that CTE was rampant within the league, much less intrinsically part the game. Now we have multiple persons posthumously diagnosed with CTE who murdered their loved ones (a link between CTE and violence is currently being established, due mostly to the relatively recent discovery of it). 76 of 79 former NFL players' bodies examined were found to have CTE. This coming less than 12 years after former Commish Tagliabue fought what was then newfound information about the neurological effects of professional football with misinformation a la Big Tobacco v. Lung Cancer. It's an epidemic that the NFL is neither taking responsibility for nor attempting to ameliorate or solve to this day. They denied the link between concussions, head trauma, dementia, CTE, and violent behavior for long enough to convince fans that the players needed to just "take responsibility" and, presumably, take the advice of team doctors and medical personnel with a giant block of salt and a dozen vicodin. The future of this league is dimming, sadly, and it is the NFL's own fault.
But these Owners are all angels....come on people....they need to start taking accountability or else they should be forced to take accountability in the courts.
Enjoy football while you can. It's not going to be around much longer. Within ten years you're going to start seeing school districts refuse to field varsity teams.
This is most likely correct. From the 20's to the 50's many high schools had boxing programs. As the cumulative effects of boxing became apparent the number of schools supporting the sport began to decline and now there are very few high schools with active boxing programs and most of those are clubs, not officially sanctioned sports. Girls Soccer is also going to be affected by the emphasis on preventing concussions. After football it has the highest incidence of concussions in sanctioned high school sports.
No, the rules will simply be modified to minimize the amount of contact. And fans think it is an offensive driven sport now? In 10 years football will make the arena league look like the 2000 Ravens. But all the shock and surprise by these findings only reflects how stupid or in denial our society is. Who needs to be told getting fucking hammered for 60 minutes may not be good for you? What next, is there going to be surprise and outrage in 40 years when MMA fighters are diagnosed with the same? The players know the risk was there even if they did not understand it in the technical medical terms.
