I think it is important to note that only about 1% of violent felony cases in the US involve an attempted "insanity" defense. And of these, studies show that only about 30 per year successful. In the case of the fellow mentioned in the OP, there appears to be at very leastsome evidence that the guy had a psychotic disorder that was not being treated at the time.
I say this, not to question the obvious and severe threat he posed to the public, but because he sounds very similar to a case I worked on for years. Perhaps this renders my opinion less than objective. However, I sent the link to another former worker familiar with the case, and he also noted the distinct similarities. Thus, he is also fully aware of the threat such individuals can pose.
The case was given to me for two reasons: first, the guy had shot a pistol at his neighbor over a conflict involving a barking dog, and second, others at the clinic were intimidated by the person. In the first court hearing, the judge asked me what my opinionwas. I said that I did not believe the client was competent to assist in his legal defense. Upon questioning, the client made clear that he thought the DA should be appointed to defend him.
That, of course, resulted in a court-ordered evaluation by two psychologists. He threatened the first, a non-white lady, for asking im uncomfortable questions, which proved to him that she was not a christian. The second deemed he was not competent to pour a glass of water. I do not know PA law, but in New York that allowed the judge to mandate a higher level of treatment until the person was able to assist in his legal defense -- which in this sad case meant never. For even when compliant with taking medication, he was psychotic, in frequent communication with god, and convinced that he was a super-secret undercover sheriff's deputy.
I'm also not familiar with Florida law. However, a while back, I watched a sheriff's press conference after a mentally ill person acted out violently. In answer to a reporter's question, he said that he thought the biggest issue his department faced had resulted from the ending of mental health case management. That service was effective in lowering the number of cases where a person required psychiatric hospitalization. This involves a case manager knowing if a client was taking their medication as prescribed. It allowed for interventions before a person reached the state where police were responding to a crime.
Alexander and Pobeka mention stochastic violence upthread. Now that is very on point -- there are on edge individuals in towns and cities across this country. Some will strike out violently, but most will not, at least not in engaging in situations such as this one. A small percentage of those that do might meet the legal system's definition of "insane." The vast majority could not. Even if they have a major mental illness, they know right from wrong. And the majority of mass-shooters tend to have personality disorders, and traits from Cluster B.
There is no doubt in my mind that "current events" involving the dog whistles calling for violence coming from the Trump cult are encouraging the stochastic violence we see every day on the news. It is far more responsible for "triggering" people than, for example, the 2019 film, "Joker." I thought that film was more of a warning. Just my opinion. I always enjoy reading your contributions here!
= new reply since forum marked as read
