Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« I'm Confused | Today on Line Out »

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Mall Maldonado

posted by on October 2 at 15:52 PM

Guilty!

TACOMA — Dominick Maldonado has been found guilty of kidnapping, assault and attempted second-degree murder in a November 2005 shooting rampage at the Tacoma Mall.

The Pierce County Superior Court jury found Maldonado, 22, guilty of attempted second-degree murder, four counts of first-degree kidnapping, six counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault and two counts of first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. Seven people were injured and four others held hostage in the shooting. Maldonado’s lawyers said he was in the throes of a mental disorder and shouldn’t have been held responsible. Prosecutors said he planned the attack for weeks and knew what he was doing.

The curious thing here? Planning of any kind is considered to be a sign of sanity. If you don’t plan to murder/assault/kidnap someone but do so all of a sudden, you are insane. If, however, you think about how, when, where, and who you are going to kill/punch/kidnap, you are normal. But surely planning can be a type of disorder. A thick plot, an elaborate scheme, a long period waiting and thinking can also be the expression of a chemical imbalance.

RSS icon Comments

1

Not planning can also be a sign of lead poisoning.

Posted by Greg | October 2, 2007 4:03 PM
2

Yes, planning can be a sign of an imbalance... a different kind of imbalance. His lawyers would have to have experts show that he's obsessive. It's a fine line between extremes of crazy... are you the crazy person who snaps and goes on a rampage or are you the crazy person who meticulously plans each and every step working and reworking it over weeks or months, plotting each step, each moment?

Or are you your average, run of the mill sane person who plotted out how you wanted to commit your crime?

It's up to your lawyers to show one thing, their lawyers to show the other, and the jury to decide who put up the best case.

Posted by Phelix | October 2, 2007 4:07 PM
3

honey bucket is neither a psychologist or a lawyer, therefore his opinion is full of shit.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 2, 2007 4:20 PM
4

I plan all of my one night stands. That makes me normal, not a cold-hearted slut. Right?

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 2, 2007 4:29 PM
5

I hear GWB can be trusted in a mall.

He never plans anything and has no idea what to do if it isn't all rosy like he thinks.

In fact, he even ignores the non-rosy nature after all these years of non-rosiness.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2007 5:04 PM
6

What you would commonly consider insane and what would fit the legal definition of insanity are very different things. If you are sane enough to know right from wrong, legal from illegal, and you do something wrong and illegal anyway, then even if you are a screaming nutjob, you are guilty in the eyes of the law.

Posted by L-Train8 | October 2, 2007 5:17 PM
7

It's all about the necktie parties, in the end.

And this is why America is number one for total people imprisoned - the entire world combined isn't even close to number two.

USA! USA! USA!

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2007 5:52 PM
8

as a law student, i have learned that one should never assume that the law expresses as it is, as it should be, or in any manner except that that is what the judge/jury says it is

Posted by vooodooo84 | October 2, 2007 6:39 PM
9

Everybody knows he's a nutcase, but if the jury found him insane he'd be sent to a state facility and one of their fine, fine quality staff would let him out in a year when they "cured" him. Which is why so many insane people are found sane.

Posted by Y.F. | October 2, 2007 6:45 PM
10

Legal insanity is not the same thing ad actual insanity. Generally the threshold for being legally insane is the inability to tell right from wrong. A somewhat related corollary that can absolve someone of guilt is the inability to control ones actions. So an person who is delusional and cannot judge the rightness of their actions is legally insane, whereas a person who has a seizure while driving and mows down schools children, while not insane, is not guilty.

A person who is say just paranoid and hatches a plan knowing that plan is in violation of the law is not insane, not unable to control their actions.

Posted by giffy | October 2, 2007 8:29 PM
11

seems to me that having the nut cases out on the street (those who can't control their actions appropriately or or delusional) is more dangerous than the "guilty" who go to prison. If the jury had freed this guy because he didn't "plan" this attack, it would be a much sorrier world we live in.

Posted by linda | October 3, 2007 7:30 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).