but they don't have a care what if what they do is wrong

Which is exactly the point. People with ASPD literally lack the emotional connection necessary for moral motivation. It's not that they decide to be an immoralist cunt - they are literally incapable of properly perceiving the weights and scales involved in ethical conduct.

But they still know committing a felony is still wrong.

They may have been told it is wrong and be aware that others think it is wrong, but since they lack emotions like empathy they're going to have a hard time understanding why it is wrong.

I get the whole lack of emotions, but they have been told what's right and what's wrong. There doesn't need to be a whole complicated response that pointing a firearm at people is wrong; it's wrong, don't do it, simple as that.

You obviously don't get it. It's like telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking. Or telling somebody who's depressed to just cheer up. If this were ADHD, or some sort of minor impulse control disorder then I'd understand, but you seem to be completely missing the point that these emotional disconnections and brain abnormalities lead it to be one of the most difficult to treat disorders. It also doesn't help that most psychopaths are narcissistic.

It's like expecting Ted Bundy to listen to you when you give him a stern telling off.

I get the whole lack of emotions, but they have been told what's right and what's wrong.

So, you stop doing things any time someone tells you it is wrong? Stop posted then, I think it's wrong.

Quote from: God on December 12, 2014, 01:02:59 PM

Quote from: KletzenbrotEssen on December 12, 2014, 12:57:59 PM

I get the whole lack of emotions, but they have been told what's right and what's wrong.

So, you stop doing things any time someone tells you it is wrong? Stop posted then, I declare it wrong.

You're not my parent or any authority figure, what you say has no legal effect and is just a simple opinion. Government says threatening is wrong, there doesn't need to be 52 page essay explaining why, simply don't do it

So it's only morally wrong if there is a law against it? What if someone doesn't recognize the government as their authority figure (like many psychopaths)?

You're not my parent or any authority figure

Which is exactly how a psychopath responds to pretty much anybody who isn't himself.

Know what the court will do? Laugh and say it doesn't matter what I feel, I've been told and it's written that committing certain acts is wrong

Which is why psychopathy isn't considered an illness with which one can be classed criminally insane.

Let me change tack and ask you a direct question: If you find a man who has murdered a woman "just to know what it felt like", and then further examination showed a tumor the size of a golf-ball in his prefrontal cortex, would you hold him seriously morally responsible?

But how do you know for certain this person is a nutcase?

Having a 16-year-old point a rifle at police is fairly indicative of some sort of antisocial tendencies. I'm essentially the most serious authority on this site on the issue - as Mr. P will surely attest - since I know what it's like to think like him, and I've done my research.

There are ways of separating the wolves from the herd. We'll find out soon enough. The point, however, is that if he is indeed antisocial, then we cannot seriously say he knows right from wrong.

Quote from: KletzenbrotEssen on December 12, 2014, 01:11:47 PM

Know what the court will do? Laugh and say it doesn't matter what I feel, I've been told and it's written that committing certain acts is wrong

Which is why psychopathy isn't considered an illness with which one can be classed criminally insane.

Let me change tack and ask you a direct question: If you find a man who has murdered a woman "just to know what it felt like", and then further examination showed a tumor the size of a golf-ball in his prefrontal cortex, would you hold him seriously morally responsible?

Depends on what medical professionals determine. If the tumor was directly effecting him, then I'd still hold him responsible but to a lesser degree; he did commit a crime but wasn't all the way there. It's kinda like how you can still be charged with statutory rape, no manner how many forms of ID the chick pulls out saying she is of legal age

Quote from: KletzenbrotEssen on December 12, 2014, 01:17:16 PM

But how do you know for certain this person is a nutcase?

We don't know either way, which is why it's worthwhile to actually find out before just gunning him down on sight.

Which brings to my point many responses back, what if he opened fire and a bystander in their house was struck? What if the pellet gun had been a real gun and a person was hit? The department would be held accountable. A situation where an armed person is outside in a populated area is different than a person in their home with nobody around. In certain situations, things have to be taken to action in a swift manner to prevent unnecessary collateral damage

Quote from: KletzenbrotEssen on December 12, 2014, 01:17:16 PM

But how do you know for certain this person is a nutcase?

Having a 16-year-old point a rifle at police is fairly indicative of some sort of antisocial tendencies. I'm essentially the most serious authority on this site on the issue - as Mr. P will surely attest - since I know what it's like to think like him, and I've done my research.

There are ways of separating the wolves from the herd. We'll find out soon enough. The point, however, is that if he is indeed antisocial, then we cannot seriously say he knows right from wrong.

And I'm not denying your authority on the issue, I just don't see it as you do and see it all from a legal, non-medical perspective since that's what I'm good at. If he is shown to be a whacko then I will reside my current stance but will continue to hold it till then. But when you're acting an officer and grabbing his gun, as with Brown, then you're going to get shot; if you're pointing a rifle outside where bystanders can be possibly injured, then chances are you will be shot

Quote from: God on December 12, 2014, 01:20:52 PM

Quote from: KletzenbrotEssen on December 12, 2014, 01:17:16 PM

But how do you know for certain this person is a nutcase?

We don't know either way, which is why it's worthwhile to actually find out before just gunning him down on sight.

Which brings to my point many responses back, what if he opened fire and a bystander in their house was struck? What if the pellet gun had been a real gun and a person was hit? The department would be held accountable. A situation where an armed person is outside in a populated area is different than a person in their home with nobody around. In certain situations, things have to be taken to action in a swift manner to prevent unnecessary collateral damage

It's quite a gamble, I'll give you that. If you shoot, you definitely kill a person and might have saved others. If you don't shoot you don't kill a person but might endanger others. It's a loose-loose situation.

What a waste of time and money, it woulda been cheaper to have shot him.

Quote from: aTALLmidget on December 12, 2014, 04:03:58 PM

What a waste of time and money, it woulda been cheaper to have shot him.

This is the serious board.

Booooo