|
Sounds like BS to me.
The criteria to be deemed Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI) varies from state to state, but essentially one has to not be able to discern right from wrong or be able to adhere to the right.
The ability to plan a murder (get shotgun, load shotgun, drive to a specific location, sneak up, etc....) suggests a degree of forethought that demonstrates the defendant met the requirements for legal competency.
Severe PTSD can be incapacitating, but in those cases it is unlikely someone could plan and successfully execute a murder. From the article, there is no suggestion the defendant lost his ability to tell right from wrong. I suspect an argument could be made that he wasn't able to adhere to the right, that he acted on an uncontrollable impulse, but here again circumstances and his demonstrated forethought would argue otherwise. From the article's report, sounds like intent was there.
Jury might feel sympathetic though....
|