Culpability and Mass School Shootings

 That homicides were committed when Audrey Hale shot and killed six people in the Nashville school shootings. Six humans were killed by another.  But was it murder and, if so, who is accountable for it?

Nashville police have revealed that they have found evidence that Hales had planned the mass shooting for months. That is, the shooting was premeditated -- not spontaneous -- that that legally makes it the crime of murder. Hale did not legally commit the homicides in self defense or in defense of his country as an act of war. He committed them for purposeful personal reasons, fashioned in his mind, as necessary actions to be taken.

But is Hale to be held culpable for these murderous actions? In terms of the scope of human actions, Hale's action are certainly an outlier well outside the bounds of normal human behavior. Some might say Hale was insane and thereby not legally culpable for the shootings.

But insanity is a slippery excuse for these or any other murders. No psychological phenomena of insanity has ever been identified or defined. Rather, insanity comes our way by of English common law dating from 1324, when anyone ‘that beforetime hath had his wit and memory’ and should ‘happen to fail of his wit’ or, as would now be said, became a lunatic or of unsound mind retained certain property rights for his family upon his death. And so, every since those deemed legally "insane" have granted certain legal rights not available to those deemed "sane" for committing the same crime. That doesn't say the "insane" did not commit the crime, only that they are not legally culpable for it and thereby not punishable for it.  .

Some hold the firearm manufactures culpable for gun related homicides like the Nashville school shooting. Yes, the firearms produced by the manufacturers were used to commit the homicides. But does that make them culpable? 

Mens rea, Latin for "guilty mind", is the legal principle used for establishing culpability. It is applied to action that are taken:

• Negligently: a "reasonable person" ought to be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that is a "gross deviation" from a normal standard of care.
• Recklessly: the actor "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" in "gross deviation" from a normal standard of care.
• Knowingly: the actor is "practically certain" that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.
  
• Purposefully: the actor consciously engages, in conduct and "desires" the result. The Supreme Court has not found a large difference between purposeful and knowing conduct, not only in theory but also in application.

Applied to the Hale, were the shootings done purposefully? Yes. Knowingly? Yes. Recklessly? Negligently? Yes. Culpable on all accounts.

Applied to the firearm manufacturer, were the shootings done purposefully. No, the manufacturer did not do the shootings. Therefore, the manufacturer cannot be held culpable for knowingly, recklessly or negligently doing something they did not do. Culpable on no account.

Further, if we are to hold manufacturers of firearms culpable, we must also hold knife manufacturers culpable for manufacturing the second most commonly used weapon in committing homicides.