From Asimov’s magazine 1981 Publication: Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, April 13, 1981 and republished in a collection by the author
It’s entirely possible that very magazine is in my library downstairs. I’ll try to remember to check.
It’s got a very memorable cover - unicorn and chess board
This is a clear-cut case. The man is guilty.
At the same time he is obviously off his nut. He is so misaligned that he is incapable of living amongst civilized folks. Locking him up and melting the key seems appropriate.
It seems to me this guy is so crazy that he ought not to be excused by an insanity defense. All in all, the old M’Naghten Rule seem to have a lot of wisdom to it. Sure he was nuts, but his actions show he knew what he did was criminal.
Probably in one of the “Dangerous Vision” books, I read a short story where someone serving a life sentence (which I realize is usually really 99 years or some actual number) was always first in line for new medical advances. They basically made him immortal, and had him under a strict suicide watch (and even if he did manage to hurt himself, they always revived him).
They went over this at sentencing. Brook’s previous attorneys had gone with a not guilty by reason of insanity plea, but he had been examined by four (IIRC) psychiatrists and all of them came to the same conclusion that his condition did not qualify for that defense. After those reports, the defense withdrew that defense.
The judge said the fact that he fled the scene in his SUV until it became disabled, then fled on foot, abandoning the vehicle so quickly that he left his ID, cell phone and other things behind, then changed his appearance by removing his sweatshirt, also running away fast enough that he didn’t even stop the retrieve his sandals shows that he knew what he did was wrong.
Something similar has happened in Raleigh, NC with one injury, which later proved fatal. However, this may not have been deliberate.
Brooks’ psychiatric status is of great interest to me, I guess because I’d really like to know how much he really believes of the bullshit he spouted off with in court. Does he REALLY think he can get off or appeal and win if he can just get a judge to listen to his wacky “subject-matter jurisdiction” arguments? Did he really think the jury would have wanted to “nullify” a conviction for a murderer who was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? Did he really think if he just stared menacingly at the judge, she would go “eek” and let him out?
He appears to have a bucket full of psychiatric conditions and personality disorders combined with just being a career criminal and POS. Does that make him delusional enough to believe his own crap, or was he really just cynically trying to delay the inevitable as long as possible?
Personally, I think he’s fine*. I think he was aware that he was almost certainly going to spend the rest of his days in jail and was just messing with them. Call it having fun, call it playing the victim, call it wasting time, but I think he knew exactly what he was doing. I mentioned this earlier, but I suspect if had committed, and was accused of, a considerably lesser crime with a max jail time of, say, 10 years (that a public defender could probably have negotiated down to 5 years, or even just probation with no jail time), he would have acted much differently. But that’s just a guess.
*not to say that he doesn’t have some mental issues, but I don’t think that was the driving force behind his behavior in court.
Even though it was likely brake failure, it’s becoming apparent that this truck’s driver was no fan of vehicle inspections. Commenters are lamenting on Facebook now: “How can you say the truck was out of control when it was a brake failure, and the driver was yelling for people to move?”
I’m confused. Or somebody seems to be, anyway…
From the link above: “She sentenced Brooks to 17½ years for each of the 61 counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety with the use of a dangerous weapon.” 17.5 x 61 = 1067.5, but “762½ years for reckless endangerment”. So which is correct?
Well, technically, 1067.5 years is “over 700 years”, so there’s that.
I think it works out to 6 life sentences plus the 1067.50 years, which includes 762 (or, ‘over 700’) years for endangerment charges.
But I’m not sure. I had to piece that together from a few articles.
Let’s see if we can figure out the numbers here:
Count 1-6) Life
Counts 7-67) 17.5 Years
Counts 68-73) 25 Years
Counts 74-75) 6 Years
Count 76) 9 Months (domestic battery)
Looking closer, each of the 17.5 year sentences is made up of 12.5 years of initial confinement and 5 years of extended supervision. 12.5 years for each of 61 charges is 762.50, which is the “over 700 years” number.
Here’s the case if you want to look through it:
https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2021CF001848&countyNo=67&index=0&mode=details
From the way he capitalized the second iteration of his name I’m guessing he’s going to try and pull some Sovereign Citizen BS like he’s not the real Edward Brooks, Jr. but an agent acting in his name or something.
Is that an SC thing? I just assumed he was copying an example and matching what they did (except handwriting it instead of typing).
Apparently
Name in all capital letters
JOHN ROBERT DOE, for instance, signifies the corporate shell of a person, as opposed to the flesh-and-blood person.Name punctuation
John-Robert: Doe signifies a flesh-and-blood person named John-Robert of the family Doe, as opposed to a punctuation-free name, JOHN ROBERT DOE, which refers to the corporate shell of a person.
Yup. They claim names with lower case (or all CAPS, i forget which way) are a legal fiction. They represent a goverment corporation and not the real person. It’s all gobbledygook but it’s extremely common.