by Patrick Cleveland M.A.
I wrote
my first blog on renegade ex-police officer Christopher Dorner when he was
still alive. Now, he’s dead. The police killed him David Koresh style in a
standoff similar to that of the 1993 Waco massacre. A mysterious fire erupted as
Dorner hunkered down in a cabin in the snowy mountains of Big Bear, CA. Why on
earth did Dorner go to Big Bear? A place where a tall gigantic African-American
man would surely stand out? Those
questions are now unanswerable as well as the question of whether Dorner was
truly railroaded by the LAPD and thereby the question I asked in my last blog
as to whether he was truly mentally ill is now also harder to discern. I based
both conclusions as to whether he was mentally ill or not dependent on whether
the accusations and reasons for his LAPD termination were true of false. If
they were true, then it could be argued that Dorner went on a paranoid
delusional retaliatory rampage against those he falsely perceived had wronged
him, and was thereby mentally ill. If they were false, then it could argued
that he was merely an enraged and desperate man who would do anything to gain
revenge, notoriety, and provoke the circumstances necessary for the truth of
his case to be revealed and his name thereby cleared even if it cost him his
life. In the case of the former it would be easy to justify a case for mental illness
based on the criteria for delusional disorder I listed in my last blog. In the
latter case it would be much more difficult. Even though the answer may be murkier now due
to his death and untold story, let us continue look at the question little more
closely.
The American Psychiatric Association defines mental illness
as follows:
A clinically significant behavioral
or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is
associated with present distress (i.e., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e.,
an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a
significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an
important loss of freedom. The syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable
and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event. It must currently be
considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological
dysfunction in the individual. No definition adequately specifies precise
boundaries for the concept of mental disorder. Also known as mental health,
mental impairment, mental illness, brain illness, and serious brain disorder
(DSM-IV, 1994; p. xxi).
Looking at the beginning of the definition, it doesn’t
seem that Dorner had any distress, symptoms, or disabilities since he was quite
willing and able to carry out his actions. Moving on to the 2nd
sentence of the definition, it is clear that Dorner’s behavior and actions of
taking revenge by killing police officers and demanding justice generated “a
significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an
important loss of freedom.” However, other fighters of perceived injustices
such as Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Che Guevera all displayed behavior that
also put them at the same risk. They also suffered pain, lost their freedom at
times, and eventually their lives. Were they mentally ill? I don’t think so. Based
on the definition put forth by the APA could a psychiatrist say they were
mentally ill? Ironically, yes! The 3rd sentence stating, “The
syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned
response to a particular event” raises many socio-cultural questions in this
case. Based on past wars (Iraq most notably), and numerous American
intervention in the world against perceived enemies, as well as the many
movements that have sprang up against injustice in this nation (the
abolitionist movement, women’s suffrage, LGBT rights, etc.) one could argue
that America is a revenge happy nation at most or an injustice fighting nation
at least. Thereby, Dorner’s ambitions to right the perceived injustice against
him is in line with the ‘American way’ and given the repetitive pattern of
office shootings in the U.S. by fired employees (crystalized in the common
phrase ‘going postal’) Dorner’s behavior was also expectable to some extent.
However, given his military training, Dorner was able to take it to a whole new
extreme. Finally, the 4th sentence gives
the A.P.A. a praiseworthy way out in writing, “No definition adequately
specifies precise boundaries for the concept of mental disorder.” That sentence
is like music to my ears. It’s like they gave it a decent shot at defining
mental illness in the first 3 sentences, but then, somewhat covertly said, “but
don’t take our definition too seriously because no definition could ever be ‘adequate.’”
Advice taken, I never have taken the DSM very seriously and don’t plan to start
now.
So was Christopher Dorner
mentally ill? Once again, knowing the absolute truth as to whether he was fired
justly or falsely would help me yield a better answer. I do tend to think that a
key criterion for mental illness is being somewhat out of touch with reality
and thus acting out against reality or developing symptoms based on delusions
can be signs of we can commonly call mental illness. That’s my basis for very
loosely trying to define one small facet of mental illness. Who gets to say
what reality is and isn’t? Well, that’s a long standing debate that’s still going in philosophy to this day.
In closing, due to the literal burning down of all
that was Christopher Dorner and the now forever closed investigation as to
facts by the LAPD, perhaps we will never know if he was truly mentally ill or
not. As to my opinion just based on the evidence that I do know of, I would
still conclude with the 2nd argument I listed earlier, in that I
wouldn’t say he was ‘mentally ill,’ but instead I prefer to say that as a
result of what happened to him, whether it be true of false, right or wrong,
good or evil, he became an unemployed, ostracized, and eventually enraged man who
was determined to do anything he could to clear his name, get revenge, and right
the perceived injustices held against him which coalesced as an unbearable over-arching
blow to his ego, cultural identity, and legacy . In that sense he was not mentally
ill, but just human, ‘all too human,’ as Nietzsche would say.
Published by
Patrick Cleveland MFTI
Long Beach, CA. 3/16/13
