Professor Mike, I want to just ask you also.

Usually, the insanity plea has to be that the person did not understand what he was doing, he or she was doing.

But this guy planned this as if he was field marshal Ramel.

So how do you prove that when he obviously put a lot of thought in planning this and reconing this and tracking this and stalking this guy?

Is that the work of an insane person?

Billy, it's not at all.

And Mike Becione is absolutely right.

The problem is there is a lot of evidence.

They got it quickly.

There is no doubt who this shooter is in terms of identity. You want to interpose an affirmative defense

of insanity. You are, you have to admit right off the bat that you were actually were the shooter.

Yeah. Pleading guilty, basically admitting to the actus reus, but what you're going to

argue over now is the mental state, the mens rea, the state of mind.

That's really the only thing that you're going to argue over.

And when you interpose an affirmative defense, you actually have to prove.

The burden of proof in a normal case is on the prosecution.

But when you have you interpose an affirmative defense, you now as a defense attorney have a burden of proving that you actually deserve to be considered insane by the jury.

And so it's going to be very, very difficult because all of his

academic successes and everything he's done. He's not howling at the moon, running around naked,

as screaming and talking to himself, like he's in some sort of, you know, some sort of altered state.

No, this took a lot of planning, a lot of forethought. He probably

rehearsed a number of times. He got all of everything together. He escaped pretty smartly out

...