Dallas PD Attacker James Boulware Was Crazy
He was crazy: Boulware’s family said in a statement that it was “in shock.”
“We tried to get him mental help numerous times, but the system failed him, because he was declared ‘sane.’ He was very delusional. It was very obvious,” the family said.
Boulware, 35, of Paris, Texas, had been arrested multiple times. One of the more troubling arrests was in May 2013, when he allegedly choked his mother, strangled his uncle and made threats, including one about a mass shooting.
At the time of Boulware’s arrest in 2013, police issued a public alert that he was armed with guns, a large amount of ammunition, and also had body armor, and might go on a shooting spree.
“He was going to just kill all the adult members of the family and then that’s when he made the comment he may shoot up some churches and schools,” said Paris police chief Bob Hundley, according to a 2013 news report on NBC station KTEN.
According to an arrest report, the incident began when Boulware attacked two family members and went on a rant.
His mother “had gone into the kitchen to make her something to eat when the suspect began making comments about North and South Korea, and began talking rudely about religion, Jews and Christians,” a police affidavit said. “The suspect suddenly grabbed (his mother’s) throat with both of his hands and began squeezing.”
“He then punched his uncle and choked him “to the point of unconsciousness,” the affidavit said.
What has happened to our court system and our mental health system that someone like James Boulware, who has perpetrated serious violence and is so obviously deranged, is turned loose into society?
At what point was it decided that crazy people had a “right” to be crazy that was so important as to outweigh basic considerations of public safety? Who made the court rulings that limited our nation’s ability to lock up dangerous lunatics?
Answer: Federal judges whose courtrooms have metal detectors and armed police to protect them.
The key decisions were made in the 1960s and 70s, at a time when liberalism was the dominant legal philosophy, and when eminent intellectuals proclaimed that criminals and lunatics were victims of an unjust society. Mentally ill people and dangerous criminals were turned loose in the name of “social justice.”
Now here were are, decades later, where it seems every day brings us headlines of shocking violence perpetrated by people like James Boulware who — despite their obvious mental problems and known capacity for violence — can’t be locked away. Because “social justice.”
His family said the system failed James Boulware. Perhaps more importantly, the system has failed America. People need to read Clayton Cramer’s My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill.
The people who most need to read that book, alas, are the least likely to read it. Federal judges, legislators and law school professors — the people whose bad ideas, bad decisions and bad laws have produced this mess — can’t be bothered to read anything written from the perspective of common sense.
Our nation’s policy-making elite have become corrupt and decadent, blinded to facts and reason by their quasi-religious devotion to the ideological cult of “social justice.”
A deranged gunmen can hurt a lot of people, but what about America’s corrupt and decadent elite? Aren’t they really more dangerous? What do you think America is going to look like after Hillary Clinton gets elected president in 2016 and re-elected in 2020?
Our nation’s elite hate our nation’s people. Because the elite despise everything that made America great, they have deliberately sought to destroy the foundations of a free society.
Damn them and damn their decadent souls. Damn them all to Hell.
First published at TheOtherMcCain.com
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.