Standing Up To Murder Apologists

It happened again. Another mother/caregiver murdered her disabled son. This incident seems to be more disturbing to me than many. His name was Austin Anderson, and he was just 19. You'd think the world would be on fire wanting justice while mourning the untimely, torturous death of this innocent young man at the hands of his mother, right?

Not quite.

For one, I had to go to more than one link to even find the victim's identity, even though the murder's is clear through any, and all articles I have seen thus far. While sometimes I have seen this happen when the detectives are unsure of the identities of the deceased, or when there are other minor siblings involved in the case they may not always release names none of those things are true in this situation. In this situation Austin was an adult. He was an adult that is mostly referred to as "Lightwine's son"  in most of the articles. Way to erase his identity, media! His name was Austin Anderson. He should not be referred to as his killer's son.

I felt like I needed to get that part off my chest, because this next part is where my tone turns a little. Maybe, a lot from what my regular readers are used to. I don't typically write a lot of in your face types of pieces. Today I feel like I am. For me, this is pushy, and more edgy than usual. It might not seem so to others, though.

If you're in the autism community you've probably come across this article several times already by now on social media, right? How has the reaction been? Have you seen a lot of outrage? How about sympathy for the mother? Have you seen a lot of talk about needing more support for parents?

I have. All of the above. Sometimes all in the same post, combined together in a ball of tightly wound contradictions that feel impossible to pull apart. Doesn't mean I haven't tried, but the posters, and those that stand with them hold on tightly to their beliefs.

Such as these comments I came across under the article on FB:

Here we have the all encompassing doublespeak where a parent engages in a discussion about how they aren't excusing a killer's actions while actively looking for every which reason under the sun the person could have been driven to madness , thus postulating it can be understanding that a person under such strain could indeed kill their child, but they shouldn't, but they could, but, I mean she is a monster. I'm just saying if she had more help maybe she'd not have been such a bad person, and would have not been a drug addict with a terrible temper, and not have made terrible, selfish choices, like killing her son, but you know, we need to talk about respite.

That's what I hear when I read those posts, and others like it. I said that there is no separating the two. Either she is wrong, or she isn't. Either you sympathize with a murderer, or you don't, because in this case it really is that simple. When other people are murdered people do not use the space underneath of the story on social media to discuss how bad the killer had it. They don't come up with every excuse the killer may have ever had in their entire life to have made that choice against the deceased. It is so vile. It is so disgusting. It is so inappropriate to me that anyone would use the space underneath any article about a vulnerable person's death to discuss their own needs, or how the killer's needs are not being met. That is the most selfish, unemphatic thing I have ever witnessed, and would not happen if the person that was killed was typical, or non-disabled.

So, here is where I ask all of you to help.

The Damage @TheDrPhilShow Has Done

I don't watch daytime TV, nor do I get involved in large social issues that typically involve choosing opposing sides, so I learned of the interview on Dr. Phil's show in the 11th hour yesterday.

I am still sitting here this morning in a shock, even though I did not watch it. I caught a few glimpses. I read things from others who saw it, and I followed the event a little on Twitter.

This shock is one that I find myself in when I can't understand a social way of doing things. It's one that I can't shake, because I can't make sense of it. Not only did that interview upset me,  (I am not even going to use her name here. She doesn't deserve to have her name in print giving it anymore attention.) but I saw a string of other articles yesterday (that I am also not gonna go search out, and share here) about abusive caretakers, and residential homes harming, abusing, and killing autistic residents.

My brain loops in confusion, and profound sadness.

I cannot make sense of why this is allowed to happen. Why is someone who tried to kill their child getting so much publicity? Why are they granted interviews with influential TV hosts before they are even sentenced? While she sits in jail accused of a heinous crime the spotlight shines on her struggles. This is not justice. This is not right. My mind trips on the fact that socially this is influencing people.

Then the fear sets in.

Empathy, Familiarity, and Murder

This is my current thoughts about the latest tragedy in the autism community. I am not meaning any of it sarcastically, or rhetorically.

When one person commits a heinous act of murdering her child we scream "Nail her to the cross!"

But, if someone we have kind feelings. and positive associations with does the very same thing, society gathers to defend said person.

I am trying to understand how the two are different.. How is the action, the result, the crime committed, the pain inflicted different between person 1 and person 2?  How did the facts change? Is it just your view that changed? If so, should people be treated differently with different consequences due to how we *feel* about what they've done, and less by the  the action itself?

I have sat all day thinking on this issue, and trying to find reasoning in it, but I just can't. I am not a cold callous individual. I don't believe in the concept of good, and evil. I think sometimes when someone does something as unthinkable as trying to kill their child there are mitigating factors. I'm not an unreasonable person. As a matter fact, I'm a very logical person and today's reaction from the autism community to the tragic news of a mother trying to harm her child is not making sense in my head. If a stranger harms another being is it still not the same amount of harm being inflicted if it is your best friend doing it? Does the harm amount to less if it's a familiar person? If the harm is the same, then why should punishment be any different? Why does one scenario have almost all of the autism community saying in unison that lack of services is never a reason to kill your child, but today that is different? This case is different, because...?

This isn't me talking about disability rights, or who could have, or should have done what. This is me trying to make sense of the social concept of empathizing with a murderer/attempted murderer, because this person evokes familiar feelings of love, and care. I am not as angry as I am confused. How I feel about the action of the mother in this case is another post entirely. For now, I am lost in what appears to be a social custom that I cannot wrap my head around. Others are free to hold their own opinions. I'm just trying to understand them.


*Please keep comments respectful, and read this before you blame my autism for not understanding your POV. Thank you.