If what I read is true: The work of the person who did this did get his work stolen and maybe as a consequence missed out on a lot of money. Then doing something like this might be quite an overreaction, but is at least in the realm of understandable, no? Revenge is in human nature.
You think it is "understandable" to burn down a building because someone stole your work? If someone did that I would call them "crazy". I definitely see "mental stability" or "mental health" being a root cause here. Rational, healthy people do not respond in that way. Call it "temporary insanity" if you want.
If someone robs a bank, I can understand the motivation: He wants money. If someone punches another, he might want to feel powerful. If someone rapes a woman he wants sex.
And if someones believes that this company stole his money, I can understand his motivations to seek revenge. That does not mean it is right, just or something to look up to. But saying this is completely crazy is a bit naive IMO.
And that is the only arguably victimless crime in your list of 3. A crime can be committed by a rational person (if I don't do this, my child dies), and it can be committed by someone who is not mentally well. I would argue that these, especially the last crime, are all crimes likely to be committed by someone who is not in a stable or healthy state of mind.
Would you say that every crime is either a "rational" crime (if I don't do this, my child dies) or done by someone crazy? If so, I understand the heavy resistance of you and others here.
This is pretty much the definition of crazy, though apparently not self destructive because they survived.
I fully expect the death penalty if he doesn’t prematurely manage to commit suicide though.
By your definition, literally the entire human race is mentally ill. And if that is the case, then the word has no meaning.
I guess it depends on how angry I was?
Would you kill someone who slept with your wife? Regardless of your answer, it would be absurd to call everyone who did crazy.
In fact, courts never do.
I mean he could've sued them instead. Or publically call them out on it. Instead he went for the nuclear option and went on a killing spree. This is morally abject and I can't believe you're even suggesting it might be a fair action.
Mental instability can mean that something small is more likely to push someone much farther than it should.
Having your family killed gives you a strong motivation. Losing out on a bunch of money? That doesn’t even come close to being anything worth killing over. Let alone mass-murder.
That's liteally what an overreaction is.
The attacker possibly believed they weren't innocent which to me makes it seem like he was mentally unstable. There is some disconnect between what he believes and reality.