Photo credit, property of Paramount Pictures, fair use
In the quintessential ‘90s hip hop film Juice, Tupac Shakur’s character “Bishop” acquires a revolver and his mental, emotional, and behavioral health begins to experience decompensation—a breakdown in an individual’s defense mechanisms, resulting in progressive loss of normal functioning or worsening of psychiatric symptoms.
Upon a cursory glance, one may inaccurately assume that the acquisition of a firearm is what led to Bishop’s deteriorated state. However, this isn’t the case. Although the revolver was correlated with Bishop’s nonadaptive behavior, the firearm didn’t cause his homicidal actions.
Addressing this topic in a blogpost entitled It Isn’t Always Mental Health, I stated, “Sometimes, heinous acts—no matter how incomprehensible—are just heinous acts. It isn’t always mental health.”
On occasion, and in the absence of a verifiable psychiatric condition, unproductive beliefs can cause people to commit harmful acts. This includes behavior associated with the killing of other individuals.
Examining this matter through the lens of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I consider the ABC model as an appropriate causal explanation for Bishop’s self-disturbed behavior. Perhaps a brief illustration of this model may aid in the process of understanding.
REBT theory maintains that when an unexpected Action occurs and a person uses an irrational Belief about the situation, it’s one’s unhelpful attitude and not the undesirable circumstance that causes unpleasant emotional, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
In one scene of Juice, Bishop confronts his former friend “Steel” about how he and “Q” are no longer as close as Bishop unproductively demands that they should, must, or ought to be. Demandingness of this sort represents one of the four major self-disturbing beliefs in REBT.
Because Bishop, Steel, and Q are no longer as closely associated (Action) as Bishops Believes they ought to be, Bishop shoots Steel to death (Consequence). Interestingly, Bishop’s Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection doesn’t involve anger – contrary to what one may expect.
In fact, prior to pulling the trigger Bishop is seen smiling. Thus, an individual’s self-disturbed disposition may not necessarily involve fear, anger, sorrow, disgust, or other commonly understood negative emotions.
Likewise, there’s no indication in the film that Bishop exhibited a genuine mental disorder. Although one may otherwise speculate, it would appear as though a clinically significant mental health condition wasn’t present. All the same, disturbance was present when Bishop shot Steel.
Rather than remaining self-disturbed, an individual using REBT is invited to practice Disputation which may lead to an Effective new belief that’s used in place of an unproductive self-narrative. With the ABC model, a person learns to stop needless suffering which is caused by unhelpful assumptions.
Given understanding about the ABC model, Bishop’s maladaptive B-C connection is what caused him to murder Steel – as opposed to a mental disorder. When further contemplating this matter, I’m reminded of the debut studio album Cypress Hill (1991) by legendary hip hop group Cypress Hill.
The anthology contained the track “How I Could Just Kill a Man,” which was featured in Juice. The chorus states in repetition, “Here is something you can’t understand, how I could just kill a man.”
The song is fitting in regard to the B-C connection and how people often misunderstand in what way other people become self-disturbed. Also, I find value in how the track acknowledges that some individuals fail to understand how anyone may take the life of another person.
To expound upon this matter, forgive me a personal anecdote. Shortly after arriving to my first duty station in Okinawa, Japan, a number of Marines gathered in a barracks room and discussed the act of killing.
“Would you be willing to kill a woman or a child who presented as a threat?” was a question posed to the group. Interestingly, a number of my fellow jarheads admitted that they couldn’t, or simply wouldn’t, take the life of anyone other than a man. That seemed bigoted to me.
“It may be easy enough to shoot someone from 500 yards out and with iron sights, when you can barely make out who the target is, but could you slit someone’s throat, up close and personal, with a Ka-Bar?” someone asked. Surprisingly, several devil dogs responded in the negative.
Personally, killing wasn’t something about which there would be much hesitation. Since childhood, I understood that whatever it was within a person that disallowed the taking of life (i.e., plants, animals, humans, and other), I didn’t maintain that in-actionable mechanism.
When discussing this matter with my fellow Marines in Okinawa, I found that a staggeringly low number of the leathernecks with whom I spoke were similar to me. I was in disbelief, because the Marine Corps was said to have been a service in which killing was accepted and expected.
Furthermore, it was apparent that most of the military members who participated in the conversation couldn’t understand how I could just kill a man. How was it possible that so few Marines, of those who were sampled, couldn’t understand people like me?
Regarding this matter, in 2001, Cypress Hill released the track “Here Is Something You Can’t Understand,” featuring rapper Kurupt. The song echoed similar sentiment as “How I Could Just Kill a Man.” However, there’s one point of distinction to be made concerning the act of killing.
According to one source, “To ‘kill’ means to make someone or something die. ‘Murder’ refers to the crime of deliberately causing someone’s death, while ‘assassinate’ refers to the act of taking the life of an important person.” Although seemingly trivial, not all killing is murderous.
In Juice, Bishop commits criminal homicide (murder) when shooting to death Steel. On the other hand, if when I was a Marine I’d been lawfully ordered to take an enemy combatant’s life (kill), then my actions wouldn’t constitute a homicidal event.
This brings me to the topic of Luigi Mangione, an individual who allegedly assassinated Brian Thompson who was the chief executive officer of UnitedHealthcare. Before I go any further, I think a unique disclaimer is in order.
I don’t know whether or not Mangione actually killed Thompson, as I maintain the standard of presumed innocence unless or until proven guilty in a court of law. Further, I don’t advocate killing, murdering, or assassinating people in the name of sociopolitical interests. Moving on.
I’ve paid close attention to the reaction of people who’ve praised, condemned, and remained ambivalent concerning Mangione’s alleged B-C connective behavior. Personally, it’s understandable how some people may outright condemn the apparent assassination.
Similarly, I can comprehend how some people maintain conflicted views regarding this matter. On one hand, these individuals despise the health insurance industry and on the other hand, they may not condone homicidal behavior. Most people that I’ve observed have fallen into this category.
Perhaps somewhat difficult for many people to understand is how anyone would gleefully praise Mangione’s alleged actions. While I don’t align with the cohort of people who adore the actions which led to Thompson’s apparent assassination, I can comprehend their logic and reasoning.
It’s worth noting that in order for a proposition to be considered rational it must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. To better understand this dynamic, consider the following syllogism:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If an individual is committing a morally and ethically wrong action, then the person absolutely must be stopped.
If the person absolutely must be stopped, then killing the individual is an appropriate response.
Therefore, if an individual is committing a morally and ethically wrong action, then killing the individual is an appropriate response.
This proposition follows logical form. However, I wonder about whether or not you consider the conclusion of its premises to be reasonable. How might we evaluate whether or not the proposition is both logical and reasonable?
For context, that which is “moral” is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. That which is “ethical” adheres to principles of conduct which are based on morals. As an example, I consider it morally wrong to murder. Therefore, my ethical principle is to not commit murder.
Now, let’s substitute different scenarios in place of the above syllogistic variables. Consider Bishop’s imagined proposition. To him, Q and Steel committed immoral and unethical actions when distancing themselves from their friend who was psychologically decompensating.
Using an absolutistic must belief, stopping Q and Steel from continuing their course of behavior meant that killing was called for. Given Bishop’s position, would you consider his proposition to be rational?
I wouldn’t, because there were many other options which he could’ve taken instead of murder. For instance, Bishop could’ve unconditionally accepted that his former friends – who were fallible human beings – were worth letting go of while Bishop could’ve moved on with his life.
Turning from Bishop’s scenario, I now invite you to consider military rules of engagement—directives which outline the circumstances and limitations under which military personnel may utilize deadly force. The logical conclusion worth considering here is the act of killing.
For instance, use of a modus ponens syllogism represents that if p, then q; p; therefore q. In specific, (p) if a Marine has been cleared to use deadly force when incoming hostile fire is received (i.e., being shot at), (q) then the Marine is authorized to kill whoever does the shooting.
Presumably, it isn’t a morally or ethically righteous action to shoot at a Marine who guards a stateside military installation. Therefore, one may conclude that whoever engages in such shooting absolutely must be stopped by way of killing the individual as an appropriate response.
Although I have little doubt that some people would disagree, I consider this to be a rational proposition. Of course, that which is considered reasonable is subjective in nature. As such, some individuals may propose that use of violence for any given situation is unreasonable.
In any case, I now turn the Marine scenario to that of Mangione’s alleged B-C connective behavior. Here, I’m offering conjecture in the place of factual evidence and solely for the sake of a psychoeducation lesson. (I’m not otherwise making any definitive claims.)
One imagines that (p) if individual X proposes that person Y’s immoral and unethical actions have resulted in the death of hundreds to thousands of people through denial of insurance claims, (q) then individual X may conclude that person Y absolutistically must be stopped by way of assassination.
Here is something you can’t understand if you maintain different morals and ethics than individual X. In particular, you may not be able to fathom how individual X could just kill a man.
Yet, what I hope to demonstrate herein is a case for how some people may consider it a rational decision to kill, murder, or assassinate other individuals – all based on what moral and ethical principles are being used. One doesn’t have to agree with this line of thinking in order to understand it.
This is where the standard of a reasonable and prudent person serves as a challenge to the action of killing – regardless of the classification under which such behavior falls. Concerning this matter, one source states:
The legal definition [of a] reasonable person standard hinges on what’s considered typical behavior. In legal terms, ‘reasonable’ means ordinary. The court considers the usual behavior of an average person under the same circumstances […] A ‘reasonably prudent person’ is someone meeting the reasonable person standard. The courts consider whether the person used common sense under the circumstances.
Regarding the case of Mangione, one imagines that prosecutors will face the challenge of subjectively diverse morals and ethics when bringing to bear justice, because some reasonably prudent persons may believe it’s logically and reasonably sound to kill one individual in order to stop the perceivably deadly behavior regarding hundreds or thousands of other people.
Again, I don’t condone or advocate this position. Rather, I can understand how people may arrive at that conclusion. When practicing REBT in my personal and professional life, understanding how and why people respond the way that they do is important.
Equally, it’s a challenge to my practice with clients with differing morals and ethics create a perceivably logical and reasonable proposition that doesn’t quite comport with a reasonably prudent person standard. Therefore, I routinely practice REBT in order to increase my skills of persuasion.
For instance, I’ve not attempted to persuade you of one moral or ethical position over another herein. Instead, I hope to have convinced you that there are people’s actions which you may not have previously understood and with which you may disagree, though these individuals can genuinely consider it moral and ethical to take another person’s life.
Bear in mind that merely understanding a matter does little in the way of addressing the larger issue of individual versus collective actions which are deemed good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise. Still, that topic is for another blogpost at some point in the future.
In closing, here is something you can hopefully understand – even if disagreeing with the framework of logic and reason upon which a proposition rests. Some people consider killing, murdering, and assassinating other individuals as a moral and ethical good.
Although I work diligently to dispute irrational beliefs which cause unhelpful B-C connections, some people simply maintain differing moral and ethical perspectives. Importantly, such divergence in principles isn’t necessarily indicative of a mental disorder.
When Bishop shot Steel and smiled shortly before doing so, one imagines that the character considered his actions morally and ethically justified. Personally, I disagree.
While you may argue that the current blogpost supports a moral relativist position, I’m merely highlighting that not everyone shares the same values. Ultimately, understanding this truthful claim is a step in the direction to – even if only at minimal – comprehending how it is that someone can just kill a man.
A number of Marines with whom I once served didn’t understand this fact, nor do many people in regard to Mangione’s apparent case of criminal homicide. In any event, on the last verse of “How I Could Just Kill a Man,” rapper B-Real of Cypress Hill states:
It’s gonna be a long time before I finish
One of the many missions that I have to establish
To light my spliff, ignite ya with insights
And if you ain’t down: bullshit!
Hopefully, it’ll be a long time before I finish trying to foster understanding in people, as I’ve made it one of my missions in life to do so. Perhaps I’ve ignited your insight herein. Then again, if you ain’t down with what I’ve outlined, well… you know the rest.
If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As the world’s foremost hip hop-influenced REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Acidtrips. (2007, October 21). Down. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=down
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Decompensation. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/decompensation
Bean, trivia queen. (2015, January 7). Spliff. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from
Cypress Hill. (2017, January 25). Here Is Something You Can’t Understand (Explicit) [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/RDwAODhXrPI?si=hSAMMlOtZFECoy_U
Hollings, D. (2024, October 18). ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/abc-model
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, June 20). Insurance coverage and lengthy wait times. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/insurance-coverage-and-lengthy-wait-times
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, April 29). It isn’t always mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/it-isn-t-always-mental-health
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Nonadaptive behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonadaptive-behavior
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, March 14). REBT and emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-and-emotions
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2024, February 27). Suffering, struggling, and battling vs. experiencing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/suffering-struggling-and-battling-vs-experiencing
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, November 2). The critical A. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-critical-a
Hollings, D. (2024, September 17). The E-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-e-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2024, October 20). Unconditional acceptance redux. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance-redux
Hollings, D. (2024, March 18). Unhealthy vs. healthy negative emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unhealthy-vs-healthy-negative-emotions
IMDb. (n.d.). Juice (1992) Tupac Shakur in Juice (1992) [Image]. Retrieved from https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0104573/mediaviewer/rm3825702657/
Johnniewalker23. (2009, October 17). Cypress Hill - How I Could Just Kill a Man [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/a8O_nX1VrSg?si=KsgWI8o1MDAxT1k4
Kutner, A. S. (n.d.). Reasonable person standard. Adam S. Kutner Injury Attorneys. Retrieved from https://www.askadamskutner.com/las-vegas-personal-injury-lawyers/reasonable-person-standard/
LanGeek. (n.d.). Kill vs. murder vs. assassinate. Retrieved from https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/1738/kill-vs-murder-vs-assassinate
Mr1990s. (2022, April 23). Juice 1992 - Bishop shoots steel [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ZdKt7nLUfiM?si=ndP_6mcgr-xNSzLs
Wikipedia. (n.d.). B-Real. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-Real
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Brian Thompson (businessman). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Thompson_(businessman)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Cypress Hill. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypress_Hill
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Cypress Hill (album). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypress_Hill_(album)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). How I Could Just Kill a Man. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_I_Could_Just_Kill_a_Man
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Juice (1992 film). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juice_(1992_film)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ka-Bar. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka-Bar#:~:text=Ka%2DBar%20(/%CB%88k,subsidiary%20of%20the%20Cutco%20Corporation.
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Killing of Brian Thompson. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Brian_Thompson
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Kurupt. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurupt
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Luigi Mangione. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Mangione
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Moral relativism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Tupac Shakur. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur
Comments