- Aderonke’s asylum case rejected - 5 April, 2015
- EU ends invasive sexuality tests for asylum seekers - 10 December, 2014
- First US space woman Sally Ride hid sexuality over employment fears - 5 June, 2014
A Fox News pundit who appeared to say that California shooter Elliot Rodger acted on ‘homosexual impulses’ claims she was misunderstood.
Psychotherapist Dr. Robi Ludwig said on the show Justice with Judge Jeanine on Saturday that 22-year old Rodger, the suspect believed responsible for a mass shooting in Santa Barbara, had ‘homosexual impulses’.
Also stating that she thought Rodger could have been showing early signs of schizophrenia, Ludwig theorised that his motives were that ‘he’s angry with women because they were taking away men from him’.
She said: ‘When I was first listening to him, I was like, “Oh, he’s angry with women for rejecting him,” and then I started to have a different idea: Is this somebody who is trying to fight against his homosexual impulses?
‘Was he angry with women because they were taking away men from him? Was he angry at the men for not choosing him?’
Rodger, the suspect who is thought to have killed six people and injured many more in Isla Vista, had posted a YouTube video prior to the killings. In the video, he says: ‘I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you.’
Ludwig today posted a message on Facebook claiming her comments were ‘misunderstood’. She then re-edited her post two hours later to include: ‘I apologize to all those who felt offended.’
She wrote: ‘I was misunderstood on @FoxNews this weekend, when I was asked to hypothesize several factors which could have triggered #ElliotRoger’s spree killing.
‘I in NO way meant to indicate being a homosexual or having homosexual impulses is a cause for spree killing.
‘My job on @judgejeanine was to asses several possible triggers for #ElliotRoger and his behaviour #peace #forequalrights’.
According to the New Civil Rights movement, the rules of the American Psychological Association prohibit members ‘from diagnosing patients or public figures they have not personally examined’.