Nora Demleitner: Lewiston Shooting and Military Responsibility, Legal Accountability, Causation, and Prevention

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/01/26

Nora Demleitner is a leading legal scholar specializing in criminal law, sentencing, comparative law, and institutional responsibility within justice systems. She has held senior academic leadership roles and is widely recognized for her work on punishment theory, proportionality, and the interaction between law, public policy, and social harm. Demleitner’s scholarship frequently examines how legal systems respond to extreme cases, including violence, systemic failure, and state accountability. Known for her careful, evidence-based approach, she brings a nuanced perspective to questions of causation, prevention, and institutional duty, particularly where criminal law intersects with civil liability and public safety.

In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Nora Demleitner about the legal, moral, and institutional implications of the 2023 Lewiston, Maine mass shooting. Demleitner explains why the case is likely to unfold as civil litigation rather than a criminal prosecution and explores whether the U.S. military had legal tools to prevent the attack by a reservist known to be experiencing mental health distress. They examine causation versus prevention, the limits of institutional control over reservists, firearm access, and the difficulty of assigning responsibility for failures to act. The discussion situates the case within broader debates on gun policy, mental health, and state accountability.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I will make sure this is at the top of the interview. The Maine shooting refers to the Lewiston mass shooting on October 25, 2023, in which a lone gunman opened fire at two locations in Lewiston, Maine: the Just-In-Time Recreation bowling alley and Schemengees Bar & Grille.

Eighteen people were killed, and thirteen were wounded. It was the deadliest mass shooting in Maine’s history. Police identified a suspect named Robert Card, a U.S. Army reservist, and the shootings triggered an extensive, multi-day search.

The card was found dead on October 27, 2023, after the search. The cause of death was an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound, and authorities said he was found near a recycling facility in Lisbon, Maine, where he had recently worked. This ended the search.

This is a dramatic case. Legally speaking, and culturally as well, what is the significance of record-level individual cases such as mass shootings? What do they potentially do in setting precedent in the legal system in a city or a state?

Nora Demleitner: Let me start with a personal note. I am an alum of Bates College. Bates was not directly impacted, but during the days of that shooting, I think anybody connected to the Bates community, or who has ever lived in Lewiston, felt their heart go out to a community that you would never expect to be the target of a mass shooting.

In terms of legal consequences, the first place to look is the criminal justice system if the shooter is identified and arrested. From a criminal perspective, those cases are usually not difficult to prove as long as the forensic evidence is present; the proof of guilt is generally overwhelming.

This is not a criminal case because Mr. Card died before he could be arrested. This is a civil context. It is not the only time we have seen civil cases, but this could be one of the most significant cases against the military in a very unusual context.

We are also seeing criminal accountability efforts tied to police response in other cases. In Uvalde, for example, a former school district police officer has been charged with multiple counts of child endangerment related to the law enforcement response.

The question is whether the courts ultimately reach a judgment here and whether that judgment changes the legal standards. The military has reported changes to some procedures and internal practices following investigations into the Lewiston case.

You can imagine a case in which a military reservist poses no challenges, and the military has no issues, with no connection between the two.

Here, the situation is different. The military had been alerted to severe mental health concerns, and the litigation is against the government, a deep-pocketed institution. This could be a path-breaking case in many ways.

Jacobsen: A key fact is the distinction between a full-time member of the military and a part-time member, meaning the distinction between an active-duty service member and a reservist. An active-duty member is fully absorbed into the position, while a reservist can still hold a civilian job, and many do.

They also receive benefits from being part of the U.S. military. As a reservist, there is often less direct and indirect military control than with active-duty members. Does the reservist status of Mr. Card complicate this case morally as well as legally?

Demleitner: Legally, there will undoubtedly be questions about what control the military had and what it could have done. One question will be whether the military could have influenced or required a particular medical regimen. They could have removed him from the military if they had found that necessary.

That would not necessarily have prevented the killings, so removal alone would not have been a solution. The question is whether the military had tools at its disposal that could have prevented the shooting.

There are two obvious areas. One concerns weapons. My understanding is that most of the weapons used were his privately owned firearms, over which the military had no direct control. Military-issued weapons are a different matter; the military can retain those.

The other area concerns mental health treatment and how much control the military has over that. As you noted, the military has substantial control over treatment decisions and requirements for active-duty service members. For reservists, that control is more limited, aside from separation from service.

In this case, the military ultimately determined during training that it did not have the tools to address his mental health condition and referred him to a private facility in the area. That facility later discharged him, apparently concluding that he was stable. That decision limited the tools available to the military.

One of the central questions will be the interaction between private medical decision-making, the consequences for the military, and what happens afterward. This is why the case is potentially path-breaking. Increasing the military’s responsibility for reservists would fundamentally change the relationship, oversight, and obligations involved, potentially moving it closer to the standards applied to full-time service members.

Jacobsen: That also changes the nature of the relationship between the military and civil society, because it represents a greater intrusion into a reservist’s life. There is also a question of causation and free will. We can examine environmental and institutional influences on an individual’s mental state. However, there is also the fundamental fact that Mr. Card made a choice and killed eighteen people and wounded thirteen, and later took his own life.

The issue is how far mental health can be attributed to environmental or institutional influence when assessing institutional responsibility. Some mental health conditions have strong hereditary components, while environmental triggers more strongly influence others. Where conditions are more environmentally driven, institutional chains of responsibility may be stronger. Where conditions are highly heritable, arguments assigning institutional fault may be weaker.

How innate factors and institutional factors are weighed in this case goes directly to questions of causation and free will.

Demleitner: I would distinguish between two different types of causation. One concerns the origin of the mental health condition itself, which is what you are pointing to when you ask whether it was inherited and to what degree. None of this is 100% determinative.

There is no public indication that Mr. Card suffered from a concussion-based injury like those documented in some former professional athletes. There are indications that something affected his mental state, and there has been discussion about whether military service, firearms training, or weapons use may have contributed. That form of causation is unlikely to be central in the litigation, because such cases are complicated to prove.

The causation question that will matter here concerns prevention. Independent of how he came to have a serious mental health condition, was there someone who could have stopped the harm from occurring? That is the crucial issue.

The legal questions will be whether the military had the necessary legal tools, whether it had sufficient knowledge, and whether using those tools would likely have prevented the shooting. Related to that is the extent to which a failure to act contributed to what ultimately occurred.

The military is not the only institution that failed to act. A family member has publicly stated that many people share moral, not legal, responsibility, since the family alerted multiple parties. Local law enforcement was also alerted. Under Maine law at the time, police may have been able to seek temporary removal of firearms. It is possible that this could have prevented the shooting, but it is not certain.

We do not know whether law enforcement would have removed all weapons, whether the process would have accelerated events, or whether he could have obtained firearms through other means. These counterfactuals are impossible to resolve with certainty.

In tort law, causation is always a central question. The claim here is not that institutions caused harm through action, but that they bear responsibility for failing to act.

Jacobsen: In Canada, civilian firearms ownership is regulated more strictly than in the United States. Canada has millions of firearms and licensed owners, but civilian ownership is subject to national licensing requirements, and most firearms are tied to individual license holders rather than circulating broadly.

In the United States, civilian firearm ownership is far higher overall, with estimates commonly exceeding four hundred million privately owned guns, and registration requirements vary widely by state, with many firearms unregistered. A far larger proportion of civilian guns in Canada are regulated through licensing and registration than in the United States.

Does the lack of comprehensive registration laws in the U.S. factor into cases like this? Related to that, to what extent do we know whether this was a premeditated act versus an impulsive one?

Demleitner: Let me take the second question first. Mr. Card reportedly stated at one point that he had a “hit list.” What that meant precisely is unclear. Targeting public places such as a restaurant and a bowling alley does not align neatly with a list of specific individuals, but it does suggest sustained ideation about harming others.

In cases like this, individuals generally do not simply snap without prior thought. Reaching this point typically requires preparation. One of the issues raised by your question about firearms is that when weapons are readily available, there are fewer barriers to acting on violent intent.

In countries where firearms are harder to obtain, acquiring a weapon is an additional step that can delay or interrupt violence, sometimes allowing others to intervene. In this case, Mr. Card already had multiple firearms available to him.

Gun ownership itself is not unusual in Maine, particularly for hunting, and military service also makes firearm familiarity unsurprising. What stands out statistically in the United States is not merely gun ownership, but the accumulation of large numbers of firearms by some individuals. Most gun owners possess more than one firearm, but in some cases, including this one, individuals acquire extensive arsenals that raise questions about risk.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions have made it more difficult for states to impose broad gun restrictions. However, they have preserved the ability to remove firearms from individuals who pose a demonstrated threat, including in cases involving domestic violence restraining orders and mental health concerns.

There are legal tools available for governments to attempt to prevent shootings. However, it is significantly harder to remove firearms from someone who already possesses them than it is to prevent acquisition in the first place.

Jacobsen: When you look at these cases, are there common themes among record-breaking, state-level mass shooters? Do you see slow development over time, ownership of more firearms than the average U.S. civilian, and familiar patterns of male-typical violence?

We know from school mass shooting research that adolescence, particularly the mid-to-late teenage years, is a critical period, with perpetrators disproportionately male. Patterns differ across contexts, however. Are there recurring indicators you see among adult mass shooters in the general population?

Demleitner: You have already identified several of the recurring patterns. Gender is one of the most consistent factors; perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. Race is more variable. Statistically, mass shooters are more often white, but that does not mean perpetrators cannot be African American, Hispanic, or from other backgrounds.

Mental health issues appear in many cases, though not all. When they do occur, they are rarely sudden. In many cases, others have noticed a deterioration over time. Friends or family may be in denial, but signs are often visible.

You also frequently see social withdrawal. In Mr. Card’s case, reports indicated that he became increasingly isolated in the weeks leading up to the shooting, distancing himself from family and friends. This pattern appears in many cases.

Often, it is unclear whether an individual poses a danger to themselves or to others. There may be a sense of grievance, paranoia, or beliefs about being watched or targeted, which can be associated with certain mental health conditions.

It is critical to emphasize that the vast majority of people with mental health conditions do not commit acts of mass violence. People with mental illness are far more likely to be victims, or to harm themselves, than to harm others. That distinction is essential.

That said, warning signs are often noticed. Access to weapons becomes a crucial factor, whether individuals already possess firearms, acquire additional ones over time, or obtain them through other means. In some school shooting cases, firearms were taken from family members. In adult cases, individuals often already have weapons and may accumulate more.

Functioning typically deteriorates. You do not usually see someone functioning normally at work and then suddenly committing a mass shooting the same day. Something else is going on beneath the surface.

You also rarely see individuals actively engaged in effective, ongoing treatment at the time of the attack. Often, they have withdrawn from care, frequently by their own choice, after pushing others away.

Another common factor is social isolation. Many perpetrators are single or living alone. Living with others makes planning more difficult, whereas isolation can facilitate concealment and preparation.

Jacobsen: See no evil, hear no evil. Have there been any studies or uses in a legal context of the following thought experiment?

Individuals are screened for mental health issues before entering the military, for good reason. It is an extreme environment, particularly during basic training or special forces training.

You then have several populations: the general population with baseline levels of mental health issues; individuals who have passed military screening and are serving; and a subgroup within that population who develop mental health problems after exposure to the military environment. We could further restrict it to active-duty members, though this case involves a reservist.

Would we expect statistically significant differences between those who have been screened and later act out violently within the military context, compared to the general population? Could a statistically grounded argument be made that aspects of the military environment induce mental health conditions that increase the likelihood of certain forms of violence? Could something like that even hold up in court?

Demleitner: That would not be easy. It would be an interesting study for a psychologist, but it is hard to translate into a courtroom context because courts deal with individual cases, not population-level abstractions.

The legal question returns to what actually triggered this for him. The military presumably has records from when he applied and was admitted. This is not the age range where psychotic breaks typically occur, which often happens in the late teens through the twenties. This occurred later.

That timing contributed to speculation that firearms use or high-pressure training might have caused a brain injury that interacted with other factors. The military has emphasized that he never deployed and did not show the types of combat-related brain injuries, PTSD, or patterns of self-medication seen in some veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.

Because he did not deploy, he would not have been flagged for heightened monitoring or concern under typical military protocols.

If anything, one would expect higher rates of mental health issues, though not necessarily violence, among individuals who deployed multiple times to intense combat zones. Comparisons across wars are difficult. World War II veterans are often described as returning less visibly traumatized, but those conflicts were fundamentally different from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is hard to draw causal conclusions across different military environments unless there is a specific, traceable injury. That is not the case here.

Absent combat exposure, I am not aware of evidence showing that military service produces higher rates of mental health issues than the general population. However, I have not seen definitive studies either way.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?

Demleitner: This will be a fascinating case to follow. Many cases are competing for attention, but this one raises fundamental questions.

Jacobsen: Especially in depth.

Demleitner: Yes. The relationship between the military and its non-permanent members will be a central issue.

Jacobsen: Nora, thank you very much for your time and expertise. It was a pleasure to meet you. 

Demleitner: No worries at all. 

Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you very much.

Demleitner: Thank you.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.