Always find it interesting how "objective journalism" always makes subjective statements about someone with a manifesto. If a guy claims he is sane, and did what he did to protect humanity--isn't it wrong to just assume the guy is crazy, because what he did was radical? Assume for a moment that he is correct, and the guy he shot was an alien, you're decrying the man without any investigation. Anything can be considered "paranoid" if you assume the claim is false. The article goes out of its way to make sure they say "if he did it" to avoid pre-judging before a verdict has been made--but then goes on to claim the dude was crazy and paranoid. It's almost as if, without a core set of principles, you can't truly be "objective".