I'm listening to CNN babble on about the police deputy in Wisconsin who got
all disgruntled after a chick dissed him at a teenage party he was busting
and went bezerk and started shooting everyone.

The biggest question is how this could happen, since the berzerko deputy
passed the rigorous background check required of law-enforcement officers,
and was also screened by some multiple-choice "psychological profile" exam
that is scored by computer. Not only must the applicant prove that he has
no prior criminal convictions, he must also prove his mental and moral
superiority by submitting some sort of psychological examination, which
almost always includes some sort of computer-scored test which purports to
detect what a person is thinking. The deputy took a 15-minute multiple-
choice test, then the scan-tron was fed into a "Dr.-fucking-Phil-in-a-box"
scoring device that used complex magic psychological statistic algorithms
to determine that he was pure in mind and soul and 99.78206%% unlikely to
commit acts of mass murder, and therefore qualified to carry a firearm.

What is the legal liability in cases like this? If a real "Dr." Phil's
opinion affected your employment you could appeal and cross-examine him
in court where he would have to explain why he deemed you mentally unfit.
And if he examined you and proclaimed you as mentally hygienic but you
weren't and went on a mass murder spree, then relatives of the murder
victims might be able to sue him for malpractice or perjury. But who is
liable when a "Dr.-fucking-Phil-in-a-box" malfunctions and incorrectly
assesses someone's violent tendencies? Is the manufacturer of the device
responsible or is the real "Dr." Phil who programmed the mental hygiene
algorithms responsible? Or do both parties avoid liability by blaming the
technician who administered the test or perhaps the #2 pencils that were
used on the scan-tron forms?