Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

johnny karate said:
Yeah, okay. :rolleyes:

If any Republican politicians get attacked with a dart, we'll know who to blame.

In other news, several people were murdered. Maybe save your insensitive political bile for another time.
Click to expand...

How do you know that it was Gifford's who was targeted?

Thankfully, she's still alive.

However, Federal Judge John M. Roll, appointed by Republican George H W Bush, was killed.
 
TraneWreck said:
The one's that are located in my post that you responded to. You can tune into the news and hear them for yourself.

They're not facts established beyond a reasonable doubt, but we're also not on a jury right now.
Click to expand...

Oh, so facts don't matter unless there's a jury present? Wow :rolleyes:

Are you worried that our discussion her could taint the jury pool?
Click to expand...

You, as a defense trial lawyer, should be more concerned about that than me, I would think. At least, I would think that it could be a concern given how much attention this is getting in the wider media. That, and all the rampant speculation being slung about.

ETA: And once more, for those just joining the thread, would you care to list the facts of the incident or to at least link to where those facts are presented in this thread, counselor?
 
Last edited:
As long as we're speculating, I'll take a stab in dark:

Shooter tags a Democratic Congresswoman and a federal judge nominated by a Republican president (on the recommendation of John McCain). Book collection is a bit of a hodge-podge of anti-authoritarian, or at least anti-status quo, materials. He might be an atheist.

I don't know, but it doesn't seem too crazy to suggest that he might have an anti-authoritarian chip on his shoulder, more than anything else, particularly against governments, given that he shot a couple of high ranking officials. Could be Tea Party, but it's impossible to say - He talks a lot about mind control and stuff like that, so I'm guessing he might be more of Alex Jonesy-type "paleoconservative." But overall, I'd say his motivation was anti-governement/anti-authority.
 
deepatrax said:
How do you know that it was Gifford's who was targeted?
Click to expand...

Well gee, it's not a stretch to assume that the person who was shot first, at point blank range, in the back of the head, by the gunman, was the target...
 
Last edited:
slingblade said:
NO! Jesus, what kind of words are you trying to put in my mouth?

NO, none of that crap should be in it! NONE OF IT!

Happy now?
Click to expand...


I'll go the other way and say both are fine. This was done because of a deeply disturbed mind, not because of any overly-scrutinized symbols on a website.
 
Personally, I'm not interested in assigning blame outside of the actual assassin.

My hope is that one, small glimmer of good can come from this in that we can see a unification of both sides of the aisle in toning down the rhetoric.

And even if that does come to pass, it's still a terrible tragedy that it took something like this to make it happen.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Those are Target stores.
Click to expand...

I see...I see...

and this Democratic Leadership Council's strategy map is?

DLC-Targeting-map%5B1%5D.gif
 
By the way, I'd be just as upset if Palin herself had been the victim, even though I don't care for her politics, rhetoric, or sheer ignorance. She's still a person, still a wife and mother, and deserves to be safe from violence.

This was WRONG. Is anyone arguing politicians deserve to be shot, literally? They're people!
 
The Mutha said:
Well gee, it's not a stretch to assume that the person who was shot first, at point blank range, in the back of the head, by the gunman was the target...
Click to expand...

a Republican appointed Federal Judge has died.

who was the target again?
 
Drudgewire said:
I'll go the other way and say both are fine. This was done because of a deeply disturbed mind, not because of any overly-scrutinized symbols on a website.
Click to expand...

They are not fine with me, and I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone else here. You're equally entitled to disagree.

Targets and gun sights and cross hairs don't belong in ANY political message.

NOT ANY OF THEM.
 
deepatrax said:
a Republican appointed Federal Judge has died.

who was the target again?
Click to expand...

The woman who was shot point-blank in the back of the head. Under your logic; if an explosive failed to kill the Archduke but actually killed a bodyguard instead then the bodyguard was the target all along.
 
How anyone can read the YouTube videos he posted, his favorite books he cites...and then make a connection to Sarah Palin is beyond me...

Just who's the crazy one here?
 
johnny karate said:
Personally, I'm not interested in assigning blame outside of the actual assassin.

My hope is that one, small glimmer of good can come from this in that we can see a unification of both sides of the aisle in toning down the rhetoric.

And even if that does come to pass, it's still a terrible tragedy that it took something like this to make it happen.
Click to expand...

This. Well said, JK.
 
TraneWreck said:
Just out of curiosity, regardless of who this shooter was or hell, let's assume the shooting never happened, do you find Palin's crosshairs appropriate?
Click to expand...
Sure. It's a metaphor.

How about shooting M-16's at Giffords photo?
Click to expand...
Less so. It's not by any means criminal, but I don't think it's productive.

How about Angle and her "second amendment remedies?"
Click to expand...
Don't know what was actually said.

I can't speak for everyone on this board, but I have no interest in condemning all right leaning people for this crime, should the gunner turn out to motivated by such things, it's too early to know.
Click to expand...
The murderer was a murderer.

But I do have an interest in condemning all these people bringing guns to townhall meetings and calling Obama a muslim terrorist or babbling about death panels.
Click to expand...
"Condemning"?

We can disagree, we can even call each other ********, but we cannot, if we want to remain a civilized country, incite violence. It is clear to me that many figures on the right are doing just that.
Click to expand...
Then you don't know what incitement to violence is.

If Palin had said that people should shoot Giffords, she would have been arrested. She didn't say that, or anything resembling that. You'd need to be deeply irrational to reach such a conclusion. Perhaps the gunman did make such a conclusion. In that case, he's deeply irrational. You cannot possibly expect people to be held accountable for what the insane do in response to their words.

Well, you could I guess, but then you'd be deeply irrational too.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Oh, so facts don't matter unless there's a jury present? Wow :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now, do you honestly think that's what I meant, or are you just bored today and engaging in goofy bickering?

Facts always matter. The degree of certainty, however, is much different when deciding to put someone in prison for life vs. having a discussion on an internet forum.


MattusMaximus said:
You, as a defense trial lawyer, should be more concerned about that than me, I would think. At least, I would think that it could be a concern given how much attention this is getting in the wider media. That, and all the rampant speculation being slung about.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the neat thing about a trial. You actually get to present the best evidence.

As a defense attorney, news stories can cut both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom