Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

case#46cw39 said:
Well, evidence is mounting that he is not insane, in accordance with legal definition.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/11/arizona.shooting/

CNN reports
Lawyers: Insanity Defense Won’t Work

The alleged shooter in Saturday’s deadly Tucson massacre may have difficulty making the case for a successful insanity plea, experts said Tuesday. ... With the “amount of planning that went into this assassination,” Callan believes “it’s highly unlikely he will meet the legal insanity defense threshold.”

“It’s very hard to prove insanity at trial,” Callan said. “You really have to prove that your mental illness is so severe that you don’t even understand that you’re committing a criminal act. And It’s almost impossible to prove that.” ... Gardere emphasized that “premeditation will work against him in this one as far as getting an insanity plea.”

This is due to the envelope found in his safe with Giffords name on it, "planned it", and "my assassination", along with his signature.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't count on a couple of words in a notebook like, I'm sorry, overriding the significance of the severity of his delusions. Maybe if he had a poor man's public defender and was railroaded by the prosecutor. But we'll see. There are many paranoid schizophrenics locked up in mental hospitals because their disease makes them dangerous. I do believe the precedent is probably mental hospital lock up. Prisons are not well equipped to manage schizophrenics, though some are in such institutions. I remember the very sad case of a state on the East coast who let a paranoid schizophrenic out on the streets because they were not equipped to manage him, and the man killed a child that night. The family was unable to sue the state which had a law exempting itself from liability.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It's not that I won't respond. It's that I haven't had time to read every page of the thread. I've tried to find replies to my comments but I'm sure I've missed many of them.
Click to expand...

That's fair. Sorry for the slimy attention-grabbing antics :D

It's not true that schizophrenics frequently rant about the Constitution and currency especially together. They frequently incorporate religion and government themes in their delusions. With paranoia of some schizophrenics, symbols of power and control are almost always seen in their delusions.
Click to expand...

What's true is people w/thought disorders have common themes and innumerable symbols, whether those are based on power, religion, politics ... whatever, really.

The Constitution has been a very recent media theme pushed by the Tea Party, as well as some coverage of Ron Pauls' currency, Federal Reserve and gold standard focus.
Click to expand...

Too easy to rule theses themes out as coincidence. But I'll pretend/fantasize this holds as true: if the guy was feeling homicidal and already was focused on the gov't (likely), then would you say that Ron Paul's innocuous "currency" rhetoric triggered this guy to murder people? Of course not. Currency is just currency. Nothing innately evil about currency. That would be silly.

The maniac killed a gov't official because he's stark-raving mad, not because of Ron Paul or someone else's constitution-based rhetoric.

You didn't hear that much in the way of claims about unconstitutional laws during Bush's campaigns.
Click to expand...

There were crazy people ranting about Bush and his cabinet being killers who are deserving of violent deaths. With luck and good security measures, those crazies just happened not to nab Bush and co. ... of course there was that one guy who threw the grenade that was a dud. And that awesome shoe incident.

But can the incessant "fear the government" campaign tactic also increase the likelihood such an unstable person will act out their paranoia? Yes.
Click to expand...

Where are your APA-approved studies to back this assertion?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Good grief, one might think from this you hadn't followed the discussion here at all.
Click to expand...

I tend to skip your posts, they seem to be all about your own personal war against Republicans.

I don't see what talking about Bush 43 has anything to do with Loughner's crime.
 
Xulld said:
Excuse me.

One question. Even if we did decide that he was falling all over himself listening to, and accepting any given parties rhetoric, at what point does sharing the same political affiliation lead to a share in the blame for a murder?
Click to expand...

When the talking points of the party involves telling people to arm themselves and prepare to use "second amendment remedies."
 
thaiboxerken said:
When the talking points of the party involves telling people to arm themselves and prepare to use "second amendment remedies."
Click to expand...

Or when the leader of the Democrat Party Barack Obama says that people on the other side of the political spectrum are "enemies" and "hostage takers" and that "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"
 
thaiboxerken said:
Then Beck goes on to say that the "liberals" want to ban guns, bad language and bad thoughts using this assassination attempt as an excuse.........
Click to expand...

Well it sounds like some of them are doing that and do want those things ... minus the bad language, which is more of a RW thing.
 
deepatrax said:
Or when the leader of the Democrat Party Barack Obama says that people on the other side of the political spectrum are "enemies" and "hostage takers" and that "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"
Click to expand...

Obama was talking metaphorically.
Sharon Angle was talking literally. There is a difference.
 
thaiboxerken said:
When the talking points of the party involves telling people to arm themselves and prepare to use "second amendment remedies."
Click to expand...

Links? I have seen the Palin thing, she disgusts me, however I do not hold her up as any leader in the Republican party. She is an individual who is at the bottom of the barrel right now and for good reason.

Also even if a leader did say explicitly, we should kill this lady, someone should assassinate her, how would that be anyone's responsibility expect the shooter for shooting, and the person commenting on Their comments?

Inciting is a specific charge and its possible someone could say Palin was inciting, but seriously do not be that guy who turns this into a Us Vs them debate about parties.

No where in any republican brochure I have read does it say kill liberals and go to heaven, man I wish it did that might be worth 45 pages.
 
ProbeX said:
Well it sounds like some of them are doing that and do want those things ... minus the bad language, which is more of a RW thing.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't sound like that. There is a wonder, though, as to whether the assault gun ban expiration may have been a bad thing to let happen. Gun restriction/control is not a gun ban.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Obama was talking metaphorically.
Sharon Angle was talking literally. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

I've repeatedly said Angle's comment was out of bounds.

no excuse for it.

I can see the difference between metaphor and plain wreckless stupidity

most of what both sides do is just hyperbole and metaphor
 
Xulld said:
Links? I have seen the Palin thing, she disgusts me, however I do not hold her up as any leader in the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Sharron Angle definitely floated the idea of a violent revolution.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

Palin did not, she used violent metaphor. However, I disagree about Palin not being a Republican leader. She may not have political office, but she certainly has quite a bit of political pull.

Also even if a leader did say explicitly, we should kill this lady, someone should assassinate her, how would that be anyone's responsibility expect the shooter for shooting, and the person commenting on Their comments?
Click to expand...

When a mafia leader tells his goons to go kill someone, is that leader innocent?

I don't think Angle or the other talkers are guilty in any criminal sense. They are, however, guilty in the same way that Bill O'Relly was when that abortion doctor was killed in Kansas. These people are building a culture that encourages hate, anger and violence.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Sharron Angle definitely floated the idea of a violent revolution.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

Palin did not, she used violent metaphor. However, I disagree about Palin not being a Republican leader. She may not have political office, but she certainly has quite a bit of political pull.



When a mafia leader tells his goons to go kill someone, is that leader innocent?

I don't think Angle or the other talkers are guilty in any criminal sense. They are, however, guilty in the same way that Bill O'Relly was when that abortion doctor was killed in Kansas. These people are building a culture that encourages hate, anger and violence.
Click to expand...

Palin's rhetoric isn't any more extreme than that of Obama, the DCCC, and Democrat politicians who used crosshair ads for their Republican opponents.
 
thaiboxerken said:
No, it doesn't sound like that. There is a wonder, though, as to whether the assault gun ban expiration may have been a bad thing to let happen. Gun restriction/control is not a gun ban.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. Notice my qualifier: some.

People with an anti-gun agenda - often, but not always, liberal - haven't evaporated. Some are presently making Giffords their personal battle cry.

I happen to live in Northern Cali and many here are quite liberal and are "up in arms" (pun! Yah!) about the mere existence of guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom