• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Arizona shooter pleads not guilty

In order for the insanity defense to provide any significant impact on the verdict, it must be proven that the defendant was unable to tell right from wrong. What with his videos and notes, he's not going to have a prayer of meeting that criterion.
 
I can imagine him trying to hash out his defense with the big attorney assigned to him:

"So what is justice if grammar is tyranny?"

"Are you my lawyer or a grapefruit to soulful pleading?"

"If words are chains then do fruit flies cry when their babies die?"

"Maybe the judge will like it we claim the gold fringe flag is stealing souls that don't really exist?"

"Are you daring me to be more socially retarded with that come-hither scowl?"
 
Thunder said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congresswoman_shot


I thought he wasn't even going to trial, due to his clear mental illness.

Looks like he is indeed gonna face trial for his crimes.
Click to expand...

Didn't Timothy McVeigh plead not guilty for the same sort of soldier in a war-against-the- government mentality?

Thinking that the government is controlling grammar is just a stone's throw from thinking W. invaded Iraq to take its oil for Dick Cheney. If this guy is insane, then maybe Michael Savage has a point that liberalism is a mental illness.

If we consider this person insane, then a lot of people who are almost just as nuts will have to be taken to a mental hospital. Then no one will be left to vote for a Democrat.

Even Ted Kaczynski is in prison instead of a mental hospital.

These guys have a hard time when confronted with logic and facts. And they are supposed to be "sane":

 
Last edited:
IS the insanity defence more common in the US than the UK? A M'Nachton verdict (not guilty by reason of insanity) is pretty rare here. The more usual verdict is a Section 2 Manslaughter (diminished responsibility).
 
sarge said:
It is unlikely that the judge would have accepted any other plea at this point. "Not Guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "I didn't do it".
Click to expand...

Bingo. At arraignment you always plead not guilty. At least almost always. All it means is that you wish to put the government to its burden of proof. Pleading guilty requires a somewhat lengthy hearing where the judge has to be satisfied that the plea is completely voluntary. With mental competency in play had he wanted to plead guilty the judge would probably enter a not guilty plea on his behalf and defer the issue until an evaluation is done.

This differs by state, but that is the general idea...
 
Bill Thompson said:
Thinking that the government is controlling grammar is just a stone's throw from thinking W. invaded Iraq to take its oil for Dick Cheney. If this guy is insane, then maybe Michael Savage has a point that liberalism is a mental illness.

If we consider this person insane, then a lot of people who are almost just as nuts will have to be taken to a mental hospital. Then no one will be left to vote for a Democrat.
Click to expand...
This makes it hard for me to believe that Loughner is too long out to lunch to be convicted.

There is no logical connection between any of your statements.

If you are "normal," loughner is screwed.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
IS the insanity defence more common in the US than the UK? A M'Nachton verdict (not guilty by reason of insanity) is pretty rare here. The more usual verdict is a Section 2 Manslaughter (diminished responsibility).
Click to expand...

Actually it's extremely rare in the US as well, and it works very rarely as well. There are several high-profile cases of it being used, or the public thinking it was which contributes to the general perception that it's more common than it actually is.

The first time it was successfully used in the US was a politician who found his wife cheating on him and then planned out the murder of the lover. 'Temporary insanity' was the successful defense, even though by modern standards he was guilty as all hell.
 
one person here has already suggested that Loughner was legally not responsible for the murders and attempted assassination, simply due to his apparent mental illness.
 
leftysergeant said:
This makes it hard for me to believe that Loughner is too long out to lunch to be convicted.

There is no logical connection between any of your statements.

If you are "normal," loughner is screwed.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more but I was hoping everyone would just ignore Mr. Thompson's obvious and awful baiting. I have not for the life of me been able to figure out why people have to attach this event to a political party. It is really sad and delusional behavior.

On the local NPR show this morning they said that Mr. Loughner's attorney has no objection to moving the trial to Tucson. I might have a front row seat for this event.
 
Thunder said:
one person here has already suggested that Loughner was legally not responsible for the murders and attempted assassination, simply due to his apparent mental illness.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me, it's yet another in your long list of reading comprehension FAIL.
 
Biscuit said:
I think the district attorney requested the trial to be moved to Tucson because all of the victims and witnesses are here. Phoenix is only 100 miles away but could prove to very inconvenient for the trial.

My Coffee shop is about 500 feet from the superior court building in Tucson, if they move the trial it will be an absolute circus down here.
Click to expand...

Good for business, though! Reporters drink lots of coffee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom