Hinckley getting out after 35 years.

marplots said:
I'll say it. It shouldn't be handled differently. Rule of law. All men created equal. We should all be equal under the law.
Click to expand...

An attack on the president is an attempt to disenfranchise 300 million Americans. It's not just one guy who's the victim there.

I figure, he's spent about 0.00004 days for every citizen whose vote he attempted to nullify.
 
Giz said:
An attack on the president is an attempt to disenfranchise 300 million Americans. It's not just one guy who's the victim there.

I figure, he's spent about 0.00004 days for every citizen whose vote he attempted to nullify.
Click to expand...

You're speaking as if he were detained as punishment. If he was found insane then he was not responsible for his actions, and he was being treated, not punished.

If we're going to apply a medical model to behaviors then it should be applied consistently. We can't decide the insane aren't responsible for their actions except when they do something bad.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You're speaking as if he were detained as punishment. If he was found insane then he was not responsible for his actions, and he was being treated, not punished.

If we're going to apply a medical model to behaviors then it should be applied consistently. We can't decide the insane aren't responsible for their actions except when they do something bad.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was responding to Marplots point:
"I'll say it. It shouldn't be handled differently. Rule of law. All men created equal. We should all be equal under the law. "

My response was just saying that some crimes against individuals affect more than just the individual (such as hate crimes which terrorize an entire community). In such cases, sentencing should reflect this.

Of course, where someone is not responsible for their actions due to medical issues, we should send them to nurse Ratchett instead. That goes without saying.
 
Obviously crimes against me are the worst and should be punished with extra severity. Everyone else is theoretically equal to each other, that's fine with me. I don't mind it.
 
Giz said:
An attack on the president is an attempt to disenfranchise 300 million Americans. It's not just one guy who's the victim there.

I figure, he's spent about 0.00004 days for every citizen whose vote he attempted to nullify.
Click to expand...

The effect of a successful assassination would have been to nullify the votes of the many people who voted for Reagan (ironically one could view it cynically as reaffirming the votes of those who voted against him). Not 300 million of course- not nearly that many people in the USA can or did vote.

But more importantly- Hinckley did it not to nullify the vote but to impress Jody Foster. Yes, of course he was crazy (as to now??). I can't see punishing him as if he sought to change the politics of the USA by violence.
 
I am much more concerned about the impact of Hinckley's release on Jody Foster than the impact on any political figure. It was Hinckley's infatuation with Foster that drove him to attack Reagan. During his institutionalization Hinckley was discovered to have hidden materials that documented his continued infatuation with Foster, despite his verbal arguments that he had been cured.

Foster was the center of Hinckley's delusions, not Reagan or politics per se.

If I were Jody Foster I would be deeply concerned having Hinckley out again. I only hope that she can afford increasing her private security appropriately.
 
Giordano said:
The effect of a successful assassination would have been to nullify the votes of the many people who voted for Reagan (ironically one could view it cynically as reaffirming the votes of those who voted against him). Not 300 million of course- not nearly that many people in the USA can or did vote.
.
Click to expand...

That would only be a valid point if those people valued their (big 'D') Democratic candidate over the (small 'd') democratic process. Hopefully, not many people fall into that extremism.
 
It probably annoys Jodie to have her name misspelled repeatedly.
I know it angers me.

I may have to look some of you up. :mad:



:p
 
Jim_MDP said:
It probably annoys Jodie to have her name misspelled repeatedly.
I know it angers me.

I may have to look some of you up. :mad:



:p
Click to expand...
While you are at it also please do something about that other thread titled "Hinckley Point Delayed". Maybe you could get it changed to "Not John Hinckley Point Delayed".
 
Giz said:
That would only be a valid point if those people valued their (big 'D') Democratic candidate over the (small 'd') democratic process. Hopefully, not many people fall into that extremism.
Click to expand...

I was certainly not advocating assassination as an appropriate political approach- only noting that if one states that killing of a politician nullifies the votes by for him/her, then conceptually, cynically, and by logical necessity this killing must be viewed as re-affirming the votes against him/her. I was probably motivated to even bother to bring this up due to your use of the 300 million figure in your prior post- of course many of the 300 million didn't vote at all or voted against Reagan.

Of course neither side of the coin is absolutely true: killing a USA President places the VP in office, not the failed Presidential candidate from the prior election. Also killing of a President generates many difficult to predict additional political outcomes that differ from what might have arisen from a legal election.

Finally as noted up thread- it is impossible to view Hinckley's actions as pro-Democratic Party- he was quite delusional and insane, as verified by the court and medical system, and he committed his crime to win the heart of an actress, not to alter the political process. Are you really seeing this as an example of Democratic Party extremism? If so, why?
 
Last edited:
Jim_MDP said:
It probably annoys Jodie to have her name misspelled repeatedly.
I know it angers me.

I may have to look some of you up. :mad:



:p
Click to expand...

Shirley you do!

Well, be reassured: I meet Ms. Foster every Wednesday for coffee and she has often told me that she doesn't mind the mis-spelling. In fact her real name is Jody and the Jodie comes from a typo in an early press release. Trust me on this. She has also told me that she loves my scriptwriting and is trying to fund a new movie starring me and Mel Gibson.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Shirley you do!

Well, be reassured: I meet Ms. Foster every Wednesday for coffee and she has often told me that she doesn't mind the mis-spelling. In fact her real name is Jody and the Jodie comes from a typo in an early press release. Trust me on this. She has also told me that she loves my scriptwriting and is trying to fund a new movie starring me and Mel Gibson.
Click to expand...
I meet her every Thursday. I'm the only man she sleeps with. An exclusive and committed relationship.
 
William Parcher said:
I meet her every Thursday. I'm the only man she sleeps with. An exclusive and committed relationship.
Click to expand...

Now I get it! She always looks distracted and a bit wistful when we part late Wednesdays. No doubt she is thinking of you already. You are a lucky man!

On the other side of the coin, I will have you know that I have an exclusive relationship with Mel Gibson- we don't sleep together but he goes to the synagogue with me every Friday night!
 
TragicMonkey said:
Obviously crimes against me are the worst and should be punished with extra severity. Everyone else is theoretically equal to each other, that's fine with me. I don't mind it.
Click to expand...
How about we make sure Hinckley does not shoot you so we don't have to find out just how deep punishment can go? Think of the children. :cool:
 
Giz said:
An attack on the president is an attempt to disenfranchise 300 million Americans. It's not just one guy who's the victim there.

I figure, he's spent about 0.00004 days for every citizen whose vote he attempted to nullify.
Click to expand...

Not buying it. You want to prosecute him for attempted disenfranchisement?

On the other side though, I wouldn't have, "I didn't like his politics" as any sort of defense for Hinckley. I do get the outrage for an attack on the symbol, but that's a good reason to step back and try to get a little more mature about it.
 
arthwollipot said:
I'm a little disturbed by the fact that you seem to believe that what a judge decides is determined entirely by which President appointed him.
Click to expand...

Nobody seriously thinks that, it's just a convenient way of hand-waving away judicial decisions that one doesn't like.



I know you know that. I'm just in a "sick of talking around **** and get right to the ******* point" sort of mood.
 
Giordano said:
I am much more concerned about the impact of Hinckley's release on Jody Foster than the impact on any political figure. It was Hinckley's infatuation with Foster that drove him to attack Reagan. During his institutionalization Hinckley was discovered to have hidden materials that documented his continued infatuation with Foster, despite his verbal arguments that he had been cured.

Foster was the center of Hinckley's delusions, not Reagan or politics per se.

If I were Jody Foster I would be deeply concerned having Hinckley out again. I only hope that she can afford increasing her private security appropriately.
Click to expand...

This^^^
I hope she has a secure room she can escape to at home ...
:blush:
 
marplots said:
I'll say it. It shouldn't be handled differently. Rule of law. All men created equal. We should all be equal under the law.
Click to expand...
Indeed

Unless someone has decided there is a definitive list of hierarchy.

Shooting

President - For the rest of their life
Other
Other
.
.
.
Homeless person - 10 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom