Gabrielle Giffords Shot

[JOZeldenrust]

An Arizona TV station has an interview with the shooter's high school girlfriend up on its web site.

She doesn't come across as the brightest person (she keeps saying that he spoke in too many big words she couldn't understand), but some interesting tidbits:

Figueroa added, that Loughner basically kind of thought that the government was crap and that it was just this big, bad thing that was trying to just take over everybody and that we had no say in anything; that we were controlled by them 100%, and he strongly disagreed and felt people should be able to make own choices," she noted.

"I know he had a difficult relationship with his parents," Figueroa said. "They would never let me come in the house, and I couldn't understand why they wouldn't let me come in."

"There's a lot of people out there right now who are saying Jared Loughner is mentally ill, I know you're not a doctor, but your gut feeling, is he mentally ill or an accumulation of everything you talked about?" "I don't think he's mentally ill at all. I think he's honestly, I think he's faking everything. I think he's planned it, planned for sometime."

Mental illness doesn't rule out the ability to plan. If the guy isn't mentally ill, then what did he mean to achieve by his actions?

[Coito ergo sum]

The insanity defense is going to be interesting in the Loughner case. Under the law, just being mentally ill isn't enough to eliminate responsibility for a crime.

In 2006, Arizona's insanity defense law was upheld by the US Supreme Court in the case of Clark v Arizona. The ruling affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia, for the killing of a police officer. The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime. The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity. Arizona does not allow mental health evidence to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. The evidence is only admissible if used to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission. In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.

Under Arizona law, a defendant will not be adjudged insane unless he demonstrates that at the time of the commission of the criminal act he was afflicted with a mental disease or defect of such severity that he did not know the criminal act was wrong. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(A). For federal crimes, the test is similar: criminal defendants charged with federal crimes must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that a “severe mental disease or defect” rendered them “unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness” of their conduct. Put simply, they must be diagnosed with an illness that kept them either from understanding what they were doing or knowing right from wrong.

I.e. - you can be mentally ill, but if you know what you're doing ain't right, then you can be held criminally responsible.

The rule in the US is an outgrowth of the ancient "M'Naughton Rule" which is that a defendant should not be held responsible for his actions only if, due to his mental disease or defect, he (i) did not know that his act would be wrong; or (ii) did not understand the nature and quality of his actions." Out of curiosity, is this still the Brit rule?

[maiforpeace]

So, let's call a draw on whose to blame when it comes to violent rhetoric. It's a non-issue since there's no evidence that the shooter was motivated by it, right?

But I still hold conservatives and Republicans more responsible than liberals and Democrats for the shooting.

Why?

Based on the evolution of this discussion, and according to it's participants, lack of gun control and lack of mental health care seem to be the primary contributing factors to the tragedy. So, tell me, what party is the one that supports more gun freedoms, and no health care reform, much less any kind of mental health reform? The shooter might have actually received some help then.

[Warren Dew]

It sounded to me like the shooter could have gotten mental health care if he had asked for it or anyone else had tried to get him to get it. To be honest, I don't feel all that comfortable with the idea of being able to force other people to get mental health care that they don't want.

To me, the big lesson in this is that congresspeople should have police details at their appearances. Heck, the ballroom dance team at my alma mater has to have a police detail at their dances, and those are quite a bit lower risk.

[JimC]

It sounded to me like the shooter could have gotten mental health care if he had asked for it or anyone else had tried to get him to get it. To be honest, I don't feel all that comfortable with the idea of being able to force other people to get mental health care that they don't want.

To me, the big lesson in this is that congresspeople should have police details at their appearances. Heck, the ballroom dance team at my alma mater has to have a police detail at their dances, and those are quite a bit lower risk.

That is a depressingly negative and defensive reaction. Basically, it is saying the streets are filled with looney gunmen, and/or wannabe politician slayers, let's circle the wagons. In the long run, someone better take some notice of the various pachyderms in an increasingly crowded room, and do something to address the root causes...

[maiforpeace]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

In Tucson, thousands attend gun show one week after mass shooting

[Warren Dew]

That is a depressingly negative and defensive reaction. Basically, it is saying the streets are filled with looney gunmen, and/or wannabe politician slayers, let's circle the wagons. In the long run, someone better take some notice of the various pachyderms in an increasingly crowded room, and do something to address the root causes...

There are looneys out there, whether they have guns, car bombs, or nerve gas, and that's a fact of life that's not likely to change. It's silly not to offer protection to predictable, high profile targets.

[JimC]

That is a depressingly negative and defensive reaction. Basically, it is saying the streets are filled with looney gunmen, and/or wannabe politician slayers, let's circle the wagons. In the long run, someone better take some notice of the various pachyderms in an increasingly crowded room, and do something to address the root causes...

There are looneys out there, whether they have guns, car bombs, or nerve gas, and that's a fact of life that's not likely to change. It's silly not to offer protection to predictable, high profile targets.

Where there is credible intelligence of a serious terrorist threat to a politician, certainly. But in Western democracies, elected (or wannabee elected) politicians are speaking at huge numbers of fairly small-scale local community meetings on any given day. There is no way that effective armed protection from random loonies could be given to them all, without disrupting other law enforcement activities.

We might not be able to reduce the numbers of loonies per se, but surely the number of loonies with access to handguns can be reduced drastically, even if it means some curtailing of the American wild west fantasy...

[Atheist-Lite]

That is a depressingly negative and defensive reaction. Basically, it is saying the streets are filled with looney gunmen, and/or wannabe politician slayers, let's circle the wagons. In the long run, someone better take some notice of the various pachyderms in an increasingly crowded room, and do something to address the root causes...

There are looneys out there, whether they have guns, car bombs, or nerve gas, and that's a fact of life that's not likely to change. It's silly not to offer protection to predictable, high profile targets.

Where there is credible intelligence of a serious terrorist threat to a politician, certainly. But in Western democracies, elected (or wannabee elected) politicians are speaking at huge numbers of fairly small-scale local community meetings on any given day. There is no way that effective armed protection from random loonies could be given to them all, without disrupting other law enforcement activities.

We might not be able to reduce the numbers of loonies per se, but surely the number of loonies with access to handguns can be reduced drastically, even if it means some curtailing of the American wild west fantasy...

When the loonies are standing for election then you need to stop worrying about stray bullets coming from the outside but rather martial law and stray bullets coming from within.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, let's call a draw on whose to blame when it comes to violent rhetoric. It's a non-issue since there's no evidence that the shooter was motivated by it, right?

But I still hold conservatives and Republicans more responsible than liberals and Democrats for the shooting.

Why?

Based on the evolution of this discussion, and according to it's participants, lack of gun control and lack of mental health care seem to be the primary contributing factors to the tragedy. So, tell me, what party is the one that supports more gun freedoms, and no health care reform, much less any kind of mental health reform? The shooter might have actually received some help then.

That's like holding Democrats responsible in a city where handguns are illegal or hard to get because someone dies who might have been able to defend themselves with a gun. Which party do you think supports the right of a person to carry a gun for self defense - Jane Q. Public would have been alive, but for the political position of the Democratic party.....

And, to link it to health care reform? On what basis do you claim that under "health care reform" Loughner would have received the mental health care he needed so as not to go off the deep end? Also - he had access to all the mental health care he needed - all he had to do was go to the doctor. Note - his family, including himself, was covered by his mother's health insurance from her government job.

[Coito ergo sum]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

In Tucson, thousands attend gun show one week after mass shooting

People also went to comedy clubs, movies, and theaters to enjoy themselves on the very night after the shooting - they just laughed - ate at restaurants - yucked it up, and thoroughly enjoyed themselves -- by the 10s of millions - all without much of a thought for the victims of the horrible shooting.

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe it's more likely that anti-GWBush rhetoric set this guy on the road to murder: "His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16 ... 5d56DmiDjg

I blame the 9/11 Truth movement for their vitriolic, anti-government rhetoric, and I also blame groups like Moveon.org and Code Pink for their vitriolic anti-government rhetoric. They combined to catch this impressionable, troubled youth at a difficult time in his life, and he became very angry - welling up a the mere sight of W! From then on, it was only a matter of time...


“The more people became shocked and worried about him, the more withdrawn he got,” Ms. Castle said. - So, clearly, the cause of this shooting was people's shock and worry. They should not have made him feel weird by by being shocked by his ramblings....

If I had to blame anyone besides Jared Loughner, though, I would, seriously, blame his parents. They knew he was fucked in the head. They were there when police came to his house and notified Jared that he had been suspended from school for his weird, antisocial behavior. They knew he wouldn't be allowed back unless and until he presented certification from a psychiatrist that he was not dangerous. They had an opportunity to require him to go to a psychiatrist and get treatment - and so far there is no indication that they even tried. And, the fact that they allowed him to remain living in their home, unemployed and playing video games and practicing target practice with his guns, tells me that they did not take enough of an effort - they should have at some point given him a choice - get treatment or get out. He was a fucking adult, not going to college and not working....

[FBM]

Disarm the criminals and loonies first. Then the law-abiding citizens will only have guns for hobbies like target practice and hunting. And practicing for the Olympics and whatnot.

Disarm the law-abiding citizens first and you'll have a crime wave in which law-abiding citizens will be helpless targets.

Passing laws isn't the solution, because the outlaws don't care about laws in the first place. Actually enforcing the laws that already exist would work wonders, tho.

[Warren Dew]

We might not be able to reduce the numbers of loonies per se, but surely the number of loonies with access to handguns can be reduced drastically, even if it means some curtailing of the American wild west fantasy...

As has been discussed to death before, the number of murders would not be reduced.

Why do we care especially about this murder? Because it was a high profile target, presumably; at least I hope it's not just because the victims were white and most murder victims are black.

Since we seem to care more about high profile murders, it makes sense to provide more protection to high profile targets. Certainly that's why the President has 24 hour secret service protection - or do you disagree with that, too?

[sandinista]

We might not be able to reduce the numbers of loonies per se, but surely the number of loonies with access to handguns can be reduced drastically, even if it means some curtailing of the American wild west fantasy...

As has been discussed to death before, the number of murders would not be reduced.

Why do we care especially about this murder? Because it was a high profile target, presumably; at least I hope it's not just because the victims were white and most murder victims are black.

Since we seem to care more about high profile murders, it makes sense to provide more protection to high profile targets. Certainly that's why the President has 24 hour secret service protection - or do you disagree with that, too?

Actually, the amount of "loonies" can be reduced. Better funded education and mental (and general) health care and reduction of poverty would go a long way.