Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. As I pointed out, Loughner was "aware" enough to refuse to talk to authorities after his arrest and he invoked his right to an attorney. That indicates that this person was not completely and totally delusional.
The idea that this man was not influenced by anything other than himself, IMO, is just an extension of "rugged individualism" which is almost a religious belief among many, if not most, Americans. Seems to me that is possibly what the guy was doing, "acting" as the rugged individualist and giving his life for what HE THOUGHT was helping save the country......combined with what appears to be his experience of humiliation when the Congresswoman did not respond to his strange question when he met her in 2007. If someone else has responded in the same way the Congresswoman responded to him, do you suppose he would have killed that person? I think not.
But when someone is as disturbed as this kid, you could say ANYTHING and he could interpret it however he choses. Where do you draw the line?
Yes, me too. His mother was on the board and he kept getting off. The sherrif needs to explain why.
I have no doubt that all those questions about Loughner's past and his past encounters with law enforcement will be thoroughly investigated for his trial. He has an excellent, well respected, experienced attorney, and I'm sure the Feds have good prosecutors. These are the kinds of things which BOTH sides will investigate thoroughly before trial. You'll find out then what part the Sheriff played, if any.
But when someone is as disturbed as this kid, you could say ANYTHING and he could interpret it however he choses. Where do you draw the line?
I think "don't retreat, reload" would be a good starting point. It's individual accountability and responsibility on the part of people making inflammatory statements for political gain or for financial gain. Do you think if someone said, "Spread love and understanding throughout the world and in your neighborhood," he would have interpreted that to mean he should kill the Congresswoman?
Palin and Beck are very vocal about being Christians. THAT'S the connection.
I am not advocating curtailing "freedom of speech." I'm saying that individuals have a responsibility for what their words "inspire."
The mentally ill do not usually live in a complete vacuum. Loughner did not. He clearly used the Internet, if nothing else. He attended a community college. He talked to people from time to time. Do you think mentally disturbed people are not at all influenced by events which take place around them and in the world? Plus there are many levels of mental illness. I find it interesting that Loughner clearly appears to be mentally ill, and I also find it interesting that he, at some level, managed to be "together" enough to NOT TALK to authorities after his arrest. And he asked for a lawyer. That indicates some awareness of his situation for sure. He invoked his right to have an attorney.
btw, where did I say the democratic map was any less offensive than Palin's map, IMO? The only difference I see there is Palin's words..."don't retreat, reload." The airwaves are FULL of violent words and imagery. If you can't discern that, perhaps you've been far too desensitized.
Its not a question of being desentized. Its knowing how to recognize nonsense and not taking offense to heated rhetoric whether it comes from Keith Olbermann, Louis Farakhan. Pat Buchannen, or even Barack Obama. They have the right to say what they like, short of yelling fire in a theater. You cannot get around that.
Unless they are actively ordering murder, they have no responsibility at all. You, I, and even Loughner have the responsibity and the obligation to obey the law. If we do not, then...
Even if I am desensitized, I have not picked up a gun or even thrown a brick through my admittedly loathsome Congressman's window.
I agree with your terse description of mentally ill people. However, you did not convince me there is any connection whatsoever to Loughner and anything from anybody in the media. Indeed you did not try which tells me you cannot. That's ok. Nobody else can either.
There are millions walking around with mental illness. Loughner and others like him (Colin Ferguson?) are few and far between.
Even if you could, it is simply not a justification to squelch free speech. I am not interested in turning our society into one resembling North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
I appreciate your responses. Most others have ducked this.
Remember:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Hilarious and outrageous speculation. The guy dropped it because he was in fear of his own life, given that he WASN'T the shooter, which the witness clearly stated he believed at the time. The actual shooter may very well not have been at all compliant and we'd have had a massive clusterflock on our hands.
Even the witness admits he was LUCKY he didn't actually shoot the guy.
Not smart (even though he might be smart).
Not well-trained (even though he might be well-trained).
LUCKY.
Yet you are SPECULATING on how this guy could have shot the wrong person. Yes, hilarious and outrageous.
I think "don't retreat, reload" would be a good starting point. It's individual accountability and responsibility on the part of people making inflammatory statements for political gain or for financial gain. Do you think if someone said, "Spread love and understanding throughout the world and in your neighborhood," he would have interpreted that to mean he should kill the Congresswoman?
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
Barack Obama, President of the United States of America
I assume you are including him in the indictments?
A whole lot of the problem in this case comes from the fact that Arizona and 49 other states don't have laws that allow people like Loughner to be dealt with before they commit their crimes. Law enforcement people, the people at the CC, and any number of others knew that the kid had a problem but there is no way provided for to do anything about them. There needs to be a law that provide for psychiatric help for people like him and that it be done in a lock up type setting not just something that can be done if the person turns himself in.
I say lockup while knowing that weirdos can escape from them also.
If the sherrif had followed up on the threats Loughner had made in the past he would have had a psych eval and would have been locked up.
Thanks for the correction. And thanks for emphasizing my point that even the witness said he was lucky he didn't actually shoot the guy by mistake!
And of course an innocent person would quickly drop a gun under such circumstances. If it really had been the shooter, there's no telling what that lunatic might have done and the witness could be dead, himself now! I love people who think they know everything.
"The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky.""
Man, I can just see it now; the hero races into the scene and starts firing at the guy with the gun, taking him down. Other witnesses think he's part of the assassination attempt and start shooting at him. MORE chaos ensues. What a massive clusterflock was avoided because someone who happened to have a gun ON him, chose NOT to actually pull out or USE that gun!!!
I saw a FOX interview that basically showed Zamudio saying the same thing as reported. But I don't recall him saying he told the man who had picked up the shooters gun, to drop the gun. My impression was that other people in the crowd told him to drop the gun, not Zamudio. I saw a later FOX interview on the same series of events, except Zamudio made no reference at all of his having his own gun and I could not find a link to the first video. Apparently FOX didn't like what the implications of that tidbit of info may point out. Namely, it is lucky that more innocent people or person were not shot.
Are you talking about the Sherrif (D) that kept letting this clearly disturbed kid off because his mother was on the board? Must be nice to have friends in high places. Well, unless you're part of the tradgedy that ensues in the aftermath.
You simply do not know that the Sheriff let "this clearly disturbed kid off" because of his mother. You do not know that. It is an assumption on your part.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
