toldailytopic: Shooting at the Arizona Safeway. How could we help prevent tragic even

[BabyChristian]

From my experience and from studying mental illness there are so many people in prisons and jails from being mentally ill and the jailers know it because they have talked to me about it but nothing is done to fix the real problem.

These mentally ill people self-medicate and do some crazy things and sometimes take lives and certainly cost society money from repeated incarceration.

This is not a political thing at all and it has nothing to do with gun control or anything.

If this guy is anything like my son used to be, his thoughts were on a perpetual house of horror and they do not think like the "normies" do.

I am not defending the guy but all these people just thinking the answer is to execute people is not the answer. The death penalty is not a deterrent to normal people much less someone that's mentally a nutcase.

It was nearly impossible to get my son help against his will unless "he was an imminent threat to himself or someone else". My son was passive, thank God but this imminent threat thing is ridiculous because it's impossible to know what a schizophrenic is thinking from moment to moment. One minute they may think they're Jesus and the next Charles Manson.

 

[Sherman]

You're assuming everyone convicted of a capital crime is guilty. I have no problem with an automatic appeal in these cases considering what's at stake.

Well it is quite obvious Loughner is guilty. He held the gun and pulled the trigger. Fry him within 24 hours of conviction. Why waste tax payer dollars on housing him?

Our society has gone all soft on criminals. That is why we have more of them today than ever before. We should go back to the Biblical standard.

 

[The Graphite]

From my experience and from studying mental illness there are so many people in prisons and jails from being mentally ill and the jailers know it because they have talked to me about it but nothing is done to fix the real problem.

These mentally ill people self-medicate and do some crazy things and sometimes take lives and certainly cost society money from repeated incarceration.

This is not a political thing at all and it has nothing to do with gun control or anything.

If this guy is anything like my son used to be, his thoughts were on a perpetual house of horror and they do not think like the "normies" do.

I am not defending the guy but all these people just thinking the answer is to execute people is not the answer. The death penalty is not a deterrent to normal people much less someone that's mentally a nutcase.

It was nearly impossible to get my son help against his will unless "he was an imminent threat to himself or someone else". My son was passive, thank God but this imminent threat thing is ridiculous because it's impossible to know what a schizophrenic is thinking from moment to moment. One minute they may think they're Jesus and the next Charles Manson.

It is inhumane to take mentally ill people and cage them like animals.

It is also inhumane to take completely sane people and cage them like animals.

 

[BabyChristian]

It is inhumane to take mentally ill people and cage them like animals.

It is also inhumane to take completely sane people and cage them like animals.

I don't get your point.

I'm not talking about being inhumane.

I'm talking about the OP and how to possibly lessen these types of things from happening.

 

[The Graphite]

We don't need two decades of appeals (often even against the will of the defendant himself), with the victims and the rest of us playing for the criminal's free room & board, medical, dental, entertainment, etc. for that entire time.

What we need is for the law to reflect to appropriate standard set forth by our Creator, Himself. Namely, that the penalty for perjury is whatever penalty the defendant is facing. If you are found guilty (by 2 or 3 pieces of credible evidence) of falsely accusing someone of murder, then you will receive the death penalty. Same with someone committing perjury in favor of a defendant.

And the same penalty for any officer of the court (including the judge) who is found criminally negligent in the conviction and sentencing of the defendant.

If we had that, there would be no need for appeals. And it wouldn't be a perfect system, but neither is our current, absurdly unjust appeal system.

 

[The Graphite]

I don't get your point.

I'm not talking about being inhumane.

I'm talking about the OP and how to possibly lessen these types of things from happening.

I don't get your point...

Are you saying you don't think reducing the number of murders in America is humane?

 

[Mike_W]

Simply employ stricter gun controls.

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact that the right is so frantically trying to distance themselves from the shooter suggests that there is more evidence than a voter registration out there...

 

[Granite]

Well it is quite obvious Loughner is guilty. He held the gun and pulled the trigger. Fry him within 24 hours of conviction. Why waste tax payer dollars on housing him?

Our society has gone all soft on criminals. That is why we have more of them today than ever before. We should go back to the Biblical standard.

He's guilty, yes, but I'd prefer we get to the bottom of his sanity or lack thereof. (Not saying he doesn't deserve the chair even if he's certifiable, or even troubled.) And the "biblical standard" involved cutting limbs off, back in the day, so be careful of what you wish for.

An automatic appeals process for capital cases--even one as clean-cut as this--doesn't necessarily mean a long-drawn out process, but again, considering so many who've been exonerated by DNA and other evidence in the past, I'd say it's prudent. Might not be necessary in Loughner's case but when we're dealing with life or death what's the harm in an extra step or two to make sure you get it right?

 

[Granite]

It is inhumane to take mentally ill people and cage them like animals.

It is also inhumane to take completely sane people and cage them like animals.

Are you in favor of stoning?

 

[Traditio]

I'll be reminding you of these words very soon I'm sure.

I'm not sure how to take this. :squint:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

However, what doesn't make sense is that he tried to kill a Democrat.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Giffords (a former Republican) probably wasn't liberal enough for him just like Jon Stewart isn't happy with Barrack Obama - not because he's a liberal but because he isn't liberal enough.

Here in Colorado the Democratic Party headquarters was recently vandalized and when they caught the culprit it turned out to be a flaming lefty mad that the Democrats weren't being liberal enough and trying to make it look like the Republicans did it.

Liberals are idiots.
:mock: liberals

If you read the story close you will find that many liberal groups were also targeting Giffords because of her stance on immigration and other things - she just wasn't liberal enough for them.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wait, so now liberals are pro gun?

Well, yes, if you hate liberals. Hatred knows no rational limits.

It's not hard to figure out. It might be that this fool was right wing. But my guess is he's just a lunatic, who took some of the tough talk by some right wing politicians seriously, and acted on it.

I think the tea party people who did that talking are horrified that someone did take it seriously; I have no thought that Palin expected her actions in targeting Giffords, with advice to her people to "reload", would have serious consequences.

"It was all just talk." For some people, it was.

But for those with a faint grasp on reality, it's different.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here in Colorado the Democratic Party headquarters was recently vandalized and when they caught the culprit it turned out to be a flaming lefty mad that the Democrats weren't being liberal enough and trying to make it look like the Republicans did it.

Hmm... seems that one came up here, before...

Republicans later rejoiced when it was revealed Schwenkler had worked for a Democratic candidate in 2008 and alleged the vandalism was an attempt to frame conservative opponents to Obama's proposal.

...

Now it appears possible that Schwenkler ascribes to neither political ideology.

Read more: Anarchists raise bail for Dem. HQ window-bashing suspect - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13211266#ixzz1AmOLrJTV
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Turns out, he's an anarchist, and his group hates leftists.

Imagine that. Same republicans who were trying to convince everyone this guy is a leftist, are now outraged that people are taking similar bits of evidence to conclude the guy who shot Giffords was a tea party fan.

Nothing every really changes, does it?

 

[Sherman]

Well, yes, if you hate liberals. Hatred knows no rational limits.

It's not hard to figure out. It might be that this fool was right wing. But my guess is he's just a lunatic, who took some of the tough talk by some right wing politicians seriously, and acted on it.

I think the tea party people who did that talking are horrified that someone did take it seriously; I have no thought that Palin expected her actions in targeting Giffords, with advice to her people to "reload", would have serious consequences.

"It was all just talk." For some people, it was.

But for those with a faint grasp on reality, it's different.

Get the stuff out of your eyes. Loughner was a lefty nut job. He shot Giffords because she was a blue dog Democrat.

 

[TomO]

lain: The thing I find striking about this is when the Ft Hood massacre took place we were all sternly cautioned not to rush to judgment regarding why the psycho did what he did.....not to attribute motivations to him without evidence etc...etc..

:squint: For this incident though is seems that rushing to judgment and attributing motives is the the politically correct thing to do.


I wonder what's changed? :think:

 

[Alate_One]

Get the stuff out of your eyes. Loughner was a lefty nut job. He shot Giffords because she was a blue dog Democrat.

Evidence please? I have seen absolutely NOTHING to support that assertion. What I saw from the interview with one of his "friends" was:

1. He apparently met Giffords before
2. Asked her some nonsensical questions
3. Thought she was an idiot because she couldn't "answer" his nonsense (sounds familiar doesn't it?)
4. Was obsessed with the illiteracy/grammar of his district

What I have not heard was, what was the trigger that set him off. It could have been almost anything, who knows.

Here's a transcript of one of his youtube videos. Explain to me how this is "left" or "right" for that matter?

Hello, my name is Jared Lee Loughner. “This video is my introduction to you! My favorite activity is conscience dreaming; the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don’t dream -- sadly. “Firstly, the current government officials are in power for their currency, but I’m informing you of a new currency! If you’re treasurer of a new money system, then you’re responsible for the distributing of a new currency. We now know -- the treasurer for a new money system, is the distributor of the new currency. As a result, the people approve a new money system which is promising new information that’s accurate, and we truly believe in a new currency. Above all, you have your new currency, listener? “Secondly, my hope -- is for you to be literate! If you’re literate in English grammar, then you comprehend English. The majority of people, who reside in District-8, are illiterate -- hilarious. I don’t control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure. “Thirdly, I know who’s listening: Government Officials, and the People. Nearly all the people, who don’t know this accurate information of a new currency, aren’t aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn’t have happen. “In conclusion, my ambition -- is for informing literate dreamers about a new currency; in a few days, you know I’m conscience dreaming! Thank you!”

Source and more transcripts

 

[Ktoyou]

Actually it makes perfect sense. Giffords (a former Republican) probably wasn't liberal enough for him just like Jon Stewart isn't happy with Barrack Obama - not because he's a liberal but because he isn't liberal enough.

Here in Colorado the Democratic Party headquarters was recently vandalized and when they caught the culprit it turned out to be a flaming lefty mad that the Democrats weren't being liberal enough and trying to make it look like the Republicans did it.

Liberals are idiots.
:mock: liberals

If you read the story close you will find that many liberal groups were also targeting Giffords because of her stance on immigration and other things - she just wasn't liberal enough for them.

Ok, they may be idiots in the vernacular sense. We know more Democrats coming in more recently have been more conservative and Gabrielle Giffords is a representative from Arizona. Why would anyone expect her to be a left-leaning liberal? It does not make sense? The old "New Left" is dead in major politics, what we have in its place are moderate Democrats. Both parties are changing; at least that is how I see it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The thing I find striking about this is when the Ft Hood massacre took place we were all sternly cautioned not to rush to judgment regarding why the psycho did what he did.....not to attribute motivations to him without evidence etc...etc..

Always good advice. Politically incorrect as it was, waiting until the facts are in is a reasonable thing to do.

For this incident though is seems that rushing to judgment and attributing motives is the the politically correct thing to do.

Well, the shoe is on the other foot, it seems. First indications were this guy was a tea party fanatic. Maybe so. He certainly had a number of fixations that match. So the right is frantically trying to do damage control, especially since they had rather graphically and literally "targeted" the woman who was shot, and she had been the target of political violence before.

But given the shooter's rambling, often contradictory statements, it's more likely that he's just a lunatic who happened to take some violent political imagery seriously. And again, reasonable people are waiting to see how it shakes out before making that determination.

He might be somehow connected to the right in a meaningful way. But I think we need to wait and see.

I wonder what's changed?

First glance makes it look like he's a right wing nutcase. Other than that, not very much.

 

[vegascowboy]

There was a period in American history where a large percentage of the population did openly carry fire arms and there is a reason why that is no longer allowed.

That's true. The reason being that folks forgot about that silly, antiquated piece of paper called the U.S. Constitution.