House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@hawkeye10,

So, the president of the US falls under that category?

0 Replies

Interferring with a fireman in the execution of his or her duties results in special charges in most jurisdictions, because his or her duties serve to protect us all. Do you allege that this causes inequality?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Not necessarily. In some cases sentencing guidelines preclude (or require) certain punishments for certain crimes. For instance, crimes that are capital offenses (those that are eligible for the death penalty) are part of the crime being charged. If they want to pursue a death penalty case then they have to charge him with a capital crime. Crimes against public officials are more likely to be capital crimes than a similar crime against you or me.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The killing of a police officer or correction officer, in the performance of their duties, also results in special charges because their duties protect us all.

0 Replies

The second person has been cleared.

Quote:

Pima County Sheriff's Deputy Jason Ogan said the man described earlier as a 'person of interest' was a cab driver who drove the gunman to the grocery store outside of which the shooting occurred.

Ogan said the man went into the store because the gunman apparently hadn't paid his fare. Ogan said the cab driver "came by, and we talked to him and we determined he was not involved." Source

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

When respected people (respected by some people anyway) say things like restoring the government by second amendment means or to lock and reload, it is just irresponsible of them to say the least. There are unbalanced people out there who it don't take much to get them going. Politicians and/or pundits should make it clear if they must say those things that they don't mean literally. Although I am not sure what other meaning could be taken in some of the statements which have been made in recent years.

1 Reply

The military fall underneath special rules and justice - and, it differs under differing situations and locations. Whether it be at war, deployed to a foreign country or on military property. The Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Convention are but two documents that may govern the occurence.

1 Reply

Quote:

Crazy Talk
We're too quick to use "mental illness" as an explanation for violence.
By Vaughan Bell
Jan. 9, 2011
Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, online sleuths turned up pages of rambling text and videos he had created. A wave of amateur diagnoses soon followed, most of which concluded that Loughner was not so much a political extremist as a man suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia."

For many, the investigation will stop there. No need to explore personal motives, out-of-control grievances or distorted political anger. The mere mention of mental illness is explanation enough. This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.

Seena Fazel is an Oxford University psychiatrist who has led the most extensive scientific studies to date of the links between violence and two of the most serious psychiatric diagnoses—schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, either of which can lead to delusions, hallucinations, or some other loss of contact with reality. Rather than looking at individual cases, or even single studies, Fazel's team analyzed all the scientific findings they could find. As a result, they can say with confidence that psychiatric diagnoses tell us next to nothing about someone's propensity or motive for violence.

A 2009 analysis of nearly 20,000 individuals concluded that increased risk of violence was associated with drug and alcohol problems, regardless of whether the person had schizophrenia. Two similar analyses on bipolar patients showed, along similar lines, that the risk of violent crime is fractionally increased by the illness, while it goes up substantially among those who are dependent on intoxicating substances. In other words, it's likely that some of the people in your local bar are at greater risk of committing murder than your average person with mental illness.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280619

And Loughner, who is apparently a political extremist, does appear to have had a drug problem, in addition to whatever personality problems he might have.

2 Replies

@firefly,

I don't know that we can leap all the way to "drug problem" based on what we know so far.

2 Replies

@BillW,

Sounds good to me!

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

I don't believe in honesty you do.

LOL....well, I guess that explains a lot....

0 Replies

@firefly,

It is, furthermore my contention that being a right winger is to be certifiably insane.......... Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@revelette,

When respected people (respected by some people anyway) say things like restoring the government by hope and change, it is just irresponsible of them to say the least.

0 Replies

@JPB,

He was arrested on a drug charge (allegedly) a few years ago. The arrest and dispostion record from the District Attorney's office is available online, and you can't even tell if it were a drug charge or not, because it was dismissed. While i suspect that that is why people are making that leap, i agree with you that the assumption is unwarranted.

1 Reply

@BillW,

When did you become a conservative?

1 Reply

@snood,

But, you get into partisanship and favoritism when you say hey, why did you compare Malcolm with this murderer. A fair law or opinion should stand up to guys you like and guys you hate with equity.

I like Malcolm. I don't like Sarah. I think 'by whatever means necessary' is more inciteful to violence than bull's eyes on a bunch of states, showing which states a group wants to have their members elected. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't believe Malcolm's statement meant 'use violence if you have to.'

You know I know Malcolm's record and late change of method - and that he's one of my favorite guys.

Was Angle ever forced to explain what she meant by that? I'd LOVE to see that explanation.

In answer to your question, yes, Malcolm's statement was a direct incitement to general violence toward the advancement of human rights.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

I've always been conservative - just not a right wing idiot!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The earlier report was that he was charged with possession of paraphernaila and that he satisfied a period of court supervision resulting in the charge being dismissed.

2 Replies

@BillW,

You ma, as you say, not be a 'right wing', but I see no evidence that you are not an idiot.

0 Replies

@revelette,

I don't know if she was smiling or not when she said that - but that's a very disturbing comment. Thanks, Revelette.

0 Replies

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know