63
   

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 08:56 pm
Snood is the most repulsive kook on this site?
Congrats, Snood.
Wear that badge proudly.
ossobuco
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 08:59 pm
@realjohnboy,
Really? Prove it!
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:00 pm
@High Seas,
while I think you have special qualities which would allow you to understand repulsive kooks, I think snood falls well short of the mark some of the rest of you have set.

just saying...
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:00 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
It seems to me that people are trying to make this tragic event a purely political event, instead of the actions of one disturbed individual.

I suppose that is inevitable, given that his specific target was a congresswoman. This was an attempted political assassination--for whatever deranged reasons Loughner had. That does make it a "political event" albeit not one apparently allied with any particular movement, and one which was carried out only by a lone gunman. And it occurred at a time of extreme partisan rancor, with a newly formed tea party faction given to particularly vitriolic anti-government rhetoric. So, it is difficult to separate the lone politically motivated shooter from the larger political landscape.

But, you are right, mysteryman, we are dealing with the actions of one disturbed individual. Unfortunately, those actions have validated, for many, particularly those in the Democratic camp, the fear that violence might erupt as the result of the overheated rhetoric coming from the right--and these fears have simmered since at least the last presidential campaign. So this lone gunman has confirmed those fears in the minds of many of those people--even though we remain ignorant of which (if any) of the current political crosscurrents influenced him. Many of us, including me, may be jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

I found this article in The Atlantic interesting because it raises the question, "Suppose he had chosen a different target?" Obviously, the administrators at Pima Community College must have feared a possible rampage on their campus from this same individual. If the shooting had occurred there, we probably wouldn't be talking about Sarah Palin, even if the gunman had ranted about the Constitution and the government. And, perhaps, the fact that the target was a Democratic congresswoman has us pointing fingers because we think this gunman has just confirmed our worse nightmares about the inflammatory speech of the far right, when that might not be the case.

Certainly, this young man had been raising red flags all over the place. So, where were his parents, and how did they react to his behavior and what they were hearing about him? Were they supportive of him? Frightened of him? Did they try to get him into treatment? Should they share the blame?

Like the questions regarding what influenced Loughner, the questions about his parents remain to be answered. Perhaps we all need to exercise a bit more patience until we get much more information. But, at the very least, if this tragic incident helps to tone down the incendiary rhetoric and promote more civil discourse and behavior, some good will come out of the current debate.
Quote:

What About the Parents?
By Garance Franke-Ruta
The Atlantic
January 10, 2011

Permit me a moment of retro media angst: What about Jared Lee Loughner's parents?

Where were they?

And where have they been since the shooting?

For more than two days members of the chattering class have talked about the alleged culpability of Sarah Palin, tea party groups, right-wing pundits, left-wing writers, and the incendiary political environment more generally.

This despite the fact there is no evidence Loughner ever read Sarah Palin's target list; that he was not on the e-mail list or membership rolls of the Tucson Tea Party; and that he appears to have been obsessed with Giffords, reports Mother Jones, ever since she failed to answer a question he posed to her in 2007, "What is government if words have no meaning?"

Jared Lee Loughner was so obviously disturbed a classmate warned a friend about him, writing in an e-mail before he was forced from college last fall, "He scares me a bit.... Hopefully he will be out of class very soon, and not come back with an automatic weapon."

A neighbor was afraid enough of the foreboding house where he lived with his parents, Amy and Randy Loughner, that she wouldn't go there with her daughter to sell Girl Scout cookies.

According to pictures tweeted out by reporter Meredith Shiner -- really, you must look at them, and compare the Loughner house to his neighbor's and the rest of the block -- Loughner lived in a house obscured by a wild jungle of plants, in the middle of a neat desert community where neighbors had cacti and plain desert-dirt yards.

Tucson is not big. Its population is just over half a million people, according to the 2008 population estimates, making it smaller than Washington, D.C.

But as Arizona's second-largest city, it's also no small town. It has excellent medical services, as the survival of so many shooting victims who arrived at hospitals alive attests. And it has one of "the most progressive mental health laws in the country," according to The Washington Post, permitting "[a]ny person, including any of the students in Loughner's classes ... or any of his teachers" to petition "the court to have him evaluated for mental illness."

Its students and educators were attuned to the threat Loughner posed, and reacted appropriately in barring him from classes in an effort to protect themselves.

The systems he encountered worked to flag him. The military kept him from enlisting after he failed a drug test. His philosophy teacher identified him as "someone whose brains were scrambled" and tried to get him to seek help. Ultimately, his behavior grew so erratic his community college responded to the widespread concerns of his teachers and classmates by demanding he receive a mental health evaluation before returning to class.

According to The Arizona Republic, his parents were aware of the university's concerns:

Pima Community College officials said that beginning in February, Loughner had the first of five contacts with police at the college. In September, officials said Loughner posted a YouTube video declaring Pima Community College illegal under the U.S. Constitution along with other statements about the college.
"College administration issued a letter of immediate suspension," officials said in a statement. "Two police officers delivered the letter of suspension to the student at his and his parent's residence and spoke with the student and his parents."

According to Pima Community College officials, Loughner and his parents met with Northwest Campus administrators Oct. 4.

"During this meeting, Loughner indicated he would withdraw from the college," officials said. "A follow-up letter was sent to him Oct. 7, 2010, indicating that if he intends to return to the college, he must resolve his code-of-conduct violations and obtain a mental-health clearance indicating, in the opinion of a mental-health professional, his presence at the college does not present a danger to himself or others."


Did he ever get help after this?

If Loughner had attacked the school, instead of Giffords, we'd be asking about this, instead of Sarah Palin's 2010 target map.

We should do so anyway.

Whatever Loughner's relationships were with what he read on the internet, it was nonetheless the relationships inside the world he physically inhabited that doubtless did -- and had the potential to -- shape him more.

"You try to say something, they'd just ignore you and turn around and walk back into the house," Ron Johnson, who lives opposite the Loughners, told The Washington Post about the parents. "The kid -- I never talked to him. He acted just like his parents and ignored you."

Perhaps we will learn in the days and weeks ahead that Loughner's parents lived in fear of their son, too, seeking and failing to find him the help he clearly needed.

His father was observed sobbing in the driveway as police swarmed their home, collecting evidence.

Either way, if the shooting had found a different target, what happened between Loughner's expulsion from college and the moment on Nov. 30, 2010 when the 22-year-old purchased a Glock 9 pistol would be among the most important questions we'd seek to answer.

As it should be, even now.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/what-about-the-parents/69176/
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:10 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

snood wrote:
Robert, what would you consider as valid proof of the partial culpability of hateful, inciteful speech in tragedies such as these?


You guys have made no connection at all, much less anything I'd consider proof of culpability. Debating what precise threshold is acceptable evidence is pointless when you are stuck at absolutely nothing.


I get that this guy is probably not proof of any correlation between hate speech and violent crimes, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the increased level and amount of vitriol (from ANYone who is a public figure - left or right, ok?) could well influence unstable people to violence.

And since you have decidedly and thoroughly stated here that no correlation, causation or six-degrees-of-separation can be drawn between the media vitriol and this particular case, it is certainly not unreasonable to then ask you to produce some semblance of an idea of what would be salient evidence of a connection.
ossobuco
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:16 pm
@mysteryman,
Mm, look at yourself. I have my own nastybody attributes (that's a quote from a friend who approached your chest and planted a magical starfish), a fanatical rightwinger as it happened.

Slow down.

Look around.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:16 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Snood is the most repulsive kook on this site?
Congrats, Snood.
Wear that badge proudly.


Finally! Recognition!!
I will soon be having an A2K press conference to announce all the special considerations I will now be requiring, as the newly-ordained MRK.

0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:17 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

while I think you have special qualities which would allow you to understand repulsive kooks, I think snood falls well short of the mark some of the rest of you have set.

just saying...


I fall well short!?! just one dang second here...
My repulsive kookiness will take a backseat to NO ONE!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:20 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Snood is the most repulsive kook on this site?
Congrats, Snood.
Wear that badge proudly.

He will - never fear. The fear is all in his head and his imaginary "6 degrees of separation" that Robert never mentioned anywhere Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:25 pm
I could be a ******* buffer. Or a bucking fuffer. But I don't understand everybody.

I wish people would explain themselves more.






mysteryman
 
  7  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:32 pm
@ossobuco,
I don't understand your statement.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:48 pm
@mysteryman,
It was playful.

My failing or good attribute is that I can get different sides of things. My larger failing is lack of long coherent argument. Short coherent arguments I can make.


I so wish more of us actually explained our points of view.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 09:57 pm
@snood,
What are you asking for? For me to imagine non-existent evidence and quantify the level at which I would find it convincing? What kind of answer do you want? That I would find 75.68 units of imaginary evidence to be a sufficient amount?

The bottom line here is that there is really nothing at all, anything would be a start from here. There's little to indicate that this person even consumed this political speech, much less that he was influenced by it. And it's not just the absence of evidence to support your political scapegoating but that all the current evidence points to quotidian, apolitical madness being the primary factor here. If his political speech isn't very influenced by the speech you claim it is (that would likely be the first thing to be influenced) then I find it hard to believe that this act is, in the absence of any documented speech that is similarly inflicted. His political rants just don't match up to your scapegoats.

Multiple acquaintances have related that he was angry at his target ever since an encounter where she dismissed one of his stupid questions and that seems much more likely as motivation for his target selection than your pet political arguments do of being shoehorned into fitting the event. None of his ranting really ties into any of the speech you guys criticize, it's paranoid nonsense about government mind control.

If the guy were aping the political speech you are criticizing it might make sense to blame it but this guy just hasn't been connected to that kind of politics at all, and there is plenty of evidence that he's just a nutjob who was angry at her after an encounter he had with her where she treated him as much.

But now let me ask you a question of the same kind of hypothetical nature: Just how ridiculous a connection would it have to be for you not to make it about the right? How little evidence would there need to be not to leap to that conclusion?
ossobuco
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 10:01 pm
@ossobuco,
I didn't read firefly's take, or Robert's. I'll do that tomorrow. No possible comment now.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 10:15 pm
@plainoldme,
I noticed that, same ole same ole, just different boogeymen. At what age are the rings put thru Americans' noses and how is it that some escape and some don't?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 10:31 pm
@plainoldme,
John Birch Society then and now.
0 Replies
 
Oylok
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 10:31 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

One problem is the way we whirl around the word crazy. To me it seems he was bizarrely berserk, coned in on huge raging resentment, but I cringe that people who deal with mental illness get to be feared some more. I am wondering if there is a way to monitor all this stuff better - at the same time I'm iffy on some more monitoring, except for
my own bias, probably obvious, that I don't think the constitution says all of us should shore up our apartments with semi automatics.


Indeed, ossobuco, we toss around the word "crazy" as though there were nothing more to abnormal psychology than that single word. We use the word "crazy" as though it meant "possessed by demons." Insanity is very complicated animal. Yet we blame shootings like this one on insanity in much the same way residents of 17th Century Salem once blamed their problems on witches!

You seem to have hinted at one problem with our simplistic use of words like "crazy." It could cause witch-hunts within the mentally ill community.

Another problem with tossing around that word like a trump card is that it allows us to ignore the many other root causes of what happened this weekend. I'm sure this deranged killer was a product of his environment to some extent.

I mean...

What about Islamic jihadists? Are we going to start dismissing them as mere nut jobs? Martyring oneself and killing innocent passengers doesn't seem all that "sane" to me. And yet in that case, no one stopped at "insanity" in our analysis of what went wrong. We rightfully blamed radical Islam (without blaming all of Islam). Nor should we stop at "insanity" as an explanation in this case.

"Crazy" is not some supernatural force to which we can turn for an explanation because we dislike all the other explanations. Crazies are people, too. Often, they are people who listen to radio talk shows.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 10:36 pm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704428004576074771682115128.html

Father of Shooting Suspect May Issue Statement

By CHARLES FORELLE

TUCSON, Ariz.—The father of shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner has prepared and may release a public statement, according to a neighbor who met with Mr. Loughner's parents Monday.

Randy and Amy Loughner disappeared from view shortly after the shootings, and a statement would be the family's first public comments since the attack.

Devlin Barrett reports on how federal investigators are working to make the case against accused shooter Jared Loughner in this weekend's massacre in Tucson. Plus, former House Majority Leader Tom Delay is sentenced to three years in prison.

Even in normal times, many on his block describe the elder Mr. Loughner as a reclusive man who had little time for neighborhood niceties.

Few people besides law-enforcement officers have been spotted entering the family home. Neighbor Wayne Smith did so on Monday evening, after he said Mr. Loughner asked him to bring in the mail.

Mr. Smith emerged to tell a small group of reporters that Randy Loughner had written a statement but isn't sure when to release it. Mr. Loughner is reluctant to greet the public and will try to coordinate the release through the local sheriff's office, Mr. Smith said.

"They're hurting real bad," Mr. Smith said, outside the house, in a neighborhood north of Tucson amid a flat carpet of strip malls and low subdivisions. "They are devastated."

Officials say Mr. Loughner had psychological problems and plotted his attack, which killed six people, gravely wounded congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and injured 13 others.

Mr. Loughner's parents have been unreachable since. The parents told investigators they didn't realize the severity of their son's problems, say people familiar with the matter.

The Loughners' single-level ranch house stands out on the quiet and open block: its entire front is shrouded by shrubbery—a billowing mesquite, a cactus with droopy paddles and a stunted palm whose fronds shield a street-facing window.

"They liked their privacy," says George Gayan, a retired mechanic who has lived next door for three decades. Sometimes "I didn't see him for three or four days."

Mr. Smith, who is 70 and has lived in a house across the street since 1972, said he didn't know the couple's last name until after Saturday's rampage. And Mr. Loughner didn't know his, he said. Still, he said he was probably one of Randy Loughner's closest acquaintances in the neighborhood.

He said he believes Randy hasn't worked since Jared was born. Amy had a steady job and Randy raised Jared, he said.

Residents interviewed on the block said they barely knew the Loughners. Stephen Woods, who lives next door, had run-ins with Mr. Loughner over uncollected trash that he said were vituperative and hostile.

Once, Mr. Woods said, Mr. Loughner spotted him from a distance in a Wal-Mart parking lot and repeatedly shouted "Trash people!"

It was Mr. Smith who told the Loughners what had happened Saturday. They returned from shopping, grocery bags in their peeling white Chevy truck, to find sheriffs' cars parked in front of the house and deputies stringing up crime-scene tape.

Mr. Smith, who had seen the news on TV, walked up and told them their son was suspected in a mass shooting.

"She almost passed out right there," Mr. Smith said. "He sat in the road with the tape up and cried."
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 10:36 pm
@Oylok,
Oylok wrote:
What about Islamic jihadists? Are we going to start dismissing them as mere nut jobs? Martyring oneself and killing innocent passengers doesn't seem all that "sane" to me. And yet in that case, no one stopped at "insanity" in our analysis of what went wrong. We rightfully blamed radical Islam (without blaming all of Islam). Nor should we stop at "insanity" as an explanation in this case.

Actually, some of us did stop at "crazy". As well as "criminal".

But an organization designed to take advantage of crazy people, and guide them in their craziness, is definitely a criminal group. And don't conflate that criminal group with Islam or even "radical Islam." They're criminals, pure and simple.
0 Replies
 
Oylok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 10:44 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
If I remember correct, after the Ft Hood shootings every news network and pundit was saying not to jump to conclusions, not to blame all of Islam for the actoons of one person.


I certainly do not blame all Islam for the Ft Hood shootings. I would not blame all of the Right for what happened here, even if it turned out that this nut had been influenced by right-wing talk radio.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 11:39:27