This is the rather bizarre mugshot of Jared Loughner that was released yesterday afternoon. He has been assigned lawyer Judy Clarke, who defended the Unabomber.
One of the more interesting facts to emerge is that Loughner was expelled from his community college after complaints from classmates that he seemed on the edge of violence.
In the meantime, the Sheriff is being attacked for criticizing right-wing commentators for their over-the-top rhetoric, including conservative icon, Rush Limbaugh. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik stated “The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information. . . [Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.” [Update: Limbaugh has reportedly fired back by saying that the Democratic Party supports Loughner and is “attempting to find anybody but him to blame.” Wasn’t he supposed to be Costa Rica?] Reportedly near the scene of the shooting is this billboard:
Sarah Palin is also being criticized for putting a bullseye over Giffords’s district as someone she has “set her sights on” for defeat:
Notably, Palin was previously associated with threats against the President by the Secret Service, here.
Gifford’s husband has also blamed inflammatory rhetoric for the shooting.
For its part, the Brady Campaign, may the following point in a statement from Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
“The 22 year-old shooter in Tucson was not allowed to enlist in the military, was asked to leave school, and was considered “very disturbed” (according to former classmates), but that’s not enough to keep someone from legally buying as many guns as they want in America.” For the full statement, click here
One of the more worrisome (and predictable) developments is the proposal of legislation to further criminalize speech, here.
BBB,
Neither I nor Mr. Weisberg is claiming that Jared Loughner was a member of the tea party. He said:
What I believe that he is saying is that the climate created by the fearmongering, inflammatory and violent rhetoric, and the demonization, de-Americanization, and delegitimization of opponents, all of which have been standard tactics of the Tea Party, is what made it more likely that a disturbed person (of any political stripe) would act. I don’t have any specific study to cite in support of this, but I believe it is correct (and supported by anecdotal evidence).
Bob,
I don’t think that violent and inflammatory rhetoric should be criminalized, but rather marginalized – if those that use it suffer for it (in terms of their public image because people call them out for being the assholes that they are) then the problem can be solved without the need for any legislation. What’s wrong with trying to solve the problem by using free speech?
How about this for a solution . . . let’s start punishing criminals where we find them. Be they rich, crazy or politicians. Or rich crazy politicians.
In a just world, the insane will have less to focus on as somehow being a social injustice that only bullets will resolve.
And our rights and our Founding Fathers vision will be strengthened.
Let’s start by prosecuting Bush and Cheney, repealing the Patriot Act, and amending the Constitution so that emphatically no President from either party can circumvent due process for citizens under any circumstances.
Mike Appleton: “That the alleged assailant was off his rocker, however, does not mean that his actions were not political. And the fear mongering has been hot and heavy over the past two years.”
Mike,
If it turns out that Loughner shot Giffords for personal reasons, e.g. because she just didn’t understand him, then all this talk about right wing rhetoric is completely misplaced in an intellectually dishonest way. While I personally despise the rhetoric from the likes of Palin & Angle, and would love to see both of them hit by a bus (uh oh, is it jail time for me?), unless I see Loughner’s actions connected to said ‘right wing killing metaphors’ I just can’t abide the hysterical reactionary rhetoric of the left as they seek to criminalize breathing the wrong way.
BBB he was a registered independent and did not vote in 2010.
As far as Beck and Rush. I’m not defending them I’m simply pointing out that there’s plenty of blame to go around.
The following information makes what transpired even more difficult to understand. I would have thought that someone at his community college (or elsewhere) might have been aware of the laws related to evaluation and committment in AZ.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/jared-loughner-family-statement_n_807703.html
1:05 PM ET Reporting Odd Behavior In Arizona
Following reports that many of Jared Loughner’s acquaintances have reported that they were frightened about his behavior and what he might do, The Washington Post reports that under Arizona law, anyone “could have contacted local officials and asked that he be evaluated for mental illness and potentially committed for psychiatric treatment.” Local mental health and law enforcement officials, however, say that never happened. More on Arizona’s law:
Mental health experts say that, unlike many other states – where little can be done to force an unstable person into treatment until he or she becomes violent and poses a danger to themself or others – Arizona is different.
Any person in Arizona can petition the court for a psychiatric evaluation solely because a person appears to be mentally ill and doesn’t know it.
“When people appear mentally ill or show some instability, how do you get them to [mental health] resources if the system doesn’t know those people are out there?” Cash said. “Our crisis line is manned 24/7. Anyone concerned about his behavior could have called at any time.” end excerpt
Slartibartfast,
If you believe what your source, Jacob Weisberg, is saying;
“But the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did.”
Would it be asking too much for you to provide something to back it up? Has there been any evidence obtained that would tie Loughner to the Tea Party movement?
I’ve been paying pretty close attention to this incident. I consider it premature to draw a conclusion that goes beyond that of determining that an unstable individual legally obtained a semi-automatic pistol and decided to make a statement or put an end to whatever he thought the problem was.
I would like to see Loughner’s completed Arizona Registration Form. http://www.azsos.gov/election/forms/voterregistrationform.pdf
It would be interesting to find if he specified a Party preference.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction
Slarti,
Copy that on Liddy. I met him once in college. Not someone I’d trust the cats with unless I wanted someone to eat them.
Buddha,
You could probably outdo Bdaman 10:1 in quotes with just Limbaugh OR Beck alone (and more like 100:1 with one of the really far right guys like Mark Levin or G. Gordon Liddy…)
Bdaman,
Mr. Kanjorski’s comments were wrong and everyone on the left should acknowledge that (and likely would), but it doesn’t change the fact that the right is guilty of qualitatively and quantitatively much worse in this regard than the left (in recent times, anyway…)
An article in Slate by Jacob Weisberg:
http://www.slate.com/id/2280711
You really don’t want to get in a tit-for-tat about partisan violent language, bdaman. You can get flooded out by Limbaugh and Beck examples alone.
Besides . . . aside from the shooting part, Kanjorski is right about Scott. He’s a scumbag no matter his party affiliation and Florida should be ashamed to have elected him. He should be put on trial. Just like Bush and Cheney.
Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., pens an op-ed in the New York Times today about the proper political response to this weekend’s tragedy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11Kanjorski.html?_r=1
however October 23, 2010
“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.”
The word choice might produce some outrage, at least partly because Mr. Scott was never charged with a crime, but it demonstrates perfectly what we’re talking about.
Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#ixzz1AmMFqhxQ
Since no one’s asked, here are my two cents on Sheriff Dupnik’s comments:
The purpose of news is to inform. The purpose of political commentary is to persuade. The purpose of directing angry diatribes against individuals or identifiable groups is to increase ratings by stirring the emotions of one’s audience.
It should come as no surprise that vituperative rhetoric can impact not only the fearful and ignorant, but the fearful and unstable as well. That is simply an observable fact of human nature. And though none of us would like to think that something he or she says will contribute to the hallucinatory meanderings of a paranoid mind, we know that it happens.
The shooting rampage in Tucson was planned in advance by an individual with a rather bizarre fear of government. That the alleged assailant was off his rocker, however, does not mean that his actions were not political. And the fear mongering has been hot and heavy over the past two years.
Finally, the suggestion that authorities had all the clues necessary to direct this gentleman to a mental health facility ignores reality. In Arizona mental health treatment, like organ transplants, is optional. If mental illness were a from of hemorrhoids, there would be coverage. But it usually cannot be seen or felt, and doesn’t itch. The mentally ill share the fate of the severely physically disabled in this country-we basically don’t care about them unless they are relatives. So budgets for mental health clinics are routinely among the first casualties when state tax revenues drop. And we can expect very severe cuts this year as legislatures face funding realities.
James M,
You make a good point that social pressure increases the frequency of terrorist attacks by members of a group (I would also include economic and political pressure), but to me terrorism is simply a tactic – Jared Loughner might have been insane, but in using the tactics of terror he made himself a terrorist. I think that it is important to clearly define what a terrorist is if we are going to realize, as a nation, that the idea of going to war against a tactic is stupid. How is intelligent debate possible if people use different definitions for the same words?
eniobob,
I thought you had a good point that didn’t get picked up in the general discussion:
There was an interesting debate I happen to hear on the radio yesterday regarding Loughner.
The question was this.If he were from a Muslim country he would have been considered a terrorist,but since he is White he is being called insane.
I think the difference is that there are organized groups in Muslim society who vocally urge people to conduct attacks against the United States for political reasons (terrorism). However, when a single person comes to the conclusion that they need to assassinate a public official without outside pressure, we call it mental illness.
You could draw a parallel between someone who decides to kill themself (individual action) with a cult mass suicide (social pressure to commit the same act).
We treat them differently because when there is a social pressure to attack the non-believers it drastically increases the rate of those attacks.
Tootie:
please tell us how and why all that miraculous care come to pass?
It may be noticed by someone else, in addition to having been noticed by me, that some what I have written in some of my prior comments is similar in some aspects of “style” to the some aspects of the “style” of some of Jared Loughher’s writing.
This may hint at my having some familiarity with the sort(s) of mental process(es) which may contribute to such sorts of “style.”
During the three years or so following my colon surgery which has seemingly kept me alive longer than would otherwise have seemed likely, my reaction to morphine led me to have quite a few psychiatric hospital roommates who, but for the happenstance of chance, were decent candidates to have been exemplars for people who act out having been invalidated by invalidating the capacity of other people, and often self, to remain alive as life forms.
So, to illustrate a principle, if such illustration be possible:
The proposition, in general form:
People raised by authoritarian parenting processes become people whose sense of self is damaged such that the damage is denied through the addictive displacement mechanism of put-downs directed toward other people in the vain hope of being able to believe that one is better than someone else.
The consequent of the proposition is not valid:
Brian is not able to believe he is better than anyone else.
Therefore, in accord with the logical contrapositive, the antecedent of the proposition is not valid:
Brian was not raised by authoritarian parenting processes.
Harris PHD
Yikes.
Mike,
In your post you said,
“One is not free when access to health care is limited by ones wealth.
So, did the founding generation of this country have access to the kind of medical care we have today which you think everyone is owed?
Innoculations?
Laser surgery?
CT Scans?
MRIs?
Antibiotics?
Hip Replacements?
Knee Replacements?
Insulin?
A myriad of high-tech surgery and surgical procedures?
Marvelous anesthesia?
Dialysis?
Maternity wards?
NICUs, PICUs, SICUs, or MICUs?
The IV bag?
Blood banks?
Heck, even liquid bandages and fine, cheap, easily acquired soap (one of the greatest medical inventions ever)?
NOPE. NOPE. NOPE.
The freest people, the happiest people, had LESS available medical care than poor people here in America have today.
Our poor can even get miraculous $4 antibotics at Walmart and can pay for the most basic medical needs themselves which are MORE advanced and sophisticated than anything the founding generation and many generations after that ever had.
You are telling me that unless people have access to the medical care others before us never had, freedom is unachievable?
That is utter nonsense and I’ve just proven it. You are absurd and ridiculous. You comment isn’t believable.
I’m laughing at you.
You also said
“One is not free when cartels decide the prices of staples such as drugs, food, gasoline, electricity, etc.”
Ah. So the government cartel ought to decide it? LOL
You makes NO sense.
You want to line up for toilet paper like the communists did? LOL
Government is the most dangerous organization in human history. What makes you think a dangerous organization like that is going to make life better by supplying their staples?
They own you after that. Only weak foolish people want to be dependent on others like you suggest. Knock yourself out doing it but please don’t make me pay for it and don’t force it on me.
(A thought here, you might like the Fair Tax Plan of Neal Boortz. Everyone is given, yes, I said given, 10,000 dollars at the beginning of each year by the government to buy staples)
Marxism is organized theft. Period. And it requires a totalitarian police-state to make it work. But it only works for a short period of time because you run out of other peoples money. Then it falls apart, citizens riot, economies are destablized, and trouble ensues.
Greece happens.
You also said:
” One can never be free under a hypothetical, unfettered “free
market” since corporate/private wealth will always seek to and eventually control the terms of the marketplace.”
I’ve been free all my life (threatened now only by congress and never by a corporation). But I’ve run little businesses along the too. Or worked for them. It’s great fun. This is discouraged under Marxism. The USSR, for example, made it next to impossible though their Byzantine rules and regulations. You know the kind–the kind of rules pathological control-freak Democrats are fond of.
It is a trick of the fruitcakes on the left to pretend that the only thing available to the people is either government jobs or corporate jobs. When in truth, most jobs are from little enterprises created by people living independent lives for themselves not dependent on government thugs, thieves, bullies, and murderers OR corporate giants.
The despotic thieving Marxists (Democrats) hate the idea of independent business owners. That is why they continually ignore their importance or pretend they don’t exist.
They don’t want the poor opening up their own businesses!
That would make them free from the slave owners in DC!
Bdaman:
I just heard that Jared L. had made death threats against other people prior to Saturday. Did Sheriff “Dupenick” follow up? I wonder why he didn’t?
What did the Sheriff know and when did he know it?
do you know anything about this?