Bizarre, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

CBS Fires Its Senior Counsel After She Tweeted That She Has No Sympathy For Those Killed In Las Vegas

150px-CBS_Eyemark.svgdownloadCBS has fired Hayley Geftman-Gold, the network’s vice president and senior counsel, after a bizarre and disgraceful tweet saying that she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”  We have been discussing the free speech concerns over employees being disciplined for expressing their political or religious viewpoints on social media. However, this is a news network that contractually reserves the right to terminate employees for conduct deemed inimical to its journalistic image or mission.

Geftman-Gold fully vented in her tweeting, proclaiming “If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs [sic] will ever do the right thing.”  She then added  “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters [sic].”

It was a shocking statement with dozens of families grieving this week over the senseless murder of their loved ones.  As a mother of three children, one would have hoped that Getfman-Gold could muster some sympathy for the families who lost children and loved ones.

CBS emphasized that Geftman-Gold was a recent hire:

“This individual, who was with us for approximately one year, violated the standards of our company and is no longer an employee of CBS. Her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS. Our hearts go out to the victims in Las Vegas and their families.”

Geftman-Gold earned her Bachelor’s degree at University of Pennsylvania​ AND then graduated from Columbia Law School​ in 2000.  She was an associate at the law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher​ as well as Heller Ehrman​.  She also worked  as Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs for MTV Networks​.  Her husband is Ryan Geftman-Gold, President of Handoff Business Ventures​.  Geftman-Gold is referenced in a prior article as a Clinton supporter who helped organize a premature “victory party” on election night.  (Ironically, Clinton herself was the focus of criticism after launching into an attack of the NRA after telling people to keep politics out of the tragedy).  However, there is no prior controversy revealing this type of callous and hateful attitude.

While she was not part of the news division, her comments proved deeply embarrassing for the network, particularly at a time when the major networks have been accused of bias against Trump and Republicans.  Obviously, as a lawyer, it is often the case that you must curtail your public comments in the interests of a client.

 

682 thoughts on “CBS Fires Its Senior Counsel After She Tweeted That She Has No Sympathy For Those Killed In Las Vegas”

  1. Enigma, who bloody cares if they are ‘non-violent offenders’? They broke the law, incarceration’s the penalty. You want Monty Python’s Comfy Chair? Federal prisons are the locus of people who commit complicated financial crimes which incorporate inter-state transactions. Why you want the man who looted a pension fund to be released?

  2. 2

    A radical, psychotic Feminazi Gaystapo officer and incoherent, hysterical 19th Amendment beneficiary, who has abandoned her natural function of childbirth and nurturing to perpetuate and increase the race and national population sufficient to oppose the existential threat of adversarial nations bent on annihilation and conquest, while enjoying the unconstitutional, biased artifice of “Affirmative Action Privilege” and the vote as “women’s suffrage,” having never personally and without governmental assistance created a novel, distinct and substantial business or fought in a foreign war for the maintenance of national sovereignty and freedom.

    You go, girl!

  3. Don’t feel too bad about Hayley Geftman-Gold. She’s already been hired by MSNBC as a legal advisor.

  5. “Geftman-Gold earned her Bachelor’s degree at University of Pennsylvania​ AND then graduated from Columbia Law School​ in 2000.”

    Just goes to show–in America, even the smart people are stupid.

    1. I’m fascinated. Can you show me an example of Eurowisdom in the realm of political economy? Merkel’s rapefugee immivasion? The Euro? The Greek, Italian, and Spanish labor markets? Public housing projects in France?

  6. Several indigenous communities in Peru use drone technology for monitoring & data is shared with AIDESEP & FENAMAD. But how to handle the bad guys operating on the Brazil-Peru border? Find illegal miners, loggers, drug traffickers & river pirates armed to the teeth with assault weapons. That would be a law enforcement issue. Have no fear, quadrotor drone Charlene is here.

  7. Mass Shootings: The Military-Entertainment Complex’s Culture of Violence Turns Deadly

    By John W. Whitehead

    October 03, 2017

    https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/mass_shootings_the_military_entertainment_complexs_culture_of_violence

    Excerpt:

    Not satisfied with peddling its war propaganda through Hollywood, reality TV shows and embedded journalists whose reports came across as glorified promotional ads for the military, the Pentagon turned to sports to further advance its agenda, “tying the symbols of sports with the symbols of war.”

    The military has been firmly entrenched in the nation’s sports spectacles ever since, having co-opted football, basketball, even NASCAR.

    Remember, just before this Vegas shooting gave the media, the politicians and the easily distracted public something new to obsess over, the headlines were dominated by President Trump’s feud with the NFL over players kneeling during the national anthem.

    That, too, was yet another example of how much the military entertainment complex—which paid $53 million of taxpayer money between 2012 and 2015 to pro sports teams for military tributes (on-field events recognizing military service members, including ceremonial first pitches, honor guards and Jumbotron tributes)—has infiltrated American culture.

    This Trump-NFL feud is also a classic example of how to squash dissent—whether it’s dissent over police brutality or America’s killing fields abroad. As Stahl explains, “Supporting the troops is made synonymous with supporting the war. Those who disagree with the decision to send soldiers to war are thus identified with the enemy. This is done through a variety of associations… Dissent becomes synonymous with criminal activity.”

    When you talk about the Las Vegas mass shooting, you’re not dealing with a single shooter scenario. Rather, you’re dealing with a sophisticated, far-reaching war machine that has woven itself into the very fabric of this nation.

    As Stahl concludes, “War has come to look very much like a video game. As viewers of the TV war, we are treated to endless flyovers. We are immersed in a general spirit of play. We are shown countless computer animations that contribute a sense of virtuality. We play alongside news anchors who watch on their monitors. We sit in front of the crosshairs directing missiles with a sense of interactivity. The destruction, if shown at all, seems unreal, distant. These repeated images foster habitual fantasies of crossing over.”

    You want to stop the gun violence?

    Stop the worship of violence that permeates our culture.

    Stop glorifying the military industrial complex with flyovers and salutes during sports spectacles.

    Stop acting as if there is anything patriotic about military exercises and occupations that bomb hospitals and schools.

    Stop treating guns and war as entertainment fodder in movies, music, video games, toys, amusement parks, reality TV and more.

    Stop distribution weapons of war to the local police and turning them into extensions of the military—weapons that have no business being anywhere but on a battlefield.

    Most of all,…stop falling for the military industrial complex’s psychological war games.

    -John Whitehead, Rutherford Institute

    1. “You want to stop the gun violence?

      Stop the worship of violence that permeates our culture.”

      What follows is the mentality of all too many people that have too much time on their hands.

      ““I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters [sic].””

      This is one of many leftists that cares little of the lives of people that disagree with her.

    2. OK, someone is issuing crank press releases and signing John Whitehead’s name to them. Your point is what?

      1. SOT/DSS:

        I think that you’re too busy stepping on toads or “desperately seeking susan.”

        Give it some thought. You’ll get it. Or you won’t. Or you’ll get it, but pretend that you don’t. Whatever the outcome, I don’t really care.

        https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/mass_shootings_the_military_entertainment_complexs_culture_of_violence

        “Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics. Violence runs through US society like an electric current offering instant pleasure from all cultural sources, whether it be the nightly news or a television series that glorifies serial killers.”—Professor Henry A. Giroux

          1. Again, why is Bill Moyers, notable for having abandoned his patron Lyndon Johnson when the going got tough in VietNam and then building a career nursing at the teat maintained by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, making ex cathedra pronouncements? Why should I listen when he does?

            1. Moyers didn’t write the article, but sure — it’s his site. I didn’t really post the links for you, honey. You might not “listen”, but someone else might.

              1. The same applies to the fellow whose rubbish he’s recycling. The man in question is a parasite on higher education – a parody professor at a teacher’s college.

                1. The whole malpractice issue aside, it’s not a surprise that your internist tries to get you in and out of his office as quickly as possible, SOT.

          2. Mass shootings were very rare in Bill Moyers’ youth.
            The 1966 U/T Austin Tower shooting was a rare exception. (The shooter was found to have a malignant brain tumor at autopsy, and would have likely have died within a year).
            Maybe Moyers feels that “racism, fear, militarism, bigotry” etc. did not exist back then.
            As one of the few remaining LBJ flunkies, maybe Moyers feels that his master LBJ presided over an America without those faults, and that the “racism,militarism” etc. etc. only surfaced later.
            That is not a surprizing perspective from a hack like His Holiness Bill Moyers.

        2. It’s a word salad that shows no conception of how you’d demonstrate its contentions or even demonstrate their plausibility as a thesis. It’s just rubbish.

  8. Prof Blames Vegas Shooting on White Privilege, White Entitlement

    “This is what happens when they don’t get what they want.”

    10.3.2017 |

    It looks like the Drexel University professor who wished for “white genocide” for Christmas last year got his present a lot later than he expected. On October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fired on a largely white audience during a country music festival in Las Vegas and killed nearly 60 people. Hundreds more are injured and still in the hospital.

    Politics Professor George Ciccariello is your average leftist loudmouth on Twitter. Shortly after he tweeted, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide,” Ciccariello showed his disdain for the U.S. military by tweeting: “Some guy gave up his first class seat for a uniformed soldier. People are thanking him. I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul.”

    And now, Ciccariello is blaming the latest mass shooting in America on white men and their privilege. His messages indicate he’s not so sure that gun control would stop a tragedy like this, but is quite convinced that unencumbered white supremacy is the real problem:

    Many repliers were confused over his assessment and unable to connect the same dots that a white man killing many white people is somehow all about white supremacy. But leftism isn’t known for its cohesive thought processes.

    Ciccariello’s retweets shed even more light on his unhinged beliefs:

    On Twitter, Ciccariello describes himself as a writer, professor, and “troublemaker.” He is also careful to note that his Twitter posts are his views and not that of Drexel University. Of course, they’re not condemning their employee, so we’ll view their silence as consent. Why not? They accuse us of that all the time.

    His follower, however, call him “comrade.” That’s fitting.

  9. Allan says:

    “Anonymous, you have quoted so many bad sources in the past who is to believe anything you post. I don’t know if ISIS is involved or isn’t involved, but I do know that most of the leftist media you rely upon have denied Islamist involvement where eventually Islamist involvement was proven. Your media all too frequently has an agenda and what you are reading is not news rather their efforts to meet their agenda.”

    “Bad sources”, you say? Nonsense, Allan. Back up your BS or it’s just that: more BS

    You’re speculating and — once again — you’re unable to back up your statements. One is left to conclude that it’s just more of your unsubstantiated blather.

    1. Go back to the NYTImes and look at what they called various shooters like the one at Ft. Hood which they ascribed to workplace violence. Then look some years later and see if the facts match the Times reports. They don’t. There is no convincing you of anything because you believe the truth is what you wish to believe and I am not in the business of destroying wishes.

      1. The Fort Hood/Nidal Hassan case was/is complicated. Don’t attempt to simplify it.

        Back up your claims.

        1. Anonymous it wasn’t complicated. Nidal all but admitted it. The facts are all over the Internet and you can look them up yourself. Maybe you have a filter on your search engine that only provides food for your dreams.

          2. It is complicated, Allan, because there were claims/reports of ongoing harassment, bullying, and workplace mobbing that may have led to workplace violence and contributed to his radicalization, over the years. Unlike you, I’ll supply the links — which are also “all over the Internet.”

            But you’ve now made this about one individual case, so let’s take the conversation back to its beginning:

            https://jonathanturley.org/2017/10/03/cbs-fires-its-senior-counsel-after-she-tweeted-that-she-has-no-sympathy-for-those-killed-in-las-vegas/comment-page-1/#comment-1661891

            These were Allan’s initial questions (assertions, really): “When has ISIS taken credit for something they have had absolutely no part of When has ISIS made a claim of this nature where they didn’t have some involvement?”

            Allan’s questions were answered, but he didn’t like answers or the sources. And then the conversation became all about Nidal Hasan.

            1. because there were claims/reports of ongoing harassment, bullying, and workplace mobbing that may have led to workplace violence and contributed to his radicalization, over the years. Unlike you, I’ll supply the links —

              Amazing what straws progs grasp at to manufacture excuses for their clientele.

                1. anonymous, I think you must be a pretty smart person also, based on Karl K’s comment.

            3. Your ability to stay on subject is near nil. The question at hand was whether or not Nidal was a terrorist and whether or not the NYTimes recognized it. He was a terrorist and the NYTImes wrote he wasn’t. It wasn’t just one case. It was many. I just provided one case.

              Your proof that the NYTimes was correct is: “It is complicated,… contributed to his radicalization: Accepting what you say as true (Whether it is or is not. You love victimhood so we will accept it for this argument.) Most Muslims that later committed terrorist activities were radicalized as well for one reason or another. That is Islamist terrorism something the NYTimes denied in this case and elsewhere.

              My two questions above have not been answered by you, but the answer is clear. Most or all of the time when ISIS makes this type of claim in the US ISIS had some involvement. Have things changed recently? I don’t know, but that statement if from ISIS needs to be considered.

              1. Allan wrote: “It wasn’t just one case. It was many. I just provided one case.”

                And the one that you provided isn’t a good example.

                If there have been “many”, then it should be easy for you to “provide” more than “one case.”

                1. “And the one that you provided isn’t a good example.”

                  Isn’t a good example? It was Islamist terrorism denied by the NYTimes.

                  Had you initially been honest and said that ‘yes the NYTimes made mistakes calling Islamic terrorism something else’, but you didn’t. I proved they were mistaken and you can’t even admit that it was a a mistake by the NYTimes without providing silly excuses. Why should I provide any more evidence? If the Nidal case doesn’t sink in nothing will.

                  1. You’re thick as a brick, Allan, operating and arguing as if we’re living in a cut-and-dried world — when it’s anything but…

                    “The Army Was Right Not Labeling Hasan’s Killing as Terrorism”

                    by ANDREW BORENE
                    08.27.13 4:45 AM ET

                    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-army-was-right-not-labeling-hasans-killing-as-terrorism

                    “The controversy’s centerpiece has been the accusation that the terrorism charge was deliberately avoided out of political cowardice or a desire to deny benefits to the victims. But this claim misses a key point—trials are about justice not politics, and the Army used the best charge available to obtain an important conviction.

                    “The verdict reopens an opportunity for national conversation about what constitutes terrorism and how we fight it, whether as a nation at war against a foreign enemy or as an ongoing law enforcement challenge to be managed with special investigative tools. The truth is that there are no definitive answers and either approach will be incomplete if used in isolation.

                    “As a Marine veteran, I too have found it puzzling that the U.S. government did not uniformly designate the 2009 Fort Hood attacks as “terrorism” from the start (the attack does not even show up on the November 5 entry in the National Counterterrorism Center’s 2013 terrorism calendar). But as a lawyer, I see the government’s logic based on its consideration of precedential counterterrorism cases and the surest course for conviction. That said, we’re talking specifically about the criminal conviction. Hasan was clearly motivated by a jihadist ideology, but in fighting terrorism over the past decade, we have given the word terrorism several legal meanings apart from its general usage, and it is the narrower legal standards that count in court.

                    (You’re careless and don’t/won’t back up your assertions.)

                    2. The writer is absolutely correct when he says “Hasan was clearly motivated by a jihadist ideology,”. That one might want to use a different claim against him is a completely different issue, but apparently that is too difficult for you to understand.

                      Originally I thought DSS was a little to hard on you, but since I have engaged you I have learned that if anything DSS was a trifle soft. He did, however, call you out for what you are.

                    3. “You (Allan) wrote: “I proved they were mistaken…”

                      No, you didn’t.”

                      Despite the evidence against your position and even in your own article you still appear as dumb as a brick.

                  2. Say what you wish anonymous. If you wish to act as an apologist for these heinous acts under the guise of religion go ahead and do so. That doesn’t help the dead or their families and friends. You live in a strange world and your ability to recognize the events that surround you are severely impaired. I’m shocked at how much more important your ideology is than the truth. Go ahead and wear that vagina cap following Linda Sansour who would gladly see to it that your genitals would be mutilated and you would become a second class citizen which is probably more than you deserve.

  10. A radical, psychotic Feminazi Gaystapo officer and incoherent, hysterical 19th Amendment beneficiary, who has abandoned her natural function of childbirth and nurturing to perpetuate and increase the race and national population sufficient to oppose the existential threat of adversarial nations bent on annihilation and conquest, while enjoying the unconstitutional, biased artifice of “Affirmative Action Privilege” and the vote as “women’s suffrage,” having never personally and without governmental assistance created a novel, distinct and substantial business or fought in a foreign war for the maintenance of national sovereignty and freedom.

    You go, girl!

  11. Events like the mindless slaughter in Las Vegas affect some people like this. A yuge void is created where their brain used to be and nonsense sometimes comes out. We have a President that does this on a regular basis. The events are no where near as tragic but the mindless utterances are somewhat the same.

      1. Allan,
        I wonder, to what degree of possibility is it that some Republican operative pays Isaac a handsome regular fee to post here and insure, to the highest degree possible, the complete political annihilation of Democrat Progressivism.

        Isaac, if you start a crowd fund source for the above goal I’ll toss in a few bucks. Please, do post as often as possible, and then some more.

        If I’m correct, I’ll rate Isaac A+ and request Bannon double his salary immediately!

        PS: the more analogies between Trump and the LV killer, the better, Isaac!

        1. Just like any knee jerk Republican, like Trump, you go off before you let ‘it’ sink in. The comparison was between the idiot who got fired and the idiot Trump, who should be impeached. They both exhibit the same voids, mindlessness, inability to think before spouting. Now you just joined the group: Gold, Trump, and Jones.

            1. Right, Ken they were surrounded by large containers sitting and waiting for truck drivers to distribute them. Unfortunately only 20% of the truck drivers were on the job.

              Trump did a great job.. We saw that in Texas and in Florida. He is doing a great job in Puerto Rico as well, but being in the middle of the Atlantic and not having a good infrastructure to begin with means that Puerto Rican’s can’t be back on their feet as quickly as Floridians and Texans.

              Great job Trump. We want you for a full 8 years.

          2. What high crime and misdemeanor did Trump commit that are grounds for impeachment?

  12. JT: you are on the Fox payroll, aren’t you? You must be, because just like them, you find some way, any way, to disregard the outrageousness of the fat slob who is squatting in the White House and to somehow find a reason to criticize Hillary Clinton. Fatso’s vile comments about PR citizens being “ingrates”, even though they are US citizens with a right to FEMA help, and his comments about them laying around waiting for the government to do everything for them aren’t even mentioned. Instead, you take an inappropriate comment by this attorney and then emphasize that she was an HRC supporter.

    While her comments were inappropriate, one point she was trying to make is that after children were murdered at Sandy Hook, nothing was done towards gun control. This tragedy did not sway Republicans one iota. In fact, the only impact the Las Vegas massacre has had on Republicans so far is that they took an NRA-sponsored measure off the agenda for this week that would have allowed silencers on all kinds of weapons. They probably did this not out of respect for the victims, but because it might have triggered protests that would eventually release the stranglehold the NRA has on the Republican party.

    1. While her comments were inappropriate, one point she was trying to make is that after children were murdered at Sandy Hook, nothing was done towards gun control. This tragedy did not sway Republicans one iota.

      Nancy Lanza was in compliance with Connecticut state law and owned four guns (all locked in a safe). Unless you’re planning mass confiscation, the bleating about gun control is a ruse.

        1. This TIME article might give some insight into Natacha’s thinking about her girl Hillary 😉

          ““It can’t be true,” I said to my kids, back in my bed encampment. “It can’t be. It can’t!”
          “I know,” said my daughter with real sorrow in her voice. “Is Trump going to ruin our lives?” asked my son, with real worry.”

          “Hillary Clinton’s victory would’ve in some measure healed the lifelong wounds that patriarchy has made on my heart. When people accused me of “voting with my vagina,” I laughed. I was proud to do it. President Hillary Clinton would’ve been repudiation, finally, of all those people who’d said women were not fit to lead (or vote or be doctors or write great books or . . . well, you fill in the blank). Her defeat was personal to me. This election wasn’t simply a political contest. It was a referendum on how much America still hates women.”

          (To be clear, the election was not a referendum on how much America still hates women — it was a referendum on how much American hates Hillary Clinton, who happens to be a woman.)

          http://time.com/4959757/cheryl-strayed-nasty-women-hillary-clinton/

          1. Although I respect her hiking a good portion of the PCT, her book and her movie show her to be an immoral idiot, and this article just proves nothing has changed.

          2. Thanks Tbob. I wish I could unread that article though. These people are flat out dangerous in a society whose worldview tends to not extend beyond their own selfish desires. Natacha is Cheryl Strayed but unhinged from the capacity for civil discourse.

            1. “Natacha is Cheryl Strayed but unhinged from the capacity for civil discourse.”

              Cheryl strayed and got knocked up by lunatic ideas.

      2. it is easy to be in compliance with gun laws which are monitored and manipulated by the NRA Nationally and regionally. Obviously whatever “laws” were on the books were not adequate. Mass confiscation is obviously absurd, would violate 2nd amendment rights, no one is suggesting that but you. Background checks need to be reviewed and expanded and take more than three days. Just like you study and take a driving exam we should make the ability to get a gun dependent on the applicants ability to pass a written test and also meet with an individual tester who observes the applicants gun safety and knowledge… and can question him personally to establish competency. This would be time taken and money well spent over time. Guns don’t kill people people do, so we should start with setting standards that review the state of mind and the intentions of the people applying for dun ownership to the best extent possible.

        1. Background checks need to be reviewed and expanded and take more than three days. Just like you study and take a driving exam we should make the ability to get a gun dependent on the applicants ability to pass a written test and also meet with an individual tester who observes the applicants gun safety and knowledge…

          Would have done absolutely no good in the Lanza case.

        2. littlewitch – I think an FBI background check should be done on every driver’s license applicant. No license until the background check has been cleared. That way a driver’s license is clean as a whistle for ID to get a gun. No more background check needed.

        3. “Just like you study and take a driving exam we should make the ability to get a gun dependent on the applicants ability to pass a written test and also meet with an individual tester who observes the applicants gun safety and knowledge”

          There is no constitutional right to drive a car. You can also own a car without getting a license, registering or insurance. Nothing stops you from buying one and sticking it in your garage.

      3. Nancy Lanza was a nut job who allowed her autistic son access to her guns. But the same is true of the black woman in Oregon who provided her autistic son with a gun to “teach him responsibility.” He then went and shot-up Roseburg Community College. (And I only mention that they were black because of the stereotype that black women aren’t as air-headed as white women, and that black males don’t become serial killers.) Maybe the answer is to not allow dim bulb women to have custody of autusic or otherwise mentally ill male children. I doubt that Adam Lanza’s father, a highly successful CPA and partner in a Big Four accounting firm, would have provided him with access to guns. But the father was content to write a fat check every month to his ex-wife and let her deal with the screwball kid, which she obviously lacked the common sense to handle responsibly.

        1. Nancy Lanza was a nut job who allowed her autistic son access to her guns.

          There is no indication that there was anything wrong with Nancy Lanza.,She and her son went to the shooting range together.

          Her guns were kept in a safe. He killed her to get the key to the safe.

          1. Nothing wrong with a parent who takes an autistic male teen/young adult to a gun range, fostering an interest in guns? Jeezus, does it get any more irresponsible than that?

            1. I’m not aware of any data which show that the autistic are commonly violent and vicious.

              1. DSS, That is based upon what you personally are aware of and I think you are wrong. There was an out of country study on violence and autism and it was found that the autistic were more violent percentage wise. The hooker was whether or not the violence was due to other disorders some autistic individuals have as well.

                  1. DSS and SOT are the same perp. But as to autism, those who are afflicted are by definition anti-social, so it would generally follow that they would engage in anti-social behavior, including violence.

                    1. No, they’re not ‘anti-social’ as the term would be understood by anyone. They are, to varying degrees, asocial. That incorporates terrible trouble connecting with people and reading them, not a violent hostility to them.

                    2. I have had to temporarily change my name several times due to the spam filter, but I went right back to the original name in other threads and even in the same thread. What I noted was that one may not even be knocked out from the same thread only that particular thread where the incident occurred. One cannot repeat what was previously said because the spam filter has already accepted the earlier posting that is being held.

                      Why don’t you keep one name and identify yourself if you temporarily change your name?

                  2. Because suddenly out of nowhere Desperately Seeking Susan became Step on Toads. Some have changed their name as I did earlier today because of the computer blocking their posts, but that quickly ends and one can go back to their original name as I did (and I let people know it was me under an assumed name). We don’t know each other so we can only recognize one another by the name and perhaps the syntax of the messages.

                    Anyone that doesn’t go back to their original name might be doing so to escape prior comments or because they wish to troll. I think all should attempt to maintain one name throughout.

                    1. I’ve had five different names on this site because of the spam filter. I suppose I could try recycling them.

                2. Allan, could you please provide a citation for that study if you have time? I’d be interested in reading it.

                  1. Cape Cod, I can’t remember where I read it, but I believe it was based on a study from one of the Nordic countries, I think Sweden. I only remember it because I found it interesting since there is often a dispute about autistic children and violence. It made sense so I retained the information, but not reading the study I don’t know where it was published. Sorry.

                    1. Ditto to this:

                      “Allan, could you please provide a citation for that study if you have time? I’d be interested in reading it.”

                    3. Thanks for finding that, anonymous. So, the other issues (drug/EtOH abuse, comorbid mental illness, etc.) are believed to be the drivers of the behavior, not ASD. That is in line with other data I have seen, which indicates that people on the spectrum are much more likely to hurt themselves than others. Thanks again.

                    4. “Largest study to date finds autism alone does not increase risk of violent offending”

                      That sounds like the study I had read about. The operative word is “alone”.

                    5. “The study reported that having these co-occurring conditions, along with other, later-onset psychiatric disorders and alcohol and drug misuse, were the most important individual predictors of violent criminality in autism, not autism by itself.

                      “Interestingly, when researchers considered individuals with ADHD or conduct disorder, an additional diagnosis of autism was actually found to reduce the risk of violent criminality, compared to individuals with ADHD or conduct disorder alone.”

                      https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-largest-date-autism-violent.html

                    6. Cape Cod, I don’t think the literature excludes autism from the cause. I think it appears to be concomitant or comorbid cause that causes the numbers to rise. If one takes all autistic children and looks at the percentage that are violent I believe the total percentage is greater among autistic children. If one removes the comorbid conditions I think it appears that the rate of violence falls to what is considered normal rates.

                      Autism may or may not be a cause of increased violence in this subset where comorbid diseases exist.

                    7. Allan, your conclusions are not supported by the study that you cited.

                      “Our findings, from the largest study to date, show that at the population level, autism in itself doesn’t seem to be associated with convictions for violent crimes. However, other conditions, such as ADHD, which can co-occur with autism, may increase such risks.”

                      Dr Dheeraj Rai, Consultant Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry at the University of Bristol, said:
                      “Interestingly, the additional presence of an autism diagnosis with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or conduct disorder was actually associated with a relatively lower risk of convictions, compared to having these conditions without autism.

                      According to the scientists who did the work, the presence of autism is actually protective WRT convictions for violent crimes. If you can point me to other data out there, I’ll happily read it, but this Swedish study indicates being autistic is not the driver of the violent behavior. ADHD is one factor that is a driver, and that is not surprising, as those individuals have impulse control issues.

                    8. Allan – I think we are overlooking that those autistic children are generally frustrated which might cause them to act out (sometimes termed violent) when they are really just trying to either communicate or just be left alone.

                    9. “Allan, your conclusions are not supported by the study that you cited.”

                      Cape Cod, I didn’t read the original study so I have to rely upon secondary sources that don’t always understand the data, but I think this study and this article agree with my point which was, “I don’t think the literature excludes autism from the cause. I think it appears to be concomitant or comorbid cause that causes the numbers to rise.”

                      I’m not trying to be right, rather I am searching for truth wherever it might fall.

                      Take note of the headline: “Largest study to date finds autism alone does not increase risk of violent offending” AS I believe I mentioned earlier the world “alone” is the operative word. Take note of the first sentence of the article: “A diagnosis of autism alone does not increase the risk of violent offending”. Take note that once again the word “alone” was used. The reason for the use of that word is because it appears violence might increase in autistic children with a co-morbid conditions. It may be a bit subtle, but it is very important from the scientific viewpoint.

                      Take note of another sentence: “However, this risk was significantly reduced once the presence of additional attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or conduct disorder were taken into account.” This is telling us that the risk of violence among children with autism was higher than average, but if we remove the co-morbid problem the risk was reduced. There were other findings as well that would alter an opinion, but the underlying information for the purposes of our discussion lay in the title and the first sentence.

                      If you still don’t see that what I said was exactly true then review this sentence. “Our findings, from the largest study to date, show that at the population level, autism in itself doesn’t seem to be associated with convictions for violent crimes. However, other conditions, such as ADHD, which can co-occur with autism, may increase such risks.” In this sentence the words “in itself” are the operative words regarding our discussion. In other words autism plus another illness can increase the tendency for violence that is not seen in the normal population or in the other disease population. It is the combination of two conditions that in this study seems to cause the increase in violence seen among those children afflicted with autism.

                      I am not being judgemental in my approach rather I am trying to interpret from a second hand source what the conlusion is regarding a singular consideration.

                    10. Allan, I read the study. The original eligible population in the Stockholm Youth Cohort was 295,734; 5739 of the eligible people were diagnosed with autism. The study cohort was a group of 250 autistic individuals and 7643 control (non-autistic) individuals who by the end of follow-up (at 27 yo) had at least one violent crime conviction. The salient results are as follows: Relative Risk (RR) for violent crime in autistic individuals alone (e.g., no other diagnosis) = 1.10 (95% CI, 0.92-1.31; RR = 1.0 would be no difference b/t study and control groups). Study population was adjusted for several confounders including age, sex, parental age & education at birth of child, household income, migration status, and maternal/paternal history of violent crime and psychological health. RR for violent crime in autistic individuals who also were diagnosed with ADHD/CD (conduct disorder) = 2.69 (95% CI, 2.28-3.17). In individuals with no autism, but with ADHD &/or CD, the RR = 3.87 (95% CI, 3.62-4.13). When the authors further stratified and removed 71 individuals whose autism diagnosis came after their first conviction (leaving only those whose diagnosis pre-dated their violent crime), the RR dropped to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.75-1.11) in the absence of ADHD/CD.

                      As you can see, there is minimal risk for violent crime in autistic individuals, even in those who were never diagnosed before they committed the crime. There is no evidence for increased risk for violent crime when the autism diagnosis is early. The significant predictors are ADHD and CD. The RR values change a bit if you further stratify for intellectual disability (ID is protective), but I did not present those values because I have not investigated the methodology used for determining ID.

                      http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(17)30150-8/fulltext

                      BTW, there is a previous, smaller sibling control study which also showed no increased risk for violent crime in individuals with ASD (Lundstrom et al. J. Autism Dev Disord 44:2707-16.)

                    11. “Allan, I read the study. ”

                      Thanks for the breakdown Cape Cod. I think what is to be learned is that there isn’t as much violence among autistic kids as some suspected. None the less the study demonstrates increased violence when certain co-morbid conditions exist which increases the total amount of violence in the group. I believe that is consistent with what I said especially since I wasn’t and couldn’t stratify the group from the article available. Are you seeing more in the study than I am based upon my most casual glance? I am not talking about how to ameliorate crime and things other than the singular number I discussed. I think one of the most important things taken from the study (only a quick scan) is recognition that one can target a portion of the autistic group for better outcomes. I also found the following very interesting and something to think about: “An intriguing finding was that a later diagnosis of autism appeared to be related to an increased risk of criminal convictions.”

                    12. This is what you originally said, Allan.

                      “DSS, That is based upon what you personally are aware of and I think you are wrong. There was an out of country study on violence and autism and it was found that the autistic were more violent percentage wise. The hooker was whether or not the violence was due to other disorders some autistic individuals have as well.”

                      Then when I pressed you, you said the operative word was “alone.” Or the following: “In other words autism plus another illness can increase the tendency for violence that is not seen in the normal population or in the other disease population. It is the combination of two conditions that in this study seems to cause the increase in violence seen among those children afflicted with autism.” That still was not an accurate representation of the author’s words, which is why I kept responding to you.

                      RR values have to be taken in context. An RR value for violent crime of 1.1 for individuals with autism alone vs. 3.87 for individuals with ADHD/CD alone. And a value of 2.69 if the individuals have both. Average risk is 1.0. According to your statement above, a 10% increased risk is just as significant as a 269% or 387% risk. It’s clearly not. There are roughly 6.4 million 4-17 yo children diagnosed with ADHD (~11% of kids in 2011-12 via the CDC) vs. just over 855,000 ASD children (assume the same age range) during the same time period. I know you said you weren’t interested in crime, but just for kicks, which population do you think the cops will be concerned with given the differences in risk above?

                      “An intriguing finding was that a later diagnosis of autism appeared to be related to an increased risk of criminal convictions.” That finding did not hold up when the authors removed the 71 individuals who were convicted prior to their diagnosis; no firm conclusions could be made.

                      I appreciate your willingness to go back and forth with me on this, and I agree with your last comment’s takeaway. I think we probably are as close to a common understanding of this subject as we ever will get. And this thread is too dam# long. 🙂

                    13. Cape Cod, I appreciate your comments, but somewhere along the line we don’t seem to be matching our thoughts. I appreciate your attempts to bring us together, but I still am not seeing your point. Firstly my comments had to do with an article about the study not the actual study which I hadn’t read so I would not be able to know the (your words) ” accurate representation of the author’s words, which is why I kept responding to you.” I was keeping my comment very simple and not drawing conclusions or attempting to go past the scope of the article (not the study).

                      Later I stated that I found some of the statements interesting but drew no conclusions from those statements because they weren’t adequately studied and as you said no firm conclusions were made. I had said “An intriguing finding was…” nothing more, nothing less, so your comment “no firm conclusions could be made.” wasn’t necessary though very much appreciated. You are right, I have some interest in crime (not a primary one) and recognize scarce resources so that comment of the author indicated a potential way to better use those scarce resources

                      I understand your context, but I don’t know why you said “10% increased risk is just as significant as a 269% or 387% risk. It’s clearly not.” I never dealt with those numbers that were privy to the study NOT the article about the study and it had little to do with my comment to DSS which was not refined and didn’t deal directly with the study. The study itself has problems so that drawing fine lines cannot be made. In scanning I think the author even admitted that, and before drawing any of these conclusions one has to carefully examine the metrics used for the endpoints (among a whole host of other things).

                      Thus what we have is a comment on a singular country specific article where the two points, I believe, were accurate based upon that article. That is followed by a refinement of what those two points mean based upon the original study which itself is lacking and would need to be refined by other studies that may have had, among other things, different endpoints that could have completely changed your numbers. This is a building process that changes every time more information is added. Refinement after refinement.

                      Let me go back to my initial statement to DSS.

                      1) “autistic were more violent percentage wise.” That is a raw number not taking any other factors into account. True or false?

                      2) “The hooker was whether or not the violence was due to other disorders some autistic individuals have as well.” This comment is not dealing with any other statistical variables. True or false?

                      I wasn’t attempting to provide a report on the study which I hadn’t read. Nor was I reporting on the accuracy of the study or any of the other variables contained in the study. Only those two potentially conflicting thoughts were expressed. I don’t know how any of the following discussion alters those two statements except to refine them which you have done quite well.

                      Yes, the thread is long, but you are a smart individual so engaging with you is not a problem. I just want to see if the reason we stray apart is based upon the true and false questions asked above or based upon a further evaluation of an interesting study that was not available and though containing important refinements didn’t really alter what I said to DSS.

                    14. Here is Step’s comment:
                      I’m not aware of any data which show that the autistic are commonly violent and vicious.

                      Your response: DSS, That is based upon what you personally are aware of and I think you are wrong. There was an out of country study on violence and autism and it was found that the autistic were more violent percentage wise. The hooker was whether or not the violence was due to other disorders some autistic individuals have as well.

                      Yes, your claims are TRUE, but they were given in response to what DSS said, and the take home message from the article provided by anonymous is that the autism was not the point. Which is the issue I’ve been trying (and clearly failing) to make.

                      Jiminy Cricket, have you been trying this whole time to get across that it is reasonable to assume autistics are violent because they often have other associated neurological conditions? If so, geez we’ve been talking at cross purposes this whole time. And if people believe that, it bodes poorly for people on the spectrum living in society. My point is that you cannot blame a person’s autism for the behavior, which TIN alluded to WRT Adam Lanza and why Step responded that way.

                      How one frames the study defines everything, including people’s perception of the results. ADHD and violence has been studied out the ying/yang. A 2014 Swedish study already established no link between autism and violent crime. This was a larger follow-up, and when the authors found an increase in their autistic population, they looked further, and found the actual driver of risk was the coincident ADHD. So, to me, one can just as easily say the presence of autism results in less violent behavior in ADHD sufferers.

                    15. CCS, you haven’t offered any quantification of your claim. If autistic youths are 20% more likely to commit a common assault, that’s regrettable, but it does not sustain the original complaint, which was that Nancy Lanza was horribly irresponsible to go to the shooting range with her son. You only get into the ‘horribly irresponsible’ category when you’re talking of large risks or large differentials. That your son aspires to be a mass killer is not a large risk. She would have been ‘horribly irresponsible’ if she knew what was on his home computer.

                    16. It appears you’re confused about the claims and who is making them. I never claimed autistic people were more likely to be violent. In fact, if you read this entire thread, I believe you’ll find I actually supported your original response to TIN WRT “violent and vicious” at 4:28 pm on 10/3.

                    17. “Yes, your claims are TRUE”

                      Cape Cod, now we are getting to the point. I didn’t go any further than those claims that left the door open to more discussion as to the significance. Remember, people do think autistic children are violent and what I was pointing out in response to DSS was that there was more than one way of looking at the situation. You went further to point out more data that furthered our knowledge of what the authors were looking at along with some of the possible conclusions.

                      I was not concerned with what anonymous said, nor do I remember any comments she made other than a quote which came a long time after my comment directed to DSS so your discussion saying “the take home message from the article provided by anonymous is that the autism…” had nothing to do with my comment made hours before.

                      “Jiminy Cricket, have you been trying this whole time to get across that it is reasonable to assume autistics are violent because they often have other associated neurological conditions?” Yes and no. I wasn’t drawing conclusions but, and I will quote what I said, “The hooker was whether or not the violence was due to other disorders some autistic individuals have as well.” I drew no conclusions nor did I draw personal conclusions. You responses indicate that you might think I had a specific conclusion in mind, but I didn’t and still don’t. I think I might have mentioned earlier that we could be talking at cross purposes.

                      “My point is that you cannot blame a person’s autism for the behavior, which TIN alluded to WRT Adam Lanza and why Step responded that way.”

                      I wasn’t considering Adam Lanza in my reply. It was a memory of what an article said in the past and I think I actually provided a reason for such thinking and that is that co-morbid illness might be a more significant link to violence. This is a topic that is very difficult to study because the parameters are not clear cut and the observers eye can create problems when the study isn’t blinded.

                    18. Wow, I guess we got off in the weeds with all the discussion. Phew! Glad that’s straightened out.
                      🙂

                    19. Cape Cod, No problem. I found it interesting along with your defense of a position. I even got to learn a bit more about autism. I consider the discussion a plus. Thanks.

              2. They aren’t. Aspies are overwhelmingly among the harassed and bullied in school and other public environments; that’s what makes the reported stories on this event highly unbelievable. People with Aspergers suffer secondary depression and concomitant suicidal ideation more often than their age-related peers because they are treated differently due to their neurology. But Aspies are also very good with cause and effect. If Johnny with AS has been bullied by Tommy, he wouldn’t decide the best response is to go after Billy.

                Now if one wants to argue if AS was the correct diagnosis for Adam Lanza, that is a different discussion.

                http://time.com/19957/adam-lanzas-violence-wasnt-typical-of-aspergers/

        2. Maybe we should just take the mentally ill children away and quietly dispose of them? Would that be a solution you could live w/ Tin? And what would the criteria be for removal? Who should set the standards for the degree of “unacceptible mental deficiency”? Perhaps you could get into your magic time machine and go back to help Josef Mengela or Himmler complete Adolf’s work.

    2. Natacha,
      If your goal was to be more vile and contemptible than Hayley Geftman-Gold then congratulations, mission accomplished.

    3. While her comments were inappropriate, one point she was trying to make is that after children were murdered at Sandy Hook, nothing was done towards gun control. This tragedy did not sway Republicans one iota.

      The subject is the events in Las Vegas, not the President. Turley is not obligated to share your Tourette’s.

      1. Whew, comrade, I had thought you had missed the talking point memo, Hills is old news. carry on.

        1. I WISH HRC was “old newz” but she’s not – constantly offering her insipid opinions on the all the effing MSM.

        2. YNOT – although you and I might agree that Hill is old news, she is trying to stay relevant to her base and stir them up. She has her eyes on 2020. In this case, Hill reinserted herself in the new news. As usual, Hill is tone deaf to her audience. She is losing more voters with every book she sells and every interview she gives. Actually, the DNC needs to disavow her for life.

          1. Clinton is not running for anything and that is a good thing so don’t get your hopes up,

            1. Ken – I am hoping that good sense finally kicks in and she gives up the idea. She is poisoning the DNC. She was a horrible candidate in 2015, she will be even worse in 2019.

    6. Natcha,
      First, let me forgive myself for wasting time replying to your pathetic excuse for an argument.

      You are apparently so lame you did not know that possession of fully automatic weapons this killer used nets the criminal about 15 years in a federal penitentiary.

      You are a hypocrite. If you hate living in a nation ruled by the 2nd Amendment, leave, get the hell out, and don’t come back.

      If you desire to cancel the 2nd Amendment, try an “argument” with logic and debate, not ad hominem attacks.

      1. Loser, the U.S. is not ruled by 2nd amendment. As for ad hominem attacks, calling you ignorant would not suffice.

    1. I am devastated by the pointless loss of life in Las Vegas. The victims are not only fellow Americans they are fellow human beings. i am a supporter of gun ownership , I am against sales of assault rifles , I think gun owners should be reviewed and tested similar to automobile drivers. Over the years I , like most Americans have watched unhinged gun owners slaughter innocent victims. More crazy is the number of “accidental” gun deaths where careless gun owners weapons get into the hands of children and i watch these people killing each other off, and still they support unfettered gun ownership. It was not lost on me that the horrific event in Las Vegas was a crazy white guy slaughtering other white people who enjoy a type of music that attracts people ,mostly but not exclusively white, who are avid supporters of a broadest view of second amendment rights, and the music itself sometimes glorify that gun culture. So I stand in horror watching these folks killing each other , their friends and family off. Now in one senseless act the killing within gun culture goes mega… Tragic, pathetic and insane.

  14. Yeah JT, ya really threw out the red meat today, you must be getting better updates from the think tanks. FOX NEWS can throw out saying stupid things everyday, but….oh that liberal media, boy just check out what some LIBERAL said……….Shame, shame, shame.

    1. Your comments haven’t been much different than her comments so a lot of people including FOX News can see a pattern.

  15. This is a prime example of why the NFL owners need/ should squash the Anthem protests! This woman was speaking on her own time off work and yet her speach was deemed a “FIRABLE OFFENSE” A) I do not agree with the firing! B) This was her right to make an ASS out of herself with her speech. Now to the NFL the players are protesting on “COMAPNY/ LEAGUE TIME” If this is not an example of “no protection of 1st amendment rights” at a work place then I do not know what is. Point is the OWNERS & the LEAGUE should/ need to exercise Their AUTHORITY to make the guys STOP! I also beleive that “HATE CRIME” laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD!!! How are you supposed to know what a person is THINKING to allow extra or special punishments (?). If we were mind readers then we could stop SICKOS like the Vagus twit from getting loose!!!!!

    1. Come out from beneath your sarge and pick up a dictionary. Even stupid thoughts ring true if presented better.

  16. Let’em speak. It informs us. All socialist ideology strips people of their humanity. They can’t win with ideas, so they kill those who disagree.

    She validates the notion of a leftist media but the true evil of their beliefs.

    They don’t care. -59 or more less Trump voters, but they can’t be sure. Maybe some didn’t vote, maybe some voted for Bernie or Jill or Garry or even Hillary. That doesn’t matter because you have to break some eggs to make an omelet.

    These people are demonic and that’s not an exaggeration.

  17. It reveals what state our country is in today. As outrageous as her tweet was, it was NOT a stupid career move. I bet she’ll get job offers, and she knew she would.

  18. No sympathy for Republican gun toters, huh? Maybe if the ignorant witch actually knew one of the 500+ victims of this tragedy it would wake her ass up and knock her out of her inhumane political stupor. This is a facebook post from the family of just one of the victims – a young woman who was shot in the eye:

    Rich Frost
    15 hours ago
    Sharing sister Megan Frost’s recent update from the hospital:
    Tina’s vitals are stable. They removed her right eye, where the bullet was lodged, and there is an implant there now to keep the space open. She has sight in her left eye but will never see from the right again. They took out a bone from her forehead to allow the brain room to swell, that will stay out for a few months. She’s in a coma and on a ventilator, she cannot breathe on her own. She’s critically stable in ICU for at least a week. Over the next few days, they’re going to see how she responds to simulation, but until then, we won’t know how bad the brain damage is. We appreciate everyone reaching out, we know your hearts are with us, I’m sorry I can’t respond to everyone, so just wanted to update you all on here.

    1. Wow, that is so sad. I pray for all involved. It’s not just about those who died, those who are injured will grieve in so many ways like this poor soul who will grieve the loss of her sight

  19. Would someone explain to me how you move that many guns in such a short period of time in a city? Sounds like it would have been easier to just drive a tank in and open up. What’s up with that? Three rifles is a lot, and will get your attention, even if packed up. Strange.

    1. Las Vegas has regular gun shows. It’s not unusual to have a vendor keep his inventory in his room.

        1. The question is was he a golfer or from a film crew?
          Can’t think of too many other vocations/hobbies that have those kind of cases required to carry weapons and not look suspicious.

    2. He was well known at the hotel, a regular gambler who stayed there for weeks at a time. If he put the rifles in a rolling golf bag, he could have walked through the lobby repeatedly and nobody would have given it much thought.

  20. Hayley Geftman-Gold saying that she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

    She would be a good match for Kaepernick who supports a cop killer.

    It is no wonder that even those that should be considered intelligent end up saying such stupid things when they graduate from the esteemed Columbia University because that university promotes the worst of the worst on its campus.

    2. Again, and I’ve said this previously, where are the new leaders of the Democratic Party?
      Are the going to use the Trump standard which riles them up beyond, you know someone whose vile and crass but tells it like it is and then force all the rank and vile to accept the wishes of the arcane leadership as opposed to offering some new blood like Tulsi Gabbard?. Hmm, sound familiar, rinse lather and repeat defeat. Hippocrits the lot of them all.
      Nasty educated liberals, sure they can run the country. Only if they could win elections.

      1. Roscoe, We see the new leaders everytime there is a catastrophe.Vegas provides us this twit graduate from Columbia who has her a$$ and mouth in the wrong places, Puerto Rico has a mayor who makes complaints about Trump and lack supplies while in the background one can see tons of supplies, etc.

        The Liberals don’t have doers only destroyers such as Obama a community organizer who has never learned how to build. He can only destroy.

Comments are closed.