Arizona Congresswoman Shot; Federal Judge and 9-Year-Old Killed

Rabid Badger wrote:

And Tungsten, the whole 'George Bush burned in effigy' thing is no longer cromnulant. Back then, the Republicans were in control, and I don't recall anyone going around randomly killling (or trying to kill) Republican politicians because they didn't agree with their politics (if it occurred, please feel free to refresh my memory) I do, however, remember the wholesale ridicule of those who didn't agree with the War in Iran, in which people were basically accused of being anti-American and siding with the Taliban.

But don't you know that burning something in effigy totally = absolute willingness to burn it for real? THOSE FLAG-BURNING HIPPIES FROM THE '60s AND '70s VIETNAM PROTESTS WERE THE ONES WHO DID 9/11, YOU KNOW.

I'm not playing the false equivalence game. Both sides don't do it to the same degree, or with the same level of over-the-top vitrol or penetration into the media. The First Amendment does give them the right, but at some point common sense would dictate that there is some level of responsibility to choose your words more carefully. Just because 99.9999% of your audience isn't likely to hop the train to Osawaldville doesn't mean you can discount the .0001% who would. You can't light the fuse and then walk away before the bomb goes off.

That being said, I really do think this guy was completely balls-to-the-wall crazy. What he spouts isn't the kind of right-wing crackpot stuff that is part and parcel of the fringes.

It makes no sense from any type of ideological standpoint, either left or right - it's gibberish.

Yes, one of his favorite books was "The Communist Manifesto". But he was also a fan of Ayn Rand. I can say with pretty solid certainly that no one who likes Rand would self-identify as any sort of left-wing person.

Spotts1701 wrote:

I'm not playing the false equivalence game. Both sides don't do it to the same degree, or with the same level of over-the-top vitrol or penetration into the media. The First Amendment does give them the right, but at some point common sense would dictate that there is some level of responsibility to choose your words more carefully. Just because 99.9999% of your audience isn't likely to hop the train to Osawaldville doesn't mean you can discount the .0001% who would. You can't light the fuse and then walk away before the bomb goes off.

Isn't there something in the law about people being responsible for "language that incites violence" that puts the speaker back on the hook for what happens as a result of their speech? I'm a little vague on whether that's an actual part of the law, or if it's an argument that can be used if/when something gets to court.

Edit: That's not saying that this is or isn't the case here. It's just a general question.

lemmingwriter wrote:

Isn't there something in the law about people being responsible for "language that incites violence" that puts the speaker back on the hook for what happens as a result of their speech? I'm a little vague on whether that's an actual part of the law, or if it's an argument that can be used if/when something gets to court.

Edit: That's not saying that this is or isn't the case here. It's just a general question.

Dunno about America, but over here that'll be called 'inciting [insert descriptor here - racial, religious, whatever] hatred'.

Important thing to remember about our right to freedom of speech: We don't actually have it. What we do have is "Freedom of speech, so long as you watch what you say."

I forget the actual wording, but i can look it up if you want clarification, but, like the majority of laws in the UK, it runs something like: "Sure, you can do it, but you must be aware of, and be responsible for, its influence or effect on your neighbour." And if you show disregard for this, you can be arrested and charged.

We have the whole "inciting hatred" rule here in Israel too, and it's being invoked a lot lately too. Does nothing, of course, and only serves to make me feel like violent rhetoric completely replaced rational debate.

Though one might argue people have been violent assholes since the beginning of the existence of mankind and people have always been such bastards and I didn't notice.

Still, it's always frightening when hateful words cause a nutcase to assassinate a politician just because they don't agree with what the politician has to say. The extent to which people will go to prove their fucked-up point... The first time I encountered such a thing (when our Prime Minister got assassinated) I had just turned seven, should've clued me as to what a fucked up world we live in.

lemmingwriter wrote:

Isn't there something in the law about people being responsible for "language that incites violence" that puts the speaker back on the hook for what happens as a result of their speech? I'm a little vague on whether that's an actual part of the law, or if it's an argument that can be used if/when something gets to court.

Edit: That's not saying that this is or isn't the case here. It's just a general question.

You're looking for the Brandenburg test - speech is not protected if it is designed to produce "imminent lawless action" and is likely to incite that action.

Even though the speech we're talking about would not meet this test, it shouldn't take force of law to get people to act with more discretion. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should do it.

Edit: Just saw the press conference on her condition. The bullet apparently traveled through the entire left side of her brain (the part that controls speech and simple commands), and the doctors don't know how much permanent damage has been done. They are as optimistic as possible given the severity of the injury, and say that she is responding to simple requests such as squeezing hands.

The other people wounded are recovering well.

The 9-year-old victim was a "9/11 Baby" who wanted to learn more about government as she had just been elected to student council at her school. The federal judge was scheduled to hear oral arguments on Tuscon's new "anti-ethnic studies" rules, and was there just to say hi to the Congresswoman. Another victim threw himself over his wife to shield her from the gunman (she sustained 3 bullet wounds to the leg, but will make a complete physical recovery).

It looks like the shooter may have had ties to a white nationalist group.

Quote :

American Renaissance is a white nationalist group that operates under a pseudo think tank called the New Century Foundation.

Also, he's likely psychotic.

How the hell did he get the firearm?

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

How the hell did he get the firearm?

He's never been judged to be mentally incompetent by a court of law, and does not have any felony convictions. That means that he could legally walk into any sporting goods store, Wal-Mart, or gun shop and buy both the firearm and the after-market magazine clip with nothing more than a routine background check.

Spotts1701 wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

How the hell did he get the firearm?

He's never been judged to be mentally incompetent by a court of law, and does not have any felony convictions. That means that he could legally walk into any sporting goods store, Wal-Mart, or gun shop and buy both the firearm and the after-market magazine clip with nothing more than a routine background check.

This society needs more gun regulation and better licensing procedures.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Please tell me what the left wing equivalent of Fox News is.

MSNBC.

Ozzy wrote:

This society needs more gun regulation and better licensing procedures.

You're an idiot. Gun ownership does more to keep sane, law abiding citizens safe than they do to hurt them.

Also, anyone who attempts to tie this fool to the Tea Party or Sarah Palin is blantantly ignoring the fact that this guy had no connection, of any sort, to either. Yes, he might have read Ayn Rand. He also read Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto. This guy was not left wing or right wing, he was fucking bonkers.

He thought greenbacks were a mind control device.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

This society needs more gun regulation and better licensing procedures.

Because as we saw in the case of the guy who was paroled and killed a police officer, that works wonders. See, that guy was someone who wouldn't be allowed to own a firearm anywhere in the US. Despite Massachusetts having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, a convicted violent felon was able to acquire a firearm and shoot people with it twice, in 1985 and now.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Please tell me what the left wing equivalent of Fox News is.

MSNBC.

Oh, for the love of...you provide me one video clip of any MSNBC media personality using rhetoric similar to Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly, and then we'll have this discussion.

Until then, sit your ignorant five-dollar ass down before I make change.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Ozzy wrote:

This society needs more gun regulation and better licensing procedures.

You're an idiot. Gun ownership does more to keep sane, law abiding citizens safe than they do to hurt them.

You see nothing wrong with a man who was judged too mentally unstable to join the military owning a gun? Good to know. I guess the little girl who was shot and killed should've been packing heat, because that's the logical conclusion of your viewpoint. If you don't want to get shot, shoot first.

Furthermore, it's not gun ownership in general. It's how the US determines who is mentally fit to own a gun. To my knowledge, we have no licensing procedures for gun ownership. How come there is more personal responsibility in driving a car that procuring a tool made to kill things? I could walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a gun with only a background check, but I must take traffic classes and pass two tests in order to drive a car.

Yes, do show us one example of a MSNBC pundit employing the same violent rhetoric as Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity. You can remove your face from between Sarah Palin's legs now.

Spotty, you would agree that, until recently, he routinely labeled people "The Worst Person In the World" without me finding a video clip, yes?

Okay, very good.

This includes Bristol Palin for that commercial with The Situation, one segment where he said Bill O'Reilly hates America, calling Bush a troglodyte, and that was what I found after just five minutes on YouTube and Google.

Oh, he only dropped the WPITW segment when Jon Stewart rode in on the Butthurtmobile because people weren't holding hands around a campfire singing kumbaya. Paying any attention to Jon Stewart as anything other than a occasionally funny comedian makes him an idiot.

Now, I'm not one to get worked up over people shouting insults at each other. Adults should be able to do that without shooting each other. However, both sides do it, stop butthurting because one side does it.

Spotty wrote:

Until then, sit your ignorant five-dollar ass down before I make change.

1.) The hypocrisy hurts my liver.
2.) I'm totally remembering to use this.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Spotty, you would agree that, until recently, he routinely labeled people "The Worst Person In the World" without me finding a video clip, yes?

Okay, very good.

That's your comparison?

Wow, that's...so shockingly stupid. Not only does it completely miss the point of the segment, but not once...not once did he say these people have no right to exist. Ignored, marginalized, ridiculed, yes. But never did he call for them to be destroyed or killed.

You're playing the false equivalence game. Both sides don't do it equally. Stop pretending that they do.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Spotty, you would agree that, until recently, he routinely labeled people "The Worst Person In the World" without me finding a video clip, yes?

Okay, very good.

That's your comparison?

Wow, that's...so shockingly stupid. Not only does it completely miss the point of the segment, but not once...not once did he say these people have no right to exist. Ignored, marginalized, ridiculed, yes. But never did he call for them to be destroyed or killed.

You're playing the false equivalence game. Both sides don't do it equally. Stop pretending that they do.

As an outsider looking in, it seems to me that the democrats tend to be cleverer and verbally meaner with there attacks than Republicans, who, on the other hand, just seem to go straight for the straight denial of the alternate view point and, in extreme cases like this, talking about people not sharing their views being eliminated.

WD40 wrote:

I forget the actual wording, but i can look it up if you want clarification, but, like the majority of laws in the UK, it runs something like: "Sure, you can do it, but you must be aware of, and be responsible for, its influence or effect on your neighbour." And if you show disregard for this, you can be arrested and charged.

Snake Bandage wrote:

We have the whole "inciting hatred" rule here in Israel too, and it's being invoked a lot lately too.

Spotts1701 wrote:

You're looking for the Brandenburg test - speech is not protected if it is designed to produce "imminent lawless action" and is likely to incite that action.

Even though the speech we're talking about would not meet this test, it shouldn't take force of law to get people to act with more discretion. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should do it.

Thanks, all. And Spotts, that's exactly what I was looking for, yes. It doesn't meet the test, but that's not going to stop the (quite valid) questioning of the imagery and language used by the more vocal elements on the right. The left doesn't have an equivalent approach.

Somath: You suggest an almost "Mean Girls" approach by the vocal elements on the left, and a "Nerds like you should be pants-ed by the flagpole after recess" approach by the right. Kinda works for me, really, but maybe that's because I'm losing patience with either side's extremes. I mean, there's no good reason for the violent imagery and language employed by the right (it's disturbing and reprehensible), but the left's constant sniping can get a little grating sometimes.


I got an email this morning from a Reform rabbi who is suggesting that the fact that the Congresswoman is Jewish may be a factor; she's apparently the first Jewish woman elected to Congress in Arizona, and she represents a substantial and fairly predictable group when it comes to voting. Thoughts?

lemmingwriter wrote:

You suggest an almost "Mean Girls" approach by the vocal elements on the left, and a "Nerds like you should be pants-ed by the flagpole after recess" approach by the right. Kinda works for me, really, but maybe that's because I'm losing patience with either side's extremes. I mean, there's no good reason for the violent imagery and language employed by the right (it's disturbing and reprehensible), but the left's constant sniping can get a little grating sometimes.

That's a much simpler way of saying it yeah, but like I said, all we ever get over here is the spill over so the extremes are all we see.

Well, I expected them to weigh in sooner or later.

Quote :

In a flier posted on its web site, the controversial [Westboro Baptist] church writes, "THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER -- 6 DEAD!" The message continues:

Quote :

God appointed this rod for your sins! God sent the shooter! This hateful nation unleashed violent veterans on the servants of God at WBC--hoping to silence our kind warning to obey God and flee the wrath to come.

The flier claims that the shooting of both a House member and a federal judge -- the latter of whom was killed -- is god's punishment for judicial and Congressional action against the WBC. "God sent the shooter to shoot you! And He's sitting in Heaven laughing at you!" the announcement reads.

In graphic language, it continues:

Quote :

Your federal judge is dead and your (fag-promoting, baby-killing, proud-sinner) Congresswoman fights for her life. God is avenging Himself on this rebellious house! WBC prays for your destruction--more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner--all. Your doom is upon you!

And they're planning a picket on the funerals of the victims.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I try to avoid wishing harm on others... But sometimes it is really, REALLY fucking hard.

Gun ownership actually doesn't do much to make people safer. Most people aren't trained in using weapons during high-stress situations such as being confronted with a spree shooter. They'll stumble, they'll panic, their shots will go wide (potentially causing more injuries), and the chances are high the spree shooter will be able to kill him regardless. Further, there is the implications of the Tueller Drill, which suggests a guy with a knife will probably ventilate you if he pulls the knife within 21 feet. And that's assuming you keep your gun loaded at all times; if you don't, forget about it.

What gun owners sell is not security, but a fantasy. You know what I'm talking about; the fantasy that if someone tries to mug you and/or your significant other, you'll whip out your pistol and make them scurry away. If you've actually seen or been involved in a violent crime you'll quickly realize the fantasy for what it is. Violent crime doesn't play out in a way where having a gun will meaningfully change the outcome.

That being said, there are many other countries in the world with gun laws as lax or more so than the US, and their gun-related crime indexes aren't anywhere near as horrifying as the States'. Seeing that, it's hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that guns aren't the problem. It's our culture that's toxic.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

You see nothing wrong with a man who was judged too mentally unstable to join the military owning a gun?

Joining the military is not a right. It takes very little to be rejected for mental health issues.

Quote :

Furthermore, it's not gun ownership in general. It's how the US determines who is mentally fit to own a gun. To my knowledge, we have no licensing procedures for gun ownership. How come there is more personal responsibility in driving a car that procuring a tool made to kill things?

Owning a gun is a Constitutionally-protected right. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads, not so much.

Quote :

I could walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a gun with only a background check, but I must take traffic classes and pass two tests in order to drive a car.

Funnily enough, you don't need a background check to drive a two-ton death machine.

^Ugh, Westboro Baptists are hideous. They're just trolls, though, right?

Anyway, I've only just caught up on this story and a few things leapt out at me.
1. The Tea Party rhetoric is revolting, and one can't say for certain that it's completely unrelated to what happened. The killer was clearly severely disturbed--I just watched his youtube videos and they were so divorced from reality I found them nigh-on impossible to follow--but this does not mean that messages like that influenced him. Particularly as someone that crazy may interpret such messages rather literally.
2. Just what is the point of giving out a political message with such violent imagery in the first place?
3. Do we know if the gun was obtained legally? If so, you Americans might want to make it a little harder for such disturbed people to get guns.

Of course, all of this is eclipsed by the fact that what happened was terrible. Six people died. The Congresswoman is alive, which is frankly amazing and a real testament to the brilliance of modern medicine. Isn't all that more important right now than those other background issues?

I've heard about her being Jewish a factor too. Interesting considering the killer's supposed ties to a white supremacist group.

ZoZo wrote:

3. Do we know if the gun was obtained legally? If so, you Americans might want to make it a little harder for such disturbed people to get guns.

It was - he bought it at a sporting goods store in Tuscon about 6 weeks ago. The after-market 30-round extended magazines were also obtained legally (he emptied the first one, and was restrained by a woman and two men before he could start firing the second).