(01-11-2011 03:16 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  By assaulting him or killing him outright, we would be no better than him.

I see a crystal clear distiction, but hey, that's me.

(01-11-2011 03:16 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  But that is the difference between a sane person who is stable and this dreck of a human with obvious mental problems. We stable humans don't act on those impulses. We know it is wrong and we know that there are consequences for our actions. By assaulting him or killing him outright, we would be no better than him.

On February 15th 1933, a deranged loner who "heard voices" named Guiseppe Zangara tried to shoot the President-elect (FDR). He missed Roosevelt, but hit the Mayor of Chicago, who subsequently died. By March 20th 1933, Zangara had been arrested, charged, arraigned, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed. The total time-span between crime and carrying-out the sentence: 33 days.

Many changes have come over the United States in the past 78 years. Some of those changes have been for the better. But one change that has been terribly for the worse is the way we coddle the Zangaras and Loughners of the world, keeping them alive year after year when they should be put to death in a matter of months, if not weeks.

Quote:Smirking boy may not be so gleeful, though, when he gets to the big house. That's a whole new level of craziness for which he won't be equipped.

A lot of people there will admire him for what he did. Plus -- assuming he is sentenced to death -- he will be on Death Row, beyond the reach of the "ordinary" rapists and psychos scattered throughout the prison population.

(01-11-2011 03:32 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  On February 15th 1933, a deranged loner who "heard voices" named Guiseppe Zangara tried to shoot the President-elect (FDR). He missed Roosevelt, but hit the Mayor of Chicago, who subsequently died. By March 20th 1933, Zangara had been arrested, charged, arraigned, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed. The total time-span between crime and carrying-out the sentence: 33 days.

Many changes have come over the United States in the past 78 years. Some of those changes have been for the better. But one change that has been terribly for the worse is the way we coddle the Zangaras and Loughners of the world, keeping them alive year after year when they should be put to death in a matter of months, if not weeks.

Quote:Smirking boy may not be so gleeful, though, when he gets to the big house. That's a whole new level of craziness for which he won't be equipped.

A lot of people there will admire him for what he did. Plus -- assuming he is sentenced to death -- he will be on Death Row, beyond the reach of the "ordinary" rapists and psychos scattered throughout the prison population.

I'm not so sure of that. While some inmates may think what he did was great, consider the type of treatment that child molesters get in the joint. Also, most in the joint also don't go lightly on those who beat or kill women and especially children. Many of them are fathers themselves.

I just want to point something out briefly, and that is that "mentally ill" does not default to "crazy". I see these words being used interchangeably and it kind of bothers me. There are millions of people living with severe depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and other disorders who more or less lead normal lives and who do not act out in these kinds of ways. Its an important distinction to make, and one that really isnt being acknowledged.

Outside of that, once again all I can say is that John Stewart is one of the only commentators out there analyzing the situation with the grace and demeanor so sorely lacking in our media landscape in today's age. I seriously urge you all to watch this, and then think about the core of the message before returning to your regularly scheduled program.

(01-11-2011 03:38 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

Native Georgian Wrote:

Quote:Smirking boy may not be so gleeful, though, when he gets to the big house. That's a whole new level of craziness for which he won't be equipped.

A lot of people there will admire him for what he did.

I'm not so sure of that. While some inmates may think what he did was great, consider the type of treatment that child molesters get in the joint. Also, most in the joint also don't go lightly on those who beat or kill women and especially children. Many of them are fathers themselves.

True, but molesters have NO ONE to defend them on the inside. They are all alone and get the Jeffrey Dahmer treatment after a short while. By comparison, there will be SOME people on the inside who think it's "cool" to take out a federal judge, plus putting a bullet through the head of a (Jewish) congresswoman and killing her (Jewish) office-assistant. Loughner seems too zoned-out to be able to make effective alliances, but such alliances are there for the making if he wants them.

Anyway, I repeat my point about the physical isolation of death row. If Loughner is given a date with the hangman, he will not be "mingling with the masses". He will have his own little world -- like Timothy McVeigh and Scott Peterson and John Muhammad and Ted Bundy -- and none of his fellow-prisoners will be able to reach him.

(01-11-2011 03:16 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  When I first saw that mugshot, I, too thought that I would love to wipe that smirk off his face with a right cross.

But that is the difference between a sane person who is stable and this dreck of a human with obvious mental problems. We stable humans don't act on those impulses. We know it is wrong and we know that there are consequences for our actions. By assaulting him or killing him outright, we would be no better than him.

There is a major difference between "wishing" we could get retribution ourselves and actually acting on those impulses. I'm betting there are millions of us that would personally wish to have a 10 minute unsupervised "visit" with this guy in his cell. This fantasy in our minds is OK because nobody really gets hurt.

Smirking boy may not be so gleeful, though, when he gets to the big house. That's a whole new level of craziness for which he won't be equipped.

Man, I'm scaring myself. It seems that I am agreeing with Mach.

I'm sure there is a solid concrete room at the SuperMax in Florence Colorado waiting for him upon conviction.

Let him sit in there 23 hours a day 7 days a week with no human contact and his smirk will disappear real quick. I give him a month before he tries to kill himself.

Punishment delayed for these heinous crimes is torture for the victims. Especially when the guilt is so obvious. But lawyers gotta make a living too.

(01-11-2011 05:30 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Punishment delayed for these heinous crimes is torture for the victims. Especially when the guilt is so obvious. But lawyers gotta make a living too.

Last I checked, the 6th amendment is still a part of our constitution.

(01-11-2011 05:59 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(01-11-2011 05:30 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Punishment delayed for these heinous crimes is torture for the victims. Especially when the guilt is so obvious. But lawyers gotta make a living too.

Last I checked, the 6th amendment is still a part of our constitution.

A speedy and public trial is exactly what I'm talking about.

(01-11-2011 05:30 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Punishment delayed for these heinous crimes is torture for the victims. Especially when the guilt is so obvious.

I return to the Zangara scenario of 1933. The "system" DOESN'T have to be the way it is now.

Quote:But lawyers gotta make a living too.

Taken in the most literal way, yes. But to the extent their "living" has rendered our "system" broken and dysfunctional, we do not "gotta" let them do so. We choose to allow them to do that. And to the extent that "lawyers" are separate in the public consciousness from judges, jurors, lawmakers, the media, prosecutors like Holder -- etc., etc. -- lawyers haven't done it alone. "We" have all done our part.

(01-10-2011 04:57 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  Senators, by virtue of their office, longer terms, and older age, are meant to be insulated from their constituents. Representatives aren't. They serve for 2 years and are intended as an accessible link to the legislature for their constituents. I worry that now, they will end up very insulated, and even more out of touch with the people around them and in their districts.

That's pretty much a guarantee from now on.

As recently as 100 years ago, President Taft would (sometimes) greet random White House visitors at the door and show them around. This was within living memory of the Lincoln-Garfield-McKinley assassinations, so it's not like people were naive or unfamiliar with the concept of political violence. But going back to (at least) 11/22/63, the importance of "security" has gradually been given priority over everything else.

Word is now she will, if she can, run for Kyle's senate seat. Dems already saying she has a 100% chance of winning.

Never let a crisis go to waste. What's a shame is whoever runs against her can't point out, rightly, that getting shot isn't a reason to vote for someone.

(02-12-2011 10:19 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Word is now she will, if she can, run for Kyle's senate seat. Dems already saying she has a 100% chance of winning.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Giffords would be a viable candidate, of course (that was true even before January 8th), but the idea that Arizona voters will simply hand her a seat in the US Senate because of what happened that day... I think that's naive, to say the least. Other relevant factors will include who the GOP nominee is and what kind of campaign that nominee runs, plus what the national environment is, in terms of the presidential campaign and the overall partisan trend within Arizona. Too soon to tell how those factors are going to shake out.

Quote:What's a shame is whoever runs against her can't point out, rightly, that getting shot isn't a reason to vote for someone.

There are some things a candidate shouldn't personally say, even though they are true and need to be heard by the public. That's undeniable.

I'm not necessarily convinced this is an example of it. But even if it is, there will be many other interested observers who should, could, and would say it.

Some gossip that Janet Napolitano may run for the seat.

(02-12-2011 10:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-12-2011 10:19 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Word is now she will, if she can, run for Kyle's senate seat. Dems already saying she has a 100% chance of winning.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Giffords would be a viable candidate, of course (that was true even before January 8th), but the idea that Arizona voters will simply hand her a seat in the US Senate because of what happened that day... I think that's naive, to say the least. Other relevant factors will include who the GOP nominee is and what kind of campaign that nominee runs, plus what the national environment is, in terms of the presidential campaign and the overall partisan trend within Arizona. Too soon to tell how those factors are going to shake out.

Quote:What's a shame is whoever runs against her can't point out, rightly, that getting shot isn't a reason to vote for someone.

There are some things a candidate shouldn't personally say, even though they are true and need to be heard by the public. That's undeniable.

I'm not necessarily convinced this is an example of it. But even if it is, there will be many other interested observers who should, could, and would say it.

Giffords won't be "ready" for 2012. She's going to need some extensive speech rehabilitation from what I hear. She wouldn't physically last a Statewide Senate Campaign.Campaign

(01-11-2011 03:16 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  But that is the difference between a sane person who is stable and this dreck of a human with obvious mental problems. We stable humans don't act on those impulses. We know it is wrong and we know that there are consequences for our actions. By assaulting him or killing him outright, we would be no better than him.

A punch in the face is hardly the same as killing a bunch of people. Yes, I can kick this guy in the nuts and not equate myself to him.

From what I have gathered about where the damage has actually been done in the brain, her personality is/may going to change significantly. I do not think she will be effectively able to run for another office. That said, I hope I am wrong.

(01-11-2011 01:48 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(01-11-2011 01:24 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

Who is this guy?

A. Mr. Clean.

B. Uncle Fester from the Addams Family.

C. Some lunatic that will be spending 10 years in the Supermax before he gets executed.

D. Long lost son of our (WMU) men's basketball head coach.

He looks like the heartless prick that laid me off.

On this Easter Sunday, perhaps a mostly cheerful and optimistic update would be appreciated. While she still has a long ways to go, this lengthy update offers a lot of encouragement.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2...ition.html