Arizona Rep. Giffords' shooter called very disturbed.

[slapout9]

This is not a political discussion board. Let's keep it on topic, please.

Ken,I understand why you put that up but IMO it was an assassination not a murder so politics plays a part. Including the fact that the victim was alarmed by the very poster that is displayed in the previous post along with all the violent rhetoric associated with it. You will find that the shooter followed the basic research established by the Secret Service.


Link to Secret Service study on Assassination.
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_jfs.pdf

[Ken White]

Ken,I understand why you put that up but IMO it was an assassination not a murder so politics plays a part.

Not a problem with your link -- to which I responded with a feeble attempt at humor -- but over the follow on post that displayed the graphic and asked who might be influenced by it. Your post introduced the political angle but it was in keeping with the thread; the other post IMO left the thread and asked a broad political question not particularly appropriate to this board.

As for politics playing a part, they may or may not and if they do the likelihood of particularly skewed variants of political beliefs would appear to be probable. Howsomeever, we can always make standing broad jumps at conclusions... . Grand ol' American pastime...

Including the fact that the victim was alarmed by the very poster that is displayed in the previous post along with all the violent rhetoric associated with it...

She apparently was or she mentioned that 'alarm' as a political tactic -- we cannot know. Her Father blames the "Tea Party" (LINK). While my assessment is that statement by him is rather a stretch, I certainly cannot know what is in his mind and I'm not about to second guess him...

Early days and not enough information to make much of an assessment IMO. Regardless, this is still not a political discussion board so only those political aspects directly appropriate to the topic at hand and based on fact rather than supposition or speculation should ideally be added to discussions.

[Bob's World]

Violence and politics between states is not always war; similarly politically motivated violence with a state is not always insurgency or even Anarchy.

Such events do, however, need to be looked at carefully as a single puzzle piece, a single data-point that helps to assess the overall relationship between a populace and its government. These things are best addressed early, and it is by taking each serious, but not over reacting to any, that such analysis and course corrections can be made by government.

I suspect this guy is a couple of standard deviations out of any such plotting of events that would indicate the relationship between the US people and their government. There are rumblings out there though, and to disregard them until they explode in major ways is folly.

It is times like this that the rock, the core, our contract between the American people and their government is so important. That, of course, is our Constitution. There is little popular support for actions such as this man's, be he just a disturbed individual, or a committed Anarchist. 100 years ago there was a rash of such actions in the West leading up, and into WWI. Trust and protect the Constitution and this too shall pass, and beware any in government that suggest that it is changes to the Constitution that will lead us forward.

In many other countries, (many that we call friends and protect from internal and external challenge), there is no such trusted contract between the people and their government. Those places have far more to be concerned about from such events than the U.S. does.

One can't separate politics and warfare. Paying attention to the acorns of discontent helps avoid dealing with the Oaks of war.

[Ken White]

Violence and politics between states is not always war; similarly politically motivated violence with a state is not always insurgency or even Anarchy...One can't separate politics and warfare. Paying attention to the acorns of discontent helps avoid dealing with the Oaks of war.

Can't separate 'em -- but one should also take care not to conflate an acorn into a pumpkin.

[91bravojoe]

The "very disturbed" and the political are 100% overlapping here. Beyond any rational doubt.

From the AP story today:

"Giffords has drawn the ire of the right in the last year, especially from politicians like Sarah Palin over her support of the health care bill."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNET1H6AEP.DTL

Sharron Angle, last year's Tea Party Queen in the Senatorial elections, babbled about "Second Amendment remedies" for her opponents.

That's the environment in which this occurred. The sequellae includes the SarahPac ad with rifle sites, naming Giffords as a functional target.

Giffords' tea party opponent in the 2010 election had "shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly" in his internet and print ads. Scrubbed now from the web page.

Who responds to material like that?

The manifest mental illness of the perp obviously highlights the political content. Both at the macro level, and at the individual candidate level, the right wing pursued explicit behavior which would agitate the unstable.

The more you focus on "disturbed", the more you have to examine what is likely to trigger a disturbed person.

Tort definition of intent: you INTEND the likely consequences of your acts.

[Kevin23]

I personally don't think political motivations or influence had anything to do with the horrific shooting in Tuscan on Saturday, as the main suspect in question seemed to lack any coherent political beliefs. Which leads me to personally believe that he would just have easily taken shots at Senator John McCain or Governor Jan Brewer if they had been the one's holding the constituent meeting and not Representative Gifford.

That being said when I first heard about the whole incident in Tuscan Arizona and the types of individuals who lost their lives or who were injured, I thought at first it might have been a drug cartel hit given the initial profile of the shooter. As well as speculation as accomplices/and or multiple gunman.In addition, to the fact that the type of people targeted were high profile individuals who been involved with issues regarding drug-related violence both within the US and across the Southern border.

[91bravojoe]

Nobody is saying that the perp had connected or organized 'political' thoughts.

The override is that an atmosphere was created in which such an individual would be somewhat more likely to turn to irrational violence(this is Arizona, remember) because the concept of irrational violence has been constantly adverted to by the screwball right-wing.

[Ken White]

The "very disturbed" and the political are 100% overlapping here. Beyond any rational doubt.
...
Who responds to material like that?

You state:

...Both at the macro level, and at the individual candidate level, the right wing pursued explicit behavior which would agitate the unstable.

The unstable will react to prompts from either side -- even hard over left leaners recognize that (LINK) and apologize for it -- and as you also said:

The more you focus on "disturbed", the more you have to examine what is likely to trigger a disturbed person.

True and one never knows precisely what triggered an alleged radical who had allegedly had many leftist tendencies but was, mostly, just a sad mentally aberrant kid (LINK).

...The sequellae includes the SarahPac ad with rifle sites...

Are those rifle sights or are they simply targets? A lot of folks including the media use terms like target for many things (LINK). Fortunately, as that article shows, some people can apply some common sense.

Regardless, as you also said:

Tort definition of intent: you INTEND the likely consequences of your acts.

As any Lawyer will tell you, intent is hard to prove. As any shooter will tell you you, those aren't very good representations of the cross hairs in a telescopic sight. As Kurtz said, tossing blame around is easy -- and generally incorrect...

And as I said earlier, the bottom line is that this is not a political discussion board -- so while a brief unbiased comment on political ramifications is acceptable, even desirable, we should save the leaning in either direction politics for elsewhere. That means NOT 'intending' to provoke politically biased responses.

Thanks.

[Pol-Mil FSO]

The media is making too big a deal of this. It was a tragedy, and I strongly hope that Congresswoman Giffords makes a full recovery and runs for Governor so that we can have some responsible leadership in this state. However, comparing Tucson to Dallas (Kennedy assassination) is ridiculous, and comments about the shooter's alleged politics as well as calls for gun control are, in my judgment, both misguided and unseemly. People will get over this trauma and the incident pales in comparison to what occurs in Iraq and Afghanistan on a weekly basis.

Where was the threat assessment? Why wasn't one of the Congresswoman's staffers armed? (As of five months ago, anyone can carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without a permit.) The Congresswoman was the target of multiple threats, just completed a nasty campaign, and had her local office vandalized because of her health care vote. The House of Representatives Sergeant-at-Arms Office should also be asking themselves some questions. They can't be expected to assess security threats in 435 separate districts but they should be providing personal security assessment briefings to incoming members.

It was a stroke of luck that the shooter used a 9mmP caliber pistol rather than a 40 S&W or a 45 ACP caliber pistol. I buy powder and primers from the store where he reporteldy purchased his handgun and he could have easily selected from the display shelf a Glock 23 (40 S&W) rather than the Glock 19 which he used to commit his crimes. The number of dead would have likely been greater if he had used a more powerful caliber. This should be another argument (as if anymore are needed) for the U.S. military to change its handgun caliber from 9mmP to 45ACP.

[slapout9]

Not a problem with your link -- to which I responded with a feeble attempt at humor -- but over the follow on post that displayed the graphic and asked who might be influenced by it.

OK, I get it now