Congresswoman Gabby Giffords Shot in Head

[OrangeCats]

The “Unambomber” was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, yet still declared competent to stand trial and convicted on 10 counts. An example of a successful insanity defense comes from the attempted Reagan assassination. John W. Hinkley’s lawyers argued that he was a schizophrenic, and that he had not acted on his own volition when he fired at Reagan. Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and subsequently confined to St. Elizabeth’s hospital in Washington D.C."

Which goes to show that being sane and being competent to stand trial are two different things. I wonder which side of it this guy will fall on...

[Grave_n_idle]

"Most insanity defenses do not succeed. One study found that less than 1% of criminal trials involve an insanity defense, and of those only about 25% succeeded. An insanity defense requires much more than a simple diagnosis of a mental disorder. The “Unambomber” was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, yet still declared competent to stand trial and convicted on 10 counts. An example of a successful insanity defense comes from the attempted Reagan assassination. John W. Hinkley’s lawyers argued that he was a schizophrenic, and that he had not acted on his own volition when he fired at Reagan. Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and subsequently confined to St. Elizabeth’s hospital in Washington D.C."

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz- ... d-loughner

Okay, the court-room definition of insanity allows "insane" people to be tried as if they were sane...What's the point?

That calling the guy 'nuts' is unhelpful? Maybe even deceptive.

[Grave_n_idle]

You say this guy is 'nuts', but I'm not sure that's a valid claim. Is every act of violence evidence of mental illness?

Who knows? What does it matter? No matter how you define mental illness there will always be some who slip through and cause some mayhem just like there will always be people waiting to use them as opportunities to manipulate them for political reasons.

Either that or you gotta show that this guy was sane, which doesn't really follow from the stuff he was spouting right before he went off and it isn't like sane people go on killing sprees.

I don't have to show this guy was sane, at all. People are responsible for their own actions until you show why they are not, no?

People kill in the name of sanity all the time... soldiers, peace officers, acts of self-defence... so you can't write-off any act of violence as 'nuts' without a good reason.

[Gauthier]

Why would anybody want to ban guns from mentally disabled people? What argument could you possibly make for denying the mentally handicapped the right to self defense?

Virginia Tech ring a bell?

[Ashmoria]

You say this guy is 'nuts', but I'm not sure that's a valid claim. Is every act of violence evidence of mental illness?

Who knows? What does it matter? No matter how you define mental illness there will always be some who slip through and cause some mayhem just like there will always be people waiting to use them as opportunities to manipulate them for political reasons.

Either that or you gotta show that this guy was sane, which doesn't really follow from the stuff he was spouting right before he went off and it isn't like sane people go on killing sprees.

Kinda like porn. Maybe I can't define it, but I know it when I see it

no
he has to show that he was insane. and that this insanity meant that he had no way of telling right from wrong. so if he decided that she was napoleon invading the local safeway--he gets off. if all he can show is that he was a typical american nutter--he goes to prison.

[OrangeCats]

I don't have to show this guy was sane, at all. People are responsible for their own actions until you show why they are not, no?

No, others are AWARE of whether those people are responsible for their actions until it's shown they aren't

People kill in the name of sanity all the time... soldiers, peace officers, acts of self-defence... so you can't write-off any act of violence as 'nuts' without a good reason.

Aw that's being silly for being silly's sake.

I mean, you can tell the difference, can't ya?

[Nodinia]

The “Unambomber” was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, yet still declared competent to stand trial and convicted on 10 counts. An example of a successful insanity defense comes from the attempted Reagan assassination. John W. Hinkley’s lawyers argued that he was a schizophrenic, and that he had not acted on his own volition when he fired at Reagan. Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and subsequently confined to St. Elizabeth’s hospital in Washington D.C."

Which goes to show that being sane and being competent to stand trial are two different things. I wonder which side of it this guy will fall on...

Fuck knows about standing trial. but if he's sane, somebody has done some strange things with the goal posts.

[Greed and Death]

Who knows? What does it matter? No matter how you define mental illness there will always be some who slip through and cause some mayhem just like there will always be people waiting to use them as opportunities to manipulate them for political reasons.

Either that or you gotta show that this guy was sane, which doesn't really follow from the stuff he was spouting right before he went off and it isn't like sane people go on killing sprees.

Kinda like porn. Maybe I can't define it, but I know it when I see it

no
he has to show that he was insane. and that this insanity meant that he had no way of telling right from wrong. so if he decided that she was napoleon invading the local safeway--he gets off. if all he can show is that he was a typical american nutter--he goes to prison.

Inherently right but I feel the need to expand a bit. Legal insanity is determined by the M'naghten test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_Rules

Basically 2 tracks.
1. He must either not know the nature and quality of his act. Example say you killed your wife but you thought you were slicing lemons. This track is rarely used because you can normally negate the Mens Rea of the crime and then your client does not have to serve Jail time.

2. Did not know what he was doing was wrong. This is the track normally invoked at trial. This is societies rules not the suspects personal rules, but the rules are interpreted as he would interpreted them. Insanity is invoked less then 1% of all criminal cases and is successful less then 25% of the time when it is invoked. A very rare defense that more often then not fails to work.

[OrangeCats]

no
he has to show that he was insane. and that this insanity meant that he had no way of telling right from wrong. so if he decided that she was napoleon invading the local safeway--he gets off. if all he can show is that he was a typical american nutter--he goes to prison.

I'm speaking as a non-legalese-speaking layperson.

[Ashmoria]

no
he has to show that he was insane. and that this insanity meant that he had no way of telling right from wrong. so if he decided that she was napoleon invading the local safeway--he gets off. if all he can show is that he was a typical american nutter--he goes to prison.

Inherently right but I feel the need to expand a bit. Legal insanity is determined by the M'naghten test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_Rules

Basically 2 tracks.
1. He must either not know the nature and quality of his act. Example say you killed your wife but you thought you were slicing lemons. This track is rarely used because you can normally negate the Mens Rea of the crime and then your client does not have to serve Jail time.

2. Did not know what he was doing was wrong. This is the track normally invoked at trial. This is societies rules not the suspects personal rules, but the rules are interpreted as he would interpreted them. Insanity is invoked less then 1% of all criminal cases and is successful less then 25% of the time when it is invoked. A very rare defense that more often then not fails to work.

yeah

although i understand that the details of what is allowed varies from state to state.

just being crazy is never enough. jeffrey dahmer was obviously NUTZ but his avoidance of getting caught showed that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

[Ashmoria]

no
he has to show that he was insane. and that this insanity meant that he had no way of telling right from wrong. so if he decided that she was napoleon invading the local safeway--he gets off. if all he can show is that he was a typical american nutter--he goes to prison.

I'm speaking as a non-legalese-speaking layperson.

as am i

the state NEVER has to prove a guy sane. the defense has to prove that he was insane at least at the time of the crime.

[Esternial]

If she gets better, she'll have one heck of story to tell to your children.

[Bendira]

Hmmm he shoot several members of the Federal government and judiciary and likes vids portraying the burning of the flag of the Federal government of the United states.
Hmm what kind of people are like that?

Teabaggers and Anarchists, Oh, and Communists. Can't forget the commies.

And fascists? lol

[Mercator Terra]

Did you see that video he favorited? Its of a one armed dude with a smiley face taped over his face burning an American flag in the middle of the Desert.

Hmmm he shoot several members of the Federal government and judiciary and likes vids portraying the burning of the flag of the Federal government of the United states.
Hmm what kind of people are like that?

I've burned an "American" flag. Does that make me a mass murdering psycho?

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't have to show this guy was sane, at all. People are responsible for their own actions until you show why they are not, no?

No, others are AWARE of whether those people are responsible for their actions until it's shown they aren't

You're seriously arguing that people are NOT responsible for their own actions?

People kill in the name of sanity all the time... soldiers, peace officers, acts of self-defence... so you can't write-off any act of violence as 'nuts' without a good reason.

Aw that's being silly for being silly's sake.

I mean, you can tell the difference, can't ya?

Dead is dead. The American Revolution is a popular example of lots of people being killed in the name of political expedience - are you saying the revolutionaries were insane?

[OrangeCats]

as am i

the state NEVER has to prove a guy sane. the defense has to prove that he was insane at least at the time of the crime.

Sure. I'm only saying that for this discussion, the best we can do is toss out opinions. Nobody on this forum is gonna really know at this point.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Aha. I have a right to a gun, under the Constitution. I, on the other hand, have no right to shelter, water, food, etc.

Would you be opposed if we had to apply to make a speech or exercise freedom of expression?

I believe that you have to let people know if you are planning on having a large protest or gathering in their town.

^This

[Ashmoria]

as am i

the state NEVER has to prove a guy sane. the defense has to prove that he was insane at least at the time of the crime.

Sure. I'm only saying that for this discussion, the best we can do is toss out opinions. Nobody on this forum is gonna really know at this point.

especially since we are arguing with short information.

[Buffett and Colbert]

You have a right to shelter, water, etc.

If only it were so. The homeless show that it is not.

I'm speaking internationally. Not necessarily using domestic law.

[OrangeCats]

No, others are AWARE of whether those people are responsible for their actions until it's shown they aren't

You're seriously arguing that people are NOT responsible for their own actions?

Oh now you're being silly again.

I'm saying somebody's responsible for what they do or not. Whether others KNOW they were comes later.

Aw that's being silly for being silly's sake.

I mean, you can tell the difference, can't ya?

Dead is dead. The American Revolution is a popular example of lots of people being killed in the name of political expedience - are you saying the revolutionaries were insane?

No but I think you're trying to get me to say it.

Silly

[Grave_n_idle]

as am i

the state NEVER has to prove a guy sane. the defense has to prove that he was insane at least at the time of the crime.

Sure. I'm only saying that for this discussion, the best we can do is toss out opinions. Nobody on this forum is gonna really know at this point.

Indeed - which was, I believe, about where I came in.

*bows*

[OrangeCats]

Sure. I'm only saying that for this discussion, the best we can do is toss out opinions. Nobody on this forum is gonna really know at this point.

especially since we are arguing with short information.

Oh totally. That's why It's so funny how seriously people are taking this discussion.

[Grave_n_idle]

You're seriously arguing that people are NOT responsible for their own actions?

Oh now you're being silly again.

I'm saying somebody's responsible for what they do or not. Whether others KNOW they were comes later.

So... people are responsible for their actions. Unless someone or something diminishes that responsibility.

So, unless someone or something actually diminishes your responsibility, even killing is sane, no?

Dead is dead. The American Revolution is a popular example of lots of people being killed in the name of political expedience - are you saying the revolutionaries were insane?

No but I think you're trying to get me to say it.

Silly

Not at all, I was trying to use reference points to show the flaw in the assumption (or apparent assumption) that someone must be 'nuts' just because they killed a bunch of people.

[Farnhamia]

Put those goal posts back. You shot off your mouth and got caught. Be a man and admit it.

Admit to what, exactly? It even discusses her stances in favor of cracking down on illegal immigrants crossing the border in the OP's NPR article. You're just voluntarily choosing to ignore the distinct possibility that this Congresswoman and members of her entourage, including a innocent nine year old girl were slaughtered by a leftist.

Admit that, in your zeal to counter the suggestion in this thread that the shooter might have been inspired or incited by right-wing rhetoric and to label him a "leftist," you neglected to find out what Congresswoman Giffords stood for. She turns out to be rather centrist, but a supporter of the Health Care Reform Act and a critic of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration legislation (SB 1070). Her stance on border security seems to mesh with that of President Obama. Why would a "leftist" shoot someone like her? Hell, she ran on a platform of supporting the Health Care act, unlike quite a few Democrats who said as little about it as possible.

[OrangeCats]

So... people are responsible for their actions. Unless someone or something diminishes that responsibility.

Nope. People are either responsible or not. People may or may not figure it out later.

Not at all, I was trying to use reference points to show the flaw in the assumption (or apparent assumption) that someone must be 'nuts' just because they killed a bunch of people.

Those are some pretty silly reference points.

Tell you what, why don't you give an example or two of times when a lone gunman shot up a crowd of regular people and wasn't nuts? You might be able to, but it's not gonna make it less reasonable to think a guy who does it probably has a screw loose.