US Congresswoman shot in Arizona

He could still kill other inmates in prison or other people if he managed to escape (which does occur on occasion). He cant if he is dead.
Dick Cheney can still hunt, despite almost killing someone. SHould he have received the death penalty (as it is possible that the could still kill other people through irresponsible gun use)? At the very least, should he be stripped of his right to possess? After all, lives are at stake and he has already demonstrated irresponsibilty when it comes to firearms.
You dont think killing 6 people in a rampage heious enough on its own?
You appeared to indicate it was not enough since you brought up the status of two of his victims to elevate your initial question.
 
Seriously Jolly, your commensurate ability to compare apples with automobiles never ceases to amaze.
So if all 6 that were killed had survived, you would not call for the death penalty, even though he could still try to kill people in prison or escape and try to kill again?


EDIT: Directed to everyone - I have contacted my Congressman and Senators to urge them to co-sponsor the granting of a Congressional Gold Medal to Daniel Hernandez, the young man that possibly save the Congresswoman's life. It takes two-thirds of each House to co-sponsor for it to be considered, but this young man is deserving.
 
Roughly 1% of the population is schizophrenic.
Roughly 1% of the population is willing to use violence to get what they want, and are undeterred by threats of punishment, and do not allow empathy to deter them.

That means that, actually, 0.01% of the populace are willing to be violent for crazy reasons. It's a sad fact, and it means we need massively better mental health services, but it really cannot be easily blamed on any normal ideology. We're always going to have a low roiling boil of people like this.
Doesn't that math seem to mean that all Schizophrenic delusions are of violent nature?
 
Congressional Gold Medal to Daniel Hernandez, the young man that possibly save the Congresswoman's life. It takes two-thirds of each House to co-sponsor for it to be considered, but this young man is deserving.
I heard on CNN that a woman grabbed the next magazine before the shooter could reload. I think there were a number of heroes present.

The far-right is doing a full-tilt boogie trying to spin-doctor the issue of "vitriol" away by blaming anybody who states the obvious for doing what they so frequently do: Turning everything into a political football for their own benefit.

Tucson talk radio host:

I feel incredibly bad for our brave Pima County Sheriff’s Officers who have to serve under Clarence Dupnik. Within hours of the horrific shooting that took place at the congresswoman’s event Dupnik was telling local media that talk radio and the media was partly to blame, only to repeat his statements again during the press conference that was receiving national attention. We have no idea at this point the motivation of this murderer’s act. Yet Dupnik took his moment in the spotlight to drive a political wedge into the event. They were reckless and dangerous statements made by someone who should have known better. He should have been using his time to help bring the community together. Instead his statements made Tucson appear to be a city full hate, bigotry and vitriol. To say, as Dupnik did, that comments made on the airwaves essentially motivated this person to commit this crime is exactly what he blamed talk radio of doing, inciting through pure rhetoric. It was complete misuse of his power and he owes the media in town, TV and radio, an apology for his horrible comments in the middle of such a tragic day. He should step down immediately from his position as Pima County Sheriff.

Senator Jon Kyle (R) Arizona claimed on Face the Nation today that Giffords herself would now be putting Dupnik in his place:

Clarence Dupnik, Arizona Sheriff, Criticized By Sen. Jon Kyl Over Shooting Comments (VIDEO)


...I think would be the first to say "Don't rush to judgement here". She was a proponent of the Second Amendment, she read, as has been pointed out several times, the First Amendment part of the Constitution, on the floor of the house the other day. And she was doing what she likes to do most with her consituents. She meets with her constituents all the time and she would not want to be restrained in any way in her ability to do that.

Fox News is even trying to insinuate that it could legally hurt the case, and that a judge should shut him up:


Link to video.

Fox News talking head:

...and engaging in speculation that gives people opportunity to engage in the most reckless kind of conduct that pulls us apart. We need to be put together in this country...

...and I believe that if he continues that kind of talk, and I'm saying this in the most impassionate way I know, that there will be a gag order in this case.
That's the most impassioned impassionate rhetoric I've heard in quite some time.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/kyl-arizona-sheriffs-remarks-inappropriate.php#more

With that remark, ironically, Dupnik has become the target of just the sort of rhetoric he was decrying.
Indeed. As have many of the rest of us.
 
An article on BBC about the how she survived a shot to the head:
Very few people survive being shot in the head at close range, but all indications are that Gabrielle Giffords is one of the lucky few.

Doctors are cautiously optimistic about her condition, but are reluctant to speculate on her recovery.

The swift response of people on the scene - emergency workers and medical staff - has been credited with saving her life in the first instance.

Daniel Hernandez, an intern on her staff, is being called a hero after he rushed to her aid - and closer to the gunman - moments after the shooting.

He applied pressure to the entry wound to staunch the bleeding, pulling her on to his lap so she would not choke on her own blood.

Paramedics then took her to a nearby hospital where trauma surgeon Peter Rhee, a former military doctor who served in Afghanistan, and his team worked with impressive efficiency.

Ms Giffords was in the operating theatre about 38 minutes after she was shot.

The bullet entered at the back of her skull and exited at the front, travelling through the left side of her brain - which controls speech among other things.

Beating the odds
Dr Rhee told reporters that Ms Giffords was fortunate that the bullet had stayed on one side and had not hit areas of the brain that are almost always fatal. Surgeons also did not have to remove much dead brain tissue, another positive sign.

Bone fragments can often travel through the brain with the bullet, causing additional bleeding and damage.

Dr Richard Besser, ABC News' medical editor, said: "She has already beat a lot of odds. Two-thirds of people who are shot in the head never make it to the hospital."

One major concern for Ms Giffords' medical team now is the possibility that her brain will swell.

Neurosurgeon Dr Michael Lemole has removed half of her skull to give the tissue room. The bone is being preserved at a cold temperature and can be reattached when the swelling subsides.

That technique has been used commonly in military injuries, according to Dr Rhee.

Swelling can take several days to peak, and may take more than a week to go down.

Ms Giffords is currently heavily sedated in a coma-like state that helps rest her brain. That requires the assistance of a ventilator, which means she cannot talk.

Doctors have woken her periodically and say she is responding to simple commands like squeezing somebody's hand.

But her medical team is deeply hesitant to speculate on her long-term condition. Dr Lemole said her recovery could take months or even years.


Brain injuries are unpredictable, in part because each individual's neural pathways operate differently.

"The same injury in me and you could have different effects," University of Maryland neurologist Dr Bizhan Aarabi told the Associated Press news agency.
 
Whats with all this right wing angst when: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php

A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as "left wing" and a "pot head" in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon.

Caitie Parker did not immediately respond to our request for an interview, but her "tweets" in the hours after the shooting paint a picture of Jared Loughner as a substance-abusing loner who had met Giffords before the shooting. She says, Loughner described the congresswoman as "stupid and unintelligent."

We've confirmed that Parker and Loughner went to school together at Mountain View High School in Tucson and that both attended Pima Community College, so her claims of knowing Loughner seem to be legit.

Parker "tweets" that she and Loughner were in the band together and were friends until 2007 when he became "reclusive" after getting alcohol poisoning and dropping out of college.

She describes him as "quite liberal" and as a "political radical."

Is he ultra right wing....or ultra left wing?
 
With people this nutty, is there really a difference between the two and does it really matter for them? If this crime was politicaly motivated and he was 'left-wing' he sure picked a crummy target.
 
What is the obsession with pegging his political preferences...

He's a whack job who shot a Congresswoman; can't we all just agree that he is a nutter who holds no true representation of the spectrum for either side.
 
I find it absolutely disgusting that before even a day has passed, people try to use this event for political gain. There simply is no excuse. Shame on you all.

I suspect most people don't think "Oooh, let's use this shooting for political gain." - rather, they hear someone else say something they think is wrong, and think "I must set the record straight."

They're guilty of being dumb, and making poor judgement calls.
 
What is the obsession with pegging his political preferences...

He's a whack job who shot a Congresswoman; can't we all just agree that he is a nutter who holds no true representation of the spectrum for either side.

That would be the mature, sensible thing to do. Naturally, that means it is completely out of the question.
 
For now, until there is more definitive info released, we shouldn't care.
I actually just saw him speaking on CNN, where he said basically the same thing. Can't say I've always agreeded with Gergen, but yeah I think he nailed it perfectly there.

Totally unrelated aside, I was rather interested to read about the initial Osward speculations re: a possible link to the John Birch society. Never heard that before.
 
Granted, there are those on the "left" who have made some stupid remarks in the past. And they are just as much to blame for the current climate of fear, bigotry, and hatred as some Republicans are. But that is hardly a rationalization for organizations such as Fox News to do so on a regular basis.

Glad you can admit that. If that's the case our only disagreement is the percentage of blame we assign to each side.

I was a Democrat until a few years ago...I became an independent because I got disgusted with the left's behavior.
 
Top Bottom