The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Ron Barber (who was shot in the same incident that critically injured Gabrielle Giffords) was sworn in to serve the last months of her term last week. One of his first activities as Congressman was to come back to Tucson for a Congress on Your Corner function at the Safeway where he, Giffords and others were injured (6 were killed) by Jared Lee Loughner. As one might guess, state and local LEOs were a strong presence. Probably Secret Service and FBI agents were there as well. Good thing, I'm glad we have a representative again, and it was fairly brave of Barber to make the appearance (especially in 106 F heat.) Tucson was terrorized on that Saturday a year and a half ago--we were in shock for weeks. I live in Giffords/Barber's district, btw.

I have to admit, I'm conflicted about what to do about Loughner. At the time, he was indicted and then sent to a Federal Corrections Hospital in Missouri for mental evaluation--he was diagnosed as psychotic and delusional. With time and meds, he's improved enough to be fit to stand trial. The human, gut feeling I have is that he should stand trial, be convicted, and be executed. On a gut level, I would look at the evidence, consider it, and vote to convict--and I'd vote for capital punishment. (Obviously, I couldn't serve on his jury in good conscience.)

Intellectually, tho, it's a tougher question for me. If he wasn't competent to stand trial at the time, was he legally competent to form an intent? Just because he now knows what he did and understands the crime, does that mean he's responsible for his actions when in a delusional, psychotic haze?

I kinda wish that someone in the crowd had shot it out with Loehner--tho, of course, that would subject survivors to more danger. But it sure would make it easier if Loehner hadn't survived.

this might be one of the rare cases where the death penalty could be used with a clean conscience, but 1) he was mentally ill, 2) I support a full moratorium on the death penalty until every trial is as clean cut as this one. So I couldn't vote to execute.

I'm against the death penalty especially in a case like this one. His mental state was probably the cause of his actions and now that he is medicated he is probably even safe in society but how to keep him medicated. I say just lock him up in an institution and throw away the key. It would be cheaper in the long run than executing him. Plus they should pass laws making it illegal to make movies or TV specials about the guy or the shooting.

Mental deficiency, in the form of a person who's mental stature is low enough that they seriously have trouble comprehending the consequences of their actions, that's one thing. That person can honestly be considered at reduced fault because they were out of their depth.

Mental derangement, in the form of a person with a mental stature quite capable of telling right from wrong, telling "acceptable to society" from "not acceptable to society", is quite another thing.

Loughner is not, to the best of my knowledge, deficient.

In dog terms... We had a black lab when I was a kid. Damn lovable pain in the ass was so inbred stupid that we had to teach him how to swim. Seriously, we had to teach a lab to hold his head up and the best he ever did was a clumsy flailing/thrashing at the water that managed to keep him from drowning. Deficient dog, plainly incapable of comprehending the consequences of many of his actions, therefore always use gentle correction when he forgot that you don't jump up on people.

Loughner, on the other hand, is more like a dog on the edge of feral, not accepting of societal standards of behavior. Loughner is the dog that is destructive to the family even though he is smart enough to know all the voice commands as well as how to nose open the cupboard for the treats and who will let him jump up on the sofa and who won't, and will bite the hand that feeds him if he thinks that he can do so without repercussions.

Loughner is fine for the gas chamber, in my opinion. Actually, I'd like options opened up... I think the person sentenced to die should be able to choose the manner of their end, within reason. Let them choose hanging, self inflicted gunshot, gas, needle, the chair, etc. It's their life, let them decide whether to go out with a bang, a twang, or a bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzang.

JayFromPA wrote:Mental deficiency, in the form of a person who's mental stature is low enough that they seriously have trouble comprehending the consequences of their actions, that's one thing. That person can honestly be considered at reduced fault because they were out of their depth.

Mental derangement, in the form of a person with a mental stature quite capable of telling right from wrong, telling "acceptable to society" from "not acceptable to society", is quite another thing.

Loughner is not, to the best of my knowledge, deficient.

In dog terms... We had a black lab when I was a kid. Damn lovable pain in the ass was so inbred stupid that we had to teach him how to swim. Seriously, we had to teach a lab to hold his head up and the best he ever did was a clumsy flailing/thrashing at the water that managed to keep him from drowning. Deficient dog, plainly incapable of comprehending the consequences of many of his actions, therefore always use gentle correction when he forgot that you don't jump up on people.

Loughner, on the other hand, is more like a dog on the edge of feral, not accepting of societal standards of behavior. Loughner is the dog that is destructive to the family even though he is smart enough to know all the voice commands as well as how to nose open the cupboard for the treats and who will let him jump up on the sofa and who won't, and will bite the hand that feeds him if he thinks that he can do so without repercussions.

Loughner is fine for the gas chamber, in my opinion. Actually, I'd like options opened up... I think the person sentenced to die should be able to choose the manner of their end, within reason. Let them choose hanging, self inflicted gunshot, gas, needle, the chair, etc. It's their life, let them decide whether to go out with a bang, a twang, or a bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzang.

How do you know any of this about Loughner? Did you examine him, Doctor?

I'm completely against the death penalty.

I'll be for the death penalty when I can explain to my ten year old why it's ok to kill someone when self-defense is not the issue.

If it's a question of protecting society from a dangerous person, I have no problems locking that convicted dangerous person up indefinitely.

If it's a question of punishing someone for a crime, there's a lot of criminals out there that get away with murder and worse by virtue of their social and economic positions. Justice is an amorphous concept, especially when unevenly applied by the State.

myfiero wrote:I kinda wish that someone in the crowd had shot it out with Loehner--tho, of course, that would subject survivors to more danger. But it sure would make it easier if Loehner hadn't survived.

Someone had a firearm. He was wise not to use it.
He said he couldn't identify the bad guy, and guy he saw with a gun had disarmed the shooter.

He made a good choice. He represented well.

I think people want to know if any of the Barbie Doll election machine had any influence on him.

I'm against sentencing someone to death. I think it's cruel and unusual, especially considering that most people on death row are sitting in a cell for years awaiting appeals. However, I think it should be available to those who want it. If I ever had the choice between a cell for 50 years, knowing full well that I'm guilty, and being put to death, I'd choose death. Maybe that's why I support assisted suicide. I think people who are given a life sentence ("life", as in "you'll never get out") should have the option of death.

Fukshot wrote:How do you know any of this about Loughner? Did you examine him, Doctor?

If we can form opinions about people involved in the events listed under "firearms in the news" forum without having been a detective involved in investigating the case...

Well, that's all I did - form an opinion about a person that is involved in an event that made it into a thread in the forum.

JayFromPA wrote:

Fukshot wrote:How do you know any of this about Loughner? Did you examine him, Doctor?

If we can form opinions about people involved in the events listed under "firearms in the news" forum without having been a detective involved in investigating the case...

Well, that's all I did - form an opinion about a person that is involved in an event that made it into a thread in the forum.

I suppose that's true.

I generally find publicly available information (and what the public discussion looks like) about the mental health of someone like Loughner to be seriously wanting. We have such a broken attitude towards mental health issues that we can barely get anything in the news that is able to differentiate between run of the mill depression and paranoid schizophrenia. The only info any of us seem to have on Loughner is "CRAZY" and whatever suppositions each of us come to from that.

Looking back at my reply to you, I want to be clear that I was snarking at my frustration with the lousy information available and not at you. If that didn't read clearly, my apologies. (I'm trying to not always be a horrible bitch, but I'm sort of drawn that way.)

Progurt wrote:If it's a question of protecting society from a dangerous person, I have no problems locking that convicted dangerous person up indefinitely.

If it's a question of punishing someone for a crime, there's a lot of criminals out there that get away with murder and worse by virtue of their social and economic positions. Justice is an amorphous concept, especially when unevenly applied by the State.

This is very true. People like to say that justice is blind but that is a bunch of crap. That some people have access to powerful and connected lawyers while others must rely on overworked public defenders already skews the issue towards serious flaws. That certain crimes like possession of drugs carry tougher sentences than financial fraud which deprives thousands of people of their investments, furthers that skew. That people still understand so little about mental health problems is the icing on the cake.

As I have said, it is understandable to want revenge and want people that have done horrific things to suffer or die. Just stop calling it justice.