Loughner's "Not Guilty" plea

[Mini 14]

Is there any doubt now that they will use the insanity defense?

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate. This young man is insane, and cannot comprehend what he has done, or even what is real and what is not.

I wish someone had been there that day with a sidearm and a clear shot at him. It is amazing to me that in Arizona, there was not a CCW user present with the training to react, unconsciously, to the present threat of a violent lunatic, and put a bullet through his head to stop the threat.

And before you ask, yes, had I been there and had the opportunity, I would have undoubtedly used my sidearm to stop the lunatic. Probably without much conscious thought at all (if any), until the threat had been stopped.

I wonder about the timeline. 19 shots, and 18 hits. 9 seconds total? 9 seconds in which his attention would have been focused in one direction only.

Enough time to react and possibly save a life or two, if you're within 20 yards or so of him when he starts his rampage.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind. At the same time, I don't think he would understand why we are putting him to death if we did level that sentence on him. He truly is insane.

His crime is the perfect argument FOR the death penalty.

His mind is the perfect argument AGAINST it.

Vigilante justice was appropriate here. Its a shame we didn't have that opportunity.

 

[WillowTree]

Is there any doubt now that they will use the insanity defense?

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate. This young man is insane, and cannot comprehend what he has done, or even what is real and what is not.

I wish someone had been there that day with a sidearm and a clear shot at him. It is amazing to me that in Arizona, there was not a CCW user present with the training to react, unconsciously, to the present threat of a violent lunatic, and put a bullet through his head to stop the threat.

And before you ask, yes, had I been there and had the opportunity, I would have undoubtedly used my sidearm to stop the lunatic. Probably without much conscious thought at all (if any), until the threat had been stopped.

I wonder about the timeline. 19 shots, and 18 hits. 9 seconds total? 9 seconds in which his attention would have been focused in one direction only.

Enough time to react and possibly save a life or two, if you're within 20 yards or so of him when he starts his rampage.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind. At the same time, I don't think he would understand why we are putting him to death if we did level that sentence on him. He truly is insane.

His crime is the perfect argument FOR the death penalty.

His mind is the perfect argument AGAINST it.

Vigilante justice was appropriate here. Its a shame we didn't have that opportunity.

Except for he wrote " I have planned my assassination carefully" If anyone deserves the DP he does.

 

[goldcatt]

Mental illness =/= Legal insanity

Legal insanity =/= Mental incompetence

If he decides to plead not guilty by reason of insanity there will be a long process to determine if he was, in fact, legally insane. That is unknown at this time.

But legal insanity is not the same as being unable to plan, or incompetent to think at all. It means lacking the capacity basically to know right from wrong. If the exhaustive examinations make it pretty clear he is, in fact, legally insane, usually the prosecution will deal. If it goes to trial, he will have to convince the jury. Less than 20% of attempts are successful.

I'd say if he does turn out to be not guilty by reason of insanity, it's a pretty reasonable assumption it's warranted.

 

[Truthmatters]

There was a guy there with a gun and he nearly shot the guy who tackled the kid.

Luckily he hesitated and then jumped the guy instead.

He jumped the man and grapped his arm with the gun and that is when the crowd told him he was grabbing a hero and the kid was the shooter.

 

[signelect]

If you can't get along you don't belong. If I can condone shooting a man in the commission of a crime like this then I can also condone the death penalty. The ONLY difference is the timing. Why waste time and money on someone who will never be any use to himself much less anyone else. We have to stop wimping out. If I can kill to protect my self I have to be able to kill (finding him guilty of capital murder) to protect someone else.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Is there any doubt now that they will use the insanity defense?

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate. This young man is insane, and cannot comprehend what he has done, or even what is real and what is not.

I wish someone had been there that day with a sidearm and a clear shot at him. It is amazing to me that in Arizona, there was not a CCW user present with the training to react, unconsciously, to the present threat of a violent lunatic, and put a bullet through his head to stop the threat.

And before you ask, yes, had I been there and had the opportunity, I would have undoubtedly used my sidearm to stop the lunatic. Probably without much conscious thought at all (if any), until the threat had been stopped.

I wonder about the timeline. 19 shots, and 18 hits. 9 seconds total? 9 seconds in which his attention would have been focused in one direction only.

Enough time to react and possibly save a life or two, if you're within 20 yards or so of him when he starts his rampage.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind. At the same time, I don't think he would understand why we are putting him to death if we did level that sentence on him. He truly is insane.

His crime is the perfect argument FOR the death penalty.

His mind is the perfect argument AGAINST it.

Vigilante justice was appropriate here. Its a shame we didn't have that opportunity.

I agree 100% on everything you said. Except I remember reports that there were a few CCWs in the crowd, who didn't open fire because of the confusion going on.

I'm all for the death penalty-and I think the overwhelming majority of insanity cases are bogus-but this one I'm not so sure about, and this crime absolutely calls for the death penalty. But I legitimately think he was out of his mind-to the point where he would have been unable to distinguish what's right, and what's wrong.

Except for he wrote " I have planned my assassination carefully" If anyone deserves the DP he does.

I don't think that statement he made shows us whether he knew what he was doing was wrong. It just shows he planned it out.

As a side note-did he really plan it carefully? He had to pick up the ammo earlier in the day (from 2 places-the first walmart didn't sell to him). One would think any well planned out plan would at the very minimum have all the supplies you'd need before the morning?

 

[Nosmo King]

Is there any doubt now that they will use the insanity defense?

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate. This young man is insane, and cannot comprehend what he has done, or even what is real and what is not.

I wish someone had been there that day with a sidearm and a clear shot at him. It is amazing to me that in Arizona, there was not a CCW user present with the training to react, unconsciously, to the present threat of a violent lunatic, and put a bullet through his head to stop the threat.

And before you ask, yes, had I been there and had the opportunity, I would have undoubtedly used my sidearm to stop the lunatic. Probably without much conscious thought at all (if any), until the threat had been stopped.

I wonder about the timeline. 19 shots, and 18 hits. 9 seconds total? 9 seconds in which his attention would have been focused in one direction only.

Enough time to react and possibly save a life or two, if you're within 20 yards or so of him when he starts his rampage.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind. At the same time, I don't think he would understand why we are putting him to death if we did level that sentence on him. He truly is insane.

His crime is the perfect argument FOR the death penalty.

His mind is the perfect argument AGAINST it.

Vigilante justice was appropriate here. Its a shame we didn't have that opportunity.

I want to know about the contradictions in your position.

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind.

Or is it your position that jurisprudence is not appropriate? That indeed vigilante justice has a rightful place in society?

And I think adding more bullets to the chaos is about the stupidest option. Wild west shoot outs are something we should rise above.

 

[Mini 14]

Is there any doubt now that they will use the insanity defense?

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate. This young man is insane, and cannot comprehend what he has done, or even what is real and what is not.

I wish someone had been there that day with a sidearm and a clear shot at him. It is amazing to me that in Arizona, there was not a CCW user present with the training to react, unconsciously, to the present threat of a violent lunatic, and put a bullet through his head to stop the threat.

And before you ask, yes, had I been there and had the opportunity, I would have undoubtedly used my sidearm to stop the lunatic. Probably without much conscious thought at all (if any), until the threat had been stopped.

I wonder about the timeline. 19 shots, and 18 hits. 9 seconds total? 9 seconds in which his attention would have been focused in one direction only.

Enough time to react and possibly save a life or two, if you're within 20 yards or so of him when he starts his rampage.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind. At the same time, I don't think he would understand why we are putting him to death if we did level that sentence on him. He truly is insane.

His crime is the perfect argument FOR the death penalty.

His mind is the perfect argument AGAINST it.

Vigilante justice was appropriate here. Its a shame we didn't have that opportunity.

I want to know about the contradictions in your position.

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind.

Or is it your position that jurisprudence is not appropriate? That indeed vigilante justice has a rightful place in society?

And I think adding more bullets to the chaos is about the stupidest option. Wild west shoot outs are something we should rise above.

First off, I understand the difference in legal insanity and clinical insanity. I believe Loughner will meet both definitions, ie....I believe he did not understand that what he was doing was wrong. Yes, he had the mental capacity to plan it, that is obvious. But I do not believe, based on his writings prior, and his actions that day, that he fully understands or comprehends the implications of his actions.

As for vigilante justice, yes, I believe it has a place in the world, and this is a good example. I think ultimately, this guy will answer to a higher being for his actions, regardless of how or when he leaves this world. That said, had someone walked up behind him and put a bullet through his head as he was shooting innocent people, he would receive appropriate justice at the instant that it was delivered, and possibly innocents could have been saved.

Under our current Society (and rightfully so, IMO), he is now entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers, who shall determine his innocence or guilt, and assign the appropriate sentence.

None of those peers will have been witnesses to what he did. They will have to reach their conclusions based on the stories of other people who were there. How they saw it. What they heard.

Had one of the people there acted in a vigilante fashion and shot the man in the head to stop his crime, his justice would have been served, there would be some closure and less anguish for the victims and their families, and he would still ultimately be judged by his maker.

I understand that there may have been CCW holders there, carrying and ready to act. I understand that they likely did the very best they could do. I just wish that someone better trained, or perhaps a better opportunity to react, had been presented and we would all be spared the anguish of watching this play out for another 5-7 years, with the probable outcome being that he sits in a ward awaiting a natural cause of death.

He's a defective person. His mind is not normal, it is a defect. He will never find happiness in this world, and we will never be happy with him here among us.

Vigilante justice works well, in some circumstances.

This was the poster-child of those circumstances.

Its all just my opinion.....rip it to shreds if you wish.

But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that we need a trial to prove this guy did it, or that he isn't insane, by any definition.

To me, the only question is whether any of the various courts he will be tried in (Federal and State) can and will sentence him to death. I believe they will if they can. I also believe they can't.

 

[Nosmo King]

Is there any doubt now that they will use the insanity defense?

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate. This young man is insane, and cannot comprehend what he has done, or even what is real and what is not.

I wish someone had been there that day with a sidearm and a clear shot at him. It is amazing to me that in Arizona, there was not a CCW user present with the training to react, unconsciously, to the present threat of a violent lunatic, and put a bullet through his head to stop the threat.

And before you ask, yes, had I been there and had the opportunity, I would have undoubtedly used my sidearm to stop the lunatic. Probably without much conscious thought at all (if any), until the threat had been stopped.

I wonder about the timeline. 19 shots, and 18 hits. 9 seconds total? 9 seconds in which his attention would have been focused in one direction only.

Enough time to react and possibly save a life or two, if you're within 20 yards or so of him when he starts his rampage.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind. At the same time, I don't think he would understand why we are putting him to death if we did level that sentence on him. He truly is insane.

His crime is the perfect argument FOR the death penalty.

His mind is the perfect argument AGAINST it.

Vigilante justice was appropriate here. Its a shame we didn't have that opportunity.

I want to know about the contradictions in your position.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind.

Or is it your position that jurisprudence is not appropriate? That indeed vigilante justice has a rightful place in society?

And I think adding more bullets to the chaos is about the stupidest option. Wild west shoot outs are something we should rise above.

First off, I understand the difference in legal insanity and clinical insanity. I believe Loughner will meet both definitions, ie....I believe he did not understand that what he was doing was wrong. Yes, he had the mental capacity to plan it, that is obvious. But I do not believe, based on his writings prior, and his actions that day, that he fully understands or comprehends the implications of his actions.

As for vigilante justice, yes, I believe it has a place in the world, and this is a good example. I think ultimately, this guy will answer to a higher being for his actions, regardless of how or when he leaves this world. That said, had someone walked up behind him and put a bullet through his head as he was shooting innocent people, he would receive appropriate justice at the instant that it was delivered, and possibly innocents could have been saved.

Under our current Society (and rightfully so, IMO), he is now entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers, who shall determine his innocence or guilt, and assign the appropriate sentence.

None of those peers will have been witnesses to what he did. They will have to reach their conclusions based on the stories of other people who were there. How they saw it. What they heard.

Had one of the people there acted in a vigilante fashion and shot the man in the head to stop his crime, his justice would have been served, there would be some closure and less anguish for the victims and their families, and he would still ultimately be judged by his maker.

I understand that there may have been CCW holders there, carrying and ready to act. I understand that they likely did the very best they could do. I just wish that someone better trained, or perhaps a better opportunity to react, had been presented and we would all be spared the anguish of watching this play out for another 5-7 years, with the probable outcome being that he sits in a ward awaiting a natural cause of death.

He's a defective person. His mind is not normal, it is a defect. He will never find happiness in this world, and we will never be happy with him here among us.

Vigilante justice works well, in some circumstances.

This was the poster-child of those circumstances.

Its all just my opinion.....rip it to shreds if you wish.

But you're going to have a hard time convincing me that we need a trial to prove this guy did it, or that he isn't insane, by any definition.

To me, the only question is whether any of the various courts he will be tried in (Federal and State) can and will sentence him to death. I believe they will if they can. I also believe they can't.

None of us can possibly say with absolute certainty what we would do, how we would react in that sad circumstance. Trained law enforcement officers, military personnel, gun-toting citizens, unarmed men and women cannot precisely predict their reactions. The scene was madness. Chaos. Trauma.

One would hope that any vigilante would have the self discipline and poise to act responsibly. To take down the assailant not with a fatal head shot like the movies, but so that a trial can be held. More facts are discovered in trials than coroner's inquests.

But that's asking a lot from a vigilante. One of the reasons that word sticks to the roof of your mouth, so to speak, is vigilantism has a nasty reputation for running away with itself and getting it wrong. Vigilantism is the suggestion best shouted down when action is called for. It's unfortunate that trained, alert, professional security people weren't there to protect the Congresswoman and those who came to meet her. But in a scene of madness, chaos and trauma, throwing more bullets in a screaming crowd is irresponsible at best. Remember, only one of the shooters expected to fire, the other is caught by surprise and the adrenaline will catch up with the trigger finger too early.

 

[xotoxi]

IMO, insanity should not preclude you from the death penalty.

I consider "insanity" to be a reason for the crime, similar to "revenge", "hatred", or "boredom"...it is not an excuse.

 

[Cuyo]

Mental illness =/= Legal insanity

Legal insanity =/= Mental incompetence

If he decides to plead not guilty by reason of insanity there will be a long process to determine if he was, in fact, legally insane. That is unknown at this time.

But legal insanity is not the same as being unable to plan, or incompetent to think at all. It means lacking the capacity basically to know right from wrong. If the exhaustive examinations make it pretty clear he is, in fact, legally insane, usually the prosecution will deal. If it goes to trial, he will have to convince the jury. Less than 20% of attempts are successful.

I'd say if he does turn out to be not guilty by reason of insanity, it's a pretty reasonable assumption it's warranted.

I'm inclined to agree. No jury is going to declare him insane if there's any doubt to the same.

Of course, you all realize, that does not equal a walk. He will be committed until such a time he's deemed "Cured." Again, with such a publicized case, I doubt that will ever happen.

I think it's a fair bet he never walks free again.

 

[Sheldon]

Mental illness =/= Legal insanity

Legal insanity =/= Mental incompetence

If he decides to plead not guilty by reason of insanity there will be a long process to determine if he was, in fact, legally insane. That is unknown at this time.

But legal insanity is not the same as being unable to plan, or incompetent to think at all. It means lacking the capacity basically to know right from wrong. If the exhaustive examinations make it pretty clear he is, in fact, legally insane, usually the prosecution will deal. If it goes to trial, he will have to convince the jury. Less than 20% of attempts are successful.

I'd say if he does turn out to be not guilty by reason of insanity, it's a pretty reasonable assumption it's warranted.

If I remember right, either his myspace or facebook page had a recent post where he apologized for what he was about to do--something to that effect.

That could put a serious dent in his insanity plea.

But yeah his mugshot should be next to insane in the dictionary.

 

[DiveCon]

i looked it up a while back, and AZ doesnt have a "not guilty by reason of insanity" law
if i remember correctly, the plea would be "guilty, but insane" or something similar

 

[Mini 14]

One would hope that any vigilante would have the self discipline and poise to act responsibly. To take down the assailant not with a fatal head shot like the movies, but so that a trial can be held. More facts are discovered in trials than coroner's inquests.

But that's asking a lot from a vigilante.

Its asking a lot of ANYONE. You are aware that LE is trained to shoot to kill, right? That's why all the targets give the most points for center mass. You're trained to not pull the trigger unless you need to kill the person. In fact, your finger is outside the trigger guard until you have to shoot to kill, and if it goes inside the guard, you'd better pull the damn trigger. No one aims for anything but the chest or head, and the head only if you are less than a foot or two away, or you're carrying a rifle and have distance.

Anyone who trains to "shoot to wound" will be the first one shot, and if anyone I ever work with has that attitude, we won't be working together very long.

You watch too much TV. In the real world, you take no chances. You don't shoot until you have to, and you ALWAYS shoot to kill. If you ever see LE draw down on you, and the finger is inside the guard, kiss your ass goodbye and prepare to meet your maker, because they aren't going to be aiming for your knees.

Center mass, my friend. There is no other target. You keep firing until you hit it, because the ones that don't hit it don't even count. Vigilante or not.

 

[Sheldon]

i looked it up a while back, and AZ doesnt have a "not guilty by reason of insanity" law
if i remember correctly, the plea would be "guilty, but insane" or something similar

The Insanity Defense Among the States - Criminal Law

ARIZONA The state uses a modified version of the M'Naghten Rule. The burden of proof is on the defendant. A guilty but insane verdict is allowed.

M'Naghten Rules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Infidel]

Is there any doubt now that they will use the insanity defense?

He will not be put to death, and as much as I support the death penalty, I believe in this case it is not appropriate. This young man is insane, and cannot comprehend what he has done, or even what is real and what is not.

I wish someone had been there that day with a sidearm and a clear shot at him. It is amazing to me that in Arizona, there was not a CCW user present with the training to react, unconsciously, to the present threat of a violent lunatic, and put a bullet through his head to stop the threat.

And before you ask, yes, had I been there and had the opportunity, I would have undoubtedly used my sidearm to stop the lunatic. Probably without much conscious thought at all (if any), until the threat had been stopped.

I wonder about the timeline. 19 shots, and 18 hits. 9 seconds total? 9 seconds in which his attention would have been focused in one direction only.

Enough time to react and possibly save a life or two, if you're within 20 yards or so of him when he starts his rampage.

But now he will sit on a ward for the remainder of his natural life.

That isn't justice, in my mind. At the same time, I don't think he would understand why we are putting him to death if we did level that sentence on him. He truly is insane.

His crime is the perfect argument FOR the death penalty.

His mind is the perfect argument AGAINST it.

Vigilante justice was appropriate here. Its a shame we didn't have that opportunity.

 

[The Infidel]

Except for he wrote " I have planned my assassination carefully" If anyone deserves the DP he does.

Your Gawt Daing right he does.... Hell, I will pay for the bullet!

 

[The Infidel]

I f he does get away with insanity plea and avoids the needle.... we can surely blame one law enforcement officer for sure.... that would be Sheriff Dufus.

He came right of the box claiming the kid wasnt to blame.

 

[DiveCon]

i looked it up a while back, and AZ doesnt have a "not guilty by reason of insanity" law
if i remember correctly, the plea would be "guilty, but insane" or something similar

The Insanity Defense Among the States - Criminal Law

ARIZONA The state uses a modified version of the M'Naghten Rule. The burden of proof is on the defendant. A guilty but insane verdict is allowed.

M'Naghten Rules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course that will only be valid in the state courts not sure how it works for the federal charges he is facing

 

[goldcatt]

i looked it up a while back, and AZ doesnt have a "not guilty by reason of insanity" law
if i remember correctly, the plea would be "guilty, but insane" or something similar

The Insanity Defense Among the States - Criminal Law

ARIZONA The state uses a modified version of the M'Naghten Rule. The burden of proof is on the defendant. A guilty but insane verdict is allowed.

M'Naghten Rules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

of course that will only be valid in the state courts not sure how it works for the federal charges he is facing

The Federal process is similar, he will plead not guilty but probably change it to not guilty by reason of insanity. There's a procedure that has to be followed, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure pretty much sets out everything that has to happen, how and when evidence of his mental state is disclosed to the prosecution and the Court, and other goodies:

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure - Rule 12.2

The Federal standard is similar to the AZ law:

§ 17. Insanity defense

(a) Affirmative Defense.— It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.

(b) Burden of Proof.— The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

United States Code: Title 18,17. Insanity defense | LII / Legal Information Institute