More evidence that Loughner not 'crazy' or 'deranged'

[Liability]

The alleged "extreme right wing" made no such argument. SOME folks MIGHT have made an argument along those lines, but a dishonest fucker like Simpleholic will immediately take advantage of what ONE guys says and deliberately mis-attribute it to a whole host of other folks.

Are you claiming that Rightwingers all over USMB haven't been saying that violent rhetoric from the Right had nothing to do with it?

You use English like a jackhammer on a baby grand.

Listen you intentionally evasive and deliberately distorting scumbag, I was saying no such thing. And I'm not now. Nor am I saying the contrary, shit hole.

SOME liberals here at USMB, unlike you, ARE capable of intellectual honesty.

You should not over generalize.

If you ever care to TRY (for what may be the first time in your miserable life) to be both honest AND accurate, it is time to start properly employing modifiers and qualifications.

SOME liberals have intellectual honesty and integrity in debate here at USMB.

SOME right wing rhetoric has engaged in violence-laden imagery.

SOME of what many liberals point to as "violent rhetoric" from the right wing was never violent rhetoric in the first place.

Until you learn to regularly use proper qualifications for your assertions, much of the silly stuff you spew is a waste-land full of bullshit -- devoid of logical value.

 

[DiveCon]

I've learned something from scanning this thread. Until Synthaholic pointed it out, I was not aware that when you can not back up a claim with evidence, "fuck off" can be invoked, absolving you of the obligation of proof.
As a short timer here on USMB, I'd like to thank you all and wish you a Merry Christmas.
One or two of you, now want to point out that Christmas was last month. Don't waste your time. Fuck off.
Damn! That was easy.

Yeah, except I never claimed something. And DiveCon is too fucking stupid to bother explaining to him again. He'll just forget it again tomorrow. That's why I told DiveCon to fuck off, while explaining it to Sheldon. Sheldon isn't an idiot.

liar

 

[Ravi]

Wow. Even you questions are dishonest.

You ask for an honest answer to your dishonest question.

Listen up, you lying skank. Noting that you are having a bad period is hardly an attack against women in general.

Take a Midol and have yourself a nice hot bath.

Go, you lying loser.

Go take a good soak.

I figured you'd be too much of a coward to answer honestly.

Unlike you, skanky, I was honest. When we "chat" like this, that's the way it always is. Me = honest. You = lying skank.

Your fraudulent "question" demanded to know why I directed my comment "against women in general." Dishonest premise, i.e., unsurprisingly, you lied.

I did not do any such thing, as you knew when you chose to lie.

Instead, as you knew, my comment was pointed solely at you.

I love exposing your endless and abundant dishonesty, Lying Skank.

No need to thank me. Always my pleasure.

It is a shame you are not introspective enough to know that generalizing the behavior of women is an insult to women in general.

One wonders how much you have been influenced by the rightwing talking heads: Beck, Rush, etc.

 

[Douger]

He is probably as sane as John Hinkley was when he tried to kill President Reagan but Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

hinkleys family had influence and money.
Loughners does not.

Situation normal.....(in murka)
hinkley neil bush - Búsqueda de Google

 

[editec]

Well his actions certainly speak tpo the issue of his PLANNING the event, doesn't it?

And PREMEDITATION removes any possibility that he can go for the "temporarily out of his head and didn't know what he was doing" defense, doesn't it?

So even if you believe that his motive was crazy, his methodology indicates that his state of mind and modus operandi was rational.

 

[goldcatt]

Well his actions certainly speak tpo the issue of his PLANNING the event, doesn't it?

And PREMEDITATION removes any possibility that he can go for the "temporarily out of his head and didn't know what he was doing" defense, doesn't it?

So even if you believe that his motive was crazy, his methodology indicates that his state of mind and modus operandi was rational.

No, it doesn't.

Neither does knowing that there would be consequences for his actions.

The question and the only question is whether he could appreciate his actions were wrongful.

It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. There have been examples of those who believed they were acting on instructions from God, therefore what they were doing was right in their minds and beyond the laws of Man. There have been people who thought they had to sacrifice an individual or individuals and become a martyr in order to save the planet from being destroyed by aliens because the voices in their head told them so. There have been those who thought they were receiving secret instructions from the military, CIA or FBI and believed they were acting under that authority and doing their patriotic duty. If there was a delusional frame of mind here, none of the facts so far are evidence that he could not, in fact, be found legally insane.

Is he? I have no clue. If he decides to try that route (and I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen) then there will be multiple examinations by multiple experts to try to make that determination, and it will ultimately go before a jury.

But the OP proves not a damn thing. Snippets without context.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

January 26, 2011
Tucson Suspect Studied Assassins, Officials Say

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN and MARC LACEY

TUCSON — Jared L. Loughner, the man accused of opening fire outside a Tucson supermarket on Jan. 8 in what the authorities consider an attempted political assassination, researched famous assassins, the death penalty and solitary confinement on the Internet before the shooting, an official close to the investigation said Wednesday.


Mr. Loughner, 22, pleaded not guilty on Monday to three counts of attempted murder in connection with the shooting, which left six people dead and 13 injured. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, was shot in the head but survived. Additional charges, including murder, are expected.


Mr. Loughner checked himself into a Motel 6 on the evening before the attacks and was on his computer until the wee hours, authorities said. An analysis of his Web searches showed that he was busy researching hours before the shooting, which took place shortly after 10 a.m., an official said.


“He was looking at Web sites related to lethal injection and Web sites about famous assassinations,” said an official close to the investigation.

The Washington Post first reported the Internet searches on its Web site on Wednesday afternoon.

OK let's entertain that thought for a second. He's not insane. What is your point?

 

[geauxtohell]

How exactly does the fact that he researched assassinations make you conclude that he wasn't crazy or deranged?

Rick

I believe the argument would be that he knew the consequences of his actions.

I might be relevant to the legal argument, which is a tough sale as I understand it.

However, I think Loughers actions alone make a pretty convincing argument that he was deranged.

 

[Synthaholic]

The alleged "extreme right wing" made no such argument. SOME folks MIGHT have made an argument along those lines, but a dishonest fucker like Simpleholic will immediately take advantage of what ONE guys says and deliberately mis-attribute it to a whole host of other folks.

Are you claiming that Rightwingers all over USMB haven't been saying that violent rhetoric from the Right had nothing to do with it?

You use English like a jackhammer on a baby grand.

Listen you intentionally evasive and deliberately distorting scumbag, I was saying no such thing. And I'm not now. Nor am I saying the contrary, shit hole.

SOME liberals here at USMB, unlike you, ARE capable of intellectual honesty.

You should not over generalize.

If you ever care to TRY (for what may be the first time in your miserable life) to be both honest AND accurate, it is time to start properly employing modifiers and qualifications.

SOME liberals have intellectual honesty and integrity in debate here at USMB.

SOME right wing rhetoric has engaged in violence-laden imagery.

SOME of what many liberals point to as "violent rhetoric" from the right wing was never violent rhetoric in the first place.

Until you learn to regularly use proper qualifications for your assertions, much of the silly stuff you spew is a waste-land full of bullshit -- devoid of logical value.

So, are you claiming that Rightwingers all over USMB haven't been saying that violent rhetoric from the Right had nothing to do with it?

 

[editec]

Well his actions certainly speak tpo the issue of his PLANNING the event, doesn't it?

And PREMEDITATION removes any possibility that he can go for the "temporarily out of his head and didn't know what he was doing" defense, doesn't it?

So even if you believe that his motive was crazy, his methodology indicates that his state of mind and modus operandi was rational.

No, it doesn't.[/qyote[]

It doesn't indicate that his state of mind and modus operation was rational?

I think it does.

The mistaken notion I think that leads you to the conclusion that somebody who is a delusional schizophrenic can not rationally plan to do something that you or I (who are not suffering the same delusional fugue) is misguided.

The insane are often quite capable of acting rationally for irrational reasons.


Do you imagine that he did not know that what he was doing was murder?

Clearly he did since he was checking to see what the state might do to somebody who murders.

He understood what he was doing.

His motive might be insane but his method of operations was quite rational.

 

[Synthaholic]

I've learned something from scanning this thread. Until Synthaholic pointed it out, I was not aware that when you can not back up a claim with evidence, "fuck off" can be invoked, absolving you of the obligation of proof.
As a short timer here on USMB, I'd like to thank you all and wish you a Merry Christmas.
One or two of you, now want to point out that Christmas was last month. Don't waste your time. Fuck off.
Damn! That was easy.

Yeah, except I never claimed something. And DiveCon is too fucking stupid to bother explaining to him again. He'll just forget it again tomorrow. That's why I told DiveCon to fuck off, while explaining it to Sheldon. Sheldon isn't an idiot.

liar

I realize I just told Ernie that you are too fucking stupid to waste my time re-explaining things to you, but I'll try again: I have not attributed Loughner's actions to wingnut hate speech. I have only pushed back on the notion that "He's deranged - rhetoric had NOTHING to do with it!!!11!"

Of course, you are welcome to go find a post of mine that blames Poor Sarah. Maybe that fruitless search will keep you busy all day, preventing you from polluting the board with your putrid brain droppings for at least today.

Now fuck off.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well his actions certainly speak tpo the issue of his PLANNING the event, doesn't it?

And PREMEDITATION removes any possibility that he can go for the "temporarily out of his head and didn't know what he was doing" defense, doesn't it?

So even if you believe that his motive was crazy, his methodology indicates that his state of mind and modus operandi was rational.

No, it doesn't.[/qyote[]

It doesn't indicate that his state of mind and modus operation was rational?

I think it does.

The mistaken notion I think that leads you to the conclusion that somebody who is a delusional schizophrenic can not rationally plan to do something that you or I (who are not suffering the same delusional fugue) is misguided.

The insane are often quite capable of acting rationally for irrational reasons.


Do you imagine that he did not know that what he was doing was murder?

Clearly he did since he was checking to see what the state might do to somebody who murders.

He understood what he was doing.

His motive might be insane but his method of operations was quite rational.

OK let's entertain that thought for a second. He's not insane. What is your point?

 

[Synthaholic]

I figured you'd be too much of a coward to answer honestly.

Unlike you, skanky, I was honest. When we "chat" like this, that's the way it always is. Me = honest. You = lying skank.

Your fraudulent "question" demanded to know why I directed my comment "against women in general." Dishonest premise, i.e., unsurprisingly, you lied.

I did not do any such thing, as you knew when you chose to lie.

Instead, as you knew, my comment was pointed solely at you.

I love exposing your endless and abundant dishonesty, Lying Skank.

No need to thank me. Always my pleasure.

It is a shame you are not introspective enough to know that generalizing the behavior of women is an insult to women in general.

One wonders how much you have been influenced by the rightwing talking heads: Beck, Rush, etc.

I don't wonder. He exhibits the same lout personality as his heroes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unlike you, skanky, I was honest. When we "chat" like this, that's the way it always is. Me = honest. You = lying skank.

Your fraudulent "question" demanded to know why I directed my comment "against women in general." Dishonest premise, i.e., unsurprisingly, you lied.

I did not do any such thing, as you knew when you chose to lie.

Instead, as you knew, my comment was pointed solely at you.

I love exposing your endless and abundant dishonesty, Lying Skank.

No need to thank me. Always my pleasure.

It is a shame you are not introspective enough to know that generalizing the behavior of women is an insult to women in general.

One wonders how much you have been influenced by the rightwing talking heads: Beck, Rush, etc.

I don't wonder. He exhibits the same lout personality as his heroes.

Don't pussy foot around come out and say it. Who was his heros? Man up own your statement.

 

[goldcatt]

Well his actions certainly speak tpo the issue of his PLANNING the event, doesn't it?

And PREMEDITATION removes any possibility that he can go for the "temporarily out of his head and didn't know what he was doing" defense, doesn't it?

So even if you believe that his motive was crazy, his methodology indicates that his state of mind and modus operandi was rational.

No, it doesn't.[/qyote[]

It doesn't indicate that his state of mind and modus operation was rational?

I think it does.

The mistaken notion I think that leads you to the conclusion that somebody who is a delusional schizophrenic can not rationally plan to do something that you or I (who are not suffering the same delusional fugue) is misguided.

The insane are often quite capable of acting rationally for irrational reasons.


Do you imagine that he did not know that what he was doing was murder?

Clearly he did since he was checking to see what the state might do to somebody who murders.

He understood what he was doing.

His motive might be insane but his method of operations was quite rational.

Right.

But the method of operations has no bearing on legal insanity. One does not have to be mentally incompetent, unable to plan, think, function or even understand the legal consequences of their actions, in order to be legally insane.

One only has to be unable to tell right from wrong, or be basically under the delusion that wrong is right. (Not part of the actual definition, but how the fact pattern usually pans out)

So...if a person believes he is seeing, for example, secret coded CIA messages from the local radio tower that command him to kill X as part of his duty to God and country to save the nation/town/planet/city/whatever from some unknown grave threat, even though he knows there is a law against murder is he not convinced he is acting in the greater good or even under authority and therefore his action is not wrongful?

I'm not saying that's the case here, but that's why there are actual, qualified experts on both sides who examine the defendant thoroughly and in person before any determination can be made. Snippets of facts on plans, google searches or even knowledge of a legal penalty has no bearing on the actual determination and appreciation of right and wrong, there must be context.

 

[daveman]

The major talking point from the extreme Rightwing has been that wingnut hate speech and vitriol played no part in the shootings, because Loughner was supposedly "insane". The fact that he has been researching it, and planning for it, keeps open the door to what influenced his actions.

Have you ever found any proof that he was influenced by "hate speech"?

NOTE: Wishful thinking isn't proof.

I wouldn't be finding that proof, if it exists. The experts who will be evaluating Loughner will make that determination.

Will you accept their findings without spinning it?

Yes. But when they find no evidence of right-wing influence, you will not.

You want so badly for it to be true. And leftists see what they believe.

 

[Synthaholic]

January 26, 2011
Tucson Suspect Studied Assassins, Officials Say

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN and MARC LACEY

TUCSON — Jared L. Loughner, the man accused of opening fire outside a Tucson supermarket on Jan. 8 in what the authorities consider an attempted political assassination, researched famous assassins, the death penalty and solitary confinement on the Internet before the shooting, an official close to the investigation said Wednesday.


Mr. Loughner, 22, pleaded not guilty on Monday to three counts of attempted murder in connection with the shooting, which left six people dead and 13 injured. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, was shot in the head but survived. Additional charges, including murder, are expected.


Mr. Loughner checked himself into a Motel 6 on the evening before the attacks and was on his computer until the wee hours, authorities said. An analysis of his Web searches showed that he was busy researching hours before the shooting, which took place shortly after 10 a.m., an official said.


“He was looking at Web sites related to lethal injection and Web sites about famous assassinations,” said an official close to the investigation.

The Washington Post first reported the Internet searches on its Web site on Wednesday afternoon.

OK let's entertain that thought for a second. He's not insane. What is your point?

The question of the influence of wingnut hate speech on Loughner has not been determined, so it cannot be discounted. Yet Regressives on this site have dismissed it as even a possibility.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Have you ever found any proof that he was influenced by "hate speech"?

NOTE: Wishful thinking isn't proof.

I wouldn't be finding that proof, if it exists. The experts who will be evaluating Loughner will make that determination.

Will you accept their findings without spinning it?

Yes. But when they find no evidence of right-wing influence, you will not.

You want so badly for it to be true. And leftists see what they believe.

I wouldn't be finding that proof, if it exists. The experts who will be evaluating Loughner will make that determination.

Will you accept their findings without spinning it

He's found not to be insane, ok whats the point Synthaholic? That still does not prove what Synthaholic is so drespertly trying to prove.. HE'S NOT UNDER MENTAL EVALUATION FOR HIS POLITICAL AGENDA HE'S UNDER EVALUATION FOR HIS MENTAL STATE OF MIND.

 

[Synthaholic]

It is a shame you are not introspective enough to know that generalizing the behavior of women is an insult to women in general.

One wonders how much you have been influenced by the rightwing talking heads: Beck, Rush, etc.

I don't wonder. He exhibits the same lout personality as his heroes.

Don't pussy foot around come out and say it. Who was his heros? Man up own your statement.

You are tiresome, Rebecca.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

January 26, 2011
Tucson Suspect Studied Assassins, Officials Say

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN and MARC LACEY

TUCSON — Jared L. Loughner, the man accused of opening fire outside a Tucson supermarket on Jan. 8 in what the authorities consider an attempted political assassination, researched famous assassins, the death penalty and solitary confinement on the Internet before the shooting, an official close to the investigation said Wednesday.


Mr. Loughner, 22, pleaded not guilty on Monday to three counts of attempted murder in connection with the shooting, which left six people dead and 13 injured. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, was shot in the head but survived. Additional charges, including murder, are expected.


Mr. Loughner checked himself into a Motel 6 on the evening before the attacks and was on his computer until the wee hours, authorities said. An analysis of his Web searches showed that he was busy researching hours before the shooting, which took place shortly after 10 a.m., an official said.


“He was looking at Web sites related to lethal injection and Web sites about famous assassinations,” said an official close to the investigation.

The Washington Post first reported the Internet searches on its Web site on Wednesday afternoon.

OK let's entertain that thought for a second. He's not insane. What is your point?

The question of the influence of wingnut hate speech on Loughner has not been determined, so it cannot be discounted. Yet Regressives on this site have dismissed it as even a possibility.

He listen to political groups like anti flag he did not listen to anything conservative. Your passion for this is turning into something akin to the birthes, and toothers views.