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

[Synthaholic]

you do understand that us calling him insane or deranged has no bearing on him being criminally insane, right?

You wingnuts trip all over yourselves to desperately claim that hate speech from Palin, Beck, Rush, hannity, had nothing to do with Loughner's actions because he was insane, not influenced.

Whether he was influenced or not has yet to be determined.

show your proof that he was influenced
no has yet

No.

Now fuck off.

 

[Synthaholic]

Simpleholic. I hope Loughner was not insane. For if not insane, he is more likely to be held criminally reponsible for his actions.

But, whether sane or insane, YOU have never shown ANY evidence that he was in the slightest bit influenced by Palin or Beck or Rush or any conservative talk radio or message board or television or anything else related to right wing political discourse (and nobody ELSE has either).

And you won't.

Another moron who doesn't know the argument.

You can now fuck off, too.

 

[Liability]

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.

That does not prove he is not crazy, it just makes him legally sane.

Technically, it doesn't.

Knowing that performing action "A" is LIKELY to cause consequence "B" is one of the indicators that a person is aware of what he's doing. It is a link in a chain of evidence, in fact, that may suggest that what he did he did "intentionally."

But legally, insanity can mean (a) not realizing that what you are doing is "wrong" or (b) not being able (due to some mental disease or defect) to behave in the acceptable fashion, anyway. The latter version is sometimes referred to as an "irresistible impulse."

So far, with the possible exception of some doctors or shrinks, nobody knows even IF Jared Loughner was legally incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his behavior OR if he did know it was wrong but he was unable to stop himself -- or neither.

 

[Synthaholic]

The fool has been upset with the Congresswoman since 07. This is known as fact.

True.

None of the so called influences had anything to do with it.

Not been determined yet, but notice how you state it as if it was as true a fact as your first sentence.

 

[Liability]

Simpleholic. I hope Loughner was not insane. For if not insane, he is more likely to be held criminally reponsible for his actions.

But, whether sane or insane, YOU have never shown ANY evidence that he was in the slightest bit influenced by Palin or Beck or Rush or any conservative talk radio or message board or television or anything else related to right wing political discourse (and nobody ELSE has either).

And you won't.

Another moron who doesn't know the argument.

You can now fuck off, too.

While I agree that you appear to be a moron, I must respectfully decline your invitation to "fuck" off.

You, however, being a dishonest and severely stupid scumbag caught in the snare of your own ignorant commentary, are cordially invited to fuck yourself!

It's really quite simple. YOU have EXACTLY no basis of knowledge for what "motivated" Jared Loughner. Zero. IF you had ANY such actual knowledge, you'd post it.

But you never have and you won't because, being a dishonest scumbag, you just spew your baseless rhetoric without regard to its truthfulness or lack thereof.

 

[DiveCon]

You wingnuts trip all over yourselves to desperately claim that hate speech from Palin, Beck, Rush, hannity, had nothing to do with Loughner's actions because he was insane, not influenced.

Whether he was influenced or not has yet to be determined.

show your proof that he was influenced
no has yet

No.

Now fuck off.

so, you have no evidence, yet you WANT it to be true

you can fuck off

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think when most people say he's insane they mean "normal, non-instain people don't shoot up dozens of other people at a political rally". Legal insanity and clinical insanity is another issue.

Someone can suffer from a mental disorder, and still know how to operate google and think ahead btw. So the premise of this thread doesn't really work.

I guess you didn't follow my first thread about this subject. The extreme rightwing made the argument that he was not influenced by violent rhetoric and images from Right, because he is an insane or deranged gunman. Like they are mutually exclusive.

But I'm thinking you've already made up your mind about what the influences were, regardless of the facts of the case so far, and it's just about reinforcing your as-yet unsubstantiated opinion.

Have fun with that.

Where have I done that? Please point it out, and then we both can see it for the first time.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Rick

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?

 

[Liability]

I think when most people say he's insane they mean "normal, non-instain people don't shoot up dozens of other people at a political rally". Legal insanity and clinical insanity is another issue.

Someone can suffer from a mental disorder, and still know how to operate google and think ahead btw. So the premise of this thread doesn't really work.

I guess you didn't follow my first thread about this subject. The extreme rightwing made the argument that he was not influenced by violent rhetoric and images from Right, because he is an insane or deranged gunman. Like they are mutually exclusive.

But I'm thinking you've already made up your mind about what the influences were, regardless of the facts of the case so far, and it's just about reinforcing your as-yet unsubstantiated opinion.

Have fun with that.

Where have I done that? Please point it out, and then we both can see it for the first time.

Oh. It's simple. Simpleholic is just lying.

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.

The fact is: NOBODY (again, with the possible exception of some doctors or shrinks) has ANY actual idea of what motivated Jared Loughner. He does appear to be crazy. But whether his possible legal defense is valid or even colorable is not yet known.

What we CAN say is that NOBODY has ANY valid right to pretend to attribute Jared Loguhner's behavior to anything said by anybody on the right side of the political spectrum.

As noted: whatever Simpleholic said can be discounted, since Simpleholic is a nothing more than scumbag liar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

That does not prove he is not crazy, it just makes him legally sane.

Technically, it doesn't.

Knowing that performing action "A" is LIKELY to cause consequence "B" is one of the indicators that a person is aware of what he's doing. It is a link in a chain of evidence, in fact, that may suggest that what he did he did "intentionally."

But legally, insanity can mean (a) not realizing that what you are doing is "wrong" or (b) not being able (due to some mental disease or defect) to behave in the acceptable fashion, anyway. The latter version is sometimes referred to as an "irresistible impulse."

So far, with the possible exception of some doctors or shrinks, nobody knows even IF Jared Loughner was legally incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his behavior OR if he did know it was wrong but he was unable to stop himself -- or neither.

That actually depends on the jurisdiction. Some states you have to prove on or the other, and some you have to prove both. Federal law requires that the prosecution prove that the defendant knows the difference between right and wrong.

In 1984, Congress passed, and President Ronald Reagan signed, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to prove, by "clear and convincing evidence," 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" (18 U.S.C. § 17). This is generally viewed as a return to the "knowing right from wrong" standard. The Act also contained the Insanity Defense

Insanity defense | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Synthaholic]

you do understand that us calling him insane or deranged has no bearing on him being criminally insane, right?

You wingnuts trip all over yourselves to desperately claim that hate speech from Palin, Beck, Rush, hannity, had nothing to do with Loughner's actions because he was insane, not influenced.

Whether he was influenced or not has yet to be determined.

Actually, we point out that there is NO EVIDENCE that he ever listened to Palin, Beck, Rush, Hannity, or Barack Obama. No Evidence... that's why we say he wasn't influenced by them. See the issue you have..... where is your evidence that he was influenced by them. Was it Klingon Mind Meld?

Are you speaking for all the wingnuts on the board who have discussed this issue, or just yourself, maybe in a Queenly "we"?

 

[Synthaholic]

So far, with the possible exception of some doctors or shrinks, nobody knows even IF Jared Loughner was legally incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his behavior OR if he did know it was wrong but he was unable to stop himself -- or neither.

Correct.

 

[Synthaholic]

Simpleholic. I hope Loughner was not insane. For if not insane, he is more likely to be held criminally reponsible for his actions.

But, whether sane or insane, YOU have never shown ANY evidence that he was in the slightest bit influenced by Palin or Beck or Rush or any conservative talk radio or message board or television or anything else related to right wing political discourse (and nobody ELSE has either).

And you won't.

Another moron who doesn't know the argument.

You can now fuck off, too.

While I agree that you appear to be a moron, I must respectfully decline your invitation to "fuck" off.

You, however, being a dishonest and severely stupid scumbag caught in the snare of your own ignorant commentary, are cordially invited to fuck yourself!

It's really quite simple. YOU have EXACTLY no basis of knowledge for what "motivated" Jared Loughner. Zero. IF you had ANY such actual knowledge, you'd post it.

But you never have and you won't because, being a dishonest scumbag, you just spew your baseless rhetoric without regard to its truthfulness or lack thereof.

That's because I've never argued that he was influenced by wingnut rhetoric, you ignorant fuckstick!

 

[Ernie S.]

I think when most people say he's insane they mean "normal, non-instain people don't shoot up dozens of other people at a political rally". Legal insanity and clinical insanity is another issue.

Someone can suffer from a mental disorder, and still know how to operate google and think ahead btw. So the premise of this thread doesn't really work.

I guess you didn't follow my first thread about this subject. The extreme rightwing made the argument that he was not influenced by violent rhetoric and images from Right, because he is an insane or deranged gunman. Like they are mutually exclusive.

But I'm thinking you've already made up your mind about what the influences were, regardless of the facts of the case so far, and it's just about reinforcing your as-yet unsubstantiated opinion.

Have fun with that.

Where have I done that? Please point it out, and then we both can see it for the first time.

In other words "fuck off". (See my post above)

 

[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.

 

[Liability]

That does not prove he is not crazy, it just makes him legally sane.

Technically, it doesn't.

Knowing that performing action "A" is LIKELY to cause consequence "B" is one of the indicators that a person is aware of what he's doing. It is a link in a chain of evidence, in fact, that may suggest that what he did he did "intentionally."

But legally, insanity can mean (a) not realizing that what you are doing is "wrong" or (b) not being able (due to some mental disease or defect) to behave in the acceptable fashion, anyway. The latter version is sometimes referred to as an "irresistible impulse."

So far, with the possible exception of some doctors or shrinks, nobody knows even IF Jared Loughner was legally incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his behavior OR if he did know it was wrong but he was unable to stop himself -- or neither.

That actually depends on the jurisdiction. Some states you have to prove on or the other, and some you have to prove both. Federal law requires that the prosecution prove that the defendant knows the difference between right and wrong.

In 1984, Congress passed, and President Ronald Reagan signed, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act. The federal insanity defense now requires the defendant to prove, by "clear and convincing evidence," 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" (18 U.S.C. § 17). This is generally viewed as a return to the "knowing right from wrong" standard. The Act also contained the Insanity Defense

Insanity defense | LII / Legal Information Institute

The FEDERAL law did (post Hinckley) do away with the "irresistible impulse" "insanity defense."

It still exists formally (albeit in different words) in NY State Law.

As I understand it, a possible verdict in NY of "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" is not legally available in Arizona. They have "guilty but crazy" type laws. That means a literally insane defendant who doesn't even appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct is nevertheless able to be found guilty and he then gets placed in a psychiatric facility. Getting "better" doesn't even help him, later, I am advised. Instead, once the guy who kills as a result of insanity is cured, he gets treated to prison for what he did while crazy.

I am ashamed to confess that part of me likes that outcome. But part of me considers it unfair and contrary to what we generally believe in this country.

 

[Liability]

Another moron who doesn't know the argument.

You can now fuck off, too.

While I agree that you appear to be a moron, I must respectfully decline your invitation to "fuck" off.

You, however, being a dishonest and severely stupid scumbag caught in the snare of your own ignorant commentary, are cordially invited to fuck yourself!

It's really quite simple. YOU have EXACTLY no basis of knowledge for what "motivated" Jared Loughner. Zero. IF you had ANY such actual knowledge, you'd post it.

But you never have and you won't because, being a dishonest scumbag, you just spew your baseless rhetoric without regard to its truthfulness or lack thereof.

That's because I've never argued that he was influenced by wingnut rhetoric, you ignorant fuckstick!

You remain an abject liar, twat stank.

The whole point of your blithering posts has been to attribute to the right wing the arguments made by one of perhaps just a few individuals.

And many of you liberoidal assholes most certainly HAVE made the claim that right wing political discourse set a tone and tenor that "tragically" manifested itself in what that mutant Loughner did in Arizona.

You are a pathetic liar in all respects, shit hole.

 

[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?

 

[Liability]

So far, with the possible exception of some doctors or shrinks, nobody knows even IF Jared Loughner was legally incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his behavior OR if he did know it was wrong but he was unable to stop himself -- or neither.

Correct.

Yes. I know. So you can stop pretending you have a right to attribute contrary words to me or to most folks on the right, you fundamentally dishonest shit stain.

YOU don't know what motivated Jared Loughner or what DIDN'T motivate him, either.

And it sure LOOKS like he might very well be crazy.

And it is also crystal clear that nobody can point to ANY evidence suggesting that any political discourse on the right side of the political spectrum motivated him at all.