Question involving AZ Shooting

[Autistic Angel]

I did so to challenge your preconception that liberals would somehow be ok with a murderer going free, which is what you implied when you said he would "get off on an insanity defense" and that somehow liberals would be ok with that.  We addressed most of the "successful insanity defense = going free" part with Fed (and my other posts), but I also wanted to look at the "liberals are ok with murderers" piece.

It just seemed to me that a couple days after this happened most liberals were ok with what the sheriff said, and I thought it put in jeopardy this guy getting less punishment than he deserved.

Therefore I was concluding that perhaps:  sheriff-> liberals ok with him-> Loughner getting off easier as a result

I still can't really follow the logical leap to the third point.  First two, yes.  The third just baffles me.

It's a Limbaugh thing.  He's advanced it a few times so far.

The short version: a successful conviction of Loughner would undermine the notion that Sarah Palin is actually guilty of the shooting, so the Democrat (sic) party is coordinating to aid his defense.  By criticizing the violent rhetoric of major Conservative leaders, the sheriff is setting up an insanity defense so that Loughner can be released back into society, and in return, Loughner will testify that Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh drove him to it.

Hence Zekester's thread: Are liberals *really* okay with letting him off easy?!

-Autistic Angel

[gellar]

I did so to challenge your preconception that liberals would somehow be ok with a murderer going free, which is what you implied when you said he would "get off on an insanity defense" and that somehow liberals would be ok with that.  We addressed most of the "successful insanity defense = going free" part with Fed (and my other posts), but I also wanted to look at the "liberals are ok with murderers" piece.

It just seemed to me that a couple days after this happened most liberals were ok with what the sheriff said, and I thought it put in jeopardy this guy getting less punishment than he deserved.

Therefore I was concluding that perhaps:  sheriff-> liberals ok with him-> Loughner getting off easier as a result

I still can't really follow the logical leap to the third point.  First two, yes.  The third just baffles me.

It's a Limbaugh thing.  He's advanced it a few times so far.

The short version: a successful conviction of Loughner would undermine the notion that Sarah Palin is actually guilty of the shooting, so the Democrat (sic) party is coordinating to aid his defense.  By criticizing the violent rhetoric of major Conservative leaders, the sheriff is setting up an insanity defense so that Loughner can be released back into society, and in return, Loughner will testify that Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh drove him to it.

Hence Zekester's thread: Are liberals *really* okay with letting him off easy?!

-Autistic Angel

Ah... wow.  OK.  That's incredibly fucking stupid.

Thanks for digging that up though.

[Ironrod]

See, lethal injection seems like a the most humane fate to me. I hope this kid spends every day of the next 50 years regretting the day he was born. Either federal butt-pounding prison or the nuthatch should accomplish that.

[Gratch]

I did so to challenge your preconception that liberals would somehow be ok with a murderer going free, which is what you implied when you said he would "get off on an insanity defense" and that somehow liberals would be ok with that.  We addressed most of the "successful insanity defense = going free" part with Fed (and my other posts), but I also wanted to look at the "liberals are ok with murderers" piece.

It just seemed to me that a couple days after this happened most liberals were ok with what the sheriff said, and I thought it put in jeopardy this guy getting less punishment than he deserved.

Therefore I was concluding that perhaps:  sheriff-> liberals ok with him-> Loughner getting off easier as a result

I still can't really follow the logical leap to the third point.  First two, yes.  The third just baffles me.

It's a Limbaugh thing.  He's advanced it a few times so far.

The short version: a successful conviction of Loughner would undermine the notion that Sarah Palin is actually guilty of the shooting, so the Democrat (sic) party is coordinating to aid his defense.  By criticizing the violent rhetoric of major Conservative leaders, the sheriff is setting up an insanity defense so that Loughner can be released back into society, and in return, Loughner will testify that Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh drove him to it.

Hence Zekester's thread: Are liberals *really* okay with letting him off easy?!

-Autistic Angel

Holy derp Batman.  I know it's Rush's job to rile up the masses with nonsensical bullshit, but that one is a stretch even for him.

[Zekester]

I did so to challenge your preconception that liberals would somehow be ok with a murderer going free, which is what you implied when you said he would "get off on an insanity defense" and that somehow liberals would be ok with that.  We addressed most of the "successful insanity defense = going free" part with Fed (and my other posts), but I also wanted to look at the "liberals are ok with murderers" piece.

It just seemed to me that a couple days after this happened most liberals were ok with what the sheriff said, and I thought it put in jeopardy this guy getting less punishment than he deserved.

Therefore I was concluding that perhaps:  sheriff-> liberals ok with him-> Loughner getting off easier as a result

I still can't really follow the logical leap to the third point.  First two, yes.  The third just baffles me.

It's a Limbaugh thing.  He's advanced it a few times so far.

The short version: a successful conviction of Loughner would undermine the notion that Sarah Palin is actually guilty of the shooting, so the Democrat (sic) party is coordinating to aid his defense.  By criticizing the violent rhetoric of major Conservative leaders, the sheriff is setting up an insanity defense so that Loughner can be released back into society, and in return, Loughner will testify that Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh drove him to it.

Hence Zekester's thread: Are liberals *really* okay with letting him off easy?!

-Autistic Angel

Yup, the gig is up!

LOL

See, lethal injection seems like a the most humane fate to me. I hope this kid spends every day of the next 50 years regretting the day he was born. Either federal butt-pounding prison or the nuthatch should accomplish that.

We're already paying for a zillion criminals, why add another one? I mean, if some of you (not you, Ironrod) feel that i'm costing them money by riding my bike with no helmet, how do you justify spending your money on criminals for years and years?

[hepcat]

We're already paying for a zillion criminals, why add another one? I mean, if some of you (not you, Ironrod) feel that i'm costing them money by riding my bike with no helmet, how do you justify spending your money on criminals for years and years?

i'm fine with you riding your bicycle without a helmet.  if you're buying into Rush's conspiracy theory, there's obviously very little chance of you getting dumber after an accident.   

[Purge]

Insanity plea = http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/31/greyhound-transcanada.html

Which I think is horrendous, and then to not be criminally responsible regardless of mental condition. Here's the wiki on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tim_McLean

Now, this is Canadian law and I don't know if the US / AZ has a similar law that protects the crazies from their criminal actions. I certainly hope not. If I accidentally break a vase in a store, I will be paying for it regardless of intent. The store may let me off the hook, but it's a goddamned VASE.

[Zekester]

motorcycle, not bicycle.

and Rush is always throwing conspiracy theories out there, and so what? The left is full of them too.

[Zekester]

If I accidentally break a vase in a store, I will be paying for it regardless of intent.

Oh no, see, that's not how it works here in the US anymore. No one is responsible for their own actions, they just blame everyone else, and sometimes make good money through lawsuits by doing so.

We are all so non-responsible for ourselves that we even need the big bad govument to step in control everything we do.

[hepcat]

all this anger because they want you to wear a helmet while riding your bicycle?   

[rickfc]

all this anger because they want you to wear a helmet while riding your bicycle?   

[Zekester]

 

[Mr. Fed]

Insanity plea = http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/31/greyhound-transcanada.html

Which I think is horrendous, and then to not be criminally responsible regardless of mental condition. Here's the wiki on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tim_McLean

Now, this is Canadian law and I don't know if the US / AZ has a similar law that protects the crazies from their criminal actions. I certainly hope not. If I accidentally break a vase in a store, I will be paying for it regardless of intent. The store may let me off the hook, but it's a goddamned VASE.

I previously linked and explained relevant U.S. law.  (Since Loughner is charged federally, it's federal law, not Arizona law, that applies.)

Canadian law is somewhat different.  Wikipedia, because I am lazy today:

The defence of mental disorder is codified in section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada which states, in part:

    16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

To establish a claim of mental disorder the party raising the issue must show on a balance of probabilities first that the person who committed the act was suffering from a "disease of the mind", and second, that at the time of the offence they were either 1) unable to appreciate the "nature and quality" of the act, or 2) did not know it was "wrong".

The meaning of the word "wrong" was determined in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Chaulk [1990] 3 S.C.R. which held that "wrong" was NOT restricted to "legally wrong" but to "morally wrong" as well.

Aside from spelling defense wrong, Canada's law also differs from American federal law in that the defendant's burden of proof is substantially lower ("balance of probabilities" versus "clear and convincing evidence").  Otherwise, though, the core idea is the same, and matches the common law heritage of the West for more than a century and a half:  people who are too crazy to understand what they are doing, or understand that it is wrong, cannot be held criminally responsible, but may still be confined in a looney bin.

If you "accidentally" break a vase in a store, you may well be responsible.  (Not automatically, though.  But that's a different dreary legal discussion.)  However, if you walk into a store and break a vase because, in your delusion, you think it is a rattlesnake coiled to strike at you, and prove that to the satisfaction of a trier of fact, then you won't be held responsible. 

[Purge]

In retrospect, I should have mentioned the rattlesnake vision.

[Mr. Fed]

Nobody likes the concept of a killer "going free."

It goes to the central question of a criminal justice system:  fuckin' criminal law, how does it work?

Does criminal law simply resolve simple questions of physical fact (did X cut of Y's head), and assign society's punishment for that act, with the punishment being assigned based on a presumption that everyone is responsible for their acts?

Or does criminal law look a defendant's capacity to abide by society's rules?

[Purge]

Nobody likes the concept of a killer "going free."

It goes to the central question of a criminal justice system:  fuckin' criminal law, how does it work?

Does criminal law simply resolve simple questions of physical fact (did X cut of Y's head), and assign society's punishment for that act, with the punishment being assigned based on a presumption that everyone is responsible for their acts?

Or does criminal law look a defendant's capacity to abide by society's rules?

No, I think at a fundemental level once one shows that one cannot function within the fairly broad operation of society (cutting off someones head and eating them for instance), the society should then revoke their right to live within it, regardless of capacity.

In the case of Vincent Li, he did not take his medication. This was a choice with damaging consequences. Perhaps instead of killing Mr. McLean he felt that someone's petunias were Satan, and so he killed them with urine and was arrested for indecent exposure. Would the consequence be the same? No.

The act he carried out in 2008 on that bus has weight to it, regardless of will or intent. If he is ever freed based on treatment, he should still carry the burden of manslaughter even if murder doesn't fit. No one else held the responsibility of him taking his meds.

This other joker? He should be removed from society on a permanent / no chance to return basis. It isn't like the evidence isn't there so the degree of guilt is ratcheted up as opposed to a whole case is based on circumstantial evidence - so IMHO a death penalty or a life in prison doesn't really matter. And if this person doesn't have the funds to pay for their time in prison, then they should be put to good use and "earn their keep". Seems about fair so that society isn't footing the bill to show mercy to this douche.

[Zekester]

And if this person doesn't have the funds to pay for their time in prison, then they should be put to good use and "earn their keep". Seems about fair so that society isn't footing the bill to show mercy to this douche.

Ain't gonna happen in the US. The reason? Liberals  Hell, we can't even pour some water on a couple enemies during wartime without shit hitting the fan.

[hepcat]

And if this person doesn't have the funds to pay for their time in prison, then they should be put to good use and "earn their keep". Seems about fair so that society isn't footing the bill to show mercy to this douche.

Ain't gonna happen in the US. The reason? Liberals   Hell, we can't even pour some water on a couple enemies during wartime without shit hitting the fan.

i love that you will occasionally walk up to the precipice of reasonable logic....then turn around and run like hell after a couple of posts.

[Zekester]

And if this person doesn't have the funds to pay for their time in prison, then they should be put to good use and "earn their keep". Seems about fair so that society isn't footing the bill to show mercy to this douche.

Ain't gonna happen in the US. The reason? Liberals   Hell, we can't even pour some water on a couple enemies during wartime without shit hitting the fan.

i love that you will occasionally walk up to the precipice of reasonable logic....then turn around and run like hell after a couple of posts.

?

[Mr. Fed]

Nobody likes the concept of a killer "going free."

It goes to the central question of a criminal justice system:  fuckin' criminal law, how does it work?

Does criminal law simply resolve simple questions of physical fact (did X cut of Y's head), and assign society's punishment for that act, with the punishment being assigned based on a presumption that everyone is responsible for their acts?

Or does criminal law look a defendant's capacity to abide by society's rules?

No, I think at a fundemental level once one shows that one cannot function within the fairly broad operation of society (cutting off someones head and eating them for instance), the society should then revoke their right to live within it, regardless of capacity.

Sure.  But the question is -- under what rubric?  Treat them as a criminal, or as a involuntary patient?

[Scraper]

And if this person doesn't have the funds to pay for their time in prison, then they should be put to good use and "earn their keep". Seems about fair so that society isn't footing the bill to show mercy to this douche.

Ain't gonna happen in the US. The reason? Liberals   Hell, we can't even pour some water on a couple enemies during wartime without shit hitting the fan.

i love that you will occasionally walk up to the precipice of reasonable logic....then turn around and run like hell after a couple of posts.

Yeah I like that too. I just chalk it up to trolling or possibly ignorance. I choose to go with trolling though.

[Isgrimnur]

[Zekester]

Trolling? LOL

What do you call your posts that don't even give a reason for trying to make me look stupid then?

Here, i'll give you a tissue. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings with my derogatory liberal remark   

[Pyperkub]

I did so to challenge your preconception that liberals would somehow be ok with a murderer going free, which is what you implied when you said he would "get off on an insanity defense" and that somehow liberals would be ok with that.  We addressed most of the "successful insanity defense = going free" part with Fed (and my other posts), but I also wanted to look at the "liberals are ok with murderers" piece.

It just seemed to me that a couple days after this happened most liberals were ok with what the sheriff said, and I thought it put in jeopardy this guy getting less punishment than he deserved.

Therefore I was concluding that perhaps:  sheriff-> liberals ok with him-> Loughner getting off easier as a result

I still can't really follow the logical leap to the third point.  First two, yes.  The third just baffles me.

It's a Limbaugh thing.  He's advanced it a few times so far.

The short version: a successful conviction of Loughner would undermine the notion that Sarah Palin is actually guilty of the shooting, so the Democrat (sic) party is coordinating to aid his defense.  By criticizing the violent rhetoric of major Conservative leaders, the sheriff is setting up an insanity defense so that Loughner can be released back into society, and in return, Loughner will testify that Palin, Beck, and Limbaugh drove him to it.

Hence Zekester's thread: Are liberals *really* okay with letting him off easy?!

-Autistic Angel

Yup, the gig is up!

LOL

See, lethal injection seems like a the most humane fate to me. I hope this kid spends every day of the next 50 years regretting the day he was born. Either federal butt-pounding prison or the nuthatch should accomplish that.

We're already paying for a zillion criminals, why add another one? I mean, if some of you (not you, Ironrod) feel that i'm costing them money by riding my bike with no helmet, how do you justify spending your money on criminals for years and years?

It's actually 10 times more expensive to execute someone than it is to lock them up for life in prison without possibility of parole

In your case however, there are some side benefits 

[Mr. Fed]

Trolling? LOL

What do you call your posts that don't even give a reason for trying to make me look stupid then?

Here, i'll give you a tissue. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings with my derogatory liberal remark   

Zekester, say I asked you a series of questions:

1.  Do you trust the government?
2.  Do you trust agents of the government?
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth?
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably?
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society?
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism?


Would your answers to those questions change, depending on whether the government was proposing to (1) execute someone accused of a crime, or (2) tell you to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle?

If so, why?

[Zekester]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

[rickfc]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

So let me ask you this question based on your response: did you feel any different when Bush was in office with a Republican Congress?

[Scraper]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

So let me ask you this question based on your response: did you feel any different when Bush was in office with a Republican Congress?

That's beside the point. I know where Fed is going with this. But he will be too nice to finish him off.

[Zekester]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

So let me ask you this question based on your response: did you feel any different when Bush was in office with a Republican Congress?

Of course I felt better, because their views for the country more closely match my own.

So if those answers were on a scale of, say, 1-10: 1 being no and 10 being yes.....then I would give the current administration 6's, and Bush's 7's maybe 8's

[Mr. Fed]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

You avoided responding to the kicker, of course.


Do you feel differently about the government depending on whether it is regulating you, or prosecuting some other guy?

[Zekester]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

So let me ask you this question based on your response: did you feel any different when Bush was in office with a Republican Congress?

That's beside the point. I know where Fed is going with this. But he will be too nice to finish him off.

Typical response  

There is NO finishing me off. I dont care what he "proves", I am, just like you, going to keep my views and opinions regardless.

[rickfc]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

So let me ask you this question based on your response: did you feel any different when Bush was in office with a Republican Congress?

That's beside the point. I know where Fed is going with this. But he will be too nice to finish him off.

It may be beside Fed's point, but I still wanted to know the answer.

[Zekester]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

You avoided responding to the kicker, of course.


Do you feel differently about the government depending on whether it is regulating you, or prosecuting some other guy?

Nope. The government is inefficient and incompetent in both cases. That's why a conservative believes in less government overall.

Less gov't = less chance of regulating helmet usage in the first place.

[Canuck]

Can I ask something without it seeming that i'm trying to be inflammatory? Because i'm really not, I just want to understand a little more about how liberals think sometimes.

Wow, now you really look silly.

[Zekester]

Can I ask something without it seeming that i'm trying to be inflammatory? Because i'm really not, I just want to understand a little more about how liberals think sometimes.

Wow, now you really look silly.

Glad you decided to chime in here with such thoughtful insight.

Feel better about yourself now?

[godhugh]

Ok, i'll humor you

1.  Do you trust the government? No
2.  Do you trust agents of the government? No
3.  Do you trust that government and its agents tell the truth? No
4.  Do you trust that government and its agents act honorably? Not nearly enough
5.  Do you trust that government and its agents know what is best for society? No way
6.  Do you believe that citizens should challenge the government and its agents, question and examine what they say, and treat them with skepticism? Yup

Ok, now do your thing

You avoided responding to the kicker, of course.


Do you feel differently about the government depending on whether it is regulating you, or prosecuting some other guy?

Nope. The government is inefficient and incompetent in both cases. That's why a conservative believes in less government overall.

Less gov't = less chance of regulating helmet usage in the first place.

So you believe the govt is incompetent but you think we should entrust them with the power to execute children?

[Zekester]

If it's a cut and dry case, yes.

I remember a story not so long ago about a boy that walked in to his parents bedroom and shot them (or one of them?) with a shotgun while they were sleeping. I can't recall the exact details right now, but I remember the act itself.

That kid was guilty beyond defense.

Edit: a quick search under "boy kills parents" brings up enough examples, actually

[ATB]

It was brilliant on your part to start bitching at pr0ner who was the only one who gave an example backing you. 

+1.I found that confusing too.

Also I like how that whenever Zeke is challenged on something his response is that at least he 'has the balls' to say <whatever tomfoolery his thread is about>.

Not an attack Zeke, just an observation.

[Zekester]

Well it's true.

I'm not afraid to put myself out there, which more than alot here can say. Do I look like an ass or stupid or whatever? Yup, apparently so. But I don't give a shit.

Many here hide behind their monitor. Not me.

Not an attack, just an observation.

[ATB]

How do you define 'hide behind your monitor' ?  GT has one of the most transparent user communities I've ever seen.