Jared Lee Loughner

It's called personal accountability--he does deserve to die. Even if he was schizophrenic, most schizophrenics don't kill people. It's not a justifiable excuse for what he did.

 

Well, that's an interesting analysis. I agree that this kid should have been in treatment a long time ago.

No doubt that all kinds of red flags went ignored and the kid belonged in a psych ward, I don't fault society (or I guess I should say those around him) for this event. That's kinda like blaming the UK for the crimes of Hitler...sure they knew he was a little nuts in the beginning, but they kept giving him half of Europe anyway and did nothing to stop him until it was too late.

I do think this situation will make people more aware of the signs of dangerously mentally ill people....at least we can hope for that.

In the end, the only one to blame is Loughner himself. He was a mad man that came un-done and deserves (and will get) the death penalty

 

That's because hate is something that seems to be given out like flyers at a store these days. It's good that you don't hate him, you have no reason to.

 

Maybe one of the lessons here is that we should attempt to de-stigmatize mental illness and increase awareness so that people get into treatment before they reach the point of being a danger to themselves or others. Someone had to have noticed that this kid was sick. Someone should have said something.

 

I hate what he did. plain and simple. made even more frustrating that he today plead not guilty, when he was tackled right after doing it, and the shots were fired bothj with the gun in his hand, but the gun he owned.

I think the only good that can come from this at the end of the day is opening peoples eyes to the fact that we shouldnt be extending the second admendment to include things like extended magazines whoes only purpose is to kill things/people. we need the discussion on reinstating the assult weapons ban. the second ammendment tells you that you can own a gun... it doesnt say you can own any gun you want, and a moral socieity understands limits. the gun lobby doesnt understand that.

 

You are exactly right...it says you can own a gun. PERIOD.
It doesn't mention magazine size or what kind.
I am against the assault weapons ban because I think it flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment. I own several firearms and I'll be damned if the Government is going to push a law to take them away from me.

lord, when the Constitution was written, every gun was an assault weapon.
If the US in 1776 had the same guns laws that the city of Chicago does now we'd all be Canadians right now...and you know what kind of weather Canada has. (no offense to my friends that reside in the land of the maple leaf)

 

I'd like to see what the people who wrote the second amendment think of what are guns can do today. I don't think they intended to equip the American populace with miniature cannons that can mow down a crowd of people.

As to the rest of it, I'm inclined to agree with Maverick. He should be treated and understood, not killed because he got stuck with a really effed up brain.

 

The second amendment is obsolete. It was written during a period of time where it was actually possible for the citizens of the U.S. to organize and uprise against the government with some chance of success. Two hundred years and three hundred million people later, the idea is ludicrous. If you want to try to justify how your right to a personal stockpile of guns outweighs other people's right to live in a safe society, please do so with a foundation that is still relevant.

 

Eh, I can imagine the scene, all of them in heaven looking down at the creation they started:
G. Washington is pacing on a cloud shaking his head
Thomas Jefferson looks down upon us with a combination of disgust and amazement muttering: "You mean to tell me that THEY think the 1st Amendment applies to Rap Music and questionable "art" but not to current political speech?!...That our central government does THAT?...and THIS??? That should be left to the states!! Have they no respect for the 10th Amendment??"

And Ben Franklin is kicked back with a Martini yelling at Jefferson: "Oh, Thomas, how many times have I told you to quit watching them...you'll just drive yourself nuts...here, have a drink".

 

No one deserves to die. Most people aren't born "fucked up" they are either born into "fucked up" or changed into being "fucked up". Cant just write someone off because of something they really had no control over and yes I realise that people can be in similar situations and not kill or not do any other horrible thing but we aren't all made the same.

What pisses me off the most about people who wish death on those people who kill is, not the whole eye for an eye thing which is a valid point, but that a lot of them praise soldiers or police or whatever who kill all the time but are regarded as heroes because their cause\reason is deemed more worthy then someone else's? its bullshit.

but anyways I dont think the death penalty should exist and I dont think people should be hating on "criminals", unless your personally affected but even then it would be more healthy to move on and let it go.

---------- Post added 25th Jan 2011 at 04:24 PM ----------

+1 well said.

 

I take the position that we shouldn't put down crazy guys, and that Loughner should and will most likely be found guilty but insane and confined to a mental hospital for an extended period of time.

Compare this guy to someone like Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh bombed a fucking day care center because he had a beef with the government. If you read about the lead-up to his actions, and his behavior subsequent to them, you can tell he was clearly in his right mind when he committed the bombing and pretty much gave no shit in his cold-blooded act of terrorism. If anyone deserved to die for such a public attack, it was him.

Now, look at Jared Loughner. Read the lead-up to his attack. Forum postings and videos and articles consisting of hodgepodges of these so-called logical conclusions such as "People can't survive in the Space Shuttle," "The college bookstore controls the grammar," and "How can a math teacher deny math?" Read them; they make no bloody sense. Neither did anything else this guy did. He didn't commit the murderous act willfully in cold blood like McVeigh did...Loughner's just some off-his-ass insane guy who got guns when he shouldn't have. If we sentence this man to death, I think we did no better than euthanizing an otherwise healthy but mentally retarded individual. And that is contrary to good medical and ethical practice.

 

This sums up my feelings pretty well.

 

If you truly think that "no one deserves to die", you suffer a terrible ignorance of the value of human life (ironic, I know, considering that's the exact opposite of what you're trying for). Somebody who takes six innocent lives undoubtedly forfeits the right to his own. So yes, there are people who deserve to die.

Except he did have control over his actions, hun. Just because you say he didn't doesn't mean he didn't. You're essentially arguing that the man is devoid of free will. If that's the case, then he's not even a person, he's a robot. What distinguishes this man from a killing robot, in your mind?

I don't praise soldiers. The only time I would praise a police officer for killing somebody would be if the cop's actions saved innocent people's lives from somebody who was breaking the law and threatening their lives. Is this unreasonable?

On principle, the death penalty should not exist. But as long as it's in place, I don't mind when a scumbag of unquestionable guilt falls on its receiving end.

 

Gun control. Too many people in america are gun nuts. It's not a culture conducive to peacetime safety.

 

Yes everyone has free will but Paranoid Schizophrenia changes the way you think it makes you see and hear things that aren't there. People are usually born with it and it can be found with a scan of the brain. 9 times out of 10 Paranoid Schizophrenics are more a danger to themselves than others but there the rare cases that are a danger. Before he is sentenced he should be medicated with the approproate drug and undergo a psychological evaluation. If he is not in his right mind he should be put in a psychiatric institution. It is a disease that can have tragedies like this happen when left unchecked.

 

Just because I hold all human life as sacred and something to be treated with respect etc doesnt make me ignorant and I wasn't trying for anything, I succeeded in putting forth my opinions just because you fail to understand it from my point of view doesn't make me any less.

So no ignorance on my part at all lol, just a different perspective. Killing a killer doesn't change what they did, doesn't bring anyone back and there is never enough justice *cough* vengence *cough* to make it right for those personally affected.

This is where the "eye for an eye" thing comes in. No one deserves to have their life taken and no one has the right to take that life. You cant punish someone with the same act they are being punished for.

No that is not what I was saying at all and turning my argument into something ridiculous like killer robots just makes you look stupid. Sure everyone has a choice in every situation, I'm not saying he is completely void of responsibility, but solely blaming him is ignoring other important circumstances and facts that were out of his control. (btw I'm not just talking about him, but other killers too).

I wasn't talking about you. Yes, killing someone is not a heroic act. Defusing the situation without anyone dying on the other hand is. Its not right to give out awards and medals to those who take lives, while also condemning others that do the same thing.

On principle, the death penalty should not exist. But as long as it's in place, I don't mind when a scumbag of unquestionable guilt falls on its receiving end.[/QUOTE]

Who are you to judge who lives and who dies? who are you to say they are guilty? who is anyone that also does those things? Doesnt matter what they have done, they are somebody's family, somebody's world, somebody's everything and no one has the right to take that away from someone else. They may be a scumbag to you but to someone else they may be their family.

 

Someone who murders innocent people no longer has any right to lay claim to life himself. The principle really is that simple. Humankind executing such a principle in a fair manner is not as simple; it has yet to be done. That doesn't change the principle.

The entire universe is one giant cause-and-effect relationship. A person must be held accountable for his or her actions. Any action a person takes can be attributed to the combination or cumulation of multiple external factors, but the primary responsibility for the action always falls on the perpetrator himself. My comparison to killer robots was not ridiculous, because at the time I said that, you had made no suggestion that the murderer of six innocent people was even partially responsible for his actions.

So, if a bank robber had twenty innocent people at gunpoint, and the cops had a clear shot of this bank robber, you would suggest that the cops try to defuse the situation peacefully instead of taking the robber out right then and there? See, that's the problem with people who take such staunch views on life. You'd be willing to risk and potentially sacrifice innocent people's lives in order to preserve your idealistic principles. We don't live in an ideal world. Your principles aren't compatible with reality, and your indiscretion has no place in the realm of practical decision-making. I've already admitted that my idealistic principles are currently unfeasible (and I've denounced the government's use of the death penalty as a result).

I don't judge who lives and who dies. My opinion has no bearing on whether or not this man actually will or will not die at the hands of the U.S. legal system. I even told you that I was against the death penalty on principle (that there exists the real possibility for an innocent person to be killed by it). But the death penalty IS in place, and as I cannot change that, I have no gripes about this particular person receiving roughly one-sixth of the justice he deserves (the maximum he'll ever be able to receive, sadly). The devastating effect it would have on his family is his responsibility, since he was the one who committed the crime.

 

I completely agree.

Although I do not think he should be put to death for his actions, however reprehensible they may be. The death penalty seems to be counter-productive to me actually. I mean, he already did it, so what good would killing him do? And to those who think death is the only suitable punishment for something like this, what does that say about you?

True, what he did was wrong in so many ways, but I honestly think that this man, like many others who committed harsh crimes before him, is just not capable of telling the difference between right and wrong. Now is that an excuse for what he did? Of course not. He should be held accountable, but not so harshly treated by so many people who don't know him, or even care.