BF2S Forums Arizona Congresswoman Shot

Kmar wrote:

Crazy comes in all flavors. My fear is that the (truly) mentally disturbed will choose our direction after this tragedy, as the reactionaries claim precedent. Passion is generally a good thing for getting the country moving forward. The fact that a certain minority of people lack the capability to put a rational lid on it is a reality of life. It was sad to see the politicizing and blame go around before the investigation even began. The left instantly accusing the right for their angry rhetoric, the right quickly falling into the role of victim with their supposed unfair criticism. It sucks to see so many people lining up to take sides. This should be a time to come together as Americans. Instead we have a media that waste no time in capitalizing on the polarization. They can't let a little thing like a national tragedy get in the way of a profit.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-12 01:08:26)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Crazy comes in all flavors. My fear is that the (truly) mentally disturbed will choose our direction after this tragedy, as the reactionaries claim precedent. Passion is generally a good thing for getting the country moving forward. The fact that a certain minority of people lack the capability to put a rational lid on it is a reality of life. It was sad to see the politicizing and blame go around before the investigation even began. The left instantly accusing the right for their angry rhetoric, the right quickly falling into the role of victim with their supposed unfair criticism. It sucks to see so many people lining up to take sides. This should be a time to come together as Americans. Instead we have a media that waste no time in capitalizing on the polarization. They can't let a little thing like a national tragedy get in the way of a profit.

The left were complaining about the violent rhetoric well before this, ironic to see the Republicans complaining about unfair victimisation and politicisation of tragic events eh?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Your point is invalid, the media isn't making stuff up - they're reporting what politicians on either side are saying - isn't that the job of the media?
If the politicians want to 'come together as Americans' they need to do it.

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Your point is invalid, the media isn't making stuff up - they're reporting what politicians on either side are saying - isn't that the job of the media?
If the politicians want to 'come together as Americans' they need to do it.

And you think the media isn't creating their product with a design catered to their own success? Do you think the media simply reports the news? The tone and character of a news story can easily be manipulated to generate hostility, to invoke emotions, and to incite a reaction. If you misplace context and frequently hammer in an oped in between reporting the actual news then you are just as, if not more guilty of the violent rhetoric.

“There is no profile of an American assassin,” forensic psychologist Robert Fein and his co-author Bryan Vossekuil, former head of the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center, emphasize. But the Tucson attacker, Jared Loughner, is pretty typical. Of the 83 attackers analyzed, 71 were male, 63 were white, 41 had never married, 47 had no children, about half had some college education, and about half were unemployed at the time of their attacks. “Almost all subjects had histories of grievances and resentments,” note Fein and Vossekuil.


Politics apparently plays very little role in most attacks and would-be attacks against public officials. The researchers found that “fewer than a tenth of subjects who acted alone were involved with militant or radical organizations at the time of their attack or near-lethal approach.” Instead, they seek notoriety, revenge for perceived wrongs, death at the hands of law enforcement, to bring attention to a perceived problem, to save the country or the world, to achieve a special relationship with the target, to make money, or to bring about political change. Less than a quarter of the attackers developed escape plans. In fact, more than a third wished or expected to die during their attack.

However, “more than a fourth had a history of interest in militant or radical organizations and beliefs.” For example, radical leftwing ideology motivated presidential attackers like Lee Harvey Oswald and Sara Jane Moore, while rightwing views inspired members of The Order to kill liberal radio talk show host Alan Berg. Though Loughner has a digital trail of a weird assortment of fringey views, none of them seems to have motivated the attack.

Moreover, diagnosed mental illness is not a good indicator of who might become an assassin. Fein and Vossekuil find that “fewer than half of American assassins, attackers, and near-lethal approachers since 1949 who chose public officials or figures as their primary targets exhibited symptoms of mental illness at the time of their attacks or near-lethal approaches.” Not surprisingly, the more mentally disorganized an attacker, the less likely their attack was to succeed.

The researchers note that 46 of the attackers and would-be attackers in their study had been evaluated by a mental health professional at some point in their lives, but only 16 had been treated for mental health problems in the year prior to their attacks. They acknowledge that a greater percentage of attackers have been mentally ill than have been members of the general public, but warn that “it is a mistake to automatically assume...that focus on the presence or absence of mental illness is critical to determining the risk of violence to a public official or figure that a given individual may pose.”

Fein and Vossekuil report that 31 of the attackers had experienced an episode of serious depression and 29 had threatened to commit suicide at some point in their lives. In addition, in the year before their attacks, half of them had experienced a major loss or life change including marital problems, personal illness, death of a family member, or failure at school or work.

Recent news reports strongly suggest that Loughner was experiencing some form of mental illness, but he was sufficiently organized to plan and carry out the attack. Loughner’s defense lawyer may well attempt to argue mental illness as a defense. Fein and Vossekuil, however, observe that of the previous attackers who went to trial only John Hinckley, would-be assassin of President Ronald Reagan, was found to lack criminal responsibility by reason of mental illness. (Hinckley was trying to impress actress Jodie Foster.) To the extent the public gets to hear from Loughner it will likely turn out that he was chiefly seeking notoriety and possibly death, rather than reacting to supposedly vitriolic political rhetoric.

Most interestingly, the researchers found that “no assassin or attacker communicated a direct threat about their target to the target or to a law enforcement agency before their attack or near-lethal approach (emphasis theirs).” Consequently, they assert, “The idea that the persons who pose the greatest risks to public officials and public figures are those who make explicit threats is a myth.” On the other hand, those who do attack often hint to associates or family members about their plans. In addition, perpetrators frequently keep diaries or notes outlining their intentions.

A 2004 review article [PDF] of studies dealing with threats and attacks reported that research evaluating a selection of threatening letters sent to members of Congress found that “the presence of any threat in a letter was associated with a lower risk of approach.” In other words: Big talk means no action. In addition, the review found that people who made contact with and later approached members of Congress were predominantly engaged in “help seeking” that “involved personal issues, rather than ideological ones.”

In light of these findings, Jared Loughner, perpetrator of the horrific Tucson massacre and would-be assassin of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), is pretty much the usual suspect when it comes to attacks on public officials. He is an unmarried, childless, unemployed white male with no readily discernible political motivations who just experienced a major life failure when he was kicked out of community college. At this point Loughner does not appear to have been associated with any political organization. Investigators have apparently found an envelope in a safe at Loughner’s house inscribed with the words, “my assassination.” While Loughner had previous contact with Giffords at a public meeting in 2007, as far as is currently known, he made no direct threats against the congresswoman.

Fein and Vossekuil report that there were only five attacks against members of Congress between 1949 and 1996. (Presumably this includes the 1954 incident in which a group of Puerto Rican nationalists shot five congressmen from the House gallery, all of whom lived.) The attack on Giffords increases the number of incidents to six. In the modern era, only two members of Congress have been assassinated, Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.) when he was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968, and Rep. Leo Ryan (D-Calif.) in 1978 when he was visiting the Jonestown religious cult in Guyana. Fein and Vossekuil report that there were only four attacks against federal judges between 1949 and 1996. Only one federal judge was killed between 1789 and 1979, while three were killed between 1979 and 1989. Now the murder of Judge John Roll during the Tucson massacre must be added to the list. The attack on Giffords increases the number of incidents to six.

Loughner would occasionally mention Giffords, according to Tierney: “It wasn’t a day-in, day-out thing, but maybe once in a while, if Giffords did something that was ridiculous or passed some stupid law or did something stupid, he related that to people. But the thing I remember most is just that question. I don’t remember him stalking her or anything.” Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: “It wasn’t like he was in a certain party or went to rallies…It’s not like he’d go on political rants.” But Loughner did, according to Tierney, believe that government is “fucking us over.” He never heard Loughner vent about the perils of “currency,” as Loughner did on one YouTube video he created…

Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. “More chaos, maybe,” he says. “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening. He wants all of that.” Tierney thinks that Loughner’s mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: “He fucks things up to fuck shit up, there’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: ‘Another Saturday, going to go get groceries’—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in.”

Loughner registered to vote on Sept. 29, 2006, identifying himself as an independent. Records show he voted in the 2006 and 2008 elections but is current listed as “inactive” on the state’s voter roles — meaning that he did not vote in November.

The political affiliations of Loughner, who is being charged by state and federal authorities with the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) as well as 19 other victims outside a Tucson grocery store on Saturday, have become the subject of a white-hot partisan debate in recent days…

Loughner’s decision to affiliate as an independent rather than a Republican or Democrat would seem to affirm the sense that while he targeted Giffords in the attack, it was not a decision born of a set of deeply held political beliefs that fit neatly into either party.

Kmar wrote:

If you need a break from the blame game read this.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01 … age?page=1

Loughner would occasionally mention Giffords, according to Tierney: “It wasn’t a day-in, day-out thing, but maybe once in a while, if Giffords did something that was ridiculous or passed some stupid law or did something stupid, he related that to people. But the thing I remember most is just that question. I don’t remember him stalking her or anything.” Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: “It wasn’t like he was in a certain party or went to rallies…It’s not like he’d go on political rants.” But Loughner did, according to Tierney, believe that government is “fucking us over.” He never heard Loughner vent about the perils of “currency,” as Loughner did on one YouTube video he created…

Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. “More chaos, maybe,” he says. “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening. He wants all of that.” Tierney thinks that Loughner’s mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: “He fucks things up to fuck shit up, there’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: ‘Another Saturday, going to go get groceries’—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in.”

Last edited by Nic (2011-01-12 02:47:03)

presidentsheep wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

I think there are less of those people than you believe there to be.
I know you're never going to concede the point that guns are unnecessary, i'm just trying to make you see that there's some massive grey areas where it comes to taking a life.

As for shifty, i'm not even going to dignify that with a proper response.

99% of Americans will never concede the point that guns are unnecessary. We're used to freedom. You're used to living under the thumb of kings and queens who throughout your history have disarmed you in order to cow you. For some reason you've gotten it into your head to place your life in the hands of disarmed police to defend you against armed intruders. It's laughable and completely naive.

Holy shit, someone has a poor knowledge of english history.

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

...

Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: "Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues."

Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-01-12 03:19:47)

AussieReaper wrote:

Article from 2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … 8935ffeb,0

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

...

Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: "Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues."

Spike in death threats coincide with the Palin rallies say the secret service.


Nah no link there...

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

any chance there is a spike in death threats coincide with the rise of Obama and not with Palin?

Yeah, completely ignore the near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him".

What would the secret service know?

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-12 04:29:37)

Last edited by Nic (2011-01-12 04:40:55)

Nic wrote:

He just provided one. Of course it would be "were" calling, not "are" calling since its an old article.  Did you really skip that part?