AZ Congresswoman...12 others, shot

jillio said:
ember said:
Are you really that certain that he was free to make that choice on his own?
Click to expand...


I am really certain that he was free to make that choice on his own as we are all free to make our choices on our own. When I make bad choices I am a woman about it and I admit and if necessary I apologize and take full responsibility as everyone else should take responsibility for their own actions.
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
ember said:
So, being delusional and having a mental illness does not interfere with one's ability to make choices?
Click to expand...


So this will make me sound like a prick but so be it, how do we know he was dilusional and had a mental illness in the first place. The first plea when things like this happen is to plea not guilty by reason of insanity, and to be on camera of course people will come out of the wood works for 15 min of fame and say yeah he was weird and I was always watching him or whatever.

But if he was indeed suffering from a mental illness then that only means that he is easily persuaded by the words of others more so than those who are not and he still was sane enough to know the difference between right and wrong so yes still his choice he knew what he was doing was wrong as he took the first shot.
Click to expand...
 
ember said:
jillio said:
So this will make me sound like a prick but so be it, how do we know he was dilusional and had a mental illness in the first place. The first plea when things like this happen is to plea not guilty by reason of insanity, and to be on camera of course people will come out of the wood works for 15 min of fame and say yeah he was weird and I was always watching him or whatever.

But if he was indeed suffering from a mental illness then that only means that he is easily persuaded by the words of others more so than those who are not and he still was sane enough to know the difference between right and wrong so yes still his choice he knew what he was doing was wrong as he took the first shot.
Click to expand...

He has a long history of mental health diagnosis.

Arizona does not have "not guilty by reason of insanity". They have "guilty but insane". Two different concepts and two different mandated punishments.

How do you know that he was able to discern the difference between right and wrong according to societal standards for non-mentally ill persons? That requires the assessment of a professional, and even then, it is a best guess judgement, as he could not be assessed at the time he took the action. He can only report regarding his mental status at that time.

The insanity defense is not one that is used as often as you might think. The criteria for insanity from a legal perspective is very strigent.

True that he would be more susceptible to words spoken by others when in a delusional state, or even not delusional but suffering from an illness that interferes with thought. That is reason alone to take that fact into consideration when deciding on his sentence. He was reacting to an illness for which he is not responsible.
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
ember said:
He has a long history of mental health diagnosis.

Arizona does not have "not guilty by reason of insanity". They have "guilty but insane". Two different concepts and two different mandated punishments.

How do you know that he was able to discern the difference between right and wrong according to societal standards for non-mentally ill persons? That requires the assessment of a professional, and even then, it is a best guess judgement, as he could not be assessed at the time he took the action. He can only report regarding his mental status at that time.

The insanity defense is not one that is used as often as you might think. The criteria for insanity from a legal perspective is very strigent.

True that he would be more susceptible to words spoken by others when in a delusional state, or even not delusional but suffering from an illness that interferes with thought. That is reason alone to take that fact into consideration when deciding on his sentence. He was reacting to an illness for which he is not responsible.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me under what circumstances is pulling out a gun and opening fire on unarmed human beings right?
Click to expand...
 
ember said:
jillio said:
So this will make me sound like a prick but so be it, how do we know he was dilusional and had a mental illness in the first place. The first plea when things like this happen is to plea not guilty by reason of insanity, and to be on camera of course people will come out of the wood works for 15 min of fame and say yeah he was weird and I was always watching him or whatever.

But if he was indeed suffering from a mental illness then that only means that he is easily persuaded by the words of others more so than those who are not and he still was sane enough to know the difference between right and wrong so yes still his choice he knew what he was doing was wrong as he took the first shot.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know. I have not been keeping up with the news. Does he even remember shooting? I ask because Sirhan Sirhan claims no recollection whatsoever of shooting Robert Kennedy. I believe him. Same with Hinckley who shot Ronald Reagan. Did you know that ex President W. Bush had dinner with Hinckley's father the day before the shooting? Interesting, because Bush was head of the CIA before his term. I could go on and on, but the point I am making is that certain words or events can trigger someone who was brainwashed. Oh well. I am not going to pay any attention to this matter.
Click to expand...
 
Beowulf said:
ember said:
Oh, I don't know. I have not been keeping up with the news. Does he even remember shooting? I ask because Sirhan Sirhan claims no recollection whatsoever of shooting Robert Kennedy. I believe him. Same with Hinckley who shot Ronald Reagan. Did you know that ex President W. Bush had dinner with Hinckley's father the day before the shooting? Interesting, because Bush was head of the CIA before his term. I could go on and on, but the point I am making is that certain words or events can trigger someone who was brainwashed. Oh well. I am not going to pay any attention to this matter.
Click to expand...

You only agreed with what I said which is words are only the trigger to a seed that was planted by some other source. Even still we know that shooting someone is wrong, if not why not just walk around with a gun and shoot people all the time we don't like. No self control keeps one from doing so or a moral compass.
Click to expand...
 
ember said:
Beowulf said:
You only agreed with what I said which is words are only the trigger to a seed that was planted by some other source. Even still we know that shooting someone is wrong, if not why not just walk around with a gun and shoot people all the time we don't like. No self control keeps one from doing so or a moral compass.
Click to expand...

No comment. That is why I at first thought he was a vet with PTSD. I have good friends with it and they cannot remember their violent or bizzare actions. I don't think morals have anything to do with this.
Click to expand...
 
Beowulf said:
Oh, I don't know. I have not been keeping up with the news. Does he even remember shooting? I ask because Sirhan Sirhan claims no recollection whatsoever of shooting Robert Kennedy. I believe him.
Click to expand...
Key word is, he claims no recollection of the shooting. When it comes to remembering or not remembering things, people can claim anything.

Same with Hinckley who shot Ronald Reagan. Did you know that ex President W. Bush had dinner with Hinckley's father the day before the shooting?
Click to expand...
Is this what you're referring to?

"...Scott Hinckley, John's brother, was scheduled to have dinner at the Denver home of Neil Bush, Bush, Sr.'s, son (and of course the current president's brother) the day after the shooting. At the time, Neil Bush was a Denver-based purchaser of mineral rights for Amoco, and Scott Hinckley was the vice president of his father's Denver-based oil business."

(from our friend Rense's site :) )

Interesting, because Bush was head of the CIA before his term.
Click to expand...
That would be George H.W. Bush, not George W.
 
Beowulf said:
ember said:
No comment. That is why I at first thought he was a vet with PTSD. I have good friends with it and they cannot remember their violent or bizzare actions. I don't think morals have anything to do with this.
Click to expand...

I have friends with PTSD as well I am friends with a few old class mates that have gone to war and are back again, and I hear their stories and listen to them tell me of the struggles that they endure now that they are home.

One of my dear dear friends will drop and hit the ground every time he hears a sound that reminds him of a gun shot no matter where we are, and this same friend was approached in a parking lot with a gun to his back and he very well has the ability to have disarmed the gunman and retaliated on him should that have been what he chose to do but he did not. Besides that is not what we are talking about here Loughner did not go to war or some other tragic event and suffers from PTSD recently and are there cases where they have violent out burst yes, but now is your argument that this was a violent outburst suffered from PTSD or some word a politician said that triggered him to act out in a violent way those are two different things.
Click to expand...
 
Am I the only one who's getting confused by the quotes in ember and jillio's posts?

:dizzy:
 
Reba said:
Key word is, he claims no recollection of the shooting. When it comes to remembering or not remembering things, people can claim anything.


Is this what you're referring to?

"...Scott Hinckley, John's brother, was scheduled to have dinner at the Denver home of Neil Bush, Bush, Sr.'s, son (and of course the current president's brother) the day after the shooting. At the time, Neil Bush was a Denver-based purchaser of mineral rights for Amoco, and Scott Hinckley was the vice president of his father's Denver-based oil business."

(from our friend Rense's site :) )


That would be George H.W. Bush, not George W.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the corrections. I was just mumbling from my vague recollections. :lol:
And by the way, I still believe Sirhan Sirhan. Oh well.
 
ember said:
...You only agreed with what I said which is words are only the trigger to a seed that was planted by some other source. Even still we know that shooting someone is wrong, if not why not just walk around with a gun and shoot people all the time we don't like. No self control keeps one from doing so or a moral compass.
Click to expand...
Uh, oh, the Queen of Hearts.
 
Reba said:
The
format is messed up on some of your posts.
Click to expand...


:hmm: not sure what you are talking about, they all look the way they always look to me but I am on safari and when I log in under explorer or firefox it does look different sometimes. If you wonder what I mean by anything I said I am more than happy to have the conversation.
Click to expand...
 
How do you know that he was able to discern the difference between right and wrong according to societal standards for non-mentally ill persons? That requires the assessment of a professional, and even then, it is a best guess judgement, as he could not be assessed at the time he took the action. He can only report regarding his mental status at that time

Those were your words in response to mine.
 
Beowulf said:
ember said:
No comment. That is why I at first thought he was a vet with PTSD. I have good friends with it and they cannot remember their violent or bizzare actions. I don't think morals have anything to do with this.
Click to expand...

You are correct. It isn't a matter of morals, and to judge it by society's accepted standard of moral behavior is wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top