AZ Congresswoman...12 others, shot

ember said:
jillio said:
And how does that work exactly, you may say that I respond that way I do because of my culture. And I could respond back that you are a racist. When that wasn't what you meant at all you were talking about the fact that I am a hearie. No one person is responsible for how another incorrectly perceived their words.
Click to expand...

:lol: That is highly unlikely given that I am biracial myself.:giggle:

That is determined by a professional that is capable of doing a mental health status exam, forensic exam based on symptoms of a particular mental illness, and the ways in which the particular delusions interfere with natural thought processes. Someone who is delusional may be completely out of touch with reality, and therefore, unable to make decisions based on reality. They make decisions based on their delusional state.

No one person is responsible fully, but everyone bears a degree of responsibility, and those who are public figures, bear more responsibility for considering how their words may affect others than most.
Click to expand...
 
What will happen most likely is that the prosecuting attorney will present an expert who will state that his examination indicates that Loughner was sane at the time of the shootings.

Then, the defense attorney will present an equally qualified expert who will state that his examination indicates that Loughner was NOT sane at the time of the shootings.

It will be up to the jury to decide which expert has the more convincing testimony.
 
Reba said:
What will happen most likely is that the prosecuting attorney will present an expert who will state that his examination indicates that Loughner was sane at the time of the shootings.

Then, the defense attorney will present an equally qualified expert who will state that his examination indicates that Loughner was NOT sane at the time of the shootings.

It will be up to the jury to decide which expert has the more convincing testimony.
Click to expand...

That's usually the way it works. That is why it is important for jurors to have a grasp of the effects of mental illness on one's ability to make rational decisions.
 
jillio said:
ember said:
:lol: That is highly unlikely given that I am biracial myself.:giggle:

That is determined by a professional that is capable of doing a mental health status exam, forensic exam based on symptoms of a particular mental illness, and the ways in which the particular delusions interfere with natural thought processes. Someone who is delusional may be completely out of touch with reality, and therefore, unable to make decisions based on reality. They make decisions based on their delusional state.

No one person is responsible fully, but everyone bears a degree of responsibility, and those who are public figures, bear more responsibility for considering how their words may affect others than most.
Click to expand...


I do hope that you took that as an example and that it was not to be taken literally.

I will say that we agree to disagree I don't think doctors or analysis of mental statuses are needed at all. I see people here in conversation that take what was posted out of context everyday but then again who knows maybe this forum is full of the mentally unstable (just kidding:D)
Click to expand...
 
ember said:
jillio said:
I do hope that you took that as an example and that it was not to be taken literally.

I will say that we agree to disagree I don't think doctors or analysis of mental statuses are needed at all. I see people here in conversation that take what was posted out of context everyday but then again who knows maybe this forum is full of the mentally unstable (just kidding:D)
Click to expand...

Of course. I was just kidding you.

So, you are saying that when a mentally ill person commits a crime, a doctor is not necessary to determine what their mental status is, and to what degree that illness impacted their behavior?
Click to expand...
 
ember said:
jillio said:
I do hope that you took that as an example and that it was not to be taken literally.

I will say that we agree to disagree I don't think doctors or analysis of mental statuses are needed at all. I see people here in conversation that take what was posted out of context everyday but then again who knows maybe this forum is full of the mentally unstable (just kidding:D)
Click to expand...

My friends don't call me that. They call me, errr, eccentric. :lol:
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
That's usually the way it works. That is why it is important for jurors to have a grasp of the effects of mental illness on one's ability to make rational decisions.
Click to expand...
Jurors come from all walks of life and backgrounds. It's up to the experts on the stand to make it clear for them.
 
Reba said:
Jurors come from all walks of life and backgrounds. It's up to the experts on the stand to make it clear for them.
Click to expand...

True, but remember when Patty Hearst was kidnapped and later charged with taking part in a bank robbery? The prosecution succeeded in making the jury believe that her defense of being not guilty by reason of being brainwashed was totally ridiculous, and she was found guilty. Then a short time later there was a mass suicide at Jonestown, Guyana, a result of brainwashing. You never know if the jury will be given correct information. Just saying.
 
Beowulf said:
True, but remember when Patty Hearst was kidnapped and later charged with taking part in a bank robbery? The prosecution succeeded in making the jury believe that her defense of being not guilty by reason of being brainwashed was totally ridiculous, and she was found guilty. Then a short time later there was a mass suicide at Jonestown, Guyana, a result of brainwashing. You never know if the jury will be given correct information. Just saying.
Click to expand...
It's up to the lawyers on both sides to do their jobs properly.

Your two examples were very different situations.
 
Reba said:
It's up to the lawyers on both sides to do their jobs properly.

Your two examples were very different situations.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but the end result was the same, People didn't believe brainwashing was possible without a person's consent, and I have a feeling that will be the argument used against the shooter. They will argue that he was of sound mind and planned it in cold blood, of that I have no doubt. Why do I not doubt the outcome of the trial? *shrug*
 
Reba said:
Jurors come from all walks of life and backgrounds. It's up to the experts on the stand to make it clear for them.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with a juror being informed prior. The information that comes out at trial is limited, to say the least.
 
Beowulf said:
True, but remember when Patty Hearst was kidnapped and later charged with taking part in a bank robbery? The prosecution succeeded in making the jury believe that her defense of being not guilty by reason of being brainwashed was totally ridiculous, and she was found guilty. Then a short time later there was a mass suicide at Jonestown, Guyana, a result of brainwashing. You never know if the jury will be given correct information. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What Hearst was suffering from was Stolkholm Syndrome. A well documented and supported form of mental illness, similar in many ways to a disocciative disorder.
 
Beowulf said:
Maybe so, but the end result was the same, People didn't believe brainwashing was possible without a person's consent, and I have a feeling that will be the argument used against the shooter. They will argue that he was of sound mind and planned it in cold blood, of that I have no doubt. Why do I not doubt the outcome of the trial? *shrug*
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it, either. Funny, if it were one of the jurors; family members, I imagine they would be explaining away regarding the effects of mental illness on one's ability to make sound judgements.:cool2: Easy to dehumanize when you refuse to see someone as a person with more going on than one singular event.
 
jillio said:
There is nothing wrong with a juror being informed prior. The information that comes out at trial is limited, to say the least.
Click to expand...
It's limited for a reason.

Jurors are supposed to base their decisions on the facts presented at trial.

There's a good chance that a juror with extensive mental health background probably won't make the cut.
 
Reba said:
I didn't see anything that condoned violence. Since when is encouraging elections to be considered condoning violence? What violence did she supposedly condone?

Using crosshairs represents keeping focused on the target.

Yeah, "target," the same word interpreters use when referring to languages, and the same benign word used in daily conversation all over the place.

People have used those phrases for decades and they have never before brought any accusations of inciting violence.

If anyone other than Palin had used the phrase no one would make a fuss.


From my previous post:

What about President Obama when he said he needed to know "whose asses to kick"? What about when he suggested "hand-to-hand combat" with his political opponents, and stated, "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"?

What about his talk of "punishing . . . enemies," in reference to American voters?


I haven't heard that the "population" that supports Palin has been itchin' to fire guns at their political competition.
Click to expand...
"People have used those phrases for decades and they have never before brought any accusations of inciting violence.

If anyone other than Palin had used the phrase no one would make a fuss."
I believe Palin is the first person to put crosshairs on a map, and the fact that she love to shoot guns would made some people wonder about this. Gabby did !

"
 
Beowulf said:
Maybe so, but the end result was the same, People didn't believe brainwashing was possible without a person's consent, and I have a feeling that will be the argument used against the shooter. They will argue that he was of sound mind and planned it in cold blood, of that I have no doubt. Why do I not doubt the outcome of the trial? *shrug*
Click to expand...
Has he even claimed to be brainwashed as a defense? I haven't heard that.

From others' testimony, it doesn't sound as if he's been of sound mind for at least several years.
 
Reba said:
Has he even claimed to be brainwashed as a defense? I haven't heard that.

From others' testimony, it doesn't sound as if he's been of sound mind for at least several years.
Click to expand...

Brianwashed people do not realize they are. Oh well.
 
Beowulf said:
Brianwashed people do not realize they are. Oh well.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. You are admitting that he was off his rocker, and its all Palin's fault?

Are sane people responsible for the actions of the insane?
 
Back
Top