Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford of Southern Arizona Shot At Constituent Event

[Chicago88]

"His motivation was not immediately known, but Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described him as mentally unstable and possibly acting with an accomplice."

I get so tired of the "mentally ill, or pleading insanity" excuse. In this case he might be mentally unstable and I'm sorry, maybe I'm a bit brash, but insane or not I believe they are fully aware of what they are doing and it's scary because they believe its acceptable. I still will never understand why people believe that violence or death will change anything. It solves nothing and the government is going to continue to carry on with their policies, ideology and so forth. I find it extremely sad that anyone would ever have to experience such tragedy. No one deserves that.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Chicago88

"His motivation was not immediately known, but Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described him as mentally unstable and possibly acting with an accomplice."

I get so tired of the "mentally ill, or pleading insanity" excuse. In this case he might be a loon but I'm sorry, maybe I'm a bit brash but insane or not I believe they are fully aware of what they are doing and it's scary because they believe its acceptable. I still will never understand why these people believe that violence or death will change anything. It solves nothing and the government is going to continue to carry on with their policies, ideology and so forth. I find it extremely sad that anyone would ever have to experience such tragedy. No one deserves that.

Very few people succeed with an insanity defense. Mental illness is not the same as legal insanity either. It is actually possible to be mentally ill and legally sane. They are not the same concept. I'm not a psychiatrist, but many of his rants are delusional with anti-government fixations. This is very suspicious for paranoid schizophrenia. Schizophrenics very rarely are violent, but like normal people, they can be.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by Chicago88

"His motivation was not immediately known, but Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described him as mentally unstable and possibly acting with an accomplice."

I get so tired of the "mentally ill, or pleading insanity" excuse. In this case he might be mentally unstable and I'm sorry, maybe I'm a bit brash, but insane or not I believe they are fully aware of what they are doing and it's scary because they believe its acceptable. I still will never understand why people believe that violence or death will change anything. It solves nothing and the government is going to continue to carry on with their policies, ideology and so forth. I find it extremely sad that anyone would ever have to experience such tragedy. No one deserves that.

You are (understandably) applying your own perspective (and experience) to something that very few people outside of psychiatry truly understand - mental illness, most especially thought disorders. Would that it was that simple, or worked that way. But it is not.

You cannot assume that your reality/belief system/value system is, in any way/shape/form, anything like that of a person who exhibits the type of delusional and disordered thinking that the suspect has exhibited. Nowhere in any of his rants or writings did the suspect indicate that his shooting of government officials would change anything whatsoever. His thoughts are largely incoherent. Officials from the local community college have come forward with information regarding the bizarre behaviors the suspect exhibited which resulted in his expulsion from the community college.

Having evaluated people who suffer from a variety of emotional disturbances and mental illnesses, I will say that their motives are seldom if ever understandable through the filters that most of us use and are comfortable with. Thought disorders are baffling, and paranoia is not something that can be reasoned with. Applying the standard of "fully aware of what one is doing" is challenging, even for the experts.

[Chicago88]

I'm glad few people get away with it because I feel that people tend to use it as an easy way out. There's an extremely fine line between any mental disorder. Youre absolutely correct AZTheta, I'm no psychologist, nor am I knowledgeable on these topics. I can only imagine the intricate, complex, and difficult concept to understand. I did make a general statement and I dont think I meant him in particular thinking that his killlings would change anything. It's a tricky way to say it because what is true for one person isn't true for another and its hard not to make generalized statements that apply to this man because we don't know him or the way his mind works. I think what I was getting at is some think that "making an example of someone" will make a change. I cannot apply my belief system to anyone elses because we all are wired differently, I personally feel people like him are can be so easily influenced but influenced in all the wrong ways. It bothers me because my brother is a political science major in his senior year and I cant even begin to describe how he has changed. He has become so critical and judgemental, almost hateful and I really feel like he has been influenced by these professors and these polysci classes.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Chicago88

I'm glad few people get away with it because I feel that people tend to use it as an easy way out. There's an extremely fine line between any mental disorder. People like him are so easily influenced but influenced by all the wrong things. It bothers me because my brother is a political science major in his senior year and I cant even begin to describe how he has changed. He has become so critical and judgemental, almost hateful and I really feel like he has been influenced by these professors and these polysci classes.

I know what you mean, but then again, the cases where people claim mental illness also get a lot of media attention. Sorry about your brother. Politics can be very polarizing. It often is hard for people to put those beliefs away at the end of a discussion and just have normal conversations. It happens to the best of us when we believe passionately about something. I think today is a really good reason for all of us to rethink how we frame our political discourse...everyone of us.

[AZTheta]

Chicago88, we do not know what influenced the suspect; we truly do not. That was the point I was trying to make. Thought disorders are, for the neurotypical/sane mind, very difficult to understand. That's why we are "afraid" of "crazy" people. And more and more information is coming to light that points in the direction that AOIIAngel highlighted earlier (at least I think you did, the paranoia/delusional thinking direction, if I'm wrong I'll edit this).

Cannot make sense out of the senseless.

[Chicago88]

I understand AzTheta, I'm not saying we know what influenced him. I'm sure it's something we will never know or understand much less want to know or understand. I understand what youre saying. The point I was trying to make was that I think that people can be influenced, regardless of what it is, who it is, etc especially when it comes to political matters/ideologies/theories, new and old.

AOII- I completely agree. The politics conversation ranks up there with the religion conversation with me. If we don't try to force our opinions on someone then thats fine. I believe that argument is one that will never be one due to the fact that we all have different views on what is "right and wrong" in a political sense. I agree to disagree when it comes to these things.

[AZTheta]

Chicago88, you are not alone in your thinking. Everywhere I turn this morning I'm reading and hearing "stop the vitriol! we are sick of it." Many share your sentiments, that the horrible inflammatory language and verbal attacks affect everyone and that this possibly played a part in yesterday's events. Perhaps this horrific event will, in a way, serve a purpose. I don't hold out much hope, but then, I'm grieving and not thinking rationally. The sun is shining, it's a perfect day, and my heart is heavy.

[BAckbOwlsgIrl]

From what I am hearing, Pam Simon, AOII is not critically injured.
Thank goodness.
My prayers go out to all the victims and those there.
Any time a child is lost, a part of our future is lost.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Very few people succeed with an insanity defense. Mental illness is not the same as legal insanity either. It is actually possible to be mentally ill and legally sane. They are not the same concept. I'm not a psychiatrist, but many of his rants are delusional with anti-government fixations. This is very suspicious for paranoid schizophrenia. Schizophrenics very rarely are violent, but like normal people, they can be.

Also, they have to be considered to have a total break from reality during the entire time they plan and carry out the attacks. Something nearly impossible to prove if planning actually took place. NGRI (Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity) is also different from being unfit to stand trial. NGRI carries serious consequences with it when serious offenses are involved. Said person will be put in a locked down psych facility for 10-20 years, at least, and will have mandated treatment following release until such time as they're no longer dangerous. I've worked with someone who killed his father because he thought his father was trying to kill him. He was a schizophrenic in a psychotic break. He never broke again since, and his medication has all of his symptoms under control. He is still monitored but you'd never know about his past and he has had to deal with the grief and loss and so has his family. It's not a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

Unfit to stand trial usually means they get treated until they ARE fit and then are required to stand trial as anyone else. They can still try an NGRI affirmative defense.

Originally Posted by AzTheta

Having evaluated people who suffer from a variety of emotional disturbances and mental illnesses, I will say that their motives are seldom if ever understandable through the filters that most of us use and are comfortable with. Thought disorders are baffling, and paranoia is not something that can be reasoned with. Applying the standard of "fully aware of what one is doing" is challenging, even for the experts.

Indeed, and frequently an individual who tries to falsely claim NGRI has shown multiple examples of understanding the consequences of their actions throughout the time they were considering or planning the crime. To claim that only when they had the crime did they suffer a break from reality doesn't sell well. There are probably more people who are in prison who were not responsible for their crimes than people who have "gotten off" improperly.

Originally Posted by Chicago88

I'm glad few people get away with it because I feel that people tend to use it as an easy way out. There's an extremely fine line between any mental disorder. Youre absolutely correct AZTheta, I'm no psychologist, nor am I knowledgeable on these topics. I can only imagine the intricate, complex, and difficult concept to understand.

This is kind of like how one woman who lies about rape makes 2000 women not get believed. One person gets attention for claiming NGRI and then people think it's all bullshit. It's not an easy out, but public perception makes it that way.
While mental disorders can have fine lines, the line that lets you get away with murder, while it can be blurry it is a very THICK line.

[Drolefille]

Quoting this whole thing:

Brave Intern Saved Rep. Gabrielle
Intern's actions may have saved Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' life

Daniel Hernandez had been U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' intern for five days when she was shot Saturday outside Tucson.

The junior at the University of Arizona was helping check people in at the "Congress on Your Corner" event when he heard gunfire. He was about 30 feet from the congresswoman. When the shots began, he ran toward them.

"I don't even know if the gunfire had stopped," he said Saturday night as he kept a vigil at the University Medical Center cafeteria, gathered near a TV watching tributes and getting updates.

When the shots began that morning, he saw many people lying on the ground, including a young girl. Some were bleeding. Hernandez said he moved from person to person checking pulses.

"First the neck, then the wrist," he said. One man was already dead. Then he saw Giffords. She had fallen and was lying contorted on the sidewalk. She was bleeding.

Using his hand, Hernandez applied pressure to the entry wound on her forehead. He pulled her into his lap, holding her upright against him so she wouldn't choke on her own blood. Giffords was conscious, but quiet.

Ron Barber, Giffords' district director, was next to her. Hernandez told a bystander how to apply pressure to one of Barber's wounds.

Barber told Hernandez, "Make sure you stay with Gabby. Make sure you help Gabby."

Hernandez used his hand to apply pressure until someone from inside Safeway brought him clean smocks from the meat department. He used them to apply pressure on the entrance wound, unaware there was an exit wound. He never let go of her.

He stayed with Giffords until paramedics arrived. They strapped her to a board and loaded her into an ambulance. Hernandez climbed in with her. On the ride to the hospital, he held her hand. She squeezed his back.

When they arrived at the hospital, Hernandez was soaked in blood. His family brought him clean clothes because the FBI took his for evidence.

He waited at the hospital while she went into surgery. He needed to tell police what had happened. He overheard people walking by talking about how Giffords had died. He also heard this on NPR. Later, he learned she had lived.

"I was ecstatic," he said. "She was one of the people I've looked up to. Knowing she was alive and still fighting was good news. She's definitely a fighter, whether for her own life, or standing up for people in southern Arizona."

The fact that Hernandez was nearby and able to react quickly probably saved Giffords' life, said state Rep. Matt Heinz, D-Tucson, and a hospital physician. He talked to Hernandez at the hospital after the shooting.

Eight hours after the shooting, Hernandez stood with Giffords' friends and staff and told them what had happened. The tall, strong 20-year-old said, "Of course you're afraid, you just kind of have to do what you can."

They hugged and thanked him. Later, he sat with his mom and sisters and told them about his friends and the staffers who had died that day.

"You just have to be calm and collected," he said. "You do no good to anyone if you have a breakdown.. .. It was probably not the best idea to run toward the gunshots, but people needed help."

[Drolefille]

With regards to all the political rhetoric, I feel like this said it best:

BOTTOM LINE: We can't solely blame heated political rhetoric for this senseless tragedy anymore than we can blame video games and "R" rated movies. We have a culture that not only condones, but often celebrates violence. Dozens -- or more -- people will be shot and killed today in cities across this country. We won't give those slain Americans nearly as much attention as they deserve.

That said the debate about what happened in Tucson has to go beyond the political and into the cultural. The fact that a nine year old girl who dreamed of being involved in public service was murdered should lead every parent, teacher and community leader to take a look at the kinds of language and images that are rife in our culture. This is a teachable moment and one in which everyone, not just political figures, need to take part.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...-rhetoric.html

[BAckbOwlsgIrl]

Daniel Hernandez, intern, stays by Gabrielle Giffords' side
UA student pulls her into lap, holds head to stop bleeding

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz1AZRdD0pC

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...-shooting.html

[Drolefille]

^^ points up

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Indeed, and frequently an individual who tries to falsely claim NGRI has shown multiple examples of understanding the consequences of their actions throughout the time they were considering or planning the crime. To claim that only when they had the crime did they suffer a break from reality doesn't sell well.

There's actually a very interesting connection between this and attempts to ascribe political "motive" (or persuasion, perhaps more specifically) to the attacker - from a jury science standpoint, one of the main difficulties of an insanity defense is overcoming the Fundamental Attribution Error, the desire to believe actions reflect a person's character or internal characteristics by ignoring temporal or external factors.

The FAE is also used (and often abused) in the political arena as well, and we naturally rely on it in particularly difficult times or with regard to acts we really can't comprehend or understand. It's one of the easiest root causes of jumping to a conclusion (and a very natural, unavoidable one at that).