Tuscon shooting rant

[flowlikeocean]

There is a large distinction between insane and criminally insane. AFAIK He is only protected if he didn't understand the actions he took, and that has yet to be decided in a court of law.

 

[pbasswil]

Actually, yours is the first "political" post in this thread. I'm not quite sure why you would do that.

Because to me that's the most interesting thing about this whole media event (i.e., the "event" that followed quickly after the shooting event): The way the press jumped to link it to politics.

Admittedly, there is quite a bit of tension between left and right in America. And admittedly the most famous victim of this crime was on one side of that divide.

But unless you look quite a bit deeper than the headlines, you would not realize that the shooting was basically a non-political act, by a mentally disturbed guy who was actually pretty alienated from all organized politics.

Btw, I'm Canadian, if it matters. And no political agenda in bringing this up. What I'm pointing out is the way the popular press jumps to overlay other hot topics of the times onto events.

 

[SwitchGear]

I wondered why the press did that also, pbasswil.

I was listening to public radio a day after the shooting and they had a politician and political movements linked with the shooting. They where hoping the President would press charges. Turns out it was an act from a lone madman with no political overtones whatsoever.

Public Radio and much of the press where talking out of their hind side.

 

[steamthief]

I'm pretty sure the justice system determines who a "suspect" is, not the media. You want the media to report something non-factual?

The fact is this nut job actually shot many people, as the media has reported, there is no debate on whether he is a "suspect" or not.

Apparently, you don't. It's a standing journalistic practice to refer to those facing criminal prosecution as "suspect," "defendant" and use "allegedly."

I have no problem with "defendant," it's the other two terms that defy reality.

He is guilty and is a mass murderer. They captured (tackled) him at the scene. Lots of eyewitnesses.

Thank you. There is no question that this kid commited the acts he's "accused" of.

Should the news media report the fact that he is a suspect, or should they present their opinion of his guilt or innocence as fact? I think our news media display plenty of unprofessionalism already without bringing them down another rung.

"Defendant" or "Loughner" would both be acceptable vs. "suspect."

 

[Stu L.]

I wondered why the press did that also, pbasswil.

I was listening to public radio a day after the shooting and they had a politician and political movements linked with the shooting. They where hoping the President would press charges. Turns out it was an act from a lone madman with no political overtones whatsoever.

Public Radio and much of the press where talking out of their hind side.

I think it was the county sheriff who was talking the most of this being political. Dude had nothing to say of the case. Just his political agenda. Anything for attention I guess.

 

[GregC]

Because to me that's the most interesting thing about this whole media event (i.e., the "event" that followed quickly after the shooting event): The way the press jumped to link it to politics.

There were pretty clear reasons why in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, one in particular. But we cannot discuss them here.

 

[pbasswil]

I think it was the county sheriff who was talking the most of this being political. Dude had nothing to say of the case. Just his political agenda. Anything for attention I guess.

Ah, I didn't see much about the sheriff; I was away from the media the first couple of days.
But since a prominent politician was shot at a political event, it seems to me pretty understandable for _anyone_ to initially assume it was a political act.

But I don't think it was very many days before enough was known about this guy to rule out any coherent partisan political thought on his part. The press could have made this more clear. But the political angle was making such big resonant waves across the nation that it was almost too late to dampen it.

Apparently he was mad at Giffords because at a previous event she had apparently blown off a totally incomprehensible, rambling question that he had posed to her.

 

[mcbosler]

Interesting article on the "alleged" shooter:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[pbasswil]

Interesting article on the "alleged" shooter:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Interesting.

He wouldn't be the first artistic person with a mental illness. Even Jaco could be pretty out there.

When you think about it, the subjectivity that underlies the arts is not incompatible with the very extreme subjectivity of loss of reality.

Obviously, you can don't need to be insane to be creative/artistic (ok, some of us are close :^D ); but apparently you can be insane and still have a strong esthetic connection.

 

[Pilgrim]

BTW - when media use the terms "allegedly" and "suspect", they are being technically accurate as per the functioning of our legal system. Regardless of whether he did it in front of eyewitnesses, TV cameras and the whole world, until a legal judgment has been rendered, he can only be accurately reported as the "suspect" and the "alleged gunman".

Saying that he is the murderer may be factually correct, but the media reports are part of the public record. To do their job correctly and accurately, they must respect the legal status of the suspect. Most people certainly don't care if the guy is referred to as a murderer, especially when the facts have been so widely reported, but in a legal sense that term is not YET accurate.

 

[Stinsok]

It's like "man caused disaster."

 

[Pilgrim]

It's like "man caused disaster."

There are a LOT of those.

 

[MIJ-VI]

He murdered a child. He crossed THAT line...