Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 6 YTBN Shot, Killed In Tuscon AZ

[Proton Soup]

edward, is this the trigger happy political "genius"?

what, suddenly "patriotism" is dead? heck, we love war heros. the more they've killed, the more we want them in office.

this is a guy running on a war hero platform. the message is he kills "terrorists" and keeps us all safe. he won't back down in the face of a bunch of liberal peace activists. what more could you want?

i guess the message you're looking for is about toning our political rhetoric down. but this is who we are as a people.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... the message is he kills "terrorists" and keeps us all safe.

Bright analyzing, but I think you’ve might have missed a 'minor' factor; Gabrielle Giffords is member of the United States House of Representatives, not a terrorist:

 

[Proton Soup]

Bright analyzing, but I think you’ve might have missed a 'minor' factor; Gabrielle Giffords is member of the United States House of Representatives, not a terrorist:

yeah, so? were they using pics of her as a target, or was it just another fun day of shooting guns?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

yeah, so? were they using pics of her as a target, or was it just another fun day of shooting guns?

I think you are on a much too advanced level of rhetoric. I’ll give up.

 

[WhoWee]

yeah, so? were they using pics of her as a target, or was it just another fun day of shooting guns?

If he's somehow responsible - a civil suit will surely sort it out.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/09/05/kelly-places-crosshairs-squarely-rep-giffords"

 

[russ_watters]

Here's an interesting twist: while people have been discussing whether political rhetoric from the right could have caused this shooting, the discussion seems to have convinced a shooting victim to become like the shooter!

An Arizona shooting victim accused of threatening a local leader of the conservative tea party movement at a televised town hall meeting also yelled at those in attendance, at one point calling them all "whores," authorities said Sunday.
James Eric Fuller, 63, was arrested on disorderly conduct and threat charges and taken for a psychiatric exam after he a took picture of Trent Humphries, the co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party, and yelled "you're dead,"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-15-arizona-arrest_N.htm

I suppose though if political rhetoric from the right is to blame for the shooting, it is also to blame for any retaliation?

Twisted, twisted, twisted.

 

[edward]

Kelly dropped out of his freshman year at college. He was a Libertarian from Montana but managed to get to Arizona as the Tea Party candidate for the district eight congressional seat.
He had served in the military 3 years.

Kelly's Republican opponents in the primary were much more qualified than he was.



Giffords was a state legislator before becoming a US representative. She has a masters degree and had won a Fulbright scholarship. She is married to an astronaut whose twin brother is currently on the International Space Station.

As a state legislator Giffords worked with republican Mayor Bob Walkup to get funding for the level one trauma center for the University of Arizona Medical Center.

That trauma center is where Giffords was treated.

 

[edward]

Here's an interesting twist: while people have been discussing whether political rhetoric from the right could have caused this shooting, the discussion seems to have convinced a shooting victim to become like the shooter! http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-15-arizona-arrest_N.htm

I suppose though if political rhetoric from the right is to blame for the shooting, it is also to blame for any retaliation?

Twisted, twisted, twisted.

I mention that above in post 662. There is a lot of anger here. The man had worked on Gifford's campaign and had complained about the thinly veiled violence at the time.

BTW the shooting victim used a camera.

Yet I agree it is twisted twisted twisted.

 

[lisab]

what, suddenly "patriotism" is dead? heck, we love war heros. the more they've killed, the more we want them in office.

this is a guy running on a war hero platform. the message is he kills "terrorists" and keeps us all safe. he won't back down in the face of a bunch of liberal peace activists. what more could you want?

i guess the message you're looking for is about toning our political rhetoric down. but this is who we are as a people.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...not so fast there declaring who "we" are. I require my representatives to have *a lot* more qualifications than "war hero" and "terrorist killer". Those skills are great on the battlefield, but I have no evidence they translate into an making a person an effective representative.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/09/05/kelly-places-crosshairs-squarely-rep-giffords"

i guess Bill Hess has some explaining to do?

Here's an interesting twist: while people have been discussing whether political rhetoric from the right could have caused this shooting, the discussion seems to have convinced a shooting victim to become like the shooter! http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-15-arizona-arrest_N.htm

I suppose though if political rhetoric from the right is to blame for the shooting, it is also to blame for any retaliation?

Twisted, twisted, twisted.

i saw that. i think they showed him a great kindness by sending him in for a psych eval.

 

[mheslep]

A point I don't think has been discussed so far is the following:

Granted that Jared was insane, does it follow that he was criminally insane?...

Good question for his prosecution, but not a necessary one to have prevented his access to a firearm. If anyone of the several public institutions that crossed paths with Jared had simply taken the steps to tag him as simply mentally unstable, he likely would never have gained access to a legal firearm. It seems to me that issue, the one of identifying and taking some action against (or for) at least the easily identifiable mentally ill, is far and away more important than the tone of the political debate, gun politics, or even criminal punishment.

 

[mheslep]

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

Precisely.
This is the result of the juridical and institutional changes in psychiatry, not just in the US, but most of the Western World since the 1960s.

Prior to that, "he looks creepy", "he is so odd" WERE considered sufficient reasons to lock up eccentrics.

...

Here are the typical legal guidelines for either involuntary commitment or a declaration of incapacity, driven I suppose by O'Connor v. Donaldson:

The person must be mentally ill and, as a result of his mental illness, he must be GRAVELY DISABLED OR PRESENT A LIKELIHOOD OF SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS.

Gravely disabled means that the person cannot take care of his own basic needs, like food and shelter, and this inability puts him in danger of serious harm. A person is also considered gravely disabled if he will suffer severe and abnormal mental, emotional or physical distress if not treated, and this distress is associated with significant impairment of judgement, reason or behavior causing him/her to be able to function much less independently.

Under this law, a person presents a likelihood of causing serious harm if: (1) he poses a substantial risk of physically harming himself as shown by his behavior causing, attempting to threatening harm to himself OR (2) he poses a substantial risk of harm to others shown by recent behavior and is likely in the near future to physically hurt someone else or cause substantial property damage, OR (3) he shows a current intent to carry out plans of serious harm to himself. (Alaska Court System 1989, p. 2; emphases in original. A complete copy of this pamphlet is contained in Appendix A.

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/1990/9615brady/96151men.pdf

I guess that the reported behaviors of Jared could have met the current standard.

 

[mheslep]

Kelly dropped out of his freshman year at college. He was a Libertarian from Montana but managed to get to Arizona as the Tea Party candidate for the district eight congressional seat. ...

It is a fact that Kelly was the Republican candidate, duly registered with Az electoral people, etc. Who say's he was the Tea Party candidate? I know that at least one national level Tea Party group like FreedomWorks specifically declined to endorse him. Former Governor Palin, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/" .

 

[edward]

It is a fact that Kelly was the Republican candidate, duly registered with Az electoral people, etc. Who say's he was the Tea Party candidate? I know that at least one national level Tea Party group like FreedomWorks specifically declined to endorse him. Former Governor Palin, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/" .

Actually Palin endorsed Kelly at first ( it is on his face book page) His face book page also led to a Fox news video that they both were on. There is also a list of Tea Party meetings where Kelley appeared at here in the Tucson area.

Then he made some outrageous statements about Palin that showed up on YouTube. Then those Youtube video's were pulled by the poster.??

http://www.therightscoop.com/trifecta-sarah-palin-allen-west-and-jesse-kelly

This is long, Kelly is at about the half way point.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

It's sad beyond words too, because most aren't Loughners... most people just hurt themselves, suffer, die young and out of touch with reality. It's a lifelong battle, and we don't have the social or mental health support system. Yes, some people won't take medication, or other help and sometimes because adverse effects (such as tardive dyskinesia

mheslep: You're right in principle; in practice unless a doctor can prove IMMINENT threat of harm... no luck. If we put people away for being unable to care for themselves, a large portion of our homeless population would dry up, and it would be a LOT easier to pick out the "pro-panhandlers". Vanadium is right... unless Loughner basically told a cop or a doctor that he was going to hurt another, or himself...

It's wrong, it's stupid, it's so frustrating it makes me nearly cry, but Vanadium is still right: this country makes those who are mentally ill the burden of a family, even if there IS no family, or that family is also ill. I wonder how people think any of that has a happy ending?

 

[nismaratwork]

i guess Bill Hess has some explaining to do?



i saw that. i think they showed him a great kindness by sending him in for a psych eval.

Kindness, and the simple fact that no prosecutor would TOUCH that. A week after a mass shooting?... I'm fairly sure the fellow is on his way to PTSD, along with plenty of other witnesses who don't get enough help.

Trauma: the gift that keeps on giving as long as we have a "bootstrap" attitude. If a soldier had been involved in that, would anyone be shocked that they blew up a week later, ESPECIALLY if they were unarmed and helpless at the time?

Do we REALLY think it's a good twist that people are conflating the nearly hysterical rhetoric of a survivor of a shooting, and the shooter. The fact that people on the right and left want to blame external forces is just another way of saying, "we have no responsibility for ignoring problems like Loughner, and when this story goes away, we'll go back to that." Better and easier to live believing he's a one-off copy... right?

 

[edward]

It is a fact that Kelly was the Republican candidate, duly registered with Az electoral people, etc. Who say's he was the Tea Party candidate? I know that at least one national level Tea Party group like FreedomWorks specifically declined to endorse him. Former Governor Palin, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/" .

This is a direct cut and paste from kelly's Facebook page.

Giffords facing major upset?

www.azcentral.com

Giffords facing major upset?, US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is in a dead heat with Tea Party-backed Republican Jesse Kelly and faces a major upset, .12 News political insider Chris Herstam says on this weekend's "Sunday Square Off." Herstam also details Karl Rove's role in...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesse-Kelly/359472301041

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a direct cut and paste from kelly's Facebook page.



http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesse-Kelly/359472301041

Ewwww... OK. That is a really REALLY crass way to cash in on your service. McCain is subtler about 5 years as a POW.

I don't think this had anything to do with a shooting however; people (yes DA, you too, sorry!) are ascribing an ability to reason that I don't think is evident in Loughner. Psychotic people are best echoes of what is CLOSEST to them, emotionally, mentally, and in terms of fixation. I see no major "gun-rights" or political motivation here... he was worried about mind control, stalkers, murder plots... it would be AMAZING if he were directly inspired by something as abstract and complex as political discourse.

Remember... it IS complex if you have a psychotic disorder; a disorder of THOUGHT, as opposed to say, a personality disorder.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep: You're right in principle; in practice unless a doctor can prove IMMINENT threat of harm... no luck. If we put people away for being unable to care for themselves, a large portion of our homeless population would dry up, and it would be a LOT easier to pick out the "pro-panhandlers". Vanadium is right... unless Loughner basically told a cop or a doctor that he was going to hurt another, or himself...

Where are you getting this from? Using the phrase "in practice" implies first hand knowledge of many such instances. Is that the case? There's no mention of "imminent" in the legal standard I referenced. Nor does it say a doctor must witness first hand a threat. The standard is "poses a substantial risk of harm", the word "substantial" implying a subjective judgement call by a professional.

 

[nismaratwork]

Where are you getting this from? Using the phrase "in practice" implies first hand knowledge of many such instances. Is that the case? There's no mention of "imminent" in the legal standard I referenced. Nor does it say a doctor must witness first hand a threat. The standard is "poses a substantial risk of harm", the word "substantial" implying a subjective judgement call by a professional.

I don't expect to convince you; there are others on this site you'll trust who will tell you the same thing, I'm sure. Feel free not to take my word for it; as for firsthand experience, yes, it's the case, although I'm not psychotic nor do I have any relatives with a psychotic disorder.

Each state has variations on a theme, but you would be AMAZED at just how blatantly someone needs to be ill to be held. For better or worse, this country has powerful laws protecting privacy and the right to be free, and really, it's a common nightmare for many that they could be derailed from society and placed "away" as ill without due process. Instead of improving our system, we gutted it, and in it s place we use the penal system as a means of control.

Here's an example for the state of Massachusetts

http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/mills.aspx

APA's Position: APA submitted another brief in support of the plaintiffs to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The brief argued that: (1) the law of Massachusetts guarantees a right of personal autonomy and freedom from unauthorized bodily intrusions, a right offended by the involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs to (a) a person competent to make treatment decisions for himself, and (b) an incompetent person who would choose not to be medicated with such drugs if he were competent; (2) the civil commitment decision in Massachusetts is not equivalent to a judicial determination of incompetence to make treatment decisions, and that the civil commitment decision is different from a determination that the Commonwealth may forcibly medicate an involuntarily committed person with psychotropic drugs; (3) a person competent to make treatment decisions should have an absolute right to refuse such medications, and (4) the question of competency can be made only by a court, not by hospital personnel, except (a) where a patient presents an imminent threat of physical harm to himself or others or (b) where the patient's mental condition would suddenly and irreversibly deteriorate without administration of the drugs. In that case, they may be administered on an interim basis until a court could make a determination of incompetence and a substituted judgment decision.

That is GOSPEL for any psychiatrist practicing in MA, and you'll find something like it in most or all states (not 100% on all 50).

Read some of those, and tell me how we can reconcile THAT level of freedom, which I believe in... with the need to provide care? The only sane solution is to provide a higher standard of care; a proper standard of care. Properly treated and maintained mental illness is NOT generally a threat to anyone, including the sufferer. Group homes for those with no family left or able to care for them, and ones that aren't Texas fight-clubs so understaffed as to be a joke... are needed. Other solutions are also needed, and have been outlined in paper after study after paper...

Nobody seems to care until its them, their loved one, or a tragedy occurs.

Oh, and yes, it's a subjective call, but do some research into how narrow the guidelines are to MAKE that call. Compare with actual rates of psychotic disorders in the population and despair.

edit: In practice, "4b" is just not done, but you can walk through Boston, or NYC, or SF, etc... and know that. You see, "4b" is in direct conflict with "3". You're probably thinking I'm an idiot saying that... after all you've doubtless seen people on the street who CAN'T make decisions about their medication. Fair enough, but what do you think happens when that medication begins to work?... 3. Refusal... often refusal. Antipsychotic drugs don't cure anything, they diminish symptoms and can do their own long-term damage... nasty damage too. Plenty of people can't stand the adverse effects; drooling, tardive dyskinesia, drowsiness, stop... and then pretty soon they're back in place where they can't seek help again, or won't. Often, and this is a problem with Bipolar disorders as well, illegal drug use practically goes hand in hand with some many untreated psychiatric disorders. If the choice we're giving them is an unbearable non-life with medications, or a familiar life on drugs... too many choose drugs and the streets.

edit2: Note: in cases where 4b is an issue, you're talking about such a crisis that it's simply not required; a court would do the work anyway.

 

[nismaratwork]

This... isn't bad. It's not good, but it's not bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disordered_thought

This may help clarify some of what I mean by "form" and not "content" what Loughner rote, and said, as being a terrible and obvious warning of a psychotic disorder.

The bolding is mine

Thought is revealed through speech. Thus, observation of patterns of thought naturally involves close observation of the speech of the individual being considered. Although it is normal to exhibit some of the following during times of extreme stress (e.g. a cataclysmic event or the middle of a war) it is the degree, frequency, and the resulting functional impairment that leads to the conclusion that the person being observed has a thought disorder.

Blocking - Interruption of train of speech before completion. e.g. "Am I early?", "No, you're just about on-" This is commonly seen when a joke is being told and the speaker forgets the punchline. At an extreme degree, after blocking occurs, the speaker does not recall the topic he or she was discussing. True blocking is a common sign of schizophrenia.

Circumstantiality - Speech that is highly detailed and very delayed at reaching its goal. Speaking about many concepts related to the point of the conversation before eventually returning to the point and concluding the thought. Excessive long-windedness. e.g. "What is your name?" "Well, sometimes when people ask me that I have to think about whether or not I will answer because some people think it's an odd name even though I don't really because my mom gave it to me and I think my dad helped but it's as good a name as any in my opinion, I think it's a little weird to have the same name as two of my other names, but the fact that I like it, is a good thing... but yeah, it's Tom."

Clanging - Sounds, rather than meaningful relationships, appear to govern words or topics. Excessive rhyming. e.g. "I'm not trying to make noise. I'm trying to make sense. If you can't make sense out of nonsense, well, have fun." "I heard the bell. Well, hell, I heard the bell."

Derailment (also Loose Association and Knight's Move thinking) - Ideas slip off the topic's track on to another which is obliquely related or unrelated. e.g. "The next day when I'd be going out you know, I took control, like uh, I put bleach on my hair in California."

Distractible speech - During mid speech, the subject is changed in response to a stimulus. e.g. "Then I left San Francisco and moved to... where did you get that tie?"

Echolalia - Echoing of one's or other people's speech that may only be committed once, or may be continuous in repetition. This may involve repeating only the last few words or last word of the examiner's sentences. This can be a symptom of Tourette's Syndrome. e.g. "What would you like for dinner?", "That's a good question. That's a good question. That's a good question. That's a good question."

Evasive Interaction - Attempts to annunciate ideas and/or feelings about another individual comes out as evasive or in a diluted form, e.g.: "I... er ah... you are uh... I think you have... uh-- acceptable erm... uh... hair."

Flight of Ideas - A sequence of loose associations or extreme tangentiality where the speaker goes quickly from one idea to another seemingly unrelated idea. To the listener, the ideas seem unrelated and do not seem to repeat. Often pressured speech is also present. e.g. "I own five cigars. I've been to Havana. She rose out of the water, in a bikini."

Illogicality - Conclusions are reached that do not follow logically (non-sequiturs or faulty inferences). e.g. "Do you think this will fit in the box?" draws a reply like "Well duh; it's brown isn't it?"

Incoherence (word salad) - Speech that is unintelligible because, though the individual words are real words, the manner in which they are strung together results in incoherent gibberish, e.g. the question "Why do people comb their hair?" elicits a response like "Because it makes a twirl in life, my box is broken help me blue elephant. Isn't lettuce brave? I like electrons. Hello, beautiful."[citation needed]

Loss of goal - Failure to show a train of thought to a natural conclusion. e.g. "Why does my computer keep crashing?", "Well, you live in a stucco house, so the pair of scissors needs to be in another drawer."

Neologisms - New word formations. These may also involve elisions of two words that are similar in meaning or in sound. e.g. "I got so angry I picked up a dish and threw it at the geshinker."

Perseveration - Persistent repetition of words or ideas. e.g. "It's great to be here in Nevada, Nevada, Nevada, Nevada, Nevada." This may also involve repeatedly giving the same answer to different questions. e.g. "Is your name Mary?" "Yes." "Are you in the hospital?" "Yes." "Are you a table?" "Yes."

Phonemic paraphasia - Mispronunciation; syllables out of sequence. e.g. "I slipped on the lice and broke my arm."

Pressure of speech - An increase in the amount of spontaneous speech compared to what is considered customary. This may also include an increase in the rate of speech. Alternatively it may be difficult to interrupt the speaker; the speaker may continue speaking even when a direct question is asked.

Self-reference - Patient repeatedly and inappropriately refers back to self. e.g. "What's the time?", "It's 7 o'clock. That's my problem."

Semantic paraphasia - Substitution of inappropriate word. e.g. "I slipped on the coat, on the ice I mean, and broke my book."

Stilted speech - Speech excessively stilted and formal. e.g. "The attorney comported himself indecorously."

Tangentiality - Replying to questions in an oblique, tangential or irrelevant manner. e.g.:
Q: "What city are you from?"
A: "Well, that's a hard question. I'm from Iowa. I really don't know where my relatives came from, so I don't know if I'm Irish or French."

Word approximations - Old words used in a new and unconventional way. e.g. "His boss was a seeover."

This is sad, because it illustrated how a person suffering this way is constantly struggling to maintain some touch with reality, but even his or her ability to reason is breaking.

edit: related topics if anyone is interested: Schizophasia, Cognitive Slippage, etc.

In addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorganized_schizophrenia

Tell me this isn't the history of this young man almost verbatim, as told by friends, and teachers. Bolding is mine.

This type is characterized by prominent disorganized behavior and speech (see formal thought disorder) including schizophasia, and flat or inappropriate emotion and affect. The criteria for the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia must not have been met as well. This type of schizophrenia is also known as hebephrenia, and is named after the Greek goddess of youth, Hebe, in reference to the typical age of onset in puberty[3].

Unlike the paranoid subtype of schizophrenia, delusions and hallucinations are not the most prominent feature[4][5], although fragmentary delusions and hallucinations may be present.
A person with disorganized schizophrenia may also experience behavioral disorganization which may impair his/her ability to carry out activities of daily living such as showering or eating.[6]

The emotional responses of people diagnosed with this subtype can often seem strange or inappropriate to the situation. Inappropriate facial responses may be common and behavior is sometimes described as 'silly', such as inappropriate laughter. Complete lack of expressed emotion is sometimes seen, as is an apparent indifference, anhedonia (the lack of pleasure), and avolition (a lack of motivation). Some of these features are also present in other types of schizophrenia, but they are most prominent in Disorganized Schizophrenia.

This form of schizophrenia is typically associated with early onset (often between the ages of 15 and 25 years) and is thought to have a poor prognosis because of the rapid development of 'negative' symptoms and decline in social functioning.[7]

Use of electroconvulsive therapy has been proposed.[8]

 

[arildno]

Good question for his prosecution, but not a necessary one to have prevented his access to a firearm. If anyone of the several public institutions that crossed paths with Jared had simply taken the steps to tag him as simply mentally unstable, he likely would never have gained access to a legal firearm. It seems to me that issue, the one of identifying and taking some action against (or for) at least the easily identifiable mentally ill, is far and away more important than the tone of the political debate, gun politics, or even criminal punishment.

This is a highly important point.

However, it requires that the barrier for designating someone as "mentally unstable" must be lowered from that today (for example that school authorities has the power to designate, even though an in-depth, costly professional psychiatric evaluation has not been performed), and that this information in some "unabusable" way is transmitted to licensed salesmen of guns and firearms.

After all, is it correct that a greengrocer is given information that "somebody" has put the label of "mentally unstable" on one of the applicants for a job?

 

[WhoWee]

This is a direct cut and paste from kelly's Facebook page.



http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesse-Kelly/359472301041

Again, I'm sure any civil suits against the candidate and the Tea Party officials will sort this out? I'm still not sure what this has to do with the shooting - his facebook posts from October were focused on the economy and Giffords support of failed policy.

Btw - your link to azcentral.com has a story posted about stimulus waste - apparently a sample of stimulus loans indicated about 1/3 were incorrect - about $4 Billion made to persons ineligible to receive the assistance. Perhaps this was one of the failed policies he was referring to in his post?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

edward, thank you so very much for the information. You live there, you have firsthand information, and you know what is going on. This is much better than any news channel, thanks man.

Kelly dropped out of his freshman year at college. He was a Libertarian from Montana but managed to get to Arizona as the Tea Party candidate for the district eight congressional seat.
He had served in the military 3 years.

Kelly's Republican opponents in the primary were much more qualified than he was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUilvsCHNZM

It looks like there must be much better alternatives. I’m not sure about the language... Kelly is what you call a "Borderline" confusion...?

Giffords was a state legislator before becoming a US representative. She has a masters degree and had won a Fulbright scholarship. She is married to an astronaut whose twin brother is currently on the International Space Station.

As a state legislator Giffords worked with republican Mayor Bob Walkup to get funding for the level one trauma center for the University of Arizona Medical Center.

That trauma center is where Giffords was treated.

This is a tragedy ... I don’t know what to say ... I’m normally not a 'weeping sensitive', but when I see Gabrielle Giffords talking at "Congress on Your Corner" ... it’s tough ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv6Vw_M3tZ0

 

[DevilsAvocado]

emphasis mine

Here's an interesting twist: while people have been discussing whether political rhetoric from the right could have caused this shooting, the discussion seems to have convinced a shooting victim to become like the shooter!

BTW the shooting victim used a camera.

Oh man, talk about scathing words. Touché!

 

[WhoWee]

edward, thank you so very much for the information. You live there, you have firsthand information, and you know what is going on. This is much better than any news channel, thanks man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUilvsCHNZM

It looks like there must be much better alternatives. I’m not sure about the language... Kelly is what you call a "Borderline" confusion...?




This is a tragedy ... I don’t know what to say ... I’m normally not a 'weeping sensitive', but when I see Gabrielle Giffords talking at "Congress on Your Corner" ... it’s tough ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv6Vw_M3tZ0

What does any of this have to do with the shooting of Rep. Giffords? What is the connection? Did the shooter belong to the group? Was the shooter a campaign worker for Kelly? Was there correspondence between the shooter and Kelly? Is Kelly a suspect? What is your point?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

 

[WhoWee]

This is a re-post. Do you have a point - what are you trying to say?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...not so fast there declaring who "we" are. I require my representatives to have *a lot* more qualifications than "war hero" and "terrorist killer". Those skills are great on the battlefield, but I have no evidence they translate into an making a person an effective representative.

Thanks a lot for those words lisab. It looks like intelligent women are the only one who understands the problem (Mama Grizzlies don’t count):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOp8TdNJvm8

 

[WhoWee]

Thanks a lot for those words lisab. It looks like intelligent women are the only one who understands the problem (Mama Grizzlies don’t count):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOp8TdNJvm8

You can't be serious?

If she was run over by a car and Kelly had invited people to drive a stock car - would you post his ad? If not, why not - Rep. Gifford wasn't shot with an M-16 and the shooter had no contact with Kelly.
As for Palin - she copied a (Democratic group) map that targeted Republican candidates - didn't she?

 

[nismaratwork]

DA: I really respect your passion, but this man is probably psychotic: nobody CAUSED this if that's the case, including Loughner really. Either way, I don't see how this return to blaming politics can lead to anything other than another layer of cynicism once its used.

Lets focus on the issues:

We have such a pathetic mental health service nationwide, that people like Loughner slips under the radar.

The USA has issues with guns... the proposed solutions vary, but the problem is there; we kill each other with guns disproportionately often.

Politics and Media (Glenn Beck, Kieth Olberman for examples) are so hysterical and based on such fear-mongering and the manufacturing of paranoia, that again... Loughner's rants no longer stand out.

None of that changes 6 dead people, a woman who's progress is measured in, "breathing on her own" (note the lack of news about her talking...); the result shouldn't be a political debate.

 

[nismaratwork]

It looks like the stone throwing and name calling just began??

Do you know how many times people have, intentionally or not, come close to scuttling this thread? I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet.

 

[turbo]

As for Palin - she copied a (Democratic group) map that targeted Republican candidates - didn't she?

No she didn't. The Democratic leadership council color-coded states by popular vote, including putting archery targets over states that the GOP had taken by single-digits. They were pointing out to their membership and donors where gains could be made with extra investment in money and manpower.

Unlike Palin, they didn't put cross-hairs on candidates' districts, nor name anybody. The "both sides do it" argument is pretty thin. This thread is about Giffords' shooting and her (hopefully!) recovery, but I couldn't let that comment stand without pointing out the obvious qualitative differences between the graphics.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

 

[Al68]

No she didn't. The Democratic leadership council color-coded states by popular vote, including putting archery targets over states that the GOP had taken by single-digits.

Archery targets instead of cross-hairs, huh? Does that mean they were advocating the use of bows and arrows?

Isn't it about time for the silliness to end?