Skip to comments.Loughner pleads guilty to Ariz. shooting
Posted on 08/07/2012 12:48:06 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) -- Jared Lee Loughner pleaded guilty Tuesday to going on a shooting rampage at a political gathering, killing six people and wounding his intended target, then-Congresswoman Gabriele Giffords, and 12 others.
Loughner's plea spares him the death penalty and came soon after a federal judge found that months of forcibly medicating him to treat his schizophrenia had made the 23-year-old college dropout competent to understand the gravity of the charges and assist in his defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Fry ‘em anyways!
But according to the VPC it’s not his fault. He was possessed by an EVIL assault weapon handgun.
When they use someone from the VPC or HCI as their “gun experts” they are just writing garbage and they know it.
If the death penalty doesn’t work, why did he take the deal?
These mass shootings prove that the police CAN NOT protect you or your loved ones from violence.
You, armed and trained, are the best chance your family has to escape violence. Act accordingly.
Imagine the cost to incarcerate this guy for another 60 yrs...
I am surprised Eric Holder didn’t force him to confess that he was a secret Tea Partier and Sarah Palin neophyte to get this deal. /sarcasm.
Not according to the anti-death penalty crowd. They claim it costs more to execute.
Can't see how a length of rope would be more expensive than feeding, clothing and housing a killer for so many years.
WHY do we need a triall to determine guilt in cases of MANIFEST guilt like this? WHY is taxpayer money being wasted on this garbage?
The only thing which needs to be decided with this piece of garbage is how to most effectively dispose of it. Personally I’m sick and tired of having to look at his lunatic grin on TV.
He’s a monster. And so are is that piece of trash with the red hair in Colorado.
You’re asking the wrong question. Nobody who criticizes the death penalty say criminals want to die, they’re saying fear of the death penalty doesn’t stop crime. Of course with Loughner being nuts none of that discussion relates at all.
Because we don’t have a system that believes in the concept of manifest guilt. Innocent until proven guilty, not just a handy saying but a core concept that could keep you out of jail.
He’ll still get to vote for democrats though, right?
Of course NOTHING stops crime; AND the death penalty deters crime:
1) Proven fact: Every executed criminal NEVER kills again.
2) Why don’t these massacres occur in a gun store, gun range, police station, etc., except that the perps do not want to die; they want to kill?
3) Why would any of these perps ever surrender instead of charging the arresting police with their guns drawn, except that the perps do not want to die; they want to kill?
4) Why do the perps plea to a deal that takes the death penalty off the table, except that the perps do not want to die; they want to kill?
5) Why, after conviction, do they fight the death penalty, except that the perps do not want to die; they want to kill?
The death penalty might have deterred crime once, but not anymore. The gap between conviction and execution is too long. Most criminals don’t think they’ll live 20 years anyway, so why worry about the death penalty that will take that long to kill them IF they even get caught in the first place.
But most of your arguments don’t make sense. Again, nobody is saying criminals want to die, so of course when given the choice between a death penalty and something else (something that often means a possible eventual release date) of course they take the something else. That doesn’t mean the death penalty is a meaningful threat, it just means they’re not complete morons. Given the choice between “you’ll be in jail for 20 odd years and we might kill you (assuming it doesn’t get overturned)” and “you’ll be in jail for 12 and we definitely won’t” everybody takes definitely won’t. And both are preferable to shot now.
If he hadn’t shot a Democrat, he would have been eligible to take trips and visit with family and friends in 20-25 like Reagan’s shooter.
The argument I made repeatedly: Given a choice of dying or continuing to kill, the perps stopped. Thus, the penalty of death deterred crime. It’s just that simple.
An executed murderer kills no more.
The leftist freaks form all their opinions based on two things:
And it’s a bad argument because it’s ignoring lots of important differences between your situation and the actual in practice legal death penalty. There’s a big difference between the threat of being shot NOW and being executed 20 years from now IF caught. As much as I support the death penalty there’s a good reason why the violent crime rate is NOT lower in states with it, the legal system takes too long to make it a threat.
Just look right here at the thread you’re on, AZ IS a death penalty state, didn’t stop Loughner, doesn’t stop about a murder a week here in Tucson, more than that in Phoenix. If we were running the death penalty like in the 50s and 60s with just a couple years between conviction and execution it might deter, but the way it is now it’s not a threat. Something that is not a threat CANNOT deter, since the very nature of deterrence is that it’s the effect of a threat.
He didn’t have the lunatic grin before he ran home to mommy after perpetrating a premeditated mass murder and she shaved his head and told him how to act crazy to avoid the death penalty.
So, when confronted with police with drawn guns, Loughner didn’t stop?
I think we NEED a concept of “Manifest Guilt”.
If somebody pulls out a gun and blows away a number of people in fornt of a pack of witnesses, trying him is a waste of time and tax payer money.
Its also a travesty of justice to the bereaved relations of the dead.
You’ve got two problems with that one:
The first I’ve pointed out to you multiple times and you keep ignoring.
The second is he got tackled and disarmed by unarmed civilians, never confronted by police or anybody with drawn guns.
And thankfully what you think in this case doesn’t matter. We’ve got enough problems with wrongful convictions in this country with adding a bad excuse for kangaroo courts.
Keeping YOU from going to jail on trumped up and unproven charges is not a waste of tax payer money. And that’s exactly what flushing a stupid idea like manifest guilt is doing.
I suspect it is the costs of lawyers for the layer upon layer of appeals that typically goes on for 8 to 20 yrs.
I looked it up and the last death sentence that was actually carried out in Colo was 1976.
I ignore your point because you have not addressed my initial point: when confronted with the choice of death or continuing to kill, these perps stop. Thus, the penalty of death deters crime.
CAUSE: The immediate threat of death.
EFFECT: Perp stops.
Have a nice day!
Because this is the United States of America, a free constitutional republic, not some goddam turd-world craphole or communist kakistocracy.
Dunno 'bout you, but I'm honor-bound to keep it that way, against all enemies foreign and domestic.
No I HAVE addressed your point. What you’re ignoring is there’s a big difference between death and the death penalty. Death is now, death now is a deterrent. The death penalty is maybe death 20 years from now, a time frame most criminals don’t expect to live long enough to see anyway, not a deterrent.
Heck you even almost admitted it. Notice your cause is “immediate threat of death”, there ain’t nothing even remotely immediate about the death penalty.
Loughner may yet be able to travel to visit his family/friends. You may see permission similar to Hinckley’s given to Loughner in a couple of decades.
I just know I’m gonna get flamed for this one ... but I gotta ask anyway. (So please excuse the dumb question.)
If you have to forcibly medicate someone for months to make him understand the charges against him, how can he not be considered insane at the time of the incident?
AZ doesn’t have insanity as a form of innocence, we have it as a type of guilt (”guilty but insane”) so it’s a moot point. He’s going to spend a lot of time incarcerated, and there will be intensive psychiatric care during that time whether or not the word “insane” is tied to his guilt.
Ah ha. Now I understand. Thank you.
One thing I HATE about liberals is how they say prison is worse than the death penalty. Well BS. They always fight the DP to the end. Sometimes they’re suicidal before going in, but these people lead relatively cushy lives and they fight endlessly for years to avoid death.
Wait, him taking a deal is now a benefit of the death penalty?
That doesn’t make sense. Generally it is in the interest of society for crimes to go to trial and a full version of events come out in court. In this case, there was no real doubt about the guilt, but still.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.