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?
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.