rep gabrielle giffords, d-az, shot in the head in tucson

[kalmn]

violent rhetoric breeds violent acts.

here's a screenshot of sarahpac's website with crosshairs over giffords' district.

http://instagr.am/p/68p0/

federal judge john roll killed by same shooter who shot giffords.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/tpm_confirms_federal_judge_shot_at_incident_in_ari.php

when this happens in other countries, we call it what it is, a politically motivated assassination or assassination attempt.

when it happens here in the us, it's always the act of one deranged loner, acting alone, entirely his own motives, not influenced by anyone or if he was, it was all an accident and whoever said that surely never meant for it to be taken that way.

wake up.

reasonable people can in fact disagree on the issues.

that's not the situation we're in here in the united states.

Comments

[bifemmefatale]

Also, her Tea Party opponent Jesse Kelly held an event where participants could shoot an M-16 *and* talk about removing Giffords from office. He is also partly to blame for this tragedy.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=lf#!/photo.php?fbid=183907728293735&set=a.173460612671780.38981.173343349350173

[wild_irises]

This one is so far appearing to be a truly deranged shooter, but still, yes. How we permit this kind of language (and behavior, as above) is beyond me.

A nine-year-old girl is dead. I know a little too much about how her parents are feeling right now.

[kalmn]

hey, cite? i'd love to do more reading on this. i am catching up with my twitter feed every few hours, but i cannot stand cnn right now.

[wild_irises]

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo is the go-to reporter.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[kalmn]

cabell makes a good point, over on fb, that being mentally ill does not excuse or explain his actions, in and of it's self. the mentally ill are not any more violent than people who are not (although their crimes are overreported), and the shooter has apparently called out sarah palin's gunsights map as something that inspired him.

[guppiecat]

It seems to me that analyzing the situation based on limited data and within a short period of time is just as bad as the inflammatory rhetoric that you mention. This is the sort of response that, on September 11th caused much of a nation to rise up against Muslims. Kneejerk reactions seldom seem to be in a group's best interest. Painting either side with a wide brush just serves to increase the isolation between them.

Violent rhetoric makes me uncomfortable, but it is protected as free speech and I think that the benefits of free speech outweigh the drawbacks... even when the drawback is the occasional crazy person hurting or killing others. I also believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", and while I dislike violent rhetoric, I have yet to see the hate-spewers proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fundamentally, you and I disagree as to whether or not intent matters, so I'm not surprised to find us taking different perspectives of this incident.

I do think that this was politically-motivated, and that it was likely inflamed by violent rhetoric... but I think it's a far cry from the beginning of an armed revolt within the US. I believe that that would look extremely different from what we're seeing.

[bifemmefatale]

No, not all violent rhetoric is protected as free speech. Incitement to murder is illegal. Solicitation of murder is illegal. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and so on. The 1st Amendment is not unlimited.

[guppiecat]

I don't disagree. However, I have yet to see anything that I consider in that realm. If one person misinterprets another's words as inciting murder, is the first person at fault? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation.

I think that the SarahPac website was in poor taste, but I honestly don't think that it was intended to convey the message "people should kill people in these areas". If it was, it does it exceedingly poorly. I think that it is far more likely that the cross-hair theme was chosen to appeal to the pro-gun demographic that Palin is courting.

To me, it doesn't pass the "reasonable doubt" test. I can understand that it doesn't for others though.

[kalmn]

in the us, white men have been committing terrorist acts and getting away with it without it even being called terrorism. for years. i do not think that pointing out that a thing is what it is is in the same camp or even timezone as racially motivated fear stirred up by the mainstream media and the government.

if people start firebombing protestant churches in retaliation for this, or fox news starts talking about how middle class white men are the new threat... well, i would say i'd buy you expensive dinner, except i'll be dead of shock.

[jiawen]

Yeah, I heard someone saying on NPR a while ago that DHS has been doing a good job because there haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. Where to start with that kind of wrongheaded argument?