First, let me start this post with condolences for the families of the deceased, prayers for all the families of the injured and thanks for the heroes who limited the deranged killer, Jared Lee Loughner, from inflicting more damage. This senseless act should not have occurred and I feel sorry for anyone who has been involved in it.
Fox news has an article dealing with the aftermath, specifically, what is going to happen to the killer, Jared Lee Loughner.
Does anyone else have a problem with this case and the apparent length of time that it will endure? Here are the facts:
1) Jared Lee Lougher was wrestled to the ground, as he was attempting to reload his personal weapon, after shooting and killing 6 people, and wounding 13 others. He DID it!! It is NOT disputed.
2) He wrote about what he was GOING to do! It is not disputed. He thought about it and planned for 3 years before doing it, and
3)UPDATED: According to the FBI there is a security video of the attack that shows Jared Lee Lougher shooting Rep. Giffords and others.
I do not care if he has mental problems! There are many witnesses and a security video. He killed 6 people. Their families will NEVER be the same. He wounded 13 others. They will ALWAYS have the scars, and their families will NEVER be the same. Mr. Lougher needs to have a fair trial. But seriously, if it takes longer than 6 months, there is a severe problem with the American Justice System! I’m being generous with 6 months, most of that should be scheduling. If the actual court time takes more than 2 days, there is a problem!
Tags: american justice system, arizona shooter, christina taylor green, congresswoman giffords, jared lee lougher, john roll, killer, rampage, us district judge
the 21st Century Tea Party 
January 14, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
I agree. I think the trial should be swift and the result of him being convicted a punished to the extent of the law. However, the fact that this guy fell through the cracks couldn’t have anything to do with the sacking of social programs, such as mental health programs, by the greed of the right since Reagan. Could it? This guy is a drop in a very big bucket of nuts.
January 14, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
Worldtake, the fact that this guy “fell through the cracks” is NOT because of the sacking of social programs!! It is because people, in authority positions, did not fulfill their responsibilities to society. They dropped the ball. It starts with the Sheriff and his department, they had many contacts with this troubled person. It involves the entire administration of the college he “tried” to attend, who tried to cover their butts by having a psychologist “OK” this guy. They still expelled him. The “psychologist” has a hand in this as well, he/she made an examination and did not fulfill his/her responsibilities.
Second, I really enjoy your rants against the “right”. I think it shows an entire disconnect from reality. By spouting “the greed of the right” you seem to imply that “greed” is confined to the “right”. Did you know that Bernie Madoff was a leftist Democrat?? What about the guys at Enron?? Yep, Democrats. Do you think they were “greedy”? I am not saying that greed is confined to the Socialists, it cuts across ALL sections of society. Including employees of “social programs”. Did the Left support all social programs? If they did not, was it because THEY were “greedy”?
Also, please show me where it is “greed of the right”. I want specifics, instead of broad statements of dubious fact. Who, specifically? and why do you think it was “greed”? If the “right” spent the money on different programs, they did not keep any of the money, so how would that be “greed”? Couldn’t one argue that that is a difference in priorities? and not “greed”? and if, it is a difference in priorities, isn’t that what political debates are all about? So instead of blindly following your Alinsky tactics and trying to demagogue people that you disagree with, I would suggest you learn how to listen and debate. Perhaps those people we do not agree with, not so much different than you and I, have valid points.
I would argue that cutting programs, because we do NOT have the money to spend, is PRUDENT, not “greedy”. I also would point out, that these programs may be bloated with corruption, because of the “greed” of the people administering them.