US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot (other persons killed or injured)

Sand · 09-01-2011 01:53PM

P.S. can somebody answer this for me, please?
Does European or Irish police check the immigration status of people they encounter if they appear to be foreign and suspect of being there illegally?
I know the German police does and will retain you immediately upon discovery.
Even at a routine traffic stop.

Gardai can arrest without a warrant anyone who they reasonably suspect has committed an offence under the Immigration act. The devil would be in the details of course.

mgmt · 09-01-2011 02:03PM

EastTexas wrote: »

P.S. can somebody answer this for me, please?
Does European or Irish police check the immigration status of people they encounter if they appear to be foreign and suspect of being there illegally?
I know the German police does and will retain you immediately upon discovery.
Even at a routine traffic stop.

Yes. I've been on many Bus Eireann buses where the bus is stopped on the M1 motorway and Gardai board and conduct an immigration check. A number of people have been taken off the bus. Honestly, I do not understand the problem with local police in the US inquiring about immigration status. Illegal immigration seriously affects the local community and if the federal police are sitting on the fence then the local police should enforce the laws.

troposphere · 09-01-2011 02:08PM

All non-nationals who are not citizens of a member State of the European Union, the European Economic Area or Switzerland, must register with An Garda Síochána and at all times have a valid registration certificate in the form of a GNIB Card.

(1)Every non-national shall produce on demand, unless he
or she gives a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances which
prevent him or her from so doing—
(a) a valid passport or other equivalent document, issued by or
on behalf of an authority recognised by the Government,
which establishes his or her identity and nationality, and
(b) in case he or she is registered or deemed to be registered
under this Act, his or her registration certificate.

(2) A non-national who contravenes this section shall be guilty of
an offence.
(3) In this section ‘‘on demand’’ means on demand made at any
time by any immigration officer or a member of the Garda Sı´ocha´ na.

...

mgmt · 09-01-2011 02:08PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, for crying out loud. This is Arizona, we're talking about, where guns are a fundamental part of life, and after New Hampshire and maybe Pennsylvania is one of the most pro-gun States in the Union. It's one of the few States where you don't need a permit to carry concealed, and any politician who even proposes limiting firearms is likely to not get elected.

Shooting is a day out there. It's about the same as having an Irish politician hold a puc fada event. It's not something insidious.

I had a quick hunt around for verification of that one, I have found nothing to indicate that they used images of Rep Gabrielle as the targets in that event.

I agree. Going to the range is a cultural thing in the US. Just seems to be a sloppy way of wording an event.

I also had a search. I could not find any mention of this event taking place in the google news archive. Is it a photoshop perhaps? Surely it would have been a news story.

Manic Moran · 09-01-2011 02:11PM

mgmt wrote: »

Yes. I've been on many Bus Eireann buses where the bus is stopped on the M1 motorway and Gardai board and conduct an immigration check. A number of people have been taken off the bus. Honestly, I do not understand the problem with local police in the US inquiring about immigration status. Illegal immigration seriously affects the local community and if the federal police are sitting on the fence then the local police should enforce the laws.

The main point of contention is that by and large, the people who are going to have to repeatedly prove that they are in the country legally are those who are of Mexican, central or South American origin, and the white folk will likely be left alone.

Although there is an element of truth to that position, it is also a mischaracterization that the police are going to stop everyone they see and demand papers just because they're brown-skinned. The law is phrased pretty similarly to the Federal rules on the matter.

NTM

Lirange · 09-01-2011 02:11PM

BBC reports: In October, he was asked to provide "a mental-health clearance" to show that he would not be a danger to himself or others if he returned to college (Pima County Community College).

EastTexas · 09-01-2011 02:29PM

Thanks all for your answers
Since in Germany it has been pointed out to me on several occasions how “racist” the US and my particular political leanings are by pointing to Arizona as a example.

If indeed in Europe, I know it’s many places and policies may variety from country to country law enforcement checks your immigrations status and is by law tasked to retain you if you appear to reside there illegally than how on gods green earth could they make such an accusation just based on that.
Wouldn’t that be Pot meet Kettle situation?

I don’t even agree with that law but at the same token can’t fault Arizona for passing it, if only temporary to bring attention to their plight as pointed out in previous post.

I have been pulled up at routine traffic stops in Germany and they always check my status because I talk funny.
Come on, there has to be a red-blooded Irish man here able to answer that question for me.
“ If I showed up in Ireland and talked “ funny” would they check my status at a traffic stop like they do in Arizona these days?
Should it come to bare that I had snuck in somehow via small boat or teletransporter, didn’t have a visa or any other papers clearly demonstration that I have permission to be there…..
Would they just wish me a nice day and let me go on my merry way or would they retain me, because it appears that I am there illegally?

Nodin · 09-01-2011 02:44PM

It would appear that the root cause of this is 'nuttery' (to coin a technical term.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/jared-lee-loughner-troubled-past

One of his 'issues' is apparently with low levels of literacy, but you can see from the videos he posted he can barely string a sentence together....not that a lot of it makes sense anyway.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/08/national/main7226347.shtml?tag=cbsContent;homePageTopics

mgmt · 09-01-2011 02:58PM

Nodin wrote: »

It would appear that the root cause of this is 'nuttery' (to coin a technical term.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/jared-lee-loughner-troubled-past

One of his 'issues' is apparently with low levels of literacy, but you can see from the videos he posted he can barely string a sentence together....not that a lot of it makes sense anyway.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/08/national/main7226347.shtml?tag=cbsContent;homePageTopics

He met Gifford in 2007 and commented that she was unintelligent. My guess this was his main reasons for attacking her. He also lives beside the shooting scene so this might just have been an unfortunate opportunity and could have been planning something else.

http://www.businessinsider.com/woman-who-says-she-went-to-school-with-alleged-shooter-says-he-met-giffords-in-2007-2011-1?sailthru_m=h2n

EastTexas · 09-01-2011 02:59PM

mgmt wrote: »

Yes. I've been on many Bus Eireann buses where the bus is stopped on the M1 motorway and Gardai board and conduct an immigration check. A number of people have been taken off the bus. Honestly, I do not understand the problem with local police in the US inquiring about immigration status. Illegal immigration seriously affects the local community and if the federal police are sitting on the fence then the local police should enforce the laws.

I can explain that why this is a problem if the police checks your immigrations status is in the US.
It is a distinctly American value to see the police (the cop on the beat) as the servant and protector of the people first and foremost.

We have more crime in the US particularly violent and gun crimes compared to other western nation..
It’s incredibly important that if you know of a vicious crime committed, are threatened with a crime, somebody hurting you, robbing you, exploiting you, or you just being afraid of someone, that you can go to the police for help regardless of your immigration status.

This benefits first and foremost everybody in the community for obvious reasons.
The question is not whether immigration status should be checked but whether it’s a bad call to deputize the local police with that task, which is incredibly counter productive to their primary responsibility already hard enough as it is.
In short it erodes the relationship, cohesion and trust between the police and the community and provides a new area, market if you will where crimes against now helpless people can be committed unfettered and with impunity, which is not in the interest of the community or the police.
Good idea …lousy implementation.

Edit
Like you should not have to be afraid to go to a hospital with a gunshot wound.
Which in the US by law is automatically reported to the police by the hospital treating you.
Or if you where raped or couldn’t call the Fire and Police (they always show up together) if your place is on fire because of your immigration status.

EastTexas · 09-01-2011 03:19PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The main point of contention is that by and large, the people who are going to have to repeatedly prove that they are in the country legally are those who are of Mexican, central or South American origin, and the white folk will likely be left alone.

Although there is an element of truth to that position, it is also a mischaracterization that the police are going to stop everyone they see and demand papers just because they're brown-skinned. The law is phrased pretty similarly to the Federal rules on the matter.

NTM

Arizona primary immigration problem isn’t illegal Eskimos or white Frenchmen but Mexicans from the adjoining border.
If they happened to run across a white European they would pick him up just the same.
So it’s political correctness posturing without addressing the real issue.
That it is counter productive to task the local police with this endeavor as explained in my post above.
It’s not that we don’t have an immigration department and previously it was for bidden for the police to report to them for the same reasons stated above.

Nodin · 09-01-2011 03:19PM

mgmt wrote: »

He met Gifford in 2007 and commented that she was unintelligent. My guess this was his main reasons for attacking her. He also lives beside the shooting scene so this might just have been an unfortunate opportunity and could have been planning something else.

http://www.businessinsider.com/woman-who-says-she-went-to-school-with-alleged-shooter-says-he-met-giffords-in-2007-2011-1?sailthru_m=h2n

Indeed. He would have gone off eventually, and probably regardless of what party was in power.

norbert64 · 09-01-2011 05:41PM

mgmt wrote: »

I agree. Going to the range is a cultural thing in the US. Just seems to be a sloppy way of wording an event.

I also had a search. I could not find any mention of this event taking place in the google news archive. Is it a photoshop perhaps? Surely it would have been a news story.

I think we're probably mixing up this event here \/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/09/gop-candidate-muslims/
with the current Jesse Kelly/M16 one

Considering the linked event exists though, is it really any wonder that people may have thought the JesseKelly/m16 one followed suit.

mgmt · 09-01-2011 05:49PM

You'd see the same kind of rhetoric in Ireland all the time. Like on the Frontline recently where a guy said that the leaders of this country should be marched to the gallows, as what happened in 1916. Harmless stuff, but I suppose in a country such as the USA with the ease of access to weapons a higher level of decorum should be exercised.

BurnsCarpenter · 09-01-2011 05:57PM

mgmt wrote: »

You'd see the same kind of rhetoric in Ireland all the time. Like on the Frontline recently where a guy said that the leaders of this country should be marched to the gallows, as what happened in 1916. Harmless stuff, but I suppose in a country such as the USA with the ease of access to weapons a higher level of decorum should be exercised.

You get it in Ireland from angry members of the public.

The fact is, prominent political and media figures on the US right are using irresponsible, inflammatory language such as 'Don't retreat, reload'.

Hopefully this incident will lead people to have a rethink, even if this wasn't a political act.

Manic Moran · 09-01-2011 06:44PM

but I suppose in a country such as the USA with the ease of access to weapons a higher level of decorum should be exercised.

Any normal person is generally aware that going around shooting people, even in a country with good access to firearms, is somewhat illegal and rather frowned upon. Those that do so generally don't need a lot of incitement.

NTM

kaiser sauze · 09-01-2011 06:54PM

troposphere wrote: »

I would say this probably has more to do with this guy having a mental issue like schizophrenia than being influenced by strong political beliefs.

<snip>

I do not see it like this, at least not in this narrow singular sense.

The political discourse in The US, and particularly from the right, has reached the stage where ill-informed, or malformed in Jared's case, take what is being said and look to apply those actions in a literal sense.

EastTexas wrote: »

<snip>

The fellow lived just a few blocks down the road with his mother.

<snip>

Given his living proximity to the event and his general disenchantment with Government/ Authority and the easy access to a representative of Government due to the location and setting, I wonder if it would have made a bit of difference whether a Democrat or Republican came within his reach.

Source?

EastTexas wrote: »

She is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner but also voted for “healthcare”.

Why the quotes?

EastTexas wrote: »

Additionally, in the past politically motivated assassins usually only targeted the person of their choice to make that point but didn’t go on indiscriminate shooting sprees hurting “innocent” bystanders because in their minds this would only diminish their “ noble endeavor” and mute the point they hoped to make altogether.

You see, this is not what happened.

He went up to her and shot her in the head. First. She was the target. End of.

Then, due to the easily seen fact that he is disturbed, his assassination attempt was then extended to those in the vicinity. He had no intention of killing other people other than Gabbie Gifford, but his unsound mind meant this was the outcome in the end.

dooferoaks wrote: »

Interesting (IMO) about the shooting and Arizona's politics on the BBC website, article HERE.

I wonder if Arizona can be seen as an indication of wider problems in US politics or is that too simplistic?

No, that is not too simplistic.

amacachi wrote: »

I would hazard a wiiiiiiild guess that he didn't go for all 19 or 20 people he shot by going close-up and shooting them in the head, that after the first couple shots most people will have moved and it would have been difficult for him to go close-range on all the others. With that in mind I thought it was fairly logical to assume that the close-range shots would have been first, because it would have been easier to get close to one of the victims before any other shots had been fired and from this it leads me to think that she was more than likely the first or one of the first shot which leads me to believe that she may well have been a target. If you'd like to specifically point out where I'm making a big leap there then please, feel free.
At the start of the breaking story I was open to the idea that it could have been someone getting back at one of her staffers, someone pissed at the judge or any number of other scenarios but once I heard she was shot at close range I was fairly sure that she was targetted.

She was targeted, there is no debate about that.

She was shot at close range in the head.

She was the first one shot.

Einhard wrote: »

ET, would you not accept that a lot of the rhetoric from the Tea party and more rightwing conservatives, has been extremely inflammatory oiver the past year? Gifford herself made reference to it in the Autumn, and warned that there might be consequences arising from the vitriol heaped on her by some on the Right. Indeed, the Tea party chairman of the district represented by Gifford has admitted that he and his fellow political travellers were often guilty of reckless language, which could be taken out of context. Now, someone who fails to distinguish the metaphorical nature of Palin's "crosshairs" is obviously deranged, but that doesn't take away from the fact that much of the commentary from the right has been unnecessarily incendiary and divisive. And irresponsible. It's a problem that the Right in America has I think, whereby frustration at political setbacks or liberal sucesses, can manifest itself in extreme and violent ways. The militia movement exploded across America during Clinton's tenure, diminished under Bush, and surged again once Obama was elected. The Oklahoma bombing was carried out by a member of one of these groups, who was fuelled by a hatred of liberals. Two years ago, there were calls at a McCain rally for Obama to be murdered. And this before he was even elected! So, IMO, and I wouldn't call necessarily call myself a dyed in the wool liberal, that sections of he Right in America do have a serious problem when it comes to dealing with political setbacks, and that some conservative politicians, perhaps unwittingly, encourage such resentment and hatred amongst their constituents. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

This is a great summation of the current issues.

EastTexas wrote: »

Since this is still unfolding and we’re all still so short on fact and back story leading up to this, the real affront is the political hay-making, posturing and continued conjecture in the interest of fanning the flames partisanship and “team spirit” at all cost, whilst the blood has barely dried and some are still fighting for their life.

The political fallout needs to come from this immediately, before the short US attention span kicks in and things go back to 'business as usual'.

EastTexas wrote: »

If anything sad to see the BBC jump on that band wagon too.
I guess its catnip laced with crack for the media.

The BBC, and The Telegraph, are reporting it like it is: deranged gunman, influenced by hate-speech and right wing rhetoric from Tea Party/Republican led groups, takes 2 + 2 gets 1,573,284 and proceeds to shoot a Democratic politician.

EastTexas wrote: »

Until we learn of the motive from the suspected shooter(s) ….it’s all meaningless and nothing but political theater.

I would not go as far as calling it "meaningless", but it is informed summations and discussion.

EastTexas wrote: »

That said, it’s not like it’s the first time people got shot.

Shocking statement.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Even if this shooting was not inspired by the 'traitor' vitriol spewed by America's hard right, the fact that we are discussing it at all tells you all you need to know - nobody would be surprised if something of that sort happened.

The American hard right needs to take a long look at itself and its methods. Why do they continue to crank up the fear/treachery/'unamerican' rhetoric? And I'm no leftie by any means.

Hear, hear.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I had a quick hunt around for verification of that one, I have found nothing to indicate that they used images of Rep Gabrielle as the targets in that event.

They did not, but it is the imagery that matters and the mental state of the people at the event.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree. He didn't just go after the politician, he went after everyone present.

No no no.

He specifically went up to Giffords and shot her at point blank range. First. That is targeted and methodical.

The other people were not on his list, they were "collateral damage", to use a US military term.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have to admit, it would be kindof insensitive for her to leave it up.

For sure, it would be more sensitive if she came out and admitted that the poster was insensitive and she publicly stated that acting literally on her words is unacceptable.

OR

She could simply tone the fúcking crap down.

mgmt wrote: »

I agree. Going to the range is a cultural thing in the US. Just seems to be a sloppy way of wording an event.

I also had a search. I could not find any mention of this event taking place in the google news archive. Is it a photoshop perhaps? Surely it would have been a news story.

It is not a photoshop.

Nodin wrote: »

It would appear that the root cause of this is 'nuttery' (to coin a technical term.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/jared-lee-loughner-troubled-past

One of his 'issues' is apparently with low levels of literacy, but you can see from the videos he posted he can barely string a sentence together....not that a lot of it makes sense anyway.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/08/national/main7226347.shtml?tag=cbsContent;homePageTopics

Nuttery, added to the hate speech of the right is the cause.

Right wing politicians and groups need to take a long hard look at themselves and what they are saying and tone it down or this will not be the last.

mgmt wrote: »

He met Gifford in 2007 and commented that she was unintelligent. My guess this was his main reasons for attacking her. He also lives beside the shooting scene so this might just have been an unfortunate opportunity and could have been planning something else.

http://www.businessinsider.com/woman-who-says-she-went-to-school-with-alleged-shooter-says-he-met-giffords-in-2007-2011-1?sailthru_m=h2n

Planning something else? Are you serious??

He went up to her and shot her at point blank range. In The Head. First.

Bruthal · 09-01-2011 07:16PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

He went up to her and shot her in the head. First. She was the target. End of.

Then, due to the easily seen fact that he is disturbed, his assassination attempt was then extended to those in the vicinity. He had no intention of killing other people other than Gabbie Gifford, but his unsound mind meant this was the outcome in the end.

How do you know what his intentions were? He probably thought he would kill her and as many of her supporters as he can. Or he could of done what your suggesting, but how can anyone know what he was thinking?

If he had just shot her and no one else, would this mean he was of sound mind so?

The other people were not on his list, they were "collateral damage", to use a US military term.

I thought collateral damage was when a missile or bomb hits its target and due to its nature of blowing up everything around it, kills non intended targets also which cant be avoided. But this would not be the case when a fella who can target individuals then goes and intentionally shoots others as well as the target. How could someone claim other victims were collateral damage after intenionally shooting them? Or did he fire all his shots at the seemingly primary target and miss with all except the first one?

kaiser sauze · 09-01-2011 07:40PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

How do you know what his intentions were? He probably thought he would kill her and as many of her supporters as he can. Or he could of done what your suggesting, but how can anyone know what he was thinking?

It has been stated publicly by the local Sheriff that his target was Gifford. That was his clear intention.

I can agree with your second sentence here, riled up by the rhetoric of the right, he could easily jump to the assumption that everyone in the crowd would be a supporter of hers, failing to recognise that not everyone in her district would have voted for her.

Noone knows definitively at this stage what he was thinking but the background, his online postings, the hate speech of the right are all known quantities.

robbie7730 wrote: »

If he had just shot her and no one else, would this mean he was of sound mind so?

No, of course not.

robbie7730 wrote: »

I thought collateral damage was when a missile or bomb hits its target and due to its nature of blowing up everything around it, kills non intended targets also which cant be avoided. But this would not be the case when a fella who can target individuals then goes and intentionally shoots others as well as the target. How could someone claim other victims were collateral damage after intenionally shooting them? Or did he fire all his shots at the seemingly primary target and miss with all except the first one?

He intentionally shot them, yes; but that was after he went up and shot Gifford in the head. First.

It is highly unlikely that indiscriminately shooting bystanders after shooting Gifford was his original intent, hence my use of the term.

GreenMantis · 09-01-2011 07:45PM

mgmt wrote: »

I agree. Going to the range is a cultural thing in the US. Just seems to be a sloppy way of wording an event.

I can't say if that is a photoshop or not...it is being reported here in the US as well though.

I have lived in many places in the US (NYC, Connecticut, Seattle), granted none of these are big gun places like Arizona but I read the ad as threatening and not sloppy at all.

(I edited my original comment, I missed the point at first)

EastTexas · 09-01-2011 07:49PM

A comment on the ongoing conjecture by some of blaming Sarah Palin in a round about way for yesterday’s tragedy

met·a·phor noun \’me-tə-,fȯr also -fər\ : 1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare

I really think some give Palin far more credit than she deserves.
“ Don’t retreat but reload” nobody ever took issue with such a metaphor until Palin used it.
Oh now it’s different.
And it was misconstrued from the beginning, "put away for a rainy day", to use that metaphor in the event that some loon goes of on himself and does something, which sadly these days is not an uncommon occurrence.

Had she said
“Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel” - to put great effort into accomplishing a small or unimportant matter.
Quite possibly, PETA would have launched ads to protect Butterflies from the impending threat of Mrs Palin.

In all honesty, especially without any disclosure as to motive from the shooter as of yet, does anybody really believe that Palin possesses such powers?
Or that “ Dreamwalker”Jared Loughner would have not done what he did, given his disposition and the proximity of a politician conveniently down the road from his house?
Could anybody seriously claim that with certainty?

Ever hear of the term “Witch Hunt”?
Seeing devils everywhere, especially when it’s politically convenient.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Mrs Palin, but all the same don’t get the obsessive hatred and vitriol against a woman and her family because some disagree with her views, or don’t like her voice or her unique way of speaking and no doubt spurred along by a healthy helping of jealousy because she did not break under that onslaught but used it to her advantage instead.
Many accuse her of hatred, but please take look at yourself and compare that to the ongoing irrational hatred toward her and her family perpetrated by thousands if not millions following a media ever out for ratings like bunch of lemmings.

Go visit left leaning political websites in the US and read the thousands of vicious comments since over two years . Anything from calling for her to be shot, yes shot (read that myself and versions of that) to cutting her tongue out, to wishing disease and misfortune on her kids.
WTF?
Are we back in the Dark Ages?
Let’s turn this around.
What about if something terrible happens to her or her kids?
Would anybody feel responsible?

I say we best all back down for the time being, take a deep breath and a good look at ourselves before we accuse somebody else.

Overheal · 09-01-2011 08:00PM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Source?

Search Engines aren't that difficult to operate.

"Loughner, 22, who is in law enforcement custody, lives near the scene of the shooting, "

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/09/132780313/sheriff-accused-shooter-unhinged-made-threats

"and lived with his parents there in a quiet, working-class neighbourhood of ranch homes. "

http://www.news.com.au/world/brave-new-world-of-a-deranged-killer-lee-loughner/story-e6frfkyi-1225984679109

Why the quotes?

Perhaps EastTexas doesn't support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare? Do the semantics really matter?

You see, this is not what happened.

He went up to her and shot her in the head. First. She was the target. End of.

Then, due to the easily seen fact that he is disturbed, his assassination attempt was then extended to those in the vicinity. He had no intention of killing other people other than Gabbie Gifford, but his unsound mind meant this was the outcome in the end.

A theory with no empirical evidence.

No no no.

He specifically went up to Giffords and shot her at point blank range. First. That is targeted and methodical.

The other people were not on his list, they were "collateral damage", to use a US military term.

Which is it? He's either targeted and methodical or he's a disturbed lunatic. I'm not sure you appreciate that Rationale does not appear to function correctly in those that have been driven to Homicide or Suicide. And that works both ways, making any absolutes at this point an impossibility.

The other people were not on his list, they were "collateral damage", to use a US military term.

Unless you have sources of this, it's Conjecture. I'll await the Investigation to make those conclusions and publish them.

Planning something else? Are you serious??

He went up to her and shot her at point blank range. In The Head. First.

The Sheriff's Office do not believe he was acting alone. It's entirely plausible.

“We are not convinced he acted alone. There is some reason to believe he came to this location with another individual.”

They have concluded she is the primary target but hardly seem convinced she was the only target. No matter how many times we hear she was shot at point blank.

kaiser sauze · 09-01-2011 08:08PM

EastTexas wrote: »

A comment on the ongoing conjecture by some of blaming Sarah Palin in a round about way for yesterday’s tragedy
met·a·phornoun \’me-tə-,fȯr also -fər\ : 1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare

I really think some give Palin far more credit than she deserves.
“ Don’t retreat but reload” nobody ever took issue with such a metaphor until Palin used it.
Oh now it’s different.
And it was misconstrued from the beginning, "put away for a rainy day", to use that metaphor in the event that some loon goes of on himself and does something, which sadly these days is not an uncommon occurrence.

Had she said
“Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel” - to put great effort into accomplishing a small or unimportant matter.
Quite possibly, PETA would have launched ads to protect Butterflies from the impending threat of Mrs Palin.

In all honesty, especially without any disclosure as to motive from the shooter as of yet, does anybody really believe that Palin possesses such powers?
Or that “ Dreamwalker”Jared Loughner would have not done what he did, given his disposition and the proximity of a politician conveniently down the road from his house?
Could anybody seriously claim that with certainty?

Ever hear of the term “Witch Hunt”?
Seeing devils everywhere, especially when it’s politically convenient.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Mrs Palin, but all the same don’t get the obsessive hatred and vitriol against a woman and her family because some disagree with her views, or don’t like her voice or her unique way of speaking and no doubt spurred along by a healthy helping of jealousy because she did not break under that onslaught but used it to her advantage instead.
Many accuse her of hatred, but please take look at yourself and compare that to the ongoing irrational hatred toward her and her family perpetrated by thousands if not millions following a media ever out for ratings like bunch of lemmings.

Go visit left leaning political websites in the US and read the thousands of vicious comments since over two years . Anything from calling for her to be shot, yes shot (read that myself and versions of that) to cutting her tongue out, to wishing disease and misfortune on her kids.
WTF?
Are we back in the Dark Ages?
Let’s turn this around.
What about if something terrible happens to her or her kids?
Would anybody feel responsible?

I say we best all back down for the time being, take a deep breath and a good look at ourselves before we accuse somebody else.

We don't need you to insult our intelligence by posting up what a metaphor means. The debate is, at least, partially focused on those who are unable to interpret the imagery & rhetoric for what it is.

No one here, not even me, is saying that TeaParty/Republican groups were calling for, or are delighting in, action like this.

To the part highlighted in red, you need to watch the video here.
Almost a year ago, she was calling out people like those that I have been describing. It is a big problem in The US and you need to face up to that.

kaiser sauze · 09-01-2011 08:16PM

Overheal wrote: »

A theory with no empirical evidence.

A theory, absolutely, but one that is hard to refute with the known evidence.

Overheal wrote: »

Which is it? He's either targeted and methodical or he's a disturbed lunatic.

He targeted Gifford, after that all bets were off.

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure you appreciate that Rationale does not appear to function correctly in those that have been driven to Homicide or Suicide. And that works both ways, making any absolutes at this point an impossibility.

Yes, that is why we are debating theories, but with substantive background evidence, none of which is obscure.

Overheal wrote: »

Unless you have sources of this, it's Conjecture. I'll await the Investigation to make those conclusions and publish them.

Yes, the investigation will clear all these theories up, but that depends on whether he ever talks.

Overheal wrote: »

The Sheriff's Office do not believe he was acting alone. It's entirely plausible.

“We are not convinced he acted alone. There is some reason to believe he came to this location with another individual.”

They have concluded she is the primary target but hardly seem convinced she was the only target. No matter how many times we hear she was shot at point blank.

The person being looked for is not currently being sought as an accomplice, he is a person of interest.

I find it incredulous that people are unable to take the not so huge leap from a politician gets shot at point blank range in a targeted manner as being the "primary target".

Overheal · 09-01-2011 08:20PM

EastTexas wrote: »

A comment on the ongoing conjecture by some of blaming Sarah Palin in a round about way for yesterday’s tragedy
met·a·phornoun \’me-tə-,fȯr also -fər\ : 1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language — compare

I really think some give Palin far more credit than she deserves.
“ Don’t retreat but reload” nobody ever took issue with such a metaphor until Palin used it.
Oh now it’s different.
And it was misconstrued from the beginning, "put away for a rainy day", to use that metaphor in the event that some loon goes of on himself and does something, which sadly these days is not an uncommon occurrence.

Had she said
“Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel” - to put great effort into accomplishing a small or unimportant matter.
Quite possibly, PETA would have launched ads to protect Butterflies from the impending threat of Mrs Palin.

"Put away for a rainy day" has nothing to do with violence. "Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel" besides having never heard this expression you're trying to throw a Red Herring at the issue. Was "Don't Retreat, Reload" ever used in the Political Sphere before Ms. Palin implemented it? Was it ever addressed at an audience of angry, outspoken pro-gun constituents? And was it ever coupled with a Crosshair map of Representatives to be removed from office?

In all honesty, especially without any disclosure as to motive from the shooter as of yet, does anybody really believe that Palin possesses such powers?
Or that “ Dreamwalker”Jared Loughner would have not done what he did, given his disposition and the proximity of a politician conveniently down the road from his house?
Could anybody seriously claim that with certainty?

Ever hear of the term “Witch Hunt”?
Seeing devils everywhere, especially when it’s politically convenient.

Nobody in their right mind thinks Palin used Mind Control or deliberate persuasion to get Fringe Lunatics angry enough to go out and murder these people. What they do believe is that Sarah Palin recklessly used the Metaphor in a way which can too easily be taken out of context.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Mrs Palin, but all the same don’t get the obsessive hatred and vitriol against a woman and her family because some disagree with her views, or don’t like her voice or her unique way of speaking and no doubt spurred along by a healthy helping of jealousy because she did not break under that onslaught but used it to her advantage instead.

I don't hate Ms. Palin as a person, I hate her as a Politician, where she is completely unfit to hold office. And she did, fortunately, break under onslaught, resigned, and is now taking the opportunity to rake in millions from sympathetic wallets. Good for her. But she has not stayed out of Politics. She's not retreating after all, she's just reloading.

Many accuse her of hatred, but please take look at yourself and compare that to the ongoing irrational hatred toward her and her family perpetrated by thousands if not millions following a media ever out for ratings like bunch of lemmings.

Palin isn't very hateful herself, no. Just a bit of an oaf. And the media did come out and resist her, thankfully, because again she is not fit for public office. I hope they continue to dissuade her from doing so.

Go visit left leaning political websites in the US and read the thousands of vicious comments since over two years . Anything from calling for her to be shot, yes shot (read that myself and versions of that) to cutting her tongue out, to wishing disease and misfortune on her kids.
WTF?
Are we back in the Dark Ages?
Let’s turn this around.
What about if something terrible happens to her or her kids?
Would anybody feel responsible?

I say we best all back down for the time being, take a deep breath and a good look at ourselves before we accuse somebody else.

There have always been the Lunatic Fringe and if you recall, when GWB was in power many called for his Torture, Hanging, Execution, Assassination, etc. for the crimes he had committed. It was all out there on the internet if you were tuned into it. But there was never anything in the Mainstream to signal to the deranged that it was now the time to take such action. Characters like Jon Stewart Actually have a downplaying effect on acts of violence. It's easier to lampoon the guy knowing he would be out of office before long. To just sit back and mock him.

But the right is not so happy to sit around. They'll fire off jokes at the Democrats but they aren't happy with doing just that. They use the mainstream (not just the wild internet) to proclaim the government is a Regime, that the country is being destroyed all around us. Bla bla bla. I wasn't around to watch TV in the US during the Bush years, did the Left act like the world was coming to an end? The hate and fear mongering machine on the Right is clearly dangerous. Push people too far and they will panic, and they wont wait for a ballot box.

tricky D · 09-01-2011 08:21PM

GreenMantis wrote: »

I can't say if that is a photoshop or not...it is being reported here in the US as well though.

Defo not a PhotoShop. A quick search using date ranges in Google backs this up.

Overheal · 09-01-2011 08:22PM

Whats not a photoshop?

The person being looked for is not currently being sought as an accomplice, he is a person of interest.

That merely seems like semantics.

I find it incredulous that people are unable to take the not so huge leap from a politician gets shot at point blank range in a targeted manner as being the "primary target".

I had already agreed she was. You seem to be arguing she was the Only target. That is premature.

EastTexas · 09-01-2011 08:23PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Any normal person is generally aware that going around shooting people, even in a country with good access to firearms, is somewhat illegal and rather frowned upon. Those that do so generally don't need a lot of incitement.

NTM

Well put and I would actually go further than that.
That those around fire arms and used to handling them regularly are even more aware of the potential danger they represent if mishandled.
My father taught me from the age of ten but never permitted me handle a fire arm sans supervision until I was 16 and not after extensive vetting and testing of my responsibility with it.
It’s like your dad teaching you how to drive a car.

Cars can kill too.

kaiser sauze · 09-01-2011 08:35PM

Overheal wrote: »

Whats not a photoshop?

Not a Photoshop: The rally held by her opponent for 2010 where M-16(gun) was mentioned in the ad.

That merely seems like semantics.

True, but there is a difference in investigative terms.

I had already agreed she was. You seem to be arguing she was the Only target. That is premature.

I read your post wrong at that point. Apologies.

I believe that she was the only target when he went to her CotC, but whether what happened after that was planned or unplanned is not known yet. I am putting forward my considered opinion that it was the latter.

steelcityblues · 09-01-2011 08:58PM

Word of note to kaisersauze and a few others:

I remember when I was over in America in late 2002 - the story dominating the news was that of the infamous DC sniper - later to be identified as John Allen Muhammad, who was on his shooting spree.

Several leading commentators/politicians/reporters all lined up to speculate that he must have been a right-wing militia type, at boiling point with the US government. When it later emerged he was a radical islamist, once associated with the Nation, the same 'experts' were left from serious egg on their faces.

In short, stop endlessley speculating in this thread about an unfortunate incident just to suit your political narrative.

US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot (other persons killed or injured)

Comments