Congresswoman gravely injured after shooting in Tuscon, Arizona

[Navi]

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot at an event outside a grocery store in Arizona today.
Reports first said she was among the slain. This is not true.
Among the six dead are her aide, a federal judge, and a nine year old.
Giffords is the wife of NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, who is scheduled to fly in April.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

[Amnesiac]

Heard about this already. What I'd like to know is why the guy did it.

inb4 Tea Party conspiracy

[Sugaree]

(CNN) -- A federal judge was killed and a congresswoman gravely wounded Saturday in a shooting outside of a Tucson, Arizona, grocery store, according to police and government officials.

In all, six people died and 12 were wounded in the shooting, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, according to Rick Kastigar, bureau chief for the Pima County Sheriff's Department.

President Barack Obama later said Chief Judge John Roll of the U.S. District Court for Arizona was among the dead.

Gabe Zimmerman, the director of community outreach in the congresswoman's Tuscon office, died in the attack, Giffords' press secretary C.J. Karamargin said, as did a 9-year-old girl, according to authorities.

The girl is one of four victims whose identity has not yet been released.

Law enforcement sources identified Jared Lee Loughner, pictured here in 2005, as the suspect.

An Arizona law enforcement source and a federal law enforcement source identified the suspect as Jared Lee Loughner. Other law enforcement sources put his age at 22. U.S. Capitol Police said the suspect was in custody.

Police recovered a 9mm Glock Model 19 handgun, according to senior law enforcement sources. The weapon had a 30-round magazine, a federal law enforcement source briefed on the investigation said.

An Arizona law enforcement source told CNN that Loughner is not talking to investigators and has invoked his right against self-incrimination.

Dr. Peter Rhee of University Medical Center in Tucson, said Giffords, 40, had undergone surgery for a single gunshot to the head that passed through her brain. Giffords was among five patients listed in critical condition, Rhee said.

At least two victims with gunshot wounds were transported to another hospital, Northwest Medical Center, according to spokesman Richard Parker.
Kastigar declined to comment on a possible motive for the attack. Police have set a news conference to discuss developments in the case for 6 p.m. (8 p.m. ET).

The attack occurred after 10 a.m. (noon ET) outside a Safeway grocery store where Giffords was holding a previously scheduled constituent meeting.

Giffords staffer Mark Kimble told CNN affiliate KGUN that the congresswoman did not have any security with her Saturday morning, which was not unusual for her.

"She wants to be as accessible to the people who elected her as possible," Kimble said.

Karamargin said he was not aware of any call for Giffords to heighten her security measures because of recent threats.

Tucson police Chief Roberto Villasenor said his department had secured the homes and offices of some unnamed federal officials as a "precautionary measure."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Source. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1)

[Sugaree]

>implying there isn't already a thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92584)

[Navi]

>implying there isn't already a thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92584)

My post came two minutes before yours ;)

[Sugaree]

My post came two minutes before yours ;)

Then these two threads might as well be merged.

[deadpie]

LwB3o5L5XY0

Well, this is huh. Wow.

[Donkey]

Some politician was wounded, six people died. I personally give more of a shit about the latter. Why do we value them as more important? Why are all the articles written about this insinuating in such a way that the politician was a more important or valuable human?

[PJay]

Some politician was wounded, six people died. I personally give more of a shit about the latter. Why do we value them as more important? Why are all the articles written about this insinuating in such a way that the politician was a more important or valuable human?

Yeah I think partly its because the Sherrif who did the first media interviews was friends with her and the judge and also they didn't want to talk about the other people because some families hadn't been told, so they wanted to respect their privacy.

So the media got told a bunch of stuff about some public figures and didn't know much about the rest, so they probably aren't really balanced.

[Zazu]

Some politician was wounded, six people died. I personally give more of a shit about the latter. Why do we value them as more important? Why are all the articles written about this insinuating in such a way that the politician was a more important or valuable human?

Your point is still being echoed so loudly over the radio e.t.c also.

Was just downstairs listening to radio 4 and in the 3 minute news article, the other people who were shot and have died were roughly mentioned once or twice but they fucking harped on about this politician as if she is better / more important than the others.




So the media got told a bunch of stuff about some public figures and didn't know much about the rest, so they probably aren't really balanced.

You do have a point though, Paul, as there's a good chance that information about a 'public figure' will more more readily available than information about random people but I still feel that the media is always biased towards the people who are seen as 'more important' in society.

[Donkey]

Yeah I think partly its because the Sherrif who did the first media interviews was friends with her and the judge and also they didn't want to talk about the other people because some families hadn't been told, so they wanted to respect their privacy.

So the media got told a bunch of stuff about some public figures and didn't know much about the rest, so they probably aren't really balanced.
That's true, but the media has overwhelming power to access information and people whenever they so like. They won't hesitate to announce the death of a relative to someone if it means they get a good story, and a few quid in their pocket. Media always trys to convey the image that the "uppers" of our society, e.g. celebrities, politicians and "legends" are more important than the public and are more news worthy.

[PJay]

That's true, but the media has overwhelming power to access information and people whenever they so like. They won't hesitate to announce the death of a relative to someone if it means they get a good story, and a few quid in their pocket. Media always trys to convey the image that the "uppers" of our society, e.g. celebrities, politicians and "legends" are more important than the public and are more news worthy.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you there. No one should be counted as more or less worthy of sympathy in this case.

I think the sherrif made a good point though , if everyone goes around being angry about public figures and attacking them, democracy breaks down and the US ends up like Somalia or somewhere. This shooter isn't a million miles from a suicide bomber.

[Daniel_]

Wanna see my concern for the shitty ass politician?

pwnt.

[PJay]

Wanna see my concern for the shitty ass politician?

pwnt.

Right so what do you want instead of politicians?

I don't know jack about this woman, she may have been a saint or she may have been totally corrupt, but if you think shooting politicians is really the way to go, your nothing better than a terrorist in my view.

[Donkey]

Paul, you're so almost there. You question things and look at society in a meaningful way but you just aren't there in terms of questioning democracy/the world we live in/powers above which we know. David would tell you more, but moo. Humans could thrive without politics - obviously killing anyone is wrong, and I'm not saying the shooting is right and killing politicians isn't the way for a political revolution but that's not to say that democracy "breaking down" is necessarily a bad thing.

[PJay]

Humans could thrive without politics ... but that's not to say that democracy "breaking down" is necessarily a bad thing.

This is what I don't get - what makes you say that we could thrive without politics? How do we work together as a society?

Also, i'm not down with the assumption that all politicians 'deserve' something like this to happen to them, which just seems irrational to me.

[Donkey]

This is what I don't get - what makes you say that we could thrive without politics? How do we work together as a society?

Also, i'm not down with the assumption that all politicians 'deserve' something like this to happen to them, which just seems irrational to me.
Some reading, Sir:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

You'll probably find it hard to consider the world completely different from how you know it. Everyone does, of course, you just grow more used to thinking of it in that way. Watch the film 'The Time Machine,' good for some base philosophy surrounding anarchism and the possibilities of the future and spans of humanity.

Organised anarchism is where I stand, I haven't completely made up my mind on how I feel an ideal society would be, and the exact specifics of it however I know that social echelons and hierarchy are counter-productive for the human species. Open your mind and differentiate yourself from the sheeple that occupy the vast majority of humans, and become one of those that can consider possibilities and thinks from a perspective as a human, not as a media spoon fed sheep.

Imagine a world with no money, no law and no authority - made possible by the one universal human emotion of love and genuine care. Almost all hatred derives from the current societal system as we know it today - crimes out of greed or poorness, well in anarchy there would be no money. Everyone would be equal and would voluntarily contribute to society because it's best for them. No one is born evil. Anarchy would work, just not everyone can see it.

And yeah, of course politicians don't deserve it, and what happened was wrong and would have been just as wrong if it were any other human being.

[Zazu]

This is what I don't get - what makes you say that we could thrive without politics? How do we work together as a society?


I assume Jon is trying to promote the idea of us not having such an authoritarian regime of politics which includes people with prominence over others e.t.c.

I personally believe that humanity [and society] would survive perfectly well without the system that we live in at the moment. We are all told from a young age that we could not survive alone, that governments and laws are in place that help to make sure that society functions 'normally' and that the leading monarch and his / her court and government are the authorities. The police are agents of the court (who have all sworn oath to uphold common law and serve the queen) who we are told have supposed authority over us. We're told that if we break any laws set out by the courts or government then we will be punished through various court systems. We're dumbed down to just accept this system and never really question why it's there and if we need it.

Most of us submit to the standing 'powers' and give away our freedoms. I just don't like the idea of being told "I am the authority and I am your ruler. You will follow my rules or I will punish you" by someone who is completely equal to me in the first place. I believe that an anarchistic state which still had basic organisation in place would work perfectly well. I just don't like enforced authoritarian rule. At no point in my life have I ever signed or entered any form of contract to follow the laws set upon me and I feel that the system in general is fucked any way.

I shall have to make a thread about this somewhere more appropriate.

[PJay]

Ok thanks Jon. I have just had a quick read through so far.

It seems to me that you either rely on the intellegence and cooperation of individuals to make it work, and I don't think there are enough decent and intelligent people to make that work, or you need some formal coordination to pull it together which pretty soon is going to get power hungry individuals taking control of it.

Not convinced human nature & brainpower is up to it yet but I''ll look more into it.

[Donkey]

Good points, but as I've commented I think general human hatred comes from a hatred towards the system and authority in the vast majority of cases. If there were neither of these things, hatred could probably be completely eliminated in a world where love and freedom reigns all. Why would people want power? The mere idea of power only comes from the fact that there is power now, and it wouldn't be so desirable if it was not a common factor in life that people agree to be controlled by. If there was anarchy, and the vast majority of people would have better lives this way, people would rebel against the power hungry individuals. I don't see how it would be possible for people just to "seize power" in a world that so promotes love and caring and doesn't even have the idea of hatred implanted into peoples brains.

And as I've said, I'm just referring to the idea of total anarchy here. I still believe there should be basic organization to keep things on track otherwise yes it could just collapse for various reasons. As long as there is something keeping it together, and people agree to it, anarchy would work. Anarchy would work best, in fact.

[PJay]

At no point in my life have I ever signed or entered any form of contract to follow the laws set upon me and I feel that the system in general is fucked any way.

I shall have to make a thread about this somewhere more appropriate.


What I would say about this part is if you don't like it, you always have the option to gtfoh. Not in a nasty way but if you live within society you have to follow its rules, otherwise you are a criminal. Society doesn't think you need to sign up, which is your problem as an individual.

And yeah its fucked up :) I think there is some quote about democracy being the least bad of the crap options available or something? :lol:

[PJay]

Why would people want power? The mere idea of power only comes from the fact that there is power now,

Its wired into us - in any group, at least one person wants to dominate and take charge. Just scale that up.

Just because you've made leadership unnecessary, the personality type doesn't go away. Add to that enough egotism to assume they know best for everyone and voila you got yourself a dictator.

[Donkey]

Paul you haven't opened your eyes yet :( Laws are invented by the people who consider themselves better than us, who gives a fuck if they brand you a criminal? It isn't society talking; it isn't the people talking, it is those above you looking down on you and telling you what you must and mustn't conform to. David has complicated views which weren't fully explained in his post, but once you think about it more and properly open your mind (I don't expect you to do this already) it eventually comes clear and you are able to see it all. What a mess we're in, how humanity should be and the lack of equality in society.

The fact is we're not living in a democracy anyway. When do the "government" listen to the people? Probably when they're doing publicity stunts. There's higher than the government, most people would agree, exactly what there is higher there and what they do isn't fully known to me but I'm peering my eyes over and understanding that there is more than we can see. A whole lot more. I'm not one of the crazy conspiracy people and usually I tend to stay away from going OTT with it all, but I've always understood or at least thought there's more. Always people that demand control.

Back to the democracy idea though, lots of laws aren't there for the people. Let's be honest. When does banning marijuana actually help any individual? It helps the government, people are restrained to their natural consciousness and perhaps can't see "outside the box," but for the individuals isn't another restraint on what they can put into their body which in my opinion is fundamentally wrong. We're all humans, we all are born with free will, let it be.

As for your second post, Paul, as I have explained that wouldn't be allowed to happen by organised anarchy. People wouldn't allow it to happen. The people wouldn't agree to it. You can't control someone unless they agree to be controlled which is the universal rule for society as it is today really. People just agree to be controlled by authority and government, and accept it blindly.

[PJay]

Paul you haven't opened your eyes yet :( Laws are invented by the people who consider themselves better than us, who gives a fuck if they brand you a criminal?

Actually I think I wasn't clear on where I was coming from: I don't give a fuck about being branded a criminal. I'm just saying, if you don't like the society you are in, if you hang around living your life ignoring the rules the system will do its best to crush you. ( I mean never mind dodgy areas around sex drugs and stuff, I read somewhere the other day about a guy who is now a convicted criminal because he flashed another driver to warn them of a speed trap. WTF?! )

The fact is we're not living in a democracy anyway. When do the "government" listen to the people? Probably when they're doing publicity stunts. There's higher than the government, most people would agree, exactly what there is higher there and what they do isn't fully known to me but I'm peering my eyes over and understanding that there is more than we can see. A whole lot more. I'm not one of the crazy conspiracy people and usually I tend to stay away from going OTT with it all, but I've always understood or at least thought there's more. Always people that demand control.

Again, I don't disagree at all, although I think the simplest explanation is that there are multiple groups of old school friends, gentlemen's clubs, rugby teams whatever of people who cooperate to influence things, never mind who is in government.


As for your second post, Paul, as I have explained that wouldn't be allowed to happen by organised anarchy. People wouldn't allow it to happen. The people wouldn't agree to it. You can't control someone unless they agree to be controlled which is the universal rule for society as it is today really. People just agree to be controlled by authority and government, and accept it blindly.

Possibly. I'm thinking that if force is involved it could be tricky. Maybe I don't have enough faith in people. I don't believe in following rules I don't agree with, but I've honestly never been brave enough to ignore a teacher when they've told me off for not wearing my blazer even though its a hot summers day or something dumb.

[Sith Lord 13]

There are 2 reasons the representative got more press. 1) It was her he was targeting and, indirectly, her fault those six people are dead. 2) That's what people care about. If people cared more about the everyman, the news would cover the everyman. But people don't. I hold that the fact that is proof that anarchism won't work. Too many people WANT to be sheeple. They only want to care about special people in society. They need those special people.

[Donkey]

There are 2 reasons the representative got more press. 1) It was her he was targeting and, indirectly, her fault those six people are dead.
Actually, at the time of the report and still now I think the motives of the gunman are unknown. He's in custody, it might have just been a random attack at a random place, and he might not have been targeting her specifically (he could have done a better job at killing her, really, seeing as he managed to have off with 6 others).

2) That's what people care about. If people cared more about the everyman, the news would cover the everyman.
No, our media is set up to glorify the people who we are supposed to respect, look up to and think are above us. That's how they control us - thinking that they are working for US, that we should respect THEM. When really they're only there to control and manipulate us.

But people don't. I hold that the fact that is proof that anarchism won't work.
No, it's not proof. It's not even evidence. It's just how you are perceiving and interpreting the facts: that the "everyman" is not covered in the news. You can't ever use your opinion/interpretation as proof. It is an opinion that leads to another opinion of yours that anarchy won't work.

Too many people WANT to be sheeple.
Lol, no. They just haven't opened their minds up or been told enough to break out of the shell and media upbringing.

They only want to care about special people in society. They need those special people.
Why? I can't relate, sorry.

[lipstick_kisses23]

omg I saw this on the situation room, world's getting crazier and crazier

[PJay]

Lol, no. They just haven't opened their minds up or been told enough to break out of the shell and media upbringing.



Nah, they're just too stupid.

Ps. this is also opinion ;-)

[Donkey]

Nah, they're just too stupid.

Ps. this is also opinion ;-)
Eh, they're not stupid. Even the most naturally intelligent of the people tend to put all their resources to things like academia instead of philosophy, sociology, politics, questioning and other such wonders. Possibly because someone hasn't helped them open their eyes, but also possibly because they don't have the same kind of intellect.

[PJay]

Its a fact that most people are going to be less intelligent than you Jon. A lot less clever I suspect.

[Donkey]

Haha thanks bud, I still think there's an ability for everyone to see more, to understand more and question things more to different levels.

[Sith Lord 13]

Actually, at the time of the report and still now I think the motives of the gunman are unknown. He's in custody, it might have just been a random attack at a random place, and he might not have been targeting her specifically (he could have done a better job at killing her, really, seeing as he managed to have off with 6 others).

It seems most likely. When you hear hooves you think horses, not zebras.

No, our media is set up to glorify the people who we are supposed to respect, look up to and think are above us. That's how they control us - thinking that they are working for US, that we should respect THEM. When really they're only there to control and manipulate us.

And why is it set up that way? Because that's the way that makes them the most money. Because it gets them the most viewership. They're serving the all mighty dollar, not some conspiracy.

No, it's not proof. It's not even evidence. It's just how you are perceiving and interpreting the facts: that the "everyman" is not covered in the news. You can't ever use your opinion/interpretation as proof. It is an opinion that leads to another opinion of yours that anarchy won't work.

OK, proof was too strong a word. However it is evidence. Very strong evidence. There are a few people who are sheeple because they don't know any better but the sad fact is that the majority of them WANT to be sheeple because it's easier.

Lol, no. They just haven't opened their minds up or been told enough to break out of the shell and media upbringing.

Yes, if you tell them enough they will do it. Because they'll become sheeple following you. But they want someone to follow. They NEED someone to follow. Without a leader, they're lost.

Why? I can't relate, sorry.

I'm going to be generous and believe you didn't mean to imply I am content being a sheeple. The fact is that most people lack the drive and determination to think for themselves. It's easier to just follow the crowd and do what people tell you to do.

[Daniel_]

Next up - Sarah Palin.

[goat]

Heard about this already. What I'd like to know is why the guy did it.

inb4 Tea Party conspiracy

He was emotionally disturbed and the political battles set him off.