Tucson video 'leaves no doubt,' officials say

[Ptah]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Federal law enforcement officials have recovered "reams of videotape"
recorded from surveillance cameras at the Safeway shopping center in
Tucson where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot — video that they say
"leaves no doubt" about how the gunman methodically went about
killing six people and wounding 13 others.

The video from multiple cameras posted around the grocery store
parking lot is "very, very clear," one federal official said.

"It's so clear, you can even tell the sequence of who got shot when
and where," the official said. "And it's not the grainy kind of typical
fast-food or mini-mart robbery tape. It is so clear it leaves
no issue about who was doing the shooting."

As an example, one official who has had the video described to him in
detail said it showed that Giffords was shot first,
followed by U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, who was standing near Giffords.
Roll, 63, Arizona's senior federal judge, was killed.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0118-arizona-shooting-20110118,0,6095911.story?track=rss

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Too bad that his motivation and state of mind will not be crystal clear.

The fact that he did it appears to be in no doubt. The overriding concern would be why.....

[FailureToCommunicate]

11. Why? Because he had easy access to weapon and ammo. No

real mystery there. States with easiest access to guns, or ownership, have the highest gun death rates.

http://willblogforfood.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cca9453ef0148c7a19e62970c-pi

[slackmaster]

12. Ah, the old "the gun made him do it" theory

It's been debunked many times.

[FailureToCommunicate]

13. Ah, the old "he could have killed as many with a knife" theory. Give it a

rest, won't you? (And I ask that in a most respectful way)

[slackmaster]

17. A Ford F-150 would have worked just fine

HTH

[Scout]

23. yet he chose the gun. funny, that. n/t

[bergie321]

27. Arizona

Requires you to pass a test to drive a car. Not to carry a concealed gun with a 30 round magazine.

[X_Digger]

28. Yet people drive without valid licenses! *gasp*

Of course, you don't have to have a license to drive on your own private property.

[slackmaster]

32. You have to pass a federal background check to buy a gun in AZ, just like every other state

Last time I checked, it's not legal to shoot innocent people there.

[ProudDad]

35. You have to pass a "federal background check" to buy one

but NOT to carry one if you are over 21...

And most crazy people can pass that "background check"...

As can any one-time felon in Arizona...

[russ1943]

43. No, you don't.

Just buy your desired firearm from any private seller, anywhere. That would mean you do NOT have to pass a federal background or any other kind of check.
While somewhat of a misnomer, this kind of purchase is commonly referred to as the "Gun show loophole".

[Mosby]

53. and the gun doesn't have to registered either.

[X_Digger]

59. Only about 5 states register guns- that's the norm, not the exception. n/t

[laundry_queen]

60. Not to mention

cars cost a lot of money. If guns cost $15000 each, there would be a lot fewer people owning guns. Or if bullets were $5000 each (with regards to Chris Rock).

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

34. The gun with a 33 round magazine

certainly allowed him to inflict the most damage...

He probably would have only wounded Gabby if he had had a knife or sword...

It's the gunnie's silly strawmen that have been soundly debunked...

Including the old "if only someone had been there with their gun..."

'Cause there was... :rofl:

[Cal Carpenter]

14. You are conflating motive and means

You are confusing Why and How.

Lots of people have access to weapons and ammo. Most people don't do what this guy did.

The access to ammo and guns explains the how, but it doesn't even touch on the WHY.

And I am not jumping in this conversation as it pertains to gun laws - just pointing out the discrepancy in your argument.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. Thank you.

I could not have explained it any better than you did.

[FailureToCommunicate]

22. Conflating, sure. Confused, no. Means for the motive was

exactly my point. The motive is pretty clear: he shot people cause he want them dead. Motives, whether it be hatred, disagreement, jealousy, or whatever, will always be part of human nature, no matter how good the availability of mental health screening or treatment. My point was that where guns are easier to get and own the amount of gun deaths are higher. Motivation is sorta irrelevant.

[ProudDad]

63. He was so crazy

he didn't have a motive...

[Bandit]

30. I think it does indeed touch on the why....

Why America kills more people with guns than the entire rest of the world combined and yet has a quite small population in comparrison..Canada has a gun in almost eighty percent of households and yet doesn't do what America does.....It is the National mindset.. violence, especially gun violence is "The American Way"" That is the "Why"...IMO

[vduhr]

41. I agree. It is an American mindset.

I've always noticed that the solution in every movie, no matter who or WHAT the enemy is, is to pull out their guns, even when the gun would obviously have no effect on the enemy.

I was also reading comments on a news video where a guy robbed a store using only a large stick. Most of the comments were saying that they would have just shot the guy! It was appalling.

It seems that most Americans think a gun is the answer to all of their fears.

[Cal Carpenter]

44. You undermine your own argument

The previous poster referenced *access* to guns and ammo - you accurately point out that Canada has the access but not the violence. ACCESS isn't the problem in this case.

[Starboard Tack]

56. You need to check your numbers

As of September 2010, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,831,327 valid firearm licences, which is roughly 5.4% of the Canadian population. The four most licensed provinces are Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.

[laundry_queen]

61. Please show me where you got that statistic

about Canada?
I know very few people who own guns, and I lived in a remote redneck hunting community for years.
I would also like to point out, that those that I did know who had guns, had .22's or something similar. I knew of no one that owned a handgun.

I am certain that yes, there are fewer gun deaths here even though we have guns but I would like to point out it isn't soley because of some magical 'Canadian mindset'. Most Canadians I know are an awful lot like Americans. I think common sense gun laws, including having to take a firearms safety course, better mental health care and laws against inciting hate have more to do with it.

[verges]

21. I have easy access to guns and ammo. I've never killed anyone. nt

[FailureToCommunicate]

24. Good. Then here is your gold sticker.

[jobycom]

31. Most countries have easy access to nuclear weapons and have never used them.

Would you be willing to give the Arian Nation access to nuclear weapons?

[vduhr]

38. That's one.....

[X_Digger]

52. There are approximately 80,000,000 gun owners with 300,000,000 guns and..

approximately 400,000 crimes committed with a gun each year.

One-half of one percent of all gun owners will be involved in a gun crime each year.

One tenth of one percent of all guns will be involved in a gun crime each year.

Verges is the rule, not the exception.

If you're talking about gun homicides only, the numbers are even smaller.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Congratulations

I guess that says it all. Problem fixed.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Congratulations

I guess that says it all. Problem fixed.

[backtomn]

25. I notice you list "gun death rates"......

....not murders by gun. I also see that you don't mention Washington D.C., with the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. and the highest rate (50% higher than the second highest state).

Come on......this guy was a loon, plain and simple. If you want to debate how we should better handle the mentally ill, I am with you....but this is not helping.

[FailureToCommunicate]

29. If we need disinformation from the NRA we can just go to their websites

But thanks for saving us a few clicks. I guess.

[russ1943]

42. WASHINGTON DC IS A CITY, not a state!

Why would anyone mention Washington DC when comparing states?
Comparing a city to a state is just plain inappropriate. Have you ever heard the term, "apples to oranges"? No one holds up Washington DC as an ideal regarding gun deaths but Washington DC doesn’t even make the top ten in murders (2/3 rds of murders are with guns) among American cities.

United States cities by crime rates From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate uses FBI’s UCR wording and statistics “Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter” and for cities of 100,000 & larger population, for 2009 the city of Washington DC is ranked 13th.

Info please’s ranking of 2005 Murder Rate in Cities (rate per 100,000 population)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934323.html lists the city of Washington DC at 13th.

Do you think your irrelevancies are helping?

[slackmaster]

51. Should we ignore the horrible violent crime problem of DC just because it's not a state?

:crazy:

[X_Digger]

58. Check 2009's FBI UCR violent crime by city, not 2005 numbers

Let's go directly to the data..

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_08.html (wikipedia's link is broken, the FBI recently changed their URLs)

(all rates per 100,000)

For cities with a population greater than 500,000

MICHIGAN..Detroit....................40.18
MARYLAND..Baltimore..................37.26
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA..Washington.....23.85
TENNESSEE..Memphis...................19.78
PENNSYLVANIA..Philadelphia...........19.51
ILLINOIS..Chicago....................16.08
GEORGIA..Atlanta.....................14.47
TEXAS..Dallas........................12.87
TEXAS..Houston.......................12.62
TENNESSEE..Nashville.................12.62

For cities with a population greater than 250,000

LOUISIANA..New Orleans...............51.72
MISSOURI..St. Louis..................40.26
MICHIGAN..Detroit....................40.18
MARYLAND..Baltimore..................37.26
NEW JERSEY..Newark...................28.65
CALIFORNIA..Oakland..................25.71
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA..Washington.....23.85
NEW YORK..Buffalo....................22.33
MISSOURI..Kansas City................20.63
OHIO..Cleveland......................20.04

[ProudDad]

62. No, it's not...

It's rather obvious that he had no control of his actions due to severe mental illness...

He did not CHOOSE to go crazy...

There's no "why" in mental illness...

What's relevant is how and why he had over the counter access to enough firepower to kill and wound 19 people in 15 seconds...

Hell, why ANYONE should have over the counter access to that much firepower...

What's relevant is why is Arizona 50th in Mental Health Funding and Education Funding...

What's relevant is why USAmerica has attached such a stigma on mental illness that the previous statement is true...

What's relevant is why the USAmerican criminal-injustice system will now pull out all of the stops in order to kill a crazy person...

What's relevant is why USAmerica is such a toxic crazy place that it breeds much more of this kind of crazy behavior than the civilized countries on Earth...

What's relevant is why Obama, et. al. are dead set on perpetuating the industrial growth system that's destroying Earth as a viable habitat...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. With such damning evidence... why will there be years of trials and appeals?

In cases with such evidence, in states which allow capital punisment, why will it be years before sentances are carried out?

[onenote]

4. What alternative would you propose?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Assuming due process of law has been followed to convict someone like loughner guilty...

And the sentance handed down is the death penalty (assuming the state permits it)... I say walk the person out behind the courthouse and take care of the problem. :shrug:

When a doctor removes a cancerous lump from your body you don't ask the physician to keep it on ice for a few years, you know..., incase you feel like the choice to remove the cancer was incorrect and you would like have it reintroduced into your body. :eyes:

Keep in mind, we're talking about a case where the perpetrator was caught red-handed and there is difinitive evidence (video surveillance). This won't be a case of a prosecutor railroading some guy guy or painting a bad picture with circumstantial evidence.

[onenote]

10. so does your version of due process preclude appeals?

In all cases? In some cases? Which cases? Who decides?

[JDPriestly]

15. OneTenthofOnePercent,

our legal system will take care of the problem by giving Loughner due process. That is the American way.

Simplistic, cowboy thinking is what caused this mess in the first place.

Nonviolence is the only way to achieve meaningful change.

[eggplant]

16. Well, thankfully, your say doesn't matter in this situation.

There are rules. The civilized among us follow them.

[Starboard Tack]

57. I say walk the person out behind the courthouse and take care of the problem.

Boy, you really know how to solve problems. Fight fire with fire, eh? What is this, the fuckin' OK Corral?
Keep your safety on and please practice birth control.

[ProudDad]

64. How to demonize and objectify a human being...lesson one

Equate a human being with a cancerous growth...

"When a doctor removes a cancerous lump from your body you don't ask the physician to keep it on ice for a few years, you know"

You do realize that the person was CRAZY, right?

That he had chemicals running through his brain rendering him incapable of exercising anything resembling "judgement"?

That he doubtless DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE CRAZY?

That we live in a state that leaves the mentally ill out in the cold to fend for themselves?

And your reaction is to take him out back and shoot him...?

Geez!

[Plucketeer]

9. Common sense

An approach that is sorely lacking in situations such as this. Imagine the amount that will be spent PROVING that this fella did this. How many mentally ill could be treated for that same amount of money?



GOP JOBS PLAN

[elleng]

5. Intent is critically important, in these matters.

Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.
Justified or accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses.
Suicide is not considered murder in most societies. Assisting a suicide, however, may be considered murder in some circumstances.
Capital punishment ordered by a legitimate court of law as the result of a conviction in a criminal trial with due process for a serious crime.
Killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants in accordance with lawful orders in war, although illicit killings within a war may constitute murder or homicidal war crimes. (see the Laws of war article)
The administration of lethal drugs by a doctor to a terminally ill patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is seen in many jurisdictions as a special case (see the doctrine of double effect and the case of Dr John Bodkin Adams).<18>
In some cases, killing a person who is attempting to kill another can be classified as self-defense and thus, not murder. . .

Some countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than murder, if it can be proved that the killer was suffering from a condition that affected their judgment at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken into account when assessing responsibility.

InsanityMental disorder may apply to a wide range of disorders including psychosis caused by schizophrenia and dementia, and excuse the person from the need to undergo the stress of a trial as to liability. In some jurisdictions, following the pre-trial hearing to determine the extent of the disorder, the defense of "not guilty by reason of insanity" may be used to get a not guilty verdict.<21> This defense has two elements:

That the defendant had a serious mental illness, disease, or defect.
That the defendant's mental condition, at the time of the killing, rendered the perpetrator unable to determine right from wrong, or that what he or she was doing was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Legal_definition

So it takes a while to sort thru all this, that's why it might take 'years.'

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Thank you for all this info. It is really helpful to know some of the definitions.

[elleng]

20. YVW, Bklyn!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

7. It may not be "years", but most states have mandatory review of all capital cases

Tim McVey was dispatched with relative efficiency timewise.

I personally oppose the death penalty. However, there are significant, yet human and thus fallible, safeguards to ensure procedural and substantive due process in death penalty cases, such as automatic appeals. Additionally, many states have a specific post conviction review procedure independent of the appeal track.

Competence to stand trial and insanity are also both likely to play a significant role here, so there are significant pre-trial issues that are going to require some time.

While it is convenient to think in terms of "really clear cases" and "less than clear cases", in reality there is a continuous spectrum of cases, and no distinction between persons found "guilty" and persons found "really, really guilty".

[ProudDad]

36. And all of those "safeguards" STILL don't work!

By 2004, 118 countries had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice. An average of three countries abolish the death penalty every year. The worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty is reflected in the Africa region, where 24 members of the African Union had abolished the death penalty, in law or practice, by 1 October 2004.(1) Here are ten reasons for the total abolition of this degrading and inhuman punishment:

1 - the death penalty violates the right to life.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognises each person’s right to life. Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples´ Rights (ACHPR) states that "human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the physical and moral integrity of his person." This view is reinforced by the existence of international and regional treaties providing for the abolition of the death penalty, notably the second optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1989.

2 - the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman death.

The UDHR categorically states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."All forms of execution are inhuman. No government can guarantee a dignified and painless death to condemned prisoners, who also suffer psychological pain in the period between their sentence and execution.

3 - the death penalty has no dissuasive effect.

No scientific study has proved that the death penalty has a more dissuasive effect on crime than other punishments. The most recent investigation into the links of cause and effect between capital punishment and the murder rate, was conducted by the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002. It came to the following conclusion: "...it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

4 - the death penalty is premeditated murder, demeans the state and makes society more violent.

By executing a person, the state commits a murder and shows the same readiness to use physical violence against its victim as the criminal. Moreover, studies have shown that the murder rate increases immediately after executions. Researchers have suggested that this increase is similar to that caused by other violent public events, such as massacres and assassinations.

5 - the death penalty is discriminatory in its application.

Throughout the world, the death penalty is disproportionately used against disadvantaged people. Some condemned prisoners from the most impoverished social classes would not have been sentenced to death if they were from wealthier sectors of society. In these cases, either the accused are less able to find their way through the maze of the judicial system (because of a lack of knowledge, confidence or financial means), or the system reflects the generally negative attitude of society and the powerful towards them. It has also been proved that certain criminals run a greater risk of being condemned to death if their victims come from higher social classes.

6 - the death penalty denies the capacity of people to mend their ways and become a better person.

Defenders of the death penalty consider that anyone sentenced to death is unable to mend their ways and could re-offend at any time if they are released. However, there are many examples of offenders who have been reintegrated and who have not re-offended. Amnesty International believes that the way to prevent re-offending is to review procedures for conditional release and the psychological monitoring of prisoners during detention, and under no circumstances to increase the number of executions. In addition, the death penalty removes any possibility for the condemned person to repent.

7 - the death penalty cannot provide social stability nor bring peace to the victims.

An execution cannot give the victim his or her life back nor ease the suffering felt by their family. Far from reducing the pain, the length of the trial and the appeal procedure often prolong the family’s suffering.

8 - the death penalty denies the fallibility of human institutions.

The risk of executing innocent people remains indissolubly linked to the use of the death penalty. Since 1973, 116 people condemned to death in the United States have been released after proof of their innocence has been established. Some of them have only just escaped execution, after having passed years on death row. These repeated judicial errors have been especially due to irregularities committed by prosecution or police officers, recourse to doubtful evidence, material information or confessions, or the incompetence of defence lawyers. Other prisoners have been sent to their deaths when serious doubts existed about their guilt.

9 - the death penalty is a collective punishment.

This punishment affects all the family, friends and those sympathising with the condemned person. The close relatives of an executed prisoner, who generally do not have anything to do with the crime, could feel, as a result of the death penalty, the same dreadful sense of loss as the victim’s parents felt at the death of their loved one.

10 - the death penalty goes against the religious and humanist values that are common to all humanity.

Human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. They are based on many traditions that can be found in all civilisations. All religions advocate clemency, compassion and forgiveness and it is on these values that Amnesty International bases its opposition to the death penalty.

[jberryhill]

47. Like I said... I oppose the death penalty

So I don't know why I was treated to that copypasta

[ProudDad]

65. 'Cause I always post it in threads that degenerate into

death penalty threads...

:hi:

[Ptah]

37. "Tim McVey was dispatched with relative efficiency timewise. "

Like McVeigh was, Loughner is charged in federal court.

[jberryhill]

46. It was still several years

And which court is going to have the first shot at this person is undecided.

[jakeXT]

3. I hope we will se if she was shot from behind or the front.

the story changed several times

[Blue Owl]

26. At the end of this video should be the clip of Glenn Beck

saying "you're going to have to shoot them in the head" on repeated loop...

[Ptah]

33. I was somehow comforted that surveillance cameras recorded this.

[KurtNYC]

39. not me. can't imagine what the survivors of those slain will feel

when this video gets released. This guy was a kind of 'suicide bomber' -- he left notes as if he did not expect to survive. When this video gets out it will only fan the flames for the crazies that lurk among us.

Reminds me of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" only this is "Your Death in a Public Place WILL Be Televised" (and used to get an audience for advertisers). Ugh.

[Ptah]

40. I'n hopeful it will not be released.

I meant for evidence against Loughner.

[jberryhill]

48. We do not have "secret evidence" in capital cases

If it is used as evidence to convict him, it will be part of the public record.

[ProudDad]

66. "This guy was a kind of 'suicide bomber'"

Apparently not...

[KurtNYC]

68. ok a 'suicide gunman'

he left notes at home and on his profile. I have to think that he didn't think he would survive this.

[ProudDad]

69. I have to think that we was so crazy by then that he was incapable of "thinking"

That's what paranoid schizophrenia is all about...not being capable of "thinking"

:shrug:

[cascadiance]

49. Who was shot by the 11th through 33rd bullets? NRA should be INDICTED for their murders!

and everyone else that voted to shut down the assault weapons ban that would have had him only have a 10 round clip at most before reloading.

[benEzra]

50. The 1994 Feinstein non-ban only raised prices. Full-capacity and extended magazines

were no less legal and available 1994-2004 than they are now.

[beevul]

67. Nobody voted to shut it down.

"everyone else that voted to shut down the assault weapons ban that would have had him only have a 10 round clip at most before reloading"

It had as a part of it, a sunset clause.

It was never renewed.

We do have a ban on murder.

Explain how someone willing to violate it would be stopped by a ban on an object.

[demigoddess]

70. I kind of hate to say this but---if they would show that tape

on the news several times, it may turn quite a number of people off carrying guns. A lot of these idiots think about guns like they see in movies, that the good guy always is faster on the draw and more skilled in shooting and never are the dead bodies ugly or bloody. If some people could see the reality they might reconsider how many guns, ammo, and gun carriers they want on the streets. IMHO. But I know it would be terrible for the survivors and the families of the fatalities.