(bump?) And I'll start a gun thread, just so we can all respect the Congresswoman. And it's not like I haven't been guilty in this thread.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_f6572541-3612-5abf-9bf5-8535641529be.html Fred Phelps and the Westboro wackos didn't show, but the angels did anyway.
NPR did a very interesting article on possible motivations for Loughner this morning that I wanted to share. Cliffnotes version: The Secret Service did a study of why do people try to assassinate politicians and found that they mostly aren't doing it for politics but are trying to gain notariety by killing someone of historical importance. I don't want to jump to more half-baked conclusions, but this study is a pretty interesting lens to see Loughner through. It explains a lot of the stuff we do know about him -- somewhat delusional but planned ahead, claimed political opinions but never talked politics with friends, failures in high school and community college, etc. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132909487/fame-through-assassination-a-secret-service-study [rquoter]Fame Through Assassination: A Secret Service Study by Alix Spiegel January 14, 2011 It's well known that in March 1981, John Hinckley attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan. What is not well known is that several years later, the life of President Reagan and the life of his vice president, George H.W. Bush, were threatened again — in fact, not just once. "In the space of 18 months, four situations came to the attention of the Secret Service," says Robert Fein, who in the mid-1980s worked with the Secret Service as a psychologist. In two of these incidents, he says, people with weapons and an intent to kill appeared at public events. In the two other incidents, the would-be assassins were intercepted before the events. Ultimately, all four cases were prosecuted. Two were convicted, and two were sent to psychiatric facilities, Fein says, though the government didn't exactly advertise it. "These were not stories that hit the news, but they were situations that caused great concern for protectors," he says. "So after these incidents, the Secret Service leadership got together and said, 'We really would like to know more about the behaviors of these people.' " Creation Of A Study So Fein and Secret Service agent Bryan Vossekuil undertook the most extensive study of assassins and would-be assassins ever done. In the Secret Service Exception Case Study Project, they identified 83 people who had completed assassinations or made assassination attempts since 1949 — some cases known to the public, some not — and collected every document they could find. Fein and Vossekuil also went to visit many of these people in jail. Fein says they went with a very particular pitch: "We'd say, 'We're here because we're in the business of trying to protect people and prevent these kinds of attacks. You are one of the few experts because you've engaged in this behavior. We would like to talk to you to understand your perspectives, your life.' " Most said they'd be very glad to talk, Fein recalls. The researchers asked prisoners how they chose targets, how they prepared. They inquired about their motives, every intimate detail of their process. After they asked these questions, they combined the answers with other sources and analyzed the information. In 1999, they published their results in The Journal of Forensic Sciences. Nonpolitical Killers The insights of this study are interesting to review in light of the Arizona shooting, though obviously we still don't know that much about Jared Loughner, the suspect in the attack, or his motives. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that according to Fein and Vossekuil, assassinations of political figures were almost never for political reasons. "It was very, very rare for the primary motive to be political, though there were a number of attackers who appeared to clothe their motives with some political rhetoric," Fein says. What emerges from the study is that rather than being politically motivated, many of the assassins and would-be assassins simply felt invisible. In the year before their attacks, most struggled with acute reversals and disappointment in their lives, which, the paper argues, was the true motive. They didn't want to see themselves as nonentities. "They experienced failure after failure after failure, and decided that rather than being a 'nobody,' they wanted to be a 'somebody,' " Fein says. They chose political targets, then, because political targets were a sure way to transform this situation: They would be known. Murderers Searching For A Cause "If the objective is notoriety or fame, that's the most efficient instrumental mechanism by which to achieve that. I don't mean to be flip about that, but a public official is likely to bring them a substantial amount of recognition instantly, without having to achieve something," says Randy Borum, a professor at the University of South Florida who worked on the study. And one thing Borum and Fein say about choosing a political figure — as opposed to choosing a show-business celebrity — is that the would-be assassins are able to associate themselves with a broader political movement or goal. That allows them to see themselves as not such a bad person. In this way, Borum says, assassins are basically murderers in search of a cause. "People make decisions to act, and then from that, construct for themselves and potentially for others a narrative about why that is OK, or what the rationale would be, or how this could be justified," Borum says. "It's sort of a reverse pattern from what we would typically think." This can be seen very clearly, Borum says, from the way many of the assassins in the study chose their targets. Though occasionally they would fixate on a single person who represented a clear political position, many just went from target to target to target. "About half of the assassins in this study had multiple targets or what sometimes are referred to as directions of interest, throughout the course of deliberating about an attack," he says. For example, there was one guy who was fixated on his governor until he heard that the vice president was coming to his area. "He said he had read enough to know that there hadn't been anybody who had attempted to assassinate a sitting vice president," Borum says. So he made the vice president his target. He told the researchers he thought he'd get more attention from historians. "He said in the books on assassination, there might even be a whole chapter on him," Borum recalls. Changed Perceptions Another assumption people make about assassins is that they're insane — people completely divorced from reality. But this study — to a degree — rejects that idea as too simplistic. Yes, the authors write, many of the people were experiencing or had experienced serious mental health issues: 44 percent had a history of depression, 43 percent a history of delusional ideas, 21 percent heard voices. But, as Fein points out, the way these people sought to address what they saw as their main problems — anonymity and failure — wasn't inherently crazy. "There's nothing crazy about thinking that if I attacked the president or a major public official, I would get a lot of attention. I would get a lot of attention. My goal was notoriety," Fein says. "That's why I bought the weapon." And most of the assassins and would-be assassins weren't totally disorganized by mental illness, either. "They were quite organized," Fein says. "Because one has to be organized — at least to some extent — to attack a public official." Last Saturday morning at a Safeway in Tuscon, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords became the latest public servant caught in the cross hairs of an attacker's gun. This study suggests the attempt may have been driven by very powerful and personal motives. Assassins Included In The Study Assassins and attackers described in the Secret Service Exception Case Study Project, or ECSP, published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences ranged from a teenage girl with an unhealthy celebrity infatuation to a radical right-wing group. The 83 subjects studied were people known to have attacked or who have come close to attacking a prominent public figure in the United States between 1949 and 1996. In some cases, researchers agreed to withhold the names of attackers as a condition of obtaining an in-depth interview. Here's a sampling: Ruth Steinhagen "Ruth Steinhagen, although employed as a secretary, believed she had no future and thought she would be better off dead. Steinhagen became obsessed with Chicago Cubs first baseman Eddie Waitkus. She collected clippings about him, went to more than 50 baseball games, wrote many letters to him (which were not answered) and slept with his picture under her pillow. Steinhagen came to believe that she could achieve her goals of getting in the limelight and of dying by shooting Waitkus," authors of the ECSP study wrote. At age 19, Steinhagen made an attempt on Waitkus' life in 1949. Sirhan Sirhan "Sirhan Sirhan had few employable skills and was living at a level far below his expectations. Sirhan was failing at work, at school and in social life. He began to think that if he shot a national figure whom he believed to be an enemy of the Palestinians — President Lyndon Johnson, Ambassador Arthur Goldberg or presidential candidate (and senator) Robert F. Kennedy — he could achieve the status he wished for and perhaps even change the situation of the Palestinian people," study authors wrote. Sirhan shot and killed Kennedy in 1968. Mark Chapman "Mark Chapman, although at one time a successful child care worker and counselor with the YMCA, believed he was a failure. Chapman became obsessed with being a 'nobody,' felt betrayed by cultural figures that he saw as 'phonies,' and saw John Lennon as the 'biggest phony of all.' In September 1980, Chapman decided to kill Lennon. This action, he believed, would send a message about phonies and would bring attention to the book The Catcher in the Rye, which Chapman believed held important lessons for the world," study authors wrote. Chapman assassinated Lennon in 1980. 'FT' "FT was a lonely, angry young man with few job skills, living with a mother who was ill with cancer and other ailments and who demanded his constant attention. FT was watching a television show about the state gubernatorial election when he suddenly thought, 'How weird it would be to assassinate the governor.' He then started to read and learn about assassination and assassins and spent the next 18 months preoccupied with selecting and shooting a national leader," study authors wrote. (No public information is available on whom FT attempted to assassinate or when.) Arthur Jackson "Living in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1981, Arthur Jackson became intensely interested in the actress Theresa Saldana after seeing her in the movie Raging Bull. Jackson decided to kill Saldana both because he desired a special relationship with her and because he believed that murdering her would force the U.S. government to execute him. Jackson hoped to be executed at Alcatraz prison, the site of the attempted escape and death in 1946 of Joseph Cretzer, a criminal whom Jackson admired and with whom he felt a special bond," authors wrote. Jackson attacked Saldana with a knife in 1982, but she survived. Sara Jane Moore "Sara Jane Moore, a woman with considerable intelligence and job skills, found herself caught in a swirl of turbulent social forces and causes in a place (the San Francisco Bay area) and at a time (1975) when there was great tension between political radicals and law enforcement authorities. Moore became a police informant, a fact she revealed to her radical associates. Moore worked and lived in a community and in a political climate where talk of 'offing the pigs' and shooting the president was not uncommon. Moore fastened on the idea of shooting President Ford once she began to believe that her situation as both political radical and police informer was becoming increasingly untenable and possibly dangerous," authors wrote. Moore attempted to assassinate Ford in 1975. Joseph Corbett "Corbett observed and analyzed the lifestyle and habits of business executive Adolph Coors III [the grandson of the founder of the Coors brewery] for several years before he attempted to kidnap him. Foiled initially when Coors and his family moved to a new home, Corbett drew back, watched and developed new plans. On a February morning in 1960, Corbett used his car to block a one-lane wooden bridge that Coors had to cross on his way to work. The would-be kidnapper confronted Coors with a gun. Coors resisted, Corbett fired and Coors was killed. Corbett fled to the East Coast, where he abandoned his car then traveled to Toronto. He was arrested in Vancouver, British Columbia, in October 1960. A tip from a reader of Reader's Digest Magazine, which had published an 'the FBI is looking for this man' article, led to Corbett's capture," authors wrote. Members Of 'The Order': Robert Jay Mathews, Bruce Pierce, David Lane, Jean Craig, Richard Scutari "Members of the Order, a right-wing group led by Robert Mathews, spent several months preparing to assassinate controversial Denver talk radio host Alan Berg in 1984. Jean Craig traveled from Idaho to Denver and spent several weeks surveilling Berg and learning about his schedule and travel plans. David Lane and Bruce Pierce made at least one trip to Denver before the assassination to plan the attack. The group also planned and executed their escape after the attack," authors wrote.[/rquoter]
I heard an expert of some sort on the radio yesterday who suggested Loughner was more like the Columbine nuts, or the loons who shoot up a McDonalds then the political assassin type. Ties in a bit to JV's article above with regard to the motivation and the selection of the target(s). The expert's distinction was that while the congresswoman was the primary target, he then indiscriminately shot 19 more people and was preparing for more. It's one thing to pull the trigger once -- whether directly at an individual, or detonating an explosion that kills many -- but a very different mindset to repeatedly shoot at various targets. A 'me against the world' conflict, vs a 'i'm going to stop that guy/girl'
I heard the NPR piece that JuanValdez mentions and its an interesting piece. It doesn't rule out that ideology, politics and violent rhetoric can influence someone to become violent. In the case of Sarah Jane Moore she clearly was influenced by the violent ideology and rhetoric around her. Another case would be Nidal Hassan who appears to have been suffering from depression but was also influenced by his contact with Al Qaeda figures. Obviously with Timothy McVeigh there is no doubt that he was driven by ideology. Loughner's motivations aren't clear but they appear not to be associated with political rhetoric or an ideological movement but that doesn't mean others who become violent aren't.
I don't think you can separate the two, politicians are historically important because of their politics/policies
That was a very interesting article. Thanks for sharing. Hopefully people will wait for some more facts to surface before turning this tragedy into a political issue which is just ridiculous and shameful.
Their policies are historically important but may not be important to the murderer. They share one example of a guy who was plotting to kill the governor but switched tracks to attack the VP instead because he was coming to town. When you're indifferent to which politician you kill, I think it does say something about your true motivations. In Loughner's case, if we were to apply this theory, the fact that this particular politician was local and accessible is probably the biggest reason she was the target. Imagine if his target happened to live far away and had a security detail. He'd have to make excuses to his parents, get a bus ticket, get past security and all that. Giffords was low-hanging fruit -- how convenient she's at the top of the hit-list.
I don't know. Would he have adjusted his own political opinions so that he could better dislike her and justify the murder?
It is possible vlaurelio. First let me preface this post I am not trying to pick on you posts vlaurelio. Second I am not going to be political in this post at all. What I am doing here is going back to my investigative background that I have honed over the last 3 decades of my career before my retirement plus leaning on conversations on this topic that I have had with old retired colleges and friends like myself over the last few days. First off when all is said and done I think it is going to be confirmed that Loughner will have had no personal political affiliation at all. By listening to and reading all the character profiles and friends/witness statements to this individuals life I think this man is a sociopath (not in the direct serial killer sense to which the word is often affiliated) and a moderate functional schizophrenic. Now with that said when you approach this you really are going to have to drop you political views and how you basically view and interact in life itself. You can't approach with normal views and reasoning with even that of a common murderer when dealing with a sociopath that has the mental illness leanings of schizophrenic. Everything is twisted with them and isn't going to lineup with what you have learned in life. With that said and given things I have heard and read about him I think he is a apolitical anti-establishment individual in close to it's purest form possible. Where we get the anti-establishment/control aspect from is the two basic things we know about him by basically timelining the ex-girlfirends/friends/witness to his life that have come forward. In doing that two commonalities emerge. 1)From his earliest encounters in highschool to where we are now from witness statements he has expressed his problem with authority/control be it school, public, government, and religion. 2) He has expressed vocally and literally the need to bring chaos and mayhem to those forms of authority/control. We have him doing this in settings such as schools, potential job settings and interviews, social settings, and on a governmental stage as well (going back as far as 2007 in that instance). He also and very telling which fits in with this expressed that he could now feel the need to kill cops. As far as being apolitical that comes from a theorizing standpoint combined with mere circumstantial evidence given this man has left very few pieces to directly define him here. I say this mainly because there is friends statements coupled with evidence we know of that he has been political or atleast shown himself to be as such. From statements made we know that from early highschool to about 2007 he professed liberal views in fact by one close friend extremist views at that. After 2007 there was a slow shift to the right where we see him today at least through what he has posted on the internet while not directly connecting or affiliating with any know right affiliations or personalities. Some probable direct evidence of this shift that exists outside of spoken witness statements is that list of books he gave. Now while people have been arguing over them when it comes to a possible political affiliation I believe if you timeline them as to when he read them what will be revealed is a timeline of his shift from left to right as far as his opposition to government and control are concerned. Now take that in for a second how does one go from a left extreme to a right extreme in such a short amount of time? As putting it from the aspect of this board it is like asking Sam Fisher to change into Basso (or vice-versa) in a year to two years time and to fully believe in what he is preaching or saying. That is easier said than done to say the least and almost impossible from this standpoint given he has left no really substantial traces of affiliations to either party during this shift at least from what has been reported to the public. Now while mental illness can explain some of the progression there are still gaps here because a lot will just fixate and stay. There is something else there and the easiest and most likely answer to this particular quandary is that he was essentially playing a role to satisfy his needs. In discussing this with old colleges and friends we pretty much come to the conclusion he was acting as a chameleon here by intentionally placing himself among the loudest voices of opposition to the current administration/political party that was in power. By doing this it provides himself the best opportunity to satisfy his need to oppose authority and quell his paranoia to control. Basically he could care less about the message and rhetoric as it is pro-government (be it republican or democrat) something with which again he could careless. Instead he used it as a delivery tool to satisfy his own needs of an anti-establishment and anti-government message. Now I know some of you are probably saying "Whaaaattt that doesn't make any sense" and I would remind you again to drop your rationality and look through it and perceive it as Loughner probably would and you would see it become a logical plan to a person like him. When it comes to Giffords one could see why he fixated so much on her as he did. In the first instance given his mental illness and the fact he perceived conflict with her as far back as 2007 that is really all it would have to take for him to form a fixation on her. But given his anti-establishment beliefs no matter be it democrat or republican you can also see another point where he would fixate on her given she is a pro-government centrist who operates on both sides of the aisle. She is essentially his opposite in every which way he could perceive. In essence in his perverted mind she was more than likely the ying to his yang and thus the face of what he perceived as the control that fueled the paranoia in his life. As far as the day of the shooting. I think his target was actually two fold and involved the two greatest forms of control that he perceived in close to relation to him. I believe his intention was to kill Gifford's (his first target) and then draw the police (his second target) to him and engage in a shoot out and go out in what he perceived as his blaze of glory or "my assassination" as he wrote. I mean the amount of clipped ready to go ammunition he was carrying sorta speaks to that along with the fact that he has already stated he wanted to kill a cop. Fortunately though that never came to fruition (as it could have been 10x worse with a public back and forth gun battle) as he more than likely didn't count on running into those good samaritans/heroes who were able to stop the chaos and carnage he was causing. With that said and again when all is said and done I think we will come to the conclusion of the "Joker" theory that is being professed out there right now in more than a few unofficial circles. Loughner is essentially the Heath Ledger's version of the Joker brought to life in that he is a very smart, sociopathic and mentally ill individual with no allegiances but unto himself that wanted to oppose and bring chaos to every semblance of control and societal structure that he perceived. And I have to say aside from the fact he wasn't able to end his life the way wanted with the way things are right now at least temporarily he unfortunately accomplished his mission because he definitely left everything behind his violent wake in the state of mayhem and chaos he often professed.
I honestly don't see a problem with this ad and I don't think anyone would get the wrong idea. The problem is when people say people portray the other side as an enemy and at the same time call for getting rid of them in some form or fashion. Glenn Beck does that at times and that is disconcerting. But this billboard is not the issue.
Do you think the fact that Giffords is a woman (and a reasonably attractive one) had a bearing? If his local Congressman was a man with the same positions as Giffords would he have acted similarly?
Right now I would have to say no but it is possible a fixation of this type could form with a paranoid schizophrenic. My answer of no for right now is just based on the fact I have heard nothing so far that would suggest him having a fixation of sorts with women in power in general. All that I have heard of so far is a fixation with Mrs. Giffords. This could change though. His primary fixation which drove him though was "authority/control". The more you had or represented then the more the threat you were probably to him. He would have more than likely acted the same. For him it isn't who or what they are as much as what they represent to him. As I mentioned before the higher up on that scale of authority/control you get the more attention you are going to get from him. Thus in his writings you got direct threats against the congresswoman and the cops from him. They were the highest in stature while being in the closest proximity to him. Another aspect of this is probably how lucky his parents where in all of this. When you have a "authority/control" fixation such as his and being mixed with being suicidal generally they are going to become targets as well. What I think saved them is they fact his father interrupted his process for what he was going to do that day. If Loughner assumingly gets that black baby's bag (which we now know contained all the ammunition and probably his gun) into his house to prepare then his parents most likely become his first targets of the day. Luckily his father surprised him and he ran off into the desert which averted that scenario.
I don't know where else to put the following vid, but I really like these two guys, and they express optimism, of all things, in this conversation. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZXPf9hTJxng?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZXPf9hTJxng?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> I do agree that Obama's speech was one of his best since he became President.
Yeah I like Shields and Brooks as well. But they don't really hold a candle to... <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DTBl-igJBVE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DTBl-igJBVE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
