It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Orders Psychological Testing of Smiling Jared Loughner

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Judge Orders Psychological Testing of Smiling Jared Loughner


blogs.wsj.com

Is Jared Loughner competent to stand trial?

That issue has yet to be determined, but U.S. District Judge Larry Burns seems to have his concerns.

“I have concerns given the defendant’s affect,” said Burns during a hearing on Wednesday, at which Loughner pleaded not guilty to a new 49-count federal indictment.

And what, pray tell, was the defendant’s “affect” all about? Well, according to various news reports, Loughner smiled for much of the nearly two-hour proceedings, as depicted in this rather creepy court rendering of Loughner and his lawyer, Judy Clarke.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
online.wsj.com
www.nytimes.com
www.azcentral.com
blogs.wsj.com




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Also on Wednesday, Judge Burns granted a motion from federal prosecutors for Loughner to submit to psychological exams and a hearing to determine if he is competent to stand trial.
If Loughner is found incompetent to stand trial, he will remain in prison and undergo therapy until competency is restored.

blogs.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Hi Sam , Great avatar .


This is a most curious case dont you think ?

If this guy showed signs of unbalanced behaviour , why did his Parents not take him to be mentally evaluated as advised by his college when he got kicked out ?

Why were there 2 shotguns plus ammo in the family houses garage ?

Why was he able to buy a glock but no ammo ?
edit on 10-3-2011 by Doomzilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SamTGonzalez
 


The lousy bastard needs to be shot, not tested. Second line.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It is a little unnerving that this request came from the prosecution's side... Usually it is the defense that requests such measures.

The state will never have to show their hand(ie the evidence) if they send this kid to the looney bin.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by SamTGonzalez
 


The lousy bastard needs to be shot, not tested. Second line. [/quote)


I take it your the judge Larry Burns ?
Otherwise what proof do you personally have to prove he's guilty?
Please share your wisdom .

Even if hes guilty wouldn't it be wise to find out WHY he did it so steps are taken to prevent it happening again ?

Im glad you dont work for the justice system based on your sweeping generalised ONE line comment above !




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
What is with the bizarre doublespeak and aggressive ignorance surrounding this case?

Everyone in the media and the entire nation is convinced the young man is "insane" and "deranged", and it was an unceasing topic for weeks.. well until Charlie Sheen apparently.

Yet now it is crunch-time, in the court, and everyone ia acting as if it doesn't matter if he is insane, and that he shall simply perish for justice. Even the WSJ of all publications has this sort of glaring undertone of petty ignorance regarding Loughner.

"And what, pray tell, was the defendant’s “affect” all about?" -- With the stupid "how dare he pretend to be insane now" undertones.

I also love the "creepy court rendering" remark. It's as if all the media is in collective agreement to drop discussion of Loughner's apparent "derangement". He is just now a "creep" that should perish, figuratively and litereally, least of all heard from lest we get the "answers" they demanded, day-in-day-out, choking up the airwaves with their rhetoric and amateur hour psychology.

They have more important quasi-psych evaluations to be distracted with now, such as the ever important Charlie Sheen discussions.

I think it's time to pull back the curtain on this one folks.
edit on 10-3-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by OatDelphi
It is a little unnerving that this request came from the prosecution's side... Usually it is the defense that requests such measures.

The state will never have to show their hand(ie the evidence) if they send this kid to the looney bin.



BOTH sides are trying to get the trial delayed till 2013 .

They have so much " evidence " yet a speedy trial will NOT happen for the sakes of the victims families ?

They have a "confession " " surveillance of the shooting " which has not and may not be released .

Anyone at this point assuming hes mad is slightly mad themselves .
You know nothing other than what you've been told, we haven't SEEN anything yet
Zero anything .



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla

Originally posted by OatDelphi
It is a little unnerving that this request came from the prosecution's side... Usually it is the defense that requests such measures.

The state will never have to show their hand(ie the evidence) if they send this kid to the looney bin.



BOTH sides are trying to get the trial delayed till 2013 .

They have so much " evidence " yet a speedy trial will NOT happen for the sakes of the victims families ?

They have a "confession " " surveillance of the shooting " which has not and may not be released .

Anyone at this point assuming hes mad is slightly mad themselves .
You know nothing other than what you've been told, we haven't SEEN anything yet
Zero anything .


I don't know what the point you are trying to make is, but duh... of course we haven't seen anything, there has not been a trial yet. And as I said before, if the state finds him insane there will be no trial.

All I was pointing out is that it is Defenses who usually ask for insanity tests, because it allows for the suspected criminal to skip the normal elements of the justice system. Especially when it is almost certain that they will be found guilty. No one wants to be on death row when they could happily be sitting in a psych ward eating jello.
edit on 10-3-2011 by OatDelphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by SamTGonzalez
 


The lousy bastard needs to be shot, not tested. Second line. [/quote)


I take it your the judge Larry Burns ?
Otherwise what proof do you personally have to prove he's guilty?
Please share your wisdom .

Even if hes guilty wouldn't it be wise to find out WHY he did it so steps are taken to prevent it happening again ?

Im glad you dont work for the justice system based on your sweeping generalised ONE line comment above !



Sam, you are an idiot. He's guilty as sin with two dozen witnesses. Amazing you withdrew your reply so I cannot reply to your original stupid comment. You assume psychology is a science, and therefor something is be gained by interviewing that freak. Psychology is NOT a science: it cannot pass the Swartzberg test - the verification of a science is its ability to predict. The best thing that animal can be used for is termination. Get some education before you reply to adults again.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by OatDelphi
 


I don't know what the point you are trying to make is, but duh... of course we haven't seen anything. There has not been a trial yet. And as I said before, if the state finds him insane there will be no trial.





YET its ok for his "teachers " and "friends" to discuss it right live on tv ?
TO POSITIVELY ID him - TO say "we always thought hed bring a gun into school "?
A pupil and his teacher said that .

Thats fine right ?

SEEING is believing my friend and you have seen nothing apart from that which backs up the official story thats all I'm saying .
edit on 10-3-2011 by Doomzilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


Don't forget the insurmountable evidence provided by Jared's apparent lifelong associate, when he claimed Jared was crazy, when he himself sported a hot-pink wig during the interview.

This whole thing has been a farce. This country is sick, and I mean truly ill beyond remedy.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla

YET its ok for his "teachers " and "friends" to discuss it right live on tv ?
TO POSITIVELY ID him - TO say "we always thought hed bring a gun into school "?
A pupil and his teacher said that .

Thats fine right ?

SEEING is believing my friend and you have seen nothing apart from that which backs up the official story thats all I'm saying .
edit on 10-3-2011 by Doomzilla because: (no reason given)
Are you sure you arguing with the right person? None of my comments have to do with what you are shoveling.

This thread isn't about the evidence against him, or the hearsay being spoken by neighbors. It is about the fact that the prosecution was granted an insanity test. Something that happens but not all that often.

I don't claim he is guilty or innocent but you clearly show your position. It is true I don't know the facts and I would point out neither do you. All I know is that the prosecution usually doesn't go this route when they suppoesedly have an open and shut case.

Now maybe it's possible the prosecution went this route to cut-off it's use by the defense, but I wouldn't think that is the case considering the plea from the defense was just simply not-guilty and not a plea of insanity.

So go argue you opinion with someone else.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


Don't forget the insurmountable evidence provided by Jared's apparent lifelong associate, when he claimed Jared was crazy, when he himself sported a hot-pink wig during the interview.

This whole thing has been a farce. This country is sick, and I mean truly ill beyond remedy.




Yes totally , too many contradictions and unplauseble theories . Im glad you still questioning this case my friend .



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Loughner’s defense attorney, Judy Clarke, argued that a psychological exam would disrupt the relationship of trust she is trying to build with her client.


So his defence doesn't want him to be psychologically examined as it would "disrupt the relationship of trust". I'm reading that as it appears that Loughner wants it to go to trial.
Maybe what the Prosecutor is worried about is that if it were to go to trial and something untoward were to happen (without a psyche exam being done first) during the proceedings that a mistrial could be called.
Which could hamper the outcome in some way?
I'm not a legal person but that's what I'm getting from the article.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Wow, what a waste of taxpayer money. Jared knew what he was doing was wrong by the fact he made apologetic statements beforehand to his friends and family via social networking websites. Insane people don't realize their actions are wrong therefore don't apologize beforehand.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
Maybe what the Prosecutor is worried about is that if it were to go to trial and something untoward were to happen (without a psyche exam being done first) during the proceedings that a mistrial could be called.
Which could hamper the outcome in some way?
I'm not a legal person but that's what I'm getting from the article.



That is kinda what I am thinking. If the prosecution has the test done and they find him competent to stand trial then in no way would the judge or jury even comprehend letting the defense use an insanity plea during or after the trial takes place.

It may have been an intelligent move by the prosecution to pre-emp the test in order to take it out of the defense's playbook.
edit on 10-3-2011 by OatDelphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Wow, what a waste of taxpayer money. Jared knew what he was doing was wrong by the fact he made apologetic statements beforehand to his friends and family via social networking websites. Insane people don't realize their actions are wrong therefore don't apologize beforehand.


I take it you're a mental health clinician, so this is why you're so knowledgeable on the "insane people"?

Yes, clearly. Let's not bother, let's kill him fast and be done with it. After all, it's the right thing to do.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


Innocent by reason of insanity implies the person commiting the acts in question isn't guilty because they cannot differentiate between right and wrong. Lawful or unlawful. This certianly isn't the case with Mr. Loughner for the simple fact that he apologized to others before comitting the acts.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


That isn't true. There are many factors regarding an insanity defense. You're welcome to look it up yourself and see that it's not so dependent on "determining right from wrong", rather that it's open to different factors, with evaluations and other circumstances.

Simply because he "apologized", doesn't mean he actually knew "right" from "wrong". Apparently he's sitting mute, quietly smiling. Clearly sane, and clearly malicious, put his head on the block already, right?







 
2

log in

join