It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Judge finds Jared Loughner incompetent to stand trial

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:08 PM
the story reads

TUCSON - A federal judge Wednesday agreed with two doctors that suspected Tucson shooter Jared Loughner is not competent to stand trial, and he will be hospitalized in a facility in Springfield, Mo., to receive treatment.

At about 11:45 a.m., Loughner started rubbing his forehead, he lowered his head and rocked back and forth, according to those in the courtroom. He looked at the judge and blurted, "Thanks for the freak show. I saw her die in front of me."

Loughner was then escorted from the courtroom by U.S. marshals.

Read full story here
So the new plan is they want this kid to voluntarily take medications that his doctors will prescribe for him so his competency is restored and he can face charges...

dont know about the rest of you but if I was facing murder charges and they just waited for me to get better... I wouldnt take the drugs....
edit on 25-5-2011 by DaddyBare because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:17 PM
Ah geez. I really hoped he'd go to trial. From your linked story:
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 affirmed the authority to administer anti-psychotic drugs to a criminal defendant only to render that person competent to stand trial." I have very ambivalent feelings about this but believe with medication he would definitely be competent to stand trial. The people of AZ Congressional district 8 deserve justice and some closure. God bless Gabby Giffords.
edit on 25-5-2011 by ChrisCrikey because: spelling and grammar

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:18 PM
I like your footer image! I just checked out of the Marines after serving 6 years ooh Rah

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:21 PM
anyone competent enough to fire off 32 rounds, kill 6 people, make 4 head shots, and use insanity as a defense and manipulate the system this badly is surely competent enough to stand trial.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:22 PM
I know this might be a bit of a touchy issue knowing what he did and all but I find this quote from the article disturbing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
If Loughner refuses to take his medication, the judge could order he be involuntary medicated, Sherwood said.

Read more:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------

MAKING anyone take stuff they don't want to take is just wrong.
I am not condoning what he did but I do find that part disturbing.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by lifeoflyman

I'm retired now...
25 years in the Corps and to be honest I told my son he was better off in the Army as a career choice...
their downsizing letting a lot of good men and woman go...

but back on topic when I joined I did so to defend my country and all the good people here... not vermin like this baby killer Jared Loughner...

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:24 PM
I'm wondering why Loughner said he saw her die right before his eyes. Does he have access to the news since his arrest? Of course this could be him being a delusional conspiracy theorist doubt some ATS members think she died too.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:25 PM
insanity my big red "A"
this is the oldest dodge in the book..
a lawyer trick... he was probably coached, rehearsed and had a script of just what to say...

I dont buy it... and I dont think we've heard the last...
I'm betting if they do force those drugs on him he'll admit it was all an act

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:28 PM
Maybe she did look like she died. He saw her take a shot to the head. Presuming she died from it isn't really that odd.

(Complete non-sequiter: I gotta tell ya, it never occurred to me that someone understanding my point about language framing limiting understanding and debate would make someone go insane. I'm kinda hoping he was touched before hand.)

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:31 PM
So this begs the question, what's the point?

Does it matter if he's competent? I imagine they just want him to understand the seriousness of what he did or maybe even feel some remorse and that's why competency matters. There's no doubt he knows what he did was serious. Just as I have no doubt he isnt one bit remorseful. Will pills make him remorseful?

With or without remorse is there any impact on a sentence?

Does any of this matter at all?

What is to be gained by trying him competent? Vengeful giddiness? He must be competent so we can know he will appreciate the sentence?

I just dont see the difference between living a life in an institution or living it in a prison.
Do we want him in prison because it's allegedly rougher? How does that make us look?

Is it the death penalty we want? What does that accomplish? He's clearly insane. Can we "deter" insanity? Assuming the death penalty even is a deterrent. If it were where's the fanfare and the prime-time televising?

None of this makes any solid sense to me.

When all is said and done Loughner and his trial would be less than footnotes and the issue of his competency even further distanced from relevancy.

He isnt going to learn anything if that's the point of this. If the point is to keep him from doing it again that can be solved easily. But preventing something from happening again, especially something so random and crazy, doesnt seem like it should be very high on the priority list as in these occurrences are already exceptionally rare and any measure taken would not succeed anyway.

It's like the system is trying to chase the past with hopes of changing the present.

This isnt like a reasonable or rational murder. This is just pure lunacy. The judicial system has no ability to handle lunacy.

What do we want out of this? What drives us to see it through? And the answer cannot be something so vague and mystical yet wholly arbitrary and artificial as the certainly concrete abstract notion of "justice."

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:34 PM
If he in any way acts threatening or makes threats to the staff or other patients at the mental facility then I'm pretty sure they can force medicate him for that reason too and may not have to invoke the ruling requiring him to be medicated to become competent to stand's a very questionable ruling, IMO. It's just a matter of time before a loudmouth and idiot like him threatens or assaults someone there and he will be taking anti-psychotics because of that. After such an incident I'm pretty sure he could be required to take medication for 365 days which is renewable if he threatens or exhibits violence again at that facility... but he may still never get out of that facility. We may have to accept that.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

He will then go to a Forensic Mental Hospital where he will recieve "therapy" to restore him to competency so he can stand trial. If he cannot be restored to competence he could get a PITP (permanently incometant to proceed) from which point hes pretty much "off the hook"...he won't be a free man but he won't be in prison either.

Or at least this is the way it works here in Colorado.

Im honestly suprised he went the ITP rout and not the NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) as you have to almost be severely low IQ or DD to not be restored to competency and proceeed to PITP.

The reason for "competency" being imprtant in continuting the trial is because if someone doesn't understand the court system they cannot make sound legal decisions and neither can their lawyer as he cannot chose for his client.

someone who is found incompetant usualy doesn't understand any of the legal terminology or the purpose or meaning of any legal information and thus they are unable to decide a plea or course of action to continue the trial process.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Does it matter if he's competent?

yes, yes it does...
It is considered cruel and inhuman to execute an insane person...or mental defesanet...
if they truly do not understand what they did and why their being punished, what's the point...

But if medical treatment can make them "Sane" (whatever that means) well then it's okay to strap them to an electric chair or put the needle in their arm...

All I can say either way is I'm glad I'm not sitting on the jury for this one... not sure I could be fair an impartial ya know

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:40 PM
I've searched the web but I still don't understand why there are no pictures of Giffords.
If I wrong, someone please tell me.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
I'm wondering why Loughner said he saw her die right before his eyes.

Sounds to me like he just wants to plead guilty and get it over with,
but for some reason he is not being alowed too, almost to the point
that it has been made very clear that if he speaks the words, or blurts out
"I'm guilty" something bad will happen, so he said the above quote instead.

Now he is going to be forcibly medicated till he is zombie enough to sit in the
court room and allow the theatrical production to be played out for the edification of the public.

/end highly speculative guess work based on nothing but instinct.

David Grouchy

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by DaddyBare

So we want to kill him?

To teach him a lesson?

No joy in killing him if he doesnt know why we're killing him?

If he's dead what lesson has he learned?

There's no point. No real point, anyway.

It's amazing to me there are these little rules in vengeance murder that somehow make it all okay.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I never said there was a point...
but this is a capital murder case... or it was ....

since we are talking about a capital case though... right now I guess the point to get past all the legal wranglings first... naturally competency it top on that to do list...

but lets not kid ourselves those folks down in AZ want to fry him...
I'm not entirely sure if that's a bad thing or not?

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by davidgrouchy
Yeah, davidgrouchy, you've made some interesting points. From what I have read know about the alleged killer he is proud of his deeds. Since they have the death penalty (I'm against it) in AZ I doubt I would be able to serve on the jury but I sure wouldn't want to anyway. Now, does anyone think John Hinckley has been mentally rehabilitated? Many argue that he has - after decades of medication, therapy and institutionalization he's allowed out on day passes now but I doubt he'll ever get out...public sentiments being what they are.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by DaddyBare
I'm not entirely sure if that's a bad thing or not?

All depends on how you look at it.

It's not very likely that Jared would be able to function normally in society and it is very likely that whatever impulses drove him to commit his crime would find another target or catalyst to latch onto.

From the state standpoint which is the more economical / efficient way to deal with him? Institutionalization, imprisonment or killing him?

From Jareds perspective I assume he'd rather not die though perhaps he could potentially seek out death as many troubled individuals do.

Would it be punishment to do him a favor? Would the motivation or context diffuse any of the potentially "justice" loaded messages killing him is thought to carry?

Further, there is the precedent following the basis for his killing. Do we kill him because of some eye for an eye philosophy? Do we kill him to satisfy bloodlust of our own? Do we kill him because he is unfit for society? What about all the other who have been deemed unfit for society? We should kill them in kind?

For such a final and absolute action as killing another human being there seems to very little thought or consideration involved across the spectrum of Americans from the POTUS to the paper boy.

So nonchalant about it. Creeps me out. Even to go so far as to refer to it as "frying." Like it's something other than what it is. A mob chanting "fry him" is out for justice while a mob chanting "kill him" is out for cold blooded murder I suppose.
edit on 25-5-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

In this case I'm not the guy who can calmly debate the issue...
Remember I too am the parent of a murdered child...
for me it's too emotionaly charged, brings back painful memories of my dealing with the legal system.
watching lawyers make a mockery out the justice system...

you know what the big joke is among the US legal community??? this is America your entitled to the best justice money can buy!

I think prices start at $200 per hour and go up from there...

So now that you know that about me, I say give Jared Loughner to the nine year old murdered girls father...
let dad find whatever justice he can.

but when it comes to social justice .... whats right for everyone.... I think public executions have no hold on evil doers... they do not fear punishment... our system of punishment has no teeth... without fear of real consequences for bad behaviour we'll only see more cases like this
edit on 25-5-2011 by DaddyBare because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in