Prosecutors don't want to try Jared Loughner, want to wait 4 more months

www.washingtonpost.com... Gy2uJ_story.html

Before you accuse me of of editorializing, what else could this possibly mean?

"Prosecutors say Tucson shooting rampage suspect needs 4 more months of mental health treatment"

Prosecutors, not the defense or Loughner's lawyers, the prosecution. Why would the prosecution want to wait another four months? Remember they have the video, the "clear" video of Loughner shooting. What other evidence do they need?

Originally posted by filosophia
"Prosecutors say Tucson shooting rampage suspect needs 4 more months of mental health treatment"

Prosecutors, not the defense or Loughner's lawyers, the prosecution. Why would the prosecution want to wait another four months? Remember they have the video, the "clear" video of Loughner shooting. What other evidence do they need?

Is it just me or does Jared look a lot like Winston?



By the end of the 4 months I expect a full confession from Mr. Loughner. I bet he even admits to trying to spread syphilis.

What's crazy about this is this is not the first time the prosecution tried everything possible to prevent this from going to trial

People familiar with this portion of the proceedings told the Journal prosecutors couldn't argue the findings because they pushed for the competency exams.

Read more: www.upi.com...

The prosecution wanted to test Loughner's competence, and he was ruled unfit by the doctors. If everyone knew Loughner was crazy, how could the prosecution not know? If this ruling is upheld, it will be the prosecution twice now intentionally prevented this from going to trial.

So he was mentally competent enough to plan the attack, to acquire and operate the gun, and to kill innocent people, and yet he is mentally unfit to stand trial? Typical nonsense. A murderer is a murderer. That's the problem with the American society, too quick to blame mental illness and whip out the sob stories. I'm guessing Loughner had a terrible childhood and was spanked as a kid, right? And as we know, people who were abused clearly should not have to pay for their crimes.

Originally posted by Replikant
So he was mentally competent enough to plan the attack, to acquire and operate the gun, and to kill innocent people, and yet he is mentally unfit to stand trial? Typical nonsense. A murderer is a murderer. That's the problem with the American society, too quick to blame mental illness and whip out the sob stories. I'm guessing Loughner had a terrible childhood and was spanked as a kid, right? And as we know, people who were abused clearly should not have to pay for their crimes.

Just because someone has lucid moments, doesn't mean they are in full control of their faculties. The guy has been found by multiple doctors to be an individual that is so disturbed, they can't tell right from wrong.

What slays me is how the state then gets to force feed all kinds of meds on him to try to get him competent enough to stand trial. That's like taking one of these eight year old kids that murders somebody and waiting until they are 16-18 or so to try them for the crime. But hey, murder is murder. I guess we need to gas the kids too. And the retards.

Originally posted by the owlbear



Just because someone has lucid moments, doesn't mean they are in full control of their faculties.

This is the evidence that points to mind control.

Loughner can't describe rampage.

Major indicator of mind control, inability to remember shooting events

Sirhan Sirhan says he can't remember shooting RFK

Of course, the judge and jury will just not believe him right? Except twice now the prosecution has tried to prevent this from going to trial. The prosecution, not the defense. Something is seriously wrong here.

reply to post by filosophia

Agreed.
This whole case is as crazy as Loughner.
Just think of what this is going to wind up costing taxpayers when they could have just put him in a nice room with cages on the windows for a steal.

It doesn't matter if he is mentally competent or not.

Is he guilty of the crime he is accused of?

Yes. There is video evidence, eyewitnesses, motive, and a clear path of evidence leading up to the crime. This is more than enough for the prosecution to convict JLL.

Should he get off for insanity?

No. His mental capacity should be determined by a court appointed psychiatrist and the judge will weigh the findings before making a decision as to what the sentencing will be. Someone who is mentally unstable, or incompetent will be punished much differently than someone who is not.

What does this mean?

It means that it is the prosecution, defense, and jury's duty to come to a factual conclusion as to whether JLL is guilty of the crime accused. Once that has happened, his mental capacity should play a role in his sentencing, but also if it is found that there were enough warning signs to cause alarm and nothing was done, the victims should go after his caretakers for justice.

Just my two cents, based on my understanding of justice and the legal system of America. Not to be confused with emotion, or the court of public opinion.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


Oh yes, the wonderful video we are not allowed to see. They have the evidence but they are waiting until Loughner is more sane before they go to trial, and in the meantime they are force vaccinating him so he will never be sane because they are giving him medicine to make him insane. That's the world we live.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

Oh yes, the wonderful video we are not allowed to see. They have the evidence but they are waiting until Loughner is more sane before they go to trial, and in the meantime they are force vaccinating him so he will never be sane because they are giving him medicine to make him insane. That's the world we live.

If that was the case, the defense would have successfully moved to call for a mistrial.

Just because you're not allowed to see an attempted murder in action, doesn't mean it didn't happen. As far as the drugs, let's get real, he needs to be medicated. If the defense thought for a moment that they were drugging him into a patsy for some wild conspiracy theory, they would have came forward about it or opted out of defending JLL entirely.

Jared Lee Loughner is guilty of attempted murder, as well as many other crimes. Once again, you are forgetting that a guilty verdict only means that he is the person who committed the crime he is accused of, not what his state of mind was, whether he was right or wrong in doing it, or whether he was a brainwashed patsy.

If prosecutors don't want him to testify, and the defense is silent, they have probably struck a deal at the least. More likely, the defense is hoping the incident is mostly forgotten by the public so they can get close to a fair trial. With people screaming he's being brainwashed, I could see why that would be a good idea.

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
It doesn't matter if he is mentally competent or not.

Is he guilty of the crime he is accused of?

Yes. There is video evidence, eyewitnesses, motive, and a clear path of evidence leading up to the crime. This is more than enough for the prosecution to convict JLL.

Should he get off for insanity?

No. His mental capacity should be determined by a court appointed psychiatrist and the judge will weigh the findings before making a decision as to what the sentencing will be. Someone who is mentally unstable, or incompetent will be punished much differently than someone who is not.

What does this mean?

It means that it is the prosecution, defense, and jury's duty to come to a factual conclusion as to whether JLL is guilty of the crime accused. Once that has happened, his mental capacity should play a role in his sentencing, but also if it is found that there were enough warning signs to cause alarm and nothing was done, the victims should go after his caretakers for justice.

Just my two cents, based on my understanding of justice and the legal system of America. Not to be confused with emotion, or the court of public opinion.

Thank you for your two cents...I'll let you get back to watching Law and Order now.
Person has to be competent to stand trial. Then a jury will get to decide on the preponderance of the evidence if he is guilty or innocent. Then a judge can sentence said person. You typing in all caps that he is guilty doesn't make it so.