Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford Gunned down at Grocery Store

[starguard]

(CNN) -- U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded Saturday in a shooting at a Tucson, Arizona, grocery store in which at least 11 other people were injured, officials said.




Darci Slaten, a spokeswoman for University Medical Center in Tucson, said Giffords was undergoing surgery Saturday afternoon for a gunshot wound to the head.

A federal judge from Arizona was among the 11 others shot in the incident, a law enforcement source told CNN.

The shooting happened shortly after 10 a.m. MST, Pima County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jason Ogan said.

See here for more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

It was just announced over the radio, that she has died from her injuries

 

[Homo Erectus]

jesus. what a world we live in.

 

[eloisel]

That is just insane.

 

[Homo Erectus]

CNN is saying she will survive.

 

[eloisel]

She's been reported dead twice.

 

[Homo Erectus]

what can I say? CNN is repeatedly saying her surgeon says the wound is survivable.

 

[Homo Erectus]

I am listening to the hospital spokesman saying clearly "The congresswoman is not deceased,"

 

[eloisel]

Cool. That is at least some good news in this horrible, tragic mess. They got the shooter too.

 

[Sarek]

Damn. They just said a 9 year old child died from this. Forget the trial, they have enough witnesses. Tie the guy to the bumper of a squad and go do 160 down a major thoroughfare.

 

[Homo Erectus]

well that would be picturesque at least.

 

[SuN]

Thats wat happens when u preach politix in the supermarket.

get the hint already u stupid fucks, u failed & ur hated; welcome to ur 'public' nao go meet ur maker!!!

lol

 

[Ilyanna]

^Oh, I don't know, SuN. I am not sure if the tyke was there to make propaganda for the dems/reps, though. Could be s/he just wanted a pack of diapers.

 

[Homo Erectus]

nine YEARS old. Not months. Not that it makes a difference. Dead is dead. And murdered is murdered.

 

[eloisel]

As horrible as this crime is, don't you agree that the murderer should be tried in a court of law, that the feelings of the murderer's family should be considered; that revenge should not be a motive and the emotions of the victims and other persons injured indirectly by this crime should not be considered in the punishment, if any, that may be meted out to the murderer?

 

[Sarek]

nine YEARS old. Not months. Not that it makes a difference. Dead is dead. And murdered is murdered.

The first report on CNN said the child was 9 months old. They corrected it later.

 

[Ilyanna]

As horrible as this crime is, don't you agree that the murderer should be tried in a court of law, that the feelings of the murderer's family should be considered; that revenge should not be a motive and the emotions of the victims and other persons injured indirectly by this crime should not be considered in the punishment, if any, that may be meted out to the murderer?

Uh, passive-aggressive, much?
Although I guess this was directed at Sarek, I will still take the bait:

I think that the murderer should indeed be tried in a court of law, that the feelings of the murderer's family as well as the emotions of the victims and other persons injured indirectly by this crime should be considered only with regards to their relevance for the trial and that revenge should not be a motive for any punishment meted out.

That is what I expect and wish from a court in the (unlikely) case that I stand on trial for a crime, and that's exactly what I expect from a court if I am a victim of a crime.

 

[Homo Erectus]

The first report on CNN said the child was 9 months old. They corrected it later.

yeah, I got taht info too. Was just correcting it.

 

[eloisel]

Uh, passive-aggressive, much?
Although I guess this was directed at Sarek, I will still take the bait:

I think that the murderer should indeed be tried in a court of law, that the feelings of the murderer's family as well as the emotions of the victims and other persons injured indirectly by this crime should be considered only with regards to their relevance for the trial and that revenge should not be a motive for any punishment meted out.

That is what I expect and wish from a court in the (unlikely) case that I stand on trial for a crime, and that's exactly what I expect from a court if I am a victim of a crime.

Judgmental much?

Actually, you were the poster I had in mind. Curious if you were consistent in your opinions. See: http://www.trollkingdom.net/forum/showthread.php?t=130667&highlight=death+penalty

I see you are consistent in being ready to jump my throat to protect your opinions, not so much others.

 

[Mirah]

Thats wat happens when u preach politix in the supermarket.

get the hint already u stupid fucks, u failed & ur hated; welcome to ur 'public' nao go meet ur maker!!!

lol

Yes, going around and shooting people is definitely a viable solution to ones problems. The shooter was definitey justified. How could people be so stupid as to make decisions that caused others to hate them? And then they go out in public and get shot and put others in harms way at the same time! Stupid stupid stupid.

As horrible as this crime is, don't you agree that the murderer should be tried in a court of law, that the feelings of the murderer's family should be considered; that revenge should not be a motive and the emotions of the victims and other persons injured indirectly by this crime should not be considered in the punishment, if any, that may be meted out to the murderer?

I am beginning to think that you have a murderer in your family. Perhaps a murderer that has caused you and your family great harm. If that is the case, that is truly unfortunate. If it is not, you sure do advocate a lot for murderers and thier families.
Either way, a person must be responsible for thier actions. If they shoot someone they must suffer the consequences of that behaviour. A judge can't be more lenient on them because they have a family that is shocked and hurt by thier crime.
Also a judge has to be fair and even tho the victims families want to torture the murderer doesn't mean the judge is going to let them do that either. Those things are not considered when giving out the consequences for ones actions.
I speak in very general terms of course.

 

[Mirah]

As horrible as this crime is, don't you agree that the murderer should be tried in a court of law, that the feelings of the murderer's family should be considered; that revenge should not be a motive and the emotions of the victims and other persons injured indirectly by this crime should not be considered in the punishment, if any, that may be meted out to the murderer?

When people talk about revenge obviously it is just talk. Probably all of us have said we wish someone would die or that we could torture them or seek revenge, but we don't do it.
That is what makes us different than the shooter that actually chose to act out his anger and revenge or was mentally unstable.
And this is why I am not God and why I am glad no one else is. We would all be dead.