Judge slain at Tucson political event was UVA grad

news-slainjudgejohnrollJohn Roll began his legal career as a bailiff.

One of the people slain by a gunman at an Arizona political event was a federal judge who graduated from an advanced legal study program at the University of Virginia School of Law. John Roll, the judge slain in the Saturday, January 8 massacre targeting Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, earned a legal master's degree from UVA in 1990.

“I was deeply saddened to hear of the tragic shootings of Representative Giffords, members of her staff, and other victims," freshman Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt said in a prepared statement.

While Giffords is expected to recover from her injuries, at least five others besides Roll–- including a 9-year-old girl–- have died, and 14 were wounded.

The 63-year-old Roll received his J.D. law degree from the University of Arizona in 1972. UVA pundit Larry Sabato notes on his own Twitter feed that Roll was "well regarded" by those who knew him at the University.

With the Arizona suspect 22 years old; Sabato (who is working on a book about John F. Kennedy) has noticed a pattern of assassins and would-be assassins to be in their 20s. He cites other prominent examples: John Wilkes Booth (27), Leon Czolgosz (28), Lee Harvey Oswald (24), Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme (27), and John Hinckley Jr. (26).

In 2009, Roll was the recipient of death threats when he allowed a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher to move forward. He and his family then were given a month-long security detail, according to the New York Times. However, it appears, according to the Times, that he was merely a bystander when he was struck down, a person in the wrong place at the wrong time.

–-story contains updates and corrections

Read more on: john rolltuscon massacre



Another Kennedy book? Come on Larry, you really think anyone cares about the elitist Kennedy clan.....which is in short supply today?

I think we know the history, the family rum running background, PT-109, Marilyn Monroe, Cuban Missle Crisis, Bay of Pigs, Dealey Plaza, the grassy knoll, the mystery bullet, yadda, yadda, yadda......it was, and is, all about the money

hope I didn't blow your topic.

Nah "realist", nice try.
I notice that many people are saying that this young man is 'disturbed­', as if this mental state in itself severs the connection between his violence and any political motivation­s.

It is the 'disturbed­' of our world who are the most susceptibl­e to persuasion - direct or indirect - and can be led into committing acts such as these.

It would be naive, to say the least, to negate or to minimize the connection between an atmosphere of violence, hatred and alienation­, and an act of violence, hatred and alienation­.

I would also like to hear Gasbag's response to chouva's post: walk us through, on a move-by-move basis, the scenario in which MULTIPLE guns in a crowded, chaotic, panic-filled situation results in FEWER deaths of innocent bystanders. Because chouva's post describes what I see as far more likely than the movie-fantasy scenario in which the quick-thinking expert marksman bystander cleanly and quickly takes out the crazed gunman. Most human beings I know don't work like movie people. Movie reflexes seem quicker than regular human reflexes. Movie people always seem to have amazing eyesight and they always know immediately which direction the shooting is coming from. The innocent bystanders in movies always seem to dive out of the way in the correct direction, including the lady with the baby in her arms. And yeah, in movies there never seems to be ANOTHER armed citizen walking out of the Radio Shack at just the wrong moment who assumes that the first armed citizen is actually the bad guy and starts shooting at him. etc.

Yes, this guy may have been loser, a crank(like say John Hinckley who shot President Reagan "to get Jodie Foster's attention").
But nonetheless the atmosphere of vitriol and hate, of demonization of liberals and Democrats, by the Far Right, the Glenn Becks and Tea Partiers and birthers, has to take part of the blame that encouraged this individual to act out his violent fantasies(assuming his action not part of a larger conspiracy.
It was like in the 1960s civil rights era, when Southern governors and Congressmen defied the federal government, denounced the civil rights movement, and inflamed racial bigotry among the white populace. So no surprise when some "redneck" loser decided to uphold the Southern way of life by killing a civil rights leader or bombing a black church. Byron de la Beckwith who shot Medgar Evers a prime example.(The Mississippi murders in 1964 were different-they involved a wider conspiracy including law enforcement officers as well as the KKK).
And then there was the hatred directed at the Kennedys in Texas by the Right around 1963..
This is not something I read in textbooks-I lived in that era so I think I know whereof I speak.

Gasbag, you assume that if someone in the crowd was armed, that person would have been an expert marksman, known instantly and correctly who was the assailant and would have fired off one round hitting the assailant. And assume there was yet another armed person in the crowd who took the second shooter to be in fact the assailant. Consider a third armed person. The whole scene becomes just too scary to contemplate.

Too many assumptions to make for everyone's safety. Under your scenario, even more innocent people could have been shot, injured or killed. Does that make sense? Let the gas out of the bag, please!


"All they talk about is guns, ammo, take back the government by any means possible"? Are you totally clueless? Do you have any idea what the heck you're talking about? You obviously have never listened to any talk radio hosts like Hannity, Levin, Limbaugh for even one minute. They have NEVER talked about any of those things except in your own imagination. You'd better add more tinfoil to the hat you're wearing because the alien mind control beams are still getting through.

Poor Gasbag. As time goes on more and more people start to figure him out.

Oh my, so many coming out to play!

Mr/Mrs/Miss OK, no, they are trying to be the first to win a debate with Gasbag. Many have tried, none have succeeded. Welcome to the club.

Hoolarious, gun violence is just like drugs in this country. We can not win a war against either. Drugs will never go away. And gun violence won't either, even if the manufacturers stop making firearms tomorrow morning. Why? There's two many firearms already out on the streets, and ATF estimates that about 4.5 million firearms are sold in the United States each year. But even so, what's the solution? How do we prevent the sale of a firearm to a perfectly sane person who might go crazy and commit an act of gun violence in the future? It all still boils down to the fact it isn't guns that kill people, people kill people. Remove the gun from this debate and the kid in Arizona could have killed more people with a pipe bomb full of nails or lead balls.

Mr/Mrs/Miss Walking Tall, of course the scenarios involve the actors displaying firearms. This is why I have such a hard time understanding how the "I thought he had a gun, I feared for my life!" is a successful defense in wrongfull shooting deaths. But of course, justice does prevail occasionally and this defense doesn't work. The most recent example I recall is the cop in Ohio who stopped a motorcycle. The rider turned to look at the cop, and the cop shot him in the back and paralyzed him for life.... claimed he thought the guy had a gun. The cop is serving 10 years. I think he would have been better off telling the jury the truth, "the gun discharged by accident!"

Mr/Mrs/Miss cookiejar, I have never been involved in a real live shooting situation. But I do feel the training we were given in the police academy is about as close as you can come to the real thing. Reality to me in shooting situations is defined as the best training humanly possible. Fantasy is growing up playing video games and then thinking it's perfectly OK to go out on the streets and shoot at anything that moves or looks at you crosseyed.

One mans terrorist is another mans hero. There are inner circles who will consider this individual a hero.
My prayers to all the families involved.

I am not for arming all Americans, but in this day and age, at such an event, I would expect law enforcement to be present.

Non-law enforcement people carrying concealed weapons legally, at least in Virginia, have concealed weapons permits and are not "fricking yahoos". They've had weapons training and fingerprint checks. There are plenty of ways to kill people besides guns. People are run over, knifed, burned, poisoned, etc. Are you going to outlaw cars, knives, matches and poison?

GSOE; ya know i think i saw you in all those police accademy movies.
For a guy who knows everything you dont know JACK. Some of what you say makes sence most sounds like internet BS. Did or have you been involved in a shooting? Let us look it up if you have then we can tell if you are an expert or not

Duh, please explain how having weapons training (the rigor of which meets whose standard) and fingerprint checks absolves you of being a fricking yahoo? of being a hot-headed racist? of having problems with impulse control? of being someone who listens to the worst of the worst inflammatory political rhetoric day and night? of believing fervently that Obama is a Muslim sleeper-agent who is programmed to destroy civilization? of living in a fantasy world? of having horribly bad judgment? of carrying ridiculous grudges? of being a person you would in NO way want to sit next to on a bus if you knew the person had a concealed weapon? your weapons training and fingerprint checks don't determine someone's moral character or moral judgment or maturity or ability to concentrate and focus on what's important in a rapidly unfolding situation. They do none of those things. It's absolutely certain that some citizens who have concealed weapons permits are fricking yahoos, because it's absolutely certain that some citizens are fricking yahoos and nothing about the screening/permit process rules them out.

And please: would someone on this thread point out where I said I wanted to outlaw guns? I'll save you the trouble: I didn't. So, those of you who are assuming that's what I aspire to are, yes, fricking yahoos, people who are incapable of clear, careful, reasoned thought. I'm sure you all have concealed weapons permits, though.

to all this is a point well made by the sheriff in arizona

Arizona authorities suggested that's a theory they are pursuing.

"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said in a news conference Saturday. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

The sheriff's comments echoed remarks Giffords herself made last year during the height of the 2010 midterm elections. In an interview with MSNBC last March, the Democratic lawmaker, who had been the target of threats over her vote on health care reform, noted her inclusion on list of lawmakers Sarah Palin was targeting for defeat that featured gun-related imagery. "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district," Giffords said at the time. "When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."

On Sunday, politicians from both sides of the aisle cautioned against inflamed rhetoric, but that didn't stop the finger-pointing.

On CNN's State of the Union, Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, referred to the Palin map that listed Giffords as a target as a sign of "toxic rhetoric" that had gone too far¢Ã¢â??¬”though he insisted he wasn't making a "direct connection" between Palin and Saturday's shootings.

"Don't we have an obligation, those of us in public life and those who cover us to say, 'This is beyond the bounds?'" Durbin told CNN. "We owe it to our own in both political parties to have at least the good sense and common decency when people say these outrageous things to say, 'Wait a minute, that just goes too far,' whether it comes from the right or from the left."

In GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander said he agreed with Durbin that people should "cool it" and "tone it down." Still, he warned that people should be "very careful about imputing the motives" of the shooter�though he went out of his way to note that Loughner didn't appear to be a member of the tea party, which some have implied.

"What we know about this individual is that he read Karl Marx; he read Hitler. We know he was burning the American flag," Alexander said. "That's not the profile of a typical tea party member."

In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Rep. James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House, reminded viewers of former Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle's call for supporters last year to take "Second Amendment remedies"

"What does that mean? That is a very vitriolic statement, and I think that somebody is responsible for speaking up and denouncing that kind of stuff," Clyburn said. "When you don't denounce it, people keep ratcheting it up and people get to a point where you cross the line. And I think that in this instance, this issue has crossed the line."

Still, the debate is likely to rage over the use of gun imagery in campaigns. As Politics Daily's Jill Lawrence writes, Palin is hardly the first politician to use gun imagery in politics. It's something that everybody--Democrats, Republicans and media--has done.

For her part, Palin offered her "sincere condolences" to the victims in a statement on Saturday. At the same time staffers removed the map from the ex-Alaska governor's political site, though it remained available on her Facebook page. Rebecca Mansour, a Palin aide, told a GOP radio host that the graphics on the map was not a gun sight but a "surveyor's symbol." (Palin, herself, referred to the graphic as a "bullseye.")

Per the Alaska Dispatch, Mansour said attempts to link Palin to the shooting were "obscene" and "appalling." She insisted that there is "nothing irresponsible about our graphic."

Briefing reporters Sunday, FBI Director Robert Mueller reiterated that it was still "premature" to say why Loughner targeted Giffords. But he acknowledged the vast amount of inflammatory rhetoric on the internet had made it more difficult for law enforcement agencies to identify and track potential threats.

"The ubiquitous nature of the internet means that not only threats, but hate speech and other inciteful speech is much more readily available to individuals than quite clearly it was eight or ten or fifteen years ago," Mueller said. "That absolutely presents a challenge for us, particularly when it results in what would be lone wolves or lone offenders undertaking attacks."

(Photo of protestors outside Giffords' Tucson office Saturday: Chris Morrison/AP)

The point about the lunacy of introducing multiple firearms (in untrained hands)into an already explosive situation. Instead, you merely confirmed that those untrained hands would be the first to get shot by police answering the call (thanks to the police training you described). The rest of your response (and your most recent post as well) was a typical Gasbag anti-cop shoppe screed that bore little relevance to the topic at hand.

Mr/Mrs/Miss Walking Tall, I agreed that a good guy firing upon a bad guy could actually be mistaken for the bad guy. That's a chance any person brave enough to step up and protect others has to deal with. Like I said, even plain clothes cops have been killed by their own troops. But at least they were brave enough to step to the plate and try to serve and protect.

Nothing I have said in this thread should be read as if I am backing up on my belief that the American public needs to arm themselves for their own protection. The more, the better.... and hopefully the sooner!

Mr/Mrs/Miss First Hand, I feel confident that those armed individuals who found themselves right in the middle of this situation were scared to death. I would be too. But it's a shame one of them couldn't haver planted a .45 right between Loughner's eyes though!

Theory, smeary- let the trial begin and listen to the facts. Enough speculation or blame. The gunman will be on trial- the gun and bullets will not be.......

I can guarrantee that all political parties have "targets" and "war rooms". The meetings sound like assasination plots- just ask James Carville.

Listen as the media portrays this guy as anti government when he was in fact in the military and obsessed with mind control.

Guns don't kill people. Easy access to guns kills people.

@Somebody: "Listen as the media portrays this guy as anti government when he was in fact in the military..."

Timothy McVeigh was in the military and hated the government.

@Mike: "Oh boy, here we go. Blame Palin, Beck, etc. for this. This guy was a nut job ”Š he was allegedly a pot smoker and was not a religious person. Hardly the poster-boy for the Right."

I'm confused. Every time the right-wing is accused of religious zealotry, teabaggers everywhere stand up and protest loudly that such is a mischaracterization of their movement. They claim instead to value individualism and small government. Yet here you are saying that this pot-smoking individual cannot be a member of the Right BECAUSE he is rumored not to be of a religious persuasion. I wish you clowns would make up your minds.

@Somebody with a brain,

Haven't you heard? "Nannie States" are bad UNLESS they dictate what drugs you can take, with whom you may sleep, and what god you may worship.

deleted by moderator

I guess some of you have a valid point. After all, a lot of plain clothes cops have been shot and killed by uniformed cops mistaking them for the bad guy.

But, I will never roll over and play dead. I wore an "Expert Marksman" insignia on my uniform for almost 3 decades. If somebody comes out shooting in a crowd, I will try to take him/her out before they take me out. And hopefully before they take out as many as 32 people like Seung-Hui Cho did in Blacksburg!

My original statement stands. As long as any person carrying a firearm is an extremely good shot.

You started well! I had hopes...

Hoolarious, you might be surprised. A true shooting situation is very much like what happens in movies.

In the police academy we had a sophisticated and complex training tool which throws situations and people on a large screen in a split second. You had to decide whether to shoot or not, and you had to hit the target if you have in a split second determined it is a bad guy. If you don't pass the course you aren't certified to carry a firearm. I will say though, I imagine these standards have been lowered lately. Just like all the other standards have been lowered for whatever reason(s).

Mr/Mrs/Miss Oh Well, stay tuned. I am sure it will get much more interesting, as it always does when a discussion of a person's right to defend themselves erupts.

Face it, law enforcement can no longer protect you for a variety of reasons.

Where are all the usual suspects like Harry, gasba ,and billmars who jump to defend rightwing sh)te? Hello? Hello?

Mr/Mrs/Miss lol, even I won't defend a person like Loughner. This case is cut and dry. He shot people down in cold blood.

But if you want my usual off-the-wall Gasbag opinion anyway, it's too bad there wasn't an armed person nearby that could have placed a .45 right between his eyes before he was able to kill so many people.

So the map seems in poor taste or embarrassing or classless NOW, now that a person trained his gunsights on the woman whom Palin's map had put a gunsight on. My question to Palin would be, do you not have the courage of your alleged convictions? If it was okay BEFORE to put gunsights over the congressional seats you wanted "targeted," why is it not okay now?

great idea gas. everyone totes. so someone in the crowd could have shot this guy after he killed just two (as the shots went off in 5 seconds), so your gun toting great american takes him out. then a guy who just walks out of the sprint store next door see your good american take out the bad guy, but he does not know he was the bad guy, so he takes out super american. and then a guy come out of the shoe store, sees the 2nd good guy shoot the 1st good guy, and shoots the 2nd good guy. and then a guy drives up to pick up his wife, and sees the .....

i think you get the rest.

"As long as any person carrying a firearm is an extremely good shot."

Gasbag will get NO argument for me that IF the above statement were true, and IF the person carrying the fireman were also cool and rational under stress, and IF the person carrying the firearm were free from prejudice that might influence his/her response, and IF the other bystanders could be trusted to do the right thing under the circumstances as well, then I would LOVE it for everyone to be armed.

But that's not reality. Guns can be bought by just about anyone; the standards to which gunowners are held is nil (and that's all about profit for the gunmakers -- more guns sold means more $$ means gunmakers have a powerful lobby working on congress at all times). Most people are fricking yahoos. I don't want to be near any of them under the best of circumstances, let alone if they're armed. And I don't want my kids in schools or public places where fricking yahoos are walking around armed, amped up on political rhetoric, hating on darker-skinned people, and figuring that armageddon is on its way anyway so what the hell.

What's sad is that you could interpret that map and the common use of the target symbol as some kind of call to action to murder people. Try as the left might to make this into some kind of tea party plot, the simple fact is that a nutcase used a gun to murder people, including a REPUBLICAN APPOINTED FEDERAL JUDGE. Among the suspect's favorite books are both the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. So why don't you quite trying to make political hay out of what is a tragedy perpetrated by a guy with serious mental issues.

Sarah Palin has removed the map of crosshairs from her website. In retrospect, there can be no doubt that the map was in extremely poor taste.

Sarah Palin should take full responsibility for putting up such a tasteless map, but not for the shooting of the congresswoman. The thing is, in light of the shooting of the congresswoman, putting up the map seems like a pretty awful thing to do.

Sarah Palin, as a public figure, should have to answer questions about her actions. I fail to see why she should not have to answer questions about doing such an awful, tasteless thing.

@Gasbag: "In the police academy we had a sophisticated and complex training tool which throws situations and people on a large screen in a split second. You had to decide whether to shoot or not, and you had to hit the target if you have in a split second determined it is a bad guy. If you don’t pass the course you aren’t certified to carry a firearm...."

Quick question. In this training tool of which you speak, what characteristic most often helped you determine if the person was a "bad guy?" Just a guess, but did it have anything to do with whether or not they were ARMED? Hmmm?

Mr/Mrs/Miss Walking Tall, what point above did I not respond to?

And ya know what? The concealed carry yahoo thing works both ways. There's cops out here that shouldn't be carrying guns and live ammunition. And it's certainly been proven there's military personnel out here that never should have been issued a firearm. In other words, these yahoos come in all sizes, shapes and occupations.

Wow! As I said above, we will never be able to stop firearm violence in this country.

January 9, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, 1:1:15 a.m.

Two Baltimore police officers were shot, one of them fatally, when gunfire erupted early Sunday morning outside a club near downtown. Six people in all were shot and two killed.

@ Mike "he was allegedly a pot smoker and was not a religious person." And what does this have to do with killing people

"Sabato ... has noticed a pattern of assassins and would-be assassins to be in their 20s." And Timothy McVeigh would be another to add to that list, 27 at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Prayers and thoughts to the victim's families and hoping the "blame game" at least stays away from the Hook forum...Yahoo is going nuts.

Giffords was one of the lawmakers Sarah Palin "set her sights on" in the Palin PAC (takebackthe20.com). The congresswoman and others are targeted with simulated gun sights on a map of the United States.

so self-obsessed that you have google alert you when your name comes up?

sheriff says the guy may not be a lone shooter.

Have we returned to the Wild West ? "During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event."
reported at Newsplex

and Jesse Kelly wasn't the only gun touting candidate last year

More Candidates Hunting For Votes With Guns

by Linton Weeks


"Criminals" in general are in their 20s and younger. By the time someone reaches age 30, would be "criminals" are either dead or locked up.

Yes, Gasbag, it is unfortunate that not everyone was toting...a bunch of us patriots taking down this sick guy...all of us would have been on target and not hit innocent bystanders...hey, it's Arizona...could have been like the O.K. Corral! And I am sure we would have had the fortitude to react to this and not panic and put him down before people lost their lives. More gun carrying civilians would have definitely solved this problem.

Whats the religion of the killer? If he were a Muslim, it would have been important.

agreed, Cville. A bull's-eye on your name is patriotic if you're sick of big gov't, taxes, and wear an American flag shirt, etc.....unless you are a Muslim. Not that this nut was affiliated with anyone, but bull's-eyes next to names? Really?

Yep you can blame the Rushes the Shara's the Shawn's and the Bills for this .All they talk about is guns ammo take back the government by any means possible .This group should be tried for treason along with accessory to murder. How can a group named "right" be so frigging wrong?

"As this serious situation continues to develop, I remain in close communication with Democratic leaders, the Speaker's office and the Sergeant at Arms. We will remain in constant communication regarding any schedule changes....;" should the opportunity arise to take advantage of this incident, you can count on us.

Joe Benny ; Are sure your not Jack Benny?

Gasbag wrote: "As long as any person carrying a firearm is an extremely good shot."

One big IF. Also, good shot or no, shooters can often make wrong decisions in the heat of the moment. Once the bullet leaves the chamber, there's no calling it back. Hunters shoot people thinking they're animals; troops shoot their own thinking they're the enemy; police unleash a barrage of fire to kill a suspect who they thought had a gun and no gun is found, unless the police carry a spare and throw it next to the body.

Dick Cheney shot a friend, Pat Tillman died because of friendly fire, and Amadou Diallo died because NYPD officers made a series of bad decisions that led to a hail of gunfire.

So please don't talk about being "an extremely good shot." There are far more complexities and variables that come into play when guns are a part of the mix.

Gasbag, please tell us about one of the "true shooting situation[s]" you have been involved in.

If you have only encountered the simulated variety that you mentioned above, then you seem again to be having a difficult time distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

Gasbag, please don't confuse anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment people with facts. They get flustered.

@Gasbag: "...of course the scenarios involve the actors displaying firearms. blah blah blah"

Thank you for confirming earlier posters' points that more guns on the scene would have made for a MORE dangerous situation. The rest of the nonsense in your response was typical Gasbag deflection - change the subject rather than answer the point.

@duh: "Non-law enforcement people carrying concealed weapons legally, at least in Virginia, have concealed weapons permits and are not ââ?¬Å?fricking yahoos”."

Christopher Speight had a concealed handgun permit prior to killing eight members of his family last January in Appomattox.

Aaron Jackson had a concealed handgun permit prior to murdering his one- and two-year-old children and their mother before turning the gun on himself in Fredericksburg this past May.

A SURVEYOR'S symbol?!? W. T. F.????? How stupid do they think people are? "Oh, yeah, I have a great idea, let's create a map with twenty congressional districts on it that we're TARGETING, and we'll need some kind of symbol to place over the districts to show that those are the ones we're TARGETING, who has an idea for what kind of symbol we could use on this map, anyone? anyone? I KNOW! how about that ancient but extremely well-known SURVEYOR'S symbol? yeah, that's a great one, everyone is familiar with the SURVEYOR'S SYMBOL! great idea! WHAT? You mean you people all thought that SURVEYOR'S SYMBOL was actually the crosshairs of a gun sight? that's crazy! wherever would you get that idea? i mean, it's not like our candidate is all about guns or anything! we're utterly stunned that anyone would think our crosshairs-looking symbol was a gunsight and not the extremely well known SURVEYOR'S SYMBOL that we always had in mind from day one!"

This is perhaps the lamest thing I've ever heard. This spokesperson gets paid in real dollars to do that job? Sheesh.

Queens New York, 1982. The bar was packed, 45 or so people. The 3 gunman walked in the door and one of them fired a shot into the ceiling, everyone ran for cover except 2 men, the owners of the bar. They ran toward the gunfire. One of them was the target, the other was carrying a gun and pulled it as if to take a shot at the would be killer. Both bar owners were killed. I know first hand, I was 19 years old playing Packman and drinking a beer.
My feelings are this. If the shooter is planted in the crowd and know there target, they have the upper hand. The planning and surprise. The owner of the bar had a large crowd to deal with and did not want to start shooting randomly at 15 figures in front of him. It is a difficult situation trying to decide if the person your firing at is the bad guy or the good guy shooting at the bad guy.
Gun fire is no joke. It has a very distinct sound and most people run from it. What played out yesterday was terrible. I am sure there were individuals in the crowd who had guns, with not much training. Where they cautious or afraid themselves. We probably will never know.

and with all of these killings the Brady Foundations donations are down by 55% and they are laying off over half of their staff.

Meanwhile the NRA is doubling efforts to get any and all restrictions removed while their only check is down on the mat...

What a sad, scary, senseless killing and wounding of public servants. A tragic day for a country that prides itself on the principles of open government and free access to those who serve us.

Probably a psy op. Tune into Alex tomorrow to learn the story behind the story.

Where is TUSCON?

Ohh, good grief! We all know the author meant T-U-C-S-O-N.

If early press reports are correct this lone shooter is a deeply disturbed person who online nonsensical rantings (about waking dreamers and a new currency of thought) are evidence of serious problems and not seemingly political motivated- but it's VERY early and all that could change.

The Congresswoman was actually reported to have died in early press reports and that fortunately turn out to be wrong.

The Judge and the 9 year old girl deaths are a tragedy and my thoughts and prayers are with all the victims and their families.

Oh boy, here we go. Blame Palin, Beck, etc. for this. This guy was a nut job ... he was allegedly a pot smoker and was not a religious person. Hardly the poster-boy for the Right.

This guy would have shot his Congressperson regardless of who he or she was.

woops, meant to say putting a bull's-eye next to a name is patriotic if you’re sick of big gov’t, taxes, and wear an American flag shirt, etc”Š..unless you are a Muslim. Not that this nut was affiliated with anyone, but bull’s-eyes next to names? Really?

"At this early stage, I think Loughner is probably best described as a mentally ill or unstable person who was influenced by the rhetoric and demonizing propaganda around him. Ideology may not explain why he allegedly killed, but it could help explain how he selected his target."


OMG, I just found this from the spokesfeeble as well:

"This graphic was done, not even done in house -- we had a political graphics professional who did this for us."

OMG. What a bunch of wimps. "whine, whine, we had that graphic up for months and sold gazillions of copies of the poster and we loved it and proudly displayed it UNTIL it seems to have bitten us on the ass, and now we rush to blame someone we hired to do it for us, the buck does NOT stop with Sarah Palin when it comes to taking responsibility for our own marketing efforts, we prefer to let the buck stop with someone far below her pay grade!"

Honestly, people admire her? Find her gutsy and courageous? That is pathetic.

Well of course she won't admit now that they put a sniper's target on the congresswoman's district. She will probably say now that by "don't retreat, reload!" she meant a flashlight's batteries.

This is a woman that quit her only term of statewide office less than half way through. This is a woman that condemned Rahm Emmanual's use of the term r@tard, while applauding Rush Limbaugh's use of it.

She is a hypocrite, a dullard and a coward. The people that take her seriously are those that are the most ill-informed among us.

Most likely this episode will do her prospective candidacy real harm. Hopefully, she has been elected to her last public office.

Same environment here as every other forum....

trying to further your own political views via a horrible tragedy where people died on our own soil by one of our own people. The guy was a deeply distrubed individual that has murdered innocent people. Does it really matter whether he was a dem or a repub? Left or right? Up or down? Whether there was someone there that COULD have had a gun that might have stopped him? (Gas, don't take that wrong, I am a supporter of bearing arms but don't own any...yet). Why, how, when does this ever become a red/blue, dem/repub/teaparty, race, creed, color thing? It's an American thing with every party, person, etc. involved. I have seen so much hate spewed in the past 24 hours that I am convinced this country is headed for a war, only on our own soil and against each other or our own government. So blame if you must...but it will only fuel and fan a fire that shouldn't have ever started in the first place. Bin Laden is probably laughing himself silly at our reactions to this tragedy saying "see, never have to fire a shot again, they will destroy themselves from the inside out."

@Whateva!: "...I am convinced this country is headed for a war, only on our own soil and against each other or our own government."

Are your freaking kidding me!!?? You spout crap like that (after talking about running out and arming yourself) yet you don't understand how the flames of partisan hostility are spread!!?? Think for a split second before tapping the keyboard, chief.

To answer your question, it became a red/blue, dem/repub/teaparty, race, creed, color thing when candidates for Senate started talking about "Second Amendment Remedies" to problems that aren't solved quickly enough at the ballot box; when Tea Party t-shirts advocating watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants (tyrants = Democrats who supported the healthcare bill) became fashionable; when protesting outside political rallies or Congressional town hall meetings while wielding loaded firearms became acceptable political speech.

I find it curious that those prone to such incendiary rhetoric/behavior suddenly want everyone to forget their previous irresponsible statements and actions. When a horrible tragedy brings those chickens home to roost, we should forget about all that past ugliness and come together as "Americans".

And if we don't all fall in line, Al Queda wins?

You disgust me.