"I guarantee you that Palin is sitting at home right prayingr that the shooter does not mention her bc, at a minimum, it will be a well deserved career ending moment for her"
Her career as an elected politician, has long been finished.
Her new career, making money,gathering votes for her base.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml
Of course not you say. Ridiculous to even raise the question.
But what if the Arizona shooter says he saw Sarah Palin”s “crosshairs” website with Arizona marked with a cross hair and Rep Gifford listed, and that it motivated him to assassinate the lady?
Still so sure?
The intensely pro gun rights Palin had the incredible bad judgment to use rifle imaginery to suggest to her followers that they should vote out supporters of Obamacare. She introduced the website with the now famous slogan –“don’t retreat, reload.”
But what if this guy misunderstood? Is she criminally responsible? Of course not, you say. She did not intend for anyone to take the “cross hairs” literally.
Ah, but the law in all its majesty is not so limited. Arizona recognizes reckless second degree murder:
The crime of second degree murder requires proof of one of the following:
…
3. Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death and thereby caused the death of another person. The risk must be such that disregarding it was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have done; or
H’mm, it’s not quite so clear now is it? With all the crazy people out there, is it unreasonable to maintain a website with a particular person in the cross hairs? You could make that argument.
Is it a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would have done and does it pose a grave risk of danger? That gets a little harder but an Arizona DA who wants to make a name for himself might want to submit that one to the grand jury.
Okay, if no criminal liability, how about civil? If Palin wasn’t reckless here, wasn’t she at least negligent? Wasn’t it foreseeable that some loon might take her literally?
Here’s how those shepards of the Lord, the trial lawyers, would think. “If we sue, she will have to settle quick or her presidential campaign will be destroyed. There’s big money on the table."
So, if this guy says he was following the directive on her website and took it literally, you can’t discount Palin’s criminal or civil liability here. At the very least, it will be a Law and Order episode next year.
As for me, I bear her no ill will but believe the website to be an incredible lapse of judgment by someone who says she wants to be president. For now, I’m just happy they’ve cancelled her terrible reality show.
to get some civil cases against her. It sounds like the odds makers have significantly increased the odds of her getting the nomination for president, so no matter who is saying what, they're quite aware of how it appears to the average person.
I just wouldn't want to be the owner of the company that printed the slogan on tee shirts, "we came unarmed [this time]" because that was exactly what the shooter did. He saw her and asked his question, didn't like her response, and came back with a gun.
First, the insane hypocrisy of the Dems is best illustrated by your reference to the "cross-hairs" map. The map "targeted" districts. It wasn't targetting Gifford. THE FACT IS THE DEMS DID THE SAME THING. The Dems had a map for their target states, but they used a bulls eye.
You will be laughed out of court if you want to premise civil or criminal liability on the fact that someone used a cross hair symbol in a political ad, and that is beyond the pale, but using the same map with a bulls eye is okay.
SECOND, this guy was stalking the congress woman BEFORE OBAMA WAS ELECTED. He was fixated on her before Tea Baggers. He went to her meetings before any of this rhetoric that you are blaming. Tie that into causation. NOT.
Third, there has never been a case of civil liability in the United States where liability was premised on a listener misconstruing figurative speech.
Fourth, the core of the First Amendment, the part of the First Amendment that has the highest level of judicial protection is speech relating to politics. Political speech will never give rise to civil liability. Anything Palin said is in the context of political speech.
Fifth, at the worst, worst, worst, you have Palin talking symbolically and figuratively. That type of speech has a tremendous level of protection. Think art.
Your theory that her language "manifest[ed] extreme indifference to human life, the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death and thereby caused the death of another person" is silly.
Was Obama saying "You bring a knife, we bring a gun," the type of speech you are talking about. GOSH, Let's encourage people to go to political brawls with a gun. No. No danger there.
Was Maxine Waters saying "No justice, no peace" in that class, when the motto caused riots that killed 50 people and caused billions in damage. And even after that the Dems screamed "No justice, no peace."
Alec Baldwin goes on TV and urges that they storm the house of a GOP and stone him to death and then kill his children. But lefties can urge arson and murder and it's just cute.
Carvelle advocated "knee-capping" Ken Starr.
And you think some vague thing that Palin might have said that a crazy person misconstrued is going to give rise to civil liability.
I promise you, if it s a Law and Order episode and that is all they have, it will be dismissed before the prelim.
SILLY,
But what if the Arizona shooter says he saw Sarah Palin”s “crosshairs” website with Arizona marked with a cross hair and Rep Gifford listed, and that it motivated him to assassinate the lady?
Still so sure?
The intensely pro gun rights Palin had the incredible bad judgment to use rifle imaginery to suggest to her followers that they should vote out supporters of Obamacare. She introduced the website with the now famous slogan –“don’t retreat, reload.”
But what if this guy misunderstood? Is she criminally responsible? Of course not, you say. She did not intend for anyone to take the “cross hairs” literally.
Ah, but the law in all its majesty is not so limited. Arizona recognizes reckless second degree murder:
The crime of second degree murder requires proof of one of the following:
…
3. Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death and thereby caused the death of another person. The risk must be such that disregarding it was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have done; or
H’mm, it’s not quite so clear now is it? With all the crazy people out there, is it unreasonable to maintain a website with a particular person in the cross hairs? You could make that argument.
Is it a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would have done and does it pose a grave risk of danger? That gets a little harder but an Arizona DA who wants to make a name for himself might want to submit that one to the grand jury.
Okay, if no criminal liability, how about civil? If Palin wasn’t reckless here, wasn’t she at least negligent? Wasn’t it foreseeable that some loon might take her literally?
Here’s how those shepards of the Lord, the trial lawyers, would think. “If we sue, she will have to settle quick or her presidential campaign will be destroyed. There’s big money on the table."
So, if this guy says he was following the directive on her website and took it literally, you can’t discount Palin’s criminal or civil liability here. At the very least, it will be a Law and Order episode next year.
As for me, I bear her no ill will but believe the website to be an incredible lapse of judgment by someone who says she wants to be president. For now, I’m just happy they’ve cancelled her terrible reality show.
1. Many of your objections seem to be "other people have done it." What a coincidence - that is what Tom Delay said today as they led him away in handcuffs.
Sorry but what other people have done would be irrelevant to a criminal prosecution.
2. First Amendment protects her - sorry, you are forgetting that the First Amendment does not protect criminal conduct.
3. The shooter was stalking Gifford before Obama elected. The hypothetical I posed, however, was premised on the shooter stating that the he saw the website and interpreted it as a command to assassinate. So earlier stalking would not be a defense, if it was relevant at all.
4. "There has never been a case of civil liability in the United States where liability was premised on a listener misconstruing figurative speech." What? My friend, let me introduce you to the law of defamation where there are many such cases.
Here, however, the cause of action would be negligence. How would you defend that?
So it is not so clear as you seem to believe. I guarantee you that Palin is sitting at home right prayingr that the shooter does not mention her bc, at a minimum, it will be a well deserved career ending moment for her.
You have it premised on the stalker seeing the website and seeing it as a command to kill.
Look how dumb that is: A person who everyone agrees is crazy, sees a comment on an otherwise politcally proper website, almost the exact image used by the other side - cross hair instead of bulls eye - and the nut interprets that as a sign to kill, so the person exercising political speech is liable.
A nut can interpret anything in an irrational manner. I think your post was a command to set off a nuclear bomb because it makes people upset.
I think President Obama was demanding that we use guns when evern the GOP puts up any resistance.
I think that Waters was demanding that with no justice we plant bombs in every fed building.
The otherwise proper expression of political figures, expression freely used by the other side, will never give rise to a cause of action because it inspired crazies.
In fact, I don't think a normal person has ever been held liable for a legal action because a nut over reacted.
Find one case.
You cannot have negligence through the exercise of protected speech. By definition, protected speech is not negligence.
The Dem National Party would be called as Exhibit A to show that this type of this is normal political speech. They did something so comparable that there is no difference.
CAN YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CROSS HAIRS AND BULLS EYES???? NO
The second witness will be the president, who will be asked if rhetorical images of violence - bring a gun - should be used as a basis for liability.
You say there are defamation cases. NAME ONE. None that had this type of political speech, not addressed at anyone, as defamation. NAME ONE CASE WHERE A POLITICAL PERSON MADE AN INFLAMATORY COMMENT, INSPIRING A CRAZY PERSON TO ACT IN A CRIMINAL MANNER AND IT RESULTED IN LIABILITY. $100 DONATION TO THE DEM PARTY IF YOU CAN.
AGAIN, most people think you are making political hay. 60-40. Palin is sitting there hoping the Dems push this. They are on the minority side. When you are in a hole, quit digging.
She will say, "Hey, I did almost the same thing as the Dems. they used bulls eyes, I used cross hairs. IF YOU THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, BETWEEN WHAT WE DID, VOTE FOR THEM. IF YOU THINK THEY DID A SIMILAR THING AND THEY ARE JUST MAKING POLITICAL HAY OUT OF A TRAGEDY, VOTE FOR ME." Puke City.
Sorry but what other people have done would be irrelevant to a criminal prosecution.
2. First Amendment protects her - sorry, you are forgetting that the First Amendment does not protect criminal conduct.
3. The shooter was stalking Gifford before Obama elected. The hypothetical I posed, however, was premised on the shooter stating that the he saw the website and interpreted it as a command to assassinate. So earlier stalking would not be a defense, if it was relevant at all.
4. "There has never been a case of civil liability in the United States where liability was premised on a listener misconstruing figurative speech." What? My friend, let me introduce you to the law of defamation where there are many such cases.
Here, however, the cause of action would be negligence. How would you defend that?
So it is not so clear as you seem to believe. I guarantee you that Palin is sitting at home right prayingr that the shooter does not mention her bc, at a minimum, it will be a well deserved career ending moment for her.
Let's stipulate that you are correct -- I'd like you to expand on an idea and what its parameters are.
"The hypothetical I posed, however, was premised on the shooter stating that the he saw the website and interpreted it as a command to assassinate."
Since HIS interpretation is what is operative here rather than even a "reasonable person" standard ... where do you draw a line on interpretations?
When liberals draw a Hitler mustache on Bush; does that then justify the child of a Holocaust survivor assassinating Bush as the next incarnation of Hitler?
This line of reasoning reminds me a lot of sexual harassment law where it is not the objective behavior that is problematic -- because identical behavior can be problematic in one instance and innocuous in another. Rather, it is the *interpretation* that the designated victim gives to the behavior that makes it actionable.
So, since sexual harassment law has been upheld; I'll grant that it is possible to hold anyone whose statements might be interpreted by a schizophrenic as advocating violence liable for their contribution to the person's crime.
But if that ever happens -- that will be THE END of any semblance of freedom in this country because anyone at any time will be subject to penalty for mere interpretations.
For liability, in a sexual harrasment case, the defendant has to do something that a reasonable person would get upset about.
For example, if the boss wears a necktie with a bird pattern, and a women gets upset because female birds sit on eggs, which she sees as saying women should stay home, and as a result she kills her secretary, the boss isn't liable that she reacted in a crazy way to his normal conduct.
That is why the Dems cross hairs are important. This type of image is just normal political speech. You aren't liable if a crazy person reacts in a weird way.
If I do something at work and a crazy employee is upset, that doesn't create liability
"The hypothetical I posed, however, was premised on the shooter stating that the he saw the website and interpreted it as a command to assassinate."
Since HIS interpretation is what is operative here rather than even a "reasonable person" standard ... where do you draw a line on interpretations?
When liberals draw a Hitler mustache on Bush; does that then justify the child of a Holocaust survivor assassinating Bush as the next incarnation of Hitler?
This line of reasoning reminds me a lot of sexual harassment law where it is not the objective behavior that is problematic -- because identical behavior can be problematic in one instance and innocuous in another. Rather, it is the *interpretation* that the designated victim gives to the behavior that makes it actionable.
So, since sexual harassment law has been upheld; I'll grant that it is possible to hold anyone whose statements might be interpreted by a schizophrenic as advocating violence liable for their contribution to the person's crime.
But if that ever happens -- that will be THE END of any semblance of freedom in this country because anyone at any time will be subject to penalty for mere interpretations.
to a Title VII sexual harassment claim:
A plaintiff may establish a sex hostile work environment claim by showing that he was subjected to verbal or physical harassment that was sexual in nature, that the harassment was unwelcome and that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment and create an abusive work environment. See Gregory v. Widnall, 153 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998). A plaintiff must establish that the conduct at issue was both objectively and subjectively offensive: he must show that a reasonable person would find the work environment to be "hostile or abusive," and that he in fact did perceive it to be so.
In the Palin context the question in the first instance is whether the prosecutor concludes there is probable cause to believe she was criminally reckless or civilly negligent, and if this caused the shooter to act. Then you kick into the statute governing when a person is criminally liable for the criminal acts of another, and civilly when a person by his negligence is civilly liable for the criminal acts of another.
Sorry but whether "everyone does it" is simply not relevant to the analysis.
"I guarantee you that Palin is sitting at home right prayingr that the shooter does not mention her bc, at a minimum, it will be a well deserved career ending moment for her"
Her career as an elected politician, has long been finished.
Her new career, making money,gathering votes for her base.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml
Two things:
1) I would point out that three years ago, the left was sell T-shirts with the quote from Jefferson about periodically watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants.
At that time, references to spilling Bush's blood, because if you are honest that is who they were talking about, was okay.
2) the language of fight and battle has been the image used in politics for over 200 years. If you think that it will now create liability, I want some of what you are smoking.
WARNING: The latest Gallup poll, not a GOP mouth piece, has 60% saying that GOP and Tea Party rhetoric did not contribute. Less than 40% think there may be a correlation.
This is one of those issues where there is a huge split, with most people thinking it didn't contribute. As more and more comes out, it will get worse. For example, it turns out the guy may have been a leftie.
Keep yapping it up as more and more people discount your theory.
But what if the Arizona shooter says he saw Sarah Palin”s “crosshairs” website with Arizona marked with a cross hair and Rep Gifford listed, and that it motivated him to assassinate the lady?
Still so sure?
The intensely pro gun rights Palin had the incredible bad judgment to use rifle imaginery to suggest to her followers that they should vote out supporters of Obamacare. She introduced the website with the now famous slogan –“don’t retreat, reload.”
But what if this guy misunderstood? Is she criminally responsible? Of course not, you say. She did not intend for anyone to take the “cross hairs” literally.
Ah, but the law in all its majesty is not so limited. Arizona recognizes reckless second degree murder:
The crime of second degree murder requires proof of one of the following:
…
3. Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death and thereby caused the death of another person. The risk must be such that disregarding it was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have done; or
H’mm, it’s not quite so clear now is it? With all the crazy people out there, is it unreasonable to maintain a website with a particular person in the cross hairs? You could make that argument.
Is it a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would have done and does it pose a grave risk of danger? That gets a little harder but an Arizona DA who wants to make a name for himself might want to submit that one to the grand jury.
Okay, if no criminal liability, how about civil? If Palin wasn’t reckless here, wasn’t she at least negligent? Wasn’t it foreseeable that some loon might take her literally?
Here’s how those shepards of the Lord, the trial lawyers, would think. “If we sue, she will have to settle quick or her presidential campaign will be destroyed. There’s big money on the table."
So, if this guy says he was following the directive on her website and took it literally, you can’t discount Palin’s criminal or civil liability here. At the very least, it will be a Law and Order episode next year.
As for me, I bear her no ill will but believe the website to be an incredible lapse of judgment by someone who says she wants to be president. For now, I’m just happy they’ve cancelled her terrible reality show.
other examples of where political rhetoric made a call for violence.
You have to start with the facts of this hypothetical - the shooter states that he interpreted Palin's website as a directive to assassinate and acted in reliance thereon, and then analyze from that point forward. All the examples you give where the criminal act was not caused by rhetoric are irrelevant.
Think of this way - if I post on a website "please kill the president now to save the country" and someone acts on my plea, am I free from liability civil and criminal? Unless you can say "absolutely you are free", the Palin example is simply a variation on this fact situation.
What did Palin say that was comparable to "please kill the president."
How much shit can you make up.
You have an express statement urging action in the one you just gave.
Now you will find something that instead of a clear, unambiguous command is a vague symbolic comment.
You have something that is a direct threat that no one does.
What she did is they type of language that is every day politics.
You convert things that everyone does into "Kill the pres."
Jesus, how much can you stretch it?
After the violent fight against Health Care Law ended, she said "DON'T RETREAT, RELOAD!". Arizona Congresswoman voted for the new law and some one reloaded and came back. Since he had planned this well ahead, he did not leave any burning bridges behind. That leads to classic American Justice system to work with words "deranged', "sick", "pervert" and of course "mentally ill". However, no alibis exist; he has never gone to a therapist, knew what he was buying, knew where to go, knew how to use what had bought.
How much shit can you make up.
You have an express statement urging action in the one you just gave.
Now you will find something that instead of a clear, unambiguous command is a vague symbolic comment.
You have something that is a direct threat that no one does.
What she did is they type of language that is every day politics.
You convert things that everyone does into "Kill the pres."
Jesus, how much can you stretch it?
-- Modified on 1/12/2011 2:42:25 AM
But what if the Arizona shooter says he saw Sarah Palin”s “crosshairs” website with Arizona marked with a cross hair and Rep Gifford listed, and that it motivated him to assassinate the lady?
Still so sure?
The intensely pro gun rights Palin had the incredible bad judgment to use rifle imaginery to suggest to her followers that they should vote out supporters of Obamacare. She introduced the website with the now famous slogan –“don’t retreat, reload.”
But what if this guy misunderstood? Is she criminally responsible? Of course not, you say. She did not intend for anyone to take the “cross hairs” literally.
Ah, but the law in all its majesty is not so limited. Arizona recognizes reckless second degree murder:
The crime of second degree murder requires proof of one of the following:
…
3. Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death and thereby caused the death of another person. The risk must be such that disregarding it was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have done; or
H’mm, it’s not quite so clear now is it? With all the crazy people out there, is it unreasonable to maintain a website with a particular person in the cross hairs? You could make that argument.
Is it a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would have done and does it pose a grave risk of danger? That gets a little harder but an Arizona DA who wants to make a name for himself might want to submit that one to the grand jury.
Okay, if no criminal liability, how about civil? If Palin wasn’t reckless here, wasn’t she at least negligent? Wasn’t it foreseeable that some loon might take her literally?
Here’s how those shepards of the Lord, the trial lawyers, would think. “If we sue, she will have to settle quick or her presidential campaign will be destroyed. There’s big money on the table."
So, if this guy says he was following the directive on her website and took it literally, you can’t discount Palin’s criminal or civil liability here. At the very least, it will be a Law and Order episode next year.
As for me, I bear her no ill will but believe the website to be an incredible lapse of judgment by someone who says she wants to be president. For now, I’m just happy they’ve cancelled her terrible reality show.
http://surveying.wb.psu.edu/sur162/stadia/SYMBOLS.GIF
-- Modified on 1/11/2011 5:48:53 PM
...to Sarah Palin, created the "surveyor's symbol" bit of revisionist history when interviewed and prompted to say that by talk-show host Tammy Bruce. "Yeah, surveyor's mark, that's the ticket!"
Tim, I can't believe you would not only fall for that crap but go to such lengths to back it up.
-- Modified on 1/11/2011 5:57:33 PM
-- Modified on 1/11/2011 7:09:41 PM
Tim, I can't believe you would not only fall for that crap but go to such lengths to back it up.
...cross hairs of a rifle, not a surveyor's instrument. On her Twitter page she said: "Don't retreat, reload!" Then she referred the readers to her Facebook page and the map with the cross hairs.
I agree she isn't going to run for President.
Even I would say she can't be held legally responsible!
Now should she be morally responsible? That question is still open for debate.
Sarah Palin is liable in the same way any woman would be responsible. Terrorist come into this world through the female birth canal. So in that sense, Sarah Palin might face extra liability as the most recognized leader of all women. Good catch!
But what if the Arizona shooter says he saw Sarah Palin”s “crosshairs” website with Arizona marked with a cross hair and Rep Gifford listed, and that it motivated him to assassinate the lady?
Still so sure?
The intensely pro gun rights Palin had the incredible bad judgment to use rifle imaginery to suggest to her followers that they should vote out supporters of Obamacare. She introduced the website with the now famous slogan –“don’t retreat, reload.”
But what if this guy misunderstood? Is she criminally responsible? Of course not, you say. She did not intend for anyone to take the “cross hairs” literally.
Ah, but the law in all its majesty is not so limited. Arizona recognizes reckless second degree murder:
The crime of second degree murder requires proof of one of the following:
…
3. Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, the defendant recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death and thereby caused the death of another person. The risk must be such that disregarding it was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have done; or
H’mm, it’s not quite so clear now is it? With all the crazy people out there, is it unreasonable to maintain a website with a particular person in the cross hairs? You could make that argument.
Is it a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would have done and does it pose a grave risk of danger? That gets a little harder but an Arizona DA who wants to make a name for himself might want to submit that one to the grand jury.
Okay, if no criminal liability, how about civil? If Palin wasn’t reckless here, wasn’t she at least negligent? Wasn’t it foreseeable that some loon might take her literally?
Here’s how those shepards of the Lord, the trial lawyers, would think. “If we sue, she will have to settle quick or her presidential campaign will be destroyed. There’s big money on the table."
So, if this guy says he was following the directive on her website and took it literally, you can’t discount Palin’s criminal or civil liability here. At the very least, it will be a Law and Order episode next year.
As for me, I bear her no ill will but believe the website to be an incredible lapse of judgment by someone who says she wants to be president. For now, I’m just happy they’ve cancelled her terrible reality show.
It is that type of liberal brainwashed thinking that keeps the 1960's era attorneys feeling like they have some self worth.
Of course, the liberal incompetent media are in a tabloid frenzy trying to beat the National Enquirer to the punch bowl.
as the Board authority on being stupid.