US District Judge John Roll faced death threats in 2009

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
News
Type Size: A A APrintEmailMost Popular
Digg this.U.S. District Judge John Roll faced death threats in 2009
Jan. 8, 2011 03:49 PM
The Arizona Republic
.

The killing of U.S. District Judge John M. Roll comes two years after he received death threats while he presided over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher.

When Roll ruled the case could go forward, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales said in 2009 that talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats.

In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online.


"They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,'" Gonzales said.

In an interview with The Arizona Republic in mid-2009, Roll, who was the chief federal judge in Arizona, said both he and his wife were given a protection detail for about a month.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...fords-roll-backgrounder-on.html#ixzz1AUhDPkKJ

does the plot thicken?
 
some person who claims they knew him said he was a lefty

personally, i don't think he a left or righty, i think you are correct in that he is mentally ill....i am virtually certain he will be declared unfit for trial
 
Yurt said:
some person who claims they knew him said he was a lefty

personally, i don't think he a left or righty, i think you are correct in that he is mentally ill....i am virtually certain he will be declared unfit for trial
Click to expand...


They'll just drug him up and try him. There is no way in hell that a guy that shot a Congressperson and murdered a federal judge, among others, will not be tried. The system protects itself.
 
NigelTufnel said:
He was tried.
Click to expand...

the law is different now, i used him as an example of someone committing harm to a high powered politician and still getting the insanity....now, he can be committed before trial until he is deemed competent if it is determined he is mentally incompetent to stand trial

his defense attorney will likely raise it, the burden is higher, but from what i've seen of this guys ramblings and this horrific act, its very likely he will be committed until such time he can stand trial....

we'll see though
 
Yurt said:
News
Type Size: A A APrintEmailMost Popular
Digg this.U.S. District Judge John Roll faced death threats in 2009
Jan. 8, 2011 03:49 PM
The Arizona Republic
.

The killing of U.S. District Judge John M. Roll comes two years after he received death threats while he presided over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher.

When Roll ruled the case could go forward, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales said in 2009 that talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats.

In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online.


"They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,'" Gonzales said.

In an interview with The Arizona Republic in mid-2009, Roll, who was the chief federal judge in Arizona, said both he and his wife were given a protection detail for about a month.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...fords-roll-backgrounder-on.html#ixzz1AUhDPkKJ

does the plot thicken?
Click to expand...

No. this is unrelated. This young guy seems to have a bad case of anti social behavior. Roll was correct in his ruling with that rancher by the way.

I disagree that he will be ruled incompetent to stand trial. He knew what he was doing was wrong and that is why he tried to escape.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No. this is unrelated. This young guy seems to have a bad case of anti social behavior. Roll was correct in his ruling with that rancher by the way.

I disagree that he will be ruled incompetent to stand trial. He knew what he was doing was wrong and that is why he tried to escape.
Click to expand...

yeah the authorities did say she was the target, i was just throwing a wild guess out....

he may stand trial, if he is only a very disturbed individual, he won't get the insanity hearing
 
Ice Dancer said:
No. this is unrelated. This young guy seems to have a bad case of anti social behavior. Roll was correct in his ruling with that rancher by the way.

I disagree that he will be ruled incompetent to stand trial. He knew what he was doing was wrong and that is why he tried to escape.
Click to expand...

So the threshold for insanity now is whether or not someone tries to escape? That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. The M'Naughten rule ("unable to tell right from wrong") isn't even used at the federal level anymore. It's pre-psychiatric nonsense. The presence of a mental disorder tells you whether or not someone is insane, not anything else. And trying to escape is a basic human extinct. Even when the idiotic m'naughten rule was in place, trying to escape wasn't proof that i was inapplicable.

If he is schizophrenic he can use the insanity defense, although the federal rule is different than most other rules in that the mental disease in question has to be severe. If he's ruled insane, he's probably going to spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital. Even if they choose to try him as not insane for political reasons, he could probably still escape the death penalty due to rulings that you can't execute the insane (you can't escape that ruling by merely trying insane people as sane).

In summary, you're an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Fetus said:
So the threshold for insanity now is whether or not someone tries to escape? That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. The M'Naughten rule ("unable to tell right from wrong") isn't even used at the federal level anymore. It's pre-psychiatric nonsense. The presence of a mental disorder tells you whether or not someone is insane, not anything else.

If he is schizophrenic he can use the insanity defense, although the federal rule is different than most other rules in that the mental disease in question has to be severe. If he's ruled insane, he's probably going to spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital. Even if they choose to try him as not insane for political reasons, he could probably still escape the death penalty due to rulings that you can't execute the insane (you can't escape that ruling by merely trying insane people as sane).

In summary, you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

:fu:

The Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act The Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. s. 17, holds: "It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal STATUTE that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense." This act, a response to the Hinckley verdict, eliminated the irresistible impulse test from the insanity defense under federal law. The act also provided that "the defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence." Previously under federal law, the government had the burden of proving sanity.


Guilty but Mentally Ill Finally, the Hinckley verdict accelerated the ADOPTION of "guilty but mentally ill" verdicts by states. "Guilty but mentally ill" verdict allows mentally ill defendants to be found criminally liable and requires them to receive psychiatric treatment while incarcerated, or, alternatively, to be placed in a mental hospital and then when they are well enough to be moved to a prison to serve their sentences. Laws allowing pleas and verdicts of guilty but mentally ill were first adopted in Michigan in 1975, and concurrent with or subsequent to the Hinckley trial were adopted by 12 more states.

Current Status of the Insanity Defense among the States The following list gives the status of the insanity defense in all 50 states, describes the test used, the party on whom the burden of proof lies, and whether the state uses the guilty but mentally ill verdict

ARIZONA: M'Naghten Rule, burden of proof on defendant.
 
Dr. Fetus said:
So the threshold for insanity now is whether or not someone tries to escape? That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. The M'Naughten rule ("unable to tell right from wrong") isn't even used at the federal level anymore. It's pre-psychiatric nonsense. The presence of a mental disorder tells you whether or not someone is insane, not anything else. And trying to escape is a basic human extinct. Even when the idiotic m'naughten rule was in place, trying to escape wasn't proof that i was inapplicable.

If he is schizophrenic he can use the insanity defense, although the federal rule is different than most other rules in that the mental disease in question has to be severe. If he's ruled insane, he's probably going to spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital. Even if they choose to try him as not insane for political reasons, he could probably still escape the death penalty due to rulings that you can't execute the insane (you can't escape that ruling by merely trying insane people as sane).

In summary, you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

it damn well is evidence...trying to escape usually occurs because you KNOW you did something wrong

and it is in fact used in those types of proceedings and other criminal proceedings

so in summary, you are the idiot
 
Yurt said:
it damn well is evidence...trying to escape usually occurs because you KNOW you did something wrong

and it is in fact used in those types of proceedings and other criminal proceedings

so in summary, you are the idiot
Click to expand...

So a person who is mentally ill won't try to escape? That's idiotic. If that's the rule with regards to insanity in law, it does not describe actual mental illness, it describes something else wholly of it's own invention and labels it as "insanity".
 
Dr. Fetus said:
So a person who is mentally ill won't try to escape? That's idiotic. If that's the rule with regards to insanity in law, it does not describe actual mental illness, it describes something else wholly of it's own invention and labels it as "insanity".
Click to expand...

this is the federal law and the majority of states are similar, you're spouting pre 1984 talk, so whatever link you got your info from is extremely outdated

The federal Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 17, provides: “It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.” This act, a response to the Hinckley verdict, eliminated the Irresistible Impulse Test from the insanity defense under federal law. The act also provided that “the defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.” Previously under federal law, the government had the burden of proving sanity.
Click to expand...

thus, escaping can be used as evidence that he knew or appreciated the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts. running away strongly indicates that you know what you did is wrong and since that action is so very closely related in time to the act, it is evidence
 
Yurt said:
this is the federal law and the majority of states are similar, you're spouting pre 1984 talk, so whatever link you got your info from is extremely outdated



thus, escaping can be used as evidence that he knew or appreciated the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts. running away strongly indicates that you know what you did is wrong and since that action is so very closely related in time to the act, it is evidence
Click to expand...

Meh, the pre-1984 standards made sense, these are anti-rational and aren't based on real psychology. It would've been better to just abolish the insanity defense, rather than to pretend you still have it but define it so narrowly that only brain damaged people apply.

Anyway, people were trying to tackle him, I assume that's why he ran.
 
Dr. Fetus said:
Meh, the pre-1984 standards made sense, these are anti-rational and aren't based on real psychology. It would've been better to just abolish the insanity defense, rather than to pretend you still have it but define it so narrowly that only brain damaged people apply.

Anyway, people were trying to tackle him, I assume that's why he ran.
Click to expand...

if you read the history of the act, it is in fact based on psychology...our understanding of the mind has changed from the 1800's watermark

i actually just read a witness report that he wasn't trying to run, he actually was reloading his gun
 
Yurt said:
if you read the history of the act, it is in fact based on psychology...our understanding of the mind has changed from the 1800's watermark
Click to expand...

The M'Naughten rule was designed in the 1800's. It is a pre-psychiatric standard. The federal act tried to get as close as possible to the old M'Naughten rule in the wake media sensationalism due to John Hinkley Jr.'s assassination attempt. The irony here is that if he hadn't been judged insane, he'd probably be free right now, just like the woman who tried to assassinate Ford.

If you are a full-blown paranoid schizophrenic who believes that Gabrielle Giffords is the spawn of satan trying to destroy the universe, and most of what comes out of your mouth sounds like a random word generator, you can still understand that people will think that your trying to shoot her is wrong. That clearly doesn't make you sane. But M'Naughten apparently judges such an individual as sane. In states with the M'Naughten rule, people who are schizophrenic are often judged sane. Which just goes to highlight how utterly worthless it is.
 
My problem with all of this is that people are now using this lunatic and his acts of violence to further drive a wedge between Americans that view politics differently. I do not think this guy is typical of the right or the left. I do not think he is typical of a Tea Party member or a Socialist Party Member. He is disturbed. He should be locked away for the rest of his life. But he should never be used as the poster child for proving that he is the epitome of ANY political parties membership. Dixie, Asshat, Damn Yankee all drive me crazy with a lot of their rhetoric, but I would never compare them to this nutjob. I would never use this guy to denigrate the millions of Americans that are members of the Tea Party and love their country and just want what they think is best for it. Every two years we elect representatives and senators and mayors etc. Some years one party falls out of power while another comes into power. We ALWAYS pass the gavel peacefully, but it seems more and more that anytime one party loses, it resorts to rhetoric that serves no purpose other than to make people of their political bend feel threatened by people of another political bend. Civility has left politics. An incident like today is a good event to try to bring a little of it back.
 
Dr. Fetus said:
So a person who is mentally ill won't try to escape? That's idiotic. If that's the rule with regards to insanity in law, it does not describe actual mental illness, it describes something else wholly of it's own invention and labels it as "insanity".
Click to expand...

Did you read my response?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top