Isn't an act of political violence always mental illness in this country ?

[steve2470]

Just saying. Let's suppose that Loughner had dressed up in standard Tea Party garb and stuffed his pockets with Tea Party literature and shouted as he pulled the trigger, "You shall die for the Tea Party's gain !". I think most rational humans would say, yes that's a political act of violence.

However (exempting other eras and other countries), isn't an act of bona fide political violence regarded as a sign of mental illness in this country anyway ? I"m making this point to say, it's easy to rationalize away true political violence as mental illness. To me, in this country, you MUST be mentally ill to commit political violence. Assuming you are captured and found guilty in a court of law, you will at least spend the rest of your life in prison. What well-balanced human wants that ?

[xchrom]

1. interesting -- i think many of us on the anti-war left

simply view violence as an expression of some sort of mental imbalance.

so i think that's one group who would take that view -- as well as taking the view that the mentally unstable are used for others benefit.

but as others have noted -- after killings of jfk, mlk, rfk, etc -- the country moved to the right.

[steve2470]

2. I personally view violence as imbalance also.

I think there might be a morally justifiable case to be made for Hitler's assassination in January 1933. If not 1933, how about 1945 ? Or earlier ?

However, in cases less extreme than Hitler, I do agree it is imbalance.

[Warpy]

3. Well, in this case it was

but the violence of the right wing rhetoric certainly influenced his choice of target. Had his free ranging hate and anger not been channeled and legitimized by Beck, Miller, Palin, and the legions of other right wing haters, he'd probably have simply shot up the supermarket instead of trying to assassinate a politician.

Too bad he stopped smoking pot. It seems pot kept him relatively peaceful even if he was still crazy.