Judge sees ‘different person’ in Arizona gunman

Judge sees ‘different person’ in Arizona gunman

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) - Jared Loughner sat looking relaxed and attentive in a packed courtroom as he pleaded guilty to a deadly shooting rampage in an agreement with prosecutors that will send him to prison for life. He even cracked a smile when a court-appointed psychologist talked about the special bond that he formed with a prison guard.

His hair closely cropped, Loughner was not the smiling, bald-headed suspect captured in a mug shot soon after the January 2011 shooting. Six people had died and 13 others were wounded, including his intended target, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

He was not the man who rocked back and forth in court in May 2011 before blurting out, “Thank you for the free kill. She died in front of me. Your cheesiness.”

The changes in Loughner’s behavior while being treated and medicated at a federal prison in Springfield, Mo., led a judge to declare the 23-year-old competent Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Larry Burns gave his blessings to a plea agreement that spares prosecutors and victims a potentially lengthy trial and appeal and allows Loughner to escape the death penalty.

Full Story Here:
Judge sees ‘different person’ in Arizona gunman

It would appear that Jarred Loughner has recovered his sanity.

How about that? Didn’t Loughner’s attorneys try to plea him out as *not guilty by reason of insanity* or not guilty due to *temporary* insanity?

Isn’t that the plea that a certain self-proclaimed well informed expert commentator said would almost ALWAYS end up with the criminal getting a bit of medical treatment and that once his/her mental health had been restored restored, said criminal would be released back out into the public domain?

Well, apparently not.

Not guilty by reason of insanity n. plea in court of a person charged with a crime who admits the criminal act, but whose attorney claims he/she was so mentally disturbed at the time of the crime that he/she lacked the capacity to have intended to commit a crime. Such a plea requires that the court set a trial on the issue of insanity alone either by a judge without a jury or by a jury. A finding of insanity will result in a verdict of “not guilty,” but, if the condition still exists, it may result in incarceration in a mental facility for the criminally insane or confinement in a mental hospital.

If the insanity no longer exists (was temporary insanity), the judge has the option to require some psychological therapy, but the treatment varies from state to state. This is not the same as insane at time of trial and thus incompetent to stand trial, which will postpone trial (in all likelihood forever) pending recovery while the defendant is confined to mental facility. SOURCE

And that my friends is why I maintain that no matter the past or present mental state of James Holmes in the Aurora shooting, he WILL, at some point in time, be forced to face the consequences of his truly heinous actions.

No one just *walks* in a case like this.

In the definition of *Not guilty by reason of insanity* did you see anywhere in there that stated that once, or IF, a persons sanity was restored that the person would be set free?

Did you notice any claims of *slippery slope* or *double jeopardy*?

Some people watch entirely too much Perry Mason and Court TV.

The agreement calls for a sentence of seven consecutive life terms followed by 140 years in prison, according to federal officials. Loughner, who will be sentenced Nov. 15, is ineligible for parole.

And again; no mention of *double jeopardy* or the like.

The agreement provided some relief to many victims and their families who filled about half the courtroom, some shedding tears as the judge recited names of the victims. Ron Barber, a former Giffords staffer who was wounded in the attack and later won election to her seat when she stepped down, watched from the front row.

“I truly believe that justice was done today. It is important to me that this individual never again is in a position in which he can cause harm to anyone else,” Barber said outside the courthouse.

I hope Loughner’s victims can find some peace in this, and hopefully, Loughner will never harm another FREE person ever again.

Susan Hileman, who was wounded in the attack, said nothing would return her life to what it was before and that she regretted Loughner didn’t get treatment earlier. Hileman had taken 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green to the Giffords event outside a supermarket, where the girl was killed in the shooting.

Perhaps if Loughner had received treatment earlier, none of this would have ever had to have happened.

Maybe Loughner would have received treatment earlier if there weren’t so many bleeding hearts in this nation that dwell on the ideas of never offending anyone and always maintaining the perfect posture of political correctness.

Maybe there are too many airheads that think a bit of preventative police work is a sign of a NAZI state, or one in the making.

So, let me ask this; would you rather a police officer got involved and stopped a burglar carrying a gun from breaking into your house or would you rather the cop just sat there and watched as the guy did break in and waited until YOU called in a report of a burglary.

Or should the officer wait until someone called in a report of a burglary and YOU as DEAD?

I’m fairly certain that if you could ask the dead that resulted from the recent shootings about this they would pretty much agree, some preventative police work could have made their lives a lot better. And longer too.

Most of my readers are as gung-ho about stopping home invaders as I am, and in doing so in exactly the same way that I intend to if necessary, but suppose you’re not home? Suppose you’re sound asleep and this particular burglar has WICKED skills and gasses your home, you, your family, your dogs and then breaks in to rob and possibly kill all of you?

Should the cop react and get involved with some preventative police work or wait for a dispatch from HQ to come and take a report?