I do not consider it directly responsible, no. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 10/08/2012 12:58:45 AM
How do we know that Giffords saying, "I am afraid of getting shot," didn't lead to the shooting? Wouldn't that be just as likely to inspire a crazed gunman as crosshairs on a map?
I pretend no comprehension of insanity, but would not think so, and Palin putting crosshairs on her district still prompted Giffords' comment, so the source would be unchanged. Regardless, what would be the "logic"? A crazed liberal partisan shooting one of their own representatives to substantiate criticism of Palin?
I'm not as knowledgeable about this particular incident as I could be. I definitely remember it happening, but it's been awhile, and I haven't followed up on it much.
So speaking in a hypothetical sense rather than specifically, hearing a relatively-famous person say, "I am afraid of being shot," seems like enough to set-up a shooting spree as putting crosshairs on a map. But chances are it's something else, or really nothing at all.
It doesn't have to be partisan at all. He doesn't have to be a conservative nutjob obeying "orders" from his leaders or "a crazed liberal partisan shooting one of their own representatives to substantiate criticism of Palin." It could be as simple and incomprehensible as John Lennon's death.
It is hard to be sure; Loughner has been suspiciously tight lipped throughout (he shouted, "I plead the Fifth!" even as bystanders tackled him after the shooting.) Either way, if someone says they fear being shot IN RESPONSE TO someone putting a crosshairs on their area of residence, then someone hears that and shoots them, the ultimate (if indirect) cause remains those crosshairs.
As for the rest... yeah. I agree with a lot, disagree with a lot. Rhetoric is getting heated. It should be toned back on both sides. But to consider it directly responsible for this shooting is unwarranted, IMO.
Only a nutjob could shoot someone based on Palins imagery (and there is no evidence either way about whether Loughner ever saw it.) However, everyone knows many such nutjobs exist, so national leaders offering them triggers is dangerously irresponsible. When one knows a powder keg exists, ignores that and lights a match anyway, is the explosion the powder kegs fault or the match-lighters? At the very least that is not the kind of reckless judgement I want running my country.
Basically, I completely disagree with the SCOTUS Brandenburg v. OH ruling (unanimously) reversing the core of its Schenk v. USA ruling. Brandenburgs specifics only reinforce that feeling. Actions, including speech, have consequences; even if disregarding that is legal, it is unacceptable in national leaders.