Yeah, he needs some injections alright, about 3 should do it.

I'm sorry Sadigie, but here in America we have the rule of law and due process. If you don't like it, feel free to visit Somalia. I say visit, because you can bet your ass you'll come crawling back.

This is just one more example of how knee-jerk liberals have polluted the American justice system. If someone had publicly murdered another person in front of witnesses in 1790, it wouldn't have taken many days for him to be tried, convicted, and hanged. The purpose of a trial is, or should be, to determine as certainly as possible to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is not, or should not be, for the purpose of making sure that the defendant hasn't been deprived of any of a host of bogus rights, rights that the Founding Fathers probaly never intended to exist, rights that have been dreamed up by dim-witted bench warmers. In the case of Laughner, there is no doubt whatsoever of his guilt. And the government should not waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars pampering this human mistake.

Toasty is correct ... as much as it may be abhorrent to us at times like these. This is a good explanation of presumption of innocence:

First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and theright to a jury. http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent

For all of those out there who wish to deny THIS guy his rights -- i.e. a trial by jury -- would you want the same rights denied to you? Folks, it is a slippery slope, and if we don't want to start down it, we have to put up with situations like these. I'm perfectly confident that he WILL go to trial and be found guilty.

, rights that the Founding Fathers probaly never intended to exist,

Really? I like that "probably" because you weren't there (and neither was I). But we can learn much from reading what they wrote. In this case, James Madison:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." (James Madison's proposal for a Bill of Rights)

(Ironically Catz, I found several reference to this quote on CONSERVATIVE websites! You can find it on www.landofthefree.net among many other places.)

It always cracks me up when someone proceeds to tell me what the "founding fathers" intended. First of all, few people, if anybody at all truly knows what they intended. For one thing, different ones probably intended different things, given the divisions and disagreements between them that are a matter of record. The people who always want to tell you what the "founding fathers" intended are almost without fail people with a fuzzy knowledge of American history at best. They are like Sarah Palin, who when asked by Glenn Beck, of all people, who was her favorite founding father, couldn't name anyone. Her answer was "all of them," with that deer in the headlights look of hers, because she couldn't think of a name. After being challenged by Beck, she finally came up with George Washington, because Beck had mentioned that name earlier. This is typical of these people who want to throw that "founding father" thing out there.

Secondly, however, I don't give a a @!$%#e what the "founding fathers" intended. They gave us a good working document to use as a guideline to run our republic. It works well enough to help us shape our government to meet today's needs. But what they intended is irrelevant. They are all dead. They were all rich, privileged white men. Half of them were slave holders. We live in the here and now, and our problems today are a world away from them. So give it a rest You don't have a clue what they intended, and it doesn't matter what they intended.

Due to the tragedy in Tucson! I wish we would hear more about how we are helping the mentally ill. With Education brings Treatment. So many people are uneducated about the mentally ill. Schizophrenia is a disease many have out there, however no one educates people on how to learn of the symptoms so we can help them. This in itself is a tragedy in a tragedy.

Vote Republican next time around. Sorry about you mom. I really am...

Yeah, that way she'll be able to experience life without medicare and social security. Her medication won't be the top worry on her list any more.

If we can find a "cure" for him, we could then see if it cures other cases of tea-party-ism.

I don't find it plausible that faulty brain chemistry could command him or the Norwegian guy to perpetrate such specific and calculated acts of violence. And I'm certainly not going to get myself 'educated' about it by a movie.

Im sorry, but your opinion seems to be skewed by your own feelings about mental illness. There are people out there who are completely forgotten about by the system when it comes to mental illness. But Jared Lee Laughner is not one of them. This was a white male student from Arizona who had a family. This person had more going for him then a lot of people. It wasnt societies job to make sure he didnt kill people in the name of an "ideology" that seems to have more in common with Tea party rhetoric than most people will admit. This person killed 12 people in a grocery store and shoot a woman point blank in the head. Pity him if you need to, but put the blame where it lies... On Jared Lee Laughner. Oh and movies are great, but theres probably a better way to educate yourself on mental illness, than a Russell Crowe movie. Ill stick to books.

Here in Tucson there is only one local tv station web site with a usable comment system and that is KVOA, the local NBC affiliate. When I lost access to cable tv I started getting the local news there. What I found was that the comment section had been taken over by right wing extremists (baggers). Talk about a foaming at the mouth hate fest. It was a very scary look inside of their heads. I called these people the "ruling regulars". No matter what the news article was about, they would all be there with their foaming at the mouth rants. It is extremely likely that Laughner was one of them. Right up until the moment news of the shooting was released I can vouch that they were in the midst of calling Gabby names and very personal attacks. Then all but a dozen of them just disappeared. Immediately the remaining started with the "Lefty Laughner" rhetoric. I am quite sure the FBI pulled all the logs, and had a little "chat" with some of them folks. Recently KVOA switched to using Facebook, and just like turning on the lights, all the cockroaches scattered.

There were a couple of them who had very serious mental problems. They exhibited most of the observable symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Whether they heard voices, only they would know. It makes me feel uneasy knowing there are many more of them out there. Just go to a Tea Party(s) meeting.

And I'm 99% certain that this will be used as evidence in a court.