How do we know that Rep. Giffords was the intended target of the Tucson tragedy?

Another political figure was mur*dered… one who had received death threats… I’m speaking of Judge Roll. Why were the Pima County Sheriffs Department and mainstream pundits so quick to dismiss this hypothesis? Whatever happened to the accomplice some eyewitnesses reported seeing with Loughner and initial news briefs reported as someone the police were seeking? I know that the sheriffs department has concluded that Giffords was the target and not Roll because his attendance was happenstance… but this seems to be a reaching assumption… surely Judge Roll would have mentioned his attendance to someone. We’re also told that the sheriffs department has video footage that shows Judge Roll throwing his body over an assistant of Rep Giffords… but we haven’t seen it yet. Why haven’t we? If the suspect is in custody… what harm would come in releasing the video? Are you satisfied with the official take? Are we as a society too reliant on others to ask the questions we should be asking? As the resident conspiracy theorist… I have to ask.

Answer #1

How do we know? Well because she was shot the head point-blank range. Judge Roll was trying to be a hero, and possibly by doing so, he was! Rumors say that he was after Giffords because was in Arizona’s 8th congressional district and he had serious political disagreements with her views. I didn’t know there was a video tape, but if there is, you really think people and families want to see that? No, there was too much physiological violence that not many can deal with. No one wants to see a 9 year old girl die including couple Vietnam veterans.

Answer #2

Good point, actually. If you knocked off a judge instead of a congressperson, the odds of things really changing are actually much higher. Fact is, judges have a lot of authority in the legal system as they set the precedents that have to be abided by in that area, district, region or state…and the only way to change it is to get an appeal (eg, the myspace case that was thrown out on appeal about the woman who was complict through cyberbullying in the passing of a neighborhood girl).

However…on the other hand, Sarah Palin’s hit list did in fact include the unfortunate congresswoman…as a result, it’s fairly convenient just to say that it may have been the hit list and the nazi comments that drove the man to act.

Answer #3

They probably don’t know for sure, but it seem most of the evidence points to Giffors as th target. This was an event she organized. Like you said, Judge Roll’s presence was unanticipated, and while he might have told someone, it is highly unlikely that Loughner would have found out about it. I had read that Roll was out doing some errands and it was a very last minute decision for him to stop by the event. As far as the video, they are probably not going to release that while the investigation is ongoing. And they certainly don’t want there to be any chance of tainting the jury pool if it goes to trial. I hadn’t heard that about a possible accomplice, but they may have had evidence that later ruled that out.

No matter what, the evidence points to Giffords far more the Roll.

Answer #4

No one would be forced to watch the video. The purpose in watching the video would be to verify the facts as they have been presented to us… not to view the carnage. Could the attempted mur*der of Rep. Giffords not have been a red herring to divert attention away from Judge Rolls assassination? I will elaborate on this further in a follow up post. Yes… there is video: http: //www. nytimes .com /2011/01/19/us/19giffords .html cut, paste and remove the spaces.

Answer #5

Point taken concerning tainting the jury pool. Judge Roll’s attendance could have been anticipated in a variety of ways. Perhaps his offices were bugged… perhaps an inside informant tipped his schedule off… or even persuaded him to make an appearance. Post Patriot Acts America is very friendly to surveillance. For example… a cellular phone with a battery source is a mobile microphone that intelligence services can hack into. The only question is why he may have been being surveilled… and I will address this in the follow up. Yes… eyewitness reports made following the event noted an accomplice: http: //www. tucsonsentinel .com/local/report/010811_giffords_accomplice again… cut, paste and remove the spaces

Answer #6

Yeah… and Judge Roll’s death is a much bigger deal than the corporate media is making out of it. From a conspiracy viewpoint… tying this tragedy to Sarah Palin is hitting a trifecta for the establishment. 1: The statists left can politicize the inherent dangers of Tea Partiers as they have been alleging for so long and open further discussion for gun restraints. 2: The establishment who have used celebrity politicos like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to lambaste political protesting are given more “ammunition to shoot the populists down”<—;) 3: Blaming both Palin and Tea Partiers/dissidents together serves to consolidate the interests of the two… thereby bonding the two further. In other words if the two are put through the political wringer together… the marginal dissidents may become sympathetic to the character of Sarah Palin and be more open to accepting her leadership in the movement… which would be suicidal for the movement. I know this sounds far fetched… but as a student of cointelpro… I have learnt that must ask every question… no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

Answer #7

Who was Judge John McCarthy Roll? Was he simply an unfortunate victim of collateral damage who only deserves brief adulation by the media for his selfless final act in life?

Under the establishment bias radar of mainstream news… The Obama administration quietly acted upon a proposal first considered by the Bush administration to evoke FDR’s Executive Order 6102 and consolidate private 401Ks under Federally controlled GRAs (Guaranteed Retirement Accounts) The original EO 6102 was the presidential order to seize gold holdings by private individuals above 5 oz. re-compensating the holder the market value. It was an opening salvo that would spell the ruin of private wealth in the United States and provide financial leverage for the fledgling Federal Reserve. The new invocation appears to be equally machiavellian and detrimental to the populace.

Where it gets conspiratorial in nature is that the Constitutional validity of the order had been questioned in a suit was brought before Judge Roll in Arizona:

http://funadvice.com/r/14qmnauua0s

The U.S. government tried to invoke the executive order to seize some holdings that were being moved offshore in advance of any seizure. Judge Roll issued a preliminary ruling against the Executive Order three days before his mur*der. He said that if the federal government could not prove a crime had been committed, they could not seize monies being placed in offshore accounts. This would have set a precedent against the Executive Order. Judge Roll never got the chance to issue a ruling. He was killed at a Safeway in Tucson and we are told that as if he was just another victim.

His death was obviously extremely fortunate for the powers that want to seize private holdings. Could the other… more publicized narrative be a red herring to keep us from asking essential questions?

I am reminded of the suicide of the DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey preceding her testimony that would have ruined many a Washington insiders career. She had gone on record stating she would never commit suicide… but when the police reports came to this conclusion… no one asked another question. Similar to the overdose of Dr. Bruce Ivins… who was blamed for the anthrax scare from 2001… but never got to see his day in court. The case against him was so weak that it was laughable… but the FBI and the media have both closed the case on the anthrax mailings now… hoping that we drop the case that would inevitably implicate our own intelligence services.

We are not well served by an establishment media. We have to ask the questions ourselves… and not be content to consume the news as it is fed to us.

Answer #8

You and your conspiracy mind working overtime again. :-P Seriously though, the unlucky judge happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. The real issue here should be the close proximity one can reach a senator or congressperson without any security in place is a massive error in judgement for the Rep Gifford’s’ people who organise the event…… I know I’m off the topic with my next comment but feel the need to voice it anyway. I think your gun law in the US is way too relaxed and not regulated enough. Far too many Americans are permitted to own firearms and this includes screwed up and mental challenged madpersons. Imagine if the gun licences were hard to obtain in the US, the total deaths toll on the day would have been much lower if the madman had used a knife as a weapon instead of a gun.

Answer #9

Isn’t that the easy answer though? We are all told that his death was merely collateral damage, but in reality he was a Federal Judge who had ruled against the US government on crucial points in the past and had only three days prior issued a preliminary ruling against the invocation of EO 6102 that would allow the Federal Government the power to seize private retirement accounts. This is motive. The first questioned asked during a criminal investigation is Cui Bono?… Who benefits? Well… the Federal Government benefits. We have a crazy person to blame… and strip away any motive other than whatever political capital the statists can score by supposing what lunatic opposition he was listening to that drove him insane as well. What about the accomplice? Eyewitness reports are just ignored? Judge Roll died at the scene. Rep. Giffords has made somewhat of a recovery. Perhaps this makes more sense if we look at it from the point of view that the shooter/shooters intentions were that the Judges execution would be assured. In the end… I don’t know… but the question should be considered… and in much more scrutiny. The establishment media are not reliable. They are there to propagandize for their owners. If the average citizen… or person around the world… globalization affects us all… would seriously research methods of propaganda… including cointelpro… we would not be so gullible as a whole… as we are now. We are not well served by absorbing whatever we are told.

Regarding gun restraints… Ironically Judge Roll had ruled against the US Government several years back on this issue. An Arizona Sheriff had been ordered to collect handguns and he refused citing the 2nd amendment. Judge Roll upheld the sheriff’s authority to refuse. Couldn’t Jared Loughner have killed as many or more people by drving a car into the crowd? He obviously didn’t care much about being caught. He could have created an improvised bomb. I disagree. Gun ownership has also prevented many crimes or when crime has occurred… lessened the impact. These events are not given as much air time… but when the prototypical postal gunmen goes on rampages at places allowing gun carry policies… the shooting sprees take a lesser toll. Washington DC has had a 30% decline in total crime since the ban on handguns was lifted. As I have pointed out numerous times… those MILLIONS of people killed by their tyrannical governments in the last century were all disarmed before their genocides.

Answer #10

Maybe I view the world through rain blurred glasses as I find it hard to comprehend how any party or government can be so deceiving as to mur-der another human being in order to push their agenda. Less developed countries or countries that are still living in stone ages I would not be too surprised but the USA? There must be whistle blowers within these parties or government in the USA who will let the “cat out of the bag” sooner than later and expose the dreadful truth. As I mentioned in my numerous posts, my knowledge on US politics are pretty limited to what I read and see on our news media and television sets, but I do believe not all media mediums are bias thou. Your comment on the other hand regarding other weapons which are more destructive then knives is a very valid argument which sadly, I do not have any rebuttal under my sleeves to counteract your comment.

Answer #11

miscegenymiser, While I would not have any problem seeing any investigation into the Judge as the target, I tend to use the the KISS method. I know you will say that is exactly what they would want us to think, but untill there is actual evidence other than speculation, i will go with the simplest explanation. As far as using a car, that would not be nearly as efficient at making sure you gett your target than a gun. People would see a car careening towards them much sooner that seeing someone pull a gun.

“Gun ownership has also prevented many crimes or when crime has occurred… lessened the impact.”

I would dispute this without real evidence or statistics. You are also not taking into account the number of accidental shootings that occur. And also the many many shootings that happen between people in dispute that gets out of hand, and if a gun hadn’t been readily available would not have resulted in a death or serious injury.

I know we disagree on gun control, but I though your view was more about needing guns to protect us against the government.

Answer #12

@samantha: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” attributed to Joseph Goebbels. The genius behind the big lie… or state sponsored perfidy, is the reluctance on the part of the people to believe that their government would have the temerity to engage in it. Research Operation Gladio for a primer in how cointelpro [counter intelligence propaganda] is carried out. Another good resource is the book by the late CIA liaison J Fletcher Prouty, titled, The Secret Team. He describes how false intelligence and agency conspiracies are compartmentalized and how all those not in on the planning stages are only aware of selective bits of intelligence that would be all but impossible to trace back to their sources. Deborah Palfrey was a whistle blower who committed sui*cide despite going on public record stating she would never kill herself. Since the establishment media gave her death no coverage, it is easy to imagine why so many would be whistle blowers are not readily forthcoming. Although whistle blowers place themselves in jeopardy, some still manage to speak out. J Fletcher Prouty was a whistleblower. The CIA broke into Prouty’s editor’s house in an attempt to steal the manuscript for his first book The Secret Team. Failing that, they attempted to buy a galley proof for $500.00 The CIA forced many bookstores to pull the book from their shelves and for nearly 20 years attaining a copy was very difficult to accomplish. Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, an army intelligence officer who had issued warnings before 9/11 now known as the infamous Able Danger, had his book, Operation Dark Heart, treated much the same way. The first print run of the book was bought by the Defense dept and subsequent prints contain redacted info. Sibel Edmonds is another whom you’ve probably never heard of. She worked for the CIA as a Turkish language translator until she overheard damning intelligence that was at odds with the official 9/11 narrative. Once she voiced her concerns she was fired and placed under a Federal gag order. Just a handful of examples off the top of my head. It is understandable why people hold the misconception that there are no whistle blowers however, it is part of the establishment agenda to sweep them under the rug. Once people see the men behind the curtain pulling the strings… they see the corporatist nature of the west. The establishment media, being owned by the corporate conglomerate, are the propaganda arms of the conglomerate. No one should ever take them at their word.

Answer #13

@jimahl: If we never ask, we will never know. I find it more than suspicious. I was not satisfied by the immediate dismissal of this angle by our compromised, corporate media. I agree that at this stage it is speculation on my part, but that is the case of all investigative leads very early in the process.

Regarding the Loughner massacre, my point of an equally high death toll carried out by someone mentally unstable behind the wheel was to illustrate the idea that random killings are accomplished by other means. The other shootings were not conducive to the assassination attempt of the congresswoman. Their mur*ders can either be seen as an accident on part of the gunman in the attempt on the congresswoman, or as an intention of the gunman to kill those people randomly. In either scenario, the same outcome could be accomplished by the methods I mentioned. Your argument that the use of a vehicle would be too haphazard to be an instrument of assassination cannot be brought to bear on this argument. The fact that the congresswoman was not assassinated does come to bear on behalf of the argument that in this case a car may have been equally or more effective as the handgun.

Answer #14

miscegenymiser, you never fail to provide thought-provoking comments. Don’t have a lot to say about your post other than I still disagree that a car would be just as accurate a method to assinate someone. Yes, Giffords is still alive, but she took a bullet right through her brain. If I believed in the supernatural I would describe her survival and recovery as miraculous. As to what he was thinking when he shot others besides Giffords, I think it is difficult at best to understand the rationale of an irrational person.

Answer #15

I agree that a motor vehicle is not a useful…uhm… vehicle… … for assassination. My argument was concerning the method used to kill indiscriminately. Samantha’s comment was regarding the death toll which would fall under the category of indiscriminate killing. My point is that this can be accomplished as effectively without the use of firearms.

Answer #16

Ok, that does make a difference. I guess if the goal is to indiscriminately kill people (which does not seem to be the case in Tucson) I guess a car could be as effective as a gun. But only in certain situations. Obviously the people would have to be in a place a car could get to. I still say the portability of the gun make it the more desirable device to use. One can not use a car inside a building (at least not easily), but they certainly could use a gun. No matter what, if we had strictwer gun controls, this guy might not have been able to carry this out. It certainly would have made it much harder for him than just going into a store and buying a semiautomatic weapon that has no real purpose other than to kill people.

Answer #17

This is not the tangent I wanted this thread to take… but since it’s gone there I have to voice my opinion. Firstly… there are many ways to kill… not just by motor vehicle, gun or knife. I was only addressing Samantha’s comment. There are very few uses for guns… you’re right… but the redeeming quality about the reality of a civilization developed enough to produce a tool that can take away life in an instant is the foresight to ensure that the same tool be provided to anyone who would want it in order to dissuade its usage. I hate the fact that bad things happen in life. I detest the fact that death is a part of this reality. If it was possible, I would wish that we could be rid of every weapon capable of taking life. Then I suppose I would also have to wish that certain predatory animals never learn about my myopic wish coming true… but that’s really off topic. Since this is just wishful thinking… the next best option in my opinion is my ability to deter any assailant by virtue of the fact that in placing my life at risk… the assailant risks his own. This is the best deterrent. Police aren’t quick enough to intercede on my behalf. We have stringent laws that are not capable of deterring all homicides. I question whether gun restraint advocates ever really consider anything more than craftily worded studies that have cherry picked data sets included in order to corroborate their beliefs. Their argument fails to make sense to me. Prohibition has never worked to alleviate the ills prohibited. The new suggestion is not to prohibit to everyone… only to those deemed unstable. I am not sure which discrimination by decree clause in the US Constitution allowing the selective meting out of personal liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights these folks are citing… but I am fairly certain that upholding guaranteed rights is not a big concern of theirs. Without being facetious… I would suggest to these people to move to those nations that have no guaranteed rights instead of trying to undermine our guaranteed rights by unconstitutional writ of law. I am not speaking to those people who voice their opposition to the 2nd amendment… only to those people who would have it disregarded through bureaucratic regulation rather than gain the popular support to overturn it. This is mob rule. ** But, we’ve had this argument before… more than once. You and I can disagree on this issue without disrespecting one another and I appreciate that… but I would rather argue it at a more pertinent thread. I was hoping that this thread would stir discussion of media blackout.**

Answer #18

Sorry if I have contributed to the tangential nature this thread has taken, and as you said, we have had this discussion before. But of course I have just a couple of comments to make. First, I would never use the term prohibition, because I have never called for the prohibition of guns. I have only called for strict regulation, particularly of those weapons that have no other real purpose other than killing many people quickly (i.e. assualt weapons). Second, I strongly disagree with yours, and the recent SCOTUS’ interpretation, of the 2nd ammendment. I have never considered the 2nd ammendment to refer to personal gun ownership as a right. I have always felt that it refered to gun ownership being necessary for the maintenance of state militias, which at the time of the writing was the only form of national defence we had. Soldiers called to service were expected to show up with their own weapons, and restricting that would have been detrimental to that cause. I really doubt that the framers could have anticipated the types of weapons we have to day, nor would they have thought that government had no right to regulate such weapons. But if we are to use a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, then it should only cover the types of weapons available at the time. Single shot, muzzle loaded weapons. I would have no problem with that…

Answer #19

Why would the Bill of Rights, an enumeration of personal rights, intend to confer a collective right?

Answer #20

I consider it a case of special pleading to insist that I have mischaracterized your position concerning the prohibition of guns as it applies to my argument. Your proviso may distinguish your exact position from a generally accepted notion of prohibition… but you cannot seriously argue that a prohibition of all guns except for muzzle loaders is not a de facto prohibition on the guns that would be used in self defense. If you are not aware of the nature of muzzle loaders of the time period… not only would one have to pack a load and ram the shot… the blasting cap would have to be placed before the gun is ready to fire. Any would be victim is better off heaving the blunt object at the assailant than to try and get a shot off before the assailant empties their entire magazine into them.

Answer #21

I was being a bit facetious in my comment about muzzle loaders. The point was that the founders could not have imagined the weaponry available today, and I doubt they would have thought it would be wrong for the government to regulate them. As far as the bill of rights, let me clarify. Yes, the 2nd amendment refers to not prohibiting personal gun ownership, but only for the purposes of keeping a well-regulate militia. Since we do not have militias where soldiers are expected to show up with their own gun, the amendment becomes moot. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says the government cant regulate the types of guns people can own. I know you think they are needed for self-defense, but the argument can easily be made that the means do not justify the ends, since the number of non-self-defense shootings far outweigh the self-defense shootings.
And the tenth amendment has nothing to do with personal rights

Answer #22

The tenth amendment confers any right not enumerated explicitly in the Bill of Rights to the constituent states and citizenry. This amendment may go further in addressing personal rights than any preceding amendment save for the 9th.

The reference to a militia is in respect with its ability to safeguard the freedoms of the state. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” The anti-federalists who insisted upon the Bill of Rights before they would advocate adopting a federal system have provided their opinions regarding the reasoning behind the right to bear arms:

“We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;” —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” — Patrick Henry

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” — Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” — Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” —James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46

You say, “There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says the government cant regulate the types of guns people can own.

The second amendment reads, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You are obviously ignoring or subjectively interpreting these words.

It is a spurious notion that those anti-federalists who mandated the Bill of Rights would champion the regulations they are on record challenging.

I say that the disparity between assault and self defense shootings will only widen if your proposed strict regulations were passed.

More Like This
Ask an advisor one-on-one!
Advisor

Lancer Law

Law Firm, Attorneys, Legal Services

Advisor

DUI Law Firm Denver

Legal Services, DUI Defense, Criminal Defense

Advisor

Passi & Patel

Criminal Defense Lawyers, Legal Services, Law Firms

Advisor

Lawyers Corner Legal Blogs

Law, Legal Services, Attorneys

Advisor

Summit Defense

Criminal Defense Law, Legal Services, Lawyers