News
Blame for Arizona rampage goes beyond shooter, UB law professor says
-
Print -
Comments
(10)
-
“These influential politicians and commentators who use violent rhetoric and images…must realize that they have an incredibly wide audience.”
Although last weekend’s killings in Tucson, Ariz., appear to be the work of a mentally ill individual, UB Law School Professor and psychologist Charles Patrick Ewing says it’s important to keep in mind that the vast majority of the mentally ill are not violent or dangerous.
Ewing, a national expert on criminal behavior and author of several books on forensic psychology and violent criminals, says that although this vast majority of the mentally ill will never commit such acts of mass murder, influential politicians and commentators who preach hatred and revenge should shoulder some of the blame for this and other violent rampages.
“These influential politicians and commentators who use violent rhetoric and images—such as putting a member of Congress in the crosshairs, telling supporters that it is time to ‘reload’ and suggesting that voters unhappy with Congress resort to ‘Second Amendment remedies’—must realize that they have an incredibly wide audience,” says Ewing. “At least some members of that audience—both sane and insane—will view their inflammatory statements as an invitation to violence.
“One thing is certain,” Ewing adds. “The blame for these killings does not lie with the perpetrator alone.”
Twenty-two-year-old Jared Loughner faces charges he tried to assassinate U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffordson Saturday outside a Tucson supermarket. The shootings left six people dead and 14 people, including Giffords, injured.
Loughner has a long history of unstable behavior, as well as drug and substance abuse. He also has had a series of confrontations with police due to disruptive behavior at the community college he was attending.
Ewing is a SUNY Distinguished Service Professor and a national expert on the insanity defense who frequently is interviewed on the motivation of violent criminals.
Reader Comments
Joseph Lauri says:
The worst part about this article is that there are people out there in the general public that will read this and automatically agree with professor Ewing because he's an academic. It's professors like this that destroy the education system as well as offend terms such as common sense, reasoning and logic. The only thing I can assume from this article is that professor Ewing is a liberal minded person who jumps to conclusions without doing his research and knowing all the facts, which is ironic being that he is a law professor. Dr. Winter and Mr. Baumer said it best, and I can only hope that professor Ewing doesn't push his liberal agenda on his students and focuses on educating.
Posted by Joseph Lauri, Engineering student, 01/29/11
David Hemmer says:
One would think Dr. Ewing would confirm that the killer actually ever listened to said commentators and politicians before boldly proclaiming
“One thing is certain, the blame for these killings does not lie with the perpetrator alone.”
Regardless the blame for the killing lies 100% with Loughner.
I still have vivid memories of watching the murder trial of Laurie Kellog my senior year in high school, where Dr. Ewing was unsuccessfully trying to get her off on a murder rap. I believe she's still in Bedford Hills. Perhaps he will testify on Loughner's behalf?
Posted by David Hemmer, Associate Professor, 01/19/11
David Soro says:
Though the Neo - Conservative raid of the Libertarian movement solely to take power again is wrong and deceptive, Conservatives aren't the only ones using violent metaphors. Obama said during one of his speeches "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun." Does this make him a supporter of hatred and violence? of course not. Blaming the sane for the acts of the insane because of some sort of inderect command is wrong, and is a Liberal tendency in this country.
On top of that, the murderer wasn't even a supporter of ANY right wing politician. His reading list was composed of Hitler and Stalin, gun rights were just on the long list of things that probably had no logical consistency. This tragedy could only get worse by bringing law into freedom of speech or furthering gun laws
Posted by David Soro, Liberal tendencies, 01/18/11
James E. Campbell says:
There needs to be a higher regard for evidence. As President Obama stated quite clearly in his Tucson speech, there is no evidence of a political link to the actions of the mentally deranged shooter. It is at best unseemly to be attempting to score cheap political points in the wake of this tragedy. Perhaps President Obama needs to provide stronger leadership with the irresponsible elements of his liberal base. There may be good reasons for calls for a toned down rhetoric on both sides, but the action of a lunatic is not one.
Posted by James E. Campbell, Professor, 01/15/11
Daniel Gattuso, MA Spanish language and literature, MLIS (June 2011) says:
Dr. Winter's comparison of the "Bush hating rhetoric" of the Left to Professor Ewing's decrying of the "rhetoric of gun-speak" is not entirely analogous. It is one thing to say that one "hates" President Bush or his policies; it's another for a high-profile politician/political-aspirant/"journalist" to call for resorting to "Second Amendment remedies" in order to voice one's displeasure at Congress (or for placing a bulls eye over a political opponent's head). Dr. Winter, please forward me a list of "big personalities" on the Left who articulated a similar tropological discourse of "gun-speak"in calling for armed violence against Republican politicians. I am assuming you have specific quotes from figures on the Left to support your comparison.
Posted by Daniel Gattuso, MA Spanish language and literature, MLIS (June 2011), Shooting in Tucson, 01/15/11
Steven Rosenfeld says:
What are the odds that Professer Ewing expressed the same sentiments during the Bush administration when the left hatefully and relentlessly attacked right wing pundits? The shooter's motive has yet to be determined yet Ewing has no issues with drawing conclusions from his perch 2500 miles away, perhaps because they fit his personal political paradigm.
Posted by Steven Rosenfeld, Attorney and Graduate Student, 01/14/11
John Boser says:
If you're trying to blame right-wing media, much like Louis Slaughter is, then you must insane yourself. People are responsible for their own actions, and them alone. This just another incident that the left-wing will use to incite partisan politics and push for gun bans and talk-radio censorship. As for gun control, this man was supposed to be put on a registry for firearm sales, but lazy bureaucratic workers never got around to it.
Posted by John Boser, Another Partisan Agenda , 01/14/11
Megan Schmit says:
There is no proof yet that this man acted because of actions of politicians or media. Certainly there is a problem in how our country tends to express its self in such a violent manner, but the tragedy in Tuscan and national rhetoric are two different discussions. Don't put blame on anyone or anything except the man who pulled the trigger. Once again there is no evidence he acted because of others words or action and even if he had the rest of us have been exposed to the same environment and have not committed murder, he should not get the chance to blame someone else.
Posted by Megan Schmit, student, 01/14/11
William H Baumer says:
Dr. Winter has said it well. The liberal attempts to spread responsibility for the Tucson tragedy are neither to be credited nor excused.
Posted by William H Baumer, Professor, 01/13/11
Kurt F. Winter, Ph.D. says:
I'm not following the story minute-by-minute, but I don't believe that any connections have been made between the killer and the speech of "influential politicians and commentators." Any yet, a professor is already stating that it is "certain" that "blame for these killings does not lie with the perpetrator alone.” Wow. This is where the well-documented political skew of U.S. higher education hurts its credibility. If I thought it equally likely that a warning like this would be made during, say, the Bush administration, the still-seemingly-dubious nature of the assertion would at least be less irritating. I wonder how many professors are on record as having been concerned with the societal implications of 8-plus years of "Bush hating" (including a movie about his assasination)?
Posted by Kurt F. Winter, Ph.D., Asst. to the Chair, Dept. of Oral Biology, 01/13/11