Is The Current Vitriol Within The Country Responsible For The DC Shootings?

[esmith]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner. This vitriol is in evidence in our electronic/non-electronic media, in the "entertainment" industry, our political members, in social media, and just about everywhere you turn.
So the question is:
Is it possible that this vitriol was an enabling factor in today's political terrorist attack against Republican members of Congress?

There is a criminal statute "Accessory before the fact"
"A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. A accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice."

Are there those out there, in the strictest fact, that could be considered as being an accessory before the fact. I will not name names but I think you might be able to construe who I am referring to.

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

 

[fantome profane]

I offer my sympathy to those people who were injured by this terrorists. And he is a terrorist. There are no justifications for his actions.

But calling for Trump to be impeached does not make people responsible for some nut going out and shooting people. No, we should abouslutely not stop the criticism of Trump or his administration because of this action. His actions don't excuse Trump's actions. His actions don't make Trump any less guilty. And we cannot allow his actions to stop our pursuit of the truth, or of justice.

 

[suncowiam]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner. This vitriol is in evidence in our electronic/non-electronic media, in the "entertainment" industry, our political members, in social media, and just about everywhere you turn.
So the question is:
Is it possible that this vitriol was an enabling factor in today's political terrorist attack against Republican members of Congress?

There is a criminal statute "Accessory before the fact"
"A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. A accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice."

Are there those out there, in the strictest fact, that could be considered as being an accessory before the fact. I will not name names but I think you might be able to construe who I am referring to.

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

Hard to say. I think we have to investigate this person and understand his mindset better.

There would be more of a trend if the cause was external? Fair to suggest?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Unless they directly encouraged people to go and shoot Donald Trump, then no. Further than that, I'd prefer an element of allowance is made for 'humour'.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with people who loudly complain about certain sorts of humour. There is a line somewhere, and things can go beyond the pale.

But I think democracies that allow humour are healthier than those that don't.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner.

The shootings were a despicable act of terror, and the victims have my sympathy.

But I didn't hear you complain about the exponential increase in vitriol and even death threats against a president when Obama was elected, esmith. Your newfound outrage is amusing.

 

[Father Heathen]

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

We could also look at the actual root of the problem and turn down the misconduct and incompetence that's causing the vitriol in the first place, as well.

 

[Nakosis]

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

I was actually thinking the same.
The vitriol is what is divisive. If we continue down this road, I'd expect to see more of the same.

Having disagreements/arguments is fine. When it becomes personal attacks, it obviously becomes divisive and dangerous.

Where you directly encourage physical violence (Kathy Griffin) it's wrong.

You can disagree with me, call my ideas stupid, call my ideas racist, point out how you feel my ideas are fascist.

Calling someone stupid, calling them a racist, calling them a fascist has no value in a conversation except to cause division.

 

[Quetzal]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner. This vitriol is in evidence in our electronic/non-electronic media, in the "entertainment" industry, our political members, in social media, and just about everywhere you turn.
So the question is:
Is it possible that this vitriol was an enabling factor in today's political terrorist attack against Republican members of Congress?

I don't think so. I think acts of violence have always occurred. Have you (or anyone else) found any data that might support an affirmation to your question? I would be interested to see it. Right now, I am having a tough time with the media and its selective reporting. You know? Has violence really increased? Or does the selective media bias want us to believe it has? Either way, it's hard to gauge at the moment. With that said, it is an interesting question to think about.

 

[Quetzal]

The shootings were a despicable act of terror, and the victims have my sympathy.

But I didn't hear you complain about the exponential increase in vitriol and even death threats against a president when Obama was elected, esmith. Your newfound outrage is amusing.

Let's also not forget there is violence present from the alt-right as well. Can we quantify it? Not really. What does it really mean? I also believe that to be anecdotal experiences that are just supportive evidence to my thesis: some people are simply nut jobs, from the right and left.

 

[Quetzal]

The vitriol is what is divisive. If we continue down this road, I'd expect to see more of the same.

I agree and it is really too bad. People are going to get hurt over political ideologies and that is senseless violence, to say the least.

 

[Stevicus]

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

I agree. I remember similar things being said when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot, and the caustic rhetoric and vitriolic atmosphere was blamed back then as well. Some of it is by design, as many people are wont to embrace the tactics of ridicule rather than politely disagreeing with someone. I see it over and over, both in media and the internet.

It may not necessarily be the "vitriol" as such. The vitriol is just posturing. It's a way of saying "I don't like you. I'm not listening to you. Your views are unimportant." I think it might be a more a matter of an already disturbed individual feeling that he is being slighted and not being taken seriously enough. So, they may feel a need to escalate the situation and force people to take them more seriously.

 

[columbus]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner.

Trump's a major reason for the vitriol. He used a great deal of it to get "elected".
From his viciousness towards the Khans, to his innuendos about Heidi Cruz, to his birtherism, to his "I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue", to...
Well, you name it.
He didn't start it. It's been ramping up for a couple of decades at least. But he made it a lot worse in the last couple of years. And he doesn't seem interested in making it better.
I don't expect it to improve anytime soon.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner. This vitriol is in evidence in our electronic/non-electronic media, in the "entertainment" industry, our political members, in social media, and just about everywhere you turn.
So the question is:
Is it possible that this vitriol was an enabling factor in today's political terrorist attack against Republican members of Congress?

There is a criminal statute "Accessory before the fact"
"A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. A accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice."

Are there those out there, in the strictest fact, that could be considered as being an accessory before the fact. I will not name names but I think you might be able to construe who I am referring to.

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

The vitriol is coming from both sides. Trump is the President and most of it is coming from him and his administration. If anyone is responsible, it is him. But, I don't think we should blame the actions of an obviously troubled man on anyone but that man himself.

Trump has the opportunity to reach out to the left and build unity. He is the commander in chief. He is the one who must lead by example. And, there is far more vitriol coming from the right. Trump is responsible for the most divided country I've ever seen.

But, your accessory before the fact idea is absolutely laughable. If you saw caselaw, you would see how absurd that idea is. Trump lies all the time, and he purposely trolls those who aren't behind him, but he isn't responsible for the actions of this maniac.

 

[sun rise]

The shootings were a despicable act of terror, and the victims have my sympathy.

But I didn't hear you complain about the exponential increase in vitriol and even death threats against a president when Obama was elected, esmith. Your newfound outrage is amusing.

The alt-right continues to issue death threats. Political violence deters another Democratic candidate from running for office

I denounce violence from the left. Will those on the right denounce violence and threats of violence from the right? If so, then we have a basis for positive change. If not, then all Democrats need to be ready to defend themselves against threats of violence which have been going on for at least 8 years.

 

[Augustus]

But I didn't hear you complain about the exponential increase in vitriol and even death threats against a president when Obama was elected, esmith. Your newfound outrage is amusing.

I think you are being unfair. It's not like people accused Obama of being the actual antichrist or anything

 

[Sunstone]

The OP's shameless attempt to turn this despicable shooting into an excuse to attack criticism of Trump is about as morally disgusting as one has come to expect from the right wing these days.

 

[HonestJoe]

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

Yes, things like falsely accusing people of being accessories to attempted murder for example.

 

[Underhill]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner. This vitriol is in evidence in our electronic/non-electronic media, in the "entertainment" industry, our political members, in social media, and just about everywhere you turn.
So the question is:
Is it possible that this vitriol was an enabling factor in today's political terrorist attack against Republican members of Congress?

There is a criminal statute "Accessory before the fact"
"A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. A accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice."

Are there those out there, in the strictest fact, that could be considered as being an accessory before the fact. I will not name names but I think you might be able to construe who I am referring to.

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

It doesn't help. But when the shoe is on the other foot, republicans are quick to point out that it's a mental illness problem.

The thing is, for republicans to complain about this is ironic in the extreme after the last 8 years. I have no sympathy for anyone claiming the republicans have it bad after the way they treated Obama. In many ways the Obama smear campaign was much worse. Like it or not, Trump has created his headlines. It is his tweets, his actions, his staff who have done this stuff. The media may sensationalize it all, but this isn't just made up. The same could not be said with Obama who, by comparison, was a level headed guy who didn't ruffle many feathers. That didn't stop the right from labeling him a muslim, questioning his citizenship and purporting a host of other nonsense stories.

Add in the fact that the left is the only party even willing to bring up any legislation to combat this kind of violence and I find blaming them to be the height of absurdity. This guy was nuts, and did a bad thing.

Of course Trump attacked Iran recently after they were hit with a terrorist attack. He said, "We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote." One could argue that a party who shoots down every gun control bill risk falling victim to the evil they fail to address...

 

[tytlyf]

You think the vitriol is coming from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, CSPAN, etc? I'd suggest you change your information sources, we know where the vitriol is coming from. GOP media. And it's intentional.
I see a lot of people here posting sources that aren't credible and are known as fake news. Esmith, will you contribute by not posting sources which are known for vitriol?

 

[Stevicus]

The alt-right continues to issue death threats. Political violence deters another Democratic candidate from running for office

I denounce violence from the left. Will those on the right denounce violence and threats of violence from the right? If so, then we have a basis for positive change. If not, then all Democrats need to be ready to defend themselves against threats of violence which have been going on for at least 8 years.

I don't know that merely denouncing violence will do much to bring about positive changes to end it. As a country, we need to take a hard and honest look at what leads people to make threats and commit acts of violence. This might mean looking under the hood of this country and taking on issues that many people are afraid or reluctant to deal with. More specifically, it means accepting the consequences of our own policies and cultural attitudes - and it might mean having to denounce a heck of a lot more than just violence. We live in a harsh, dog-eat-dog, "business is business" kind of society where human beings are squeezed, chewed up, and spit out. As it is often said, if you want peace, you need to work for justice. No justice, no peace.

Sure, it's easy to denounce violence, but is anyone willing to denounce injustice? Is anyone willing to denounce the lack of economic opportunities, the layoffs, the outsourcing, the foreclosures, the evictions, the neglect of our industry and infrastructure? Is anyone willing to denounce the rising costs of healthcare, the cuts in benefits, and the denial of mental health services to people who badly need them? The way that we treat people in this country - not just the government, but even the average person seems to have such a contemptuous and malicious attitude towards their fellow countrymen. Even the so-called "bleeding heart liberals." Their hearts don't really "bleed" that much; it's mostly just an act.

We also live in a violent culture. Far from denouncing violence, many Americans actually enjoy violence - but only when it happens to someone else. As Al Capone once said "You'll get much farther with a kind word and a gun, then just a kind word." We have countless movies and TV shows where we revel in the ultra-violent "hero" defeating the ultra-violent "villain." For generations, we've been teaching Americans that violence is an acceptable method of solving one's problems. At least it's better than "sniveling" and "whining," which many are more quick to denounce than anything else. Nobody likes a "crybaby," but they'll respect a "real man" who goes out and shoots people. This is who and what we are. This cuts to the very core of our national fabric - and not too many people are going to denounce that, left or right.