Did Fox News help to motivate the killing of three cops?

[Huckleberry]

And most importantly, do you see any real connection between a fear of the government banning guns and a decision to shoot at police officers who arrive at a house regarding a domestic dispute?

If it was a domestic violence crime then yes, it could (and probably did imo) cause him to fear his guns being taken away by the police. Someone convicted of domestic violence loses their right to own firearms even if it is a misdemeanor crime. In some states there is no expungement of these crimes so that he may regain his right to own firearms. I agree with everything else you wrote in that post.

I think this is the reason he shot the police officers, not anything to do specifically with Fox News or their agenda. One could argue that the federal law that can remove constitutional rights for misdemeanor crimes is responsible for his actions as easily as one could argue Fox News instigated his behaviour. I wouldn't let this individual off the hook so easily. He murdered 3 innocent men. I would hold him fully responsible.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I should certainly hope so, even though you seem to want to persist in characterizing my position as saying that OReilly personally would be solely responsible or even directly and immediately responsible for the man's acts. That would be a misstatement. What I have said just to be clear before you go looking for OReilly's address to flesh out your hypothetical any further is that he does bear some responsibility insofar as he has contributed that kind of heated and specific rhetoric to inflame the public against this Doctor, a man legally serving his patients.

That's part of my point LP. O'Reilly was holding a man socially responsible for what he believed to be criminal activity even though it was legal. And that man was actually directly responsible for those acts. Now you are holding O'Reilly socially responsible for what you believe to be actions criminal (or nearly so) even though it is legal. And he isn't even directly responsible for the act that you consider makes him wrong! The biggest difference between what you are doing and what he did is that he was blaming a man for results that are a direct consequence of his actions and you are blaming a man for results that are entirely indirect from his actions, if they are even realistically connected at all! And so far no one has died as a supposed result of your actions. The only thing that makes O'Reilly wrong here is that you don't like his opinions.

As a point of interest and perhaps a little more extreme than OReilly's boorish inflammatory behavior I think comes this story now:
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-turner-arrest.artjun04,0,99236.story

I'm not sure that I subscribe to the extremes of arresting Hal, but certainly his actions must bear some accountability.

O'Reilly was talking about a person who was already subject to public scrutiny. Dr. Tiller was quite active in politics surrounding the abortion issue and particularly the more controversial "late term abortion" which made him that much more of a controversial public figure. As far as I know O'Reilly did not give out any information on Dr Tiller that was not already made public by someone else. Nor did he attempt to incite violence towards him.

In contrast...

"It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally,'' the blog stated. "These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-hal-turner-court-appearance-next-week,0,1100830.story
Hal Turner's alleged acts are obviously illegal.

 

[russ_watters]

I should certainly hope so, even though you seem to want to persist in characterizing my position as saying that OReilly personally would be solely responsible or even directly and immediately responsible for the man's acts. That would be a misstatement. What I have said just to be clear before you go looking for OReilly's address to flesh out your hypothetical any further is that he does bear some responsibility insofar as he has contributed that kind of heated and specific rhetoric to inflame the public against this Doctor, a man legally serving his patients.

In that case, then isn't this all just pointless? Certainly, OReilly is responsible for some of the heat of the issue. So what?! There isn't anything illegal about what he's saying/how he's saying it, so aren't you just complainnig about an opinion you don't like?

As a point of interest and perhaps a little more extreme than OReilly's boorish inflammatory behavior I think comes this story now:

It isn't just "a little more extrme". He actually said people should do harm to that person - that they should "take up arms" against him. That's a critical difference that makes one illegal while the other is legal. AFAIK, OReilly has never done that.

 

[BoomBoom]

In that case, then isn't this all just pointless? Certainly, OReilly is responsible for some of the heat of the issue. So what?! There isn't anything illegal about what he's saying/how he's saying it, so aren't you just complainnig about an opinion you don't like?

Isn't that what a politics discussion forum is for? Do his actions actually have to be criminal for them to be criticized?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't that what a politics discussion forum is for? Do his actions actually have to be criminal for them to be criticized?

Its like having your cake and eating it too. He's a criminal but not really but I'll call him criminal anyway because he called that other guy criminal who wasn't really a criminal.

You can criticize O'Reilly without saying he is responsible (even partly) for murder.

 

[LowlyPion]

There isn't anything illegal about what he's saying/how he's saying it, so aren't you just complainnig about an opinion you don't like?

Does it have to meet the threshold of criminal liability for it to be wrong?

If it was his opinion I was having a problem with, why would I? He's a Catholic. He's entitled to view a woman's right to choose whether she would carry a baby to term as something he is perfectly happy to interfere with and deny as a matter of his choice and his faith. After all he's not the one that would be made to carry to term. He has his rights to his opinion as do we all.

No, what I am taking issue with is his failure to take responsibility. To have the hubris to suggest - after his continuously bragging about his show's ratings, and about the reach of Fox programming - to then seek to shirk any accountability - pretending that he has clean hands after his amped up invective name calling of this Dr. Tiller by name - I'd say it's fair dinkum to take issue with his approach to taking responsibility.

A man is dead. Words have consequences. And apparently OReilly from the self proclaimed pinnacle of the news pyramid chooses to remain blind to any role that he might have played in stoking the rhetoric, specifically about this doctor, that now ends with his death.

 

[drankin]

Does it have to meet the threshold of criminal liability for it to be wrong?

If it was his opinion I was having a problem with, why would I? He's a Catholic. He's entitled to view a woman's right to choose whether she would carry a baby to term as something he is perfectly happy to interfere with and deny as a matter of his choice and his faith. After all he's not the one that would be made to carry to term. He has his rights to his opinion as do we all.

No, what I am taking issue with is his failure to take responsibility. To have the hubris to suggest - after his continuously bragging about his show's ratings, and about the reach of Fox programming - to then seek to shirk any accountability - pretending that he has clean hands after his amped up invective name calling of this Dr. Tiller by name - I'd say it's fair dinkum to take issue with his approach to taking responsibility.

A man is dead. Words have consequences. And apparently OReilly from the self proclaimed pinnacle of the news pyramid chooses to remain blind to any role that he might have played in stoking the rhetoric, specifically about this doctor, that now ends with his death.

Just curious, what would OReilly taking responsibility look like?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just curious, what would OReilly taking responsibility look like?

The devil in a parka?

 

[LowlyPion]

The devil in a parka?

I think you are on to something.