(Author's Note: The best source for anyone who wants to learn about what happened in Guyana is a book entitled Our Father Who Art in Hell, by James Reston Jr. It was written during the year immediately after the tragedy, and is an excellent resource for anyone interested. I have a slightly dog-eared copy with many tabs in it. You may borrow it if you wish. But do not remove my tabs. God help you should you remove my tabs. In fact everything I talk about here I've got a lot of print on. Just ask if you are interested.)
Leo Ryan v. Gabrielle Giffords
Leo Ryan was a classical 1970s "man's man," who molded himself in the form of a sort of investigative legislator. He was never satisfied with second-hand information, and always sought to find out the truth in person. For example, in 1965, Ryan actually disguised himself as an inmate in Folsom Prison for ten days to discover what it was like there while he was serving the California State Assembly. When Ryan went to Guyana he went there with no United States Marshals, or any kind of law enforcement. He believed that this sort of thing would incite Jones to violence, or at least make people reluctant to deal with him.
In any event, Jim Jones was a well known sham by this point in his career, and was notoriously unstable. Ryan was actively warned by many, including the FBI, that travelling to Guyana would agitate him. He refused to listen, believing that if he did not go he would look like a coward. Ryan's bravado resulted in the deaths of most of the crew that came with him (By the way, Dan Qualye was originally supposed to make the trip).
This is an actual image taken by a cameraman at NBC as the group was being fired upon. It was the last thing several people ever saw.
Giffords (at the time of writing) near assassination could not be under more different circumstances. Far from being an active agitator, Giffords was simply holding a rather standard 'town-hall' sort of meeting in a public place. Much is being made of the threats that had been levelled at Giffords before, but I am unsure of how they should currently be characterized in wake of available information, but I will get into that later. The critical distinction is this: Ryan walked into hell. Hell walked up to Giffords and shook her hand. That should be very disconcerting for us as American citizens, and even more so for the citizens of Arizona. How someone managed to get to a member of Congress point blank with a Glock 9 mm and then shoot her and 19 other people is absolutely confounding. Why he did so is not relevant to this point, although I have some idea of why with the information available. Why was there no security at this event? How did someone with Loughner's record wind up with a powerful semi-automatic handgun with 90 rounds of ammunition and extended clips?
I should point out that if you have followed the story, than you are aware that Loughner was not the only armed private citizen at this assembly. The man who restrained him was armed. I am absolutely sick of hearing people comment with something akin to "well, if I was there with MY Glock 9 mm....." Just stop it. You have no clue what you would have, or could have done. You could just as easily have wound up being shot in the head . Sorry, temporary irrelevant rant.
The threats against Giffords DID in fact come from "Tea Party" types. Most of these were in relation to the healthcare bill and to Giffords active criticism of her close friend Jan Brewer's immigration policy. Her office routinely received death threats and was vandalized. Therefore it is not surprising that many people immediately assumed that the shooter was directly related to the Tea Party. However, it appears this is not the case. But I think it is highly unlikely that Loughner acted alone, and I would not be shocked if someone 'nudged' him in Giffords' direction. Here is why:
Larry Layton & Susan Atkins v. Jared Lee Loughner
I'm sure many of you have heard of Susan Atkins, but I would bet that Larry Layton is a less well known figure. Susan Atkins was a member of the famous "Manson Family" who murdered the LeBianca family, Sharon Tate and her friends, and are suspected in numerous unsolved murders around the time of their activity. Larry Layton was one of Jim Jones most trusted lieutenants, although he is probably more accurately described as a foot soldier. Layton disguised himself as a "defector" to leave Jonestown with Ryan before opening fire on them in the plane while it was parked on the runway. Had his gun not backfired, he could have easily killed everyone on board. What I am going to get at here is a sort of cultural/social, and maybe psychological, link between these three people.
I will note from the start that I have little to no background in psychology. My focus is elsewhere, which is why I will not attempt to draw some sort of "psychological profile." To be honest, I have doubts over which model is more efficient, although I suppose those both often end in similar places.
People in every culture I have ever studied have a deep seeded need for some purpose, some sense of direction. This is a very prevalent norm in American society. All you need to do is look around our streets to see it everywhere. We have clubs, religion, political parties, thousands of things you can easily think of which help us to define ourselves, our purpose in life, and our direction. Most people do not think of themselves as having any similarity to people like Loughner. But you do. So do I. I am an Eastern Kentuckian who attends law school and aspires to one day work for the FBI. In this sentence I have revealed crucial parts of my identity and purpose. My surroundings and circumstances have helped shape me, helped define those goals and facets of my identity, and continue to guide me. Sometimes this sort of thinking makes people uncomfortable, but I feel that recognizing our own need for belonging and direction is a very healthy thing. Just my opinion.
In any event, Layton and Atkins come from that classic mold of the person who is seeking a direction. The direction that they found was given to them by a leader; a person who was charismatic, charming, and convincing. That person then convinced them that to achieve their purpose, they needed to kill. I theorize that Loughner was the same. People like Layton, Atkins, and Loughner, are (pardon the irony of the expression) like loaded guns. There is so much repressed energy that can be released in a dangerous way. But for it to happen, someone needs to aim them, and pull the trigger.
Read Loughner's posts on youtube. They make absolutely no sense. They are directed at no one in particular, speak in nonsensical tautologies, and appear for the most part to be benign nonsense. This is wildly different from someone who is a self-motivated sort of mass murderer like Seung-Hui Cho. Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter) had volumes of ultra-violent bloody writings, where he fantasized about the mass murder of classmates and teachers. Cho had mental disorders that were diagnosed as early as his 7th grade year. The Columbine killers were similar to Cho, with histories of mental disorders and worshipping violence. Loughner, appears at the moment anyway, to just be a troubled kid with a history of personal failures. I feel that Loughner's 'purpose' in life became about showing people how the government was brainwashing us all, using fake currency, and other such conspiracy theories which are prevalent online. The internet has become all about new forms of identity and ideas. I am very interested to see why Giffords herself was chosen, as if this was just purely anti-government, any number of choices would have made sense. Perhaps it was because of her vulnerability and visibility at the rally. Or perhaps because Loughner was informed that this was the person who was his enemy. Similar to how Layton and Atkins were informed who their targets were.
There could be a hint to this buried in his last message on Myspace. The one imploring his friends to "not be mad" at him. If Loughner acted alone, and was only motivated by his own recognitions of who his enemy was, why would he apologize for acting for everyone's benefit? Unless he knew that many of his "friends" would not understand what he now did "understand," thanks to his motivator?
Just a theory......More to come as we learn more....
No comments:
Post a Comment