Sponsored by

Comments on

PCC's Loughner emails show early concerns about accused shooter

For over a year prior to the Jan. 8 mass shooting, Pima Community College officials traded emails showing increasing concern about Jared Loughner's behavior. In the 255 pages of emails, released following a court ruling, Loughner is referred to as "creepy," bizarre," "psycho" and as having an "evil smile."... Read more»

have your say   

2 comments on this story

May 21, 2011, 8:13 am
-1 +0

The thing about all this reporting on the signs of Loughner’s nutbaggery is that yeah, dude was a nutbag.  Then dude went ape and killed a bunch of people.  We could make a case, and indeed we’re making it, that folks saw this coming.

So what?  Is there anything to be gained from ruminating ad naseum about all the telltale signs of Loughner’s nuttiness?  Are we trying to build a case that Pima College has blood on their hands or something?

Bottom line: the guy was insane.  How about a story on all the reports of disconcerting weirdos that appear each semester at PCC, the U of A and any other public institution constitutionally prohibited from taking reasonable measures to identify and monitor the tragic characters.  999 times out of 1000 they’re harmless, and the critical minority occupies a middle ground of little interest to anyone not obsessed with civil liberties or psychopaths.

It would be nice to see the media acknowledge the public’s common sense on this one.  No one needs additional proof that the guy who killed a handful of innocents that morning was a batshit lunatic, and whatever the public really does need (closure?) isn’s served by the present parade of found facts about what what’s too late now to fix, and too unhealthy to insist on pondering.

Enough, for Christ, about Loughner.  He clearly did what he did, and he’ll clearly get what’s coming to him.  If anything needs clarification, it’s our capacity to get past it.

May 21, 2011, 10:43 am
-0 +1


Why continue to report on Loughner?

David Bodney, the attorney who has pushed for the release of public records from Pima College and the various investigating agencies, summed it up in a court hearing: to transparently show the public the process of justice.

Given the particular circumstances of the Jan. 8 mass shooting, while Jared Loughner may bear the moral guilt of pulling the trigger, there’s a strong chance that he may never be found guilty of a crime. There’s a chance he may never even be tried for the shootings.

Whether that’s right or wrong, it’s a possibility that many will find hard to understand.

Further, reporting on what PCC or other organizations and people did or didn’t do before the shootings provides the information needed to identify if anything does need fixing in our system.

Note that, after they were compelled by the court to release this set of emails, PCC immediately announced that they are hiring new mental and behavorial health experts.

If we are never to report on “what’s too late now to fix, and too unhealthy to insist on pondering,” should there never again be a report on the Iraq war, or our long-time failure to find bin Laden, the causes of the housing bubble, the potential for climate change, or the money spent on local government consultants?

The whole point behind reporting what’s happened in the past is to try to fix the future. Talking about what to do without any facts at hand is mere pontification, and there’s enough of that sort of blather in the media already.

There are many questions raised by the handling of Loughner prior to Jan. 8, and the options open to us now. Just a few of them are:

• While there are mechanisms for any person to be ordered into mental health treatment, they’re not commonly used. Should they be more frequently invoked?

• Should educational instutions do a more comprehensive job of monitoring student behavior and intervening?

• Should educational institutions—and their law enforcement agencies—communicate more with other legal authorities about student behavior?

• Should there be more readily available support for the families of people with mental health issues?

• Do those who see a dangerous potential in someone with an apparent mental health issue have a responsibility to take steps to get them treatment?

• Given the differences between federal and state laws regarding competency and the insanity defense, which system better serves justice?

Within certain parameters of taste and respect, we’ll continue to report on the aftermath of Jan. 8—both the trial of Jared Loughner and the progress made by the victims and our community to heal and grow together.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,


Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment


news, politics & government, crime & safety, education, local, arizona, breaking
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1766
  • Dylan Smith: 540
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • EllieMae: 151
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by


I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Printer's Devil
$15/mo. Cub Reporter
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Copy desk chief
$1,000 Trusted source
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Cub reporter
$50 Printer's Devil
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization fiscally sponsored by FCIR.org, a 501c3 charity. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.


Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by