And general statements of condition (and the presence of a patient) are not "protected information" under HIPAA as far as I know, if that's what you meant.
+5
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I'm saying all this while being genuinely worried about the fallout from this.
There was never a time when a shooting like this won't be politized, it happens with every high profile incident. So yelling at people not to do it isn't productive.
That is untrue and terrible logic.
Do you also think all the reactions from the right wing people are inappropriate?
And I can't recall a single high profile shooting in decades where the same dance didn't happen, with slight variation depending on motive.
Sorry, it was an off the cuff comment. I've called into the hospital (when I was married) asking about my wife's condition and they wouldn't speak to me because I couldn't prove over the phone who I was. Privacy laws were cited. So I was surprised to see a hospital tweeting the condition of a patient.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have higher standards of what should be said when it involves even hypothetical approvals of initiating violence.
I don't consider "I need to be careful what I wish for because their side has murderers" a higher standard.
I'm not understanding your take on this.
Lethal violence is ridiculously easy to perpetuate in this country due to everyone's access to firearms. We have seen this time and time again. How that not enough context for asking political figures to refrain from suggesting people use "2nd amendment solutions" against people in the government?
I guess my take is that we have a legal definition for incitement to violence, and that should be the standard we use when judging the culpability of someone who makes a pro violence statement.
This sits in opposition to my other General position, which is that just because you can say something, it doesn't mean you should say it.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
I will cosign 'do not engage in rhetoric that subtly condones violence against your political enemies'.
Like comments about 'second amendments solutions'.
Or 'target lists' with bullseyes painted over your opponents.
Or discussions about how the second amendment is for fighting a tyrannical government while the rest of your party, and associated media apparatus, are busy painting the current government as tyrannical.
Either they're grossly incompetent and unaware of what that rhetoric is likely encouraging and inflaming among their constituents, or they're fully aware of it and willing to risk the physical harm to those they see as their enemies in order to reap the political benefits of polarization.
It's astounding to me that you would take a moment where a bunch of Republicans have been shot by a left-wing nutjob and use it to criticize Republican rhetoric. You went for the Giffords 'target districts' thing really? Why, when you could have just gone back to TLDR's post about a political silver lining for the Whip getting wounded, or the posts wondering whether since somebody's kid was present they might be terrorized into gun control action.
I think this is the exact time to criticize political rhetoric loaded with violent imagery. This is the ultimate end point of all of that - people are going to start engaging in violence against those they see as their political enemies. Last time, it was against a Democrat. This time, it's against the GOP. Both are tragic and I hope that no one loses their life as a result of this incident.
It is also, overwhelmingly, rhetoric that is pushed by the GOP and the right. You're correct, a forum poster said something shitty that I don't agree with. It wasn't a forum poster who commented about '2nd amendment solutions', it is the fucking GOP President of the United States. It wasn't a forum poster who published the list of target districts, it was a fucking sitting GOP politician.
This is the polarization and radicalization that has been happening for the past 20 years. This is the end result. It's terrible, and it's awful, and it's a tragedy. I hope that everyone who's been injured pulls through and survives. It is, also, overwhelmingly pushed by one side. I am not going take a step back and say 'well, both sides!' because a forum poster on an internet forum said something shitty when the POTUS and other GOPers have been saying the same-or-worse for years.
Sorry, it was an off the cuff comment. I've called into the hospital (when I was married) asking about my wife's condition and they wouldn't speak to me because I couldn't prove over the phone who I was. Privacy laws were cited. So I was surprised to see a hospital tweeting the condition of a patient.
Okay but that's HIPAA not hippocratic oath. Important distinction as it appeared you were saying something about the doctor's duty to try to provide medical help to him...
Okay so on MSNBC Scalises' condition is stated to be in Critical Condition now after surgery.
A gunshot in the pelivis seems like a very complicted wound, is a post op "critical" status to be expected @ [medical / trauma professionals] ?
Given his age/blood loss/area of the wound and delay between injury and ability to get him evacuated it seems about what I would have expected but hopefully he is ok.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
We just had congressional testimony regarding the ridding kings of troublesome archbishops. I kinda think that calling out the pushing of plausibly-deniable calls to violence against political opponents is relevant.
I don't think that Rand Paul actually wants to see his political opponents murdered, but it is absolutely a strategy of flirting with violent language to keep right wing excitement high; sometimes this excitement spills over into actual political violence, but, thanks to the fact that it is almost solely a Republican strategy, it is almost never an (R) who gets shot. This case is only remarkable (as horrifying as that is, thanks, AMERICA) insofar as it is Republican politicians who were targetted.
The Onion article '"Nothing can be done to stop this," bemoans only country where this happens' is looking less and less like satire.
+11
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Okay so on MSNBC Scalises' condition is stated to be in Critical Condition now after surgery.
Shit.
They'd been saying he was shot in the hip and I'd kinda internalized that he was basically gonna be fine.
Thinking good thoughts for him and his family right now.
Hip's a bad place to be shot. Lots of critical blood vessels there.
Bullet wounds are nasty things, and typically are not Hollywood things where 'oh! I have a hole and it's leaking!' The entry wound may have been in the hip, but there are lots of things to damage there, and the bullet could have done nasty things like deflected off a bone and gone deeper into the body. So don't be surprised that it's more serious than initial reports may have sounded.
When a majority of the governmental branches are involved in covering up massive corruption on behalf of the President's administration, it's easy to see why people might view the current government as tyrannical.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
I will cosign 'do not engage in rhetoric that subtly condones violence against your political enemies'.
Like comments about 'second amendments solutions'.
Or 'target lists' with bullseyes painted over your opponents.
Or discussions about how the second amendment is for fighting a tyrannical government while the rest of your party, and associated media apparatus, are busy painting the current government as tyrannical.
Either they're grossly incompetent and unaware of what that rhetoric is likely encouraging and inflaming among their constituents, or they're fully aware of it and willing to risk the physical harm to those they see as their enemies in order to reap the political benefits of polarization.
It's astounding to me that you would take a moment where a bunch of Republicans have been shot by a left-wing nutjob and use it to criticize Republican rhetoric. You went for the Giffords 'target districts' thing really? Why, when you could have just gone back to TLDR's post about a political silver lining for the Whip getting wounded, or the posts wondering whether since somebody's kid was present they might be terrorized into gun control action.
Because that rhetoric is how we got here. The Republicans have spent the past several decades legitimizing the use of political violence, never thinking that it would be turned on them. They have to be the ones to reverse the direction, though at this point, I doubt they can.
What exactly do you think a "Second amendment solution" to tyranny is?
That's absolutely encouraging violence. It's telling people "hey if this gets bad, you can still shoot the bad people!" The bad people in this case being people who disagree with Rand Paul.
The key qualifier there is the word tyranny. We had an armed revolution in this country. We celebrate it every July 4th. It was justified. We do have a second amendment whose purpose is/was to prevent the federal government from disarming the citizens of the states in order to preserve their ability to resist federal tyranny.
Stating the above is no more encouraging violence against politicians today as celebrating the 4th of July.
Context matters. Why did he tweet that? Could it be at all related to people talking about Obama being a tyrant? He certainly wasn't just randomly talking about it!
It absolutely encouraged violence and is deplorable now and was deplorable then.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have higher standards of what should be said when it involves even hypothetical approvals of initiating violence.
I don't consider "I need to be careful what I wish for because their side has murderers" a higher standard.
I'm not understanding your take on this.
Lethal violence is ridiculously easy to perpetuate in this country due to everyone's access to firearms. We have seen this time and time again. How that not enough context for asking political figures to refrain from suggesting people use "2nd amendment solutions" against people in the government?
I guess my take is that we have a legal definition for incitement to violence, and that should be the standard we use when judging the culpability of someone who makes a pro violence statement.
This sits in opposition to my other General position, which is that just because you can say something, it doesn't mean you should say it.
So we can only judge people who have committed crimes now? Come on spool. This is ridiculous and I doubt you'd hold people to this standard yourself with any consistency at all.
I'm saying all this while being genuinely worried about the fallout from this.
There was never a time when a shooting like this won't be politized, it happens with every high profile incident. So yelling at people not to do it isn't productive.
That is untrue and terrible logic.
Do you also think all the reactions from the right wing people are inappropriate?
And I can't recall a single high profile shooting in decades where the same dance didn't happen, with slight variation depending on motive.
Yes i do but that doesn't make it any better when our side does it! I come to this site for mature discussion from a leftist prospective. If i wanted unnuanced wagon circling i can go the comment section of Daily Kos.
Sorry, it was an off the cuff comment. I've called into the hospital (when I was married) asking about my wife's condition and they wouldn't speak to me because I couldn't prove over the phone who I was. Privacy laws were cited. So I was surprised to see a hospital tweeting the condition of a patient.
Probably his family released the news because they know his supporters are worried.
Sorry, it was an off the cuff comment. I've called into the hospital (when I was married) asking about my wife's condition and they wouldn't speak to me because I couldn't prove over the phone who I was. Privacy laws were cited. So I was surprised to see a hospital tweeting the condition of a patient.
Okay but that's HIPAA not hippocratic oath. Important distinction as it appeared you were saying something about the doctor's duty to try to provide medical help to him...
oh no, not that at all. I only said that because part of the hippocratic oath dictates patient privacy
Sorry, it was an off the cuff comment. I've called into the hospital (when I was married) asking about my wife's condition and they wouldn't speak to me because I couldn't prove over the phone who I was. Privacy laws were cited. So I was surprised to see a hospital tweeting the condition of a patient.
Probably his family released the news because they know his supporters are worried.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
I will cosign 'do not engage in rhetoric that subtly condones violence against your political enemies'.
Like comments about 'second amendments solutions'.
Or 'target lists' with bullseyes painted over your opponents.
Or discussions about how the second amendment is for fighting a tyrannical government while the rest of your party, and associated media apparatus, are busy painting the current government as tyrannical.
Either they're grossly incompetent and unaware of what that rhetoric is likely encouraging and inflaming among their constituents, or they're fully aware of it and willing to risk the physical harm to those they see as their enemies in order to reap the political benefits of polarization.
It's astounding to me that you would take a moment where a bunch of Republicans have been shot by a left-wing nutjob and use it to criticize Republican rhetoric. You went for the Giffords 'target districts' thing really? Why, when you could have just gone back to TLDR's post about a political silver lining for the Whip getting wounded, or the posts wondering whether since somebody's kid was present they might be terrorized into gun control action.
Because as soon as it happened people predicted that Republicans would use this to bemoan "left-wing violence," and they were proven right about five minutes after the fact.
We're not denying the shooter was (most likely) left wing, but there is no way in hell that we're going to cede the moral high ground to Republicans claiming that the left-wing is solely responsible for this violence when 1) Democrats by and large do not advocate political violence or "2nd amendment solutions," and 2) Republicans including elected ones up to the current President of the United States constantly invoke "2nd amendment solutions" as a viable response to what they allege to be "tyranny."
They don't get to escape that. They don't get to wash their hands of the political culture they have created or the ramifications that resulted because someone took their message and applied it to someone other than Democrats.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
I will cosign 'do not engage in rhetoric that subtly condones violence against your political enemies'.
Like comments about 'second amendments solutions'.
Or 'target lists' with bullseyes painted over your opponents.
Or discussions about how the second amendment is for fighting a tyrannical government while the rest of your party, and associated media apparatus, are busy painting the current government as tyrannical.
Either they're grossly incompetent and unaware of what that rhetoric is likely encouraging and inflaming among their constituents, or they're fully aware of it and willing to risk the physical harm to those they see as their enemies in order to reap the political benefits of polarization.
It's astounding to me that you would take a moment where a bunch of Republicans have been shot by a left-wing nutjob and use it to criticize Republican rhetoric. You went for the Giffords 'target districts' thing really? Why, when you could have just gone back to TLDR's post about a political silver lining for the Whip getting wounded, or the posts wondering whether since somebody's kid was present they might be terrorized into gun control action.
Republicans are the ones that use violent rhetoric. How many times did the presidential candidate I voted for advocate killing judges if she didn't win?
What exactly do you think a "Second amendment solution" to tyranny is?
That's absolutely encouraging violence. It's telling people "hey if this gets bad, you can still shoot the bad people!" The bad people in this case being people who disagree with Rand Paul.
The key qualifier there is the word tyranny. We had an armed revolution in this country. We celebrate it every July 4th. It was justified. We do have a second amendment whose purpose is/was to prevent the federal government from disarming the citizens of the states in order to preserve their ability to resist federal tyranny.
Stating the above is no more encouraging violence against politicians today as celebrating the 4th of July.
That's the rhetoric but it was also equal parts keeping the citizenry armed so they could be conscripted by the government.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
I will cosign 'do not engage in rhetoric that subtly condones violence against your political enemies'.
Like comments about 'second amendments solutions'.
Or 'target lists' with bullseyes painted over your opponents.
Or discussions about how the second amendment is for fighting a tyrannical government while the rest of your party, and associated media apparatus, are busy painting the current government as tyrannical.
Either they're grossly incompetent and unaware of what that rhetoric is likely encouraging and inflaming among their constituents, or they're fully aware of it and willing to risk the physical harm to those they see as their enemies in order to reap the political benefits of polarization.
It's astounding to me that you would take a moment where a bunch of Republicans have been shot by a left-wing nutjob and use it to criticize Republican rhetoric. You went for the Giffords 'target districts' thing really? Why, when you could have just gone back to TLDR's post about a political silver lining for the Whip getting wounded, or the posts wondering whether since somebody's kid was present they might be terrorized into gun control action.
Because that rhetoric is how we got here. The Republicans have spent the past several decades legitimizing the use of political violence, never thinking that it would be turned on them. They have to be the ones to reverse the direction, though at this point, I doubt they can.
Yes, exactly.
This is not me saying 'lol you get what you deserve!' it's me desperately hoping that this finally proves the danger of the 'fight back against the tyrannical government!' rhetoric that the GOP has been pushing for a decade or more. This was always going to be the end result of painting the other side as 'the enemy', and then also talking a lot about how the only way to deal with 'the enemy' is violence.
Maybe this is what will finally lead to a reversal of that trend of increased polarization. I don't hold out much hope, but the only other way this is all going to go is that more people will lose their lives as a result. And the only side of this argument that can reverse direction is the GOP, because they're the ones who set this course.
I'm not going to cosign "watch what you say because crazy people".
Too close to victim blaming. Too much like opportunistic censorship.
Too lacking in additional context like " ...because crazy people are also on my team and they might kill you" or, conversely, too much of an implied threat.
I will cosign 'do not engage in rhetoric that subtly condones violence against your political enemies'.
Like comments about 'second amendments solutions'.
Or 'target lists' with bullseyes painted over your opponents.
Or discussions about how the second amendment is for fighting a tyrannical government while the rest of your party, and associated media apparatus, are busy painting the current government as tyrannical.
Either they're grossly incompetent and unaware of what that rhetoric is likely encouraging and inflaming among their constituents, or they're fully aware of it and willing to risk the physical harm to those they see as their enemies in order to reap the political benefits of polarization.
It's astounding to me that you would take a moment where a bunch of Republicans have been shot by a left-wing nutjob and use it to criticize Republican rhetoric. You went for the Giffords 'target districts' thing really? Why, when you could have just gone back to TLDR's post about a political silver lining for the Whip getting wounded, or the posts wondering whether since somebody's kid was present they might be terrorized into gun control action.
Because as soon as it happened people predicted that Republicans would use this to bemoan "left-wing violence," and they were proven right about five minutes after the fact.
We're not denying the shooter was (most likely) left wing, but there is no way in hell that we're going to cede the moral high ground to Republicans claiming that the left-wing is solely responsible for this violence when 1) Democrats by and large do not advocate political violence or "2nd amendment solutions," and 2) Republicans including elected ones up to the current President of the United States constantly invoke "2nd amendment solutions" as a viable response to what they allege to be "tyranny."
They don't get to escape that. They don't get to wash their hands of the political culture they have created or the ramifications that resulted because someone took their message and applied it to someone other than Democrats.
You would also not see this response if not for the bizzare way the right has been trying to paint every single left wing person as uniquely violent and a threat to the US. Like thing this shooting to peaceful anti Trump protests.
The presence of a patient and their condition is not protected under HIPAA.
Back when I was a local reporter I would regularly call hospitals asking for people's condition in order to follow up on shootings or bad car crashes. If I could give them the patient's name, they could, and did, give me their condition.
Granted, sometimes you'll get a nurse or supervisor who doesn't know that, and you have to explain the law to them, but usually you'll get the information without any trouble.
The presence of a patient and their condition is not protected under HIPAA.
Back when I was a local reporter I would regularly call hospitals asking for people's condition in order to follow up on shootings or bad car crashes. If I could give them the patient's name, they could, and did, give me their condition.
Granted, sometimes you'll get a nurse or supervisor who doesn't know that, and you have to explain the law to them, but usually you'll get the information without any trouble.
This makes it even more confusing to me on how (apparently) no news agency has called around to the hospitals near the shooting to verify Trump's claims that the shooter is, in fact, dead. You'd think there'd be more statements of "(insert news agency) has confirmed the President's statement that the shooter died from his wounds."
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
The presence of a patient and their condition is not protected under HIPAA.
Back when I was a local reporter I would regularly call hospitals asking for people's condition in order to follow up on shootings or bad car crashes. If I could give them the patient's name, they could, and did, give me their condition.
Granted, sometimes you'll get a nurse or supervisor who doesn't know that, and you have to explain the law to them, but usually you'll get the information without any trouble.
This makes it even more confusing to me on how (apparently) no news agency has called around to the hospitals near the shooting to verify Trump's claims that the shooter is, in fact, dead. You'd think there'd be more statements of "(insert news agency) has confirmed the President's statement that the shooter died from his wounds."
They may not know where he was taken.
Also they may be in pre Trump habits where the President ususlly only made a statement on knowing wtf was going on.
The presence of a patient and their condition is not protected under HIPAA.
Back when I was a local reporter I would regularly call hospitals asking for people's condition in order to follow up on shootings or bad car crashes. If I could give them the patient's name, they could, and did, give me their condition.
Granted, sometimes you'll get a nurse or supervisor who doesn't know that, and you have to explain the law to them, but usually you'll get the information without any trouble.
This makes it even more confusing to me on how (apparently) no news agency has called around to the hospitals near the shooting to verify Trump's claims that the shooter is, in fact, dead. You'd think there'd be more statements of "(insert news agency) has confirmed the President's statement that the shooter died from his wounds."
I agree it is strange. Is it known which hospital the shooter was sent to?
The presence of a patient and their condition is not protected under HIPAA.
Back when I was a local reporter I would regularly call hospitals asking for people's condition in order to follow up on shootings or bad car crashes. If I could give them the patient's name, they could, and did, give me their condition.
Granted, sometimes you'll get a nurse or supervisor who doesn't know that, and you have to explain the law to them, but usually you'll get the information without any trouble.
This makes it even more confusing to me on how (apparently) no news agency has called around to the hospitals near the shooting to verify Trump's claims that the shooter is, in fact, dead. You'd think there'd be more statements of "(insert news agency) has confirmed the President's statement that the shooter died from his wounds."
I agree it is strange. Is it known which hospital the shoot was sent to?
Death of the patient complicates the process. Reporting on condition is usually limited to 1 word, "death" not being a listed status. Releasing death information usually requires approval from a legal representative.
Sorry, it was an off the cuff comment. I've called into the hospital (when I was married) asking about my wife's condition and they wouldn't speak to me because I couldn't prove over the phone who I was. Privacy laws were cited. So I was surprised to see a hospital tweeting the condition of a patient.
Okay but that's HIPAA not hippocratic oath. Important distinction as it appeared you were saying something about the doctor's duty to try to provide medical help to him...
At the risk of veering too far off topic, the modern Hippocratic Oath that's been used for a few decades now includes:
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death.
There might be rules about the media reporting someone dead before authorities can contact next of kin, iirc.
Theres no rules about what the media can do.
Typically out of respect you try not to give the name, but when I worked in news if a suspect died we would always run with it immediately, saying "Suspect dead".
The fact his name is already out there may complicate things.
Which, if youre this man's mother, father or family you're freaking the fuck out now that the president said he's dead and no one else is telling you anything. Which, despite this man doing horrible things, is a real shitty thing for Trump to have done and that's not his familys fault.
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
There might be rules about the media reporting someone dead before authorities can contact next of kin, iirc.
There definitely aren't because the media fucked up the reporting of the Tucson shooting by declaring Giffords dead. Which, since she wasn't, I doubt her next of kin had been contacted.
Alexandria shooter James Hodgkinson lived out of a gym bag and hung out for the past month and a half at the YMCA across the street from where he opened fire, according to a report Wednesday.
“He never worked out. He never talked to anybody. He never did anything,” Brennwald told the Washington Post. “He’d just sit there and stare at his laptop.”
And when he wasn’t on his laptop, he’d stare out the window — at Eugene Simpson Stadium Park, where the shooting occurred.
apparently he had abruptly moved out of his home in April, and it looks like he was living in or around the YMCA near the field.
Posts
Hip's a bad place to be shot. Lots of critical blood vessels there.
I'm...not sure what you mean here.
And general statements of condition (and the presence of a patient) are not "protected information" under HIPAA as far as I know, if that's what you meant.
There are some major arteries going through the hips (and notoriously, thighs).
I did the same mental thing, but it's not super surprising that something important could have been clipped.
I'm sorry, what?
A gunshot in the pelivis seems like a very complicted wound, is a post op "critical" status to be expected @ [medical / trauma professionals] ?
Do you also think all the reactions from the right wing people are inappropriate?
And I can't recall a single high profile shooting in decades where the same dance didn't happen, with slight variation depending on motive.
Sorry, it was an off the cuff comment. I've called into the hospital (when I was married) asking about my wife's condition and they wouldn't speak to me because I couldn't prove over the phone who I was. Privacy laws were cited. So I was surprised to see a hospital tweeting the condition of a patient.
I guess my take is that we have a legal definition for incitement to violence, and that should be the standard we use when judging the culpability of someone who makes a pro violence statement.
This sits in opposition to my other General position, which is that just because you can say something, it doesn't mean you should say it.
I think this is the exact time to criticize political rhetoric loaded with violent imagery. This is the ultimate end point of all of that - people are going to start engaging in violence against those they see as their political enemies. Last time, it was against a Democrat. This time, it's against the GOP. Both are tragic and I hope that no one loses their life as a result of this incident.
It is also, overwhelmingly, rhetoric that is pushed by the GOP and the right. You're correct, a forum poster said something shitty that I don't agree with. It wasn't a forum poster who commented about '2nd amendment solutions', it is the fucking GOP President of the United States. It wasn't a forum poster who published the list of target districts, it was a fucking sitting GOP politician.
This is the polarization and radicalization that has been happening for the past 20 years. This is the end result. It's terrible, and it's awful, and it's a tragedy. I hope that everyone who's been injured pulls through and survives. It is, also, overwhelmingly pushed by one side. I am not going take a step back and say 'well, both sides!' because a forum poster on an internet forum said something shitty when the POTUS and other GOPers have been saying the same-or-worse for years.
Okay but that's HIPAA not hippocratic oath. Important distinction as it appeared you were saying something about the doctor's duty to try to provide medical help to him...
The Post is a rag, obviously. So be warned that their written coverage is gonna be infuriating to a lot of people. The video ain't a picnic, either.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Given his age/blood loss/area of the wound and delay between injury and ability to get him evacuated it seems about what I would have expected but hopefully he is ok.
We just had congressional testimony regarding the ridding kings of troublesome archbishops. I kinda think that calling out the pushing of plausibly-deniable calls to violence against political opponents is relevant.
I don't think that Rand Paul actually wants to see his political opponents murdered, but it is absolutely a strategy of flirting with violent language to keep right wing excitement high; sometimes this excitement spills over into actual political violence, but, thanks to the fact that it is almost solely a Republican strategy, it is almost never an (R) who gets shot. This case is only remarkable (as horrifying as that is, thanks, AMERICA) insofar as it is Republican politicians who were targetted.
The Onion article '"Nothing can be done to stop this," bemoans only country where this happens' is looking less and less like satire.
Bullet wounds are nasty things, and typically are not Hollywood things where 'oh! I have a hole and it's leaking!' The entry wound may have been in the hip, but there are lots of things to damage there, and the bullet could have done nasty things like deflected off a bone and gone deeper into the body. So don't be surprised that it's more serious than initial reports may have sounded.
Because that rhetoric is how we got here. The Republicans have spent the past several decades legitimizing the use of political violence, never thinking that it would be turned on them. They have to be the ones to reverse the direction, though at this point, I doubt they can.
Context matters. Why did he tweet that? Could it be at all related to people talking about Obama being a tyrant? He certainly wasn't just randomly talking about it!
It absolutely encouraged violence and is deplorable now and was deplorable then.
So we can only judge people who have committed crimes now? Come on spool. This is ridiculous and I doubt you'd hold people to this standard yourself with any consistency at all.
Yes i do but that doesn't make it any better when our side does it! I come to this site for mature discussion from a leftist prospective. If i wanted unnuanced wagon circling i can go the comment section of Daily Kos.
Probably his family released the news because they know his supporters are worried.
oh no, not that at all. I only said that because part of the hippocratic oath dictates patient privacy
that I could buy
Because as soon as it happened people predicted that Republicans would use this to bemoan "left-wing violence," and they were proven right about five minutes after the fact.
We're not denying the shooter was (most likely) left wing, but there is no way in hell that we're going to cede the moral high ground to Republicans claiming that the left-wing is solely responsible for this violence when 1) Democrats by and large do not advocate political violence or "2nd amendment solutions," and 2) Republicans including elected ones up to the current President of the United States constantly invoke "2nd amendment solutions" as a viable response to what they allege to be "tyranny."
They don't get to escape that. They don't get to wash their hands of the political culture they have created or the ramifications that resulted because someone took their message and applied it to someone other than Democrats.
Republicans are the ones that use violent rhetoric. How many times did the presidential candidate I voted for advocate killing judges if she didn't win?
That's the rhetoric but it was also equal parts keeping the citizenry armed so they could be conscripted by the government.
Yes, exactly.
This is not me saying 'lol you get what you deserve!' it's me desperately hoping that this finally proves the danger of the 'fight back against the tyrannical government!' rhetoric that the GOP has been pushing for a decade or more. This was always going to be the end result of painting the other side as 'the enemy', and then also talking a lot about how the only way to deal with 'the enemy' is violence.
Maybe this is what will finally lead to a reversal of that trend of increased polarization. I don't hold out much hope, but the only other way this is all going to go is that more people will lose their lives as a result. And the only side of this argument that can reverse direction is the GOP, because they're the ones who set this course.
That's all I really can add I guess. I just feel weirdly numb and paranoid now.
You would also not see this response if not for the bizzare way the right has been trying to paint every single left wing person as uniquely violent and a threat to the US. Like thing this shooting to peaceful anti Trump protests.
Back when I was a local reporter I would regularly call hospitals asking for people's condition in order to follow up on shootings or bad car crashes. If I could give them the patient's name, they could, and did, give me their condition.
Granted, sometimes you'll get a nurse or supervisor who doesn't know that, and you have to explain the law to them, but usually you'll get the information without any trouble.
This makes it even more confusing to me on how (apparently) no news agency has called around to the hospitals near the shooting to verify Trump's claims that the shooter is, in fact, dead. You'd think there'd be more statements of "(insert news agency) has confirmed the President's statement that the shooter died from his wounds."
They may not know where he was taken.
Also they may be in pre Trump habits where the President ususlly only made a statement on knowing wtf was going on.
I agree it is strange. Is it known which hospital the shooter was sent to?
whichever was closest in theory
I'm guessing he wasn't flown out
At the risk of veering too far off topic, the modern Hippocratic Oath that's been used for a few decades now includes:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html
You can also Google that phrase for a billion medical textbooks citing it.
Theres no rules about what the media can do.
Typically out of respect you try not to give the name, but when I worked in news if a suspect died we would always run with it immediately, saying "Suspect dead".
The fact his name is already out there may complicate things.
Which, if youre this man's mother, father or family you're freaking the fuck out now that the president said he's dead and no one else is telling you anything. Which, despite this man doing horrible things, is a real shitty thing for Trump to have done and that's not his familys fault.
There definitely aren't because the media fucked up the reporting of the Tucson shooting by declaring Giffords dead. Which, since she wasn't, I doubt her next of kin had been contacted.
apparently he had abruptly moved out of his home in April, and it looks like he was living in or around the YMCA near the field.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562