[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

He has a distinct, demonstrable and personal interest in the outcome of this case and has already made prejudicial public comments that, on the surface, appeared to have little connection to the known evidence.

When you say distinct and demonstrable you're suggesting something other than being the Sheriff of the biggest county on the border and having to deal with the on-going battles inflamed by the rhetoric in the media? This is the Sheriff that is forced to deal with keeping the Minutemen out of the face of the Border Patrol and shooting at anyone with brown skin.

The county Sheriff wouldn't have access to the know evidence?

County supersedes municipality law enforcement in every way in Arizona. County would be in the middle of this investigation and the Sheriff would be front and center. Something this high profile he would be on scene and assume command of the investigation. He would have access to all information and would know all the facts available before making a statement.

"Dupnik told reporters that the suspect had "kind of a troubled past" that included brushes wtih the law. Though he provided no details, he said, "We understand that there have been law enforcement contacts with the individual where he made threats.""

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/...oting.suspect/

If he was the sheriff of the next county, if had made the comments at a local Chamber luncheon or had already disqualified himself from the case, then I probably would't care.

Or it could be that he made those comments as someone who lives in the middle of that toxic environment, much if it fueled by hatred on the radio and television. The Minutemen get a lot of coverage from the likes of Dobbs, Hannity and Beck, but they're a dangerous group that do nothing but inflame the fringe in a county where latinos are the norm, not the exception. This dangerous rhetoric foments conflict and leads to violence and it feeds the delusions of the fringe.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200...WS01/706139922

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07...ml?eref=rss_us

Let's face it, the young perpetrator is never going to see the light of day but the sheriffs public comments will probably seem like a gift from the heavens from a desperate defence team seeking to avoid the death penalty and any aspect of the investigation involving the sheriff can be made to seem suspect.

How are the Sheriff's comments going to help the defense team?

He should do the right thing and remove himself from the investigation into the death of his close personal friend and close political associate.

I don't disagree with this at all. That point is likely moot as I'm sure the Feds have moved in and are now taking control of the investigation. A federal judge was murdered so this becomes a bigger kettle of fish. Pima County is going to be pushed aside in the coming days if they have not already.

EDIT The latest on the shooter at the link below and still no connection to a particular side of political discourse. It's actually looking like the congressman may have been an accessible symbol of government in general rather than a target because of her beliefs.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...-shooting.html

That article says nothing like you suggest. It is a rehash of all the information released yesterday with a confirmation of non-attendance at ASU. The only thing that comes close to what you're saying is this.

"Still, nothing in his background or Web postings suggested he was preparing to execute public officials and bystanders in a hail of bullets outside a Safeway supermarket."

That is inaccurate just on the information posted in this thread.

And people who knew him say he had problems with organized religion.

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/rss...e.xml+&cid=561

I'm not sure why people keep trying to drag the religion angle into this discussion? It is an irrelevant point. The guy didn't kill a priest or a rabbi or a cleric, he killed a politician in a premeditated action.

After reading more and more of this kids ramblings on the web I am really leaning to him being a schizophrenic. He's at the age where this illness tends to surface and his writings seem to make no sense, as if written when he was struggling with his delusions and attempting to convince himself of what was real and not. Much of his writing was politically oriented and this is where his delusions got the best of him. It is likely that the tenor and content in the media fed this delusion and this was his impulse to act. Gilfford's stance on many issues were just those views that would have fed the delusions on this kid. I have no doubt this kid was damaged goods and dealing with some mental illness, but his motivation appears to have been political and his target selected with intent. This was not a random event.