Jared Loughner, Tucson Shooting Suspect, Incompetent To Stand Trial, Removed From Courtroom After Outburst

TUCSON, Ariz. -- The man accused of gunning down Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing six is mentally incompetent to stand trial, a judge ruled Wednesday after U.S. Marshals dragged the man out of the courtroom because of an angry outburst.

As survivors of the deadly January attack looked on, Jared Lee Loughner lowered his head, raised it and said what sounded like "Thank you for the freak show. She died in front of me." His words were loud but mumbled, and it wasn't clear who he was talking about. He wore a khaki prison suit and sported bushy, reddish sideburns.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns' decision means the 21-year-old will be sent to a federal facility for up to four months in a bid to restore his competency.

The ruling came after Loughner spent five weeks in March and April at a federal facility in Springfield, Mo., where he was examined by two court-appointed mental health professionals. The two were asked to determine whether Loughner understands the consequences of the case against him.

The competency reports by psychologist Christina Pietz and psychiatrist Matthew Carroll haven't been publicly released.

Loughner has pleaded not guilty to 49 federal charges stemming from the Jan. 8 shooting at a meet-and-greet event that wounded Giffords and 12 others and killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge.

After the outburst, two marshals standing behind Loughner's chair grabbed him by each arm and led him from the courtroom. Loughner's father, sitting a few rows behind his son, lowered his eyes and huddled with two women seated next to him.

After a short recess, the marshals told the judge that Loughner had calmed down. They then brought Loughner back into the courtroom, and the judge told him he had a right to watch the hearing.

Burns asked Loughner if he wanted to stay in the courtroom and behave, or view the proceeding on a TV screen in another room.

"I want to watch the TV screen," Loughner responded.

At least two survivors of the Tucson attack looked on: Giffords aide Pam Simon, who was shot in the chest and right wrist; and retired Army Col. Bill Badger, who is credited with helping subdue Loughner after a bullet grazed the back of Badger's head.

Prosecutors had asked for the mental exam, citing a YouTube video in which they believe a hooded Loughner wore garbage bags and burned an American flag.

The judge gave the two mental health professionals access to Loughner's health records from his pediatrician, a behavioral health hospital that treated him for extreme intoxication in May 2006 and an urgent care center where he was treated in 2004 for unknown reasons.

Loughner will be sent to a federal facility for a maximum of four months to see if his competency can be restored. If he's later determined to be competent, the case against him will resume.

If he isn't deemed competent at the end of his treatment, his stay at the facility can be extended. There are no limits on the number of times such extensions can be granted.

If doctors conclude they can't restore his mental competency, the judge would have to decide whether the suspect can be restored. If the judge decides there's no likelihood of restoration, the judge can dismiss the charges against him. In that case, state and federal authorities can petition to have him civilly committed and could seek to extend that commitment repeatedly, said Heather Williams, a federal public defender in Tucson who isn't involved in the Loughner case.

The doctors who examined Loughner were ordered not to focus on his sanity at the time of the shooting.

Loughner's lawyers haven't said whether they intend to present an insanity defense. But they noted in court filings that his mental condition will likely be a central issue at trial and described him as a "gravely mentally ill man."

RELATED:

Comments

[Cindy Fogle]

06:49 PM on 06/16/2011

There is much more to this story.

1. The possibility of more crimes
2. The possibility of being paid or programmed to commit those
crimes by an organization above the law, that benefited financially
from said crimes, presuming there is a connection.
3. This points to a possible conspiracy to not hear his defense, nor link
him to the other major crime, because this add'l major crime was made to
look like an accident and covered up and misreported by the media.
4. If he gets a fair trial with an impartial jury and ALL the evidence is presented
and heard: a.) He could be aquitted and b.) Others would be implicated and charged.

My look into this points to a connection in the San Bruno Gas Explosion, and it doesn't seem likely that IF he did that act of terrorism that he did it on his own or without being ordered, paid, hypnotized, induced, or drugged. IF he is deemed incompetent, or held in incompetent limbo hell then a link to possible masterminds who put him up to the other major crime will never be known. These "IF"s shed doubt, and a need for more evidence.

Yep, truth is stranger than fiction. Don't ever let anyone take your mind, as well don't be so stupid and hand it to them either. It should be a crime to take, mold, damage, harm or label someones mind. (Could it happen to you?) May truth and justice prevail..

[Nanjing03]

09:56 AM on 06/15/2011

Bull, Jared Loughtner is perfectly fit to stand trial. He was obviously fit enough to go into great detail in planning his grizzley deed against so many people he killed and maimed. Loughtner needs to be found guilty and his neck made to go "snap" at the end of a hangman's rope. Meanwhile, Sheriff Dupnik needs to be held accountable why he did no take one of the many opportunities in the past to arrest this brutal killer during his many prior incidences of threatening others. Any previous arrest and mental health assessment, in this case, an easy diagnoses of schizophrenia, would have allowed the National Instant Check System (NICS) through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to flag Loughter at the point of sale so that he would not be able to legally purchase what he did. How about it sheriff? How about it Huffington Post?

[GustavoRejivik]

02:20 AM on 05/30/2011

"it's the ACLU types that let mental patients walk free from
prisons and asylums... only the right stops that"

How can this poor delusional kid get a fair trial with all this biased coverage?

Let's not ruin BOTH families .. treatment is what's needed, not prison.

[jetdogy]

04:29 PM on 06/09/2011

I hope you're joking. HANG HIM HIGH!

[GustavoRejivik]

01:47 AM on 05/30/2011

This boy needs help, not prison!!

I can't believe we're persecuting this human being with mental issues.

What kind of society are we to have created this person?

[GBFive]

11:39 AM on 05/29/2011

I heard that there are a few simple steps that we can take to end all gun violence.

[rezna]

07:05 PM on 05/27/2011

This is completely ridiculous. He knew exactly what he was doing, and I don't give a rats if he is insane. All the more reason to get someone like him off the streets and where he truly belongs

[taralad]

12:15 AM on 05/27/2011

In my opinion, he is exagerating his mental condition in order to get away with murder, its my opinion so please do not delete my comment again. This is the 3d post I am trying to make about this, I am entitled to my opinion and not violating any rules here.

[TROP10]

05:21 PM on 05/26/2011

Of course you're referring to the 8th Amendment... guarding against 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The very nature of that law is subject to interpretation. By it's very definition many people think that ANY form of capital punishment is cruel and unusual.... Clearly this person wasn't "normal".. or "behaving normally"... ALL forms of anti-social or psychopathic behaviors are ABNORMAL.... By their very definition. Mass murderers would hardly be called mentally healthy or well balanced... Others may argue that you HAVE to be temporarily insane to commit an act of pre-meditated murder. OTHERS would argue that if you are capable of buying the gun, learning of the location and schedule of your intended victim, planning and co-ordinating the assassination, and then carrying it out to the extent that Loughner did then you are MORE than capable of being aware of what you did... Later attempts to appear insane or incapable of aiding in your own defense could easily be viewed with a cynical eye. and if YOU can't understand that then that's not MY problem.... or the VAST majority of Americans who have NO desire to see this animal live a day longer than absolutely neccessary.

[GustavoRejivik]

02:01 AM on 05/30/2011

The founders executed people. Cruel and Unusual seems rather obvious to the sane mind .. problem is Progressives and Liberals over the years cloud up the situation.

Now reap what you've sown.

Loughner needs help, not prison. He could still be a contributing member of society!! He need a regimen of pills and treatments so he can get back home to his family!!

[Brandon Baier]

10:49 AM on 06/07/2011

While I am not trying to pose a rebuttal I must say, isn't "sane" a relative term. That being said as the status quo moves, so does someones "sanity" in some cases, it out right leaves. :)

[Alfredo Villanueva]

02:29 PM on 05/26/2011

In my book, the NRA is GUILTY of all weapon transactions that occur in this country and every crime committed with a weapon. You may have the "right to worship arms" but not the right to sell them to loonies or Mexican cartels. Why not reveal America's frenzy with weapons for what it is? The Second War of Secession.

[schotts]

07:06 PM on 05/27/2011

Maybe you are unaware of this but the NRA does not sell guns. They do not make policy.

There are many types of weapons. Do you hold them accountable for the sale of a knife? What is your point of holding them guilty of a firearm transactions?

It is also completly asinine to hold them guilty for a crime committed with a gun. Do you hold the Brewers Association guilty for a DUI fatality?

[raggedsoldier]

09:02 PM on 05/27/2011

The NRA is responsible for more gun sales than all the dealers in America, thanks to the diet of fear and anger that they sell to their flock. And while the NRA itself might not make policy, legislators on their payroll do.

[jadorniere]

04:00 AM on 05/30/2011

Guns/firearms are considered by law, 'deadly weapons.' Also engaging the presumption that to be victim of one is an assurance of serious fatality. Registering is required to buy and own, of course, but we see how anything can be altered where any law is in place. One hole and it's an open door.
On the other hand, objects as knifes, blunt objects, I do not believe by said criminal law, 'deady weapons.' Lesser of two evils. Evil optional.
I had a friend who was attacked savagely by two men, beaten repeatedly, all head injuries/trauma. They used a hammer at one point. Investigator told him although the hammer assault directly upheld a possible intent to kill, it wasn't by criminal law, considered a deadly weapon. They were charged with assault of a high and aggravated nature.

[eaglespark]

07:21 PM on 05/28/2011

Do you have any evidence to offer in support of your statement?
I disagree, and I have this:

The NRA has actually supported the FBI background check system from the beginning-- look it up yourself if you do not believe me. The crack in the system that Jared Loughner slipped through was the direct result of a policy put in place by the Department of Justive during the Clinton administra­tion dealing with military and mental health record sharing. That needs to be fixed.
[The NRA has thrown its weight behind HR 297 along with Senator Caroline McCarthy of NY. The bill title is H.R.297 To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.] If those two can agree on something, I believe there is hope for improvements to the system.

And by the way, there is no "right to worship arms" in the Constitution, nor is there a "right to sell (guns) to loonies or Mexican cartels". You might ask the BATFE about that last thing though-- they did that themselves a while back and the results were ugly. Some people involved with that fiasco got sufficiently upset about it to... talk.

[Nanjing03]

10:18 AM on 06/15/2011

Well said eaglespark. In addition to the information lid put into place by the Clinton administration on DOD recruiter records and other mental health records, Pima County Sheriff Dupnik had many golden opportunities to arrest Loughtner for threatening conduct and have him easily assessed as schizophrenic. The "NRA sponsored" National Instant Check System (NICS), which is now part of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) would have "red flagged" Loughtner at the sales counter and he would never have been able to legally purchase a 9mm Glock and hi-cap magazine. Right now, Sheriff Dupnik and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) are busy redirecting the issue--and blame-- toward the NRA.

[Kimani M Kimani]

01:52 PM on 05/26/2011

Mmmm ...Yet, he has the mental capacity to plead "Not Guilty"....Won't be surprised if his Lawyers present "Insanity" as the Defense !

[Vincent Van Der Hyde]

02:15 PM on 05/26/2011

He didn't enter a plea himself, it's entered for him by his defense lawyer. I should assume they will also go for some form of an insanity defense, that's about the only thing available to him at this point! And who knows, he could turn out to be one of the very few successful insanity defense pleas that succeed.

[ratedrstar316]

03:25 PM on 05/26/2011

It seems that you are sugar coating this maniacs actions. He gets club FED, and a little pampering, while six of his vitims get a headstone. One just so happens to be a nine year old girl. Yet you think others don't understand or are confussed. Some how I doubt that. I think many are smart enough to realize, he is minipulating the system, and are disgusted. So Mr. Van Der Hyde. what justice do the victims get?

[Elderlady]

01:22 PM on 05/26/2011

Incompetent to stand trial.... Competent enough to buy a gun, and kill people.

Something is drastically wrong with this picture.

[Vincent Van Der Hyde]

01:56 PM on 05/26/2011

You're comparing incomparible things.

[Vincent Van Der Hyde]

02:17 PM on 05/26/2011

Yes, t here is something drastically wrong.
You have a very confused picture of what is going on.

[dngrwoman]

01:10 PM on 05/26/2011

As a singing superheroine who pays attention, when he mentioned about the killing, I think the bad man was leaving a verbal clue about his crime. I think he may be confessing to harming Gabby Giffords and thought that she was dead, when in truth, she survived! DANGER WOMAN

[jadorniere]

05:16 AM on 05/30/2011

As Laughner's illness progressed, so did his interest and obsession with his perceptions of government and the balance of society. His written ramblings were mostly questions written out like an algebra formula. He developed an 'awareness' that the corruption was evil and destroying us all. (some of his thoughts may have been formed from opinion when his thinking may have more stable).
His views became extreme, radical, a blur of confusion, delusions, paranoia. As his hatred grew, he became intent on persuance. It led him attending a former meet-and-greet with Gabrielle Gifford and others on her team. There was something he was in opposition of, associated with Gabby's stand on.
At that meet-and-greet, many young people were there. They would raise their hands to ask questions. When he did the first time, he wasn't chosen. As it went on, he was picked to ask his question. He asked her a very simple, yet baffling, odd question. I cannot quote exactly what it was, as when I remember reading this story as investgations were put together. It seems it was something like, 'if there was no govermnment, what/would we.....?' I will search to find that story again.
She seemed confused, but gave an answer. Reportedly, he became very angry at her response, and from there, his obsessive 'plan' ,or 'conspiracy' manifested in the disturbing confines within his own reality.

[dngrwoman]

01:33 PM on 06/01/2011

In case you all were not paying attention again, The Bad Man inadvertently confessed to what he thought he killed Gabby Giffords, who may have wanted revenge for humilating him at a meet and greet that she had a few years ago.

[ethelouise]

01:07 PM on 05/26/2011

How convenient, how many people who were deemed mentally ill and have been executed for crimes they have 'allegedly' committed but could not prove their innocence due to their mental capabilities? This guy gets a 'pass'? What?

[Vincent Van Der Hyde]

01:41 PM on 05/26/2011

Why should previous miscarriages of justice serve as permission for another miscarriage of justice?

[rini]

01:45 PM on 05/26/2011

I really don't care as along as he never sees the light of day. He cannot ever get an opportunity to harm anyone else.

It's obvious that the elevator does not go all the way to the top. He's a serious full fledged schizophrenic and there's no cure for that. This whole idea of guilt is ridiculous in this situation. The evidence is there/ He did commit the crime. Can we know what went on in his head? No (thank god) There can never be justice. People have died and have been irreversibly injured. The best we can do is prevent this from happening to anyone else.

[Steamboater]

12:37 PM on 05/26/2011

If this guy is incompretent to stand trial now because of mental issues, then he was incompetent when he committed his crimes. To hold him in a hospital until he's competent in no way makes him competent when he committed murder. It just doesn't make any sense. legally or otherwise. Crazy or incompetent is one in the same. Sure, what he did was awful and he should be brought to justice for it but having him in a mental facility for the rest of his life is much better than bringng him into a courtrom for prosecution and then finding him guilty and then sending him off to a prison. He belongs in a mental facilty until the day he dies and with no chance of ever being let out, no matter how much improved mentally he gets.

[Vincent Van Der Hyde]

01:37 PM on 05/26/2011

Having worked in the state mental health agencies of two states (Alaska and Oregon) and done research in another (Washington) I want to comment on a couple of things. Competency to stand trial (abililty to assist in his own defense) does NOT necessarily mean he was 'incompetent' at the time of the crime. The trauma of the crime may have induced a mental state that renders him incompetent now. Second, he's being evaluated over a period of time, and should he be found competent to stand trial at a later time he will have to face a trial. This may be a matter of many months or even years long process involving a combination of things, not the least of which is the use of psychotropic drugs. I've seen people who became stable enough and able to aid in their own defense in just weeks, but also individuals who, even many years later, were not. He won't be released simply because his 'mental capacity' improves.

[OdinsEye]

08:09 PM on 05/26/2011

Exactly! They are hoping he will be well enough to stand trial in about four more months.

[rini]

01:47 PM on 05/26/2011

The idea of determining competence and guilt is ridiculous. The evidence is there. He did commit the crime. What was he thinking? Lord knows.
The criminal justice system does not know what is going on in anyone's head. The best that they can do is keep us safe and keep people like Loughner from ever seeing the light of day.

[Vincent Van Der Hyde]

02:24 PM on 05/26/2011

Well, there is such a thing as 'due process' in the laws of this country. Assuming you are an MD as your minibio indicates, you know that there are persons whose behavior are not rational and under their 'willful control'. Those people are sometimes found to be acting under various psychiatric conditions that render them legally not responsible for their actions. If that is the case here, AZ law no doubt provides for institutionalization in a psychiatric setting rather than a prison setting (though sometimes the difference is slight!).

[MrsOrtiz]

12:24 PM on 05/26/2011

Yet competent enough to buy a Glock.

[Vincent Van Der Hyde]

01:40 PM on 05/26/2011

Not the same thing at all. Competency in this case means competent (mentally stable enough) to assist in his own defense at trial. There is no doubt that individuals with severe mental health problems are quite capable of planning and executing complex criminal plans. That does not make them competent to defend themselves at trial.

[MrsOrtiz]

02:51 PM on 05/26/2011

I understand the difference. The point is that the standard for competency to defend oneself against multiple murder and attempted murder charges is far higher than the standard of competency to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to commit those crimes.

[rini]

01:48 PM on 05/26/2011

We should have a way to identify people like Loughner before they buy weapons.