Walking Short: The Life and Lies of Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

The obvious villain in the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy is the man who caused it, the very disturbed Jared Lee Loughner.  Sadly, though, there have been villains in the response to it, too – many villains.  And while it’s hard to make a pick for this Black Hat Award, one man who has certainly distinguished himself is Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

As you may know, Dupnik has been busy warning of how speech has consequences while in the same breath blaming conservatives for the actions of Loughner.  Now, I don’t blame the sheriff for asking why.  It is fine to look for reasons.  It is not fine to be reckless and wrong.  And it’s a sin when it’s born of indifference to Truth.

To be precise, Dupnik implicates right-wing talk radio – he mentioned Rush Limbaugh – and cable news in the Giffords shooting.  Yet a number of obvious things seem to have eluded this man, this supposed professional investigator.  For starters, if we’re actually going to analyze the politics of Loughner, we should note that one of his former classmates, Caitie Parker, describes him as a “left wing” “political radical” and “pot head”; moreover, Parker — who had been in a band with Loughner — states that he was a fan of the radical leftist punk-rock band Anti-Flag.  Note here that Loughner did, in fact, echo that band’s ideas on his YouTube page.  Also note that on that page Loughner as one of his favorite works The Communist Manifesto.

Now, question: How can one imply that an apparent leftist was provoked to violence by rightist prodding?  Aw, heck, I know – it’s Bush’s fault.

Yet there’s something even sillier here.  I’ve picked up the gauntlet the left threw down, but, really, examining Loughner’s political motivations is much like discussing a man who jumped off a roof because he thought he was a bird and pondering how his grasp of aeronautics might have influenced his decision.  Loughner’s above-linked video makes it painfully clear that he is clinically insane (he’ll probably be diagnosed with “bi-polar disorder” or “paranoid schizophrenia”) and that he was influenced not by his fellow man but by his inner demons.  Did this obvious fact also elude you, sheriff?  Columbo you’re not.

Now, Dupnik seems to be very troubled by inflammatory rhetoric; except, he only seems to thus define words when they inflame him.  I wonder, did Dupnik notice when militant atheist Christopher Hitchens said after Rev. Jerry Falwell’s death, “I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to” or when another of his leftist friends, Julianne Malveaux, hoped that Clarence Thomas’ wife would feed the justice a high-fat diet so he’d die of a heart attack?  Does Dupnik stay up at night worrying about Barack Obama’s statement, “If they [the Republicans] bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” or about how the president referred to American political opponents as “enemies”?  Probably not.  After all, he seems to be of one mind and tongue with Obama, having opposed AZ’s original immigration law, calling it “racist,” “disgusting” and “stupid.”  And imagine, Dupnik’s Pima County abuts Maricopa County, home of “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”  Just cross a border and you go from Joe Arpaio to a jawing pie hole.

Although it’s clear that the left wins the inflammatory-rhetoric title hands down (although my last sentence just helped my side narrow the gap), it’s obvious that we all can be acid-tongued.  Having said this, guess what?  Dupnik is right.

Words do have consequences.

And we should watch what we say.

The problem is that Dupnik & Co. have no idea on what basis we should self-censor.  It’s not a matter of avoiding inflammatory rhetoric because, as with certain topical medications, what inflames some may soothe others.  Besides, is it really always wrong to inflame passions?  Let’s examine the matter.

We’ve all heard about that exception to First Amendment rights: We can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.  But there’s an exception to that exception.

When there really is a fire.

This brings us to the point.  When discussing what should and shouldn’t be said, everyone forgets the most important question.  It isn’t whether a statement is cruel or kind, controversial or conciliatory, inflammatory or soothing.

It is whether it’s true or untrue.