promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

Should Sarah Palin face an Accessory to Murder Charge?

Putting cross-hairs on the face of the Congresswoman is like tantamount to engaging the unstable to act.

26 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The terrible thing is, that crosshairs map has been up since last march. If she doesn't think she's guilty, why did she remove the map after the shooting? That's a sure as h3ll sign of guilt if you ask me. In light of this tragedy, I hope the reicht wingers will think before they continue barfing out hateful suggestions.

    Their "freedom" of speech has cost the lives of too many people. It's gotta stop. In answer to your question, yes, she needs to face charges. Make an example out of her.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Danny
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    "Should Sarah Palin face an Accessory to Murder Charge?"

    No.

    "Putting cross-hairs on the face of the Congresswoman is like tantamount to engaging the unstable to act."

    No, no it's not.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    If it can be determined through sufficiently convincing means that this guy was directly influenced by Palin's actions, then it should be a message to all of us to tone it down a bit. If Palin is charged as an accessory to murder, it would mean repealing the 1st Amendment. That woman, as much as I disagree with a lot of her tactics, did not pick up a gun and murder six people, grievously injuring many others. Period.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    I suppose a greater question is HOW decades IN penal complex will SHERIFF DUPNIK will have to GET FOR DISSEMINATING BULL SHYT ABOUT who is A BIGOT? Dupnik a DEMOCRAT IS a vocal opponent of Arizona's S.B.1070, a legislation designed to rid the state of illegal immigrants by means of criminalizing their efforts to work , defining their presence within the state as trespass, and mandating immigration status tests in the course of routine police stops. In April, Dupnik used strong language to sentence the regulation, calling it "racist," "disgusting" and "stupid" as well as pointless. In an exceptional transfer for a legislation enforcement respectable, Dupnik vowed he would not put into effect the legislation. In September Dupnik again made news when he publicly associated the Tea party movement with bigotry. SO it's ONE MAN OPINION now not A reality, THAT fundamental stream MEDIA & individuals LIKE you might be SPEWING against each person WHO DISAGREE together with your VIEWS.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Definitely. Violence is exactly what Sarah Palin wants. She is horrible for this country.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    No, she shouldn't. There is freedom of speech, even for the idiots like Sarah Palin. She needs to quiet her hate and take responsibility for her part in the mean-spirited tone of this nation, though. She DID play a part and she needs to own that. Instead, she'll go hide under the skirts of Fox News. Watch.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    When some police officers in Oakland were mrudered by Black thugs, should Ice-T and N.W.A both have been put in prison, after all they did record songs that advocated violence against the police.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    "Putting cross-hairs on the face of the Congresswoman "

    Well, once you prove Palin ever did that (which she didnt. It showed her DISTRICT marked on a map with a SURVEYORS symbol, not a crosshair), and then prove how the shooter, a left winger was inspired by Palin's website to do this. Then no.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    No she should not be charged. Just make her go away from public eye.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Don't know about that, but definitely incitement. The First Amendment doesn't protect incitement to violence (or yelling "fire in a crowded theater"). A good prosecutor could argue incitement.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.