Ok, Ed T, Sheriff Dupnik, was obviously emotionally impacted by the event and that is wholly understandable. He was trying to communicate as much as he could without compromising the ongoing investigation. He expressed a personal opinion, which I will grant is probably a considered opinion but he is not an expert in mental health.

As for vitriol, neither side has a patent on it. Much vitriol is expressed here at the 'cat from time to time but it is not recognized or owned by those various members as it is "their" vitriol and therefore, somehow, exempt from criticism.

I cannot help but relate to the elder Mr. Giffords as a fellow human being and I am sure that is exactly how he felt. I also understand that it is a sentiment and not a statement of fact that "the whole Tea Party" was his daughter's enemy. Factually that is incorrect on many levels, would you not agree?

As for Palin's use of a crosshair on the "aims" and goals for the causes she champions, she is not the first (although she may be the last) who has used such a symbol, from either party. Most rational people recognized that figures of speech and common analogies such as "taking aim" or "on target" or "I've got him in my sites" etc. are not meant to be inflamatory nor are such symbols as bullseyes and crosshairs (Target stores for instance). They are part of the culture and language and sane people get that, though they may be opposed to such. How about, let's all wait until we have a trial of the facts and learn what this young man had in mind before we launch into inflamatory vitriol of our own.