There has, I’m sure, already been far, far more than enough coverage of and opining upon the high profile shootings in Arizona yesterday. And for the most part I’ve tried to stay out of it apart from repeatedly cautioning folks on both sides of the aisle against jumping in too soon with both feet lest one of them wind up in their mouth.

On that subject, Ed Morrissey has already done most of my work for me in terms of the media’s botched coverage of the monstrous proceedings. But the ranting and raving continued on both sides in the social media halls, with my Twitter feed practically melting down in a single 24 hour period. Chief among the many complaints I noted were immediate accusations that the violent actions of Jared Lee Loughner might somehow be hung around the necks of not only Sarah Palin, but of Sharon Angle. (The latter being in reference to a comment she apparently made about “second amendment” solutions to problems.)

And I shall further confess that I may have fanned the flames a bit myself when I endorsed the nomination of Markos Moulitsas (@markos) for the “2011 Twitter Douchebag of the Year Award” for his, “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin” crack. Perhaps I was rushing to judgment myself and should have stayed out of the fray. But today a more liberal leaning friend of mine tweeted the question to me in a rather direct fashion:

If leaders tell their followers to rise up and to take up arms, and lunatics do, when *can* you blame the leaders?

There are actually a few salient portions required to answer that question, and that’s what brings me to Hot Air today.

First of all, I’m not exactly known as one of the ardent fans of either Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle. In fact, I have reams of digital “love letters” both here at Hot Air and over at Pajamas Media from their supporters which will attest to that, so perhaps I’m uniquely suited to answer these charges. (And, on a related note, I’d really like to thank my leftward leaning friends who wound up having me spend my weekend defending Palin and Angle. Sheesh.)

To continue, the first question is if anyone was actually culpable in sending out armed troops to do violence. Doug Mataconis has already done a bang-up job of covering much of this at Outside the Beltway, so take a look at his remarks. But the fact is, I’ve yet to see anyone – including Angle – directly calling for violence. If you can show me somebody specifically plotting in public to have violent crimes committed, I’ll be right there with you calling for their prosecution.

But these are figures of speech, common not only throughout politics, but in advertising, manufacturing, public relations and elsewhere. Phrases such as “targeting” or “setting our sights on” are as common as fruit flies in published works everywhere. Using imagery which employs a bulls eye or cross-hairs is just as ubiquitous. To think that this makes the speaker or author responsible for someone taking such a call literally is a case of pushing well past the limits of credulity.

But even this doesn’t answer the original question to my way of thinking. Let’s say for a moment that there was a public persona issuing a call to arms, though veiled in a way to shield them from direct prosecution. Does this excuse the actions of the maniac who takes the path to violence?

One phrase which some partisans on the port side of the political ship seem to hate at times is the conservative mantra of personal responsibility. To my way of thinking, this ties in to the entire concept of the worst elements of the nanny state, where it is not only the government’s job to protect us from ourselves, but the same government becomes liable if it fails to stop us from doing something insane, even if there were no obvious red flags available to call attention to the situation before it ripened.

The fact of the matter is that personal responsibility is a required cornerstone of an open, democratic society such as ours. Everyone must be their own first guardian and must stand ready to be held accountable for their actions. I can listen to any number of people on every cable talk show nattering about how I should get out in the streets and do this or that. I am then left with a choice as to whether I stay home and sit on my hands or go out and do as they suggest. The choice is mine. So too is the responsibility for any fallout from my decision. And that’s what happened in Arizona. A very obviously deranged maniac – for reasons we still have zero clue about at this point and may have had nothing to do with any political figures – showed up at a shopping center and opened fire with a Glock. And now he will pay the price along with any cohorts he may or may not have acted in concert with.

And finally, to put it bluntly, nobody can account for the actions of the deranged. Human beings are complicated animals and we produce an unfortunately large crop of unstable ones each generation. I can no more explain the actions of Mr. Loughner than I can understand why the denizens of Detroit set their city afire each time the Pistons make it into the playoffs. (Whether they win or lose.)

And yes, this applies to both sides. For the time being we don’t even know if Loughner had a side or if he was just taking orders from his neighbor’s dog in the back yard. It would have been great if family or friends had recognized the warning signs before it came to this, but it’s too late for that now absent a fully functional Delorean with a flux capacitor. The young man shall have to answer for his actions. He remains personally responsible. And that is pretty much the end of that sad, terrible story.

Now you can yell at Jazz for being a stupid, wrong-headed RINO even faster than by just leaving a comment. Follow him on Twitter! (@JazzShaw)

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.