Reminds me of a lyric from the Don Henley song "The Garden of Allah." "I am an expert witness...because I say I am."

Because, you know, a guy who will ignore existing laws which make murder a crime might actually stop and rethink his plans to commit murder if it means violating an additional layer of legislation... Statists never learn.

It's "obvious"? While it sure would be nice to have a kinder, gentler* civil discourse and I would be the first to welcome it, I am still awaiting ANY evidence of ANY link between this John Hinkley clone's murderous actions last Saturday and ANY political position or personality or ANY media outlet. *I fully expect the irony of this phrase, considering who first coined it and who mocked him for it, will be entirely lost on today's foaming-at-the-mouth Leftists.

I've answered your question. Unlike you, I do not get my jollies by repeating myself.

Since existing laws against murdering people did not stop this nutjob, do you expect King's law would have stopped this shooting? This is one of the things that is wrong with people who put their uncritical faith in the State. They think the act of passing a law will automatically solve a problem.

Sure, we should all be nice and use good manners when we are slandered by people who want to gain political traction by exploiting tragedy. Get off of it. The Left has no credibility making weaselly claims of moral superiority after the way they have behaved the past four days.

Calling for an end to "outrageous, vitriolic discourse" while simultaneously accusing people with whom you disagree of being accessories to murder without proper evidence does nothing to promote more civil political discourse. It is a weaselly way to exacerbate and inflame passions and divisions while trying to make it look like you are trying to do the opposite. It is embarrassing to have to point out how obviously contradictory this weird, strange sheriff's statements and allegations are.

Yes. But it is hypocritical to condemn "vitriolic rhetoric" while at the same time engaging in it by linking people you disagree with politically to an act of violence with no evidence of a connection.

Where is the evidence that this murderous twit's actions were motivated by "hate speech"? Either the real kind, or the liberal code for "anyone we disagree with"?

For a law enforcement official to imply or allege in public statements that someone is complicit in a murder without proper evidence is unconscionable. For him to condemn "outrageous, vitriolic rhetoric" in the same breath is so bizarre that one is embarrassed to have to point out the hypocrisy. For the MSM to reflexively and uncritically parrot the allegation is entirely typical, of course, as is the current Democratic leadership's tendency to brazenly exploit tragedy for political and personal gain.