House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

He got upset with something said by Tea Party member Trent Humphries and shouted out "You're dead."

Out of curiosity, what did they guy say to him?

A
R
T

@okie,

Quote:

I agree with many of your points. Unfortunately, many Democrats, the Sheriff, and some of the media pundits have already played right into his hands by proposing some of the most insulting and ridiculous claims, by blaming his actions on other things other than him. In an uncanny way, he knew that some of the reactions would not place blame onto him and hold him responsible, that many would instead start blaming the political atmosphere, and what made the poor guy do it, and so on and so on. I think it is liberalism that has created much of the atmosphere that creates these effects. Rather than blaming him and holding him responsible for his actions, liberal political correctness has now created this mess, wherein they tried to blame his actions on Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, the Tea Party movement, Rush Limbaugh, and any number of other scapegoats they can dream up. The facts totally and completely disagree with those assumptions. Conservatives are owed a bunch of apologies. Will they receive them? Probably not

I don't agree with you, at all, that Loughner

Quote:

knew that some of the reactions would not place blame onto him and hold him responsible, that many would instead start blaming the political atmosphere, and what made the poor guy do it, and so on and so

There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that Loughner himself knew the "political atmosphere" would be blamed for his actions. If anything, I'd think this man wants to take full credit for his actions.

But, okie, why are you totally dismissing a "political atmosphere" that included Sarah Palin's graphic showing congressional districts in the cross-hairs of a gun sight--particularly when one of those districts shown was Gabrielle Giffords'? Along with Palin's slogan, "Don't retreat, reload". I'm not blaming Palin for what Loughner did, but there were concerns about Palin's graphics and verbal message when it first appeared--including some voiced by Giffords. So, it wasn't really "insulting" for people to start talking about Palin after the shooting happened. It was Palin who chose to link gun imagery and "gun talk" with political figures. Palin has to bear some responsibility, not for the shooting itself, but for using a specific type of language and imagery--involving guns--and associating it with political figures. And we don't know whether that kind of association resonated with Loughner--and affected him--even if his reasons for pulling a trigger had nothing to do with Palin, or the Tea Party, or even any coherent political views. It's irresponsible to, in any way, associate using guns, even "innocently" and figuratively, against political figures. And, for that irresponsibility, Palin does deserve flack.

The sheriff, as any other American citizen, is free to express his views. The political atmosphere in Tucson had apparently been very heated. Giffords local congressional office had been vandalized because of her health care vote. And we don't know what other politically related incidents or threats that sheriff might have also dealt with. So, his initial response, after the shooting, might have been his own personal feelings, based on his experience, as a law enforcement official, of what had been going on in Tucson.

And, almost everyone has been calling Loughner "mentally disturbed"--with fairly good reason, based on his actual behavior and verbal statements. And it is fairly likely that some sort of insanity or diminished capacity defense will be entered for him at trial--simply because there doesn't seem to be any other possible defense of his actions. Loughner might, or might not, be willing to go along with that. He might not want to be considered "insane" or mentally disturbed--and he may refuse to cooperate or go along with that defense.

He would not likely be acquitted on the basis of "insanity" in a federal trial--this was a premeditated, planned, organized act and he understood what he was doing, and that makes him legally sane. Even if he wanted to shoot Giffords for some nutty reason--because the government was brainwashing people with grammar, or the war was illegal because of the currency--he's still legally sane because he knew he was shooting a gun, and he knew he could kill Giffords, as well as others, by his actions. The use of an insanity defense would mainly be to try to spare him the death penalty. Everyone knows he's guilty--he did the shooting in front of witnesses. And, since John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity for shooting Reagan, and that caused public outrage, the federal statute for insanity has been tightened up to make it more difficult to get that verdict now.

So, I don't think it matters much what anyone in the media says about Loughner, or his mental state, or what influenced him to do what he did. He still killed 6 people, and he wounded 12 others. He'll be held responsible for what he did when he gets inside a federal courtroom, and then a state courtroom. And his defense team has a tough job ahead of them.

It will be interesting to eventually hear from Loughner's parents. One can only imagine what sort of state they are in. But they've certainly been an influence on their son's life, so they are an important part of this puzzle in all sorts of ways.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Out of curiosity, what did they guy say to him

Quote:

According to news reports, Fuller became upset when Trent Humphries, an audience member at an event, suggested that conversations about gun control be delayed until those killed in the shooting are buried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/15/AR2011011504551.html

As I understand it Fuller is a well known gun control nut. It seems that this tea party wacko thought it was not appropriate to rant about gun control on that night..

I take great interest in that most of the news accounts omit exactly what the "you die!" remark was directed towards. This may be media bias, as anything that has the TEa Partiers looking reasonable goes down hard for some folk.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

So this guy was shot in the knee and back a couple of days ago, how much smarts does it take for the cops to figure out that he is likely loopy on pain meds? Arrest him? Take him for a psych eval?? Sounds to me like massive overkill (or wait a minute...is this kind of rhetoric illegal yet or do we have another week or so to talk freely??)

You think he's "just loopy on pain meds"? When was it ever legal to make death threats to specific people? That's your idea of "free speech", Hawkeye?
In a place in which a horrible tragedy just occurred, you want people to just ignore a death threat? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

One of victims is arrested at TV town hall
By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 16, 2011; A07

TUCSON - Arizona shooting victim James Eric Fuller was arrested Saturday and taken for a psychiatric evaluation after allegedly photographing a local tea party leader at a forum organized by ABC and yelling: "You're dead."

According to news reports, Fuller became upset when Trent Humphries, an audience member at an event, suggested that conversations about gun control be delayed until those killed in the shooting are buried.

An officer tried to escort Fuller out, and deputies decided he needed to be examined by a psychiatrist. Fuller was involuntarily committed for a minimum of 72 hours. He is expected to be charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct and threatening.

The forum - taped for a special edition of "This Week" with Christiane Amanpour - reunited victims, witnesses and emergency responders to discuss the shooting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/15/AR2011011504551_pf.html

Quote:

Fuller, a disabled veteran and former campaign volunteer for Giffords, was charged with making threats, intimidation and disorderly conduct and was involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation, Ogan said.

In an interview with Democracy Now on Thursday, Fuller linked the shooting to conservative leaders associated with the tea party, including Sarah Palin, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle. "It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target," Fuller said.

The town hall, organized for an ABC News special, "After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued," was held at St. Odilia Catholic Church, which two of the shooting victims attended.

Jim Kolbe, a former Republican congressman, said Fuller "was clearly more emotional about the town hall than anyone else" at the event. Near the end of the taping, the subject turned to gun control. Humphries, who has opposed gun-control laws, was being interviewed on the matter when Fuller interrupted. Deputies escorted him from the scene.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-threat-20110116,0,1503895.story

Fuller just went through an extremely traumatic experience--being shot, seeing others being shot and killed--plus all the stress of the media attention that's followed ever since the shooting. I don't wonder he's in an extremely emotional state--particularly on the issue of gun control. And he seems to blame the Tea Party for helping to create a violent atmosphere--so I can understand why he became enraged at Humphries, a Tea Party spokesman, who has opposed gun control. The political atmosphere in Tucson is apparently very heated.

And I think you have to take threats seriously. It was appropriate to have Fuller hospitalized for 72 hours, simply to determine if he presents a danger to anyone.
Also, given what Fuller has been through this past week, he might well benefit from talking to a psychiatrist for a few days.

They may wind up not pursing any legal charges against Fuller, but they had to take some action, simply to protect Humphries, particularly if Fuller was extremely overwrought and not in control of himself. I think they did the right thing by having him hospitalized for a few days.

All the constant media attention can't be good for the people who were directly involved with the shooting--either as victims or witnesses. It's adding stress on top of stress. The media should back off and leave all of these people alone for a while. This has been very traumatic for those people, and they need a chance to process what they have been through and try to get back to some semblance of normal life.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

At the same time, the wounds of this are quite literally fresh. As you stated, Fuller was probably on meds. That doesn't give him a pass.

I don't like that the media makes so much money of this kind of thing. The fact that they made some sort of event out of it in the first place is a lot more upsetting than what Fuller said IMO.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

And I think you have to take threats seriously. It was appropriate to have Fuller hospitalized for 72 hours, simply to determine if he presents a danger to anyone.

You DO realize I assume that if we are to start locking away all abusive, agitated emotional people that we are going to start putting a LOT of women on psych holds, don't you? You might consider backing down from your position gracefully...

I will be interested to see of this guy files a lawsuit. I note that the guy who this comment was directed towards will not cooperate with charges which is likely why the cops went with the psych confinement. I also note reports that those in the audience were not particularly alarmed nor did they realize that the law was coming down on one of them for comments made. If this comes back as trauma from the shooting and meds and the state put him away for three days I expect that a lawsuit would be a sure thing.

1 Reply

No matter what, the media outlets make money talking about it... and suggesting that we all fight about it.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

All the constant media attention can't be good for the people who were directly involved with the shooting--either as victims or witnesses. It's adding stress on top of stress. The media should back off and leave all of these people alone for a while

Ya Ya...you are always telling people what to do, you are always in favor of the state deciding for people what people should do. Your bold paternalism and authoritarian position taking never falters. Maybe you could enlist your services with the North Koreans or some Arab state where your kind is appreciated.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I will be interested to see of this guy files a lawsuit. I note that the guy who this comment was directed towards will not cooperate with charges which is likely why the cops went with the psych confinement. I also note reports that those in the audience were not particularly alarmed nor did they realize that the law was coming down on one of them for comments made. If this comes back as trauma from the shooting and meds and the state put him away for three days I expect that a lawsuit would be a sure thing.

Where are you getting your info from? You aren't posting any sources to back up what you are saying.

How do you know that those in the audience weren't alarmed?

How do you know Humphries won't cooperate with charges against Fuller?

How do you know James Eric Fuller is a "gun control nut"?

Are you just making things up again--or can you cite sources for those allegations?

The police may have taken Fuller to a hospital because of things he said in the patrol car, or simply because he remained very agitated.

Who would you expect Fuller to sue? The psychiatrist in the ER who decided he needed an emergency admission? He must have felt that Fuller posed a possible danger to others if the admission was involuntary. They probably gave Fuller the option of a voluntary admission, and he refused. The psychiatrist is not liable if he felt Fuller's mental status in the ER warranted an admission to evaluate dangerousness. You can't sue the psychiatrist, or the hospital, for doing what they are legally obligated to do.

"The state" didn't put "put him away for three days"--that decision was made by a physician.

People who make death threats against specific other people should be either evaluated for possible hospitalization or arrested. That is announcing an intention to harm someone. That is not protected "free speech".

Provide the sources for the things you said about Fuller and Humphries and the audience reaction.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

All the constant media attention can't be good for the people who were directly involved with the shooting--either as victims or witnesses. It's adding stress on top of stress. The media should back off and leave all of these people alone for a while

hawkeye10 wrote:

Ya Ya...you are always telling people what to do, you are always in favor of the state deciding for people what people should do. Your bold paternalism and authoritarian position taking never falters.
Maybe you could enlist your services with the North Koreans or some Arab state where your kind is appreciated.

What the hell r u DOING???
U r stealing MY position ?
How DARE u agree with me?????

U are a SOCIALIST. That means that u are pro-authoritarian.
Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao, and Pol Pot were all socialists, collectivists,
and true to the innermost nature of socialists,
thay were all anti-freedom authoritarians;
" authority from the top down,
obedience from the bottom up."

As an Individualist libertarian hedonist,
advocacy of FREEDOM belongs to ME, not to YOU.
U r an oxymoron, Hawkeye.
U r freaking me out; u r supposed to be AGAINST me.
U r not supposed to help me; u r on the rong side.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

U are a SOCIALIST. That means that u are pro-authoritarian.

Come on David, we have been over this a few times. I call myself a socialist because I believe that the good of the many out weights the good of the one, I also believe that we are all connected and are not a group of pure individuals but we are a herd species. Firefly wants to put a yoke on all people and then chain us together and then pull us where she thinks that we need to go with the state as our owner. She hopes that she can convince us that this is being done t for our own good but if that fails so long as she and her pals have the guns and the law to enforce their will all is good, resistance will be futile.

I on the other hand want all people to be free, and then once they are free I want to convince them to work for the common good, as one equal amongst the many. This top down authoritism of both the american left and right that destroys the individual, makes him a slave to the state or the corporate elite, destroys what I am working towards. My socialism does not work if everybody is beat down and made to do it, for me it has to be a conscious choice where other options were offered to and rejected by an individual who had free will.

I am with you with fighting against the organized destruction and enslavement of the individual. Once we are again free men we can fight out which of us is right, you who say that the individual should stay purely individual, and I who say that individuals will seak out communalism and cooperative effort. You could make your case and I would make my case, and we will see which way most people go.

Those of us on the extreme left have a lot of common cause with those of you on the extreme right.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Ya Ya...you are always telling people what to do, you are always in favor of the state deciding for people what people should do. Your bold paternalism and authoritarian position taking never falters. Maybe you could enlist your services with the North Koreans or some Arab state where your kind is appreciated.

Either directly quote me to back up what you are saying about me, or admit you are just fabricating or distorting what I have said. You frequently distort or misinterpret what others post. I really think you either significantly distort reality or you have serious comprehension problems .

I said:

Quote:

All the constant media attention can't be good for the people who were directly involved with the shooting--either as victims or witnesses. It's adding stress on top of stress. The media should back off and leave all of these people alone for a while

And you conclude from that:

Quote:

you are always in favor of the state deciding for people what people should do

I'm talking about the media--so why are you talking about my always being "in favor of the state"? Do you realize how disconnected that is from what I said? Do you realize how you distort reality? Where am I talking about the state? Where am I expressing an "authoritarian position" in what I said about the media?

The victims and the witnesses to the shooting have all been through a very traumatic experience--and some of them also lost a loved one or friend in the shooting--and the blare of media attention on these people since the shooting has been non stop and that's stressful too. The media exploits people and situations, that's what they do to boost ratings and sell papers. The welfare of these people may be the last thing the media cares about. And my feeling that the media should back off and let these people process what they have been through, and try to get back to some normalcy with their lives, reflects my feelings of compassion for those who just had their lives significantly and directly affected by a murderer's bullets.

So, I'm talking about having understanding and compassion for people who have just been through a horribly traumatic event, and not encouraging the media to exploit these people. That's something you apparently can't understand, Hawkeye. You not only can't understand what I am saying, you conclude:

Quote:

Maybe you could enlist your services with the North Koreans or some Arab state where your kind is appreciated.

That is so inappropriate and unrelated to what I said, and meant, I can only conclude you significantly distort the reality of what I say--you significantly misinterpret what I say. And maybe that reflects some serious problems that you have.

You did the same thing earlier in this thread, when you stated my feelings about "the immigration thing" affected my view of the audience enthusiasm at the memorial service for the shooting victims. But I've never made any comments, anywhere, about the immigration issue in Arizona--so how would you even know what I feel about that? Or if I even think about that? And why would you think that would affect my perception of an audience at a memorial service? Do you realize what a crazy assumption you were making? Are you even aware of what you are doing?

So, frankly, Hawkeye, interchanges with you are getting too crazy for me to deal with. I'm interested in discussing the topic. I'm not really interested in continuing to address your distorted perceptions of what I am saying, or your fanciful interpretations of what you think I am saying. And you do that sort of thing so continuously I really do think you have some serious problems.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Provide the sources for the things you said about Fuller and Humphries and the audience reaction.

I read the news, and you can too, I am not your research assistant.

Turns out that Arizona has an extremely liberal law when it comes to involuntary commitment, which is very rarely used because Arizona like most states is broke and has no money to pay for throwing people into 72 psych holds willy-nilly, but this poor sap likely can't sue.

What a day! I find out that the tea party rep is the rational-reasonable one and the leftist is the nut job, and I find out that Arizona of all states has a rarely used express lane into the loony bin that would have passed muster with the Soviets.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

The media exploits people and situations, that's what they do to boost ratings and sell papers.

AND? The media exploits people and people exploit the media. Everybody has a choice to come to this event or not, they not the media are in charge of their best interests, so if they ended up getting hurt that is on them. This is life, people get hurt, it is not the end of the world. I have no information that people who went to this even felt exploited however, and until and unless I get that information there is nothing to see here except that the world does not operate as Firefly wants it to operate. Nothing new, we knew that already.

Quote:

I'm talking about the media--so why are you talking about my always being "in favor of the state"? Do you realize how disconnected that is from what I said?

Not at all disconnected. The media is a business (main purpose to earn money) who business is transmitting the news. Covering Tucson ofter the event is promoting both their main business and their purpose of the owners because this is news that America wants to hear about and will pay to hear about. There will be no voluntary "leaving it alone" so the only way this happens is with your remedy for everything......state pressure. So how do you want to do it? New law? Call the owners to Washington for a tongue lashing? Socialize the media?

And dont bother with a song a dance about how you want social pressure to shut the media up, because the people have already decided, we want coverage of this event. Some people might have buyers remorse later, but if they later decide that they made the wrong choice that's on them, they should endeavour to do better next time.

Do you see a pattern here???Unless someone holds a gun to your head and actually physically forces you to do something dont come whining to me about what ever it was you took part in, be it sex that did not go the way you wanted or looking stupid on cable news. I have no patience for those who wear the uniform of the victim to enable their refusal to take care of themselves or to perpetuate their refusal to wise up. Real victims I care a lot about, pretenders I do not, and I know that a lot of the stupid and the care-free end up getting hurt but pain is a part of life, it has a purpose, and it should be allowed to work.

2 Replies

@okie,

i'm sure rush is guilty of something, after all he and everyone in the political talk show world, by the simple act of continuing to breathe, steal air that could be used for decent folk, that alone should be worth the death penalty

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

There will be no voluntary "leaving it alone" so the only way this happens is with your remedy for everything......state pressure. So how do you want to do it? New law? Call the owners to Washington for a tongue lashing? Socialize the media?

Except I never mentioned "state pressure" did I? Or anything remotely close to it. All that business about "state pressure" was going on in your mind--those were your thoughts, not mine--and then you attribute those ideas to me. Frankly, that seems pretty crazy to me. You come up with this crap and then say that's what I believe. No, that's not what I believe.

Same way you thought that my feelings about "the immigration thing" affected my perception of the audience at the memorial service for the victims. Except I've never expressed any opinions about the immigration situation in Arizona, and there is no logical connection to how that might affect my view of an audience of 14,000 people. But of course, you don't want to be hampered by a little thing like reality--not when you can just make things up.

I guess other people's posts are something you need to distort, or fabricate, so that it gives you some sort of an excuse to launch into an extended diatribe on your usual issue about the state taking away your liberty and freedom, and your assorted views and gripes on everything under the sun that you feel impinge on you--which, of course have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. But you don't let the topic of a thread hinder you. You make sure that the discussion becomes about you and your grievances. The main topic is always Hawkeye, and Hawkeye's version of reality. And how Hawkeye is the only one who knows the truth.

I hope you enjoy talking to yourself. Laughing

I don't find you a particularly interesting topic. Laughing

0 Replies

What i find hilarious is his standard response when challenged to back-up his assertions--he's not your research assistant, so he doesn't have to hunt down evidence for his wild claims. He'd be cute, if he weren't so pathetic.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I challenge u to prove
that pathos negates cuteness.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hawk--I think firefly is merely calling for honesty and decency.

In the Adventures of John Johns, a novel by Frederic Carrel (1897), modelled upon Maupassant's Bel Ami, in which the hero is supposed to be a portrait of the infamous Frank Harris and who, like Harris, used the gullibility of women as a means to ascend the social scale, shades of the first verse of Dylan's Idiot Wind, Harris is depicted as a calculating machine.

As Hugh Kingmill writes in his biography of Harris--

Quote:

The expression which Johns (Harris) cultivated most, Carrel says, was an intensely earnest, almost sorrowful arrangement of the muscles of his countenance. It was an expression which seemed to embody in itself a world of sadness for the ills of life, a longing for the ideal, a simple innocence with a calm dignity. All the emotions he was capable of feeling in his transient, objective way, were in this look; and it was always at his command whenever he wished to make others think that he was feeling them.

I think firefly is calling for the people directly affected by this tragic event to be spared being used and suffocated by such things, as they have been, simply as a matter 0f common decency and humanity. I don't think she is asking for any imposition by the state regarding the matter because those who are in public life, either as politicians or media personalities, obviously owe their position to the habitual practice of the "countenance".

Katie Couric often makes me feel like reaching for the sick bag.

And you are right yourself of course. The public gets what it wants and deserves. What firefly seems to me to be saying is that it is about time the public grew up which I admit is a bit utopian.

What I mean, to put it more bluntly, is that the "memorial" was a gig. The affectation of the "bedside manner" assumed America is the patient. The power of the "countenance" is demonstrated by the cowing of more sensible people not only into silence but into offering applause.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Okie, I think you are jumping to premature conclusions about Loughner's political leanings and possible political motivations.

Unlike Paul Krugman, the NY Times, Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olbermann, the Pima County Sheriff and one or two members of this forum?

firefly wrote:

Immediately after the shooting, there was speculation that he might have been influenced by the violent rhetoric and specific gun imagery coming from the Tea Party and people like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. We don't know that was the case. We also don't know that wasn't the case.

You seem to be rationalizing the "immediate speculation."

While we don't know any of the following to be true, we also don't know that it isn't:

The Shooter was influenced by left-wing rhetoric
The Shooter was sent to earth by aliens
The Shooter was the congresswoman's illegitimate son seeking revenge for abandonment
The Shooter was an agent of the Chinese government

Because we don't know for certain that the immediate speculation was not in someway accurate doesn't mean it wasn't spurious.

The people who rendered the immediate speculation weren't seriously looking to find the reason why this lunatic went on a shooting spree, they were taking the opportunity, provided by a tragedy, to score points against those with whom they sharply disagree. By "speculating" that the Shooter was influenced by Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh they were seeking to do the very thing they so vociferously condemned Palin and Limbaugh of doing.

firefly wrote:

I think the real reason that Jared Loughner shot Rep. Giffords was a desire for notoriety and "fame" of a sort--he literally wanted to make an impact and be a "somebody". He wanted, for once, to have a feeling of power and control. He wanted to be noticed and remembered. And he was willing to die for that.

Of all the speculation about motive, this is likely the most accurate, and could easily have been arrived at well before the day you posted this opinion.

firefly wrote:

This was a 22 year old man, with apparent psychiatric problems, and possible drug problems, who, from all descriptions and current evidence, was an aliented misfit who sustained nothing but constant rejection trying to get a life going for himself--he got booted out of his community college, was fired from about 5 jobs, was turned down by the military, was frustrated about submitting 65 job applications with no responses, was upset that his previous minor arrest might be held against him, and apparently couldn't find a woman willing to date him. The man felt like a complete loser with no vision of a future for himself.

Much of this was known, and ignored, shortly after the incident.

Given the history of these sorts of massacres and assasination attempts, the most logical immediate speculation would have been that he was simply a maniac motivated by psychotic impulses the sane can never comprehend.

While I can appreciate that people may immediately jump to conclusions to make sense of a senseless tragedy, I have no appreciation for their voicing such conclusions in editorials, opinion pieces, press briefings and reporting, particularly when they so obviously align with their sense of being soldiers in an ideological war.

1 Reply

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know