House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

The recent Fuller incident is sad, strange, and intriguing.

I think the story is entirely newsworthy and don't at all fault the news media for reporting on it.

As for the state's actions: With or without the current atmosphere in Tucson, if someone who has just undergone what Fuller has and then issues what can only be interpreted as a death threat, he should be forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Maybe if after Loughner scared people with his psychotic threatening language, he was forced to undergo psychiatric examination, the massacre could have been prevented.

I'm willing to give Fuller the benefit of the doubt concerning a temporary mental state but it seems clear he was enraged by Humphries' comments on gun control and perhaps with the Tea Party movement in general.

Considering what he witnessed and experienced I can understand why he would be vehemently opposed to someone speaking out against gun control, but to shout "you are dead," or "you will die," is, at least, an ironic choice of words.

Way too early to draw any conclusions, but you do have to wonder if he, in his post-traumatic state, got all worked up by reading Paul Krugman or listening to Keith Olbermann and the Pima County sheriff.

Potentially additional irony.

3 Replies

a testimonial to toning down the rhetoric and keeping not guns, but gangland and war style weapons out of the hands of the public.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

What I really don't understand:
a) when you shout something like "You are dead", you have to undergo an involuntary examination?
b) this examination can be ordered by police officers?

That's really just personal interest - I couldn't find the related laws on the internet - because I've been involved here with this quite often. And since it's extremely different [a physician has to examine you at first (mental health related), the local department of public security (re danger to other and/or yourself) has to sign that examination order; then a judge has to decide within 48 hours if you stay in a psychiatric hospital) I'm asking here.

2 Replies

Hi, Walter. This is a strange story and obviously we are just speculating. There is probably more going on then what the media/public is aware of. I suspect that, after talking with the police, he decided to voluntarily submit to an evaluation.
Please don't read too much into that last sentence. As in, he was somehow coerced into doing something. I can see it playing out as "Mr Fuller, you have had a traumatic experience. You are under the influence of meds. Would you like to talk to someone about this?"
That to me would be a reasonable suggestion and a reasonable response.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The Shooter was influenced by left-wing rhetoric except we don't have evidence of left wing rhetoric targeting the victim
The Shooter was sent to earth by aliens except we don't have evidence of aliens targeting the victim
The Shooter was the congresswoman's illegitimate son seeking revenge for abandonment except we don't have evidence of the shooter being her son and targeting the victim
The Shooter was an agent of the Chinese government except we don't have evidence of the Chinese government targeting the victim

Because we don't know for certain that the immediate speculation was not in someway accurate doesn't mean it wasn't spurious. Yes, it might have been spurious but it was not without basis.

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. Because those people had earlier produced rhetoric that did appear to target the victim. In a criminal case the first suspects are those that made threats. While you can argue the nature of the threat of the rhetoric and the literature you can't argue that it doesn't exist and it does appear threatening on first glance.

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.

But that doesn't seem to stop you from jumping to your own political conclusions it seems. We still don't know what motivated the shooter so to rule out reasons based on your political leanings is as much of a jump to a conclusion as it is to rule in reasons.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

With or without the current atmosphere in Tucson, if someone who has just undergone what Fuller has and then issues what can only be interpreted as a death threat,

That's interesting.. You seem to jump to conclusions without any facts. And to top it off your conclusions seem to be politically motivated.

1 Reply

@firefly,

I guess Mr Fuller's murder threat to Trent Humphries could have been avoided if ABC hadn't decided to talk about the shooting. Shame on them. Didn't they know someone might get upset and threaten to murder a panelist? I hold them partially responsible.

"You're dead." He threatened, and took a picture of the guy whose life he just threatened. The national rhetoric around Tea Party responsibility and gun control knocked the old guy off his rocker. Now, HE wants to kill people... I guess a media blackout of Tea Party, gun control and the Giffords shooting is the responsible thing to do.

I guess the responsible thing for us to do immediately is to stop talking about these things as well.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

With or without the current atmosphere in Tucson, if someone who has just undergone what Fuller has and then issues what can only be interpreted as a death threat, he should be forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Maybe if after Loughner scared people with his psychotic threatening language, he was forced to undergo psychiatric examination, the massacre could have been prevented.

Absolutely.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Gosh Lash.. He only did what you claimed everyone does. Are you implying everyone is a lunatic that can kill people?

1 Reply

@Lash,

Or give him bus fare to Arizona, so he can purchase and carry a gun to defend himself...

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

a testimonial to toning down the rhetoric and keeping not guns,
but gangland and war style weapons out of the hands of the public.

U know, Throbber, in US v. MILLER the USSC held
that ordinary military weapons are what WERE covered
by the 2nd Amendment for civilian possession,
but that a sawn off shotgun was not because
it had not been proven that it coud be of value to a militia.

In other words, the USSC was not convinced that a sawn off shotgun
was an ordinary militiary weapon. (Actually, thay WERE, having been used
as trench brooms in the First World War, but the court did not know it.)

David

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

It's ok if you call me arrogant and narcissistic. We can move past that, then.

I still believe we have all said things that we wouldn't want a mentally unstable person to act on - and that when we do, we aren't guilty of the result of their actions. I think to censor ourselves due to concern about what might be acted on by an unstable person would be a ridiculous way to go through life.

How do we know how a mentally unstable person may interpret our comments?

And, have you noticed how much easier it is to give good advice, rather than police what you know is the best behavior in your own life?.. Many times, we're much better advisors because we aren't emotionally invested in other's lives, so we can more easily see their mistakes. We're creatures of habit - and some things we say and do are so intrinsically motivated and habituated, that we don't even realize we're doing/saying them.

We like to think we're better than this. So, we do.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Don't bet on it! Sounds like he was 5150'd. (Deemed to be a threat to himself or others, and involuntarily escorted to a mental health facility - or a place of incarceration for a psych eval.)

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

"... knocked the old guy off his rocker."

That hurt.

1 Reply

@parados,

A direct death threat and saying something you hope an unbalanced person won't act on are not exactly the same thing. I've never made a direct threat to anyone. But, hey, JTT: Take a long walk off a short pier, wouldya.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Who?

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

But, hey, JTT: Take a long walk off a short pier, wouldya.

To what do I owe this honor, Lash?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Pre-emptive. Laughing

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Don't bet on it! Sounds like he was 5150'd. (Deemed to be a threat to himself or others, and involuntarily escorted to a mental health facility - or a place of incarceration for a psych eval.)

Taking a photo and saying "You're dead" .... that qualifies as
"an immediate threat to someone else's safety"?
And by this "an officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled"?

My God.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

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

A
R
T

It is ALWAYS appropriate
for the media, including the liberal media, to make money from their efforts.
This is AMERICA; we do free enterprize here.

David

2 Replies

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know