House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

You being in favor of the state having the laws in place to involuntarily commit people for what amounts to verbal assault. You clearly said that laws like Arizona's where a person can be confined and forced into treatment when someone decides that they could benefit from it are a good idea.

I never said I favored the kind of laws you seem to be describing. You are describing laws for involuntary commitment in order to treat mental illness.

My comments were only about James Eric Fuller being placed on a 72 hour psychiatric hold. He hasn't been committed for treatment, he's simply being held for observation and evaluation. And that wasn't done just because he said, "You're dead" to Humphries--it was because of other things he was saying and doing after the arrest--he appeared, to the police, to be exhibiting signs of mental illness. They could have just taken him to jail and dumped him in a cell, but, all things considered, they did the right thing in taking him to a hospital ER and requesting a psychiatric evaluation. It was a psychiatrist who then determined that a 72 hour hold was appropriate.

A 72 hour psychiatric hold for observation is not really a "commitment" because the purpose is not to deliver treatment--it is an involuntary evaluation. It may not even be technically considered an admission to a psychiatric unit. It does not really involve any treatment, let alone forced treatment. because it is primarily for evaluation/observation to determine whether the person suffers from a mental disorder which could cause them to be an immediate danger to self or others.

Quote:

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights in O'Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment

All states, and not just Arizona, do have commitment procedures for the actual treatment of mental illness. However, Hawkeye, I never made any statement to the effect that I think those laws are a good idea. In fact, I never expressed any opinions regarding those laws. What remarks I made were only about a 72 hour hold--and 72 hours is the maximum time the person can be held. And the purpose is evaluation--to determine whether the person poses an immediate danger due to a psychiatric disorder.

So no, Hawkeye, I never claimed to be in favor of the kind of laws you described.

Your inability to comprehend what you read is really quite alarming. That's why your interpretations are often quite distorted.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Law enforcement and people nearby heard him say "You're dead." That's close enough for me. Humpheries imagined he mis-heard Fuller.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

Pray tell, how do you judge the guy who threatened to kill him?

Fuller didn't threatened to kill him, he was demonstrating that he had just metaphorically shot him - with a camera, and if it had been a gun - then Humphries would have been dead.

Fuller fully apolgized and acknowledged he was completely out of line with what he had done. But, I'm sure Right Wingers won't accept this. It would truly be a "new day" if there was a sign from the right!

Please say you see the light, I so want to eat my words.

2 Replies

@BillW,

Actually, if that's true - case closed as far as I'm concerned. I never heard about the apology or the explanation. I DO think when you say to someone "you're dead," you should expect CLOSE questioning and possible short term detainment. If Fuller's point was important enough to him to accept that contingency, I guess all is well.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

Law enforcement and people nearby heard him say "You're dead." That's close enough for me. Humpheries imagined he mis-heard Fuller

Fuller did make a threatening sounding statement. But the exact meaning of the words is unclear. We don't know whether this reflected an actual intention to harm Humphries, or it was simply an outburst of verbal anger on the moment. Humphries had just said he wanted to delay any discussion of gun control, and Fuller just went through a major trauma--he was shot twice in that supermarket shooting and witnessed others being shot and killed. And rightly, or wrongly, Fuller held the Tea Party, as represented by Humphries, responsible for creating a climate of violence, and he verbally exploded at him after Humphries said he didn't want to discuss gun control yet.

The police took it seriously enough to arrest him. And they should do some investigation to determine the seriousness of the threat and whether it warrants any charges.

All we know, right now, is that Fuller was angry and upset and made what sounded like a possibly threatening or intimidating statement. But, that's all it was, a remark, from a man who just went through a very traumatic ordeal, and who may have been just emotionally overwrought at the moment he made it.

Fuller, for his part, has recently released a statement, through a friend, apologizing for his "misplaced outrage".

The right wing is already engaging in a smear campaign against Fuller, all you have to do is read some of the things they are saying about him and trying to dig up about him. And Humphries, in the statement he released, was emphasing Fuller's possible psychiatric problems, and even indirectly compared him to Jared Loughner as a possible threat, which is more than than a little extreme, given what Fuller actually did.

Suppose the police and the D.A. decide not to press charges, and the psychiatrists say that Fuller can leave the hospital and go his merry way. Will the right wing and Humphries knock it off and leave this man--who was very recently a shooting victim--alone, or are they going to continue to hound him?

1 Reply

Shooter's ex quoted in Salon (for what it's worth):

Ashley Figueroa believes that Jared Lee Loughner's behavior is a deliberate part of a bigger plan. In an interview with ABC News yesterday, she remembers Loughner as "a drug user with a grudge against the government" and provided some insight into his history of violence and rage.

"He used to scare me sometimes and that's kind of the reason why I left him," said Figueroa. "He kind of makes me feel uncomfortable at times. He'd get really mad and he would clench his fists really tight and kind of almost like have a little tantrum. He'd kind of like flail his arms and walk off."

As for the bizarre behavior leading up to the attack, Figueroa said it was all a farce.

"I think he's faking everything. I think the outburst that he had in class -- I think he's planned everything. I think that he has been planning this for some time," said Figueroa.

Figueroa is not a doctor, and these claims conflict with the opinion of top doctors in the field of psychiatry. (Dr. E. Fuller Torey actually told Salon that Loughner looks like a "textbook" case of paranoid schizophrenia.)

1 Reply

@BillW,

Quote:

Fuller didn't threatened to kill him, he was demonstrating that he had just metaphorically shot him - with a camera, and if it had been a gun - then Humphries would have been dead.

I don't recall hearing any statement from Fuller explaining anything about metaphorically shooting Humphries with a camera to prove a point.

Did Fuller actually say that, or is that your interpretation of Fuller's behavior?

A similar thought had occurred to me--that Fuller was only using his camera to try to show how easily you can shoot someone, because Humphries had just refused to discuss gun control. But I haven't heard that Fuller, or the police, said that was the explanation for his behavior.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Seems like smear campaigns are all the rage recently.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

I think the lady is just looking for a piece of the media action--her 5 minutes of fame.
She dated him in high school--she was only 15. So, how old was he? 15? 16? What she's saying doesn't jive with what others who knew him in high school say about him. And how would she know he was faking something probably 6 or 7 years after she knew him?

Other people who knew him in high school don't describe him as being obsessed with the government, or having a bad temper, or anything like that. One friend said he was fine, he had normal interests, with no major problems, until he started smoking a lot of pot, and then he lost interest in things and he dropped out of high school without graduating.

This girl dated him when he was 16, and she says he was perfectly normal.
http://www.newser.com/story/109732/ex-girlfriend-dont-blame-me-for-loughners-meltdown.html

And, more recently, he didn't have any girlfriends, or any kind of social life, he got fired from 5 jobs, got turned down by the military, got suspended from his community college--he just wasn't able to function. You really can't fake that sort of stuff (and why would you?), and he was very unhappy about all of it--he complained about it on a gaming site chat room.

I don't think he was faking anything--he had no reason to fake anything. He probably didn't expect to survive the shooting.

He appears to have serious problems, but I don't know that he sounds like a "textbook" case of paranoid schizophrenia, as that doctor suggested. He might not even be psychotic. He could be bipolar. He could have a personality disorder. We don't know much about him--except he clearly seems to have some kind of serious psychiatric problem and/or drug problem from the little we do know. But that doesn't explain his motives for the shooting.

I'm really curious to hear from his parents, and see what they're like. They're the only ones who might shed some light on all of this.

Everyone else from his past who comes crawling out of the woodwork I'd wonder about in terms of their motives.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

an unemployed Serbian immigrant.

Hey, Okie, your next boogeyman, Serbs. Have they been tried yet?

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Fuller didn't threatened to kill him, he was demonstrating that he had just metaphorically shot him - with a camera, and if it had been a gun - then Humphries would have been dead.

firefly wrote:

I don't recall hearing any statement from Fuller explaining anything about metaphorically shooting Humphries with a camera to prove a point.

Did Fuller actually say that, or is that your interpretation of Fuller's behavior?

A similar thought had occurred to me--that Fuller was only using his camera to try to show how easily you can shoot someone, because Humphries had just refused to discuss gun control. But I haven't heard that Fuller, or the police, said that was the explanation for his behavior.

I understood that Fuller's zealous support of gun control
was offended by Trent Humprhries' failure to discuss gun control sooner, as Fuller demanded.
Being enraged, Fuller threatened Trent Humprhries, shouting "You are dead" to him
and then taking his picture, to facilitate the killing.

I wonder HOW this supporter of gun control
intended to execute his death sentence ??????????

David

0 Replies

SALON

Quote:

Granted polls don't do nuance well, but that number should be 0 percent...there is simply no evidence that the Palin crosshairs map had anything to do with what Loughner did.

Elliott, nevertheless, believes there is "a real argument to be had" on whether or not right-wing inflammatory rhetoric had anything to do with the incident.

He cites this "debate" as his basis for believing so:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/12/kornacki_pareene_loughner

1 Reply

Let's do a reality check on crazy people and their lack of supervision.

Last night, as I walked past the police station, I noticed a woman standing on the building's porch. As I passed, she asked for spare change. I generally ignore panhandlers and I ignored her. As I walked along, I heard her yell her request a second time. I'm short but I walk quickly with a long stride. She was shorter still but ran up to me then passed me, turned around in front of me and asked again. I told her that I was probably poorer than she is and kept walking. She ran ahead of me and then said that she doubted it, began to tell me that she was homeless and that her backpack was stolen from her and that she had a fatal disease.

At that moment, she lost all credibility. I told her I did not believe her and resumed walking. The long and the short of it is that she began screaming to Jesus about me. Was she crazy? Probably.

Now, several years ago, a Democratic governor named Dukakis played a key role in the closing of hospitals. Here is his version in his own words:

"In my first term, from 1974-1978, we had serious problems because we were in the process, since the middle 1960’s, of deinstitutionalizing the mental hospitals. The mental hospitals were nothing to boast about, but they housed a lot of people who had severe emotional problems and many whom we thought could be helped to live good, productive lives with medication, therapy, and whatever in the community we and other states through this process of shrinking and closing down, which means they weren’t available for people with emotional and severe emotional illness. The plan was to replace them with a Network of Community Mental Health Centers around the state where folks could get help within the community and they wouldn’t have to be institutionalized 40 miles away. We didn’t do badly when it came to that. We had problems, but we really didn’t do as much in the community on the mental health issue like we wanted to do. Then Reagan got elected and came in and really slashed the programs, which were the Federal role in low moderate income housing." From http://www.sparechangenews.net/news/former-presidential-candidate-michael-dukakis-spares-time-spare-change#

The rest of the very long article goes on to discuss the failure of public housing and low income housing. However, the point I wish to make is that there was a trend away from giving the homeless, who are often mentally incompetent, and the mental and emotionally ill state-sponsored protection.

okie, of all people, asked why no one was watching the AZ shooter. Well, beginning in the 1960s, the states washed their hands of the old style mental hospitals. The trend away from institutionalization is a half century old.

No one wants to live near a half-way house or a residential care center.

Furthermore, although sarah palin is still harping on the blood libel thing (here is someone who illustrates the inability to keep her mouth shut and who will not accept personal responsibility for what comes out it), the problem is that people like palin who is recognized as a party insider -- both Republican party and the Tea Party -- who is a loose cannon. While there have always been, for the want of a better term, "yellow journalists," like beck and rush, their predecessors in the late 50s and early 60s were neither as histrionic nor as willing to lie. In other words, people who have authority, either because they do now or once did hold office and people who have bully pulpits in the form of television and radio shows, act like the same madmen who were turned out on our streets.

There have always been "village idiots" and people within communities who tended toward violence.

However, what we have now is the removal of places where the mentally impaired and emotionally ill could go and people who should be exercising authority and responsibility who have replaced leadership with celebrity ranting as if they were mentally impaired and emotionally ill.

It is a potent stew.

0 Replies

@firefly,

First of all, she doesn't seem all that bright.

Second, she is simply telling what she remembers and what she has concluded from having known him. She herself mentioned that it was long ago but she also said that he probably planned it. I think if anyone was looking for 15 minutes, by her suspicions, it was him.

I think the point that he no longer has girlfriends -- in the NPR interview with one of his Pima CC professors, the man said that a female student told him in person that she was afraid of Lougher or however his name is spelled -- and no social life supports a person under pressure.

As for others saying he wasn't interested in politics, well, might not a girlfriend have heard things he might not have said to others?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Of course there is no direct discernible connection between what Loughner did and the gun imagery message that Sarah Palin chose to promote--as far as we know now--because we don't really yet know what Loughner's motives, and influences were when he entered that Safeway supermarket.

But there was a lot of concern voiced about the use of such gun themed/violent political rhetoric long before the recent shooting. And there is no evidence that any of those using such rhetoric paused long enough to seriously consider whether such tactics were downright irresponsible, or might have potentially dangerous consequences, before the recent shooting. And, Sarah Palin, even now, refuses to take any responsibility for promoting gun themed political action. She is not responsible for the shooting, but she is responsible for the type of imagery and language she posts and endorses--but she dodges any responsibility for the types of choices she makes, and, in the wake of the shooting, that is what I find reprehensible. Palin is not the innocent victim she claims to be--she chose to use particularly explicit gun themed imagery and language, to "target" political opponents, and, by example, encouraged others to do the same. Palin is responsible for the choices she makes, and the kind of example she chooses to set.

A reasonable issue to discuss is why the Tea Party, and some Republicans, are so wedded to the use of gun-themed and violent language and imagery as a predominant way of describing or promoting political action. Why is it necessary to use guns, or gun-themed imagery and rhetoric, and then deliberately associate such things with specific opponents? What is this sort of carefully chosen political message supposed to mean?

Let's look at the rhetoric used by Jesse Kelly, the Republican candidate who was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' opponent in last November's election. This was an ad for a Kelly fundraiser that was promoted last June:

Quote:

Jesse Kelly, meanwhile, doesn't seem to be bothered in the least by the Sarah Palin controversy earlier this year, when she released a list of targeted races in crosshairs, urging followers to "reload" and "aim" for Democrats. Critics said she was inciting violence.

He seems to be embracing his fellow tea partier's idea. Kelly's campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_349e18b8-ec64-5fd7-b347-afe7f1778a47.html

If Sarah Palin's recent defensive video was an indication of whether the Tea Party and right wing conservatives will now reflect and stop the use of such gun-themed violent political rhetoric, the answer appears to be along the lines of, "Hell no, we didn't pull that trigger in Tucson, a madman did. We're ready to lock and reload".

If people, like Palin, and others, cannot recognize that using certain types of political rhetoric might be irresponsible, or even potentially dangerous, they fully deserve all the heat currently directed toward them. They can't claim to be the innocent victims of vicious unfounded partisan attacks, because this goes beyond partisan issues and partisan sniping and it is a reaction to the specific type of rhetoric they actually choose and use. It's not just about who is responsible for a shooting, it's really about whether these people are acting responsibly in their political discourse, and why they are choosing, and apparently continuing to defend, their use of particular gun-themed and violent rhetoric to deliver their message, even after the tragic shooting of one of their political opponents, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That's what I find very disturbing.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Agreed.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

PrezBO's pep-rally like speech did not help his approval rating... it dropped another point.

I was once on a job with a bunch of union men, and one time the Govenor of Michigan came to the site to give a speech.. The guy was a republican who did all he could against the unions, and he was a slob to boot... I saw him up close once and his ankles where bigger than my bicepts... But popular... And it hurt me to be so blunt with my fellows, but when they wanted to line up and moon the guy, I did all in my power to dissuade them...

You see, to disrespect a man who has been elected by so many is to disrespect all who voted for him, and they are our fellow citizens, and more than that, are people whose respect and help we need for our well being... I say this by way of asking: What do you think you gain by continually demeaning the President of the United States... I don't like the guy either... Think he is doing a **** job... Think he is too hooked on pleasing the bankers and money lenders when they are killing us... Okay; and if I say it is your right to dis him; then what is your gain by exercising that right... Does it make you friends, or only ingratiate you to others like yourself???

1 Reply

@Lash,

What we lack here is humor, and Fuller might have used humor.

A new twist on all this, humor.
Not that I know that.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I agree with Sarah Palin.

I am completely amazed at the convoluted reasoning presented in your post. You somehow think that Palin can't have it both ways, and you link her opposition to the mosque with the case in Arizona, an absolutely weird comparison.

It is not a matter of Palin having it both ways. You somehow imply that Palin is out there advocating violence, as parts of the Islamic religion apparently does, or at least it does not condemn it. Palin openly and completely condemns violence and there is absolutely no link whatsoever between Palin and the crime in Arizona. In contrast, there are lots of links between the Islamic faith and terrorism.

Sorry, but all the contortions you are going through to somehow implicate Palin is not only silly, but insulting, both to our sense of decency but to peoples ability to reason.

True... It is always terrorism to fight for your way of life... It is never terrorism to advocate violence to achieve political ends out of the understanding that your most likely support comes from violent and frustrated people who look at all who disagree with them as mortal enemies... Palin isn't too crazy... She is simply willing to take advantage of the crazy people who have been fostered in insanity for many years... The world is ready to sweep those nut heads away...

Don't you think they realize how inept and obsolete they are, how incapable they are of dealling with the world we live in -sin, city, and **** that it is??? Palin is not a terrorist... She is an opportunist willing to push people in the way of violence... She is something over a hundred and fifty years too late... She belong to the antebellum South, raising the flag of rebellion over federal property, invoking God's blessing on bloodshed and mayham and destruction... She is defending injustice, and when did injustice not have defenders???

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
You don't know that for sure, Lash. That's what trials are for, to prevent folks who live hudreds of miles away from an event from making rash judgments about any case.

Lets also keep in mind that we routinely see this same type of behaviour and language at the Little League Game......If we let Firefly have her way the mental health profession would be an explosive growth industry. Of course we don't want to talk about how putting people away, especially in a medical setting, creates enormous bills that we are not prepared to pay.

It should be an explosive growth industry... What Nietzsche said about individual madness compared to national madness has its points.... Nuts feel more secure in a crowd, and no crowd of nuts is greater than the republican party and their offspring... Not one of them is prepared to face reality...

Every single one of them is living in some la la land where the problems of this day can be pushed forever into tomorrow without resolution... They think we are great while feeding those sucking the greatness right out of us... Lock them all up and throw away the key... You could not do it; and the task is impossible... Throw open the door of every asylum and turn the entire nation into a nut house... What choice have we??? It is easier to shelter the sane who are few in number than the insane who are in endless supply...

1 Reply

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know