January 15, 2011

Arrested at a town hall meeting led by ABC News Anchor Christiane Amanpour: Eric Fuller, the survivor of the Tucson massacre who said "It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target."

We talked about him here, yesterday. Now, KGUN9 reports:
The theme of the event was "An American Conversation Continued"... When Tucson Tea Party founder Trent Humphries rose to suggest that any conversation about gun control should be put off until after the funerals for all the victims, witnesses say Fuller became agitated. Two told KGUN9 News that finally, Fuller took a picture of Humphries, and said, "You're dead."...

The event wrapped up a short time later. Deputies then escorted Fuller from the room. As he was being led off, Fuller shouted loudly to the room at large. Several witnesses said that what they thought they heard him shout was, "You're all whores!"

Fuller, age 63, is a political operative who specializes in gathering petitions for ballot initiatives. Before the program began, he passed out business cards to people sitting around him that read:

"Signatures
"Expediting Initiatives since 2006
"J. Eric Fuller
"Political Circulator."
Fuller has been charged with one count of threats and intimidation.

177 comments:

James said...

Fuller didn't get the "civility" memo.

Maguro said...

I blame Paul Krugman and his divisive rhetoric.

Lincolntf said...

How many other violently insane radicals are working on Democrat campaigns?

Coketown said...

"Expediting Initiatives since 2006."

You know. Twice the megalomania in half the time for the liberal on the go.

If some grassroots movement rose up that put my career in jeopardy, I'd be pretty pissed too. "So," Fuller might ask, "how do ballot initiatives fit into this small-government paradigm? I'm just - not - following."

XWL said...

"How many other violently insane radicals are working on Democrat campaigns?"

I'd invert that, slightly...

Who agitates for liberal causes who isn't at heart a violent radical?

edutcher said...

The irony here is crushing.

And the Lefties thought they had someone to gain some of the ground lost this week.

Curtiss said...

Ha! An another fringe extremist driven to action by listening to the Palin-Beck-Limbaugh-Boehner-FNC-Bill O'Reilly-Meghan Kelly violent rhetoric.

Fen said...

Libtard falsely accuses Tea Party of violent threats, then makes violent threats at Tea Party.

In related news, the Sun rose in the East this morning.

Fen said...

Well, at least the Libtard didn't scream racial epithets while beating down a black man (SEIU) or bite Grandpa's finger off (MoveOn).

I blame the MSM for all their vitriolic rhetoric directed at the Tea Party. We need to restrict the 1st Ammendment and send them all to th camps.

1jpb said...

But, the important question is:

Did he change his hair color?

bgates said...

Shouldn't that tv station change to KOLIVEBRANCH9 or KUNITEDWETHRIVE9 or something?

roesch-voltaire said...

Getting that close to being killed can have an affect on an individual, and let us remember a Republican in AZ resigned from his office because of what he described as threats from the Tea Party. As many others have pointed out the whole state of AZ seems on edge and threatening.

TWM said...

There's left really is beyond parody. SNL couldn't make this shit up in its best drug-induced John Belushi days.

JOHN said...

Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect. Granted Eric has some very defined views however no one should be made a villain for his views. I will say Eric could have handled things differently but let us not forget he is one of the victims. Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view. Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm. Why are we made out to be crazy? And while it is obvious that Palin's website was not the cause of this incident. It certainly wouldn't hurt to tone things down a bit. No matter what side of the issues you are on, I think we can all agree that innocent American citizens do not need to die !

Big Mike said...

Getting that close to being killed can have an affect on an individual.

I have a hard time imagining you trying to excuse this egregious behavior had it been a conservative who made the death threats at an open forum shortly after being shot.

SteveR said...

At his age and recent history, its pretty easy to take a good guess at his past.

The rhetoric of Abbie Hoffman in 1968 probably set him off.

Big Mike said...

Why are we made out to be crazy?

I dunno, maybe because you claim to be in favor of gun control and against violence, and then when somebody politely disagrees with your position, you (meaning the plural form of the second person pronoun, i.e., you the blog commentator and Eric Fuller the crazy man) say "you're dead." Things like that.

1jpb said...

If this guy had chosen the tubes as his preferred medium; everyone would assume that he was some flavor of a Moby.

BTW, is it possible that Althouse didn't present all of this guy's business card?

"Signatures
"Expediting Initiatives since 2006
"J. Eric Fuller
"Political Circulator
America's Politico."

Lincolntf said...

JOHN- Your "friend" Mr. Fuller has done his damndest to generate hatred and fear among Americans since the moment he was grazed by the bullet. His idotic posts on FB as well as the fact that he was disrupting the Giffords event BEFORE the shooting point out what kind of person we're dealing with here. At best he's a useless scumbag bent on fomenting anger, and at worst he's a nascent spree-killer just getting warmed up.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

"Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view."

No, it's the constitution and screw you by the way.

mesquito said...

Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view. Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm. Why are we made out to be crazy?

Are you saying this loon opposed the second amendment as well?

Paul Zrimsek said...

Getting that close to being killed can have an affect on an individual, and let us remember SQUIRREL!!

SteveR said...

however no one should be made a villain for his views

He made a threat, he's not in trouble for his "views".

SteveR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bandmeeting said...

As many others have pointed out the whole state of AZ seems on edge and threatening.

Threatening what?

Everyone is threatening to kill another person. Well, OK then.

David said...

I will say Eric could have handled things differently but let us not forget he is one of the victims.

I am sorry, sir, that your friend was injured in this terrible event. However, he has chosen to draw attention to himself with two politicized, and inappropriate, statements since then. These statements seem to mirror his preconceptions, which date from prior to the attack. He deserves to be criticized. Indeed, he has invited it.

Big Mike said...

And, JOHN, some of us reserve the right to defend ourselves and our families. That you've made a different personal decision is, in my estimation, a mistake but nevertheless it is your right to make that decision. That you wish to force the rest of us to adopt your decision for our own personal lives is why we think you are insane.

bandmeeting said...

let us not forget he is one of the victims

Sounds as if he is interested in creating more victims.

DADvocate said...

Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm.

I agree. Eric Fuller shouldn't have a firearm.

A saw a couple of days ago on cable news they were looking for a man who was on the grocery security tape to see of he was connected to Loughner some how. Maybe he was connected to Fuller instead. It's whacko season in Tucson.

Lem said...

The irony here is crushing.

OMG...

Would it be fair to pin this on the Sheriff..

he did started it.

AJ Lynch said...

I thought Fuller was disabled? Next, I'll hear he is not a veteran! [yes I know,it's the 3rd time I said this].

Heh- liberals think everyone else is stupid and they can get away with lying [i.e John "Cambodia is seared in my mind" Kerry].

Lem said...

Fuller had for most of the night of the murders been "trying to calm himself down and organize his thoughts".

Under the new rules of political discourse what grade can we give this guy.. we cant say "he shot himself in the foot".

Fen said...

John: Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect.

2 years of calling us racist xenopobic toothless rednecks bitterly clinging to our guns and bibles.

And you ask that we show this violent Libtard some respect?

Fuck off.

Curtiss said...

Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view.

Are we?

Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm.

How about you? You're welcome to your point of view.

Synova said...

"Granted Eric has some very defined views however no one should be made a villain for his views."

Do you really believe that?

Do you realize that you're addressing a gallery of villains made villain because of their views?

Fen said...

/needs an edit

John: Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect.

2 years of calling us racist xenopobic toothless rednecks bitterly clinging to our guns and bibles.

And you ask that we show this violent hate-mongering Libtard some respect?

Fuck off.

Phil 3:14 said...

I'll still give him a lot of leeway given the trauma.

KV;
As many others have pointed out the whole state of AZ seems on edge and threatening.

Most not from AZ.

Paul said...

Fortunately Fuller didn't have a Glock... I wonder if he is on the NCS list, that is the no-buy list if you try to purchase a gun.

Isn't it strange those who profess to be against violence seem to be, uh, violent?

Stevie said...

Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm.

How bout those of us who don't care for you peeking in the windows of our homes or inside our pocketbooks or breast pockets to see if we do or not???

The point being that your reaching into my house, pocketbook or pocket to remove my weapons infringes on my second amendment rights and my right to have a gun in no way infringes on your right except that you "object to my rights."

Go fuck yourself.

Lem said...

Do you realize that you're addressing a gallery of villains made villain because of their views?

I dont think he does..

peter hoh said...

If I recall correctly, he made some pretty inflamed comments from his hospital bed -- or shortly after being released from the hospital. I was inclined to give him a pass, given that he had been shot. (That doesn't mean that I approved of his comments, rather that I didn't think he needed to be rebuked for them.)

His pass is revoked. This is over the top and foolish. If he really were a smart political operative, he would know that going this far will only make him -- and his fellow partisans -- look bad.

Fen said...

If I recall correctly, he made some pretty inflamed comments from his hospital bed

Hate-mongerer.

The Libtards need to stop lecturing us about "violent" rhetoric and look to their own.

Kirby Olson said...

I think he still gets a pass -- to the loony bin. Or is Tucscon an open-air loony bin?

murgatroyd666 said...

Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect.

Clarence? Clarence, is that you?

Lem said...

I'll still give him a lot of leeway given the trauma.

Still.. its allways preferable if we (I mean Althouse) can back up certain theories with the facts..

Fred4Pres said...

Did someone blame George Bush yet?

This story is getting weirder and weirder.

Sixty Grit said...

I'll show him as much respect as he deserves.

Class factotum said...

Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm.

Don't like guns?

Don't have one.

Or is that the argument for abortion?

Lem said...

For those of you who read the blog.. Althouse called it before it happened.. I don't know whether to congratulate her or what.. this whole thing is weird.

here is an excerpt of what Althouse brilliantly wrote just a couple of days ago.

Some people displayed a crazed hunger for a vicious murderer who was inspired by the criticism of the government that has been so powerful over the last 2 years. Jared Loughner was not that guy, and, of course, they looked ridiculous and despicable jumping to say that he was.

Then Althouse reasonably speculated what if a left wing nut decides to give the left their hero killer by pretending to be a right wing nut killer and going ahead with a Loughner2..

Then, believing he is sacrificing himself for the greater good of the liberal cause, Loughner2 goes on his shooting spree. The pundits who revealed their raging hunger for a right-wing murderer will finally have the rich feast they deserve, he tells himself. Loughner2, like Loughner1, grins ghoulishly in his mug shot. He steels himself the hatred of the world and the secret pleasure of reading, from his prison/asylum cell, about the left-wing paradise he has made possible.

Do you think that's an absurd fantasy? Then you don't really believe that inflammatory rhetoric inspires unstable individuals to act. If you're one of those who's been saying it does, then admit that you've been lying. Or take responsibility for the effect your words are now having in the minds of the deranged
.

You are not going to get this kind of analysis anywhere else.

JAL said...

Eric Fuller in his own words.

I use extraordinary persuasive charisma to interest blase, apathetic, oblivious and at times hostile voters to listen to the voice of justice and consanguinity. My experiences encountering public figures and many affluent travelers in person has led me to believe that we all are to blame for George W. Bush.

A question I would ask is why he was at Giffords' meet and greet. To ask he why she wasn't toeing the line?

Somehow I doubt he was satisfied with this Blue Dog Dem.

(Other questions: What branch did he serve in? Was he in Vietnam? Why is his disability described as non-physical? Perhaps he is a Vietnam vet with PTSD. Did he hate JFK and LBJ?)

Fen said...

Hey John

Did you warn anyone that your friend was a deranged hate-mongerer radicalized by the anti-Tea Party propaganda from CNN, MSNBC and the NYTs?

Or did you just stare down at your shoelaces and mumble something nasty about Sarah Palin?

JAL said...

And this: http://www.hypnothoughts.com/profile/JamesEricFuller

(Seems like no Vietnam.)

Synova said...

I think that most people are willing to give someone leeway after a traumatic event like that. The leeway is given as an excuse for being so horrendously *wrong*. There is trauma, there are pain meds, he should be excused for the intemperance expressed.

But what excuses the chorus?

What excuses the chorus that says "remember he's a victim" when he so much as claims that the republican leadership, not just Palin, *wants* nine year old girls to die? There are a lot of people who are entirely willing to use his words to their ends, and do they rate leeway? How convenient to have someone who is given leeway to say the things someone else might be taken to account over?

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

With so much to cover up and potentially to gain, the slips of an Orwellian party sometimes show. Being shot I am sure doesn't help. Sometimes too fulsomely embracing the truth of Pravda can be embarrassing to its authors. Better mildly to go along like the Atlantic.

Fred4Pres said...

Jeff Goldstein is asking Establishment Republicans not to cut the rope when the left finally manages to hang themselves.

Freeman Hunt said...

Like Peter, I gave him a pass earlier. Now it's all gray area.

Still shot.
Still maybe traumatized.
Wild outburst.
Death threat.

Hmm...

JAL said...

Well darn. Blogger ate my comment.

Eric Fuller in his own words.

Areas of Specialty:

I use extraordinary persuasive charisma to interest blase, apathetic, oblivious and at times hostile voters to listen to the voice of justice and consanguinity. My experiences encountering public figures and many affluent travelers in person has led me to believe that we all are to blame for George W. Bush.


Vet of an unspecified service, with a non-physical disability.

Lem said...

I don't think the left would be giving any right winger any passes.

Florida said...

"Fuller didn't get the "civility" memo."

Fuck civility ... when there's cash money to be made off the spilt blood of a 9-year-old angel.

That's why he spent all that time handing out his business cards before the "town hall" meeting. Perfect opportunity to hustle.

It's time we put all of these Democrats in jail where they belong.

We passed laws.

They are violating these laws.

It's that simple.

Jail them.

Jail enough of them and the others will get the picture.

There's gotta be a new sheriff in town.

JAL said...

I wondered in my vanished comment why Fuller went to Giffords' meet and greet.

Dollars to donuts he has been disappointed with this Blue Dog.

Someone above mentioned he was disruptive at the sidewalk event prior to the shooting?

Wouldn't surprise me. Seems wound a bit tight. Or loose, depending on how one looks at it ....

Freeman Hunt said...

What excuses the chorus that says "remember he's a victim" when he so much as claims that the republican leadership, not just Palin, *wants* nine year old girls to die?

Nothing.

Any passes issued are single user passes.

Good point that the chorus members should be called to account.

Florida said...

"Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view."

No, we're not.

It's not a point of view. We're not advocatingfor anything. We already OWN what you claim we are advocating for. Gun ownership is a God-given right codified by the United States Constitution but granted to us by God. It's not something we need to advocate for, since it's not up for debate.

See, we don't really give a rat's fuck if you disagree. Disagree all you want.

Just understand that the moment that you make a move to eliminate our God-given rights you will reap the whirlwind motherfucker.

We're not going to debate our Constitutional rights with you fucktards.

Got it?

JAL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAL said...

Nevermind -- just go to Fuller's profile on the hypnotism site above.

I use extraordinary persuasive charisma to interest blase, apathetic, oblivious and at times hostile voters to listen to the voice of justice and consanguinity. My experiences encountering public figures and many affluent travelers in person has led me to believe that we all are to blame for George W. Bush.

peter hoh said...

Florida, I realize you are acting, but a "gun ownership is a God-given right" is a bit over the top, even for your persona.

peter hoh said...

JAL, multiple links trigger an automatic spam guard feature that the blogger lady has deployed. Try reposting with just one link per post.

Synova said...

"the voice of justice and consanguinity"

Justice and common-blood?

Brotherhood?

Pogo said...

The dark night of fascist violence is always supposed to be descending on the right, but somehow it keeps landing in the Democratic party.

Florida said...

"Florida, I realize you are acting, but a "gun ownership is a God-given right" is a bit over the top ..."

The rights codified by the Bill of Rights are not granted by men - they are inalienable. They are inherent in our existence and flow from a creator that I call God but you are free to call whatever you want.

They were written down and enshrined by the United States Constitution but men did not grant them to us. And men cannot take them away from us.

We own them because we exist.

The right of self-defense using whatever is at hand be that a stone or a stick or anything else is an inalienable right.

And there's no debate to be had over that right. We're not going to discuss it with you. We're not advocating for that right because we already have it. It's something we already possess. If you are against it, then make your fucking move, bitch. Spin the bottle. Take your chances.

Everybody gets a play.

Ready?

fivewheels said...

Wow, really, K-GUN breaks this story? How can they even still be allowed on the air? They should be forced to change the call letters to K-HELLOKITTY or something.

Synova said...

"Florida, I realize you are acting, but a "gun ownership is a God-given right" is a bit over the top, even for your persona."

Not really. Not if "God-given" is understood as a stand-in for the concept of "present by virtue of existence" as expressed in our Constitution with the concept of "inalienable rights." Those are rights not *conferred* or granted by anyone or any authority, but that exist.

And not if "guns" is understood as a stand-in for whatever weapon or other means is the customary tool of the culture that takes the place of teeth and claws. We have an inalienable right to self-defense along with whatever tools apply.

To say that we don't, is to say that we don't have a "God given" right to be free.

peter hoh said...

Synova, I support second amendment rights, but I'm not going to try to say that there's a God-given right to carry a gun.

Florida said...

Well-said Synova. You get a cookie.

It's just a shame that this quite obvious and plain information is no longer imparted upon those we send through our nation's schools any longer.

Democrats think we're advocating for these and they're advocating against them and that at the end of the day whoever advocates the best wins.

They don't understand that isn't how this game is played.

Democrats are playing a deadly game when they begin discussing how they will take away our God-given rights and then they have the gall to wonder why we respond with "violent rhetoric" not understanding that our fathers told us it was polite to warn a man before we dispatch him.

Florida said...

"I'm not going to try to say that there's a God-given right to carry a gun."

Self defense is a God-given inalienable right of all men ... using whatever tool is available and at hand.

You agree with that sentiment, no?

Curtiss said...

...at a town hall meeting led by ABC News Anchor Christiane Amanpour

I just noticed that. I wonder how shel'll spin this story on her show tomorrow morning. Or if she'll even mention it.

Fen said...

JAL, multiple links trigger an automatic spam guard feature that the blogger lady has deployed. Try reposting with just one link per post.

I think you should temper your rhetoric before yet another Libtard loses it.

JAL said...

@Synova


"the voice of justice and consanguinity"

Justice and common-blood?

Brotherhood?


Who knows? Maybe the government got ahold of his grammar too. Or something.

(And thanks Peter -- maybe I linked to the hypnosis page too? Same content.)

Synova said...

The only problem I have with "God given right to have a gun" is that it doesn't... travel. It doesn't time-travel. It's like those who try to say (joke) that what the 2nd Amendment gives us is the right to a muzzle-loading blunderbuss.

For a Saxon the "right" would be to carry a seax rather than a gun, since there were no guns.

peter hoh said...

Florida, you seem to have forgotten that the violent rhetoric we are discussing is coming from the left, not the right.

There will be no serious effort to limit second amendment rights as a result of this shooting. A handful of northeast pols making a little noise in order to convince their constituents that they are "doing something" doesn't count as a serious effort.

JAL said...

I am glad to hear that Ms. Giffords is making progress.

Prayers for the injured still.

And prayers for comfort for the families who lost their loved ones.

Night all.

Fen said...

/Gateway Pundit

"Trent Humphries has been receiving death threats all week since the national media and their leftist cohorts began blaming the tea party for the shooting by the leftwing pothead."

Eric Fuller was radicalized by MSM demonization of the Tea Party.

Its time to pull CNN, MSNBC, et al off the air. Shut down NYTs and WaPo too. They are formenting hate, provoking Libtard violence directed toward Tea Party members.

/s

Lem said...

I think you should temper your rhetoric before yet another Libtard loses it.

Its good to see Fen holding our feet to the fire.. oh wait..

doh!!

Synova said...

Peter, I agree that there is no threat to 2nd Amendment rights as a result of this shooting. It's only actually relevant because of the context of Fuller's public spectacle. He became angry when the Tea Party guy at the town hall meeting suggested that now was probably not the time to debate gun control.

Apparently Fuller, who should be allowed much on account of he's a victim, wanted to talk about gun control.

And Fuller's friend wants us to respect him and his wishes.

So there you go.

The Crack Emcee said...

Whoa, daddy - NARRATIVE SHIFT!!

And it's going my way,...

Florida said...

"The only problem I have with "God given right to have a gun" is that it doesn't... travel."

The sentiment travels well, however.

The right we're discussing is the inherent inalienable right of self defense ... by whatever means are at hand. Guns are just the current tool men use to secure that right, descendants of the jawbones of asses and mere sticks and stones before them and fists before that.

Phasers will be next.

So, I'm pretty sure this right will travel at warp speed.

The larger issue is that these Democrats are being taught in our schools by the unions that we're "advocating" for these rights. That whoever advocates the best gets to make whatever rules they want.

They think these rights are always up for debate - and that if they lose the debate today, we can debate again tomorrow and again and again until they win.

And so they're mystified when we take their threats to separate us from these rights seriously.

They don't care that they're playing a deathly game until the bodies hit the floor and then there is much whinging about the violence.

Stumps me how people with so many learned degrees can be so uneducated.

Scott M said...

Pete

How about a inalienable right for self-defense? Do you at least go that far?

PatCA said...

He seems like another one about to go off.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/01/j-eric-fullers-profile-a-few-answers-and-many-questions/

peter hoh said...

Scott, yes, in theory there's an inalienable right to self defense.

In practice, I think your right to self defense evaporates if the people breaking into your house are police officers.

Fen said...

In practice, I think your right to self defense evaporates if the people breaking into your house are police officers

No. It does not.

Synova said...

Cool, Crack. Thanks.

"If you've ever gone browsing in an occult bookstore (and you really should; it's like browsing in a science fiction bookstore, only the authors really believe the stories they're writing, or pretend to), you may have seen a shelf labeled "conspiracies" right alongside the sections marked "astrology" or "Tarot.""

Have I ever told you about my Scooby-Doo theory of everything?

Remember when Scooby and the Gang were a force for science and reason and against superstition?

Notice how that changed?

Scott M said...

Only if said cops are following the rules to the letter. There have been some cases of late where that wasn't the case.

In any case, remember that the cops are not there to prevent crime. They usually show up afterward. It's up to you to protect your own life and limb. That would be true regardless of the established charter of our nation's laws. We just happen to live in a state where the reality is codified.

peter hoh said...

I should be more clear.

I agree that there's an inalienable right to self defense, as laid out in our founding documents.

In practice, it appears that there are some limits. For instance, different states have different positions with regard to the castle doctrine.

And you're kinda screwed if you shoot at armed men breaking down your door -- if they are cops accidentally raiding the wrong house.

Florida said...

There will be no serious effort to limit second amendment rights as a result of this shooting."

Let me amplify your statement. There will be no serious effort to limit second amendment rights because that would violate the Constitution.

The shooting in Pima County has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Even if there was 20 more shootings just like it, there cannot be a serious effort to limit second amendment rights because that would violate the Constitution.

If there's a problem (and that's debatable) ... then society must come up with some other solution because "limiting second amendment rights" isn't even an option.

In the absence of a Constitution, we'd still have an inalienable right to self-defense using any tool at hand - be they guns or knives or pushing people out of windows.

It's my proposition that it is the "gun-free zone" that is getting people killed because all gun-free zones do is create an environment where whack jobs can be reasonably assured that nobody will be able to stop them until they run out of ammo.

Democrats create "killing zones" (with the best of intentions). In fact, Rep. Peter King proposed a new one in response to the killing in Tuscon.

That's the problem we need to stop.

The problem we have is Rep. Peter King and the other morons like him. But rest-assured we're slowly but surely solving that problem by firing these fucking bozos.

Scott M said...

And you're kinda screwed if you shoot at armed men breaking down your door -- if they are cops accidentally raiding the wrong house.

You're as screwed as you would be if any group of armed people decided to break down your door. I would suggest that while you are screwed in the very near term, they are screwed from that point on.

No knock door busts on the wrong house have consequences. Just like death threats at Tea Party meetings.

Gene said...

The LA Times, to my great surprise, has a very good story by Robin Abcarian on Loughner's mental deterioration over the last couple of years.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jared-loughner-20110116,0,2115673.story?page=1

The article notes that Loughner's apparent delusions, coupled with his strange behavior in class made more than one student fear he was the kind of guy who might come to school with a gun one day.

The article says he was fired from six consecutive jobs, including a volunteer one as as a dog walker. He complained of filing out 65 job applications without a single response. The army rejected him on account of his drug use. His posts on an online gaming site were "paranoid, delusional and grandiose."

According to one of his friends, Loughner had no interest in politics whatsoever and only voted twice in his life.

Although the story doesn't mention Sarah Palin (or his even having known of her existance), nevertheless I suspect in a few days someone will will write yet another story about Palin claiming that her combative rhetoric created such a hostile psychic climate in Arizona that it totally severed Loughner's fragile grip on reality and the result was he shot 20 people.

Fen said...

And you're kinda screwed if you shoot at armed men breaking down your door -- if they are cops accidentally raiding the wrong house.

Actually no. I'm a former Marine with some hefty firepower. Its the policemen who break down my door without identifying themselves that are screwed.

The Crack Emcee said...

Synova,

Have I ever told you about my Scooby-Doo theory of everything?

Oh, do tell,...

Florida said...

New York Post:

The Democrat political operative, James Fuller, "was arrested on misdemeanor disorderly conduct and threat charges. While Fuller was being escorted out, deputies decided he needed a mental health evaluation and he was taken to a hospital, where he remained this evening. The hospital will determine when he will be released, Ogan said."

I would hazard a guess that if this guy is let loose upon society by that hospital and then he goes on his killing spree and murders the Tea Party representative - as he has threatened to do - then that hospital would probably face some pretty serious legal and civil issues.

This Democrat clearly is mentally ill and to let that Democrat, after he has threatened to kill these people, back out onto the streets, would be a huge mistake.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/tucson_victim_arrested_for_tea_party_4CIX3YStuuVaOtFzmQoFkO#ixzz1BAy0cUDX

Synova said...

"Scott, yes, in theory there's an inalienable right to self defense.

In practice, I think your right to self defense evaporates if the people breaking into your house are police officers.
"

The right to security in one's home was a big deal for the founders and the reason that we have extensive rules to limit intrusion into homes.

Police breaking into a house ought to expect to be shot at... by criminals if they've met all the requirements that actually allow them to kick down a door... and by law abiding citizens with the right to self-defense if the cops screw up and kick down the wrong door.

peter hoh said...

Scott, I haven't been able to find the link, but I am fairly certain that I read about a guy convicted of killing a police officer who was part of a no-knock raid on the wrong house. The doctrine of self-defense did not protect this guy.

But that's kind of beside the point. I support the constitutional right to self defense. I am merely trying to point out that it is subject to interpretation.

Fen said...

No worries Peter, I understand the point you're trying to make

/lookie lookie! Fen is being civil! Bookmark it.

peter hoh said...

I may have been thinking of the case of Cory Maye. Looks like he has another chance at getting justice.

Florida said...

"I am merely trying to point out that it is subject to interpretation."

No, it is not. That's the problem. You're mistaken because you've been brainwashed into believing that rights are to be interpreted out of existence.

Liberals think that our rights are subject to their interpretation (and my what a coincidence that their interpretation always seems to place limits those rights).

We have a God-given right to self defense using firearms. Says so right there in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has also struck down un-Constitutional laws restricting those rights.

Our God-given rights are not up for debate or re-imagining or re-interpretation by men. Period. Full Stop.

And any man who seeks to limit those rights is committing an act of violence upon all men that will surely be met with same.

rhhardin said...

TV events attract TV people.

Florida said...

"Looks like he has another chance at getting justice."

Yes. His conviction has been vacated and a new trial ordered by the Mississippi Supreme Court for precisely the reasons discussed in this thread.

The court ruled that the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury that Maye had a right of self-defense and a right to defend his juvenile daughter.

We all have an inalienable right to defend ourselves using guns.

No mere men can put that right asunder either explicitly or through so much regulation as to make it impossible.

http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO65411.pdf

peter hoh said...

Florida, then why do laws governing self-defense (castle doctrine, for instance) vary from state to state?

I realize that you are trying to suggest that it is all the fault of liberals that there are any limits to the right to self defense. Even if there were no liberals and no Democrats, the right to self defense would still be interpreted by legislatures and courts.

peter hoh said...

Furthermore, Florida, you claim that I've "been brainwashed into believing that rights are to be interpreted out of existence."

Upthread, I reiterated my support for the second amendment. And here you are telling me that I don't believe in it.

Bullshit.

peter hoh said...

Maye still needs to convince a jury that his actions were justified under the idea of self defense.

Florida said...

"And here you are telling me that I don't believe in it."

No, what I am trying to say is that you believe that rights are open to interpretation.

They aren't.

It's not your fault. You've been educated to believe that rights are to be interpreted (even to the point of making them non-existent) by the very people trying to eliminate your rights; and so through no fault of your own, you've reached an incorrect conclusion.

Many have because Democrats run the education system and are brainwashing people to believe that rights can be limited.

Men are endowed with certain inalienable rights ... among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Democrats cannot limit those rights through re-interpretation, re-imagination, or any other stupid device that they come up with.

And if they try to do that they are committing a violent act upon men.

They should expect the same in return.

Synova said...

Crack, it's just the observation that Scooby-Doo mirrors a profound societal change. The "meddling kids" were always up against forces of superstition and irrational fear. The ghost was never real, and the possibility of the ghost being real was never entertained. Fred and Daphne and Velma *knew* that reason and rationality and science represented truth and that their job was to tear away the illusions. Also, they were the young ones, the radicals... the forces of superstition were old people.

The first rendition followed this. The second one, with all the guest-stars, followed this.

But Scooby-Doo changed. The cast changed. The first people to go were the ones that represented reason most strongly. Velma and Fred. And the villains changed. They no longer used superstition to delude and dupe the people in order to steal from them. The ghosts became real. The witches became real. The aliens became real. Not only that, but the ghosts and witches and aliens aren't even the bad-guys anymore.

Our culture tries to tell itself that it respects science and reason, but it doesn't. And it's generally the people who claim the hardest to respect science and reason that respect it the least. How can someone make that claim but also claim no objective truth?

It's a "theory of everything" because it applies to everything. Explains almost everything.

The email the chancellor of Berkeley sent out is almost chilling if one thinks about it. This representative of the academy asserts as "truth" the notion that the shooting in Arizona was due to the rejection of his pet political causes. This *unreason* from the very person who ought to be the foremost defender of reason can only be chilling.

And he's not alone by any means. Some commentator named Cohen, IIRC, made the statement that the question of Palin's responsibility for the Tucon shooting was one of those unknowable things subject to political opinion. Again, no objective truth. What is real becomes whatever someone wants it to be simply because they prefer it.

Velma would be disgusted with us.

Synova said...

"Maye still needs to convince a jury that his actions were justified under the idea of self defense."

Hopefully he succeeds.

If he does convince a jury or not, however, doesn't change the truth. The jury does not *create* truth.

Florida said...

"Maye still needs to convince a jury that his actions were justified under the idea of self defense."

I hate to correct you again, but again you've made another fundamental civics mistake.

You see, Maye doesn't have to prove anything. The state has the burden of proof and must overcome the presumption that Maye was acting in self defense.

The state must prove that he was clearly NOT acting in self-defense.

peter hoh said...

Florida, I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that -- as a practical matter -- Maye needs to take the stand to convince the jury that he acted in self defense.

Clearly, his claim of self defense didn't prevent his conviction the first time.

On the other topic, if our rights are absolute, how come different states have different laws regarding those rights?

Florida said...

Mississippi Supreme Court (see note on page 9):

"We note that the jury was not specifically instructed on who has the burden of proof
on self-defense. As we held in Pierce v. State, 289 So. 2d 901 (Miss. 1974), the burden of
proof to prove self-defense is not on the defendant. Rather, it lies with the State to prove that
the defendant did not act in self-defense.
Id. at 902. But instruction number 2 told the jury
that “the State [has] the burden of proving the defendant guilty of every material element of
the crime . . .” and that “[t]he defendant is not required to prove his innocence.” This
instruction survives the Pierce rule, since it informed the jury that it should not look to Maye
to prove self-defense, but to the State to prove the lack thereof.


The state has to prove that Maye, awakened from a sleep to men breaking his doors down, had no right to defend himself and his daughter against such a home intrusion (by proving that the police adequately identified themselves in such a way as there could be no possible interpretation otherwise.)

The state can't simply claim that.

The state must to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO65411.pdf

Synova said...

I would argue that part of what makes something a right, particularly an inalienable right, isn't the law but consequences.

The law doesn't define justice. The law might actually embody injustice.

What defines justice is consequences to society. The consequence to *society* if people are not secure in their homes from the police is dire.

Florida said...

"Clearly, his claim of self defense didn't prevent his conviction the first time."

And that is because the jury was not properly instructed by the judge ... as the Mississippi Supreme Court pointed out very succinctly.

Maye's conviction is an error caused by a judge who refused to properly instruct the jury on its duty.

I doubt a second jury, which is properly educated about what they must do, will convict Maye.

That would be my hope, anyway.

I think he can reasonably argue self-defense even if it's implausible. And so there is a reasonable amount of doubt there in my view (since he only shot one cop and dropped the weapon once he was informed he just shot a cop).

Florida said...

"I am not a lawyer ..."

For the record, I am not a lawyer either, but I did make an A in 9th grade Civics ... back when there was such a thing as Republican teachers.

Now that teachers are entirely dominated by the Democrat Party and its public employee unions ... you're not getting the education that I got because they don't want you to understand your rights.

peter hoh said...

Florida, you have no idea where I got my education, when I got it, or the politics of my teachers. You have a narrative you're pushing, and you make every effort to squeeze things into it.

Youngblood said...

John wrote:

"No matter what side of the issues you are on, I think we can all agree that innocent American citizens do not need to die !"

Project much?

Nobody here is suggesting that innocent American citizens need to die.

It was your friend Mr. Fuller who suggested that Mr. Humphries, an innocent American citizen, needed to die by making a threat against his person.

Florida said...

" ... you have no idea where I got my education, when I got it, or the politics of my teachers."

I have a pretty good idea because of the things that you write

If you'd like, you can tell us where you got your education. It should be trivial at that point to demonstrate that you were inculcated by Democrat Party partisans.

If I may ask, where did you go to school; which degree did you earn and what year you graduate?

Florida said...

" ... then why do laws governing self-defense (castle doctrine, for instance) vary from state to state?"

I don't believe that they significantly vary. But the answer is that there are 50 states but only 9 Supreme Court justices who hear a very limited number of cases each year.

Thus, there is a limit to the number of unconstitutional laws that can be struck down.

A secondary cause is that not all of the 50 states passed their laws simultaneously; and so as the jurisprudence has evolved some states are still behind in updating their laws to conform to court decisions.

What is important, however, is how states prosecute the law (not what is actually written).

No state that I know of prosecutes people who kill home invaders with guns in self-defense. Thus, no cases have come before the courts for those laws to be struck down.

MayBee said...

John, are you still here? You said, "Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view. "

I say, you don't have to accept it at all. You just have to live within the laws and/or seek to change them. You can disagree all you want.

Are you asking people who advocate the right to bear arms to accept your point of view?

Revenant said...

Getting that close to being killed can have an affect on an individual

This is true. Presumably the guy wasn't issuing death threats the week before last. But if it IS psychological trauma that's causing him to act this way then he needs to be committed and treated.

and let us remember a Republican in AZ resigned from his office because of what he described as threats from the Tea Party.

Do you have a quote from him in which he describes the comments as "threats"? The original Arizona Republic article about his resignation refers to "verbal attacks". Other media cited that article and rewrote it to refer to "threats from the Tea Party".

So far as I can tell, it is just more slander from the lamestream media. The guy resigned because Republican voters hated him and because he's a giant pussy. Good riddance.

Revenant said...

Florida, then why do laws governing self-defense (castle doctrine, for instance) vary from state to state?

Because not all laws respect inalienable rights.

"Inalienable right" just means that it is wrong for governments to take that right away from you, not that they are incapable of doing so. E.g., even though all of us have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the government went right ahead and enforced laws protecting slavers up through 1865.

Revenant said...

I will say Eric could have handled things differently but let us not forget he is one of the victims.

He is the victim in the Safeway shooting.

In the case of the Amanpour town hall meeting, he is not the victim. He is the perpetrator. The criminal. The violent offender, attacking the innocent.

That may be because he is, at the moment, insane. If he is not currently insane, however, then he should be in prison with the rest of the thugs. There were a lot of victims at the Safeway, and thus far he's the only one making death threats. Maybe he's suffering from PTSD, or maybe he's just a violent asshole who thinks other people don't matter as much as him.

The courts will hopefully figure it out.

Synova said...

Quite right.

People can be made slaves, no matter their inalienable right not to be made slaves.

Speech can be censored and thoughts criminalized. Religious faith can be outlawed and self-defense forbidden.

Revenant said...

Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view.

Similarly, those of us who advocate the right of women to vote also ask -- expect -- those of you who disagree to accept our point of view.

If you don't like these sorts of things, there are lots of other countries to live in that don't have them. You don't have to live in a country that respects basic human rights if you really don't want to.

Clyde said...

I stand by what I wrote yesterday about Mr. Fuller:

"What a Dupnik!

"It doesn't say what kind of 'disabled veteran' he is but I'm guessing something involving a metal plate in his head."

I got a good laugh yesterday reading Charles (?) Blow's editorial at the NY Times about how the Left's demand for civility had backfired. He wrote something to the effect of "the preponderance of hateful rhetoric comes from the Republicans and the Tea Party." And I wondered, "Dude, have you even been listening to the people on the Left?" Mr. Fuller's hatefulness is not atypical for the Kos-Democratic Underground axis.

I think most of us figured that Mr. Fuller was due for a crack-up, we just didn't think it would happen so quickly. May he get the mental help that he so obviously needs.

Clyde said...

JOHN wrote:

"Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view. Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm. Why are we made out to be crazy?"

Because it is in the United States Constitution. Many of us swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" when we entered the military, and that oath doesn't expire when leaving the service.

You can have our constitutional rights when you pry them from our cold, dead fingers.

And, just as a bonus thought, disarming law-abiding citizens does not lead to lower crime rates. If it did, cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. would be among the safest in our nation.

LarsPorsena said...

We need to know what kind of disability this guy got in the military. Sounds like a box-load of cat food fell off the shelf at the PX and hit him in the head.

In all seriousness, check his DD214.
Something smells about this 'vet'.

Roger J. said...

I see Lars and I are the early risers--re JOHN's cri d'coeur. Did it strike anyone as interesting John decided to post this on althouse shortly after her post went on line? Has John ever posted here before? Hmmmm I have my doubts--looks like a plant to me.

As for the Cory Maye (and other cases like the one in Maryland where the cops killed dogs for no apparent reason other than to assert their manhood)--irrespective of self defense, arent the cops ultimately protected by sovereign immunity? Would welcome some legal interpretation.

Save for John, i note our resident progressives havent showed up--assume they are waiting for the talking points.

My guess is fuller is some dude who toked far too often and got caught up in the 60s rhetoric-- brain is fried and didnt make it as big as Rudd Ayers and the rest of the 60s radical slimeballs.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Maguro: I blame Paul Krugman and his divisive rhetoric.

No way, this is Obama's fault! He gave a eulogy that was supposed to heal the country, but it was one sided. He called for civility but didn't call out the left as well as the right on the issue. He didn't call out himself!

AllenS said...

"Together We Thrive, Tomorrow You're Dead, Man”

JOHN,

Would you do me a favor, tell your friend that if he wants to get himself some right wing Tea Partier, have him call me.

Lars,

When I find out more about this character, like his first name, I'll file a Freedom of Information Act request, and then we'll know. As a wounded (gunshot) Veteran, I smell bullshit. Something tells me that alcohol was involved.

Ut said...

"You're Dead, Man”

Will the University of Arizona be spending $60,000 of our tax dollars to make up new t-shirts with the "You're A Dead Man" logo on them I wonder?

Roger J. said...

Ut--with any luck the citizens of arizona will pick up that bill; unless, of course, the white house authorized it and charged the US taxpayers. Either way--tacky tacky tacky

kcom said...

"Fuller didn't get the "civility" memo."

Or the facts.

traditionalguy said...

Fuller sounds like a normal man venting his very proper feelings against Loughner the Laughfer. I suspect he used the chance to make himself a favorite of the Dems by a televised public re-targeting those emotions against Palin et al.. and did I tell you who set the Reichstag afire?

kent said...

And the Lefties thought

Not hard enough. Or long enough.

Ever.

kent said...

Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers [...] Why are we made out to be crazy?

You really don't know. That's what makes this all so hysterically, falling-down funny.

And so delicious.

LarsPorsena said...

"..Lars,

When I find out more about this character, like his first name, I'll file a Freedom of Information Act request, and then we'll know. As a wounded (gunshot) Veteran, I smell bullshit. Something tells me that alcohol was involved..."

He's in our age cohort which means VietNam era.
He's been described as having a 'non-physical' service disability.
I'm betting he (like myself) was a CONUS warrior and gamed the system for 100% disablity after tripping over a tent peg.

Florida said...

"I suspect he used the chance to make himself a favorite of the Dems by a televised public re-targeting those emotions against Palin"

Sounds like a very astute businessman to me. He did spend quite a bit of time before the town hall handing out his business cards - trying to solicit business on the backs of a bunch of murdered innocents.

We know that much.

And we also know that Democrats are susceptible to these sorts of sales pitches ... you know even if they have no substance in reality.

I bet he's set himself up for life with all the business he'll now get from fellow Democrats.

That is if they ever let him out of the mental institution they've placed him in.

Are mental hospitals immunized if they release an insane person who has threatened the lives of others on national television out of the hospital and then that person goes ahead and executes his killing spree? Because this guy is carrying a lot of hatred around for the Tea Party and it's unfounded hatred. The Tea Party had nothing whatsoever to do with his - or Jared Loughner - being at that Safeway.

So his hatred isn't merely abnormal, it's also irrational. And it seems like a mental institution is the place most suited to providing this Democrat - and so many other Democrats just like him - with the health care they sorely require.

Hell, I'd even pay more in taxes just to make sure they got some of that there ... health care.

kent said...

He did spend quite a bit of time before the town hall handing out his business cards - trying to solicit business on the backs of a bunch of murdered innocents.

Simply following in the footsteps of his beloved Boy-King Emperor, who shabbily launched his re-election campaign bid with a raucous, full-bore pep rally two nights ago on the backs of those selfsame murdered innocents.

"Leftard See, Leftard Do."

kent said...

Eric Fuller Involuntarily Committed

That ought to qualify him either for either a position in the current administration's cabinet, or else his own prime time slot on MSNBC -- whichever comes first.

AllenS said...

Lars,

I have a friend, a good man, a veteran who served in the Navy from about 1960-64. He smoked 2-3 packs of cigarettes until about 6 years ago when he developed lung cancer, lost one lung, and now calls himself a disabled veteran. Which is true, but unless you knew the circumstances, it's actually a false statement by omission. He has an intense hatred of Bush.

kcom said...

"And this: http://www.hypnothoughts.com/profile/JamesEricFuller

(Seems like no Vietnam.)
"

Maybe he got mixed up and accidentally went to the wrong hypno place one day.

kent said...

AP Early Report on Fuller Arrest Ignores His 'Democracy Now' Radio Fulminations

Just gets better and better, doesn't it...?

kent said...

Relevant Cartoon Break #1

Relevant Cartoon Break #2

kcom said...

How about this horrible thought - being involuntarily commited to MSNBC. Shiver.

kent said...

How about this horrible thought - being involuntarily commited to MSNBC. Shiver.

"... and, of course, you'll be sharing your dressing room with Mr. Maddow..."

Florida said...

The Democrat operative Eric Fuller is kind of a marginal personality and clearly of a low mentality seeing as how he broadcast his death threats against the Tea Party in front of a live television studio audience in a segment that was being tape recorded by ABCNews.

We'll see of ABCNews airs this news.

I kind of doubt they will seeing as how it doesn't fit their narrative.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@peter hoh:

The difference between your position and Florida's is that you are talking about LEGAL rights and he is talking about HUMAN rights.

For example, look at the restrictions on Jews' rights in the Nuremberg Laws. Of course Germany had the POWER to strip Jews of their rights, and you would be right to say that in Germany Jews did not have certain rights that other people did. Similarly with slavery; enslaved blacks had few rights until 1865. (Not none, for example it was illegal to murder a slave, though in practice I doubt anyone was convicted.)

However, Florida would say that Jews in Germany and slaves in the antebellum US still had their MORAL rights to being treated equally under the law, defend themselves and their property, etc., but that these rights were illegitimately denied them by the Constitution as it existed then.

Now I think that you are in general far more reasonable than Florida but your attitude troubles me a bit. If our moral rights are based on what the law allows, then you're just saying that we aren't entitled to rights unless people with power grant them to us. In other words, "unjust law" becomes a contradiction in terms.

Moral and legal are two different things. That's why you two are talking past each other--well one reason anyway.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

That pesky Constitution always getting in the lefties way.

kent said...

Mission accomplished, Markos Moulitsas.

EXCERPT: "Now, this sort of intimidation will of course not stop Mr. Humphries; unlike some groups, the Tea Party is not made up of mostly cowardly scum. But it is fascinating to see that, after a week of the Online Left’s increasingly-shrill insistence that unwise speech leads to threats, it turns out that possibly it does… if you’re talking about the weak-willed wretches who actually take certain members of the Online Left seriously as a moral, ethical, or intellectual movement. Which is fortunately not very much of the population - but it only takes one programmed dupe, doesn’t it?

"-- At least, that was what we kept getting told."

jr565 said...

Curtiss wrote:
Ha! An another fringe extremist driven to action by listening to the Palin-Beck-Limbaugh-Boehner-FNC-Bill O'Reilly-Meghan Kelly violent rhetoric.

Actually maybe there is something to that. We're thinking that its supporters of Palin and co. that hear their rhetoric and are driven to a frenzy, but maybe it's the opposite. Maybe the dems are so incensed by the words they hear they have to start killing people.
I know everytime I listen to Olbermann I start screaming at the tv. Though I don't commit murder obviously. But you know liberals, no impulse control.
So I guess we can blame Palin. She shouldn't say things that piss off deranged people as they're unbalanced and liable to commit murder. If the conservative pundits would just agree with dems 100% they (the dems) wouddn't have to go on violent killing sprees. Why can't we get back to speaking truth to power and wishing for George BUsh to die? Is that so unreasonable?

kent said...

We'll see of ABCNews airs this news.

I kind of doubt they will seeing as how it doesn't fit their narrative.


Bingo. Florida called it:


ABC World News Reports Threat at its Tucson Town Hall, Omits it Was Made to a Tea Partier

Roger J. said...

I am curious as to how the progressives in the fever swamps of kos/du/huffington are playing this one--when I dont see commentary from Alpha, I am guessing the "narrative" has yet to be formed--we all know it will be sarah palin's fault, but I want to see how they reach that conclusion.

kent said...

Alpha is currently "shunning" (his word) the Professor, due to his stated belief that even her mild, apologetic criticisms of The Boy King are -- I shit you not -- "sinful."

Religious fanaticism. Never, ever a pretty thing, really.

Roger J. said...

Wow--losing House and Alpha in one week--life is good

Florida said...

"I am guessing the "narrative" has yet to be formed ..."

No, the narrative has been formed.

They will not engage in discussion on this topic because there is no way they can spin it to their favor.

They've been instructed not to comment in the hopes that without their gasoline on the fire, the discussion will end quietly.

Big Mike said...

@kent, don't forget that ABC also neglected to mention that it was a death threat.

Apparently the seriousness of the threat and its target were not "newsworthy" in the eyes of Christine Amanpour and the producers at ABC.

If they're wondering how come no one watches their network except when "Castle" is on, this might give them a clue. Or it would except, of course, that they're clueless.

Big Mike said...

@Roger, I'm sure they'll be back.

Chef Mojo said...

(...)was arrested on misdemeanor disorderly conduct and threat charges. While Fuller was being escorted out, deputies decided he needed a mental health evaluation and he was taken to a hospital, where he remained this evening. The hospital will determine when he will be released, Ogan said.

Huh? Sheriff's deputies can just decide a guy needs a mental health evaluation?

And yet, despite Jared Laughner's consistently escalating erratic and anti-social behavior, he got a pass by these same deputies?

peter hoh said...

Gabriel @ 8:54, you articulate a distinction that I failed to make clear last night.

You wrote: If our moral rights are based on what the law allows, then you're just saying that we aren't entitled to rights unless people with power grant them to us. In other words, "unjust law" becomes a contradiction in terms.

That's not my position.

Yes, we have inalienable rights -- our moral rights, or human rights -- that are not granted by government.

As a practical matter, how we enjoy these rights depends a great deal on how the government -- and we, the people -- understand those rights and apply those rights.

When our rights come into conflict, we appeal to the courts to settle the issue. We subject ourselves to the legal reasoning of the courts. It's an ongoing, imperfect process. We are human, after all.

mariner said...

JOHN,
Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect. Granted Eric has some very defined views however no one should be made a villain for his views.

We're showing Mr. Fuller more respect than he showed for us, or for Ted Humphries.

He isn't being made a villain for his views, he made himself a villain by making violent threats against someone who was no threat to him.

kent said...

Eric Fuller -- last seen being involuntarily committed on the grounds of being a full-bore, thundering leftist freakshow -- is still (STILL!) ranting impotently, re: Palin:

"I know they're just going to attack, they would probably attack me. They'll distort. Particularly Miss Blood Libel herself. The spoiled princess party. I am willing to take them on."

Holy.

Freaking.

CRAP.

@ "JOHN": your "friend" is a dangerously violent (and balls-out certifiable) 'wipe.

kent said...

Will The Media Investigate Why Eric Fuller Targeted Trent Humphries?

Chef Mojo said...

Alpha is currently "shunning" (his word) the Professor, due to his stated belief that even her mild, apologetic criticisms of The Boy King are -- I shit you not -- "sinful."x

Actually, Alpha is "shunning" because he spent a week getting his ass handed to him time after time.

He's gone off to grow himself a new ass.

wv: surentha: "I surentha," muttered Alpha after getting his ass handed to him for the nth time...

Trooper York said...

I was inclined to give him a pass. Not anymore.

Although I don't think he should be prosecuted for his views which he is entitled to express under the First Amendment.

He has the view of most liberals, Democrats, and fellow travelers in the mainsteam media. The Tea Party,Fox News, Rush, Beck and Palin should be destroyed by any means necessary. Violently if necessary. He is just more honest than most. I suppose he was upset and could not dissemble the way he normally would have when speaking to an outside group. His emotions got the best of him.

Typical.

Trooper York said...

"If they're wondering how come no one watches their network except when "Castle" is on, this might give them a clue"

Hey that's not true!

Modern Family is a pretty cool show.

kent said...

Although I don't think he should be prosecuted for his views which he is entitled to express under the First Amendment. [...] His emotions got the best of him.

You're so bloody imperturbably nice all the time, Trooper, that I occasionally get this freakish mental image of you tarted up like Mary Poppins, sweetly humming "Just A Spoonful of Sugar" while you post.

Then, of course, I curl up in the fetal position, and have myself a good, exhausting cry.

Methadras said...

Leftard derangement on full display. How soon before leftard political operatives start to train their own leftards to come off as right wingers/conservatives to begin a campaign of terror to blame evil acts on to support and promote their leftard ideology? It'll happen and it won't be pretty. Alinksi/Erkle would be pleased however.

Methadras said...

JOHN said...

Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect. Granted Eric has some very defined views however no one should be made a villain for his views. I will say Eric could have handled things differently but let us not forget he is one of the victims. Those of you who advocate the right to bear arms are asking us who disagree to accept your point of view. Well how about those of us do not believe everyone should have a firearm. Why are we made out to be crazy? And while it is obvious that Palin's website was not the cause of this incident. It certainly wouldn't hurt to tone things down a bit. No matter what side of the issues you are on, I think we can all agree that innocent American citizens do not need to die !


You know, I was going to take this bait, then I decided not to. Maybe you should talk to your personal 'friend' and set his shit straight for his own good.

Jay said...

Speaking as a personal friend of Mr. Fullers I would ask that everyone show some respect.

Uh, no.

He is obviously just another leftist who advocates violence against his political adversaries.

The list of people like that grows longer by the day...

Calypso Facto said...

"You're all whores!"

Obviously Fuller has been listening to the polite and civil tones of the head of the Wisconsin State Employee Union, Marty Biel, who recently said "[State Senator] Russ Decker is a whore!" when Decker didn't vote to approve Union contracts in the lame duck session.

Stay classy, Dems!

SarahW said...

@synova "listen to the voice of justice and consanguinity." is of course an allusion to the Declaration of Independence" which he has claimed to know by heart.

He's using it a little strangely - Jefferson/the signers were of course alluding to real blood ties between Englishmen and Americans - we we were of the same stock, shared family relationships, were the literal as well as figurative kinsmen of the English who were ignoring the colonists pleas for redress of wrongs against them.

Apparently his idea of cosanguinity does not extend to people who prefer limited government and ordered liberty.

Synova said...

Thanks, Sarah. It just seemed so odd in one of those internet synchronicity sorts of ways... I'd just participated in a discussion of the pitfalls involved in writing science fiction and including social rules that violate contemporary mores. As an example I'd brought up consanguinity. It certainly means "related by blood". In the context of Fuller's remarks it made no sense.

If he was cribbing off of earlier writing I can see how he may have thought it meant something more general, if he was going by context.

In the context of contemporary mores, I wouldn't expect it to be used as a *good* thing by anyone other than, oh, white supremacists or something.

Trooper York said...

I might be a lot things kent but nice is not one of them.

I like to think of myself as consistent and I want everyone have the right to say whatever they want to say no matter how stupid or destructive.