Sunday, January 16, 2011

Irony

Tucson, the town that was unable to stop a mentally unstable person from getting a gun, killing 6 and injuring 13, has suddenly found the "strength" to arrest a mentally unstable man: they've arrested a victim of the shooting who is upset about the fact that guns are so available and make life so dangerous that you can't go to an open meeting with a Congressional representative outside your local supermarket. Ironic!

Double dip the irony: the guy who represents the party of "no restrictions on guns, give guns to everybody, guns are a Constitutional right!" walks away chuckling while the victim of a gun shooting has been locked up for "mandatory evaluation".

Here are a few bits from a report from the NY Times:
A victim of the shooting spree here that killed six people and wounded 13, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, was arrested Saturday after he spoke threateningly at a televised forum intended to help this stricken city heal, the police and witnesses said.

The man, J. Eric Fuller, 63, a military veteran who supports Ms. Giffords, was involuntarily committed for a 72-hour mental health evaluation, said Jason Ogan, a spokesman for the Pima County sheriff’s office.

The sheriff's office has forwarded charges against Mr. Fuller of threats and intimidation, as well as disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors, to the county attorney's office, Mr. Ogan said.

Mr. Fuller, who was shot in the left knee and back on Jan. 8, was among several victims, medical personnel and others who attended a special forum at St. Odilia Catholic Church hosted by Christiane Amanpour to be televised Sunday on ABC.
I wasn't there. I don't know the details. But I find it exceedingly odd that the guy who supports unrestricted weapons plays the "victim" while the guy who was shot twice by a maniac is deemed "unstable" arrested and forceably detained as suspected of "mental instability". I guess this poor soul should have gotten on his knees and declared "Lord! I've seen the light! Bless the guns! Please pass out a gun to everybody. Let the toddlers have semi-automatics so they can defend their Constitutional rights when their parents won't give them ice cream for dinner! Let the maniacs have assault rifles so they can press their crazed political arguments more passionately in a crowd. And of course, let the students go armed to the teeth, bandoleers strapped across their chests, a long gun slung over their back and a pair of pistols in their belt so that they can ensure a more 'productive' learning environment in school!"

Again, I wasn't there. Maybe Fuller truly is unstable, but my guess-from-a-distance is that he is a man pushed past the point he can bear after being attacked by a maniac and having to put up with a representative of a party that argues more guns, not less guns, is the "solution" to society's problems. Sorry. But I feel that Fuller should have been sympathized with. And I would have thought that Humphries should have been escorted from the meeting just like you would escort a white guy in full KKK regalia from a meeting of the NAACP. It isn't the local secretary of the NAACP who is unhinged. It is the KKK guy who insists on his "rights" to attend meetings and spout off just after his group has burned crosses all over town and bombed the local church killing little black children. But just like in the late 1950s and early 1960s, I see the police arresting the victim while defending the "rights" of the fanatic. Strange!

Here is a more charitable interpretation of what happened. From the UK's Daily Mail
:
Fuller was in the front row and apparently became upset when Humphries suggested that any conversations about gun control should be delayed until all the dead were buried, KGUN-TV in Tucson reported.

Fuller stood, turned and snapped a picture of Humphries, said Pima County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jason Ogan.

'Then he yelled at him and said, 'You're dead,'' Mr Ogan said.
It is not clear what Fuller's aim was, but he may have been attempting to make a point about gun control - using his camera in lieu of a gun to demonstrate how quickly firearms can kill.
This account rings true to me. A victim was driven to rage by a gun advocate trying to squelch any debate, so he stood up and tried to make a point with his camera of just how easily, how quickly, people can be killed if you let guns be as easy to access as weapons.

Again... I don't know the truth. But I find it ironic and unsettling that a victim of a crime is arrested while a political representative of the very party advocating easy access to guns walks free. Something is seriously unbalanced in that society, and it isn't clear to me that Eric Fuller is the one who is mentally unstable.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

RY;

If he was using his camera as a demonstration of how easy it would be for this person or others in the audience to be shot; he made a good demonstration. It should make people think about it a little more. Another aspect that should make citizens think is the doors to any federal building or even county courthouse will not allow even a small knife to enter, but so many think that it is perfectly fine to walk the streets with a gun strapped to you and in AZ anyone can have a concealed weapon with no exam or course to determine competence. This is simply ludicrous. Most think nothing of a ban on guns and weapons on a plane, but it seems fine for anyone to carry a gun in other social gatherings or on the streets. Who thinks this a little out of whack? Why do some feel the need to carry while walking around town? Why do some think that this is necessary for our freedom to remain intact? What kind of society does this create? Detroit during the prohibition days when you had to carry a gun to survive a walk in the park? Why don't people see the danger this imposes on our society?

RYviewpoint said...

Thomas: Thanks for the vote of support. I always worry that I'm going over to an extreme. Especially in a case like this where I'm almost 2,000 miles away and relying on news reports.

What triggered me to write the post was watching ABC News' "This Week with Christine Amanapour" which just barely touched on this incident and left the impression that arresting this guy was obviously the right thing to do.

My immediate reaction is: don't you give a victim of violence a break? The guy was traumatized by being shot twice. Why arrest him?

Then as I dug deeper, it seemed pretty clear to me that the police were "closing the barn door after the horse has left". They should have arrested Jared Loughner. They were too late for that. But like generals fighting the last war, they were quick on the draw to grab this guy and hustle him off for a mental evaluation and level two charges against him.

The more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. The UK Daily Mail account suggesting that Eric Fuller was trying to make a point just "clicked" and made sense.

Again... I don't know, I wasn't there. But that makes the most sense to me. So it makes the irony of arresting a victim just that much more obvious.

I agree with you that it makes no sense that you have to pass an exam to drive a dangerous vehicle, but there is no exam or check of mental competency before you get a gun, not a little six shooter, but a semi-automatic that can carry 31 rounds. What kind of "target pistol" is that? How can you have rights to that kind of dangerous weapon and not hand out diving licenses with no exams to 3 year olds?

America is screwy over guns because of the 2nd Amendment. What makes it especially crazy is that -- to a person like me -- it is obvious that the "right" being extended is to states to form militias, not for every Tom, Dick, & Harry to arm themselves to the teeth with assault rifles and magazines with dozens and dozens of bullets.

RYviewpoint said...

Thomas: Please call me to account when you think I've gone off the deep end. I'm as liable to being "off the mark" as anybody else. So when you think I've got the story wrong, let me know. I've had enough experience with your comments and spent enough time looking at your blog that I have confidence in your judgement. We may not agree on everything, but I do value your opinions.

Unknown said...

RY;

I think it is essential that everybody has a person or more that they talk with and can say things that would get them in trouble with strangers but in the intimacy of their own homes or friends homes, they are given the feedback that helps them to realize they are going over the line of reasonable rhetoric.. or, at least they can get things off their chest.. I know you know that I get carried away with ideas and rhetoric or pessimism. I rely on your sound judgement... But, I do appreciate your (need html for bolding or underlining) vote of confidence . Anyway, I will do my best to be honest when I see fringe thinking in your writing..

As far as this subject goes; I grew up with the NRA ideologies preached at me and with guns all around the house.. I still like to look at guns and I like sport target shooting, but I don't agree with letting just anybody carry a concealed weapon and I don't think you need a gun to run down to the convenience store or bar for a beer or whatever.. I don't think civilized people should have to worry about being shot while out walking their dog or jogging.. I find it disconcerting to imagine that people should have to worry about being proficient with a gun so they can defend themselves in their own home or even worse while out enjoying their freedoms.

I have posted about this in the past and I have enjoyed your posts on this subject and I agree with what you have written.. more later, sometime.

RYviewpoint said...

Thomas:

Thanks for agreeing to double-check me. The Internet is a place that encourages the lunatic fringe and I too can hear the siren call of going over the edge. The whole point of a community is to give feedback to keep people from wandering too far from the beaten path.

I confess to a dual purpose. I do want to hear when you think I'm too extreme in my views. But I also want to encourage you to have your own point of view. As a teacher (long ago) I found that the best way to learn something is to try and teach it. Similarly, I find that writing things down helps me understand my own mind. It is important to have a viewpoint. And it is important to clash with different viewpoints (not opposed viewpoints, but a viewpoint with a different perspective).

I've lived most of my life in cities of well over 100,000 people. There is absolutely no need for a gun there except for target shooting at a shooting range.

I've spent a few years in small towns, less than 500 people, and I can understand the need for guns in rural areas. We used to have bears walk down "main street". In that size of town guns are OK but you do need a certification with a proficiency test (a gun is a serious responsibility).

I've never had a gun and wouldn't want one. But I can respect somebody that wants one. But a gun should be treated as a privilege and not a "right". You should get licensed to have the gun, prove you have a stable mind and have passed gun safety courses.

Funny, we license people to hunt, but we don't license the crazy people/criminals to get a gun and go shoot people. There is more paperwork to shoot at a deer than there is for a Jared Loughner to get a gun to kill 6 and injure 13.

The reason I was worried about getting too extreme is that I posted some stuff on RCMP violence in this province. It got a lot of hits. I found myself quite angry at the police cover-up and I found myself calling for a top-to-bottom house cleaning in Kelowna because that RCMP detachment was dragging its feet on addressing the assault by one of their own. After I cooled I realized that I was too "caught up" and let it push my rhetoric to an extreme. To be perfectly honest, when the victim of the kick to the face was interviewed and made it clear that he only saw "some bad apples" in the RCMP and wasn't ready to condemn the whole Kelowna outfit, I realized that I was probably getting swept away.

The good news is that the RCMP has been forced to bring in an independent police force to review the situation and the RCMP who kicked a suspect in the head has now been charged with criminal assault. But when I was red hot I was seeing the RCMP supervisor as part of a cover-up. The good news today about the independent review and charges came just as a group of over a hundred had gathered to protest in Kelowna. So the RCMP can be seen as caving in to prevent a "popular uprising" against their corruption. I don't live there, but I take the charges as good news, but I worry about how deep the urge is to clean up their organization.

You can probably tell from my wandering thoughts that I'm still having to fight with my tendency to go over-the-top on this case. But when you have corruption within government/police, that is really, really bad news for civil society. It is one thing to have criminals out robbing and stealing. It is a whole different level of threat to society when the corruption is within government and the police.