Shooting Victim Threatens Tucson Tea Party Leader

Jim Burroway

January 16th, 2011

James Eric Fuller, 63, a naval air veteran who was shot in the knee and had bullet fragments in his back as a the result of last week’s shooting at Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s meet-and-greet at a Tucson Safeway, was involuntarily committed for a mental-health evaluation after allegedly threatening a Tucson Tea Party leader during a local town hall meeting:

The theme of the event was “An American Conversation Continued” —  the idea being to continue the conversation that a madman’s brutal rampage had interrupted.  So it was inevitable that the conversation would eventually turn to politics. It did, toward the end, with (ABC News Anchor Christiane) Amanpour leading a discussion on a very touchy but obvious topic:  gun control.

That’s where the atmosphere turned tense. 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.”

When State Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson) rose to explain and clarify current and proposed gun legislation in the state, several people groaned or booed her.  One of those booing, according to several witnesses, was Fuller. Witnesses sitting near Fuller told KGUN9 News that Fuller was making them feel very uncomfortable.

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!”

Sheriffs deputies detained Fuller and charged him with one count of threats and intimidation, and said they plan to charge him with at least one count of disorderly conduct.  Humphries said that he plans to press those charges. The Associated Press reports that Fuller was taken to a local mental health facility for evaluation.

The town hall meeting at St. Odilia Catholic Church was organized by ABC-TV to discuss the shooting which killed six people and wounded thirteen, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Many Tucsonans were outraged when Humphries tried to blame the shooting on Gabrielle Giffords for not providing security at the event held at a Safeway parking lot. He also tried to cast the Tea Party as an additional victim in the tragedy.

St. Odilia had been the host of a community memorial service on January 11. Two of the six killed were Catholic, including nine-year-old Christina Taylor-Green who attended St. Odilia and sang in the parish’s children’s choir. Meanwhile, the Safeway where the shooting took place reopened yesterday morning following a moment of silence. Across town, a gun show opened at the Pima County Fairgrounds as originally planned and with nary a peep of protest. Things really are starting to get back to normal around here.

Update: Fuller apologizes:

Fuller apologized through his girlfriend, Dorothy Deruyter. He has been in a hospital since being involuntarily committed Saturday for a mental health evaluation but wrote a statement and called Deruyter.

Fuller apologized for his “misplaced outrage.” Deruyter said Fuller has no family or children, and was coping with the shooting almost entirely on his own and lost his temper.

Fuller is still undergoing psychological evaluation and treatment. Based on this New York Times profile, it looks like Fuller was combative before the shooting.

Lost Choi

January 16th, 2011

Question: Why is this Box Turtle news? Am I missing the connection to our community?

Tony P

January 16th, 2011

Ok, this one REALLY makes my head spin. A victim insults a Tea Partier and tells him he’s dead and is now involuntarily committed?

[This comment was edited to remove inappropriate language in accordance with our Comments Policy.]

Emily K

January 16th, 2011

Lost Choi, Jim was personally affected greatly by the Tuscon shootings because of his proximity to the tragedy.

Michael M.

January 16th, 2011

Here’s what I don’t understand: Throughout this ordeal, I’ve seen it repeated over and over how shocked that residents are about this happening in Tuscon. You’ve expressed similar sentiments. And yet, AZ has about the laxest restrictions on gun ownership (including the types of guns and ammo available) in the country.

I’m not saying that this should make us all reflexively pro-gun-control. Personally, I favor more stringent regulation than currently exists in AZ. But I understand that it is a trade-off — it is a compromise of freedom for increased security. That is a fundamental trade-off that runs through so many of our more contentious debates, from free speech to TSA searches to Federal tracking databases to freedom of information. It’s never easy arriving at the right level of compromise, and everybody will feel more or less comfortable at different levels.

But so much of what I’ve heard out of AZ lately, at least from the anti-gun-control crowd, seems to deny that such a trade-off even exists. We know there are Jared Loughners out there — we’ve seen them before and we will see them again. When the Loughners of the world can walk into a Walmart and buy an assault weapon that is designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, then there is always a risk one will. I can understand the shock and sorrow that such a thing has happened, but I can’t understand the shock that such a thing can happen when you create the conditions that enable it, as AZ has done.

L. Junius Brutus

January 16th, 2011

Since gun control doesn’t demonstrably lower gun crime, I think the “anti-gun-control crowd” is right about that.

andrewdb

January 16th, 2011

The Arizona gun control laws are very similar to those in Vermont, not exactly famous for it’s right wing approach to, well, much of anything.

Tone

January 16th, 2011

“Humphries said that he plans to press those charges.”

Which is his right I guess. I know very little about how things work way down there. Nevertheless Humphries is showing all the understanding and compassion of a viper about to strike its prey.

That’s the main thing that I find so revolting about this whole teabagger movement. All I see is them doing their best to cause pain and hardship to other people. They don’t seem satisfied until they destroy.

WMDKitty

January 16th, 2011

@L. Junius Brutus — Wrong. Just look at Canada and the UK. No guns, DEMONSTRABLY LOWER RATE OF GUN CRIMES.

Priya Lynn

January 17th, 2011

Japan as well WMDKitty.

L. Junius Brutus

January 17th, 2011

WMDKitty: “@L. Junius Brutus — Wrong. Just look at Canada and the UK. No guns, DEMONSTRABLY LOWER RATE OF GUN CRIMES.”

Canadians as well as Swedes and the Swiss can legally own guns. Therefore, since both Canada and the UK have lower rates of gun crimes, this lower rate can’t be the result of gun control, which you (falsely) attribute it to.

In fact, gun violence in England has actually increased markedly since it banned handguns. No kidding, legally banning guns did nothing to stop people who don’t care about what’s legal from gtting guns. But… at least they prohibited law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, so I guess the gun control lobby is happy.

L. Junius Brutus

January 17th, 2011

THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

The UK banned handguns in 1997. I rest my case.

Priya Lynn

January 17th, 2011

Junius said “Canadians as well as Swedes and the Swiss can legally own guns. Therefore, since both Canada and the UK have lower rates of gun crimes, this lower rate can’t be the result of gun control, which you (falsely) attribute it to.”.

Hand guns are very tightly controlled in Canada, unlike in the U.S. Its very difficult to get one and can only be used on a gun range. A permit is required to transport it to and from the gun range and it must be locked up at all other times. Gun crimes in Canada are a great deal lower in the U.S.

Junius said “THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998. The UK banned handguns in 1997. I rest my case.”.

Some form of gun control has been in place in Britain since 1908. The rate of gun crime although it has increased fourfold since 1998 is still OVERWHELMINGLY lower than in the United States. The number of homicides per year committed in England and Wales with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006 compared to 9,326 gun homicides reported in the U.S. in 2004. Four times virtually nothing is still virtually nothing. Its obvious that less guns means less gun crime.

Justice Minister Mr Jack Straw told the BBC, “We are concerned that within the overall record, which is a good one, of crime going down in the last 10-11 years, the number of gun-related incidents has gone up. But it has now started to fall.”[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Junius said ” I rest my case.”.

LOL, I doubt that very much.

L. Junius Brutus

January 17th, 2011

“Hand guns are very tightly controlled in Canada, unlike in the U.S. Its very difficult to get one and can only be used on a gun range. A permit is required to transport it to and from the gun range and it must be locked up at all other times. Gun crimes in Canada are a great deal lower in the U.S.”

Well, you’re the expert on Canada. Still, the other examples stand. Switzerland has lots of guns, and gun crime rates are lower than Canada’s: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

“Some form of gun control has been in place in Britain since 1908.”

Wow, no kidding! Every country has some form of gun control. Or do you imagine that you could own nuclear weapons, heavy machine guns and howitzers in Texas?

“The rate of gun crime although it has increased fourfold since 1998 is still OVERWHELMINGLY lower than in the United States. ”

I couldn’t find the statistics on gun crimes, I did find statistics that there is more per capita crima in the UK than in the US, but they’re irrelevant to the larger point: if gun control indeed lowers gun crime rates, then gun crimes would not increase fourfold after banning handguns. But apparently, the UK was as successful in combating gun crime as DC.

“Four times virtually nothing is still virtually nothing. Its obvious that less guns means less gun crime.”

You can try to minimize it, but you can’t obliterate the fact that gun violence increased fourfold after banning handguns – which refutes your point that gun control decreases gun crime. I guess criminals did not get the message that they were not supposed to use handguns. For shame.

Priya Lynn

January 17th, 2011

Junius said “I couldn’t find the statistics on gun crimes”.

You didn’t look very hard, which is not at all surprising. It is in the link I gave you.

Junius said “You can try to minimize it, but you can’t obliterate the fact that gun violence increased fourfold after banning handguns – which refutes your point that gun control decreases gun crime.”.

I don’t have to “try” to minimize it, it IS minimal compared to the States. When the number of gun related homicides in England and Wales increases fourfold from 24 to 97 per year it is a tiny, tiny, drop in in the bucket compared to the 9,326 gun homicides reported in the U.S. in 2004.
Four times virtually nothing, is still virtually nothing. Obviously compared to the States, British gun control has resulted in an overwhelmingly lower rate of gun crime. Countries like Canada, the U.K. and Japan that tightly control guns in general, and hand guns in particular have practically no gun crime at all compared to the U.S.

Your “It increased fourfold!” hysteria is exactly the sort of dishonest argumentation anti-gays used to smear gays:

“Anal cancer is 10 times more prevalent in gays than in heterosexuals, gayness is an absolute disaster” when anal cancer is in .01 percent of gays and .oo1 percent of heterosexuals

P.S., what happened to “I rest my case.” smart*ss, LOL.

Now I will actually rest my case – you can’t BS your way out of this one although I know you’ll try.

L. Junius Brutus

January 17th, 2011

“Obviously compared to the States, British gun control has resulted in an overwhelmingly lower rate of gun crime. ”

You are rather Americanocentric. The US is not the center of the world, and it’s hardly the only country that allows private gun ownership. You can’t compare the UK to the US, as they are completely different. Rather, a proper comparison is a comparison between likes, not between unlikes. In this case, we see that gun crime jumps by 400% when handguns are banned. You can try to weasel your way out by claiming that it is “nothing”, but that still does not explain the 400% increase. And aliens don’t explain it either, just so you know.

Oh, and if gun control explains low British crime rates, then you (of course) forget that gun crime was actually 80% lower when handguns were allowed. Apparently, private gun ownership can co-exist with low gun crimes, to your great shock and dismay, I’m sure. Try explaining that. Too bad you won’t respond, because I’m literally dying to see how you would spin that.

And the US, UK and Canada are not the only countries in the world, although you spend all your time talking about them. You forgot Switzerland with its 2 million hand guns and assault rifles in private hands. Despite (or maybe because of) that, almost no gun crime. Apparently, you couldn’t explain it, so you decided to ignore it, in the hope that it would go away.

“Now I will actually rest my case – you can’t BS your way out of this one although I know you’ll try.”

Funny how the great weakness of a case is often correlated with the absolute ferocity with which it is asserted.

Mihangel apYrs

January 17th, 2011

L. Junius Brutus
correlation isn’t causation.

The majority of gun crime is inner-city, mainly (young) balck on black men feuding over drug-turf. Vanishingly rarely is a “civilian” involved.

While I agree the numbers have risen it has nothing to do with gun control and a lot to do with societal fracture in our ghettoes (“fatherless” families, poor scholastic performance from black (and white) boys, rising unemployment caused by a degree of racism giving black men reduced scope for work.

I speak as a fairly well educated and well informed Brit

Mihangel apYrs

January 17th, 2011

oh
and gun ownership was highly regulated even before the ban on hand guns.

It involved and still involves police checks on criminal records and visits to the property where the gun is stored (my father had a locked safe in his attic) and then the licence is issued by a magistrate. This licence can be withdraw at any time.

Timothy Kincaid

January 17th, 2011

How fascinating.

Fuller turned around, faced Humphries, took his picture and told him, “You’re dead!” in a tone that appeared to those around him to be serious and a legitimate threat.

Yet some here seem to be finding sympathy for Fuller and hostility towards Humphries. I guess for some the objectionable nature of violent rhetoric is dependent upon who makes it and who is the target.

Sad. I would hope that BTB readers and commenters would be more principled.

Timothy Kincaid

January 17th, 2011

Jim,

I think you may have left something essential out our your commentary, the last half of a sentence:

Humphries told KGUN9 News that he does plan to press those charges, at the recommendation of sheriff’s department investigators.

Because this essential information was lacking, Humphries appears to some (who chose not to read the article) as lacking in compassion.

Jim Burroway

January 17th, 2011

To add to Timothy’s comment, this looks as though Fuller has some serious anger issues. He was also combative before the shooting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13survivors.html

Timothy Kincaid

January 17th, 2011

It may very well be that the sheriff’s department wishes charges to be pressed because that is the only way that they can legally force Fuller to get psychological evaluation. In a way, Humphries may be doing Fuller a favor by pressing charges.

Tone

January 17th, 2011

Fully issued an apology today for his behaviour so that’s a start.

Tone

January 17th, 2011

Fuller I meant. Everyone here speaks typo I think anyway.

MIhangel apYrs

January 18th, 2011

Tim
“PTSD” maybe?

The chap had had a rather trying time and possibly behaved out of character.

Big time.

Ben Mathis

January 18th, 2011

While the lower gun crime in Canada and the UK, and the rest of the EU might be attributed to tighter gun control laws, and I have nothing against them, I personally believe it has far more to do with the lower wealth inequality, higher social mobility, and lower unemployment. Happy, employed, medically insured people who can buy food and make rent don’t commit gun crimes. Disenfranchised youth in the urban wastelands allowed to grow in the inner city through lack of school funding, erosion of worker’s rights, social mobility, and jobs through deregulation and outsourcing; do commit gun crimes. Oh and let’s not forget the incredibly racist judicial system.

By all means, make guns harder to get, but please put a higher priority on decreasing the reasons to commit violence in the first place.

MIhangel apYrs

January 19th, 2011

Ben Mathis

agree, but would emphasise that it’s not an either/or between gun control and re-civilisation

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

By The Way...

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1961: Illinois Becomes First State to Rescind Sodomy Law

Today In History, 1967: England, Wales Rescinds Gross Indecency Law

Emphasis Mine

Today In History, 1977: Gays Zap Straight Bar Over "Fairies Swatter" Sign

Marco Rubio Announced As Featured Speaker At Anti-Gay Event In Orlando

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.