"....and charged him with disorderly conduct, as well as threats and intimidation."

If he is found to have broken the law in this regard then he must pay the penalty. No pass.

They (the leftist media) just used the old WWII strategy of Japan -hiding in the jungle near the beaches with weapons ready,waiting for the day when the inevitable landing craft (non-muslim caused shooting crisis) to show up so that they can assualt any and every American especially, the U.S.S. Palin, that fired her big guns from safely in the distance to fight yet another day.

I saw the movie and John Wayne and America eventually win.

(I just love these war metaphors and will work on evil anti-American similies next)

a threat is a threat ... let Fuller rot in a cell for a few days ... he just lost victim status ...

See:
http://www.wcvarones.com/2011/01/paul-krugman-inspires-arizonans-to.html
This guy sounds like a winner [not that he deserved to be shot, but jeez, you can't make this stuff up]. From what appears to be his profile on "hypnothoughts" [http://www.hypnothoughts.com/profile/JamesEricFuller]
"What are you looking for on this site?
KIndred spirits and an opportunity to advocate my personal agenda promoting social justice and common sense.
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.
As Plato stated, "The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves."
About Me:
Non-deep pocket with a lot of heart. Began life as a computer operator, military service leading to non-physical disability, unable to resume career, left main stream and lived in small towns for a decade studying library books and piano, moved into Tucson in 1994 and worked as a Chauffeur for most of 10 years, presented state-wide initiatives at libraries, worked elections, in '09 worked at the Census Bureau as a field rep and a clerk. Non drinker for one year, non smoker for 40 years.
Hobbies:
Piano, bicycling, tennis, proselytizing"

Yikes, just yikes.

And Fuller gets an involuntary psychiatric eval, by AZ law, initiated by Sheriff Dupenik(sic).

OOoopsie. Why again did not Loughner get this eval? And if he did what was he doing passing the FBI gun check, the traffic stop, present at the meet and greet?

But you see how convenient this all is don't you?

Should Trent Humphries be killed the media will shrug and report that t was his own fault. They won't mention that until they went 24.7 with blaming his organization falsely for the deaths of 6 people he wasn't being threatened. They won't mention that it was their incendiary rhetoric which drove some a-hole to kill him. They will blame the victim and explain that it is another reason to restrict the speech of people like Mr Humphries.

The media is never to blame, they never do anything wrong. Their stories may be fake but they are always (ideologically) accurate.

Damn you, Jay.

I wrote an entire article about this last night, but was waiting until morning to finalize it.

Do you ever sleep?

BTW.. Good piece.

-Chone

"And I'm willing to cut him a bit of slack."

I disagree, Jay. I've seen pics and heard the ramblings of this guy and it sounds to me like he may be as unstable as Loughner. It's fortunate that they involuntarily committed him for observation.

Jay, the community college and the Sheriff cut the shooter "a bit of slack" prior to him becoming "the shooter", and we can all see where that brought us.

Now is not the time for cutting someone else "a bit of slack." In my opinion it would be much better for everyone to see individuals being held accountable for their own behavior. An involuntary commitment, followed by facing the charges brought (assuming he is found competent) sounds right.

Yeah, Chone -- I slept while you were working on your piece. I think I fell asleep right around 9.

Then got up and wrote this one.

I'm part of that most despised class of people, a "morning person." So you might as well get on the hate bandwagon, too.

But if you got a different take (and you occasionally do), go ahead and publish.

J.

On Fuller's hypno website it says he was discharged from the military for a non physical disability.

I am not prepared to cut this man any slack because the first thing he did upon leaving the hospital was to issue a statement to the media blaming Sarah Palin and saying she just got her first target. Next he goes on issue death threats at this town hall. I'm sorry he got shot, I'm sorry he may have a mental illness of his own, but those things are not excuses for this kind of behavior.

In honor of MLK lets judge him by Content of Character.
Judging him that way he will most likely come up wanting.

I wonder how many more of the Arizona shooting victims will do the same thing? That seems to be a pattern for the lunatic left. Blame everyone, but themselves for their problems. Kind of reminds me of the Pink Floyd song Brain Damage.

"I think it would be OK if Mr. Fuller were given a pass on this outburst...."

Oh? Would that be like the left gave Palin, Beck, et al "a pass"?

No, throw the fucking ASSHOLE in jail.

We do want to "break the circle of violence", don't we?

And you can damned well bet that Fuller is going on the "professional victim" circuit.

He may be a leftest, but FOLLOW THE MONEY.

"The mainstream media and the Professional Left spend the next week blaming Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement, and the right in general for driving the madman to his act of madness..."

Except that's not what happened.

What happened is, Markos Moulitsas blamed Sarah Palin, and some leftist bloggers followed suit. The media started with their usual "some are saying" laziness and the right-in-general, the Tea Party, and Palin (and especially, Wizbang) immediately jumped on the victimhood bandwagon.

Within a day or two, most of the media had dropped any hint of trying to blame the Tea Party, and were emphasizing the shooter's apparent mental illness. Most every story on the alphabet networks included a phrase about "no evidence these shootings were politically motivated."

But Palin's, Wizbang's, and the right-in-general's need to be persecuted victims would not be ignored. On the day of the memorial service, Palin issued her "don't blame me/it's all about me" teleprompter speech, in which she included the phrase "blood libel," thus ensuring she could suck up more attention and divert it from the real victims.

Most of the country has moved on from trying to fix blame, and is now discussing other related subjects, such as whether or not there should be more attention paid to mental health issues, gun laws, and civil public discourse.

But not you guys. Oh, no, you have to keep on claiming victimhood because your felings were hurt by Markos Moulitsas EIGHT DAYS AGO.

Jay,

Respectfully disagree. If Mr. Humphries chooses not to press forward, that's his prerogative, not that of the "local authorities". An involuntary evaluation is the prerogative of the "local authorities" and not Mr. Humphries. At the very least, this evaluation needs to be conducted.

While I am sympathetic to being shot, making public death threats is never an acceptable reaction. This was not an off the cuff statement made to a passerby. It appears from what I've seen so far that Mr. Fuller made the effort to attend this event and followed that with some clearly unhinged behavior.

I'm as much for free speech as the next person, but like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, this type of speech doesn't make the cut. We have to stop assuming these loons are harmless and start dealing with them appropriately.

Bruce, better re-read what you wrote. Lefty blogs and the MSM did blame the Tea Party, among others. The fact they then concentrated on Palin, Beck, talk radio doesn't change anything.

As for those people "claiming victimhood", BULLSHIT! They were defending themselves. While most of the country "has moved on" - the extreme left has not. Matter of fact, they're even more pissed because no one is buying their crap.

Except people like you.

I wonder why so many here "respectfully disagree" with Jay. His notion of giving a little slack to Fuller is ludicrous. Maybe he didn't know about the earlier rant, nor, does he know Fuller's history, apparently. But, he should educate himself before writing.

By now Fuller should know the circumstances of the shooting quite well. He either refused to acknowledge them for his own reasons; or else his own mental state is about one step removed from Laughners.

In either case, suggestions that he get a pass are just bizarre. The sort of thing I would expect to hear on MSNBC or read in the NYT.

Except that's not what happened.

What happened is, Markos Moulitsas blamed Sarah Palin, and some leftist bloggers followed suit

Well, that's true, but what you're leaving out is that immediately after the shootings, the MSM started shrieking "Where is Sarah Palin? Why is Sarah Palin silent?" and then after she made her statement, the MSM response was "Once again, Sarah Palin has inserted herself into the story."

Within a day or two, most of the media had dropped any hint of trying to blame the Tea Party,

This is complete horseshit. For days afterwards, unhinged left lunatics Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews continued to lie, smear and insinuate that some vague, amorphous "climate of hate" generated by Tea Party activists led to the shootings and only within the last couple of days are they starting to give up pushing this narrative, but that's only because nobody was buying it except for their left-wing kook base.

So, nice try at revisionist history, there, Bruce.

Yeah, you're right. Sarah Palin is the real victim, unfairly blamed by the shrieking liberal media.

Whether the blame game stuff lasted for a "day or two" as I asserted, or whether for "days afterward," as you state, Muse, it's played out after 8 days. No one, except a few kooks, seriously blames Palin or the Tea Party for Loughner's actions at this point.

Now, will the discussion continue about the level of vitriol in politics? Probably, and rightfully so.

But this claim of victimhood is played out. There may have been some justification for some of it the first couple of days, but get over it already. Nobody's picking on you any more.

Bruce, OregonMuse beat me to it.

My ex is also famous for her revisionist history escapades. There's no cure for her and apparently there's no cure for your self-imposed myopia. I do cherish your occasional episodes of clarity. This wasn't one of them.

"Yeah, you're right. Sarah Palin is the real victim, unfairly blamed by the shrieking liberal media."

No, you lefties are the ones who started the "Oh, now she's claiming to be a victim" - when she was DEFENDING herself against the unsubstantiated charge that she was one of those RESPONSIBLE for the shooting.

But you won't acknowledge that. The 'victim claim' came from the left after you had your asses handed to you - that a majority of the public wasn't buying your bullshit.

As pointed out, your 'revisionism' is showing.

"No one, except a few kooks, seriously blames Palin or the Tea Party for Loughner's actions at this point."

A few? Where it single individuals, that statement might mean something. WHEN IT'S THE FREAKING MEDIA it's something else entirely.

"Great. So the left overreacts and overreaches and it only accomplishes two things: fostering sympathy for its opponents and nurturing a false equivalence within the body politic. Well done, Democrats. "

Seems like Charles Blow, of the extreme right-wing New York Times, disagrees with the usual lefty trolls here.

Like it would be surprising if it HAD turned out to be a rightwing nut rather than a nonpolitical nut who perpetrated the Tucson shootings.

Within hours of the murders, Markos Moulitsas was speculating that Palin's rhetoric was responsible. "Ludicrous!" shouted Wizbangers.

Within hours of the murders, our own Jay Tea speculated that Mexican drug cartels were responsible. "Ludicrous!" shouted...me. And me alone.

The fact that the media didn't pick up on the idea that brown-skinned Mexicans were as likely to have committed this crime as a Tea Partier isn't Jay Tea's fault. If anyone had given his suggestion the slightest credence, you can bet he'd still be flogging the idea.

No, it wasn't a Tea Party dude, or a Palin follower, who did this. But it can be understood, in my opinion, that given some Tea Partiers' calls for Second Amendment solutions, and "watering the tree of liberty," etc., some people would jump to that conclusion, just as Jay Tea jumped to his.

And, as I said, the media is so fucking lazy that "some are saying" is a story to them.

Good timing, Bruce. I was just considering a piece bringing up my Mexican error again -- note that I was among the first, if not the first, to correct it -- and you decided it needed some fresh flogging.

I was about to start another article, but the Mexican one's getting moved from the back burner to a middle one...

(What, stoves tend not to have "middle" burners? Don't hassle me with facts...)

J.

My point is that the jump to the conclusion that a rightwing nutjob may have been the perp was a shorter jump than some other jumps, Jay Tea. Just as erroneous and ill-advised, but shorter.

But the larger point, again, was that it's been DAYS since a serious assertion was put forth by any credible liberal that Palin or anyone else was to blame for Loughner's actions, so get over the Persecution Complex already.

"And, as I said, the media is so fucking lazy that "some are saying" is a story to them."

And merely writing it off as laziness is itself lazy, or dishonest.
Funny how the 'some are saying' scheme almost always is deployed to the detriment of the Right but not the Left. If it was mere 'laziness' you'd have roughly equal lazy treatment of both the Left and Right.

No, it's at best, bias coupled with laziness.

But keep spinning, it's about as close to a perpetual motion machine as we'll ever see.

OK, Bruce, you just forced my hand. I might not even have to write the article now, because you've prompted me to give the Reader's Digest Condensed Version.

Yes, when I first heard about the shooting, I jumped to a wrong conclusion. As did so many on the left.

Here's where I differ from your ideological compatriots.

I admitted my error promptly, corrected it, and have repeatedly acknowledged that error.

Your people, though... they spent DAYS spreading their lies. Then they did everything they could -- including just plain making shit up -- to back up their lies. Their last resort? To simply pretend it never happened, and to call for an end to finger-pointing.

Bruce, my message to them is this: FUCK YOU. You said it, you own it, and you don't get to make it just go away.

And if you persist in saying that I am just as bad as they are because I made a mistake -- ignoring how quickly I corrected it, and they refuse to do the same -- then fuck you, too.

This is where I'd normally add in "...with a rusty chainsaw," but I don't want to be accused of using inciteful, violent rhetoric.

J.

I think the point is that the jump to the conclusion that BH is being dishonest is a shorter jump than concluding he is merely lazy.

Well, Jay, you were forced to correct your conclusion-jumping by the fact that the perpetrator was immediately caught!

Figuring out motivation took time, giving some, predisposed to find fault with the Tea Party, the opportunity to speculate freely, for a longer time.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you are "as bad as they are," but I wonder what you might have said had the perp disappeared into the crowd. Might you still be promoting your "theory?"

Don't get me wrong. I personally NEVER went there, "there" meaning "it's Sarah's fault."

And Jay, I realize that in a blog comment section, we often say things we wouldn't say to another man's face, so I'm gonna forgive you for your "fuck you." You're welcome. But what are you, twelve?

You're right, Bruce, I was "forced" to correct it -- by my conscience. Or are you gonna claim that you alone were responsible for my fixing it, and that I would have quietly let it go unnoticed or disappeared it if it wasn't for you?

And no, I probably would have backed off (but not retracted) my theory if the gunman had escaped, because one of the prime factors in my theory was the assumptions that there were more than one gunmen, and automatic weapons were used.

Which I've spelled out countless times, but you don't have sufficient brain cells to remember anything more than "Jay was wrong!"

The reasons I used to support my theory, my speed and willingness to admit error... they disappeared in your mind faster than the Kos diary (posted by a guy with a history of gun violence) that said Giffords "was dead to me."

And yeah, if you were saying this to my face, I probably would be saying "fuck you." Because, quite frankly, there's nothing else worth saying to you.

J.

Well, Jay, I admit to some glee that you were wrong.

And no, I don't claim that I was the reason you retracted your "theory." Your theory was overtaken by the fact that the perp was knocked down and apprehended and it immediately became known that he wasn't a Mexican.

And look, I'm sorry if it looks like I can't let go of this thing. I was using it as an example of how people with differing ideologies could leap to erroneous conclusions. Your good fortune, as it were, is in the fact that you HAD to drop your theory early. If the perp HAD melted into the crowd, you may indeed have tripped all over yourself trying to make the facts fit your theory. As Moulitsas and others did. Luckily for you, you speculated on WHO, and not, as Moulitsas did, on WHY.

BTW, the "reasons you used to support your theory," that multiple shooters and automatic weapons may have been involved, could just as easily apply to hypothetical Rightwing nutjobs as it could to hypothetical Mexican gangstas.

And I doubt you've ever said, "Fuck you" to a man's face in your life. At least, not twice.

I hope Bruce doesn't sprain his arm, patting himself on the back - congratulating himself that he WAS THE ONLY ONE who disagreed with JT's original Mexican Cartel association.

Bruce, I've said it a couple of times. Well, close -- it was "go fuck yourself." Close enough, I think.

If -- IF -- your theoretical "right-wingers" had a history of using automatic weapons to assassinate government officials, like the Mexican drug cartels have, then you'd have more of a point.

And if your grand insight is "everyone makes mistakes," give yourself a big turd crown. Ain't you a supergenius.

Yes, everyone makes mistakes. The key point is how they handle making mistakes. I apologized and corrected immediately. The only thing I could have done better was to not make the mistake in the first place, and I know that in your dream world I simply never say anything -- you also get sand in your panties when I offer opinions -- but I do say things, and sometimes they're wrong.

Now, why don't you turn your ethical standards and judgment on those on your own side, who haven't bothered to even admit their errors? Who, instead have chosen to compound them with lies and fabrications and evasions?

Start with Kos, if you like. Or any of his asshole diarists. Or Krugman from the NY Times. Or those flaming assholes at C&L.

'Cuz I'm tired of your bullshit.

J.

"The key point is how they handle making mistakes."

IIRC, they "revise" or "delete". Apologizing is not an option.

Here, Bruce, let me give you a head start.

J.

"But the larger point, again, was that it's been DAYS since a serious assertion was put forth by any credible liberal that Palin or anyone else was to blame for Loughner's actions, so get over the Persecution Complex already."

26. Posted by Bruce Henry

Oh?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I find it funny that some of the "Top Ten Most Reprehensible Attacks" list includes at least two that SPECIFICALLY SAY that rhetoric isn't directly responsible.

And not that it's my job, but I DID call out commenters here who were claiming Palin had blood on her hands, somebody named "Woop," for one.

I do admit Krugman surprised me. He should stick to economics.

But #4, #7 and # 9 on the list? Absolutely right. Maybe not the whole articles (I haven't read them), but the excerpts on your link? Yeah.

Also, please note that these excerpts are ALL from the first two days of the shooting/aftermath, except for # 9, which is entirely reasonable and not an accusation of blame for this specific incident at all.

Again, Jay Tea, I didn't mention this to rub your nose in the fact that you leaped to a conclusion that was immediately proven incorrect, but to point out that it wasn't only liberals jumping to conclusions. I used you as an example because I knew Muse KNEW you.

The difference is, in my opinion, that you were fortunate that very little time elapsed before being proved wrong. Liberals like Moulitsas and Krugman had a couple of days to tie themselves in knots before being shown to be incorrect.

As for why they won't issue mea culpas, I can only speculate that you, Jay Tea, must just be the nobler human being.

And my point is that the Pity Party should be over by now. We get it. Tea Party rhetoric did not cause this particular crime. You guys won that argument, such as it was. So quit feeling sorry for yourselves.

sorry, Bruce. Not. Good. Enough.

Me and mine (largely speaking) were accused of soliciting murder and attempted murder. I'm not letting the accusers off the hook just because they aren't saying it so loudly now. I won't let them off the hook when they stop saying it. Only when they admit they were wrong when they committed their -- yeah, I'll say it -- blood libel will I CONSIDER letting it go.

As they're fond of saying, "words have consequences." And the consequences of their words: I -- and many others -- will hold them responsible for their words as long as they let them stand uncorrected.

They stepped on it HARD, Bruce. They maligned a lot of good, innocent people. That will NOT get swept under the rug.

J.

Well, okay, Jay. I guess if you feel that strongly about it, you should continue feeling persecuted by those mean old liberals. Everyone else has pretty much moved on, but you should keep nursing that grudge.

Oh, and Garand Fan? If you call that article, which mentioned, briefly, that Loughner's views on currency coincided with some rightwing kooks' views on currency, an "assertion...that Palin or anyone else was to blame," you are seeing words that ARE NOT THERE, sir. Palin wasn't even mentioned in the article.

Jay, ease up. Capital letters now, I'm beginning to think you protest too much about they protest too much.

"...you are seeing words that ARE NOT THERE, sir. Palin wasn't even mentioned in the article."

You miss the point Bruce. You said "it's been DAYS since a serious assertion was put forth by any credible liberal that Palin or anyone else was to blame"

----"OR ANYONE ELSE"-----

I merely pointed out a NYT's article from YESTERDAY.

Bruce again living in the alternate universe. He champions and wears proudly what is absolutely detestable about the left. We aren't victims. We have been vindicated. The left are now the pox. Keep it up Bruce. The left is handing us the senate in 2012 but maybe even the big house. Keep spreading your hate buddy. ww

I don't think it's 'hate' Willie, as much as it's: 'Oh shit, we got egg on our face, NOTHING TO SEE HERE - MOVE ON - MOVE ON!'

Yes, Garand, it's from yesterday, and where is the assertion that Palin or anyone else is to blame?

And my point is that the Pity Party should be over by now. We get it. Tea Party rhetoric did not cause this particular crime. You guys won that argument, such as it was.

No, Bruce, you don't get it.

What's been particularly instructive about this whole mess is just how quickly many of you on the left (not all, thankfully, but far too many) jumped on this crime committed by a madman in order to smear the Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin. It's as if it was confirmation of their beliefs about us... the bodies hadn't cooled before the first accusations sounded, and the fact that Loughner had no such ties didn't matter in the least. If no direct tie could be found, vague accusations of harsh "political rhetoric" contributing would have to do.

Face it, Bruce, it's merely what you lefties think of us: we're violent, racists, fascists just waiting for an excuse. Even you use the word "particular." Has Tea Party rhetoric cause other crimes?

So, no, it's not a "pity party." We're PISSED. And we're not going to forget this.

"Yes, Garand, it's from yesterday, and where is the assertion that Palin or anyone else is to blame?"

Perhaps this?
"He became an echo chamber for stray ideas, amplifying, for example, certain grandiose tenets of a number of extremist right-wing groups...."

I'm guessing 'right wing extremist groups' don't qualify as "or anyone else"?

Oh, forgot this:

On the left-wing Democracy Now! radio show Friday, Fuller, a survivor of the Tucson shooting, said the following:

"It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target. Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled—senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even nine-year-old girls."

Let's see. Friday. Oh, that would have been TWO days ago.

Want to keep going Bruce? Of course you could admit YOU MADE A MISTAKE with that "8 days ago" statement.

Silly Otto, did you even read what I wrote upthread?

Yes, many liberals jumped on this for partisan political purposes. Very reprehensible. And then the media, whether from laziness or bias, started with the "some are saying" nonsense and calling it news.

But within a short time, the media was including in nearly every story a line about how there was no evidence the crime was politically motivated, and focusing on Loughner's apparent mental illness. But conservatives CONTINUE to argue with what Krugman or Moulitsas said days ago, portraying themselves as victims of media persecution.

As for myself, when I first heard about the shootings, I confess my first thought was that it might be a rightwing nutjob. As I said, it wouldn't seem so farfetched, considering all the talk lately of Second Amendment solutions and watering the tree of liberty. And really, tell the truth - when you first heard the headline, didn't that thought occur to you?

The fact that Moulitsas and Krugman haven't admitted they were wrong isn't the issue, IMO. How many commenters, besides our hero Jay Tea, routinely do that?

If you think that conservatives aren't imagining things, witness GarandFan's link to an attack from the NYT that isn't an attack. Persecution complex, I tells ya.

Still don't see an attack in noting, in passing, that some of his views coincided with some crazy nutjob views. They did. And stating that he "amplified" those grandiose beliefs doesn't constitute "blaming anyone else" for Loughner's actions.

And Fuller, apparently somewhat of a mental case himself, saying something on a radio show doesn't constitute an assertion "from a credible liberal that Palin or anyone else was responsible."

The fact that Moulitsas and Krugman haven't admitted they were wrong isn't the issue, IMO. How many commenters, besides our hero Jay Tea, routinely do that?

That ain't heroic, Bruce. It's called "not being a chickenshit."

I don't have the ego and arrogance and self-deception to pull that off, unlike your compatriots like Krugman and Kos and Greenwald and... well, why don't you cite a few more examples.

It's sad that you think that admitting mistakes and correcting them is "heroic," but it gives us a hell of an insight into your mindset... as well as your compatriots.

Thanks.

J.

That's probably why Limbaugh retracted his statement on Tuesday that the "Democrat Party" was "100% behind Loughner." Or why he retracted the claim that "left wing documentary makers" are responsible for the shootings. Or why he devotes a 5 minute segment once a week to correcting the specious things he says. Oh, wait, he doesn't? And he didn't retract anything?

Partisan people say partisan things. Krugman I'm disappointed in. Moulitsas? Meh, not so much, it's expected.

Oh, and "our hero" wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's a term of endearment, and a recognition that you are a more noble human being than Markos Moulitsas.

Limbaugh who? Never heard of him.

And keep on digging, Bruce. Shovel enough BS, and eventually you'll...

...um...

...well, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

J.

And I doubt you've ever said, "Fuck you" to a man's face in your life. At least, not twice.

And he hasn't said it to any man online today either....

Bruce is a firm believer in the old adage that 'if you have nothing, baffle them with bullshit'.

Bruce must have had TOO much funky kool aid and passed out? Either that or a brain fart. Same result.

Per nor--the corner--we may come to find that fuller is worse than we imagined, a convicted sex offender, possibly. He has changed his name to conceal it.

Damn iPad keeps inserting wrong letters--nro--national rev.