Well, there goes your narrative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...i-726am:homepage/story&utm_term=.953b3605d1b7
Colossal screw up
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
Well, there goes your narrative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...i-726am:homepage/story&utm_term=.953b3605d1b7
I don't dispute any of this. But knowing someone is crazy and a threat is not enough to do any real action to stop whatever it is you think they might do.
Here is a news article where the local sheriff admits there isn't a damn thing they can do:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...chool-shooting-when-can-police-act/341046002/
The system is broken.
Thoughtful follow-up investigation, as opposed to the lazy police work seen here, certainly could have prevented this. There was absolutely enough info concerning this guy to get a search warrant to search his home and potentially find enough evidence to (1) seize his firearms, and (2) charge him.
"Certainly could have" and then you say "potentially". I'm not arguing you are incorrect about poor police work or follow-up, I am saying unless there was absolutely something this guy could have been arrested and charged with there's no way you can say this could have been prevented.
And I am not arguing with you for the hell of it. I'd like to be able say "here's what should have been done differently, if we just do that we can prevent these shootings". I'm not a lawyer, I am not LEO, but I do have professional experience with the legal system and mental health...from what I have read so far I can almost guarantee you no judge was going to involuntary commit this guy, and I'm pretty certain even a 72 hour mental health hold would have been iffy unless he made specific threats of harm to himself or others (and no, "I want to kill some people" doesn't cut it).
I have neither a narrative nor an agenda, unless you want to have a discussion on rolling back our closing of mental health institutions.
I agree with the involuntary commitment comment. Not enough there. I do, however, believe there was more than enough to engage in additional investigation that likely would have resulted in some type of charges being filed.
We can disagree but we both want the same thing. I just think there is going to have to be reform in the mental health system. Somewhere there has to be a happy medium between the past where we institutionalized too many people (many of whom were simply disabled) and the fvck-all stance we take today.
Yeah, I dont get why you are being contrarian here Raoul. It's pretty obvious that the FBI could have done a whole lot more, and not only did they choose not to, they bungled the information they did have.
This is in a series of screw ups for the FBI and mass shootings.
This is in a series of screw ups for the FBI and mass shootings.
1. Because without a specific threat or crime being committed there isn't a thing law enforcement can do. "I want to be a professional school shooter" is absurd on its face and not a specific threat.
2. Because blaming law enforcement fits the liberal agenda here. While conservatives share the blame (due to their desire to not fund shit) in how we deal with public health/mental health, the real blame lies in the liberal agenda of treating the seriously mentally ill in a community setting. Being in a profession where I get to see how mental health care works I can tell you there are tons of people walking the streets that should not be. This is a direct result of over-reforming mental health care, which was brought to you by the left.
Here's a quote from the WashPo that pretty much sums it up:
"By treating the rest in the least-restrictive settings possible, the thinking went, we would protect the civil liberties of the mentally ill and hasten their recoveries. Surely community life was better for mental health than a cold, unfeeling institution.
But in the decades since, the sickest patients have begun turning up in jails and homeless shelters with a frequency that mirrors that of the late 1800s. “We’re protecting civil liberties at the expense of health and safety,” says Doris A. Fuller, the executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit group that lobbies for broader involuntary commitment standards. “Deinstitutionalization has gone way too far.”
3. I would love to see this guy's case file since adolescence. I'm going to guess a mild developmental disability, intermittent explosive disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and a high likelihood of either bipolar or schizophrenia. This is the exact sort of profile (and the age of this shithead) law enforcement is ill-equipped to handle and the courts are extremely reluctant to involuntarily commit (especially when you throw in a developmental disability). It's also the profile of about half of our prison population. That's not a coincidence.
4. I have personally seen people fitting the above profile and am very familiar with the difficulties faced in getting such a person into long-term inpatient treatment or commitment. I have also seen such people go on to commit heinous violent crimes because their particular situation was never properly dealt with due to the laws that are now in place.
So it's not that I'm being contrarian for the hell of it. Take all of the above and add in a dose of evil (which we both believe exists) and you have a ticking time bomb that should have been diffused long ago with involuntary long-term commitment. Medication and outpatient therapy are wonderful for people with mild mental illness that present no threat. For the truly batshit crazy, not so much.
Last edited:
We've always had guns and we've always had marginalized youths with emotional problems. What we haven't always had is a proliferation of these types of school shootings. So the real question is, what has changed?
If guns are the real problem they would have been a problem for the last 200 years. If bullied, emotionally distressed, misfit teens are the real problem they would have been a problem the last 200 years.
My opinion is the real problem is completely societal. It's a combination of the glorification of violence in movies, TV and video games and horrific parenting where kids start having steady access to this material at 3 and 4 years old. Parents use TV and games as babysitters. They don't care what the kids are watching as long as it keeps them quiet. Kids get desensitized and, in some cases, lose the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
You take that and couple it with the Internet and social media, where reality really goes out the window, and it's a recipe for disaster. Think about how we, as supposed mature adults, act toward each other on this board. Now understand that teenagers are significantly worse in their anonymous interactions.
The legislation that will start helping this problem has nothing to do with gun control or mental health services. Those are straw men pushed by those with specific agendas other than safety of the citizens.
If guns are the real problem they would have been a problem for the last 200 years. If bullied, emotionally distressed, misfit teens are the real problem they would have been a problem the last 200 years.
My opinion is the real problem is completely societal. It's a combination of the glorification of violence in movies, TV and video games and horrific parenting where kids start having steady access to this material at 3 and 4 years old. Parents use TV and games as babysitters. They don't care what the kids are watching as long as it keeps them quiet. Kids get desensitized and, in some cases, lose the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
You take that and couple it with the Internet and social media, where reality really goes out the window, and it's a recipe for disaster. Think about how we, as supposed mature adults, act toward each other on this board. Now understand that teenagers are significantly worse in their anonymous interactions.
The legislation that will start helping this problem has nothing to do with gun control or mental health services. Those are straw men pushed by those with specific agendas other than safety of the citizens.
As this thing unfolds we've seen more and more missed opportunities at every level to have prevented this from occurring. There were legitimate threats that should have been investigated - the FB comment alone was enough - but were ignored by sh*tty investigators. Absolute debacle.
Yeah because the signs of a troubled young man didn’t start until January of 2017
