Mass Shooting Thread: Waiting on the next one.

[iamdef]

heres what youre not getting. if this shooter says he thinks theres an immigration infestation then what? without a red flag law they have to leave saying "this dude is crazy" and thats it. you cant take someones guns away for making statements. THATS THE POINT. if someone is sitting on their porch with a gun or walking around the neighborhood being suspicious, theyre outside. u dont need a warrant to be outside. that was a poor example.

so lets say the shooter says "such and such people are vermin and need to be exterminated." what will the police do? NOTHING. so i say it again, no half measures. give them the authority to do the job youre asking for at least.

If he makes that statement then that tells them that he may in fact be a threat to the community and whatever the police's policy is for that situation they carry through with that. Do you know for sure that police can't do anything at that point or are you saying that because that seems like the limit of their power or their policy?
My example was about not needing a warrant to come to a persons residence to check on their situation.

 

[getback]

no. IM saying a check without those red flag laws in place is pointless. other dude is saying a check is better than nothing. im saying NO ITS NOT, make the right step the first time no half measures. IM saying red flag laws should be non-negotiable. we're on to you historically doesnt make someone stop when it comes to heinous stuff. this guy was planning to die by police hands. swiper no swiping aint gonna work. this isnt petty theft, dudes are planning the absolute worst thing they can do, en masse. no half measures.

How can you say that for sure though? You can't predict the future. If a concerned parent calls police expressing concern about their child with an AK-47, a check COULD serve as a deterrent, regardless of how hellbent the person is. Like I said, they COULD pivot. Possibly change target, change means, etc. Those type of pivots potentially open up the the margin of error during the planning stage. Son could go online after the well-being check and make an anti-police, anti-immigrant threatening post. You can't account for all the possibilities and the ripple effect a police encounter could cause. There's literally thousands of different scenarios.

Of course we want the red flag flaws fully enforced. But a check on young, white, MAGA male is still better than no check.

Crazy to me that folks want to give these mass shooters a nicely paved road to commit that without even a damn speed bump.

 

[tekthemaestro]

If he makes that statement then that tells them that he may in fact be a threat to the community and whatever the police's policy is for that situation they carry through with that. Do you know for sure that police can't do anything at that point or are you saying that because that seems like the limit of their power or their policy?
My example was about not needing a warrant to come to a persons residence to check on their situation.

him being a possible threat to community isnt against the law. he hasnt committed a crime. and unless he admits that hes planning to carry out the shooting, they can't even get him for intent or conspiracy. its like if the police broke up an argument in the bar, and i yelled "F that maggot I hope his whole family dies" they can't do anything. free speech, i didnt threaten him directly, their hands are tied. having horrible views isnt a crime. many of these shooters have already been on fbi and watch lists. but thats all they can legally do... watch. law is UGLY man. antequated, and downright stupid in most cases.

thats why i said, without the authority that red flag laws would give them, they wont even be able to act on anything he says unless he directly threatens a specific target, or literally engages in a fight with the police while theyre talking to him. so approaching him would literally just be tipping him off. is it possible someone is on the fence and that knowing cops are on to them would deter them? sure. is it likely? no. i rather not leave it up to chance. too many of these psychos have been reported and law makes it so nothing CAN happen until they kill people. we need to stop that. if u see someone just bought 4000 rounds of ammo, hella guns, and is posting about how they hate immigrants or so and so type of people should die.... that should be enough reason to do a visit, an inspection in the house, and a real investigation. and if u find something... lock em up asap for the conspiracy. permanent flag on their report so they can never legally purchase a weapon again.

people like them shouldnt have guns and weapons at all. im not gonna put my faith in maybe they'll see the error of their ways before they go through with it. NOPE. get em up outta here

 

[sooperhooper]

man i just moved away from tampa. this dude admits early on he was a career criminal from an early age. exactly how does he legally own weapons?

then he blindfolds them and makes them load and chamber the weapon while answering questions. hes doing stuff hes seen in movies. he said the reasoning behind it was cuz sometimes shootings happen in the dark and she needs to be able to find stuff in the dark. well unless the gun and its mag are sitting 3 inches apart on a table shes sitting in front of...this is stupid. not only that, but she put the mags in without even checking if they were loaded or if the gun was hot. so by him passing her in that drill i know hes training them and missing steps.

dude says he shot his own baby mama and her son cuz she was angry. bruh. foh

i dont agree with this foolishness at all. yes, take the mystique out of guns and like i said instill the respect of guns EARLY.

It's cool that he's educating them but all in all i think this is just for social media attention.

 

[QU!K]

Thoughts on this?

I’m out so I can’t watch the vid, but based on the photo, kids shouldn’t be handling leathal weapons just like kids shouldn’t be able to drive.

 

[getback]

him being a possible threat to community isnt against the law. he hasnt committed a crime.

Police can do anything they damn want in this country. They have ENDLESS discretion is subjective cases like you describe..."a possible threat." They can say dude is mentally ill and section his a**.

Sec. 573.001. APPREHENSION BY PEACE OFFICER WITHOUT WARRANT. (a) A peace officer, without a warrant, may take a person into custody if the officer:

(1) has reason to believe and does believe that:

(A) the person is a person with mental illness; and

(B) because of that mental illness there is a substantial risk of serious harm to the person or to others unless the person is immediately restrained; and

(2) believes that there is not sufficient time to obtain a warrant before taking the person into custody.

(b) A substantial risk of serious harm to the person or others under Subsection (a)(1)(B) may be demonstrated by:

I can go to the courthouse right now and petition to have someone civilly committed under section 35. And the police have way more discretion than ordinary folk like me.

 

[tekthemaestro]

It's cool that he's educating them but all in all i think this is just for social media attention.

i dunno what hes doing it for. but i totally disagree with it. "my kids are mature for their age" the reason u even feel the need to say that is cuz typically kids arent smart, or responsible enough to handle such a big responsibility. kids minds just arent there yet to make the right decisions. all the training in the world cant match an emotional teenagers unpredictability. and im still stuck on.... how does a career criminal own an arsenal of weapons?

 

[sooperhooper]

i dunno what hes doing it for. but i totally disagree with it. "my kids are mature for their age" the reason u even feel the need to say that is cuz typically kids arent smart, or responsible enough to handle such a big responsibility. kids minds just arent there yet to make the right decisions. all the training in the world cant match an emotional teenagers unpredictability. and im still stuck on.... how does a career criminal own an arsenal of weapons?

Just because he committed crimes doesn't mean they were felonies. And even if they were he can still buy them under the table.

 

[tekthemaestro]

Police can do anything they damn want in this country. They have ENDLESS discretion is subjective cases like you describe..."a possible threat." They can say dude is mentally ill and section his a**.

you're describing a baker act pretty much. and there are multiple reasons cops dont like to just say "this person was mentally ill" and take them in. your grounds for saying someone is mentally ill cant be cuz they said they dont like black folk or whoever. thats not mental illness. by law, racism/bigotry/hatred of any kind isnt a mental illness. and really... its not. so no they cant just snatch dude up even IF he admitted hes a bigoted hateful **** who hopes they all die.

what ur saying sounds good man, but like i said... theres a reason the fbi have these people on lists and dont do anything but watch until its too late.

 

[tekthemaestro]

Just because he committed crimes doesn't mean they were felonies. And even if they were he can still buy them under the table.

hes a career criminal. admittedly so. its another stupid law that needs to be fixed. an arsonist with multiple B&E charges and who knows what else can go buy an arsenal. perfect example of why the laws are trash. you cant do anything about under the table buys... but the fact that he can legally do it is whats confusing

 

[getback]

Red Flag Laws across the board > Police check in response to concern > doing nothing

 

[iamdef]

him being a possible threat to community isnt against the law. he hasnt committed a crime. and unless he admits that hes planning to carry out the shooting, they can't even get him for intent or conspiracy. its like if the police broke up an argument in the bar, and i yelled "F that maggot I hope his whole family dies" they can't do anything. free speech, i didnt threaten him directly, their hands are tied. having horrible views isnt a crime. many of these shooters have already been on fbi and watch lists. but thats all they can legally do... watch. law is UGLY man. antequated, and downright stupid in most cases.

thats why i said, without the authority that red flag laws would give them, they wont even be able to act on anything he says unless he directly threatens a specific target, or literally engages in a fight with the police while theyre talking to him. so approaching him would literally just be tipping him off. is it possible someone is on the fence and that knowing cops are on to them would deter them? sure. is it likely? no. i rather not leave it up to chance. too many of these psychos have been reported and law makes it so nothing CAN happen until they kill people. we need to stop that. if u see someone just bought 4000 rounds of ammo, hella guns, and is posting about how they hate immigrants or so and so type of people should die.... that should be enough reason to do a visit, an inspection in the house, and a real investigation. and if u find something... lock em up asap for the conspiracy. permanent flag on their report so they can never legally purchase a weapon again.

people like them shouldnt have guns and weapons at all. im not gonna put my faith in maybe they'll see the error of their ways before they go through with it. NOPE. get em up outta here

Why is it that instead of just adding to what I'm saying that we need additional red flag laws for what I'm saying to work, you decide to go through a process of pointing hypothetical holes into my hypothetical situation?

Even if they can't arrest him or detain him for having those thoughts, but wouldn't keeping a record of people who potentiall pose a threat to the community be useful? Similar to cops keeping record of known gang members or drug dealers that they can't arrest but are aware they are in fact breaking the law. Should they stop keeping track of others whom they know are threats or potential threats since they can't do anything?

 

[getback]

There's literally no harm in having police send a unit to the kid's house in response to a concerned parent. There's a 99% chance said police officer is just sitting in his cruiser scrolling social media drinking coffee. If a mother of young, white male with an AK calls to express concern about her son in today's social climate...police should take that call.

 

[tekthemaestro]

There's literally no harm in having police send a unit to the kid's house in response to a concerned parent. There's a 99% chance said police officer is just sitting in his cruiser scrolling social media drinking coffee. If a mother of young, white male with an AK calls to express concern about her son in today's social climate...police should take that call.

Red Flag Laws across the board > Police check in response to concern > doing nothing

agreed. except option 2 and 3 shouldnt exist. when trying to fix a persistent problem, fix it. no bandaids. you want to give them the room to not get those red flag laws up. i dont.

Why is it that instead of just adding to what I'm saying that we need additional red flag laws for what I'm saying to work, you decide to go through a process of pointing hypothetical holes into my hypothetical situation?

Even if they can't arrest him or detain him for having those thoughts, but wouldn't keeping a record of people who potentiall pose a threat to the community be useful? Similar to cops keeping record of known gang members or drug dealers that they can't arrest but are aware they are in fact breaking the law. Should they stop keeping track of others whom they know are threats or potential threats since they can't do anything?

keeping that record would be the definition of the red flag laws that need to go into place. but they need to be able to act on it. thats the difference in our perspectives. you're ok with them not being able to act on that intelligence cuz its better than nothing. im not. go all the way. this is terrorism isnt it? so treat it that way. if we're gonna tell them to compile lists of dangerous people who shouldnt own guns, they should have the right to do a check and make timely decisions on whether or not to arrest or confiscate. otherwise, that list ALREADY exists. and they already cant do anything about anyone on that list.

 

[iamdef]

keeping that record would be the definition of the red flag laws that need to go into place. but they need to be able to act on it. thats the difference in our perspectives. you're ok with them not being able to act on that intelligence cuz its better than nothing. im not. go all the way. this is terrorism isnt it? so treat it that way. if we're gonna tell them to compile lists of dangerous people who shouldnt own guns, they should have the right to do a check and make timely decisions on whether or not to arrest or confiscate. otherwise,

Who said I'm okay with them not being able to act on it other than you? Cause I don't recall saying that.
You keep creating scenarios then speaking on them as fact. We seem to agree but it's like you want to be "more" right than I am

 

[tekthemaestro]

Who said I'm okay with them not being able to act on it other than you? Cause I don't recall saying that.
You keep creating scenarios then speaking on them as fact. We seem to agree but it's like you want to be "more" right than I am

anyone who says " ____ is better than nothing" is ok with not getting whats deserved. thats not made up. you dont have to say "im ok with not getting red flag laws" if you say "well at least the check portion is better than not doing nothing."

in this scenario there can't be a plan B and C. Plan B just distracts from plan A as will smith says. B being just the welfare checks, C being nothing. You need A. And A should be pushed for. pushing for anything less is a half measure

 

[iamdef]

anyone who says " ____ is better than nothing" is ok with not getting whats deserved. thats not made up. you dont have to say "im ok with not getting red flag laws" if you say "well at least the check portion is better than not doing nothing."

in this scenario there can't be a plan B and C. Plan B just distracts from plan A as will smith says. B being just the welfare checks, C being nothing. You need A. And A should be pushed for. pushing for anything less is a half measure

aight fam

 

[tekthemaestro]

right on queue

 

[getback]

agreed. except option 2 and 3 shouldnt exist. when trying to fix a persistent problem, fix it. no bandaids. you want to give them the room to not get those red flag laws up. i dont.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying UNTIL those red flag laws exist in every state, a wellness check doesn't hurt.

 

[QU!K]

Bruh they already have the patriot act for terrorist

These white supremicists are terrorists...

If someone drops a tip on a kid, nevermind their own parents

God forbid a cop do their job and investigate

 

[jjs07]

man i just moved away from tampa. this dude admits early on he was a career criminal from an early age. exactly how does he legally own weapons?

then he blindfolds them and makes them load and chamber the weapon while answering questions. hes doing stuff hes seen in movies. he said the reasoning behind it was cuz sometimes shootings happen in the dark and she needs to be able to find stuff in the dark. well unless the gun and its mag are sitting 3 inches apart on a table shes sitting in front of...this is stupid. not only that, but she put the mags in without even checking if they were loaded or if the gun was hot. so by him passing her in that drill i know hes training them and missing steps.

dude says he shot his own baby mama and her son cuz she was angry. bruh. foh

i dont agree with this foolishness at all. yes, take the mystique out of guns and like i said instill the respect of guns EARLY.

I agree with most of everything you said.

Plus the girl was just regurgitating information. Rote stuff. Who knows if she's doing anything other than memorizing.

I think the gun safety stuff is paramount, but I wouldn't trust any 3-6 year old with a weapon

 

[yobyellav]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-reportedly-warning-trump-supporting-151147370.html

 

[QU!K]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-reportedly-warning-trump-supporting-151147370.html

Imagine having a weak clown president you could threaten like this

 

[tekthemaestro]

Bruh they already have the patriot act for terrorist

These white supremicists are terrorists...

If someone drops a tip on a kid, nevermind their own parents

God forbid a cop do their job and investigate

what are u even talking about? nobody is against an investigation. and as u said, this is a suspected terrorist. a welfare check aint what they using on suspected terrorists. i advocate for the same treatment for these people. its not God forbid they do their job and investigate, its.. give them the reigns to do a full investigation. anything less is unacceptable.

I agree with most of everything you said.

Plus the girl was just regurgitating information. Rote stuff. Who knows if she's doing anything other than memorizing.

I think the gun safety stuff is paramount, but I wouldn't trust any 3-6 year old with a weapon

i dont trust anyone under 20 with one and thats being generous tbh. kids just make bad decisions. (and so do adults) i dont want to exacerbate their bad decision by giving them a tool that can make it permanent. im teaching my daughter if u see a gun and its not on a cops hip you get out of there. period.

 

[deleted]

agreed. except option 2 and 3 shouldnt exist. when trying to fix a persistent problem, fix it. no bandaids. you want to give them the room to not get those red flag laws up. i dont.

Reminds me of the time I cut myself BAD on a broken window and started bleeding all over the place

I still can't believe my idiot friends wanted to clean the wound and apply a tourniquet before I went to the hospital