Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 655

yhwx said:

Then I don’t really get your point. If suicides are most gun deaths, then shouldn’t these statistics apply to gun deaths too? I don’t just want a solution for mass shootings. We should want one for other gun problems too.

That is a question. That’s why I pointed out that states with assault weapon bans appear to highly correlate to lower gun deaths and yet I don’t think many suicides (which comprise most gun deaths) are committed with assault weapons. So…maybe something else is going on with these numbers.

And I question whether many people who commit suicide by firearm will choose to live if they don’t have a gun to kill themselves with. That sounds very doubtful to me.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/ajit-pai-nra-cpac-award/index.html

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission was awarded a handmade rifle by the National Rifle Association Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Ajit Pai, the FCC’s chairman who oversaw the highly controversial repeal of the commission’s net neutrality rules last year, was awarded the rifle, along with the NRA’s “Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award,” for his efforts last year during the repeal.

The award came as a surprise to Pai, who was expecting to give a speech unrelated to the NRA. The rifle is awarded “when someone has stood up under pressure with grace and dignity and principled discipline,” said Carolyn Meadows, the second vice-president of the NRA.

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Then I don’t really get your point. If suicides are most gun deaths, then shouldn’t these statistics apply to gun deaths too? I don’t just want a solution for mass shootings. We should want one for other gun problems too.

That is a question. That’s why I pointed out that states with assault weapon bans appear to highly correlate to lower gun deaths and yet I don’t think many suicides (which comprise most gun deaths) are committed with assault weapons. So…maybe something else is going on with these numbers.

I’m with you here. First off, take state-by-state numbers with a huge grain of salt in general. Open borders mean local gun laws have less relevance. I know Alaska and Wyoming have ridiculous suicide rates and lax gun laws. Loosely related maybe, but there’s a whole lot else that feeds into suicide rates. If you just look at Alaska’s native population, for example, the suicide rate gets much worse. Lack of jobs, education, prospects for the future, plus a nighttime that lasts 30 days.

And I question whether many people who commit suicide by firearm will choose to live if they don’t have a gun to kill themselves with. That sounds very doubtful to me.

You’d be surprised how well those seemingly dumb suicide barriers on bridges work. They don’t help everyone, certainly, or even most people. But making suicide just a little bit harder is sometimes just enough to get people to look around at their other options. And not just their other options for means of suicide.

yhwx said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/ajit-pai-nra-cpac-award/index.html

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission was awarded a handmade rifle by the National Rifle Association Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Ajit Pai, the FCC’s chairman who oversaw the highly controversial repeal of the commission’s net neutrality rules last year, was awarded the rifle, along with the NRA’s “Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award,” for his efforts last year during the repeal.

The award came as a surprise to Pai, who was expecting to give a speech unrelated to the NRA. The rifle is awarded “when someone has stood up under pressure with grace and dignity and principled discipline,” said Carolyn Meadows, the second vice-president of the NRA.

Agency heads should stay away from these political events. It increases the perception they are partisan - a problem the FCC has had on the net neutrality issue. Now the NRA steps in and figuratively shoots the guy in the foot.

I don’t think anyone in the Trumpyverse™ knows or cares how bad accepting such gifts makes them look.

Pitiable story of 21 year old neo-Nazi and how his mother deals with it.

TV’s Frink said:

Why people still think the Republican Party is racist, reason #4,327.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/02/former-republican-chairman-is-done-with-racist-insults-from-his-own-party/

Maybe it shows CPAC is racist but not the GOP since it gave the job to Steele because he is black 😜

Washington Post: An hour-by-hour comparison of Trump and Obama responding to school shootings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHrvODeA8-E

Collipso said:

Mrebo said:

Pitiable story of 21 year old neo-Nazi and how his mother deals with it.

Oh my god. I almost cried.

In that scenario, I would at the very least ask law enforcement to advise me how to legally wiretap my own house so that when it comes down to it (and I regret to suggest it will), I may be able to prevent a crime, provide useful evidence to the prosecution, and/or avoid implication in the crime myself. If one of her rescue dogs was a known biter, she wouldn’t let it walk around off-leash. Sorry for the harsh metaphor, but it’s apt. If you can’t fit it with a muzzle, keep a very close eye on it or you really will be to blame when it kills someone. She’s very lucky indeed to think that (for all she knows) she’s the only parent left bereft because of what her son has become, and she will need to work hard if she wants to keep it that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng5o6TkTlFY

Brutal interview with the Sheriff. Is the media being unfair or did the police fail over and over again?

TV’s Frink said:

Can you give me the Clif Bar Notes?

Basically slow-ass or no-ass response times. Hard to say at this point how much the “resource officer” (school security guard) on site added to the confusion by what he did or didn’t communicate to the other officers, but clearly there was a bit of “Wait outside because nobody knows WTF is happening” going on there. The sheriff in this case seems to be IMO overly reluctant to call any fault other than on the resource officer until the investigation is complete. It’s pretty clear the initial officers on the scene weren’t following any sort of plan, and that’s a problem. Now, it’s clear nobody other than the resource officer had the capability to actually reduce the fatalities, but slow response times even beyond the point at which they could have prevented anything really do not help paint a picture of a healthy law enforcement presence.

As for the red flag angle, the police are very limited in what they can do when no crime has actually been committed, and the Sheriff manages to explain that really quite badly. “Imminent” is a high legal hurdle – involuntary commitment is probably the only way the existing legal system could have realistically stopped this, and while I’d be easily persuaded that Nazism alone is a dangerous mental illness, I’m not the one that would need to be convinced for involuntary commitment to work (this is also a high legal hurdle). I don’t know if the existing legal system could have stopped this particular attack, but it’s very clear that it did not. Which is why people are so interested in changing laws as a result.

The part that seems like overreach to me is criticizing the Sheriff for criticizing the NRA. Tapper follows a bit of a “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” playbook, and of course that’s pretty nonsense, but Tapper plays the part pretty well and the Sheriff seems not to have anticipated the Pharisee angle of questioning.

Sheriff-do-no-wrong interviewed by Tapper-amirite. Sheriff says investigation ongoing and maybe somebody other than Deputy Peterson (and y’all agree he’s so bad) didn’t do something right, but not gonna speculate (except about Peterson who is just so bad, obv). Mostly the problem is the law, the NRA, we gotta focus on the other stuff, don’t worry, Imma gonna do a great job with the investigation of the officers. Amirite interjects at each step with “but is that true?” and looks confused, suggests bigger problems in the department.

Highlights:

Sheriff lays blame on Deputy Peterson at school for not going in. Says investigations ongoing of other officers who arrived at the scene, who haven’t been interview yet, but important to know shooting was over by the time they arrived (even though as Jake Tapper noted, they didn’t know that at the time).

Sheriff invokes Peterson’s numerous times when Tapper challenges him about other police failings - seemingly to demonstrate his strong leadership and putting blame mostly on that Deputy. Sheriff speculates about what Peterson was thinking, but avoids doing so on other officers.

Tapper challenged the sheriff for attacking the NRA at the town hall meeting when he knew about Peterson and other failings by the police department.

Tapper brings up the multiple calls made against Cruz. Sheriff says times where Cruz made statements about wanting to do a school shooting didn’t amount to a crime. The Sheriff’s answer didn’t explain that very well and said it was because Cruz didn’t have the means of carrying out a shooting. Tapper questions that.

The Sheriff says any failings aren’t his failings, that he is going to take action on those who failed. Tapper calls him out for failing to take responsibility. When sheriff says he has given “amazing leadership” Tapper repeats those words and leans back with his confused expression.

Tapper challenges about program where school doesn’t have to report issues to police department, suggested that officers might have been aware but did nothing. Sheriff says its great program, that bullets in backpack and threats of violence should have been reported.

Meanwhile over a dozen of the grieving families who lost loved ones in Parkland have been getting regular death threats since the shooting. New “red flags” are still popping up all over the field – let’s hope law enforcement manages to find a way to act on some of these other ones.

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Can you give me the Clif Bar Notes?

Basically slow-ass or no-ass response times. Hard to say at this point how much the “resource officer” (school security guard) on site added to the confusion by what he did or didn’t communicate to the other officers, but clearly there was a bit of “Wait outside because nobody knows WTF is happening” going on there. The sheriff in this case seems to be IMO overly reluctant to call any fault other than on the resource officer until the investigation is complete. It’s pretty clear the initial officers on the scene weren’t following any sort of plan, and that’s a problem. Whether anyone other than the resource officer had the capability to actually reduce the fatalities is unknown and probably unlikely, but slow response times even beyond the point at which they could have prevented anything really do not help paint a picture of a healthy law enforcement presence.

As for the red flag angle, the police are very limited in what they can do when no crime has actually been committed, and the Sheriff manages to explain that really quite badly. “Imminent” is a high legal hurdle – involuntary commitment is probably the only way the existing legal system could have realistically stopped this, and while I’d be easily persuaded that Nazism alone is a dangerous mental illness, I’m not the one that would need to be convinced for involuntary commitment to work (this is also a high legal hurdle). I don’t know if the existing legal system could have stopped this particular attack, but it’s very clear that it did not. Which is why people are so interested in changing laws as a result.

Agree on your impressions. The slow response times might have mattered if not for stopping the shooter then in getting medical care to the people who needed it (as Tapper suggested). Along with other questions/answers, it helped paint a picture of a police department that is not engaged and proactive as it should be.

The Sheriff did make a mess of trying to explain the legal standard. Still “imminent” action is not necessarily required. There is a Florida statute (that the sheriff seems to have had in mind) that states:

“Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Can you give me the Clif Bar Notes?

Basically slow-ass or no-ass response times. Hard to say at this point how much the “resource officer” (school security guard) on site added to the confusion by what he did or didn’t communicate to the other officers, but clearly there was a bit of “Wait outside because nobody knows WTF is happening” going on there. The sheriff in this case seems to be IMO overly reluctant to call any fault other than on the resource officer until the investigation is complete. It’s pretty clear the initial officers on the scene weren’t following any sort of plan, and that’s a problem. Whether anyone other than the resource officer had the capability to actually reduce the fatalities is unknown and probably unlikely, but slow response times even beyond the point at which they could have prevented anything really do not help paint a picture of a healthy law enforcement presence.

As for the red flag angle, the police are very limited in what they can do when no crime has actually been committed, and the Sheriff manages to explain that really quite badly. “Imminent” is a high legal hurdle – involuntary commitment is probably the only way the existing legal system could have realistically stopped this, and while I’d be easily persuaded that Nazism alone is a dangerous mental illness, I’m not the one that would need to be convinced for involuntary commitment to work (this is also a high legal hurdle). I don’t know if the existing legal system could have stopped this particular attack, but it’s very clear that it did not. Which is why people are so interested in changing laws as a result.

Agree on your impressions. The slow response times might have mattered if not for stopping the shooter then in getting medical care to the people who needed it (as Tapper suggested). Along with other questions/answers, it helped paint a picture of a police department that is not engaged and proactive as it should be.

The Sheriff did make a mess of trying to explain the legal standard. Still “imminent” action is not necessarily required. There is a Florida statute (that the sheriff seems to have had in mind) that states:

“Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

Yeah, the problem is the words “credible” and “reasonable”. There’s a lot of state specific case law behind stuff like that and frankly I don’t know anything about it. Imminent is actually more straightforward to argue – if it meets that standard.

CatBus said:

Meanwhile over a dozen of the grieving families who lost loved ones in Parkland have been getting regular death threats since the shooting. New “red flags” are still popping up all over the field – let’s hope law enforcement manages to find a way to act on some of these other ones.

By potential copycats or those wanting them to not speak up? Sick people either way.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Can you give me the Clif Bar Notes?

Basically slow-ass or no-ass response times. Hard to say at this point how much the “resource officer” (school security guard) on site added to the confusion by what he did or didn’t communicate to the other officers, but clearly there was a bit of “Wait outside because nobody knows WTF is happening” going on there. The sheriff in this case seems to be IMO overly reluctant to call any fault other than on the resource officer until the investigation is complete. It’s pretty clear the initial officers on the scene weren’t following any sort of plan, and that’s a problem. Whether anyone other than the resource officer had the capability to actually reduce the fatalities is unknown and probably unlikely, but slow response times even beyond the point at which they could have prevented anything really do not help paint a picture of a healthy law enforcement presence.

As for the red flag angle, the police are very limited in what they can do when no crime has actually been committed, and the Sheriff manages to explain that really quite badly. “Imminent” is a high legal hurdle – involuntary commitment is probably the only way the existing legal system could have realistically stopped this, and while I’d be easily persuaded that Nazism alone is a dangerous mental illness, I’m not the one that would need to be convinced for involuntary commitment to work (this is also a high legal hurdle). I don’t know if the existing legal system could have stopped this particular attack, but it’s very clear that it did not. Which is why people are so interested in changing laws as a result.

Agree on your impressions. The slow response times might have mattered if not for stopping the shooter then in getting medical care to the people who needed it (as Tapper suggested). Along with other questions/answers, it helped paint a picture of a police department that is not engaged and proactive as it should be.

The Sheriff did make a mess of trying to explain the legal standard. Still “imminent” action is not necessarily required. There is a Florida statute (that the sheriff seems to have had in mind) that states:

“Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

Yeah, the problem is the words “credible” and “reasonable”. There’s a lot of state specific case law behind stuff like that and frankly I don’t know anything about it. Imminent is actually more straightforward to argue – if it meets that standard.

You don’t have to worry about the word “credible” in that statute because it is merely the moniker given to the described crime. It doesn’t have an independent meaning. The “reasonable fear” standard is common enough. Whether any of Cruz’s threats were sufficient to create “reasonable fear” is something that needs a closer look. But if we are looking for a statute that seems to cover what we have heard about Cruz this seems like a pretty good one.

SilverWook said:

CatBus said:

Meanwhile over a dozen of the grieving families who lost loved ones in Parkland have been getting regular death threats since the shooting. New “red flags” are still popping up all over the field – let’s hope law enforcement manages to find a way to act on some of these other ones.

By potential copycats or those wanting them to not speak up? Sick people either way.

I imagine the latter. After all, what better way to demonstrate that decent law-abiding gun owners don’t want any sort of gun regulation than by threatening to murder those who vocally support the laws? Oh.

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/967068790814134272

25 fatal school shootings since Columbine. How did each shooting come to an end? A thread. (1/x) https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/02/15/fox-news-anchor-shepard-smith-lists-all-25-fatal-school-shootings-since-columbine/23362465/#slide=ad%23fullscreen

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/967090653011292160

Some of the common themes:
-many shootings happened quickly and ended in suicide
-unarmed school staff de-escalated or subdued shooter in many cases
-in many of these cases school police were on campus. None stopped the shooting