Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Fatal Policy Failure (With Addendum)

Sheriff Scott Israel's own words in July 2016:
My innovative initiatives also helped keep children in school and out of jail, greatly expanding the juvenile civil citation program and making issuance of civil citations mandatory for BSO deputies.
When "one more chance" became one chance too many....


What happened at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, was the perfect storm of deadliness and complicity.

As alluded to in the above Tweet, there is more — much more — to the systemic failure than FBI missteps and the Boward Police Department's botched visits to the Cruz home.

From this source:

...2011/2012 Broward County School administration made a policy decision to block the arrests of students in order to improve their education statistics....
Read the rest HERE.  This is a must-read!

This kind of coverup goes in many a public school system.

I know for a fact that the school systems here in the D.C. Metro Area have the same policy of obfuscation — and for the same reason as above. Mustn’t let the real-estate taxpayers know what is going on in the public schools systems which taxpayers fund.

And private schools can be complicit, too. I've also seen that complicity.

Since I began my teaching career in 1973, here are a few of the crimes that I've personally seen schools sweep under the rug, often to protect the schools' reputations:

the gang rape of a teacher at back-to-school night

dealing cocaine on campus

assault with a deadly weapon on one school campus but never reported to the school to which this student transferred, and the student soon after the transfer, assaulted another student with a deadly weapon

emotionally disturbed students who are inappropriately mainstreamed committing assault on campus during the school day

allowing one diagnosed sociopath to continue classes in the mainstream classes for at least two years after the diagnosis, of which the administration was fully aware.

Additional reading HERE, not the same link as the previous link in this blog post.

Should not these school policies and police-department policies be addressed and revised?  Such revision is in the Public Interest (Mustang's site).

ADDENDUM

Interesting list:
What other mass shootings has an AR-15 - or similar rifle - been used in?

February 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, killed two and wounded 12 at a Los Angeles school before killing himself

October 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, killed six and injured one at an apartment in Crandon, Wisconsin, before killing himself

June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, killed 12 and injured 58 at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado

December 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, killed 27 people in Newtown Connecticut, before killing himself

June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, killed five and injured three in Santa Monica, California, before he was killed

March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, killed one and injured two on a street in Little Water, New Mexico, before he was killed

May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, killed two and injured two at a store in Conyers, Georgia, before he was killed

October 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, killed three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colorado, before he was killed

December 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, killed 14 and injured 21 in California, before they were killed

June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, killed 49 and injured 50 at an Orlando nightclub, before he was killed

October 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, killed 58 and injured hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas, before he killed himself

November 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, killed 26 at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed
Notice the time gap toward the beginning of the list: 1984-2007. Why did that time gap occur?

95 comments:

  1. Why aren't the people of Broward County demanding that Sheriff's resignation? His department performed shamefully and he should get the boot.

    To your post: This is where criminal coddling has brought us. Every time you let a little bastard off the hook you've just promoted them to the next level of criminality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You run to the sound of the guns. That is what the training drills into you, and you learn how to do it smartly, using cover, concealment and other tactics, but you get yourself to where the threat is and you eliminate the threat.

      This is not easy, and it is why not just anyone can be a police officer. It takes a combination of skills, courage and keeping a level head under pressure and letting the ingrained training kick in.

      Sheriff Israel's Company of Broward Cowards failed on multiple levels. Police officers cowering in safety while people are being killed is an abomination.

      Delete
    2. SF,
      Every time you let a little bastard off the hook you've just promoted them to the next level of criminality.

      No kidding!

      At the high school level, the breakdown of discipline thrives in such a lenient atmosphere.

      Children -- yes, high school students are still children with underdeveloped frontal lobes -- need boundaries which much be held firm. The other side of that discipline coin is what I call common sense.

      The best education course I ever took was at the graduate level after I'd already been in the classroom for nearly five years: Discipline in the Secondary School. What a wonderful professor we had! Such a course should be required before any prospective teacher steps in front of the classroom.

      Before I took that class, I stumbled into having the right reaction when a freshman named Kerry. He stepped to the window, unzipped his pants, and announced, "I'm going to piss out the window."

      I responded, "The men's room in down the hall." Note that I said men's room, not boy's room.

      He next announced, "Shit!"

      I responded without raising my voice, "That, too, is down the hall."

      Kerry laughed. And sat down.

      I had no more trouble controlling that classroom.

      Delete
    3. Love the story!

      The same works for parenting.

      Delete
  2. I just found THIS INFORMATION (emphases mine):

    ... Gaining less media attention, on the other hand, is the role of educational policies in the total failure to protect the students from a known threat.

    As the Sun-Sentinel of Florida’s Broward County reports, Nikolas Cruz “kicked doors, cursed at teachers, fought with and threatened classmates and brought a backpack with bullets to school.” In 2014, administrators transferred Cruz to an alternative school for students with “emotional and behavioral disabilities” but two years later changed course and retuned Cruz to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Cruz was banished for disciplinary violations but “never expelled from Broward schools. Legally, he couldn’t be.”

    Under federal law, the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Nikolas Cruz had a right to a “free and appropriate” education at a public school. As special education lawyer Stephanie Langer told the Sun-Sentinel, “You can’t just kick kids out of the public schools because you are afraid of them, or because they are hard to educate.” In Parkland, Florida, that notion overrode the right of other students to an education free from fear, and as it turned out, deprived them of their right to life as well....


    More at the above link.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We delude ourselves by continuing to reference high-school age persons as "children." They are not children, even if their behaviors are quite often "childlike". Obviously, some students are more mature than others. Some students are physically well developed by age 15 or 16. Some kids have involved parents, many do not. Some kids, approximately 8% of the total school population, have serious mental and/or emotional deficiencies. A physically strong 16-year old psychotic on mind-bending drugs, mainstreamed, does nothing more than increase the volatility of our classrooms.

    The primary protocol for emotionally retarded students is behavior-changing medication ... which, because the effectiveness of these drugs depends on whether the "child" takes regular doses, its long-term effect in many cases is to delay the inevitable ... especially until the problem belongs to someone other than a special education teacher, parent -or such as, say, a county sheriff's department.

    So, it looks to me as if we have a multi-level problem. First, we aren't addressing the problem of emotionally disturbed students in a responsible way. We mainstream them in order to hide them, and in this process, we place "normal" children and teachers at great risk. Second, agreements between school districts and local/county law enforcement to ignore juvenile crimes merely reinforces bad behavior. Third, parents sitting idly by worsens the problem (in fairness, many parents may not even know what is going on within the school district). Fourth, all of us are instructed of the utter-faithlessness of government even at the local level.

    Nevertheless, if the avoidable deaths of seventeen students is insufficient to move members of society to greater involvement within their communities, then all we have left is the probability of more mass shootings. The issue has nothing to do with guns, the possession of which are already restricted. The issue involves inappropriate school policy with respect to emotionally disturbed students, jaw-dropping political corruption, and a general failure in society to accept responsibility for the result of these failed protocols. We reap what we sow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam,
      Thank you for your comment.

      Nevertheless, if the avoidable deaths of seventeen students is insufficient to move members of society to greater involvement within their communities, then all we have left is the probability of more mass shootings.

      That is why I've been so upset since the massacre at the high school in Parkland.

      Anything less that the comprehensive reform you detailed in your comment will not begin to solve the huge problems which the Parkland massacre has exposed.

      Delete
    2. The drug problem has been with us for some time.

      Why wouldn't mom agree to her son being prescribed Adderall when she's downing Valium like candy all day.
      We've been over medicated for some time and now it's led to an opioid crisis and the drug companies still skate.

      Think there's any way to get their money out of the political system and move toward reform? Yeah, it's pretty to think so.
      Huge profits are at stake and they will NOT be compromised.

      I notice comprehensive reform doesn't include gun laws.
      Arming teachers will resolve it all.

      We are a sorry people.

      Delete
    3. I absolutely agree with Ducky that huge profits involved with drug medications is a large part of the problem. Beyond that, there are already extensive laws in all states regulate the sale or transfer of firearms. But there are also laws that shield from the public the identity of emotionally disturbed persons, and this is a problem we do not seem interested in addressing.

      Generally, I think arming teachers is the wrong track unless that teacher is also a sworn police reservist or deputy who is required to train with the regular police department on a regular (periodic) basis. The two issues are (1) proper treatment of student psychopaths, which should involve mental health centers, and (2) protecting the innocent from carnage. What happens if a certified psychiatrist determines that Bobby poses no danger to society, and then Bobby goes on a rampage? My guess is nothing ... so how do we address that sort of situation?

      We are a sorry people if we allow political talking points to guide the conversation.

      Delete
  4. "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?”

    Given what has happened in the past fifty-odd years I sometimes wonder if Old Scrooge, that "tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, that squeezing, wrenching, grasping, covetous old sinner" might NOT have been so far off the beam as Mr. Dickens wanted us to think after all?

    };^)>

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whatever happened to putting the kid in Juvi?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question.

      IMO, the problem of keeping track of so many has overwhelmed the system -- along with policies of dangerous leadership, of course.

      Delete
    2. Sigmoid Froyd said

      Juvi?

      Who or what the hell is JUVI?

      Delete
  6. While tightening schools against internal sociopaths, we
    might as well address the community of spouse abusers and violent adults. A few years back, one of the first forced his wife to buy weapons he legally could not. He shot up
    the police station, killed three bystanders, including a
    pastor and killed a police officer helping a young fellow
    who rushed out with his 45 auto and was promptly shot down. Last year, an old crank came into a local pawn shop
    to get his guns back. He was in a rage, threatening to shoot a number of locals, the governor and the president.
    The pawnshop kid conversed with him until the police arrived. As the police chief explained, "we gave him back
    all his weapons, because from a legal standpoint, he was not an immediate threat". I'm guessing that most of us know these characters that are 'not an immediate threat', from school kids, to fellow workers, neighbors and even family. It is a problem, the nature of which is complicated by their 2nd Amendment right to unlimited
    weapons, some with muzzle velocities of 3300 fps, large
    magazines and a basement full of ammo. We cannot lock up a mass murderer until he commits mass murder. IMO, it is
    sad and extremely complicated. Me, I have smoked a pipe for 50 years and am banned from most places, apparently
    considered far more dangerous!

    went to a local pawn shop

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hear ya, BB!

      I don't believe ANY form of legislation could solve this problem.

      Our culture in general has becme demented. Unless and until we deal decisively with the root cause of this madness –– in my opinion a SEPTIC all-pervasive Popular Culture –– all the proscriptions and government edicts in the world will have no more ameliorative effect than bandaids on bullet wounds.

      Delete
    2. Police can detain someone for issuing threats, especially when they possess the capability to carry out those threats.

      Police can also impound weapons in the case of domestic disputes/violence, all based on Judicial review, so that could be expanded.

      The "nature" is NOT "complicated by their 2nd Amendment right" any more than handling a criminal threat is complicated by the First Amendment.

      And your hysterical, buzzword-stuffed rhetoric:
      "right to unlimited weapons, some with muzzle velocities of 3300 fps, large magazines and a basement full of ammo"

      reduces your comment to nothing more than a cut-and-paste gun-grabber propaganda screed.

      (Where the hell is CI when we need him? ... probably off killing terrorists...)

      There are logical flaws and mistatements of legal fact in your propaganda broadside, and it all leads to a very important question:

      Are you trying to usurp El Canardo Ducky's position?

      Delete
    3. (Where the hell is CI when we need him? ... probably off killing terrorists...)

      I wish. It's back to the beltway drudgery, staring at a computer most of the day.

      This latest round of debate with the gun control cabal is illustrative that they're at least trying to learn new nomenclature......they just don't understand what they're referring to. The latest sexiness, is trying to impress people with velocity and FPS......even though nearly every rifle above a .22LR throws out a round with more velocity than nearly every handgun.

      The position is built upon a foundation of emotion, rather than fact and experience.

      Delete
    4. Ballistics is one of my specialties.

      Velocity isn't the determining factor of the "deadliness" of any given bullet. It's a physics problem.

      ( F = ma ) with "F" being force, "m" being mass and "a" acceleration.

      Yes the velocity of a 5.56x45 mm (.223 Remington) cartridge is around 3000 fps but the bullet weighs only 62gr. (gr = grains, and there are 437.5 grains in an ounce) That gives you a force of 1239 ft lbs (rounded) at the muzzle. Pretty puny for a "high power" rifle!

      That's on the low end for a "high power" rifle and the old 30/30 lever action rifle is generally considered on the low end of that scale at 1600 to 1900 ft lbs at the muzzle.

      The old 30/06 Springfield (WW1) has a muzzle energy of between 2000 to 2500 ft pounds.

      The stories of how deadly the M-16 bullet is are questionable given the criticism of its lethality and effective range since its inception.

      Since the Polar Bears all died, it doesn't snow anymore and New Yorker's are all treading water; I guess I really ought to be out of my mind over worrying about those scary black rifles.

      I guess it's worse because of it's scary black color. Any rifle you can legally hunt dear with is more powerful than an AR.

      BTW, no regular ballistic armor will stop "any" high power rifle round at point blank range.

      Delete
    5. Oh oh, "Any rifle you can legally hunt dear with"
      ..the deer will be happy, but the Mrs. upset!
      (not to complain, I am a world record holder in typos, Warren)

      Delete
    6. @ BB Idaho.
      It could have been wurst. ;^)

      Delete
    7. CI,
      The position is built upon a foundation of emotion, rather than fact and experience.

      Yes!

      And so many Parkland survivors parading in front of the media fuels this emotional fury.

      Delete
    8. This foolish furor just another "FAD" dreamt up and implemented by LEFTISTS –– a lot like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, etc.

      Don't worry. "This too shall pass." –– till the NEXT Rough Beast arrives in Bethlehem to bedevil us further.

      Delete
  7. I was able to watch part of the President's meeting with members of Congress re: firearms re-do. Quite frankly, a fragment of that clown show was all I could take. A new law will erect certain barriers to obtaining firearms and prescribe methods for forcing whackos to take their meds. If this wasn't so sad, it might be comical. Let's assume that a "new comprehensive program" establishes a bar to certain people from obtaining lethal weapons. How will these new restrictions do more than the earlier (still in force) restrictions? Will there be fewer KIA's in Chicago as a result of these new restrictions? I seriously doubt it. So, to use Sam's example (above), suppose Bobby does refuse to take his mind-calming drugs? What if he threatens his mother with violence if she tries to notify authorities? How would a law enforcement officer respond when Bobby's mother tattles on him? Will Bobby be arrested and placed into involuntary confinement, or will he, by the end of the day, murder his mother and everyone else in his 9th grade class, whom he hates with a passion? The earlier point was a good one: how do you protect society from unidentified (shielded) sociopaths?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mustang,
      There was a case very similar to that of Bobby some years ago when a mother called the police (or a lawyer) on her son Nathan Cheatham so as to have him committed to a mental health facility. Apparently, he overheard the conversation and killed his mother, another person, and himself. I posted about the Cheatham case at my first blog site. To this day, that particular blog post still gets the occasional comment.

      Delete
  8. Excellent info and comments. This sheriff's mindset fits right in with Obama's mandates that schools discipline students by equal percentage of race instead of punishing criminality regardless of who commits it. What a message THAT telegraphs!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baysider,
      Yes, there is an Obama connection with the policies in Broward County.

      But, honestly, the personal examples I cited in the body of the blog post occurred between 1973 and 1997. I left the traditional classroom in 1997.

      Delete
    2. @Baysider -- ... instead of punishing criminality regardless of who commits it.
      ----------
      But that is exactly what was not happening.
      Black students were more likely to be expelled or put into the criminal justice system than whites for similar offenses. What a message THAT telegraphs.

      Delete
    3. Ducky,

      Provide the data for your wild assertion.

      Delete
  9. Does anyone here happen to know exactly where Nikolas Cruz bought that AR-15?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The AR-15 rifle used in the attack was purchased legally, at Sunrise Tactical Supply in Florida, according to a federal law enforcement official.

      Delete
  10. Interesting list:

    What other mass shootings has an AR-15 - or similar rifle - been used in?

    February 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, killed two and wounded 12 at a Los Angeles school before killing himself

    October 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, killed six and injured one at an apartment in Crandon, Wisconsin, before killing himself

    June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, killed 12 and injured 58 at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado

    December 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, killed 27 people in Newtown Connecticut, before killing himself

    June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, killed five and injured three in Santa Monica, California, before he was killed

    March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, killed one and injured two on a street in Little Water, New Mexico, before he was killed

    May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, killed two and injured two at a store in Conyers, Georgia, before he was killed

    October 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, killed three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colorado, before he was killed

    December 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, killed 14 and injured 21 in California, before they were killed

    June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, killed 49 and injured 50 at an Orlando nightclub, before he was killed

    October 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, killed 58 and injured hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas, before he killed himself

    November 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, killed 26 at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed


    Notice the time gap toward the beginning of the list: 1984-2007.

    I will now add the information to the body of the blog post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least part of the 1984-2007 period was covered by the assault weapons ban.

      Delete
    2. Duck,
      Let's have some specific dates.

      Delete
    3. I see that Columbine (1999) is not on the list.

      Delete
    4. From the report to DoJ in 2004:

      “because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data.”

      - CI

      Delete
    5. Gun control measures were trivial and ineffective. Not surprised.

      Delete
    6. Close - gun control is trivial and ineffective.

      Delete
    7. There were quite a few mass shootings in the '84 - '07 period.
      What you are really asking i why the handgun fell out of favor and the semi-auto rifle became the weapon of choice.

      Delete
    8. It was an observation on AOW's question.

      It clearly had nothing to do with you.

      Delete
    9. @ Ducky:
      "why the handgun fell out of favor and the semi-auto rifle became the weapon of choice."

      Media hype obviously.

      A Glock pistol high capacity magazine in 9mm can hold 33 rounds is infinitely easier to hide can fire just as quickly as an AR and assuredly as deadly at close range. You can even put a laser sight on it so you don't even have to aim, just put that red dot on the target and pull the trigger. But if what you intend is terror just show up with that scary old AR.

      Delete
    10. And inconveniently for the gun control cabal, the 33 rd magazine is exactly how Gaby Giffords shooter was disarmed.

      What Warren refers to however, has led to countless hours of laughter, when to the media, every pistol is a "Glock" and every rifle is an "AR".....or even scarier, the made up "assault weapon!!!!"

      Delete
    11. Note to CI:

      Never let facts stand in the way of agitprop.

      ""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins ..."
      ~~ H. L. Mencken ~~

      Delete
    12. @Warren

      Exactly!

      Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. - Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director and founder of the "Violence Policy Center"

      Delete
    13. CI,
      to the media, every pistol is a "Glock" and every rifle is an "AR".....or even scarier, the made up "assault weapon!!!! They look at the photos of scary guns and leap off the precipice into irrational thinking.

      These young people to whom I'm referring will vote in 2020.

      As far as I can tell, almost every high school student in the public school system believes that trip about assault weapon.

      Delete
  11. Jeffrey Beauregard Magoo said

    Two-hundred-eighteen deaths from "mass shootings" in a twenty-three-year period?

    How many in auto accidents?

    How many in plane crashes?

    How many from drug overdose?

    How many by knife?

    How many by blunt instrument?

    How many by poison?

    How many by strangulation?

    How many by fist?

    How many by electrocution?

    If we geot all those figures together, I'm sure 218 dead by "gun violence" in 23 years would seem relatvely insignificant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeffrey Beauregard Magoo said

      Add 15 dead at Colmbine in 1999, which were omitted from the above list, and we've had 233 nurders by "gun violence" in 23 years.

      Sad, of course, but hardly the proper cause for a national furor!

      And where are the figures on those murdered by Islamic Radicals throughout the world?

      Delete
    2. Jeffrey Beauregard Magoo said

      In addition a list of all thise maimed in these attacks contrasted with a list of those merely "injured" who've been able to return to normal life would help clarify the true significance of these unfortunately sensationalized events.

      Delete
    3. What a pity no one bothered even to try to answer these, I think, EXCELLENT questions, Jeffrey!

      I would if I could but I don't know how.

      Oh well, at leastI had the decency to acknowledge your attempt to contrbute to the conversation.

      Too often when I visit blogs I'm reminded of little Gerda's time wasted in the witch's flower garden. (See The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Andersen.)

      Delete
  12. Thank Obama's policy "to reduce suspensions, expulsions, and in-school arrests.

    President Trump needs to get the "school to Prison" Pipeline flowing again.

    As Adam Smith said, and FreeThinke often reminds us, mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

    Leftwing Progressives are a danger to society. Only in a loony lefty circus of the grotesque could the proposition "Jail the criminals," be considered controversial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need to turn 180 and start rewarding schools based on the number of arrests made for criminal students.

      Delete
    2. Here's an idea, let's get government out of the education racket.

      Delete
    3. SF,
      Thank Obama's policy "to reduce suspensions, expulsions, and in-school arrests.

      Spot on!

      As far as I can tell, the media will not even discuss that aspect. Obfuscation!

      Delete
  13. Attention Gun Owners:

    Stop buying anything gun-related at Walmart and Dicks.

    Dicks was never a serious gun store anyway, trafficking as they do in overpriced "outdoor wear" for metrosexual hipsters who have an LL Bean view of the Outdoors.

    Patronize a real gun store and thank the for not caving to leftwing propaganda-fomented hysteria.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gun Owners of America, Unite against leftwing fascism!

    If you are a gun owner and you do not belong to the NRA, Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or some other such organization...

    Shame. On. You!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Time Gap 1984-2007? Time it took for the drug and psychiatry industry to get big into the anti-psychotic drugs + cultural and moral decline + spread of moslem savages and their ideology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kid,
      I've been thinking the same thing -- although I'm sure that other factors were involved.

      Delete
  16. Trump supporters should follow Trump's confiscate first / due process later formula and round up all their firearms and hand them over to the government, and then file for a court hearing to argue why you should get your guns back.

    Or, better idea, impeach this imbecilic Russian intelligence asset and dare the Democrats to try to come for your guns.

    Molon Labe!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Trump supporters should follow Trump's confiscate first / due process later formula and round up all their firearms and hand them over to the government, and then file for a court hearing to argue why you should get your guns back.

    Or, better idea, impeach this imbecilic Russian intelligence asset and dare the Democrats to try to come for your guns.

    Molon Labe!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TC,
      file for a court hearing to argue why you should get your guns back

      IMO, the Second Amendment should mean that a person cannot be deprived without due process in advance.

      Preventing a non-criminal individual from buying a weapon seems impossible to me. The mental health issue is a gray area.

      Delete
    2. Let's inject a little sanity...

      Right now, if someone issues a credible threat against another person, the police show up, arrest the suspect and impound the person's weapons. Happens all the time in domestic dispute cases.

      The person is jailed, and they go see the judge in the morning. That is how the law and police work works.

      Detention first, due process next.

      Life's messy.

      Delete
    3. AOW,

      The mental health issue is a YOOOOGE gray area.

      President Trump repealed an unconstitutional gun-grab perpetrated by Obama. Obama issued an imperial decree that anyone receiving a government benefit who were identified as unable to handle their own finances were automatically identified in the federal database as unable to purchase a weapon.

      That is the unconstitutional statist far end of the spectrum of actions. At the other end is to never do anything.

      How we judge someone mentally ill, and determining what actions stem from that (all mentally ill people are not dangerous), is a complex topic. All sides are not ready for this discussion. NPR is already straw-manning the issue, arguing from the deceptive premise that pro-gun people are blaming psychiatrists or unfairly asking them to "step up."

      Like every other serious issue, I don't foresee us ever having a productive debate on it.

      Delete
    4. Silver... in the domestic abuse case, doesn't law enforcement have to wait until a crime is committed?

      Like when a woman says her husband has a gun and tries to enforce her TRO, the police can't do anything until he actually violates the order by coming to the house, right?

      The issue seems to be that by then, it's too late. Before the cops can get there, he's already killed her, beat her or whatever.

      Are you saying that they go ahead of time, take the guy into custody and then adjudicate him?

      Delete
    5. Silver... the mental health issue is indeed a huge gray area.

      But how can we get past that? We can't force ppl to take their meds can we? 16 year old kids, found to be psychotic cannot, by law, be forced to take them. How on earth do we get past that?

      We've chosen, in the name of freedom, not to force parents to be good parents, I assume because it's hard to objectively determine good parenting.

      It seems as if we could get 10 conservatives and 10 liberals in a room and we could agree on whether or not someone is mentally stable, dangerous or a threat, but we'd never agree on a way to mitigate that threat.

      It's indeed a mess.

      Delete
    6. Dave, Yes, there is a legal standard a person must meet before cops haul them in. There is a necessary gray area there as well, allowing cops to use their judgment.

      We can argue all day about where the line is that you take someone into custody and confiscate weapons, but I think we all agree that many of these shooters openly issued credible threats, and combined with psychotic behavior, established a pattern for taking them into custody, having them evaluated, and potentially impounding their weapons, all accompanied by due process in front of a judge.

      My last paragraph is where the sensible ground is.

      You don't confiscate someone's arms just because a bureaucrat using arbitrary standards doesn't like how they are acting or speaking.

      We also can no longer do nothing when the person is throwing red flags.


      Having said all that, you can take a person's guns away, and they can always get another one through some other means.

      I am for sensible measures, but I totally oppose the progressive screamers making everybody wear a diaper because a few nutballs shit their pants.

      Delete
    7. Dave Miller wrote, "It seems as if we could get 10 conservatives and 10 liberals in a room and we could agree on whether or not someone is mentally stable, dangerous or a threat, but we'd never agree on a way to mitigate that threat."

      After three-quarters of century of living in the US, sixty years of which closely observing this clown parade we call the US government, I tend to agree. Not because there are no solutions, but rather because the political left lacks an essential understanding of good citizenship, and I would add, common sense.

      Does anyone have the constitutional right to inflict others with pain and suffering? No. Thus, when police officers respond to a domestic disturbance, a crime has most often already been committed. One person assaulting another is a crime; assault does not need physical battery, only that one-person fears for his or her own safety, or the safety of another. So, as SF said ... the police can affect an arrest and seize weapons to prevent assault. At this point, public safety cancels out any right of access to firearms or other dangerous weapons (such as kitchen knives). You will please note that citizens are denied their constitutional rights every single day; we call this "criminal conviction."

      As to the issue of forcing people to take their medications, particularly among those classified as emotionally unstable, there was a time when such individuals were lawfully placed into mental health facilities. In such places, they received mental health therapies, three meals a day, toilet facilities, clean clothes, and a warm bed. Then Jimmy Carter ordered all such persons released, which goes a long way to explain why we have so many homeless people in our country, and why 80% of these people are classified as emotionally disturbed. I don't know about you but forcing people to live under bridges in their own filth does not appear to be very humane treatment ... but this is what happens whenever we put leftists in charge of anything. If an adolescent has been diagnosed with a serious emotional problem, and where it is found that his or her failure to take prescribed medications poses a danger to society, then a court order could be obtained to "force" him or her to take their medications. If the individual still refuses, then it makes sense to deprive them of their right to liberty until they do begin regular doses of prescribed medications. The people have a right to be secure in their persons and property, and this right takes precedence over the right of a maniac to maim and kill.

      Actually, I don't know of a law that prohibits psychotic people from being forced to take their medications, but if there is one (and please direct me to that source), then I'm sure there was a democrat behind that law. Finally, please illuminate me: when has there ever been a debate in this country about forcing parents to become good parents? Sounds a bit diversionary to me, but then ...

      Delete
    8. Sam... we debate every day parents rights and forcing them to be good parents. Parents who choose to let their kids walk home from school alone have their kids picked up by social services because it's "dangerous." Government forces parents to vaccinate kids. Government tells us we have to educate our kids. Government tells us we cannot beat, abuse or starve our kids. But government does not tell us we cannot expose our kids to drugs in the womb, smoke in the womb and second hand smoke in the house all day long.

      I think someone could make an argument that everyone of those behaviors could be dangerous to a child, but the reality is, we are as a people, split over whether government has a right to be involved in those decisions.

      It's not diversionary. Just like Silver's gray area example, it just speaks to how divided and how much, I believe, we want to be divided. I think it is evident in responses that seem to place blame solely on one side or the other rather than trying to seek out workable solutions.

      If I've learned anything in my short time on the planet, it's that it takes two to tangle, two to fight and two to kill a marriage or relationship. Rarely are problems the sole result of fault, weakness, sin or deceit from just one side of the ledger.

      Delete
    9. It is healthy to have public debates because societal conflict allows us to move forward. I simply think that common sense should be our guide in such debates.

      Laws that prohibit the abuse of children do not prevent child abuse; they only carry penalties, after the fact, for the wanton abuse of innocents. These laws, however, remain in the public interest because abused children grow up to become abusive parents.

      Surely you are not proposing that government assign a social worker to every family. Otherwise, we should perhaps assume that most parents do not abuse their children. Most parents understand that immunization programs are in the public interest; what "good" parent does not want a healthy child? On the other hand, there have been instances where government dictates have harmed our children -which is a concern to parents who love their children and who, by the way, with some justification, do not trust the government to do the right thing. Doctor Spock was a disaster for several generations, not because his ideas were necessarily wrong, but because he made proposals that were based entirely on anecdotal evidence and were seriously flawed. Equally idiotic was the notion that it takes a village to raise a child. Finally, one may recall revolting programs some years ago that involved unethical human experimentation, which leads us to today where some parents legitimately question the long-term effects of blanket immunization programs; who can blame them? Government has been a long way from transparency in such matters.

      The fact remains that we live within an imperfect society. While most parents behave in a way that they think will benefit their children, some people do not. The alternative to an imperfect society is the mad scientist approach, where lab rats strive to create a super race of human beings. In the minds of some people, human cloning and eugenics is a panacea to all our social ills. Examples of this might include Hillary Clinton's hero, Margaret Sanger. One darling of the political left is Planned Parenthood -a racist organization responsible for the destruction of millions of "undesirables." Personally, this doesn't sit well with me.

      In my view, it is healthy to question the motives of Big Brother. In our society, there are no easy solutions to complex problems. There is a reason we have so many psychopathic young people; we could begin by making serious inquiries into this problem. We cannot assent to social anarchy, but neither can we become compliant to the demands of often-brainless government bureaucrats-who, as an example, protect the identities of emotionally disturbed people who pose a danger to public safety.

      Delete
    10. It is healthy to have public debates because societal conflict allows us to move forward. I simply think that common sense should be our guide in such debates.

      Laws that prohibit the abuse of children do not prevent child abuse; they only carry penalties, after the fact, for the wanton abuse of innocents. These laws, however, remain in the public interest because abused children grow up to become abusive parents.

      Surely you are not proposing that government assign a social worker to every family. Otherwise, we should perhaps assume that most parents do not abuse their children. Most parents understand that immunization programs are in the public interest; what "good" parent does not want a healthy child? On the other hand, there have been instances where government dictates have harmed our children -which is a concern to parents who love their children and who, by the way, with some justification, do not trust the government to do the right thing. Doctor Spock was a disaster for several generations, not because his ideas were necessarily wrong, but because he made proposals that were based entirely on anecdotal evidence and were seriously flawed. Equally idiotic was the notion that it takes a village to raise a child. Finally, one may recall revolting programs some years ago that involved unethical human experimentation, which leads us to today where some parents legitimately question the long-term effects of blanket immunization programs; who can blame them? Government has been a long way from transparency in such matters.

      The fact remains that we live within an imperfect society. While most parents behave in a way that they think will benefit their children, some people do not. The alternative to an imperfect society is the mad scientist approach, where lab rats strive to create a super race of human beings. In the minds of some people, human cloning and eugenics is a panacea to all our social ills. Examples of this might include Hillary Clinton's hero, Margaret Sanger. One darling of the political left is Planned Parenthood -a racist organization responsible for the destruction of millions of "undesirables." Personally, this doesn't sit well with me.

      In my view, it is healthy to question the motives of Big Brother. In our society, there are no easy solutions to complex problems. There is a reason we have so many psychopathic young people; we could begin by making serious inquiries into this problem. We cannot assent to social anarchy, but neither can we become compliant to the demands of often-brainless government bureaucrats-who, as an example, protect the identities of emotionally disturbed people who pose a danger to public safety.

      Delete
    11. That isn't Trump's formula. He demands confiscate first, due process later.

      The sanity argument is easy. Someone coming to take my guns is goddamned suicidal.

      Delete


    12. President Trump quotes:

      Number one, take the guns away immediately from people that you can adjudge is mentally ill. The police didn’t take the gun as way. That could have been policing. I think they should have taken them anyway, whether they had the right or not. You have to have very strong provisions for the mentally ill. People are saying I shouldn’t be saying that. I don’t want mentally ill people to be having guns.

      [...]

      Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court. Because that’s another system. A lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. You could do exactly what you’re saying but take the guns first, go through due process second.


      This happens under current law if someone is deemed a credible threat under the law. The police do not go get a judge's permission to arrest someone and impound their property.

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/28/17064540/donald-trump-gun-control-full-transcript-roundtable

      Delete
    13. A few things I've been considering lately...

      At what point SHOULD have Cruz been deemed a credible threat?

      At what point WOULD he have been so deemed if the Broward school system and the police department had done their jobs?

      Are we advocating that the schools turn in "the crazies"? And who decides who is crazy? Teachers? Students? Guidance counselors?

      Old adage: Sometimes methinks that everyone besides you and me is crazy. And lately I worry about THEE."

      Delete
    14. The key to this discussion is "due process." There are two constitutional provisions that protect citizens from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, and property: The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. I support the notion that police officers may confiscate fire arms as a matter of public safety, so long as there is a later procedure whereby the government must lay out its case for the forfeiture of property (in this case, fire arms).

      There is a slippery slope, however. How do we define "mental illness," and whose definition shall we use as our guide? In some states, veterans who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder are prohibited from purchase or carry of firearms. Is this too broad of a definition? Is there any combat veteran who hasn't experienced traumatic stress? Imagine a committee of certified psychiatrists, all of whom are screaming liberal retards, three-quarters of whom themselves suffer from Trump Anxiety Disorder, charged with the responsibility to decide whether Nikolas Cruz poses a danger to society ... so I wonder, if the politicians are indeed serious about fixing this "mental health" issue, how should authorities proceed to make our communities safer? For example, should any diagnosis involving mental instability be forwarded to the National Crime Information Center?

      Aside, what I find jaw-dropping is that Islamist psychopaths haven't already targeted our schools and shopping malls. These so-called soft targets are just begging for it.

      Delete
    15. AOW and Mustang, We are asking good questions that free people in a constitutional republic should be asking.

      I posted the entire paragraphs of the President's remarks so we could see them in context.

      I don't want to hear any president say "I think they should have taken them anyway, whether they had the right or not."

      That's Duterte territory, but taking into account his loose, unscripted talking style and the other things he said on the subject, it's not so damning.

      According to various articles I've read, Cruz could have been arrested for felony menacing.

      I also agree with both of you that finding someone mentally ill alone is not enough to infringe their rights. According to what I have read, most mentally ill people are not violent.

      We need a rational conversation on this, and the "cold dead hands" shriekers channeling Charleston Heston aren't helping. From what little I've seen of her, Dana Loesh seems to be a pretty good spokesperson.

      The president has spoken, and it is up to gun rights folks to ask him just what the hell he meant when he said what he said.

      Delete
    16. SF,
      According to various articles I've read, Cruz could have been arrested for felony menacing.

      Agreed.

      According to what I have read, most mentally ill people are not violent.

      True, IMO.

      The definition for mental illness is so broad. The DSM grows fatter and fatter each year -- in part so that health insurance plans will pay for the medications (including Ritalin, Cylert, etc.). Therefore, more and more kids are popping these prescription pills. Haldol and the like are different medications from those prescribed for ADD and ADHD -- and herald a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, which can pose a serious threat to others.

      Delete
    17. @silverfiddle -- That's Duterte territory
      ---------
      tRump has been very clear that he admires Duterte.

      Just yesterday he said we should emulate Duterte and execute drug pushers. Unfortunately he didn't mean the board of Purdue pharma.

      Delete
    18. When he starts issuing imperial decrees taking rights away from whole categories of people like your Emperor Hussein did, get back to us.

      And congrats. Your comment was almost relevant and on topic.

      Delete
    19. "The president has spoken, and it is up to gun rights folks to ask him just what the hell he meant when he said what he said."

      That would likely require more crack-smoking than Earth's supply of crack cocaine can accomodate, to reach the delusional state required to suspect Trump actually put any thought into what he said.

      Such an approach seems unduly respectful. The idiot should be called on his idiocy, often, immediately, and in his face loudly.

      Delete
  18. Does Donal Trump know anything about firearms?

    Has he ever fired a weapon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. When he lived in New York he had a conceal carry permit and carried, according to accounts

      Delete
  19. Can it all just boil down to (and someone's probably mentioned it above but...there are a LOT of comments) WE ARE MORE AFRAID TO HURT ONE PERSON LIKE CRUZ'S FEELINGS BY PUTTING ANY RESTRICTIONS ON HIM THAN WE ARE OF LOSING SEVENTEEN INNOCENT PEOPLE? obviously, there are varying degrees of that, but even a hold for a week to MAKE SURE someone's viable to have a gun (so to speak) seems worth it. But God forbid we hurt anybody's feelings anymore these days. Lives apparently don't trump anybody's feelings. A very sad politically correct scenario.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cruz more than likely belonged in shackles from the age of four ... his feelings don't matter, but public safety does matter (unless you're a leftist). The question remains: how did this whacko ever get his hands on a firearm when there is sufficient law right now to preclude him from obtaining one?

      Delete
    2. Sam,
      You are exactly right about this:

      The question remains: how did this whacko ever get his hands on a firearm when there is sufficient law right now to preclude him from obtaining one?

      There exists a Florida law that specifies that anyone who makes a threat online can be questioned by the police. That law was apparently bypassed: Nikolas Cruz had made more than one threat online.

      Delete
    3. Z,
      Excellent comment!

      As I mentioned in the body of the blog post:

      "one more chance" became one chance too many

      That "one more chance" kept being mandated by school board-sheriff's office complicity.

      Perhaps if the FBI had seen an arrest record for Nikolas Cruz, the FBI might have taken action. Might.

      Delete
    4. It hasn't come out in the discussion just what options the police had.
      Under Florida law was there sufficient cause to have him involuntarily detained?
      I'll bet there was little they could do under Florida law to stop his weapon purchases, let alone confiscate them.
      Did the cops just nonchalant the whole matter and dump it on the school administration?

      He got his hands on a gun(s) because it's permitted under Florida law. The question is whether there was any way to adjudicate that he was a threat to others. Who determines he should be held for evaluation?

      None of these questions have been asked.

      Delete
  20. Driving topics into the ground
    Does not make discourse more profound.
    Argument is far less vincible
    If one concentrates on principle.
    Too much detail does too little
    To matter e'en a jot or tittle,
    Stick to basics; broadly limned
    Lest debaters minds grow dimmed.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective