Our Moloch

[redwood66]

I haven't heard anyone say that any teacher HAS to carry a concealed weapon. The idea of choice seems to be missing here. Some teachers do already and schools already have programs. Would you remove that choice from them because you think it is stupid?

 

[cmd2014]

Teachers with guns is epically stupid in the preponderance of cases. However having a locked down campus and entry checkpoints with armed security is not. They already exist in many schools in high crime areas. This is the world we live in, like it or not. As has been said before by ksinger, the 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere and guns will not be confiscated so the conversation needs to move away from that to things that might work.

I think change will go in the direction that the American people demand that it go. Constitutions can be changed if enough people agree that they need to be (even in the US - look at banning slavery or giving women the right to vote for example). Laws can be changed. Changed laws can be enforced, and gradually behavior changes become the norm and no-one really thinks much about them (like for seatbelt use, use of car seats, helmets with bikes and motorcycles - none of these laws were popular and many people thought they were stupid and unnecessary and infringed on people’s individual rights, but here we are and few people think twice about it now). Or drunk driving laws. Or gay marriage. It just takes enough people and enough political will to make it happen. So I can’t say that I agree that the conversation needs to move away from gun control. I think the conversation needs to focus on how people want to live, what kind of society Americans want to create, and how best to get yourselves there.

 

[redwood66]

I think change will go in the direction that the American people demand that it go. Constitutions can be changed if enough people agree that they need to be (even in the US - look at banning slavery or giving women the right to vote for example). Laws can be changed. Changed laws can be enforced, and gradually behavior changes become the norm and no-one really thinks much about them (like for seatbelt use, use of car seats, helmets with bikes and motorcycles - none of these laws were popular and many people thought they were stupid and unnecessary and infringed on people’s individual rights, but here we are and few people think twice about it now). Or drunk driving laws. Or gay marriage. It just takes enough people and enough political will to make it happen. So I can’t say that I agree that the conversation needs to move away from gun control. I think the conversation needs to focus on how people want to live, what kind of society Americans want to create, and how best to get yourselves there.

And I would totally agree with all of this and the people will decide. But it may not be the decision that you or I want. I didn't say not to discuss gun control, I was talking about 2A and confiscation. Those are two entirely different things. We (the public at large) can discuss bans and restrictions and all the other things that should be discussed rationally and in a calm manner. That requires both sides to listen. If the true intention by gun control advocates is to repeal the 2A then there is a long row to hoe and it is highly unlikely to happen. Many democrats are not even on board for that.

 

[ksinger]

Would I remove that choice from them because I think it's stupid?
From a taxpayer funded public school? (hahahahaa! Whew, saying that phrase always cracks me up.) And at a state level? You bet. Just because there are some districts and teachers who are willing doesn't make it less stupid.

Of course, smarts is not exactly in huge supply right now, especially in state legislatures. We'll likely have to have it proven to us - over and over and over again - by seeing more mishaps like dumbass with the gun in her pocket, or some teacher having his gun taken away and being shot with it, or an angry teacher pulling a gun on a kid, etc, before we'll decide to stop the stupid.

So far though, most states, and most districts even in states that allow concealed guns in schools, see this issue for the stupid distraction it is. I'm pretty sure even Oklahoma doesn't allow concealed guns in the schools. But we have a good track record lately for demolishing the last remaining shreds of legislative sense, just give us time. But for now, I'm thrilled to be able to for once, say, "You morons in Texas try it out first. Do let us know how it works out."

And in the "Seriously, honey, that happened at YOUR school??" file, would be the incident that was hushed (pay attention to that phrase - school "incidents" that would shock the public, get hushed OFTEN) so well that even my husband, who was pretty dialed in to the backchannel info lines, didn't hear about it until a couple of years after the departure of the principal whose career would have been derailed by it. One teacher was proudly showing off her stun-gun to another teacher and SHOT HER WITH IT. In the building. Gal was OK in the end, but had to go to the ER to have the fishhooks removed. And that kind of stupid - even in the schools - is more prevalent than many would like to acknowledge.

 

[House Cat]

I'll skip the school cop issue this time.

I'm hoping that you're being facetious about the highlighted above. If not, then someone needs to tell my why they think anyone would do the job of teaching under those conditions? The teacher shortage is pretty awful everywhere. I don't think making the environments in schools even more miserable than they already are is going to result in people flocking to the profession. I know the level of misery right now is pretty much beyond bearing for many.

Making it so that coming to work is like entering an actual prison, would send a lot more teachers over the edge and into doing just about anything but teaching. Remember, most states already don't pay teachers enough, and quite frankly, no one should assume that teachers are so lacking in convictions that simply paying them enough is going to make them willing to carry and kill for the kids, or work in a prison-like lockdown. A large portion of them, arguably the best portion, will just say to a society which has already pretty much given up on them, "Screw you very much, I'm outta here." Bottom line, parents expecting every adult in a school to happily die for their kid, is too much.

Maybe once the teacher shortage can no longer be papered over by lick-and-stick emergency certs, the soldiers and SWAT team members guarding the schools can do double duty as teachers. If teachers have to be Rambo, then the very least those guys could do is become teachers.

The good part though, is that we'll start training kids to be incarcerated early and often. When they complain that school is like prison, they'll actually be speaking from experience! And just think of how much shorter and easier the school-to-prison pipeline will be.

We'll Quit Before Trump Gets Us to Carry Guns
https://www.thedailybeast.com/teach...akes-us-carry-guns?source=facebook&via=mobile

Dear K,

I admit that I had one leg on each side of serious and sarcastic when I suggested military protection and lockdown for our children. But then I think, what else can we do? It is being said that the second amendment is going nowhere and guns are going nowhere and we must ... MUST keep our children safe.

My son and future daughter in law are working toward becoming educators. I am 100% against arming teachers. I am 100% against putting them in an environment where they could be mowed down by bullets.

I guess i am willing to sacrifice esthetics and morale if it means they will be safe. I would venture to guess that teacher morale is very low right now because they don’t feel safe in the workplace.

Then there is my 12 year old. He has actually said over and over again this year that he wished his school was fenced off with metal detectors at every entry.

The guns are going nowhere. That is what the gun owners keep telling me.

They say the second amendment protects their rights...even though it is a perverted interpretation of it. I believe most people haven’t even read the 2nd amendment. I also believe that our founding fathers did not intend for this to happen when they wanted to arm our people. They wanted well armed, organized militias to keep their eye on our government. They probably thought we would amend the second amendment to keep up with the government’s technology, not to contribute to the profit of gun companies and the power of special interest groups...at the expense of the lives of our most precious.

I agree with everything you write about teachers, please don’t get me wrong, but the brick wall is the guns. If they aren’t going to do anything about the guns, how do we keep the kids and the teachers safe?


This last incident proves that police aren’t equipped to handle this situation. Two to four Soldiers or Marines posted at each school could be a deterrent. Good luck shooter. But then I wonder if this is the gateway to some sort of police state?

Emotionally, I’m done. I don’t want to see any more children killed. I don’t want to see anymore teachers go through hell trying to save our children.

To be clear, my real desires lie with removing certain weapons off the street and requiring extensive background checks that require updating periodically for gun owners.

Here is my meme:

 

[redwood66]

Would I remove that choice from them because I think it's stupid?
From a taxpayer funded public school? (hahahahaa! Whew, saying that phrase always cracks me up.) And at a state level? You bet. Just because there are some districts and teachers who are willing doesn't make it less stupid.

Of course, smarts is not exactly in huge supply right now, especially in state legislatures. We'll likely have to have it proven to us - over and over and over again - by seeing more mishaps like dumbass with the gun in her pocket, or some teacher having his gun taken away and being shot with it, or an angry teacher pulling a gun on a kid, etc, before we'll decide to stop the stupid.

So far though, most states, and most districts even in states that allow concealed guns in schools, see this issue for the stupid distraction it is. I'm pretty sure even Oklahoma doesn't allow concealed guns in the schools. But we have a good track record lately for demolishing the last remaining shreds of legislative sense, just give us time. But for now, I'm thrilled to be able to for once, say, "You morons in Texas try it out first. Do let us know how it works out."

And in the "Seriously, honey, that happened at YOUR school??" file, would be the incident that was hushed (pay attention to that phrase - school "incidents" that would shock the public, get hushed OFTEN) so well that even my husband, who was pretty dialed in to the backchannel info lines, didn't hear about it until a couple of years after the departure of the principal whose career would have been derailed by it. One teacher was proudly showing off her stun-gun to another teacher and SHOT HER WITH IT. In the building. Gal was OK in the end, but had to go to the ER to have the fishhooks removed. And that kind of stupid - even in the schools - is more prevalent than many would like to acknowledge.

People make stupid choices every day in every state in the US and in every location on the planet. In our country if you make a stupid choice there may or may not be legal consequences for it. You know my view on government and where I am coming from with my points as to role it should play in an individual's life. The people will decide how we move forward and I am fully prepared for whatever the outcome may be within the constraints of our legal and legislative system. Are you as well?

 

[ksinger]

People make stupid choices every day in every state in the US and in every location on the planet. In our country if you make a stupid choice there may or may not be legal consequences for it. You know my view on government and where I am coming from with my points as to role it should play in an individual's life. The people will decide how we move forward and I am fully prepared for whatever the outcome may be within the constraints of our legal and legislative system. Are you as well?

What the heck does that mean?

 

[redwood66]

Dear K,

I admit that I had one leg on each side of serious and sarcastic when I suggested military protection and lockdown for our children. But then I think, what else can we do? It is being said that the second amendment is going nowhere and guns are going nowhere and we must ... MUST keep our children safe.

My son and future daughter in law are working toward becoming educators. I am 100% against arming teachers. I am 100% against putting them in an environment where they could be mowed down by bullets.

I guess i am willing to sacrifice esthetics and morale if it means they will be safe. I would venture to guess that teacher morale is very low right now because they don’t feel safe in the workplace.

Then there is my 12 year old. He has actually said over and over again this year that he wished his school was fenced off with metal detectors at every entry.

The guns are going nowhere. That is what the gun owners keep telling me.

They say the second amendment protects their rights...even though it is a perverted interpretation of it. I believe most people haven’t even read the 2nd amendment. I also believe that our founding fathers did not intend for this to happen when they wanted to arm our people. They wanted well armed, organized militias to keep their eye on our government. They probably thought we would amend the second amendment to keep up with the government’s technology, not to contribute to the profit of gun companies and the power of special interest groups...at the expense of the lives of our most precious.

I agree with everything you write about teachers, please don’t get me wrong, but the brick wall is the guns. If they aren’t going to do anything about the guns, how do we keep the kids and the teachers safe?


This last incident proves that police aren’t equipped to handle this situation. Two to four Soldiers or Marines posted at each school could be a deterrent. Good luck shooter. But then I wonder if this is the gateway to some sort of police state?

Emotionally, I’m done. I don’t want to see any more children killed. I don’t want to see anymore teachers go through hell trying to save our children.

To be clear, my real desires lie with removing certain weapons off the street and requiring extensive background checks that require updating periodically for gun owners.

Here is my meme:

HC I definitely don't want any kind of police state. This situation is so difficult to handle and many people with guns absolutely should not have them. Something definitely should be done to keep that from happening as the background check system is broken and needs to be fixed. I have to have annual checks with the FBI plus a qualification just to keep my permit even though I am retired LE. The rules are not that strict for the average joe shmoe buying or carrying but they should be.

 

[redwood66]

What the heck does that mean?

I don't want to argue with you. We are both capable of having a conversation about this. I am sorry you took that the wrong way because it wasn't intended to be argumentative.

 

[cmd2014]

House Cat, don’t believe the “they”. Don’t let the 5,000,000 people who are represented by the NRA (and the gun manufacturers that they *really* represent) dictate the kind of society the other 321,000,000 of you live in. Don’t fall into learned helplessness. Government listens to two things: money and majority opinion. Antislavery activists were told it would never happen. Suffragettes were told it would never happen. MADD was told it would never happen. The LGBTQ community was told it would never happen. Their “they’s” are pretty quiet now. It’s the same worldwide. Change happens when quiet voices get louder. When public opinion begins to shift. When government and businesses are held to account for decisions that are not in line with what the people want. When their jobs and self-interest are threatened.

Decide what you want for you and your children and fight in every way that you can. Be relentless. Donate money. Join causes. Support campaigns. Talk to your representatives. Write letters. Use social media. Boycott businesses supporting views you disagree with. Don’t accept alternate views as truth without critical evaluation. “They” rely on that. “They” count on people accepting status quo, accepting helplessness, accepting fatally flawed arguments and deflections and ad hominem attacks. Don't give up before you even start.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

CMD, I applaud you for the contents of that long well reasoned post a few pages back. Stunning thinking and expression.. You know, sometimes it takes someone removed from the scene to be able to correctly see what has happened and how ridiculous this issue has become.

No, teachers are not to carry guns. Teachers and kids should all walk out.

In this country we wait, and wait and wait to fix a problem, Immigration, schools, guns, lobbying, until they become unfixable. That's what America does. We are LOSING. Probably our democracy.

Annette

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

I am a teacher, teachers being armed is insane. I actually had no clue that some schools in Ohio (not sure of anywhere else) actually do this. I think that the risk of an accident just far outweighs the potential benefit. If every school has 20% armed staff (I think Drump mentioned this number) statistically there are GOING to be accidents. Guns being left in the bathroom (I see teachers roaming the building looking for keys all of the time), guns being dropped, kids going for them, kids being obsessed with which teachers have them, parents (myself) being paranoid about their kid being potentially harmed by a TEACHER while at school, the list could go on and on.

I am NOT against armed security (but NOT active police, school to prison pipeline is enough already), and proper buzz in systems, and being allowed to keep the freaking classroom doors locked (going to talk to AP about this tomorrow), but NO school staff should have a weapon.

I work in East NY, school is the one place the kids in my building DON'T have to worry about a gun on a daily basis, I'd like to keep it that way.

 

[missy]

I am a teacher, teachers being armed is insane. I actually had no clue that some schools in Ohio (not sure of anywhere else) actually do this. I think that the risk of an accident just far outweighs the potential benefit. If every school has 20% armed staff (I think Drump mentioned this number) statistically there are GOING to be accidents. Guns being left in the bathroom (I see teachers roaming the building looking for keys all of the time), guns being dropped, kids going for them, kids being obsessed with which teachers have them, parents (myself) being paranoid about their kid being potentially harmed by a TEACHER while at school, the list could go on and on.

I am NOT against armed security (but NOT active police, school to prison pipeline is enough already), and proper buzz in systems, and being allowed to keep the freaking classroom doors locked (going to talk to AP about this tomorrow), but NO school staff should have a weapon.

I work in East NY, school is the one place the kids in my building DON'T have to worry about a gun on a daily basis, I'd like to keep it that way.

My mom was a teacher in East NY and it was even dangerous back then. They were one of the first schools if I remember correctly that had metal detectors back in those days. She had a passion for teaching the kids and they all loved her but I did worry for her safety even all those years ago. She gave up a cushy teaching job at my former high school (she started working after we went to college so she was not there when my sister and I were there) to go to this HS in East New York because she said she wanted to make more of a difference. I have to say she sure did and the kids loved her and I know she made a difference to those kids she had in her classes.

@Asscherhalo_lover, thanks for doing what you do and making a difference to the kids who need it the most. I fervently hope the schools become safer because no one should have to risk their lives to teach our kids.

 

[House Cat]

Soon to be educator son states we should secure schools the way we do airports. He says they should have their own specialized security. His girlfriend thinks he’s crazy because it would take hours (just like the airport) to check into school every morning. I think there could be some value to this idea. If children had ID badges like many employers do, attendance could be automated. I would know my 12 year old son wasn’t at school within minutes of school start time, rather than 6pm.

@Asscherhalo_lover, you are right. We would be exchanging mass shootings for mass shootings AND accidental shootings in schools. Let’s also not forget the aggressive, large, messed up in the head student who can overpower a teacher at any moment and possibly disarm him. What would that teacher do? Allow himself to be disarmed or shoot the student? The is a most disgusting and slippery slope.

 

[ksinger]

House Cat, who would pay for that specialized security system? Everyone has a pet solution, but paying for it usually puts paid to whatever is being floated. If you live in a state that will do that, then maybe it's an option. Alas, I do not. Tell him to choose states wisely, because even in good times, the 3-5 year attrition rate for traditionally certified teachers is horribly high - I recall it being somewher between
30-50%, and is probably quite state dependent. Either way, that tells you how hard those first 5 years are.

And if anyone would like a relatively short rundown of why I seem so negative, please read this. It's very current, and even has the current number of emergency certed "teachers" - which my last info before this piece, had at around 1200, but is now apparently over 1800 for the year.

What is going on in Oklahoma - educationally and in all other respects pertaining to government, is what the Republicans want the whole US to look like. It's a horrible vision and I don't understand the appeal.

https://www.economist.com/news/unit...t-cuts-are-driving-schools-brink-whats-matter

 

[arkieb1]

As a former English History teacher, IMHO teachers shouldn't have to carry or use guns they are there to help children learn not shoot people.

All children have the right to live, learn and grow up in a safe secure environment. When their right to do that somehow is less valuable than the right to own guns there is something very wrong with a society and a government that supports that. I'd expect to see it in a 3rd world country not a 1st world one.

 

[Arkteia]

In Boston, during training, I rotated through an innercity school with metal detectors on the doors. It was not a good school, but the problems kids faced were different. Guys - graduating without getting into a juvy, girls - I remember one specifically - she was trying to graduate and stay clean and take care of her infant baby. Not easy lives, but at least understandable why. No one was thinking of killing at random. Worst they were doing was selling drugs. But they still tried to graduate.

This current situation - happening in a rich FLA school, with a kid targeting his own - is very different. I am not interested why the deputies did not enter the school during the shooting. Whatever.

But I am very much interested why so many signals about Cruz were not answered. OK, I can imagine that FBI could not figure out who Nikolas Cruz was (too generic). Maybe. But local school, and the authorities who were warned of his Instagram posts? Never responded? Felt he was not a risk?

I understand many of Cruz's posts were openly racist, anti-gay and anti-Mexican; some were antisemitic. The school is mostly white with high percentage of Jewish kids.

The question I want to ask is very provocative, I understand. Here is a kid who might be a part of a white supremacist group, has a gun, is batshit crazy but mostly threatens "not us" - he is ranting about Antifa, blacks, gays, Mexicans, immigrants; but there are three alerts coming about him to school. From his friends! Does the fact that he threatens "others" make him less of a threat in our eyes? Should it? Because he ended up attacking exactly his own...

My point is: I don't know who took these warnings, this information. I think these people need to be investigated, be it FBI, the school itself, the local police, the mental health system. Everyone who got the warnings and thought he was "no threat". We need to see how people's own views might have contributed to viewing Cruz as harmless. (The family that accepted him, too. Big time).

He uttered enough threats to commit him and never sell him guns but no one took them as a threat because he was threatening someone else.

I think it is a very important lesson. Comes a crazy person who is known to own guns and sell knives at school, and expresses wish to kill in Instagram group - but he is threatening someone else. He states that gays need to be killed - and you are religious. Or, he says that Mexicans need to be killed - and you secretly support this wall idea...

And then he comes into own school and turns the guns against his own. Don't be surprised that it happened. The moment he said someone needed to be killed, not your group, someone else - was the red flag. You missed it - you dropped the ball.

(Sorry for anger- but I think many balls were dropped and the case needs to be prosecuted as hate crime).

"On January 5, 2018, the FBI's Public Access Line (PAL) received a tip from a person who was close to Cruz. On February 16 (two days after the shooting), the agency released a statement that detailed this information. According to the statement, "The caller provided information about Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting." After conducting an investigation, the FBI said the PAL did not follow protocol when the information was not forwarded to the Miami Field Office, where investigative steps would have been taken.[61][62] The FBI opened a probe into the tip line's operations.[63]" this is on Wikipedia.

 

[ksinger]

In Boston, during training, I rotated through an innercity school with metal detectors on the doors. It was not a good school, but the problems kids faced were different. Guys - graduating without getting into a juvy, girls - I remember one specifically - she was trying to graduate and stay clean and take care of her infant baby. Not easy lives, but at least understandable why. No one was thinking of killing at random. Worst they were doing was selling drugs. But they still tried to graduate.

This current situation - happening in a rich FLA school, with a kid targeting his own - is very different. I am not interested why the deputies did not enter the school during the shooting. Whatever.

But I am very much interested why so many signals about Cruz were not answered. OK, I can imagine that FBI could not figure out who Nikolas Cruz was (too generic). Maybe. But local school, and the authorities who were warned of his Instagram posts? Never responded? Felt he was not a risk?

I understand many of Cruz's posts were openly racist, anti-gay and anti-Mexican; some were antisemitic. The school is mostly white with high percentage of Jewish kids.

The question I want to ask is very provocative, I understand. Here is a kid who might be a part of a white supremacist group, has a gun, is batshit crazy but mostly threatens "not us" - he is ranting about Antifa, blacks, gays, Mexicans, immigrants; but there are three alerts coming about him to school. From his friends! Does the fact that he threatens "others" make him less of a threat in our eyes? Should it? Because he ended up attacking exactly his own...

My point is: I don't know who took these warnings, this information. I think these people need to be investigated, be it FBI, the school itself, the local police, the mental health system. Everyone who got the warnings and thought he was "no threat". We need to see how people's own views might have contributed to viewing Cruz as harmless. (The family that accepted him, too. Big time).

He uttered enough threats to commit him and never sell him guns but no one took them as a threat because he was threatening someone else.

I think it is a very important lesson. Comes a crazy person who is known to own guns and sell knives at school, and expresses wish to kill in Instagram group - but he is threatening someone else. He states that gays need to be killed - and you are religious. Or, he says that Mexicans need to be killed - and you secretly support this wall idea...

And then he comes into own school and turns the guns against his own. Don't be surprised that it happened. The moment he said someone needed to be killed, not your group, someone else - was the red flag. You missed it - you dropped the ball.

(Sorry for anger- but I think many balls were dropped and the case needs to be prosecuted as hate crime).

I read your post to TF History Teacher™, and he all but pushed me out of my chair. A rare occurrence.
Here we go:

Just what ball was dropped? Be specific about what action you believe the school and law enforcement should have taken and then check to see if they had those magical powers.

We, the public, are accepting of speech from national, state and local leaders as well as the general public that 10 years ago would have been considered hate speech, 20 years ago would have been considered physical threats; just what did Cruz do that either institution could respond to and what, within the constraints of law, could they have done? Hand wringers rise up after these events decrying that "someone" should have done "something" and, in our zeal to to find a scapegoat, point to "them".

The hard reality is that the school has little recourse beyond suspension/expulsion. Counselors are test administrators, college enrollment advisors and graduation coaches and have been for 20 years. The days of a counselor that deals with kids' problems is gone for the most part, due to tax cuts and the general "can't trust anything close to government". At most, they can refer to law enforcement.

What specific crime could Cruz have been arrested for preceding the incident? That's the only option law enforcement has. We've dumped mental health response upon the PD's whose options are shoot 'em, arrest 'em or ignore 'em. Again, tax cuts at work for you.

Do you want to bring back mental institutions, the ones closed by Reagan? Great, but how are you going to get it passed?

This tragedy, and others like it, have been building for years and middle/upper class American benefitted from from the changes leading to it, screaming that "someone" (else) is responsible perhaps a glance in the mirror is more appropriate.

 

[redwood66]

To be fair, the ball was dropped between the FBI hotline and the Miami field office. They have admitted as such. It remains to be seen if the ball was also dropped by the local sheriff's office since the caller to the FBI said she also reported to local LE the same information previously. Now what to do about it is much harder since deciding how and when to deprive someone of their civil liberties is not as easy as some would like. Especially if no crime has been committed. Those are the discussions that need to happen rationally.

 

[House Cat]

They could have detained him on a 5150 hold. He expressed over and over the desire to harm others on a public forum. He was homicidal. Unless Florida is so backwards and doesn’t have this mental health law. What is so beautiful about this law is that during this hold, if a doctor sees evidence that the patience is a further threat to society, it can be extended. I believe this is what should have been done.

If I am being realistic, sigh, he would have been held for a few days, released, and the outcome would probably be no different because we fail our mentally ill. This isn’t to stigmatize the mentally ill and say they are the mass shooters. I’m merely pointing out how we could have detained this young man who was clearly showing signs of instability.

 

[redwood66]

They could have detained him on a 5150 hold. He expressed over and over the desire to harm others on a public forum. He was homicidal. Unless Florida is so backwards and doesn’t have this mental health law. What is so beautiful about this law is that during this hold, if a doctor sees evidence that the patience is a further threat to society, it can be extended. I believe this is what should have been done.

If I am being realistic, sigh, he would have been held for a few days, released, and the outcome would probably be no different because we fail our mentally ill. This isn’t to stigmatize the mentally ill and say they are the mass shooters. I’m merely pointing out how we could have detained this young man who was clearly showing signs of instability.

Yes they probably should have. And we need to know if they even interviewed this individual at all because you can't place a 5150 hold without interviewing the subject. But I have concern if LE has had enough training to recognize someone in crisis that is a danger to himself or others. One would hope but that may not always be the case. Though it is much harder if you never make face to face contact in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act

 

[LJsapphire]

This is a post shared on facebook, made me

"
"Yesterday, after 17 people died at a school shooting in Florida, I stood in front of my middle school classrooms, hour after hour, reteaching the intruder drill procedures for my room. I wanted to reassure my kids that there was a plan in place if this thing that should be unthinkable, but which is now perfectly thinkable, should happen to them.

In my classroom, there are two doors to the hallway. One of them remains locked from the inside at all times. The other is the door students use to enter and leave class. It’s the only door I need to secure in the event of a lockdown. Both of these hallway doors have floor-to-ceiling windows to one side of them. That effectively means that I do not have a safe corner opposite a door anywhere in my room. All four corners are exposed.

What I do have, though, is a huge storage area with a locked door. It only locks from the outside. Let me repeat: IT ONLY LOCKS FROM THE OUTSIDE.

I reminded the kids of our plan. In the event of a lockdown, they will quickly and quietly come to the front of the room and raise the projector screen, open the closet door, and go in. I will be locking the hallway door while they do this. Then, I will retrieve the closet key from where I have it taped up for easy access, and I will lock them in the closet. I will then slide the key under the door to them.

Mostly the kids grew silent. Some started thinking hard. You could see it in their eyes. Others, being middle-schoolers, snickered and giggled and cracked jokes. Don’t be put off by them. It means they either just don’t get it, or that they’re so scared the only way they can deal with their fear is with gallows humor. They’re twelve, so cut them some slack.

One girl, this time, shouted across the room, “Shut up. This isn’t funny.” The room grew quiet.

Then the questions started. “Well, what if . . .” “But what if . . .” “How about if . . .”

I raised my hand for silence. “Here’s the deal, folks. Our school’s plan is designed to save as many lives as possible the best way we know how. It is not a guarantee that everyone survives. All those kids in Parkland did exactly what they were supposed to do. They did everything right. And seventeen people still died.”

It grew very, very quiet. I heard a lot of deep breaths around the room. One girl had tears in her eyes. Then another voice piped up.

“Wait, Miss.” she said, “If you lock us in the closet, doesn’t that mean you’ll be out here?” All thirteen pairs of eyes looked up at me.

“Yes,” I said, “and that’s why I need you to be absolutely silent in that closet, no matter what happens.”

“You would do that?” she pressed.

“In a heartbeat. Just stay quiet so you get out alive. Make it worth it.”

The thing, though, is that I’m not extraordinary. I’m not special. I have never met a teacher in my entire career who wouldn’t do the exact same thing. That’s not what this is about.

Here’s what I want you to understand. This is normal, everyday life in America’s schools. Students in every school, at every grade, are being educated on their responsibilities in preventing a massacre, things that the adults in their lives should be assuming the responsibility for, whose responsibility it truly is. And all the while the president is telling massacre survivors that maybe they could have done just a little bit more to prevent what had happened to them.

For an entire generation of American students, just living with this possibility that is increasingly feeling more and more like an eventuality is traumatic. Our kids are already traumatized by living like this, even if there is never a shooter in their building. Just as my generation was shaped by practicing getting under our desks in the event of a Soviet nuclear attack—another futile exercise—this generation is in trauma over the expectation that anywhere they go, whether it’s a concert, a mall, a restaurant, or their school, there is a good chance they’ll be murdered.

It has to stop. And spare me your Second-Amendment arguments. It’s all you’ve got. If you don’t have any other practical solution than MORE GUNS, then you don’t get to participate in the conversation about what we do next to make this stop. If you, deep down in your heart of hearts, feel perfectly content to exercise your allegedly restraint-free right to bear arms on the backs, not of Revolutionary patriots of mythic proportion who fought and died for your freedom, but on the backs of children who are bleeding out in the hallways and cafeteria floors of U.S. schools, on the backs of their friends who watch helplessly as it happens, and on the backs of the teachers who are placing their very bodies in front of bullets for them, then shame on you. You don’t deserve those rights. Your right to own possessions of any kind is not and never will be greater than the rights of our children to live."

 

[LJsapphire]

I'm a teacher, and we have had lockdown practice (in the UK) but we haven't had to face anything like this.

 

[partgypsy]

An AR 15 will go through doors, desks, etc. Is it even possible, financially, to make each classroom have a safe area to hide behind where these kind of bullets can't penetrate? I heard that they can go through car doors as well.

 

[Matata]

What specific crime could Cruz have been arrested for preceding the incident? That's the only option law enforcement has. We've dumped mental health response upon the PD's whose options are shoot 'em, arrest 'em or ignore 'em. Again, tax cuts at work for you.

Adding on to what ksinger said, there are currently 954 hate groups in the US, in 2012 there were 13,778 special agents employed by the FBI (couldn't quickly find current numbers). If each hate group has just 10 members = 9540, add in all others who don't belong to a an organized group, and I'd bet the numbers exceed the number of special agents currently employed. The math doesn't add up if we expect every instance of a potential mass murderer to be investigated by the FBI.

 

[redwood66]

So we accept that as excuse as to why nothing was done and move on I guess. No one shall be held accountable for any dereliction of duty. Personally that is not good enough of an excuse for me.

 

[arkieb1]

I saw on our news Trump is towing the NRA line stating it isn't guns to blame for mass shootings it's because the US has reduced funding for facilities for the mentally ill. Ummm hello I doubt most mass shooters would be people in mental institutions.

 

[Matata]

So we accept that as excuse as to why nothing was done and move on I guess. No one shall be held accountable for any dereliction of duty. Personally that is not good enough of an excuse for me.

It is one reason that affects a complex problem. The FBI admitted its mistake in the Florida massacre. It remains to be seen what, if any, disciplinary measures are taken and what changes are made to ensure such a lapse doesn't recur. There is a limit to what we can expect in the way of results if law enforcement in general has insufficient personnel and equipment to make a difference in crime stats and mass shootings in particular. These events deflect from the main problem of the need to address gun ownership in a different way.

 

[redwood66]

It is one reason that affects a complex problem. The FBI admitted its mistake in the Florida massacre. It remains to be seen what, if any, disciplinary measures are taken and what changes are made to ensure such a lapse doesn't recur. There is a limit to what we can expect in the way of results if law enforcement in general has insufficient personnel and equipment to make a difference in crime stats and mass shootings in particular. These events deflect from the main problem of the need to address gun ownership in a different way.

I agree that LE can be overwhelmed depending on the location and no one should expect them to thwart every would be violent individual. That is too much to ask. As to addressing gun ownership it has to be a joint effort without rhetoric for reelection purposes. Otherwise they are doing the public a disservice.

 

[cmd2014]

I saw on our news Trump is towing the NRA line stating it isn't guns to blame for mass shootings it's because the US has reduced funding for facilities for the mentally ill. Ummm hello I doubt most mass shooters would be people in mental institutions.

They aren't. People with diagnosable major mental illnesses are much more likely to be victims of violent crimes than perpetrators. And what is known of those who become mass shooters suggests that many of them would likely not meet diagnostic criteria for any specific DSM-5 diagnosis (other than a personality disorder).

The other difficulty is that the standard for involuntary admission in most places in North America is one of *imminent* threat of harm to self or others. Not just that we think that someone is in general an angry, dangerous person or that we think that someone *might* or *is likely* to kill themselves at some point - it's that we think they are about to do so *right now* and that they cannot be relied upon to take mutually agreed-upon steps to keep themselves or others safe. And ideation alone (including having thoughts or fantasies of doing something, or even uttered statements or threats) also does not meet the standard for involuntary admission under the imminent threat standard. There also has to be a specific plan, the means to enact the plan, and an *imminent* intention to do so - not just a possible vague future plan of maybe doing something, sometime, to oneself or someone else. Civil liberties (like not being involuntarily committed to a mental institution) are taken very seriously.

Nor can we hold people indefinitely, nor are these the kinds of issues that are quickly fixed with medication or therapy, nor can we ever predict with certainty who will or won't act out on the things that they may say. So while in hindsight it is easy to say "that person should have been admitted and held" - there will always be 1000+ other people who have said or done very similar things, but who have not and may never act on it. It's the flaw in the mental health argument.

Plus, keep in mind that mental health rates are pretty much the same the across the western world. And it's not like mental health care here is super ideal (trust me, it is not). Wait times can be extensive and resources are limited, so it's not like we are simply managing mental health care better. And yet mass shootings are a predominantly US phenomenon. Again, my impression as an outsider is that the difference is that those who are so inclined are able to have easy access to weapons that can kill large numbers of people in very limited amounts of time. And until that changes somehow, these things are going to keep happening in my opinion.

And as for psychological assessments - the issue is not that all psychologists think that the mere desire to own a gun makes someone unstable (nor are all psychologists democrats, or liberals, regardless of where you go, even though it is true that the more educated someone becomes, the more liberal they tend to be in regard to various social issues). The issue is that screening for diagnosable mental health conditions does not allow us to predict whether or not someone will commit an illegal act with that weapon. So the professional liability associated with doing these types of assessments would be huge, the cost to the individual would be very high given that a thorough psychological assessment is very labour intensive (maybe that alone would be a deterrent to many people buying guns), and the utility of them would likely be quite limited. The best predictor of violent behaviour continues to be actuarial (which is what is assessed in background checks when they are done appropriately and consistently, with full access to relevant information), and even then, the utility of these background checks is very limited. It will only weed out those with obvious risk factors, not those who may not have done anything yet to be appropriately flagged. It also doesn't prevent people from gaining access to weapons that were legally obtained by people that they know, including their parents (like in Sandy Hook).