A student brought a loaded gun to my kids' high school yesterday

[funksouljon]

I don't know the specific laws but making a threat in person, phone on internet is an assault. I would assume there are laws for threatening a large group of people too. But if that had been followed through there are still limits to how long you can lock someone up. Maybe it would have slowed him down or made it harder get armed, one would think.
.................

So, you have to be more clear. Assault in some states is merely a threat. Other states view "assault" is the same as "battery" in Florida therefore the definition and application of assault in fact varies. In FL thought, assault is the threat not touching component, which requires 1) threat to be made 2) Fear or concern of harm to the potential victim and 3) ability to carry out the threat. And I am not a lawyer, but I do know a fair amount about the application of FL Statue 784.011. If he is just typing on the internet and that ended up with an charge and arrest of "assault", the lawyers would have a field day with poking holes as he didn't meet all the requirements in Florida. Lack of specificity in victim and exact method, ability to carry out that specific threat (there is a time component, he didn't rush right over to a location), who was in fear of their safety. With no effort, I just created 3 obvious holes in the charges you want to see......
Now I don't know what the Federal laws are in regards to general terrorist threats nor the Federal laws they leverage when they investigate and charge people for threatening politicians. But in summary, no, making a threat, as you indicated above in this way, is not assault.

Now that said, do I think the Feds failed? Yes, obviously. The lack of investigation of a threat seems clear. Could they have done something if they had investigated? Possibly. Are the laws (state and federal) out of touch with current environment? Clearly. Will we see changes? I would expect so. Does that help the current victims and families. Not one effing bit.

There are Baker Act rules, but those are only for self harm and mental health issues, he doesn't seem to fit into that category BEFORE this episode.

 

[SoddyNole]

So, you have to be more clear. Assault in some states is merely a threat. Other states view "assault" is the same as "battery" in Florida therefore the definition and application of assault in fact varies. In FL thought, assault is the threat not touching component, which requires 1) threat to be made 2) Fear or concern of harm to the potential victim and 3) ability to carry out the threat. And I am not a lawyer, but I do know a fair amount about the application of FL Statue 784.011. If he is just typing on the internet and that ended up with an charge and arrest of "assault", the lawyers would have a field day with poking holes as he didn't meet all the requirements in Florida. Lack of specificity in victim and exact method, ability to carry out that specific threat (there is a time component, he didn't rush right over to a location), who was in fear of their safety. With no effort, I just created 3 obvious holes in the charges you want to see......
Now I don't know what the Federal laws are in regards to general terrorist threats nor the Federal laws they leverage when they investigate and charge people for threatening politicians. But in summary, no, making a threat, as you indicated above in this way, is not assault.

Now that said, do I think the Feds failed? Yes, obviously. The lack of investigation of a threat seems clear. Could they have done something if they had investigated? Possibly. Are the laws (state and federal) out of touch with current environment? Clearly. Will we see changes? I would expect so. Does that help the current victims and families. Not one effing bit.

There are Baker Act rules, but those are only for self harm and mental health issues, he doesn't seem to fit into that category BEFORE this episode.

Where in the hell is all this coming from Perry Mason?

 

[4everFSU]

FBI was too busy investigating the Russian Dossier, to check out the threats from this kid.

 

[funksouljon]

Where in the hell is all this coming from Perry Mason?

Haha, just letting you know that assault a tricky charge and all the cries (here and elsewhere) for charing with assault simply don't apply. And telling you the why ahead of time. Besides the actual FS#, it was all in my noodle so was only a couple moments of typing (plus editing).

But if you want to see, review for yourself. and check my homework.

 

[funksouljon]

Where in the hell is all this coming from Perry Mason?

But I guess the reason I replied to you specifically was it has been bugging me a lot, what COULD have been done to get him off the street, get him psych evaled, etc, etc. based on our current system.

Much of this would be predicated on the FBI / Locals investigating based on his online activity and him being reported.

Beforehand, as FSU_UCLA also indicated, they might have been able to take him in for a involuntary Baker Act, but I don't remember the FL statutes well enough on that. Again, they would have had to have had a reason to go evaluate him.
Some form of online terrorisitic threats, but I don't know that any really exist with teeth (so far).
Welfare checks based on his "new" family? Surely they saw erratic behavior? But if they didn't report to the authorities.
Not sure what, or how much more the school authorities could have done/reported.

Unfortunately, this seems to be an entirely and uniquely American problem.

 

[goldmom]

Baker Act is a 72 hour hold isn't it? Could he be assessed and diagnosed in that time frame!

 

[funksouljon]

Baker Act is a 72 hour hold isn't it? Could he be assessed and diagnosed in that time frame!

Up to 72 for evaluation, but would have to meet requirements during interview to be deemed a danger, then involuntarily placed into custody for examination. A pro would have likely been able to ascertain that he had issues, but then what? He had no family that really cared it seems, who would ensure he'd take meds if necessary? Would likely be able to justify removing any firearms from his possession and place on a list, but it remains uncertain (to me) what the latest legislation does to undermine the existing restriction of firearms sale and possession by people with issues. We also don't know how / what his issues are. But the options post Baker Act are a bit beyond my knowledge. Don't we have a pro shrink here?

 

[SoddyNole]

Re: Baker Act/Tarasoff/5150/etc. for homicidal ideation - these laws are clear, and all available information indicates that Cruz was regularly in contact with mandated reporters and was repeatedly assesssed in accordance with the standards of law and professional ethics.

Fundamentally speaking, we do not exist in a society that punishes or incarcerates people indefinitely because we are afraid that they may commit a crime in the future. If next week a thread is posted about how some weird kid was expelled from school or subject to a CPS investigation because he wrote somewhere online that he wants to be a professional school shooter or posts a picture on social media holding a gun, people will undoubtedly be in an uproar with nanny state and government overstep and death of the land of the free rhetoric.

There is literally one and only one variable that strongly correlates with the number of mass shootings and differentiates the US from the rest of the world: number of guns in the country. The data are very clear: https://nyti.ms/2hODjP5. If we could stop having these stupid, unproductive arguments about red herrings and just move forward informed by this simple fact, then we may actually get somewhere.

Since you are using this simply evidence explain why Canada, France and Iraq have fairly common amounts of guns per 100 people but vast different numbers in mass shootings? You do realize fully automatic weapons are legally owned by the citizens of Iraq and most likely explain why one person may find it very hard if not impossible to walk around shooting soft targets.

 

[RTM58]

Re: Baker Act/Tarasoff/5150/etc. for homicidal ideation - these laws are clear, and all available information indicates that Cruz was regularly in contact with mandated reporters and was repeatedly assesssed in accordance with the standards of law and professional ethics.

Fundamentally speaking, we do not exist in a society that punishes or incarcerates people indefinitely because we are afraid that they may commit a crime in the future. If next week a thread is posted about how some weird kid was expelled from school or subject to a CPS investigation because he wrote somewhere online that he wants to be a professional school shooter or posts a picture on social media holding a gun, people will undoubtedly be in an uproar with nanny state and government overstep and death of the land of the free rhetoric.

There is literally one and only one variable that strongly correlates with the number of mass shootings and differentiates the US from the rest of the world: number of guns in the country. The data are very clear: https://nyti.ms/2hODjP5. If we could stop having these stupid, unproductive arguments about red herrings and just move forward informed by this simple fact, then we may actually get somewhere.

First his definition of mass shooters is a tad weak. Are you publishing under a pseudonym back home? It's tough to
compare the US to other countries. We are far more diverse than France, have more foreign born immigrants than Canada's total population, and everybody has guns in Iraq. Don't see any way to get an apples to apples comparison.

There are Roughly 12,000 firearms related homicides annually. Of those 12,000, roughly 500 or less die from rifle related Incidents. There are a roughly 300,000,000 million firearms within a population of 320,000,000 citizens. And, while the number of firearms in the US has has been increasing firearms related deaths have been decreasing. This doenst seem to be approaching epidemic levels except for in the news and politicians who seem poorly educated on the subject. Some quote about goal seeking comes to mind.....

The reality is he would have been more dangerous with a handgun(s) than with a rifle in close quarters, but lets discuss AR's and whatnot.

I did enjoy some of Mr Lankford's other studies, so thanks!

In recent years, some critics have suggested that the media make mass killers into celebrities by giving them too much attention. Findings indicate that the mass killers received approximately $75 million in media coverage value, and that for extended periods following their attacks they received more coverage than professional athletes and only slightly less than television and film stars. In addition, during their attack months, some mass killers received more highly valued coverage than some of the most famous American celebrities, including Kim Kardashian, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, and Jennifer Aniston. Finally, most mass killers received more coverage from newspapers and broadcast/cable news than the public interest they generated through online searches and Twitter seems to warrant. Unfortunately, this media attention constitutes free advertising for mass killers that may increase the likelihood of copycats.

Fame-seeking rampage shooters: Initial findings and empirical predictions

Highlights
• Fame-seeking rampage shooters appear more common in recent decades.
• The United States seems to have a disproportionate number of these offenders.
• Significant differences exist between fame-seeking offenders and other offenders.
• Fame-seeking rampage shooters tend to be significantly younger.
• Fame-seeking rampage shooters tend to kill and wound significantly more victims.

Are America’s public mass shooters unique? A comparative analysis of offenders in the United States and other countries
Public mass shooters are often assumed to be an exceptionally American problem, but little is known about what proportion of global offenders attack in the United States, or how America’s offenders compare to those in other countries. The present study offers the first quantitative analysis of all known offenders from 1966 to 2012 who attacked anywhere on the globe and killed a minimum of four victims. The results suggest that public mass shooters in the United States are significantly more likely to arm themselves with multiple weapons and attack at school and workplace settings, while offenders from other countries are more likely to strike at military sites.


And if you are going to use four as the low bar to qualify for mass shooting, this may play a roll.

Oh yeah, and this:

 

[FSU_UCLA]

Since you are using this simply evidence explain why Canada, France and Iraq have fairly common amounts of guns per 100 people but vast different numbers in mass shootings? You do realize fully automatic weapons are legally owned by the citizens of Iraq and most likely explain why one person may find it very hard if not impossible to walk around shooting soft targets.

What’s to explain? Those three countries all fit neatly within the model: fewer guns and fewer mass shootings. Those three countries have a per capita gun ownership that is a third or less than that of the US.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

Baker Act is a 72 hour hold isn't it? Could he be assessed and diagnosed in that time frame!

There are lots of problems with 72-hr holds in this country. The primary one is that they serve fundamentally as CYA Theater, not as a health or safety intervention. One of the most infuriating things that happens fairly regularly in my work is that I will have a person hospitalized on a hold only to come back the next morning to learn that some snot-nosed resident has streeted the person without a plan or follow-up because he wanted to use the bed for somebody else or because he simply did not know how to do a competent risk assessment. And when that doesn’t happen, some billing functionary has often bounced the person to some other facility or agency based solely on financial concerns. Regardless, nobody is getting a useful assessment, diagnosis, or treatment plan while on a 72-hr hold.

 

[FSU_UCLA]

First his definition of mass shooters is a tad weak. Are you publishing under a pseudonym back home? It's tough to
compare the US to other countries. We are far more diverse than France, have more foreign born immigrants than Canada's total population, and everybody has guns in Iraq. Don't see any way to get an apples to apples comparison.

There are Roughly 12,000 firearms related homicides annually. Of those 12,000, roughly 500 or less die from rifle related Incidents. There are a roughly 300,000,000 million firearms within a population of 320,000,000 citizens. And, while the number of firearms in the US has has been increasing firearms related deaths have been decreasing. This doenst seem to be approaching epidemic levels except for in the news and politicians who seem poorly educated on the subject. Some quote about goal seeking comes to mind.....

The reality is he would have been more dangerous with a handgun(s) than with a rifle in close quarters, but lets discuss AR's and whatnot.

I did enjoy some of Mr Lankford's other studies, so thanks!

In recent years, some critics have suggested that the media make mass killers into celebrities by giving them too much attention. Findings indicate that the mass killers received approximately $75 million in media coverage value, and that for extended periods following their attacks they received more coverage than professional athletes and only slightly less than television and film stars. In addition, during their attack months, some mass killers received more highly valued coverage than some of the most famous American celebrities, including Kim Kardashian, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, and Jennifer Aniston. Finally, most mass killers received more coverage from newspapers and broadcast/cable news than the public interest they generated through online searches and Twitter seems to warrant. Unfortunately, this media attention constitutes free advertising for mass killers that may increase the likelihood of copycats.

Fame-seeking rampage shooters: Initial findings and empirical predictions

Highlights
• Fame-seeking rampage shooters appear more common in recent decades.
• The United States seems to have a disproportionate number of these offenders.
• Significant differences exist between fame-seeking offenders and other offenders.
• Fame-seeking rampage shooters tend to be significantly younger.
• Fame-seeking rampage shooters tend to kill and wound significantly more victims.

Are America’s public mass shooters unique? A comparative analysis of offenders in the United States and other countries
Public mass shooters are often assumed to be an exceptionally American problem, but little is known about what proportion of global offenders attack in the United States, or how America’s offenders compare to those in other countries. The present study offers the first quantitative analysis of all known offenders from 1966 to 2012 who attacked anywhere on the globe and killed a minimum of four victims. The results suggest that public mass shooters in the United States are significantly more likely to arm themselves with multiple weapons and attack at school and workplace settings, while offenders from other countries are more likely to strike at military sites.


And if you are going to use four as the low bar to qualify for mass shooting, this may play a roll.

Oh yeah, and this:

We don’t have to compare the US to other countries. As noted in the article I linked, if you omit the US from the analysis entirely, the correlation between number of guns and number of mass shootings remains.

 

[RTM58]

We don’t have to compare the US to other countries. As noted in the article I linked, if you omit the US from the analysis entirely, the correlation between number of guns and number of mass shootings remains.

I'll file that under trite. I assumed you were trying to additive, but I should have known.

more people = more guns = more mass shootings

 

[FSU_UCLA]

Exactly: higher rates of gun ownership equate to more mass shootings. I agree that this fact is exhaustingly trite. That’s exactly why it would be really great if we all could just stop arguing about it and move forward with the discussion of what we want to do about it.

 

[BelemNole]

Hey, we're better than Yemen!

 

[HulaNole]

I found the following short article worth reading today. I know I don't have the answers but I am at least willing to hear things that have worked and take them into consideration. Of course, our laws are different when it comes to certain things as the discussion above mentions with respect to civil liberties but at least it was a discussion. Just responding with deflections such as "that's not technically an assault rifle" does no one any good.

http://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/nation/other-countries-have-been-hit-by-school-shootings-and-done-something/65-519350905

Some points from the short article:

Germany, Finland, and Scotland have also responded to attacks on schools with big policy changes. And they've reduced school shootings to zero over the last decade

That should at least get people willing to want to learn what the policy changes were that helped the issue.

Here is an example from Switzerland mentioned in the article:

He points to Switzerland, where gun ownership is high. but school shootings are non-existent. Gun buyers are subjected to a weeks-long background check, and the authorities keep a list of two thousand people they fear may become school shooters.

"So what they do is visit those people with psychologists, they actively reach out to them and get in a discussion with them," said Noack.

He said there's been little debate in Switzerland about confronting people before they've committed any crime, which is something that might raise civil liberties questions in the U.S.

For Germany:

In Germany, if you're under 25, you have to pass a rigorous psychological and medical exam if you want to buy a gun. And teachers in every school are trained to intervene with troubled students and get them help.

It is not trying to make a point that these stop all crimes. We know they don't. This point is also made in the article:

Germany was hit two years ago by a right wing shooter a couple of years ago who killed nine people. But it wasn't in a school. Germany has gone from the European country hardest hit by school shootings, to no mass school shootings in nearly a decade.

Anyway, like I said I am not an expert on this subject but I think leaders should at least be able to hear discussions on what the problems were and how some changes were lawfully fixed in other free countries to see if they would help here too.

 

[SKSnole]

For Germany:

In Germany, if you're under 25, you have to pass a rigorous psychological and medical exam if you want to buy a gun. And teachers in every school are trained to intervene with troubled students and get them help.

It is not trying to make a point that these stop all crimes. We know they don't. This point is also made in the article:

Germany was hit two years ago by a right wing shooter a couple of years ago who killed nine people. But it wasn't in a school. Germany has gone from the European country hardest hit by school shootings, to no mass school shootings in nearly a decade.

Um, Germany is probably not the country we should be taking advice from on gun measures.

 

[itsjustme0770]

FBI was too busy investigating the Russian Dossier, to check out the threats from this kid.

All 30,000 of them? Huh. That's a special kind of ridiculousness.

 

[RTM58]

Exactly: higher rates of gun ownership equate to more mass shootings. I agree that this fact is exhaustingly trite.

I almost didn't leave my house today for fear of being caught in a "mass shooting", but then I thought I was more likely to killed in car accidnet, and just decided to walk to mitigate some of my risk.

I would add that to buy a standard AR is very time consuming task, seting up a trust, prolonged background checks and all, but if they have different stock it's much easier. Like the bump stocks, they should rework that loophole.

 

[HulaNole]

Um, Germany is probably not the country we should be taking advice from on gun measures.

These type of comments do nothing with regards to discussing the issue. This discussion is on how to solve school shooting issues if possible. Not all crimes. Not refugees.

There have been 5 school shootings in Germany since 2000. Five too many but still five. There have been 212 school shootings since 2000 in the US. If the fact that they did something and it helped doesn't warrant a discussion to you, then not sure why you even commented.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Unfortunately, the two loudest sides of this whole debate are those who actually believe there's some kind of magic solution and if only we do X we'll never have another mass shooting, and those who believe we'll never fully eliminate the risk so we shouldn't try anything at all.

Both of those groups should sit on the sidelines and let the more reasonable people try to come up with workable solutions that balance competing rights and public safety.

 

[HulaNole]

That was the reasons I specifically choose Switzerland and Germany. It should take away some of the arguing that goes on between the two extreme sides of the gun control argument and just look at what was actually done. Citizens can still have guns if they want but the change was in the process.

 

[SKSnole]

These type of comments do nothing with regards to discussing the issue. This discussion is on how to solve school shooting issues if possible. Not all crimes. Not refugees.

There have been 5 school shootings in Germany since 2000. Five too many but still five. There have been 212 school shootings since 2000 in the US. If the fact that they did something and it helped doesn't warrant a discussion to you, then not sure why you even commented.

History started in 2000? Face it, bringing up gun measures and Germany in the same sentence is crazy. Germany disarmed and murdered 6,000,000 Jews. I'll pass on taking their advice on the issue.

 

[NoleSoul]

This topic is now off limits because it always goes political and if you want to talk politics then you need to go to another site.