At least 6 dead in Mass Shooting du Jour

[Elixir]

Note also that one of the shooters (there are thought to have been five) was released from prison early despite a long history of violent crimes.

Suspect released weeks before Sacramento mass shooting

So in the first paragraph above you are saying he is definitely a shooter but the link says he is a suspect and it is interesting because this is a continuation of a very well-documented trend where you call black male suspects definitely guilty but when a white male is accused of raping a woman instead you scream how he is just a suspect or even innocent...shouldn't be tried in a court of public opinion, etc, etc. I believe this was also the case with George Floyd's murderer where you also objected to the terminology of calling the white male a murderer when we could see him murdering Floyd on video.

Yup. Very sad, but needs to be pointed out, as it typifies the M.O. of conditioned white racism. I doubt that he is even aware of doing that.

 

[laughing dog]

Why would anyone think criminal justice reform is an either or course? Trimming the incarcerated population is a worthy goal of reform just as the avoidance of incarceration of those who are not a danger to society or who have not committed a serious crime.

Those that are a "danger to society" should be locked up. Why not an "either or" approach? Crimes are not all created equal and neither are people who commit them. There is no logical reason why legalizing weed or sex work should be linked to reduced sentences for violent crime.

And yet your hobbyhorse OP linked the two.

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As far as 'focussing on the actual bad guys:' Almost all arrests and trials involve substance abuse or are substance abuse adjacent, from alcohol to whatever the kids are doing these days in some way, shape or form, including most assaults, break ins, thefts, etc.

Agreed--which means if we were to legalize the stuff there would be a lot fewer fights between dealers.

If the use of all currently illicit drugs were decriminalised, it would significantly reduce the rate of burglaries, robberies and theft generally. There would also be a massive reduction in the prison population and a considerable reduction in insurance premiums.

No, decriminalising the use of all illicit drugs will not result in more people using them. When Portugal decriminalised the use of illicit drugs the number of users actually decreased.

I fully agree--I talked about dealers fighting because that appears to be what this was. Taking a big bite out of other crime would be an additional benefit of legalization, just not relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As far as 'focussing on the actual bad guys:' Almost all arrests and trials involve substance abuse or are substance abuse adjacent, from alcohol to whatever the kids are doing these days in some way, shape or form, including most assaults, break ins, thefts, etc.

Agreed--which means if we were to legalize the stuff there would be a lot fewer fights between dealers.

If we really are serious about unclogging the court system, we should decriminalize pot, at least, and invest a great deal more money into substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment. And we should also do more restorative justice. And we should really pay public defenders more. Our social safety network is very frayed and stretched way too thin.

As far as I'm concerned all the stuff should either be legal or legal by prescription with addiction a valid reason for a prescription. Pouring a bunch of money into substance abuse treatment is of only limited value as it only works if the patient really wants it to--without that desire you're just throwing money away.

And since we are on a roll, we really need to tackle the proliferation of assault weapons and the mythology that surrounds carrying weapons, concealed or not.

And here you get it utterly wrong. Look at the numbers--those assault weapons you demonize are rarely involved in crime. Criminals carry the lowly handgun because they value concealability over firepower.

I’m not wrong. Did you read about the weapons used in the mass shooting that inspired this thread? Or the weapons used at any of the more famous mass shootings? Sandy hook, for instance?

I have seen no mention of the weapons used--thus in all probability it was handguns. This was almost certainly two bad guys (or groups of bad guys) that shot it out with each other, hitting a bunch of bystanders in the process. Concealed weapons, therefore handguns.

There are NO legitimate reasons for owning an assault rifle. None.

Your obsession with assault rifles doesn't make them a big problem:

(Admittedly a old but I don't think the ratio has changed much)

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that 57% of all murders in 1993 were committed with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown

And note that "rifles" includes more than just assault rifles.

Assault rifles have been demonized but in practice they are simply too big to be desirable to most criminals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m skeptical that legalization of all drugs would reduce most crime except for crimes related to use and distribution of a controlled substance. Sure, drug dealers would not be killing each other abs any innocent person in their periphery. Legalizing alcohol did not mean that alcohol use/abuse is not responsible for many crimes, especially assault, sexual assault, vehicular homicide, theft, child abuse, all manner of domestic violence, etc.

Legalization ended the bootleggers shooting it out with each other.

And these days alcohol is affordable enough that the wino commits only minor crimes to support his habit. The crackhead sticks people up because he needs a lot more money to support his habit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wonder how that stark-looking list would look if it included the racial breakout for the other top countries. What’s the rate for Lithuanian Blacks? What’s the rate for ‘Murka overall?

Seems like the list was compiled to mislead.

I do agree the list was compiled for deceptive purposes, but it does show something important anyway: Murder is concentrated in a small portion of the population. That's why many people don't get that upset at the murder rate--we know most of it is bad guys killing bad guys. The same pattern applies everywhere--murder is highly concentrated in the criminal subset of the population. In the US there is enough of a racial pattern that you can make a chart like this, but race is just a proxy for the true issue.

 

[Toni]

I’m skeptical that legalization of all drugs would reduce most crime except for crimes related to use and distribution of a controlled substance. Sure, drug dealers would not be killing each other abs any innocent person in their periphery. Legalizing alcohol did not mean that alcohol use/abuse is not responsible for many crimes, especially assault, sexual assault, vehicular homicide, theft, child abuse, all manner of domestic violence, etc.

Legalization ended the bootleggers shooting it out with each other.

And these days alcohol is affordable enough that the wino commits only minor crimes to support his habit. The crackhead sticks people up because he needs a lot more money to support his habit.

Winos only commit minor thefts, sure. But alcoholics or drunks commit many other types of crime: vehicular manslaughter, assault, murder, rape, a variety of domestic assaults. Also a fair amount of white color crime, medical malpractice, etc.

You are right: liquor store owners are not shooting it out in the streets nor are beer distributors. But there is still a lot of crime committed while under the influence of alcohol, including crimes that probably would not happen if alcohol were not a factor.

So, while I am not opposed to legalizing marijuana, I do have some concerns with regards to public safety. As for other drugs: those include everything I've mentioned above plus crimes related to impure or misrepresented drugs being used, etc.

Of course, there is the absolute fact that alcohol abuse leads to many deaths annually, as does drug use/abuse.

I'm not proposing criminalizing alcohol. I'm just pointing out that a lot of crimes are committed by people who are abusing alcohol or under the influence. Those types of crimes with the root cause being drug use will not lessen with legalization and in fact may increase.

The real issue is that we very much need to address mental health issues---and also chronic pain treatment. Both are seriously underfunded, scare, and too often overlooked.

 

[Toni]

As far as 'focussing on the actual bad guys:' Almost all arrests and trials involve substance abuse or are substance abuse adjacent, from alcohol to whatever the kids are doing these days in some way, shape or form, including most assaults, break ins, thefts, etc.

Agreed--which means if we were to legalize the stuff there would be a lot fewer fights between dealers.

If we really are serious about unclogging the court system, we should decriminalize pot, at least, and invest a great deal more money into substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment. And we should also do more restorative justice. And we should really pay public defenders more. Our social safety network is very frayed and stretched way too thin.

As far as I'm concerned all the stuff should either be legal or legal by prescription with addiction a valid reason for a prescription. Pouring a bunch of money into substance abuse treatment is of only limited value as it only works if the patient really wants it to--without that desire you're just throwing money away.

And since we are on a roll, we really need to tackle the proliferation of assault weapons and the mythology that surrounds carrying weapons, concealed or not.

And here you get it utterly wrong. Look at the numbers--those assault weapons you demonize are rarely involved in crime. Criminals carry the lowly handgun because they value concealability over firepower.

I’m not wrong. Did you read about the weapons used in the mass shooting that inspired this thread? Or the weapons used at any of the more famous mass shootings? Sandy hook, for instance?

I have seen no mention of the weapons used--thus in all probability it was handguns. This was almost certainly two bad guys (or groups of bad guys) that shot it out with each other, hitting a bunch of bystanders in the process. Concealed weapons, therefore handguns.

There are NO legitimate reasons for owning an assault rifle. None.

Your obsession with assault rifles doesn't make them a big problem:

(Admittedly a old but I don't think the ratio has changed much)

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that 57% of all murders in 1993 were committed with handguns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown

And note that "rifles" includes more than just assault rifles.

Assault rifles have been demonized but in practice they are simply too big to be desirable to most criminals.

They are certainly the weapon of choice of many mass murderers.

There is simply no legitimate reason for people to use assault rifles or semiautomatic weapons.

 

[Elixir]

In the US there is enough of a racial pattern that you can make a chart like this, but race is just a proxy for the true issue.

And that issue is poverty.
But since it correlates with race due to long term structural economic racism, it makes a great tool with which to claim, without lying, that black people commit disproportionate amounts of homicides, implying a race based proclivity for crime. Then they chant ‘lock em up’ as if that was a solution.

Poor people also commit more crimes. We should lock them up too. And anyone else who can be identified with a carefully constructed crime profile. /

 

[Toni]

Well, poor people are charged with more crimes. Also held pending trial, convicted and sentenced at higher rates than more wealthy people.

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder how that stark-looking list would look if it included the racial breakout for the other top countries. What’s the rate for Lithuanian Blacks? What’s the rate for ‘Murka overall?

Seems like the list was compiled to mislead.

I do agree the list was compiled for deceptive purposes, but it does show something important anyway: Murder is concentrated in a small portion of the population. That's why many people don't get that upset at the murder rate--we know most of it is bad guys killing bad guys. The same pattern applies everywhere--murder is highly concentrated in the criminal subset of the population. In the US there is enough of a racial pattern that you can make a chart like this, but race is just a proxy for the true issue.

Excuse me, but I have watched the long-running documentary series Murder, She Wrote and it is clear to me that murders in America are highly concentrated in New England fishing villages and hardly ever involve criminal gangs but revolve around infidelity, inheritances, family feuds and blackmail.

 

[Derec]

There's often much validity in your posts. I'd be more supportive of you if you followed your problem descriptions by suggesting remedies to improve the flaws in American culture. But all too often, you offer only what almost seems like a bitter self-interested perspective.

I am trying to do just that. I am not coming from the "bitter self-interested perspective". There is self-interest, for example with legalizing sex work (hello, Elixir!), but I genuinely think these things will help US society in general as well. Same goes for my opinion on locking up violent gun criminals.

I'm sure you're a good-spirited citizen who wants to uplift all Americans but sometimes — let me be frank — your perspective seems not dissimilar to that of right-wing hate-mongers.

I disagree.

The WHITE incarceration rate is very high. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Black incarceration is even higher; that's unfortunate whatever the reason.

I misunderstood your main point then. I thought you were complaining about the "inequity" of incarceration rates.

Hunh? I absolutely did NOT intend to imply the bizarre claim you impute to me. Do you have some sort of tunnel vision that leads you to assume the least intelligent meaning of any sentence you encounter?

I am glad you find this "bizarre" and "least intelligent". Unfortunately, these attitudes are rather common on the "woke" left, where everything is about "disparate impact" or criminal laws.

I could have written "Dear Derec, I do NOT infer the insane conclusion that white incarcerations should be increased to equal black incarcerations" but it would be too tedious to guess WHICH bizarre viewpoint you might impute to me.

The thing is, if your desire is to eliminate "disparities" in incarceration rates while there are underlying difference in crime rate is to sentence white people more harshly for same crimes than black ones. I.e. abandon equality in mindless pursuit of "equity". Again, glad that you do not seem to be subscribing to this, but it is a common attitude among your fellow leftists.

Sorry for adding information by itemizing the incarcerations by race — perhaps I should have enclosed that in Spoiler tags with an admonition like "Derec shouldn't click; it will confuse him."

It really seemed that you were focusing on the difference.[/QUOTE][/quote]

 

[Derec]

It's called black-on-black crime, not a mass shooting.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I always thought a mass shooting was the intent to indiscriminately kill a bunch of random people. Not a shooting like this one where a bunch of hoodlums trying to kill each other kill innocent bystanders in the process.

No, it has to do with the number of victims, usually around 4 or 5. There are several definitions, but they tend to be similar and none exclude gangbangers shooting at each other.

It doesn't make it any less of a Gun Control, law enforcement, Prison system, and most importantly a community issue. It's a wonder where young black men get so much hatred for each other from? Handed down from the parents? Where did the parents get it from? It's like this is a major issue in the black community while not very much so with others. I wonder why?

That is indeed a good question.

 

[Derec]

It should be about trimming the criminal code to get rid of crimes that should not be crimes (either totally legal - e.g. adult sex work or just infractions - e.g. most moving violations). That way police and the courts can focus on the actual bad guys.

Interesting comment about decriminalizing adult sex work and most moving violations.

I quoted part of my previous post because you are trying to conflate these two issues even though I made a point to keep them very much separate. Adult sex work should be fully legal, as should things like weed. There is a good reason to enforce traffic laws however. But I do not think most moving violations - excluding things like DUIs or reckless driving - should be a criminal offense (in GA they are misdemeanors, punishable with up to 12 months in county if you decide to fight your ticket) but rather infractions. That does not mean people should not be stopped and ticketed for traffic violations though.

I believe you were one of the persons adamant that the officers in the Duante Wright shooting were absolutely 100% justified in pulling him over despite Minneapolis having in place a policy to not pull over drivers for expired vehicle registrations due to COVID.

We already went over this. If he only had an expired tag he would have probably been sent on his way with a warning and no ticket.
But he had an active warrant. So they had to arrest him. That's a good side effect of traffic stops. Best way to reduce gun crime is to go after gun criminals.
This is also why new policies in many cities to not even stop people for traffic violations is stupid. You do not only making driving more dangerous by not ticketing those who violate traffic laws (including people driving with no license or insurance), but are also making it easier for people with active warrants to avoid arrest.

That aside, relatively few moving violations end up in court.

No kidding! Unless you plead guilty and pay the fine you face jail time. Even for things like speeding. So few people fight them.

As far as 'focussing on the actual bad guys:' Almost all arrests and trials involve substance abuse or are substance abuse adjacent, from alcohol to whatever the kids are doing these days in some way, shape or form, including most assaults, break ins, thefts, etc.

[citation needed] on "almost all". You brought up St. Daunte aka "Prince of Brooklyn Center". He robbed a woman at gunpoint. He might have shot and paralyzed a man. Bad guy.

If we really are serious about unclogging the court system, we should decriminalize pot, at least, and invest a great deal more money into substance abuse treatment and mental health treatment. And we should also do more restorative justice. And we should really pay public defenders more. Our social safety network is very frayed and stretched way too thin.

I agree on all of these except "restorative justice". Too kumbaya.

And since we are on a roll, we really need to tackle the proliferation of assault weapons and the mythology that surrounds carrying weapons, concealed or not.

So-called assault weapons are not the major driver of gun crime. Instead of another ill-conceived "assault weapons ban" written by people who don't know what barrel shrouds are and think AR-15s shoot .50 cal bullets, we need to make sure gun criminals are held accountable.
As far as actual gun control, we need to close background check loopholes. I would also be in favor of things like gun registration and mandatory liability insurance. But mindless banning of certain weapons that are not a major problem solely because what they look like is not the way to go.

And we should absolutely stop equipping our police departments as though they are militia occupying a hostile territory.

What particular piece of equipment do you begrudge them? Riot shields? Bearcats?

 

[Toni]

I still disagree about legalizing all adult sex work for all the reasons we've battled about many times.

No one has claimed that Wright was a saint but no, I don't think he deserved to die. The officers should never have pulled him over in the first place per pandemic instructions in effect at the time. They did NOT know there was a warrant out for his arrest until he was pulled over. It is still unclear whether or not he was ever served a warrant so it is possible he was unaware. Do I think he was a good person? Almost certainly not but I also don't believe in the death penalty and certainly not prior to even being arrested on those charges, much less tried and convicted. It was a terrible tragedy all around.

I think our current catch/try/jail/imprison and release system is not very effective in terms of serving society, the victims of these crimes and those convicted very well. Restorative justice can be used with some criminal offenses and can be more effective than our current system of incarceration. Here's a linkhttps://ca.ctrinstitute.com/blog/5-principles-of-restorative-justice/

There are all sorts of weapons involved in gun crime. Assault weapons have no place in our society. I don't care if school shootings and theater shootings, etc. are a small fraction of the gun deaths in the US, their removal is only one first step in quelling the violence. Registration, licensure, mandatory background checks and mandatory gun safety and mandatory gun safe or other means to secure weapons should be enacted but honestly, we need to get rid of most of the guns.

As for what police equipment I think police should NOT have: I'm very concerned about policing and police equipment that trains police and arms them as though they are an occupying force in a hostile territory rather than members of the community whose job it is to serve and protect. Notable is that both the CATO Institute and the ACLU oppose the overmilitarization of police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit... police is,special weapons and tactics) teams.

 

[Rhea]

Registration, licensure, mandatory background checks and mandatory gun safety and mandatory gun safe or other means to secure weapons should be enacted but honestly, we need to get rid of most of the guns.

Add to this, ALWAYS ADD TO THIS, tightly controlled and deeply accurate audits of gun sellers’ records and inventory.

The guns get out to the criminal through legal shops that are not monitored. The gun industry fights tooth and nail to preserve a condition where gun sellers can make straw sales without consequences.

I would argue that we START THERE.

As for what police equipment I think police should NOT have: I'm very concerned about policing and police equipment that trains police and arms them as though they are an occupying force in a hostile territory rather than members of the community whose job it is to serve and protect. Notable is that both the CATO Institute and the ACLU oppose the overmilitarization of police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit... police is,special weapons and tactics) teams.

Our county got a fucking tank as well as armored trucks and then smugly showed them off in parades and talked about how great they would be against meth labs. A fucking tank. As well as military arms and explosives.

 

[Rhea]

An example of the armored vehicles being drven around in local communities by police

For police and sheriff's departments, which have scooped up 165 of the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPS, since they became available this summer, the price and the ability to deliver shock and awe while serving warrants or dealing with hostage standoffs was just too good to pass up.

"It's armored. It's heavy. It's intimidating. And it's free," said Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple, among five county sheriff's departments and three other police agencies in New York that have taken delivery of an MRAP.

The new MRAP truck will go into service after technicians remove the gun turret and change the paint from military sand to civilian black.
Sheriff Apple rejected the idea that the nation's police forces are becoming too militaristic.

 

[Toni]

Thanks, Rhea. This is a very good example of something I really do not think our police departments need.

 

[Rhea]

Also, as I look for a icture of the one our county had in a parade, I want to address the “that’s not a tank” reply that is likely to be made (Such as by this group at NY firearms dot com)

Since the topic of this tangent is overly militarizing the police, I argue that it does not matter if it is a “real tank” or “just an armored personnel carrier that looks like a tank,” because my argument is about the way the police interact with the community - like they are a military unit and the people are the enemy.

So if it is a tracked armored personnel carrier with a turret that doesn’t actually shoot anything (because the gun itself has been removed) but looks like it does, we are still having exactly the problem that I am complaining about. Intimidation of a populace by an overly militarized police force.