Why the Parkland shooter could buy a gun: Policing aimed at downplaying incidents

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...ool-shooter-to-buy-gun-despite-troubling-past

Pretend the bad apples aren't bad and you won't be able to detect bad apples!

 

[bilby]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...ool-shooter-to-buy-gun-despite-troubling-past

Pretend the bad apples aren't bad and you won't be able to detect bad apples!

The article doesn't say that, had the old system remained in place, it would have been harder for him to get a gun.

The article doesn't say anything very useful; It's just a vacuous appeal to use zero tolerance policies - And zero tolerance policies are a stupid idea; They simply take responsibility for determining what should be done away from the people who know about the specifics of a situation, and instead give that responsibility to someone who cannot possibly have any idea what actually happened, or why.

As for 'bad apples', many of your stupidest ideas stem from your unreasonable faith in the idea that such a thing exists. People are NOT able to be divided into 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. This is NOT a sane categorization of humans. EVERY SINGLE PERSON EVER has done things that would (if widely known about) get them classified as 'bad apples' or 'bad guys'. Equally, every single human in history thinks that he or she is one of the 'good guys'. The categorization is not only meaningless; it is directly harmful. You need to stop using it.

 

[Copernicus]

The Blaze article jumps to the unwarranted conclusion that measures were already in place to prevent this disturbed teenager from getting his weapons before the sheriff issued his list. That would mean that the only opportunity for authorities to hear about this kid's problems came from the sheriff, who was somehow acting under the influence of Barack Obama. But the right wing bubble also contains the news that the FBI was notified in advance of the shooting and did nothing. How did Barack Obama get to them a year into Il Douchebag's regime? Oh well, right wingers know all about the liberal "deep state" conspiracy, so this kind of story must somehow fit in nicely with their model of reality.

The point is that preventing murderous teenagers from getting access to guns has nothing whatsoever with limiting general access to such weapons. It can only be done by reporting every aspect of teenage troublemakers' behavior to the authorities, once said authorities are purged of limp-wristed Obama-loving anti-gun liberals. Then those authorities will send out SWAT teams to kick in doors, confiscate weapons, and provide the troubled teens with miraculous mental health cures. Oh, yes. Almost forgot. Don't forget to arm all the teachers and maybe even some students who appear to be budding new responsible gun owners. That will surely deter teenagers from getting guns and shooting up their schools. They only do such things because they are treated too leniently.

 

[braces_for_impact]

 

[Angry Floof]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...ool-shooter-to-buy-gun-despite-troubling-past

Pretend the bad apples aren't bad and you won't be able to detect bad apples!

The article doesn't say that, had the old system remained in place, it would have been harder for him to get a gun.

The article doesn't say anything very useful; It's just a vacuous appeal to use zero tolerance policies - And zero tolerance policies are a stupid idea; They simply take responsibility for determining what should be done away from the people who know about the specifics of a situation, and instead give that responsibility to someone who cannot possibly have any idea what actually happened, or why.

As for 'bad apples', many of your stupidest ideas stem from your unreasonable faith in the idea that such a thing exists. People are NOT able to be divided into 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. This is NOT a sane categorization of humans. EVERY SINGLE PERSON EVER has done things that would (if widely known about) get them classified as 'bad apples' or 'bad guys'. Equally, every single human in history thinks that he or she is one of the 'good guys'. The categorization is not only meaningless; it is directly harmful. You need to stop using it.

Thumbs up. Black and white thinking is a fundamental pillar of right wing mentality.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are citing The Blaze now?

 

[Copernicus]

We are citing The Blaze now?

The Blaze is a major source of information for those who have burned all their bridges to reality.

 

[RavenSky]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...ool-shooter-to-buy-gun-despite-troubling-past

Pretend the bad apples aren't bad and you won't be able to detect bad apples!

This is why such policies were put in place:

But civil rights advocates say students of color often bear the brunt of overly punitive zero-tolerance policies and state laws that can lead to arrests for relatively minor misbehavior, such as vandalism or classroom arguments.

And the presence of police in schools, such advocates say, makes arrests and referrals more likely, with results that can derail students' lives.

"Far too often when police are consistently present in black and brown communities, they criminalize behavior they wouldn't in other places," said Allison Brown, the executive director of the Communities for Just Schools Fund and a former lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice.

"Especially for young people, that is just devastating to their chances for success," she said.

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/01/25/black-students-more-likely-to-be-arrested.html

Moreover, the article you cite inaccurately & hyperbolically claims that

In the years leading up to his mass murder, reports show Cruz repeatedly misbehaved at school, including fights, assault, and an incident when he brought bullets to school in his backpack. He was never arrested or expelled, instead referred to counseling, given “internal suspension, or transferred to alternative schools.

To date, there has been evidence/reports of only 1 physical fight on campus

“I knew him to be passive aggressive but not violent. He was rude to people. He had an act up like he was tough. He never got into, like, physical fights with anyone, but he did get into verbal arguments,” 17-year-old Ocean Parodie

One student told the Miami Herald that he was expelled and told never to return to the school wearing a bag, after bullets were found in his backpack, but that has not been confirmed by officials.

And finally, he WAS expelled from this school for behavioral issues. This is why he was NOT a student at Stoneman Douglas when he murdered 17 people with a weapon of war.

It appears to me that the article you cited is full of factual errors and right-wing bias, but good on you for bringing it to us to continue your long history of always blaming the black guy... even when you are blaming the former President of the United States who had absolutely zilch to do with Cruz having an AR-15 and killing 17 people with it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jebus, there were probably a dozen plus number of teens in my high school that has a record like this teen did as far as fights and discipline in school. In fact, I bet our schools have a small percentage like that.

Here is the simple, people like Loren and the NRA think this kid shouldn't have had access to a gun, yet the gun laws they support say that 'you can haz ARZ-15'. They want to put all the blame on authorities who are handcuffed by the 4th and 5th Amendments from 'just addressing the problem'. How exactly they could have done that, I'm not certain. But Loren and NRA are sure there was something that could have been done... if not for liberal pussyfoot policies, whatever the heck those are.

 

[Bronzeage]

There will continue to be a mudslide of articles explaining why the Parkland shooting is somehow encourages by progressive of liberal policies. The reason is simple. The Parkland shooting is a gun rights advocate's perfect storm. Their preferred solution, (good guy with a gun) failed in practice. A commissioned law enforcement officer did nothing to prevent or curtail the shooting, despite policy and training.

In order to maintain the fantasy of police officers with Sir Lancelot level courage, some other reason for the shooting must be found.

 

[SimpleDon]

The Blaze article jumps to the unwarranted conclusion that measures were already in place to prevent this disturbed teenager from getting his weapons before the sheriff issued his list. That would mean that the only opportunity for authorities to hear about this kid's problems came from the sheriff, who was somehow acting under the influence of Barack Obama. But the right wing bubble also contains the news that the FBI was notified in advance of the shooting and did nothing. How did Barack Obama get to them a year into Il Douchebag's regime? Oh well, right wingers know all about the liberal "deep state" conspiracy, so this kind of story must somehow fit in nicely with their model of reality.

<snip>​

More than one relative of mine are right-wing Trump supporters. I argued with one when she said that The Great Recession was caused by Obama convincing the Fed to keep printing money. This was one year before Obama was sworn in the first time. The liberal deep state not only is so resilient that it carries on Obama's misguided legacy after he is out of office, they screwed up anticipating his election.

 

[SimpleDon]

This Blaze seems to be so concerned with conspiracy theories that they don't have time to consider what actually is really happening. Why does anyone think that their product is worth presenting here?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...ool-shooter-to-buy-gun-despite-troubling-past

Pretend the bad apples aren't bad and you won't be able to detect bad apples!

The article doesn't say that, had the old system remained in place, it would have been harder for him to get a gun.

The article doesn't say anything very useful; It's just a vacuous appeal to use zero tolerance policies - And zero tolerance policies are a stupid idea; They simply take responsibility for determining what should be done away from the people who know about the specifics of a situation, and instead give that responsibility to someone who cannot possibly have any idea what actually happened, or why.

As for 'bad apples', many of your stupidest ideas stem from your unreasonable faith in the idea that such a thing exists. People are NOT able to be divided into 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. This is NOT a sane categorization of humans. EVERY SINGLE PERSON EVER has done things that would (if widely known about) get them classified as 'bad apples' or 'bad guys'. Equally, every single human in history thinks that he or she is one of the 'good guys'. The categorization is not only meaningless; it is directly harmful. You need to stop using it.

The article is not talking about zero tolerance policies. The article is talking about the policy of sweeping criminal acts under the rug so the criminals won't be branded as criminals.

Hey, there's a reason we treat criminals differently!

- - - Updated - - -

The Blaze article jumps to the unwarranted conclusion that measures were already in place to prevent this disturbed teenager from getting his weapons before the sheriff issued his list. That would mean that the only opportunity for authorities to hear about this kid's problems came from the sheriff, who was somehow acting under the influence of Barack Obama. But the right wing bubble also contains the news that the FBI was notified in advance of the shooting and did nothing. How did Barack Obama get to them a year into Il Douchebag's regime? Oh well, right wingers know all about the liberal "deep state" conspiracy, so this kind of story must somehow fit in nicely with their model of reality.

It's called background checks to purchase a firearm. Had he been charged with the crimes he committed he would most likely been ineligible to buy a gun.

 

[RavenSky]

The article is not talking about zero tolerance policies. The article is talking about the policy of sweeping criminal acts under the rug so the criminals won't be branded as criminals...

The "article" was talking about a ridiculous strawman

 

[RavenSky]

It's called background checks to purchase a firearm. Had he been charged with the crimes he committed he would most likely been ineligible to buy a gun.

What crimes did he commit, Loren? Talking back to the teacher? Arguing with his classmates? Being weird and creepy?

List his alleged crimes with factual citations.

(Obviously, I am not referring to the 17 murders he committed)

 

[bilby]

The article is not talking about zero tolerance policies.

Evidently you didn't read it:

The lenient discipline policies stem from an effort to reduce overall numbers and racial disparities in the school-to-prison pipelines by using less severe punishments and limiting law enforcement involvement in school incidents, rather than by working to limit the number of crimes committed at schools through zero-tolerance policies.

(My bold).

The article is talking about the policy of sweeping criminal acts under the rug so the criminals won't be branded as criminals.

And is EXPLICITLY recommending zero tolerance policies as their preferred alternative.

Hey, there's a reason we treat criminals differently!

Is there?

Do we treat criminals (who have served their time) differently because they have demonstrated that they are not as good as non-criminals; Or because of an unreasonable stigmatizing of them that forms a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a criminal past closes the door to non-criminal future success?

I suspect the latter; And indeed a large (but poorly controlled) experiment was done on this subject. If the VAST majority of a population were all ex-criminals, then under the 'That's because we have identified them as bad people, so obviously they won't be successful in the future, and will continue to commit crimes' hypothesis, that population would remain poor and crime-ridden indefinitely. Under the alternative hypothesis, that criminals are just the people who had the misfortune to be caught, and are basically the same as those who weren't caught (other than in now being denied future opportunities) we would expect a population largely made up of convicts to quickly settle out into a similar society to that from which they were taken - with some successful and upstanding businessmen, a lot of hard working citizens, and a few ne'er-do-wells. You can't refuse to employ or do business with ex-cons, when everyone in society is an ex-con.

I will leave it to the reader to decide which of these outcomes best describes modern Australia.

The fundamental assumptions underlying your position are demonstrably not correct. People cannot be identified as 'bad guys' vs 'good guys', and that identity be reliably used to anticipate their future behaviour - it only works IF by branding someone as a 'bad guy', you deny him the opportunity to redeem himself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Zero tolerance is normally applied to not using common sense about school rule violations.

Why should there be something other than zero tolerance for actual criminal activity?

 

[bilby]

Zero tolerance is normally applied to not using common sense about school rule violations.

Why should there be something other than zero tolerance for actual criminal activity?

Because it shifts the decision about what should be punishable from the person with all of the information about the specific case, to a person with no information about the specific case - indeed, that person makes the decision before the case occurs, and therefore cannot possibly know the details.

Unless your law makers are omniscient clairvoyants, and can predict and enumerate every possible mitigating factor that could ever arise in any situation, this will inevitably lead to unexpected situations that are covered by the policy (or law), but which the maker of the policy (or law) would have exempted, had they thought of them.

For example: You make it a criminal offence, with a mandatory five year sentence, to tackle a stranger to the ground without provocation. A person is about to be hit from behind by flying debris, and a bystander saves his life by tackling him to the ground. In the absence of zero tolerance, the technical breach of the law is ignored for obvious reasons of common sense. With zero tolerance, the bystander serves five years in jail for his good deed.

It's a FUCKING STUPID idea, and is a perfect example of why it is vital to have a separation of powers - Lawmakers determine what is or is not lawful, but ONLY a judge can decide the penalty for a specific instance of illegality. In the above scenario, without zero tolerance, the cops can decide it would be silly to arrest the assailant; but if they make a poor call (perhaps unaware of the mitigating circumstances which are later revealed in court; or because they too have a foolish 'zero tolerance' policy), the judge can say 'You are technically guilty, but in the circumstances no punishment is warranted and you are free to go'.

Given the undeniable fact that the courtroom is the only place where all of the evidence and all of the circumstances of a given event are brought together for consideration, that is also the only place where it is possible to make a decision that takes account of all of that information.

It is very easy to be technically guilty of a crime, in circumstances where doing so is forgivable, or even laudable. In such cases, judges must have the power to be lenient. Legislators (or executives) should not be allowed to usurp that power.

 

[RavenSky]

Zero tolerance is normally applied to not using common sense about school rule violations.

Why should there be something other than zero tolerance for actual criminal activity?

"criminal activity" for which there is zero evidence of and you are studiously avoiding acknowledging...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Zero tolerance is normally applied to not using common sense about school rule violations.

Why should there be something other than zero tolerance for actual criminal activity?

"criminal activity" for which there is zero evidence of and you are studiously avoiding acknowledging...

You realize that despite this watering down he was expelled twice?