The mass shooter is mental disturbed not mentally bonkers. He isn't getting off the hook claiming he is crazy. The mass shooter demonstrated he is rather smart for evading the security, how quick he execute his shooting and trying to escape hiding among the fleeing students. What is his mental illness precisely? In what way does his mental illness affect him really?
Criminally violent psychosis.
His mental illness affects him such that he's prone to going on shooting rampages.
The shooter's mother contacted police thirty-nine times, begging with increasing desperation for help because she knew her son was too violent. She couldn't keep him in line, she needed help, she asked for it, begged for it, pleaded for it, and never got it.
THAT is why mental health problems need to be addressed in this country. People fucking REFUSE to look at it or even admit it exists. That police department abetted the murder of seventeen students because they didn't want to deal with a woman desperate for assistance, couldn't be assed to help. Because dealing with the criminally deranged, or the potentially criminally deranged, is too much like work. It makes people uncomfortable to confront mental illness, just like it used to make people uncomfortable to confront homosexuality, or sex crimes. Remember, those other uncomfortable things people just kept sweeping under the rug and not talking about back in the Bad Ol' Days?
Gay people, however, can speak the fuck up, hold rallies, and push that confrontation. Sex crime victims can organize and do the same. The mentally ill can't do any such thing. Nobody's going to hold a Psychological Issues Rally. We have to get off our own fucking asses on this one and start correcting the issue, because the mentally ill aren't going to force the issue and do it for us.
Stop. Fucking. Looking. For. Scapegoats. Scapegoats help fucking nobody. DIAGNOSE THE GODDAMNED PROBLEM. Is the problem our horrifically awful public school system? Is it this country's fucking phobia over dealing with the mentally ill? Is it antiquated and ineffective firearms control laws? Is it the sensationalist media celebrating this shit and legitimizing it in the eyes of criminals to come? Is it a combination of all these factors? More? Something else?
The mass shooter is mental disturbed not mentally bonkers. He isn't getting off the hook claiming he is crazy. The mass shooter demonstrated he is rather smart for evading the security, how quick he execute his shooting and trying to escape hiding among the fleeing students. What is his mental illness precisely? In what way does his mental illness affect him really?
Criminally violent psychosis.
His mental illness affects him such that he's prone to going on shooting rampages.
The shooter's mother contacted police thirty-nine times, begging with increasing desperation for help because she knew her son was too violent. She couldn't keep him in line, she needed help, she asked for it, begged for it, pleaded for it, and never got it.
THAT is why mental health problems need to be addressed in this country. People fucking REFUSE to look at it or even admit it exists. That police department abetted the murder of seventeen students because they didn't want to deal with a woman desperate for assistance, couldn't be assed to help. Because dealing with the criminally deranged, or the potentially criminally deranged, is too much like work. It makes people uncomfortable to confront mental illness, just like it used to make people uncomfortable to confront homosexuality, or sex crimes. Remember, those other uncomfortable things people just kept sweeping under the rug and not talking about back in the Bad Ol' Days?
Gay people, however, can speak the fuck up, hold rallies, and push that confrontation. Sex crime victims can organize and do the same. The mentally ill can't do any such thing. Nobody's going to hold a Psychological Issues Rally. We have to get off our own fucking asses on this one and start correcting the issue, because the mentally ill aren't going to force the issue and do it for us.
Stop. Fucking. Looking. For. Scapegoats. Scapegoats help fucking nobody. DIAGNOSE THE GODDAMNED PROBLEM. Is the problem our horrifically awful public school system? Is it this country's fucking phobia over dealing with the mentally ill? Is it antiquated and ineffective firearms control laws? Is it the sensationalist media celebrating this shit and legitimizing it in the eyes of criminals to come? Is it a combination of all these factors? More? Something else?
And stop FUCKING blaming the firearms enthusiast community for shit we had nothing to do with, thank you very much.
It is a very serious question. Is his mental illness a direct cause of his behavior? People often draw misleading parallels with mental illness that are not accurate or helpful. It is only in extreme cases where they pose a danger to themselves or others. People often talk about mental illness in such vague way it is essential meaningless. People have some nonsensical assumption on mental patients deeply entrenched in movies and TV shows. It is akin to people assuming people more likely to go on shooting rampage if they had a broken leg and fracture bones. Sure, you might be more likely but only in the most extreme case where it hurt like hell. People still bear legal responsibility for their actions, they are not freaking insane. Being mentally ill doesn't give you free pass to commit crime. Otherwise every mental ill person would go shoot someone. More mentally sane people shoot other people, why nobody complain about them?
Last edited by deathflower#0444 on Feb 19, 2018, 11:21:28 AM
The mass shooter is mental disturbed not mentally bonkers. He isn't getting off the hook claiming he is crazy. The mass shooter demonstrated he is rather smart for evading the security, how quick he execute his shooting and trying to escape hiding among the fleeing students. What is his mental illness precisely? In what way does his mental illness affect him really?
Criminally violent psychosis.
His mental illness affects him such that he's prone to going on shooting rampages.
The shooter's mother contacted police thirty-nine times, begging with increasing desperation for help because she knew her son was too violent. She couldn't keep him in line, she needed help, she asked for it, begged for it, pleaded for it, and never got it.
THAT is why mental health problems need to be addressed in this country. People fucking REFUSE to look at it or even admit it exists. That police department abetted the murder of seventeen students because they didn't want to deal with a woman desperate for assistance, couldn't be assed to help. Because dealing with the criminally deranged, or the potentially criminally deranged, is too much like work. It makes people uncomfortable to confront mental illness, just like it used to make people uncomfortable to confront homosexuality, or sex crimes. Remember, those other uncomfortable things people just kept sweeping under the rug and not talking about back in the Bad Ol' Days?
Gay people, however, can speak the fuck up, hold rallies, and push that confrontation. Sex crime victims can organize and do the same. The mentally ill can't do any such thing. Nobody's going to hold a Psychological Issues Rally. We have to get off our own fucking asses on this one and start correcting the issue, because the mentally ill aren't going to force the issue and do it for us.
Stop. Fucking. Looking. For. Scapegoats. Scapegoats help fucking nobody. DIAGNOSE THE GODDAMNED PROBLEM. Is the problem our horrifically awful public school system? Is it this country's fucking phobia over dealing with the mentally ill? Is it antiquated and ineffective firearms control laws? Is it the sensationalist media celebrating this shit and legitimizing it in the eyes of criminals to come? Is it a combination of all these factors? More? Something else?
And stop FUCKING blaming the firearms enthusiast community for shit we had nothing to do with, thank you very much.
I agree with pretty much everything written. Great post. One question, how (in what ways) could the police have intervened prior to his breaking any laws? What do or should they have the authority to do when they receive concerns? I mean prior to committing a criminal act or declaration of intentions. Legit question, because I’m not sure the police have anything to do with a concerned mother, but on the other hand who does she call when she feels a situation has escalated out of her hands?
That’s the rub. At what point (prior to) do you diagnose that this is a mental health issue, by what metric do you (a normie) diagnose (so that the claim can carry legitimacy, and ultimately be passed on), who organizes an intervention, what do they do with it, and how do you answer these questions without sounding Orwellian?
Edit: Did some more reading in light of Scottie’s post. Questions not applicable to this case, but still valid concerns? Maybe?
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
Last edited by CanHasPants#3515 on Feb 19, 2018, 1:15:49 PM
The shooter's mother contacted police thirty-nine times, begging with increasing desperation for help because she knew her son was too violent. She couldn't keep him in line, she needed help, she asked for it, begged for it, pleaded for it, and never got it...
Stop. Fucking. Looking. For. Scapegoats. Scapegoats help fucking nobody. DIAGNOSE THE GODDAMNED PROBLEM. Is the problem our horrifically awful public school system? Is it this country's fucking phobia over dealing with the mentally ill? Is it antiquated and ineffective firearms control laws? Is it the sensationalist media celebrating this shit and legitimizing it in the eyes of criminals to come? Is it a combination of all these factors? More? Something else?
First, a possible correction: although law enforcement was physically dispatched to Cruz's home 39 times during a seven-year period, I can't verify how many of those were initiated by Cruz's mother.
Second, we have a very clear and very deserving scapegoat here: law enforcement. Cruz was guilty of multiple unprosecuted violent crimes that, if prosecuted, could have prevented him from legally purchasing his AR15 under existing laws, or led to his safe incarceration up until now. Furthermore, when authorities responding to a call had Cruz's mental health evaluated, he was deemed low-risk due to the stabilizing presence of his adoptive mother and his teachers... yet when he was expelled and his mother died, no follow-up was conducted.
I still consider school shootings a trend, so in the broader context I agree that improving mental health services is important against more intelligent would-be murderers who manage to stay under the radar of law enforcement and all but the adults and fellow students closest to them. In those cases, upgrading the radar for improved detection makes sense. However, as new evidence has come in, it's clear there was no problem with the radar here and thus no fault in terms of attempts to provide moral guidance to Nikolas Cruz (except perhaps on the part of his guardians after Mrs. Cruz's death). All of the alarms went off, so stop blaming the alarms and start blaming the respondents.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
how (in what ways) could the police have intervened prior to his breaking any laws? What do or should they have the authority to do when they receive concerns? I mean prior to committing a criminal act or declaration of intentions. Legit question, because I’m not sure the police have anything to do with a concerned mother, but on the other hand who does she call when she feels a situation has escalated out of her hands?
That’s the rub. At what point (prior to) do you diagnose that this is a mental health issue, by what metric do you (a normie) diagnose (so that the claim can carry legitimacy, and ultimately be passed on), who organizes an intervention, what do they do with it, and how do you answer these questions without sounding Orwellian?
A list of crimes Cruz has been accused of committing (prior to his AR15 purchase):
* bringing knives to school (a fellow student claims)
* a (possibly violent?) altercation with his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend (a fellow student claims)
* egging other people's cars (neighbor Sheila Sperno claims)
* mail fraud (neighbor Sheila Sperno claims)
* shooting at chickens owned by another neighbor (neighbor Sheila Sperno claims). Nikolas Cruz owned a BB gun so it's not entirely clear what type of shooting this was.
* "He didn't like the pigs and he didn't like the neighbors, so he sent his dog over there to try to attack them," say Mr. and Mrs. Malcolm Roxburgh
That's still credibly at least five crimes, maybe six, of which two or three are violent and at least two involve weapons.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
how (in what ways) could the police have intervened prior to his breaking any laws? What do or should they have the authority to do when they receive concerns? I mean prior to committing a criminal act or declaration of intentions. Legit question, because I’m not sure the police have anything to do with a concerned mother, but on the other hand who does she call when she feels a situation has escalated out of her hands?
That’s the rub. At what point (prior to) do you diagnose that this is a mental health issue, by what metric do you (a normie) diagnose (so that the claim can carry legitimacy, and ultimately be passed on), who organizes an intervention, what do they do with it, and how do you answer these questions without sounding Orwellian?
A list of crimes Cruz has been accused of committing (prior to his AR15 purchase):
* bringing knives to school (a fellow student claims)
* a (possibly violent?) altercation with his ex-girlfriend's boyfriend (a fellow student claims)
* egging other people's cars (neighbor Sheila Sperno claims)
* mail fraud (neighbor Sheila Sperno claims)
* shooting at chickens owned by another neighbor (neighbor Sheila Sperno claims). Nikolas Cruz owned a BB gun so it's not entirely clear what type of shooting this was.
* "He didn't like the pigs and he didn't like the neighbors, so he sent his dog over there to try to attack them," say Mr. and Mrs. Malcolm Roxburgh
That's still credibly at least five crimes, maybe six, of which two or three are violent and at least two involve weapons.
Doesn't matter how many he committed, he doesn't seem to have any on RECORD. He had no criminal record when he bought his AR-15 rifle. Does this mean he had never been convicted for any crimes? That tell you something...
Last edited by deathflower#0444 on Feb 19, 2018, 12:27:10 PM
I am saying Nikolas Cruz was never convicted of any crimes. That doesn't mean he couldn't have been. I mean, law enforcement was dispatched to his home 39 times.
Given the current publicly available evidence, I acknowledge the infinitesimal probability that law enforcement didn't find anything during those 39 visits to have even one instance of sufficient probable cause to make an arrest and a warrant, or if they did arrest him could not have found sufficient evidence for an indictment and a conviction given a proper investigation using such a warrant. However, in cases of infinitesimal probability, my long-standing policy is to bet all-in against. (Ex: my post history vs johnKeys.) For all practical purposes, it's as if I don't acknowledge the possibility at all, because while I may see it, I don't entertain unreasonable doubt.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 19, 2018, 1:11:55 PM
I am saying Nikolas Cruz was never convicted of any crimes. That doesn't mean he couldn't have been. I mean, law enforcement was dispatched to his home 39 times.
Given the current publicly available evidence, I acknowledge the infinitesimal probability that law enforcement didn't find anything during those 39 visits to have even one instance of sufficient probable cause to make an arrest and a warrant, or if they did arrest him could not have found sufficient evidence for an indictment and a conviction given a proper investigation using such a warrant. However, in cases of infinitesimal probability, my long-standing policy is to bet all-in against. (Ex: my post history vs johnKeys.) For all practical purposes, it's as if I don't acknowledge the possibility at all, because while I may see it, I don't entertain unreasonable doubt.
It is easier to admit the criminal justice system is not infallible. That would be what police officers and judges know anonymously but should not say as they watch scumbags fall through the cracks. What if you know the suspect did it but can't find sufficient evidences? You Shrug your shoulders!
Last edited by deathflower#0444 on Feb 19, 2018, 1:55:41 PM
What if you know the suspect did it but can't find sufficient evidences? You Shrug your shoulders!
Triggered.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 19, 2018, 2:29:30 PM
