[Discussion] Mass Shootings - Yeah, we need a thread just for this...

This year is the deadliest year ever in terms of mass shootings. In a political climate of polarization, it becomes harder to suss out legitimate information from the misinformation propagated by those with political agendas. Complicating this more is the continual resistance of 2nd amendment advocates to allow for political talk surrounding these massacres. This will involve political discussion to see if there are ways we can all agree might be good ways to prevent mass shootings.

This discussion should involve the details of any current, or future mass shooting, and how they compare to past mass shootings. How are they the same? How are they different? Do gun laws have an impact? Does the race of the shooter affect how we treat them? What makes one a hate crime and one an act or terrorism? Are these shootings the price of freedom?

This guy gets the problem with tactical training in cops today, but misses on the point that cops don't have a lot of leeway in today's atmosphere of metrics based policing. Really good watch either way.

I'm not exactly comfortable with his other message that police officers should choose to not enforce "unjust" laws or not deal with someone who's "ideologically motivated" because they might get hurt. Considering there was just a story about a Florida SWAT member posing for a picture with Pence sporting a f*cking Q badge on his uniform (and all the other stories about police officers being members of white supremacist groups) I don't trust them to determine what laws are just or not or who is politically motivated.

And the story he told about the guy in the park was a failure of policing. A clearly mentally and emotionally f*cked up dude--who was armed and ready to commit violence--was left alone by the police. The message was let that landmine blow up on a civilian rather than law enforcement.

As a local government employee working for the IT department, I’m given a bit of leeway in interpreting the County’s goals and mission. I don’t know why we shouldn’t give cops similar freedom for acting within the spirit vs letter of the law too.

I agree with you OG that a potentially dangerous guy needs to be confronted, but there would be no way the deputy could know that fact on the scene.

jdzappa wrote:

I agree with you OG that a potentially dangerous guy needs to be confronted, but there would be no way the deputy could know that fact on the scene.

They determine it now based on whether they are white or black.

jdzappa wrote:

As a local government employee working for the IT department, I’m given a bit of leeway in interpreting the County’s goals and mission. I don’t know why we shouldn’t give cops similar freedom for acting within the spirit vs letter of the law too.

I too am a local government employee working for the IT department, and I should be given a pistol and training that prioritizes lethal force over other methods of dealing with problems... so I can exercise 'leeway in interpreting' the goals and missions of my position with prejudice.

Rezzy wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

As a local government employee working for the IT department, I’m given a bit of leeway in interpreting the County’s goals and mission. I don’t know why we shouldn’t give cops similar freedom for acting within the spirit vs letter of the law too.

I too am a local government employee working for the IT department, and I should be given a pistol and training that prioritizes lethal force over other methods of dealing with problems... so I can exercise 'leeway in interpreting' the goals and missions of my position with prejudice.

"excuse me Rezzy the IT person, my coffee spilled out of the built in cupholder onto my terminal, and it's acting weird, so i deleted something useless called 'autoexec.bat', can you help me? wait why are you pulling out that pistol..."

I am an IT person working for a state government and think that being able to carry a pistol with the 'leeway in interpreting' my goals means I could eliminate 90% of my recurring IT issues.

With extreme prejudice.

jdzappa wrote:

I agree with you OG that a potentially dangerous guy needs to be confronted, but there would be no way the deputy could know that fact on the scene.

The guy in the video described the vet as having his Taliban-esque beard along with long hair, said he "looks homeless" and "ate up," and said he has severe PTSD and "problems with authority." The later two should have been exceptionally visible to the deputy, especially if the story is true that the vet was literally seconds away from pulling a gun out and shooting him. I mean I don't think I've ever seen someone who has serious "problems with authority" hide it very well when confronted with said authority and the deputy would have to be extremely dim not to pick up on that.

I also think race subconsciously played a part. The guy in the video didn't mention the race of either the deputy or the vet, but it's a safe assumption they were both white (at least the vet). And the deputy clearly gave the vet more leeway than most law enforcement would give an ate-up, homeless-looking minority with behavioral issues and problems with authority (hell, he gave him way more leeway than a black mother carrying her one-year old). And if it came out during their interaction that the guy was actually a veteran, then he probably got a double dose of unwarranted leeway from the deputy.

OG_slinger wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

I agree with you OG that a potentially dangerous guy needs to be confronted, but there would be no way the deputy could know that fact on the scene.

The guy in the video described the vet as having his Taliban-esque beard along with long hair, said he "looks homeless" and "ate up," and said he has severe PTSD and "problems with authority." The later two should have been exceptionally visible to the deputy, especially if the story is true that the vet was literally seconds away from pulling a gun out and shooting him. I mean I don't think I've ever seen someone who has serious "problems with authority" hide it very well when confronted with said authority and the deputy would have to be extremely dim not to pick up on that.

I also think race subconsciously played a part. The guy in the video didn't mention the race of either the deputy or the vet, but it's a safe assumption they were both white (at least the vet). And the deputy clearly gave the vet more leeway than most law enforcement would give an ate-up, homeless-looking minority with behavioral issues and problems with authority (hell, he gave him way more leeway than a black mother carrying her one-year old). And if it came out during their interaction that the guy was actually a veteran, then he probably got a double dose of unwarranted leeway from the deputy.

I agree with you that things could have been different if the guy wasn’t White, but angry homeless dude would describe half of downtown Seattle. Should we lock them all up?

Maybe the right answer is BOTH the vet and mom are marginalized and deserve help and treatment instead of incarceration? Kudos to the deputy for controlling but not escalating the situation. NYPD should definitely have followed suit.

Finally, we have an anecdote being told secondhand by a YouTuber. We have no idea how much the story was embellished.