Texas School Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
The mental illness question is complex. Differential 'cruel' punishment unleashes a horror show of discriminatory problems.

Catching them alive - what does that mean? If they surrender, they still should be shot? Determining motivation has nothing to do with it. You use lethal force to prevent grievous bodily harm. If the person at the time is not offering that, you do not use lethal force.

Emotions cannot overwhelm the laws because you think 'someone needs killing'.

Solving such problems will not be done with our existing philosophical, religious or scientific frameworks that I can see. Emotions cloud rational decision making.
 
The only time a suspect should be killed is if it will stop the threat.
If the suspect is no longer harming people then there no cause to justify any more force. Arrest them, have a trial.
 
The only time a suspect should be killed is if it will stop the threat.
If the suspect is no longer harming people then there no cause to justify any more force. Arrest them, have a trial.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree with that and what Glen wrote . If the shooter or any bad guy for that matter is still a threat is really still up to interpretation . Depending on the state you're in the differences in those interpretations are huge . There are a few states that unless you are actively being stabbed or shot you better not kill anyone . Some don't put the same emphasis on disparity of force . My guess is that's why some states think stand your ground laws are great while others think they allow a victim to commit murder .

So I guess the devils in the details as the old saying goes .
 
Last edited:
If the suspect is no longer harming people then there no cause to justify any more force. Arrest them, have a trial.
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, not everyone wants to be arrested. So do you think the police should use more force to arrest them? After all they are not hurting anyone at the moment. Do you still arrest them if there are no police around? How do you make that happen without you getting killed in the process?
 
If the shooter or any bad guy for that matter is still a threat is really still up to interpretation .
Click to expand...
That is correct. However, generally speaking, those who are actually in the situation and must make split second decisions will be judged by what a reasonable person would think/do in their situation. If the circumstances make it reasonable for a person to interpret the actions of the shooter to mean that he/she still poses a deadly threat then lethal force would be justified.

On the other hand, if the shooter has clearly given up--based on a reasonable interpretation of the actual circumstances--then shooting would not be legally justified.

That said, from a purely practical standpoint, it seems somewhat unlikely that an in-depth investigation will result from shooting a mass shooter leaving the scene of the massacre. Not because it's automatically legal to shoot a mass shooter even if they no longer pose a threat but because it would be nearly impossible to seat a jury who would convict someone who did.
So do you think the police should use more force to arrest them?
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone advocating the idea that police shouldn't use whatever means necessary (up to and including lethal force should that be required) to arrest a criminal.

The distinction is between shooting someone who is no longer a threat and arresting them. If the arrest turns violent because of the violent resistance of the shooter, then the police are obviously justified in doing whatever it takes to effect the arrest.
 
That is correct. However, generally speaking, those who are actually in the situation and must make split second decisions will be judged by what a reasonable person would think/do in their situation. If the circumstances make it reasonable for a person to interpret the actions of the shooter to mean that he/she still poses a deadly threat then lethal force would be justified.
Click to expand...

Again leaving it up to interpretation , I think a jury from Berkly CA will have a very different opinion on what reasonable is then a jury in , lets say deep in the heart of Texas .

These are the types of things I'm conflicted on . I really am for states rights but at the same time I don't think there should be different standards of self defense based on the demographic of the population of the area you live . If we are all created equal and these are inalienable rights . Should they not have the same standards regardless of your location ?
 
If the arrest turns violent because of the violent resistance of the shooter, then the police are obviously justified in doing whatever it takes to effect the arrest.
Click to expand...

That is something that has been coming up a lot in the last few years.
 
then the police are obviously justified in doing whatever it takes to effect the arrest.
Click to expand...

while this is obviously true, there is a down side that we must balance it against. and that is where the police are not only prepared to do what it takes, but seem eager to use force, including deadly force, when it is NOT absolutely needed.

Now, here, the difference between hindsight and the view from those involved at the time can vary hugely. We see stories often where innocent people have been shot and killed because officers at the time, thought they were dangerous.
we can, and should only judge an officer's actions by what they knew, and believed at the time, BUT I do wonder if, today, the expectations don't lead to at shoot first, find out after mindset on the part of SOME people.
 
Modern policing has, unfortunately, been corrupted by an institutional mindset that (a) they are entitled to demand instantaneous compliance, irrespective of whether or not their demands are clear, logical, or even legal; and (b) the most important thing is that they get to go home at the end of their shift.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Modern policing has, unfortunately, been corrupted by an institutional mindset that (a) they are entitled to demand instantaneous compliance, irrespective of whether or not their demands are clear, logical, or even legal; and (b) the most important thing is that they get to go home at the end of their shift.
Click to expand...
This is the thinking that moved the taser's purpose from being a less-lethal option in a deadly force situation to a "compliance tool".

Can anyone explain how the "Don't Tase Me Bro" guy was a deadly threat to anyone?.....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
This is the thinking that moved the taser's purpose from being a less-lethal option in a deadly force situation to a "compliance tool".
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you get the idea that Tasers were meant to be used in deadly force situations? While policies differ agency to agency in a deadly force scenario practically all police are going to use deadly force, just like anyone else.

Tasers were always meant to be compliance tools to avoid officer and suspect injuries. According to just about every study they do just that. Where they fall on the use of force continuum is still an open question, interpreted differently by different agencies. Just as suspects die using other techniques (pepper spray, baton, open hand) they die when Tased too.



Going back to the topic at hand "arrest him" sounds simple and easy but few things are never going to be simple and easy when dealing with someone that likely has just committed mass murder. Things really get complicated when someone without experience, equipment or training but equipped with deadly force is the first to arrive. In the world today I'd say this getting more and more likely as well.

It is a huge challenge for the person that has to deal with that situation.
 
You can say whatever you want, the only way to prevent school shootings is a gun law like in Germany or Italy or France.
People in those countrys also have guns, but we don't allow gunownership to criminals and brainsick persons.
 
Blacktimberwolf said:
People in those countrys also have guns, but we don't allow gunownership to criminals and brainsick persons.
Click to expand...
The U.S. doesn't allow convicted felons (and individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors) to possess firearms, either. The law is only as effective as those enforcing it. The Texas church shooter had a disqualifying felony conviction -- the Air Force didn't bother reporting the conviction to NICS, so the guy was able to buy guns that he was legally barred from possessing.

The Parkland school shooter was in that program that the superintendent seems to be trying to pretend never existed, by which the statistics for minorities subjected to arrest for crimes were "improved" by the simple tactic of not recording the offenses as what they were. Surprise, the kids last name was Hispanic. It has now been ascertained that he WAS in this program. If the laws had been properly enforced on him some time before, there's a possibility the shooting could have been averted. (Or maybe not -- but we'll never know.)

What's the point of enacting strict laws if the aw-thaw-rih-tays are going to ignore them unless they feel like not ignoring them in a few, arbitrarily selected cases?
 
The Parkland school shooter was in that program that the superintendent seems to be trying to pretend never existed,statistics for minorities subjected to arrest for crimes were "improved" by the simple tactic of not recording the offenses as what they were.
Click to expand...

What program are speaking of . I've not been following the case that close any more ? Was there some off the books manipulation with crime statistics that resulted in the shooters past crimes or convictions not be reported to the NICS system ?
 
The Parkland school shooter was in that program that the superintendent seems to be trying to pretend never existed, by which the statistics for minorities subjected to arrest for crimes were "improved" by the simple tactic of not recording the offenses as what they were. Surprise, the kids last name was Hispanic. It has now been ascertained that he WAS in this program. If the laws had been properly enforced on him some time before, there's a possibility the shooting could have been averted. (Or maybe not -- but we'll never know.)
Click to expand...

I have never heard of this. What is it called? also the shooter was not Hispanic he was adopted.
 
DaleA is correct, the program is the Promise program.

I didn't say Cruz was Hispanic, I said he has a Hispanic name. It doesn't matter that Cruz was adopted. What matters is that his last name is Cruz. You have to understand that the social justice warriors who seek out opportunities to claim discrimination only look at things like last name to claim that the person is a member of a minority. Years ago one of the major voices in the "English First" movement (I think it was Linda Chavez, but not certain) was very openly incensed because her kids -- who were raised speaking English at home -- were enrolled in classes for non-English speaking students based on nothing but the last name.

The Promise program came into being because the social justice warriors decided that minorities were being arrested too often for criminal offenses in Broward County schools. The solution, of course, wasn't what normal people would do: try to intervene to correct the criminal behavior. The solution was to reclassify the crimes as lower-grade or non-criminal offenses. That allowed the school district to proudly claim massive improvements. The problem is, the improvements were only in the statistics, on paper. The behavioral problems were the same.

The infamous school resource officer was deep in the middle of this program. One of the reasons he was so popular and received so many awards was that he was very adept at NOT arresting criminals for committing crimes.
 
Thanks Dale

However, “while our records indicate that Cruz underwent an intake interview/process at Pine Ridge on November 26, 2013, it does not appear that Cruz completed the recommended three-day assignment/placement,” Clark said.
Clark said the school district still was reviewing records to find out why Cruz was referred to the Promise program but didn’t complete it.
Click to expand...

On the whole I'm not apposed to a program like that if it's not race based . I believe I went through something like that in Jr high . I was clearly on a path to no good . I had not broke any laws but was ditching a lot , getting in fights etc . Instead of suspending me I was forced to go to counseling and after school detentions . I can't say that it did or didn't work only that I completed what was asked of me .

The fact he was referred to a program as described in the article for me is not the issue . It's that it appears he did not complete it or maybe even go at all except for the interview . I'd like to understand more about the process and if the students get and ultimatum , complete the program or else type of thing .
 
The solution, of course, wasn't what normal people would do: try to intervene to correct the criminal behavior. The solution was to reclassify the crimes as lower-grade or non-criminal offenses. That allowed the school district to proudly claim massive improvements. The problem is, the improvements were only in the statistics, on paper. The behavioral problems were the same.
Click to expand...

What I read about it says it is a diversion program for misdemeanors. You are saying it is not? I'd be interested in reading more on that. If the shooter in Florida was a felon that would have prevented him from a retail sale of rifle.
 
Read the four page list of Cruz's infractions.

The superintendent of Broward county schools is Robert Runcie. Runcie worked for the Chicago school system but was let go.

The PROMISE program was backed by President Obama and Holder, his attorney general. There is a collaborative agreement with law enforcement, the school district, prosecutors, etc. Broward county was awarded 54 million dollars of federal money for participating in the "Race To The Top" program.

PROMISE gave school administrators the power to decide whether infractions were deemed worthy of involving the policy rather than following guidelines that were previously in place. PROMISE stands for 'Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education.'

The program was praised by the Obama administration and the school district was awarded $54 million in grants from the $4 billion 'Race to the Top' initiative.
Click to expand...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...lorida_schools_ignoring_violent_students.html

Yep, the Broward county sheriff's 17 year old son got a good deal after assaulting a younger boy.

In mid-February of 2014, two 17-year-old Marjory Stoneman Douglas students assaulted a 14-year-old baseball player near the high school stadium. They kicked the boy, a police report said, held him to the ground and simulated a sexual assault through the teen's clothing with a baseball bat.

One of the assailants was Broward Sheriff Scott Israel's son, Brett Israel, according to the incident report.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article211908439.html#storylink=cpy
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top