Jump to content
Scorpio64

Pre-Attack Behavior of Mass Shooters

Recommended Posts

This is a great article that abridges a much more indepth 30 page FBI study on the behavioral precursors of mass shooters.  Even if your head is on a swivel, you need to know what to look for.

 

Quote

 

Last week, the FBI posted their study of the Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States from 2000-2013.  The study is 30 pages long and well worth the time to read if you are interested in the subject matter.  This study is different from others because the FBI focused on the 63 shootings (out of a total of 170 during the 14-year period) that had the most official investigative material.  They used only police investigation files and only looked at the cases where an in depth investigation of the suspect’s background was included.

This study examined the killers’ demographic characteristics, why the killers committed the crime, and what warning signs the killer provided before the attack.  It’s actually a pretty well-done piece of research.

 

READ THE 7 POINT OVERVIEW HERE ---> https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/active-killer-pre-attack-behavior?fbclid=IwAR27SEKXs25gyJ-Q2Eu6iNK2Txk4p8WukiHbS2XkW4Ixvrm09yv87kJYC98

 

Quote


Introduction
In 2017 there were 30 separate active shootings in the United States, the largest number ever recorded by the
FBI during a one-year period.1 With so many attacks occurring, it can become easy to believe that nothing can
stop an active shooter determined to commit violence. “The offender just snapped” and “There’s no way that
anyone could have seen this coming” are common reactions that can fuel a collective sense of a “new normal,”
one punctuated by a sense of hopelessness and helplessness. Faced with so many tragedies, society routinely
wrestles with a fundamental question: can anything be done to prevent attacks on our loved ones, our children,
our schools, our churches, concerts, and communities?
There is cause for hope because there is something that can be done. In the weeks and months before an attack,
many active shooters engage in behaviors that may signal impending violence. While some of these behaviors
are intentionally concealed, others are observable and — if recognized and reported — may lead to a disruption
prior to an attack. Unfortunately, well-meaning bystanders (often friends and family members of the active
shooter) may struggle to appropriately categorize the observed behavior as malevolent. They may even resist
taking action to report for fear of erroneously labeling a friend or family member as a potential killer. Once
reported to law enforcement, those in authority may also struggle to decide how best to assess and intervene,
particularly if no crime has yet been committed.
By articulating the concrete, observable pre-attack behaviors of many active shooters, the FBI hopes to make
these warning signs more visible and easily identifiable. This information is intended to be used not only by law
enforcement officials, mental health care practitioners, and threat assessment professionals, but also by parents,
friends, teachers, employers and anyone who suspects that a person is moving towards violence.

 

READ THE FULL 30 PAGE (PDF) FBI STUDY HERE ---> https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth reading the full study IMO. Interesting to see how many of these people telegraph their intentions in one way or another before the event. Though that provides potential opportunities to thwart them... in combination with all these new "red flag" laws, there's also the risk of over-reacting and over-punishing. That's a difficult needle to thread.

In terms of schools, I also can't help but wonder if the Swiss were onto something... I read an article once that said after a particular bad shooting there, they started to embed psychologists right into the schools... where they would be on the lookout for kids showing signs of stress, and then pull them in for extra help and support. That makes a lot of sense to me. Yes, what these shooters do is HORRIFIC and I'm not trying to be an apologist for them by any means... that said, I don't think labeling them "monsters" and washing our hands of it is necessarily all that productive either. It seems like most of these folks have been under the duress of multiple stressors in the previous year leading up to the event. Especially in the case of adolescents, it does make you wonder... if someone had seen the signs of trouble, and stepped in with supportive, robust treatment... is it possible some of these young teens would have stabilized and gone on to live perfectly normal, well-adjusted lives?  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

several issues at play here

 

bad parenting

too many kids with absentee parents when they get home so no outlet to discuss

school's hands are tied on behavioral issues

I'll read the study but I wonder how many would  'fit' into the FBI mold that would not become nutjobs shooting up places?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

It's worth reading the full study IMO. Interesting to see how many of these people telegraph their intentions in one way or another before the event. Though that provides potential opportunities to thwart them... in combination with all these new "red flag" laws, there's also the risk of over-reacting and over-punishing. That's a difficult needle to thread.

In terms of schools, I also can't help but wonder if the Swiss were onto something... I read an article once that said after a particular bad shooting there, they started to embed psychologists right into the schools... where they would be on the lookout for kids showing signs of stress, and then pull them in for extra help and support. That makes a lot of sense to me. Yes, what these shooters do is HORRIFIC and I'm not trying to be an apologist for them by any means... that said, I don't think labeling them "monsters" and washing our hands of it is necessarily all that productive either. It seems like most of these folks have been under the duress of multiple stressors in the previous year leading up to the event. Especially in the case of adolescents, it does make you wonder... if someone had seen the signs of trouble, and stepped in with supportive, robust treatment... is it possible some of these young teens would have stabilized and gone on to live perfectly normal, well-adjusted lives?  

There was one sensible position presented in the first night of the of the Democratic debates.  I can't remember who it was but one of his proposals was to have mental health services embedded in schools. Many of the school shootings are done in schools the shooter was attending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FBI report is lacking in the methodology what they are defining as mass shooter.  Also the key findings on page 7 have me scratching my head; is this an actual study?

 

will continue to read this evening and amend this or add to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

There was one sensible position presented in the first night of the of the Democratic debates.  I can't remember who it was but one of his proposals was to have mental health services embedded in schools. Many of the school shootings are done in schools the shooter was attending.

That single part was a very good point. Unfortunately he prefaced it with “I agree with all your positions, plus...”.  So he was on board with UBC’s, AWB, mag limits and red flag laws too. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

There was one sensible position presented in the first night of the of the Democratic debates.  I can't remember who it was but one of his proposals was to have mental health services embedded in schools. 

It might help.  I think some schools already have such resources, so I'd be curious to know if it has proven useful.   

You know what would be really useful?   Mental health services embedded in the Democratic National Committee!

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

There was one sensible position presented in the first night of the of the Democratic debates.  I can't remember who it was but one of his proposals was to have mental health services embedded in schools. Many of the school shootings are done in schools the shooter was attending.

There already are. It's called Intervention and referral services. I have no idea what other states look like but each NJ school has a program run by a certified counselor. 

https://www.state.nj.us/education/students/safety/behavior/irs/

The other part to this is, there is no sensible position... because we can create all the laws we want, but if the child or parents don't want to cooperate these services do nothing. AND unless the child violates school policy they cant remove him. 

 

My wife works in this field, and she is admitting and discharging kids into programs daily... You would be shocked at the volume a handful of mental health facilities deal with in both partial and inpatient programs.. she left one place because there were way too many kids flowing in and out. 

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, father-of-three said:

When it is again mentioned by anti-gun folks that more funding for so-called "gun violence" is needed, we need to point them in the direction of studies like this that are already done.

this report will be killed by the left and the right alike.  It's full of holes

no definition of what defines a mass shooting

no marker to distinguish the unique characteristics of say the 12 yr old (youngest) and the 88 yr old (the oldest)

they don't define what harassing, abusive etc are and we KNOW the latitude there

it doesn't include criminal activity and areas (like Chicago) where 4 or more are killed every other weekend in gang violence or drug related

The conclusion (if you can call it that) on education and age/profession is absurd

 

how about this gem "Most commonly (40%, n = 25), the active shooter purchased a firearm or firearms legally and specifically for the purpose of perpetrating the attack. A very small percentage purchased firearms illegally (2%, n = 1) or stole the firearm (6%, n = 4). Some (11%, n = 7) borrowed or took the firearm from a person known to them. A significant number of active shooters (35%, n = 22) already possessed a firearm and did not appear (based on longevity of possession) to have obtained it for the express purpose of committing the shooting."

I seriously cannot be the only one to find major issues with this?  If so, put your pencils down boys and girls, time for cookies and milk:)

 

I could go on but what this is a statistical analysis with some commentary at best.  The FBI has really gone to shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I rest my case..............................

 

'The variables were treated as binary, that is, either the stressor was present or not, without regard for the number of separate circumstances giving rise to the stressor. So, an active shooter who had conflict with one family member and a shooter who had conflicts with several family members were both coded as “yes” for “conflict with other family members.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RUTGERS95 said:

It's full of holes

no definition of what defines a mass shooting 

no marker to distinguish the unique characteristics of say the 12 yr old (youngest) and the 88 yr old (the oldest)

The report explicitly states that it could not wrap all of the data up in a neat package, admitting that there is no clear demographic profile that can be made.  That does not mean the data they analyzed is insufficient to draw useful conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scorpio64 said:

The report explicitly states that it could not wrap all of the data up in a neat package, admitting that there is no clear demographic profile that can be made.  That does not mean the data they analyzed is insufficient to draw useful conclusions.

then it's not a study!  Nor should it be presented as such

 

this is academic fodder at best and I know academic fodder first hand:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

There already are. It's called Intervention and referral services. I have no idea what other states look like but each NJ school has a program run by a certified counselor. 

That program I was generally aware of already. But, unless I'm wrong (and I might be... correct me if I am!), isn't NJ's program more of an integrated team approach with sometimes only one actual school psychologist per district? (Not that I'm minimizing the value of a good, eagle-eyed counselor or even an observant teacher, for instance). But that same "team" is also dealing with ALL kinds of other issues - kids who need individual education plans, etc. - so they're spread pretty thin. And the psychologist isn't in the building everyday, so there's some built-in delays before assessments can even happen, etc.

If I remember correctly, the Swiss program sounded much more intense... ON TOP of their normal referral program services, they ensured there would be ONE actual psychologist in EVERY school (not just per district) whose job was primarily to look for signs of "trouble ahead" and deal with those issues through on-site daily observation & intervention. It's more costly, too, no doubt -- but that's the kind of cost I personally wouldn't mind paying as a taxpayer. Because I think our mental health system is terribly broken anyway, so if they can at least make it more robust in schools, that's as good a start as any.  Consider this: look how badly that Parkland shooter was clearly spinning out of control in the months leading up to his horrible act. If someone had been on-site to effectively intervene with him, observe him daily, for instance, and maybe turn things around... wouldn't even a chance of avoiding such a horrific crime have been well worth the cost of an extra shrink or 2 in the district? I would say: "YES". 

And people can trash this FBI study... but you have to keep in mind, this kind of crime is still statistically rare, so it's hard to compile a detailed study (thank god). But, even anecdotally, we know that too often "people knew" - they knew the kid was troubled, they knew he was lashing out at people, they knew he was making threats, people were complaining about him, etc. - and intervention was either lax or non-existent. No good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

That program I was generally aware of already. But, unless I'm wrong (and I might be... correct me if I am!), isn't NJ's program more of an integrated team approach with sometimes only one actual school psychologist per district? (Not that I'm minimizing the value of a good, eagle-eyed counselor or even an observant teacher, for instance). But that same "team" is also dealing with ALL kinds of other issues - kids who need individual education plans, etc. - so they're spread pretty thin. And the psychologist isn't in the building everyday, so there's some built-in delays before assessments can even happen, etc.

If I remember correctly, the Swiss program sounded much more intense... ON TOP of their normal referral program services, they ensured there would be ONE actual psychologist in EVERY school (not just per district) whose job was primarily to look for signs of "trouble ahead" and deal with those issues through on-site daily observation & intervention. It's more costly, too, no doubt -- but that's the kind of cost I personally wouldn't mind paying as a taxpayer. Because I think our mental health system is terribly broken anyway, so if they can at least make it more robust in schools, that's as good a start as any.  Consider this: look how badly that Parkland shooter was clearly spinning out of control in the months leading up to his horrible act. If someone had been on-site to effectively intervene with him, observe him daily, for instance, and maybe turn things around... wouldn't even a chance of avoiding such a horrific crime have been well worth the cost of an extra shrink or 2 in the district? I would say: "YES". 

And people can trash this FBI study... but you have to keep in mind, this kind of crime is still statistically rare, so it's hard to compile a detailed study (thank god). But, even anecdotally, we know that too often "people knew" - they knew the kid was troubled, they knew he was lashing out at people, they knew he was making threats, people were complaining about him, etc. - and intervention was either lax or non-existent. No good

It's not about trashing it but instead using some judgement before taking it and running to conclusions or your next debate.  It's not a good study by any stretch of the imagination

Definitely agree it's good it's statistically rare

Also, the Swiss program wouldn't work here for a multitude of reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

That program I was generally aware of already. But, unless I'm wrong (and I might be... correct me if I am!), isn't NJ's program more of an integrated team approach with sometimes only one actual school psychologist per district? (Not that I'm minimizing the value of a good, eagle-eyed counselor or even an observant teacher, for instance). But that same "team" is also dealing with ALL kinds of other issues - kids who need individual education plans, etc. - so they're spread pretty thin. And the psychologist isn't in the building everyday, so there's some built-in delays before assessments can even happen, etc.

If I remember correctly, the Swiss program sounded much more intense... ON TOP of their normal referral program services, they ensured there would be ONE actual psychologist in EVERY school (not just per district) whose job was primarily to look for signs of "trouble ahead" and deal with those issues through on-site daily observation & intervention. It's more costly, too, no doubt -- but that's the kind of cost I personally wouldn't mind paying as a taxpayer. Because I think our mental health system is terribly broken anyway, so if they can at least make it more robust in schools, that's as good a start as any.  Consider this: look how badly that Parkland shooter was clearly spinning out of control in the months leading up to his horrible act. If someone had been on-site to effectively intervene with him, observe him daily, for instance, and maybe turn things around... wouldn't even a chance of avoiding such a horrific crime have been well worth the cost of an extra shrink or 2 in the district? I would say: "YES". 

And people can trash this FBI study... but you have to keep in mind, this kind of crime is still statistically rare, so it's hard to compile a detailed study (thank god). But, even anecdotally, we know that too often "people knew" - they knew the kid was troubled, they knew he was lashing out at people, they knew he was making threats, people were complaining about him, etc. - and intervention was either lax or non-existent. No good

A school psychologist isn't going to do anything with out a referral from a teacher or someone who deals directly with the child. THAT is the way it needs to be.... i DO NOT want psychologists running amok in our schools evaluating kids who have no business being observed in that manner. 

Schools have a hard enough time keeping class sizes in check, we would all love an extra teacher, councilor, subs, etc... there will always be a need for more of anything... everyone complains about the cost to educate in this state... so we dont get to complain one way and then out the other side of our mouths.  Currently districts are cutting staff, and even rotate out their part time help to avoid triggering benefit costs. 

Teachers are trained, whether they respond to it or not, to look for signs of troubled students... by and large the students are NOT trained to deal with observable behavior of their peers. If an I&RS report is created a process starts, but mostly involves the purpose for the intervention... As in what triggered the event... it is highly individualized from there. How long it takes to get a student evaluated is dependent on the district, it could be the same day or days later. Now remember this isn't due to a kids direct threats to do something, it's a behavioral issue of indirect nature. 

The problem is most red flags for these people/kids are situated outside of schools, on social media, and in peer groups..

And even when they do happen in schools, some officials fail to do what they should. If we look at the parkland incident, many school officials were removed from their jobs because they failed to do what was required of them, not that the system itself was lacking some procedural component. 

Today, if students show threatening behaviors in a direct nature, they are removed pretty much immediately from the school setting.  

Keep in mind, schools hands are tied unless the student and parent are willing to participate in these services to begin with. It's 100% voluntary unless it followed some violation of school conduct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RUTGERS95 said:

then it's not a study!  Nor should it be presented as such

 

this is academic fodder at best and I know academic fodder first hand:)

You don't have to have a definitive result for it to be a study and be presented as such. Sometimes "There is no one size fits all" answer and that's okay.

We all knew this was a complicated issue. Sometimes it's bad parenting, sometimes it's just an entitled asshole who didn't get their way. Sometimes people just didn't report something. Sometimes there just wasn't help available. There's so many factors that it'd be more surprising if they had a definitive answer for what kind of person commits mass shootings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RUTGERS95 said:

this report will be killed by the left and the right alike.  It's full of holes

no definition of what defines a mass shooting

no marker to distinguish the unique characteristics of say the 12 yr old (youngest) and the 88 yr old (the oldest)

they don't define what harassing, abusive etc are and we KNOW the latitude there

it doesn't include criminal activity and areas (like Chicago) where 4 or more are killed every other weekend in gang violence or drug related

The conclusion (if you can call it that) on education and age/profession is absurd

 

how about this gem "Most commonly (40%, n = 25), the active shooter purchased a firearm or firearms legally and specifically for the purpose of perpetrating the attack. A very small percentage purchased firearms illegally (2%, n = 1) or stole the firearm (6%, n = 4). Some (11%, n = 7) borrowed or took the firearm from a person known to them. A significant number of active shooters (35%, n = 22) already possessed a firearm and did not appear (based on longevity of possession) to have obtained it for the express purpose of committing the shooting."

I seriously cannot be the only one to find major issues with this?  If so, put your pencils down boys and girls, time for cookies and milk:)

 

I could go on but what this is a statistical analysis with some commentary at best.  The FBI has really gone to shit

 

It's presented badly. I'm going to guess that given the max and min age range of the shooters mentioned in the report (and from this you can tell what events those are),  that it's the standard FBI mass shooting definition  of 4 or more injured or killed. 

Their explanation of methodology is lacking. Especiallly in specifying how the samples were culled for phase I and phase II. Or how the initial sample was determined. If it was all mass shooters in that time frame something was up with the culling from phase I to II as we know from public disclosure a whole heck of a lot of inicidents involve stealing/borrowing firearms. 

 Also taking a firearm without permission is stealing it. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

A school psychologist isn't going to do anything with out a referral from a teacher or someone who deals directly with the child. THAT is the way it needs to be.... i DO NOT want psychologists running amok in our schools evaluating kids who have no business being observed in that manner. 

100% this. 

Not only would it be expensive, most psych people are nuts themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Greenday said:

You don't have to have a definitive result for it to be a study and be presented as such. Sometimes "There is no one size fits all" answer and that's okay.

 

Yet, that is in no way shape or form the complaint i seem to be reading. 

What I am seeing is the lack of explanation in the methods used to conduct the data collection and analysis... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

i DO NOT want psychologists running amok in our schools evaluating kids who have no business being observed in that manner. 

That's an interesting point! I hadn't considered the invasion of privacy aspect.

Terribly frustrating situation though... obviously, EVERYONE wants to prevent these terrible events if at all possible. How do you stop these rare situations without trampling on the rights of the innocent? It's awfully difficult... no easy answers it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

How do you stop these rare situations without trampling on the rights of the innocent? It's awfully difficult... no easy answers it seems.

One way is to make the people who are directly around them accessories to the crime, like with family members. In many of these mass shootings, family members, after the fact, state that the shooter was having mental illness issues or unstability, but they didn't do anything about it.

I think, if it's proven after a mass shooting that a spouse, family member, girlfriend, etc. knew the shooter was unstable, and had access to guns, or was making threaten actions or posting crazy stuff on Facebook, but they didn't intervene, they should be held to account too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 4:18 PM, Greenday said:

You don't have to have a definitive result for it to be a study and be presented as such. Sometimes "There is no one size fits all" answer and that's okay.

We all knew this was a complicated issue. Sometimes it's bad parenting, sometimes it's just an entitled asshole who didn't get their way. Sometimes people just didn't report something. Sometimes there just wasn't help available. There's so many factors that it'd be more surprising if they had a definitive answer for what kind of person commits mass shootings.

really?  how many studies have you written and/or opined on?  A study is presented to view presentable results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2019 at 10:51 PM, Sniper said:

One way is to make the people who are directly around them accessories to the crime, like with family members. In many of these mass shootings, family members, after the fact, state that the shooter was having mental illness issues or unstability, but they didn't do anything about it.

I think, if it's proven after a mass shooting that a spouse, family member, girlfriend, etc. knew the shooter was unstable, and had access to guns, or was making threaten actions or posting crazy stuff on Facebook, but they didn't intervene, they should be held to account too.

Sounds good but remember if you're going to charge someone criminally you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's embedded in our legal system.

So if a spouse, family member, boyfriend, or girlfriend thinks they're acting irrationally they should be able to have that person committed to a mental institution?  Maybe we should let the police do it?  Sounds like you're supporting some type of red flag law.

I've seen some people on this forum exhibit some aberrant behavior in their posts.  

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Sounds good but remember if you're going to charge someone criminally you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  That's embedded in our legal system.

So if a spouse, family member, boyfriend, or girlfriend thinks they're acting irrationally they should be able to have that person committed to a mental institution?  Maybe we should let the police do it?  Sounds like you're supporting some type of red flag law.

Maybe before spewing, you should do some research and see if my thought fits any past shooters. Here. I'll give you one example, the Parkland shooter, Nikolas Cruz.... go research and see if anyone around him could have been considered an accessory or contributed to allowing his irrational behavior (mother, school system, law enforcement). For example, him pointing a gun at a friend's head and posting it on social media. No crime committed there, right?

Yeah, just supporting some unfounded Red Flag laws, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sniper said:

Maybe before spewing, you should do some research and see if my thought fits any past shooters. Here. I'll give you one example, the Parkland shooter, Nikolas Cruz.... go research and see if anyone around him could have been considered an accessory or contributed to allowing his irrational behavior (mother, school system, law enforcement). For example, him pointing a gun at a friend's head and posting it on social media. No crime committed there, right?

Yeah, just supporting some unfounded Red Flag laws, right?

 

No "spewing" on my part.  I'll leave that to you. Anyone charged with a criminal offense needs to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is called due process and is also in the Constitution.

You are talking isolated incidents here.  You were talking in very general terms in the post I quoted.  That post seems to support a red flag type of law.

Pointing a gun at someone's head isn't at crime unless you have a plaintiff. Foolish yes, but not a crime.

Are you proposing a central depository of aberrant behavior? Where family, friends, and the police deposit information?  Sounds very "Big Brother" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sniper said:

Maybe before spewing, you should do some research and see if my thought fits any past shooters. Here. I'll give you one example, the Parkland shooter, Nikolas Cruz.... go research and see if anyone around him could have been considered an accessory or contributed to allowing his irrational behavior (mother, school system, law enforcement). For example, him pointing a gun at a friend's head and posting it on social media. No crime committed there, right?

Yeah, just supporting some unfounded Red Flag laws, right?

 

Your argument sounds way too much like the "If it saves just one life" argument that anti 2A politicians argue for with gun bans.  What about due process?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“You’re innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers”

That is one of the back bone principles of our republic, if that goes to the wayside what next? 

Holding others accountable for someone else’s actions? Sounds like a dangerous slippery slope, why Chevy make the new vette do 0-60 in 4sec with a top speed of 200+. Better hold those engineers, the manufacturer, sales guys accountable when they sell it to a young kid and he causes damage with it. They knew he was young and reckless, he made statements about doing burn outs, racing his friends etc, all the signs were there, it could of prevented. We should hold them criminally liable too.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, GRIZ said:

No "spewing" on my part.  I'll leave that to you. Anyone charged with a criminal offense needs to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is called due process and is also in the Constitution.

Go and quote where I said there shouldn't be due process instead of doing your normal spinning.

9 hours ago, GRIZ said:

You are talking isolated incidents here.  You were talking in very general terms in the post I quoted.  That post seems to support a red flag type of law.

Once again, the voices in your head are seeing something different. Go back up and read the the title of the thread. It references Mass Shooters. That is a isolated incident and my comments are based on the facts and data from past similar incidents. Somehow, you want to lump some "Red Flag" general BS into your spin. This is a completely different issue. Tell those voices in your head to shut up.

9 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Pointing a gun at someone's head isn't at crime unless you have a plaintiff. Foolish yes, but not a crime. 

Once again, that's my point. Others around like let him off the hook. If that person stepped up and pressed charges, he would have had to answer to his actions and had his due process. But, they just let it slide, and instead of him being convicted of a crime, he went on to kill a bunch of kids...  Allowing that is a form of "enabling"..

1 hour ago, 0Jeep4 said:

Holding others accountable for someone else’s actions? Sounds like a dangerous slippery slope,

Really???  What planet do you live on?

Ever hear of parents being held liable for the actions of their kids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...