Pre-Attack Behavior of Mass Shooters

[0Jeep4 87]

So is Chevy liable in my hypothetical or are you dodging? 

11 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Really???  What planet do you live on?

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

We aren’t discussing minors here. Curz was and is considered an adult under the law and will be prosecuted as such. 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

3 hours ago, 0Jeep4 said:

“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.

Whether it be criminal or civil, negligence is just that. 

Should the salesman get a pass off making a buck knowing full well the kid has admitted he plans on breaking the law with it? Knowing full well the individuals actions will be used to put others in danger? You cant have this conversation with out context.. 

Can he sell a vette to a kid? yeah.. but there comes a point when he knows its dangerous to other people to do so in the context you provided. 

 

How about the gun guy at the counter? If someone is buying a gun, and they start talking about how theyre gonna use it to rob a bank and shoot thier in laws you dont think there should be some form of criminal liability? 

I dont believe negligence sets a low standard either, you have to show in court the individual had direct knowledge the outcome would have placed people in danger. 

[Zeke 5,504]

28 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Whether it be criminal or civil, negligence is just that. 

Should the salesman get a pass off making a buck knowing full well the kid has admitted he plans on breaking the law with it? Knowing full well the individuals actions will be used to put others in danger? You cant have this conversation with out context.. 

Can he sell a vette to a kid? yeah.. but there comes a point when he knows its dangerous to other people to do so in the context you provided. 

 

How about the gun guy at the counter? If someone is buying a gun, and they start talking about how theyre gonna use it to rob a bank and shoot thier in laws you dont think there should be some form of criminal liability? 

I dont believe negligence sets a low standard either, you have to show in court the individual had direct knowledge the outcome would have place people in danger. 

When is the individual responsible for his/her own actions?

[GRIZ 3,369]

52 minutes ago, Sniper said:

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

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.

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"..

Really???  What planet do you live on?

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

You apparently have little knowledge of the justice system outside of theory.  You said make the accessories to the crime.  Isn't what you're saying is the family member should have reported aberrant behavior to the police?  Then what are the police supposed to do? Arrest them? Have the person committed to an institution? 

Charging someone as an accessory because they SHOULD have known?  Sounds like the thought police to me.  You need probable cause to arrest and charge someone.  Where is your PC in the example you give?

If the person had pressed charges against someone who put a gun to his head and the person is convicted of a crime how does that prevent him from doing a mass shooting?  It only means he can't but a gun legally.  Given enough money and time and you can buy anything you want off the street.

The Las Vegas shooter bought a lot of guns and ammo.  Based on that a lot of people would call him an enthusiastic shooter.  

There is no spinning or voices in my head.  Actually the opposite may be true.  You seem to have issues having an adult conversation with someone you disagree without throwing out insults.  Good thing you aren't an attorney because you'd have been out of business a long time ago.

I know what planet I live on.

There are specific definable circumstances where parents are held liable for actions taken by their children. There are few of them where the parents can be held criminally liable.

 

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

26 minutes ago, Zeke said:

When is the individual responsible for his/her own actions?

Im not advocating for passing the responsibly from the individual to another, i'm just saying there are some instances where more than one person is responsible for the outcome... And still not necessarily equally responsible. 

 

Im also trying to establish a clear line where the person selling "x" knew the individual purchasing it had every intention of using the item to break the law and put others in danger. Im trying to eliminate what "someone should have known", and only speaking to what someone actually knew. 

 

[0Jeep4 87]

Idk I guess I’m silly, but is the salesman criminally liable when this 18yr old in the vette kills someone?

Because you still haven’t answered that.

How about Chevy. I don’t no any legal time it’s okay to accelerate that fast on a public roadway or anywhere you can legally push well over 100mph. They produced the product. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

3 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

Whether it be criminal or civil, negligence is just that. 

Should the salesman get a pass off making a buck knowing full well the kid has admitted he plans on breaking the law with it? Knowing full well the individuals actions will be used to put others in danger? You cant have this conversation with out context.. 

Can he sell a vette to a kid? yeah.. but there comes a point when he knows its dangerous to other people to do so in the context you provided. 

 

How about the gun guy at the counter? If someone is buying a gun, and they start talking about how theyre gonna use it to rob a bank and shoot thier in laws you dont think there should be some form of criminal liability? 

I dont believe negligence sets a low standard either, you have to show in court the individual had direct knowledge the outcome would have placed people in danger. 

 

1 hour ago, 0Jeep4 said:

Idk I guess I’m silly, but is the salesman criminally liable when this 18yr old in the vette kills someone?

Because you still haven’t answered that.

How about Chevy. I don’t no any legal time it’s okay to accelerate that fast on a public roadway or anywhere you can legally push well over 100mph. They produced the product. 

 

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

When is the individual responsible for his/her own actions?

@Sniper this is an example of an adult conversation.

[0Jeep4 87]

I’m sorry, I’m really not trying to bust chops or anything. I just like to try to understand people’s different opinions on things. 

    But you still answered my hypothetical with more questions? I understand your points I just want to know the answer though not end everything with question marks ? 

Given the situation played out the sales man and dealer are well aware of the statements and remarks this person made, are they going to stop the deal because or liability concerns ? Or will the kid be doing burnouts outta the parking lot ? 

[Sniper 6,372]

10 hours ago, GRIZ said:

You said make the accessories to the crime.  Isn't what you're saying is the family member should have reported aberrant behavior to the police? 

Have you read any of the back stories or history on any of these shooter and seen what type of activities, postings, behaviors, associated groups, comments by friends/family, etc. were reported? I have. In many cases, there were multiple incidents of questionable behavior or threats before they actually committed these acts.

You somehow want a black/white answer or a either/or answer, when in reality, there were many shades of grey that people close to these shooters let slip by.

10 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Charging someone as an accessory because they SHOULD have known?  Sounds like the thought police to me. 

Is that what I said, please quote it.

10 hours ago, GRIZ said:

You need probable cause to arrest and charge someone. 

Thanks for that newsflash....

9 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

Im not advocating for passing the responsibly from the individual to another, i'm just saying there are some instances where more than one person is responsible for the outcome... And still not necessarily equally responsible. 

Yep, somehow in Griz's vast legal experiences, he's never seen someone arrested/charged for involvement or knowledge that a crime is or was committed. Apparently he's never seen a family member, spouse, girlfriend, general friend charged as an accessory to a crime during an investigation. So, to him, apparently there is never another person with any idea that these shooters are unstable, capable or showing any tendencies to violence.

10 hours ago, GRIZ said:

You seem to have issues having an adult conversation with someone you disagree without throwing out insults.  Good thing you aren't an attorney because you'd have been out of business a long time ago.

and then YOU go throw out an insult... maybe practice what you preach.

10 hours ago, GRIZ said:

There are few of them where the parents can be held criminally liable.

Few is not none. So, at least you admit someone else can be charged for another person's actions... took long enough..

11 hours ago, 0Jeep4 said:

We aren’t discussing minors here.

and we certainly weren't discussing cars... that's comparing apples to hammers in the conversation.

[0Jeep4 87]

All I was getting at was the vette was leaving that lot without any legal worries correct me if I’m wrong ?

So why, when the object changes the legality of the same scenario does? 

Last I check, vehicles cause more death in this country than firearms. 

[GRIZ 3,369]

3 hours ago, Sniper said:

Have you read any of the back stories or history on any of these shooter and seen what type of activities, postings, behaviors, associated groups, comments by friends/family, etc. were reported? I have. In many cases, there were multiple incidents of questionable behavior or threats before they actually committed these acts.

You somehow want a black/white answer or a either/or answer, when in reality, there were many shades of grey that people close to these shooters let slip by.

Is that what I said, please quote it.

Thanks for that newsflash....

Yep, somehow in Griz's vast legal experiences, he's never seen someone arrested/charged for involvement or knowledge that a crime is or was committed. Apparently he's never seen a family member, spouse, girlfriend, general friend charged as an accessory to a crime during an investigation. So, to him, apparently there is never another person with any idea that these shooters are unstable, capable or showing any tendencies to violence.

and then YOU go throw out an insult... maybe practice what you preach.

Few is not none. So, at least you admit someone else can be charged for another person's actions... took long enough..

and we certainly weren't discussing cars... that's comparing apples to hammers in the conversation.

Okay @Sniper by the paragraph.

1.  I am aware of aberrant behavior exhibited by mass shooters.  Never said I wasn't.  What I said is having the people directly around them charged as accessories is not as easy as you think.

2.  Yes there are many shades of grey but you can't charge everyone associated with a mass shooter which seems to be your stand.

3.  You said "make people who are directly around them accessories to the crime".  See my #2 above.  If you don't mean to charge them and put them on trial what do you mean then?

4.  You're welcome.  PC and evidence has to convince a prosecutor, a judge at the initial appearance, a grand jury, and ultimately a jury that the person committed a crime.  Mere knowledge of aberrant behavior does not constitute PC.

5.  Yeah, compared to you I have vast experience in criminal prosecutions.  How many criminal investigations have you done?  How many cases have you presented to a prosecutor that were successfully prosecuted?  How many of your cases were so air tight that the defendant copped a plea for a reduced sentence?

I have been involved in many cases where people were charged and convicted of 18 USC 4 Misprision of a Felony, 18 USC 371 Conspiracy, and 21 USC 846 Drug Conspiracy.  How many of such cases have you investigated and had successfully prosecuted?

6.  No insult there.  IIRC your background is in engineering. Tell me it's a good thing I never was an engineer, musician, or pro athlete.  I wouldn't be offended. I was never any of those things.

7.  I never said none.  Stop trying to say I said something I didn't.  You seem to think everyone associated should be charged as an accessory.  That's not how it works. I explained that in #4 and #5 above.

I seen people on this forum exhibit aberrant behavior in some of their posts.  If they commit a crime related to their posts should I be charged as an accessory for not reporting it and to whom?

[Sniper 6,372]

11 hours ago, GRIZ said:

You said "make people who are directly around them accessories to the crime". See my #2 above.  If you don't mean to charge them and put them on trial what do you mean then?

 

11 hours ago, GRIZ said:

but you can't charge everyone associated with a mass shooter which seems to be your stand.

 

11 hours ago, GRIZ said:

PC and evidence has to convince a prosecutor, a judge at the initial appearance, a grand jury, and ultimately a jury that the person committed a crime. 

 

11 hours ago, GRIZ said:

You seem to think everyone associated should be charged as an accessory. 

So, once again, you go off into the weeds, and claim I said these comment above. Maybe, instead of making crap up, go back and read what I initially posted. Here, I'll help with your memory:

On 6/28/2019 at 10:51 PM, Sniper said:

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.

So, show me in my post where it says "everyone", or where I say charge them without due process. What do you think "proven after a mass shooting" means?? Lock up anyone who has ever associated with the shooter without any evidence?

11 hours ago, GRIZ said:

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

And I've seen some just make up stuff to fill in their own blanks or preconceived perception to fit their narrative, and not using reading comprehension.

You (and a few others here) go off half cocked about "Due Process" and didn't even read what I posted. Once again, one of you please quote where I said there should not be any due process and I felt that these accessories should just be locked up.

[RUTGERS95 890]

I agree with Griz sniper, I think you're view will lead to innocent people having issues with the law. 

 

I do not like slippery slopes