# Parkland: FBI admits it could have prevented it



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Of course they could have, along with local authorities as well. I am certain that this will be the centerpiece of a massive back track on the push for gun control.....right?

The FBI Now Admits It Could've Prevented Florida High School Shooting


----------



## soyer38301 (Jul 27, 2017)

One would certainly hope so, but you know the leftist will still blame the evil gun...

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

They only admit it because they have too. If the information wasn't already out there they'd cover it up.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

soyer38301 said:


> One would certainly hope so, but you know the leftist will still blame the evil gun...
> 
> Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


Post of the day.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

RedLion said:


> Of course they could have, along with local authorities as well. I am certain that this will be the centerpiece of a massive back track on the push for gun control.....right?
> 
> The FBI Now Admits It Could've Prevented Florida High School Shooting


May I be blunt with you on this?

*BEFORE* Nickolas Cruz, *BEFORE *Adam Lanza and *BEFORE* many other mass shootings, I was lobbying for legislation that would identify mass shooters *BEFORE *they acted and get them the help they needed. The truth be known, we know, in advance, in virtually every instance, WHO will most likely commit a violent act.

We have the manpower, technology, and the resources already in place and, while it may take some start - up costs, it will save money and lives in the long term. Yet the right won't put the proposals on the table. The reality is, under Trump, this will be the last administration before your Second Amendment Rights will be gone for good. And we deserve it.

If you are not willing to follow the old adage that the best defense is a good offense, and put some *preventative measures* in place that do not include gun control, then the MSM wins by default. Don't rest on your laurels; the end of the Second Amendment is only an administration away and / or a changing of the guard in the House of Representatives in the mid term elections.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Welcome back @The Resister

How have you been?



The Resister said:


> May I be blunt with you on this?
> 
> *BEFORE* Nickolas Cruz, *BEFORE *Adam Lanza and *BEFORE* many other mass shootings, I was lobbying for legislation that would identify mass shooters *BEFORE *they acted and get them the help they needed. The truth be known, we know, in advance, in virtually every instance, WHO will most likely commit a violent act.
> 
> ...


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

The Resister said:


> May I be blunt with you on this?
> 
> *BEFORE* Nickolas Cruz, *BEFORE *Adam Lanza and *BEFORE* many other mass shootings, I was lobbying for legislation that would identify mass shooters *BEFORE *they acted and get them the help they needed. The truth be known, we know, in advance, in virtually every instance, WHO will most likely commit a violent act.
> 
> ...


Well, . . . if you don't have anything more intelligent to offer than the above, . . . maybe you ought to go back away. This time stay.

Yes, . . . some warning signs were there on the shooters, . . . but they also had rights. Jack booted gestapo thugs trampling over the rights of INNOCENT people will not fly in this country very far, or very often. AND that is just exactly what you are implying here.

UNTIL someone as ACTED in a manner that is seriously threatening to another, . . . there is no grounds for anything to be done.

As for the end of the second amendment, . . . you need to find out what it takes: it takes a 2/3 majority in the house and the senate to put a new amendment out as a proposal. Mind you that is a PROPOSAL. It is not law, . . . it does not count, . . . until the president signs it, . . . AND 38 states take it up in front of their legislatures and it passes in those legislative bodies as well. AND there is a time limit on that.

Go peddle your antagonistic garbage somewhere else.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Welcome back @The Resister
> 
> How have you been?


Thanks for asking. Had it rough for a while. Was near death and had major surgery that lasted for 10 hours and took me over a year to get pat. How have you been?


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

dwight55 said:


> Well, . . . if you don't have anything more intelligent to offer than the above, . . . maybe you ought to go back away. This time stay.
> 
> *Yes, . . . some warning signs were there on the shooters, . . . but they also had rights. Jack booted gestapo thugs trampling over the rights of INNOCENT people will not fly in this country very far, or very often. AND that is just exactly what you are implying here.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Excellent post.

Reminds me of the movie Minority Report. Only instead of the not-real 'precogs' - we have the very-real Google/FB/social media providing the data for 'predictive behavior' analysis.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

The Resister said:


> May I be blunt with you on this?
> 
> *BEFORE* Nickolas Cruz, *BEFORE *Adam Lanza and *BEFORE* many other mass shootings, I was lobbying for legislation that would identify mass shooters *BEFORE *they acted and get them the help they needed. The truth be known, we know, in advance, in virtually every instance, WHO will most likely commit a violent act.
> 
> ...


In all those cases you listed as well as others you didn't, family and friends of the perpetrators knew they had issues and knew they needed help but didn't get it for them. Big government or passing a bunch of new laws isn't going to fix anything. I'm convinced this dude would have run people down with a car or built a bomb if he couldn't get his hands on a gun.

If we want to fix things we'll find a way to put an armed guard in every school in the United States, you can't convince me this is out of the question money wise. We waste so much money on stupid stuff, this is change we could make tomorrow and instantly make schools safer for students.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

dwight55 said:


> Well, . . . if you don't have anything more intelligent to offer than the above, . . . maybe you ought to go back away. This time stay.
> 
> Yes, . . . some warning signs were there on the shooters, . . . but they also had rights. Jack booted gestapo thugs trampling over the rights of INNOCENT people will not fly in this country very far, or very often. AND that is just exactly what you are implying here.
> 
> ...


You invoke the name of God? Let me tell you what I found:

"_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_" Proverbs 18 : 13

Did I see a question in that attack? As a matter of *FACT*, I implied *nothing except the facts*. We generally know who is going to commit a serious act of violence long before it happens; we have the manpower, technology and the means to address it. I don't quite understand how that has squat to do with the Rights of the people - me being THE Resister (THE premier voice for *unalienable* Rights in America.)

What I propose - and have proposed has *NOTHING* to do with the criminal process per se and *EVERY* Right that a person has would be fully protected at every stage of the process. I find it offensive for you to suggest that I would do ANYTHING to further empower the government. By my standards, I can almost assure you that you would be to the left of me. My message to every American is this:

I do not support *ANY* measure that increases the size, power and / or scope of government. You certainly cannot say the same. Most of the issues we face are better served at the local level.

There are over 40,000 statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, edicts, Executive Orders, case precedents, mandates, etc. from the city level to the federal level governing firearms. Most of them are blatantly unconstitutional (as was the power grab in the Heller decision.) We've compromised all we can without total capitulation. It's time the left compromised, but we've got to put proposals on the table.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> In all those cases you listed as well as others you didn't, family and friends of the perpetrators knew they had issues and knew they needed help but didn't get it for them. Big government or passing a bunch of new laws isn't going to fix anything. I'm convinced this dude would have run people down with a car or built a bomb if he couldn't get his hands on a gun.
> 
> If we want to fix things we'll find a way to put an armed guard in every school in the United States, you can't convince me this is out of the question money wise. We waste so much money on stupid stuff, this is change we could make tomorrow and instantly make schools safer for students.


In the case of Nickolas Cruz (just as with Adam Lanza) the people and the government *KNEW* that those individuals posed a threat to themselves and society.

Now, not only does the government (from the local level to the FBI) need to step up and own what happened, they should make sure that gun owners are let off the hook and the MSM tell the people what is going on. *The government should be held accountable* - especially for Nickolas Cruz.

But, what, specifically should they have done? What could they do to address the problem *without* gun control and without imposing on the *unalienable* Rights of Nickolas Cruz? Arming teachers is a minor deterrent, and I'm not opposed to some of the teachers doing the concealed carry thing. You could even post signs: Twenty percent of our staff carries concealed weapons - you guess which ones.

The solution is *preventative measures*, but that would take over a dozen paragraphs just to give you the highlights and you see how easy it was to be falsely accused by someone who apparently thinks they run this board. With that kind of reception, you can understand that for me to presume anyone is willing to read a dozen paragraphs is probably mental masturbation.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

soyer38301 said:


> One would certainly hope so, but you know the leftist will still blame the evil gun...
> 
> Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


It is your job to hold the government accountable and make sure they realize - along with the MSM that when the government doesn't do its job, the law isn't worth the paper it's written on *AND* it is not our fault if the government refuses to do their job... unless the're expecting the American people to physically force the government to do their jobs.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

A lot of people could have prevented the shooting. They did not want to. They want committees , commissions laws agenda , but the last thing they want to is really do something. Not one of the counselors they have working in the schools does anything other than collect a big easy check. Same with so called social workers. They get the jobs by going to through and education process where they learn the agenda . Once they prove they have it down they get slotted in and ride easy street .


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> A lot of people could have prevented the shooting. They did not want to. They want committees , commissions laws agenda , but the last thing they want to is really do something. Not one of the counselors they have working in the schools does anything other than collect a big easy check. Same with so called social workers. They get the jobs by going to through and education process where they learn the agenda . Once they prove they have it down they get slotted in and ride easy street .


I quote you in full, hoping that people will read every word of what you just said.

Having worked as a DFACS asset, I learned all too well how content people are go to work for the government, go along to get along and fill out papers for a living without learning how to actually help people and do something other than control individuals while emptying their pockets.

That inspires me to tell you *PART* of the solution:

Let us suppose that there is a state agency of the government. Each time that a report is made regarding any child under 18 within their state, a copy is forwarded to that agency. When Nickolas Cruz shot at small animals and neighbors called the police, the police came out and generated a police report. Now, the police might not know what is going on with Cruz at school, but this state agency does because when Cruz was suspended, that state agency was forwarded a copy of the suspension. Then, when Cruz went to a mental health official and was treated for a condition related to violence, that state agency got a copy of the psychologist / psychiatrist report. Now, I want you to hold that thought for a moment.

Having studied mass shootings since Patrick Purdy shot and killed five children while wounding 32 others on a school playground in Stockton, California on my birthday in 1989, I've developed some interesting insights. The fact is, I've looked at every mass shooting from 1989 to the current time. There are sixteen indicators that are common with over 98 percent of mass shooters (excluding those who are political jihadists.) If an individual fits into half of any of the things on that list, there is a *100 percent chance* they will commit a violent felony in their life time unless they are lucky enough to get the treatment they need. BTW, virtually all mass shooters are on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs, but that aspect needs its own individual post to articulate how to handle that part of this equation.

Now, back to this state agency. When a third report is generated on any child, software within that agency's computers immediately alerts that state agency as if a bank robbery just occurred. That agency springs into action and within 72 business hours, they uncover the problem and begin their own plan of action. They start with the parents to make sure they know what is going on with their child and the parents are given the once over. Investigators want to know if the child lives in a one parent home; they'll look at how many children are in that home and how well adjusted they are. What is the family's income? Have any of their other children been in trouble? Do the parents have a clean criminal background? Are the parents mentally stable? Are there any drug issues within the home?

The child is assessed by two qualified mental health officials whose diagnoses are separate and those officials cannot discuss the case with each other at any time. The child is given an IQ test and the parents are asked for consent to do a drug test on the child. The parents are free to decline, but that could weigh against the parents in the final analysis of the case. The school counselors and teachers are interviewed for their input as well as any other person that generated a report regarding that child. Every indicator (the sixteen things not listed) I mentioned earlier will be looked at and addressed.

That investigator will then present the findings to a family court judge. *IF* the investigators feel the issue must be addressed immediately (i.e. an imminent threat exists) an emergency hearing is scheduled within that 72 hours. If not, a hearing will take place within 30 days and the findings / recommendations are presented, then acted on right then. The issue might be one where the parents need parenting classes. The situation might be so dangerous, the child must be put into foster care. The child might have a mental or behavioral issue that needs to be addressed and monitored. Therapy might be needed - or a combination of things might be recommended. In any event, that child gets help and the progressed evaluated quarterly by that state agency.

And, if the police are called and do not write a report - and / or do their duty consistent with circumstances; if they fail to act; if a school counselor does not generate a report and act accordingly, if a mental health official knows the individual poses a threat, etc. then that individual's employment is terminated and they may be subject to both criminal and civil actions.

Again, this is only* part *of the process. We will not fix the problem with a bumper sticker slogan as a solution.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

First and foremost problem I see: 
DFACS has never sprung into action unless they thought they could grab a headline, and only then if it was an easy, non confrontational event.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

@the register. Your solution sounds good. Just one problem...... you are assuming people will actually do their job at every step in the process you outlined above. We know people are lazy. We know that reports don’t get generated. We know that sometimes when reports are written, they never get forwarded to where they need to be. We know that sometimes a bias or agenda interferes with an otherwise outstanding process. I’m not criticizing your ideas. I think they sound great. I just have no faith in “the system” because I have very little faith in my fellow human beings anymore. People suck and they are lazy. Lazy people tend to go where they can “just get by” and unfortunately that points to government service jobs.
Nobody accepts any responsibility for their actions anymore. I have accepted that fact and I just hope that I am dead and gone before this once great nation crumbles down into the sewer.

I did see your last paragraphs about holding people accountable. But to hold people accountable someone further up the food chain has to “do their job.” And we all know how that has been working out. Before Trump virtually no-one in government service was held accountable for anything!


----------



## JafoDawg (Dec 28, 2017)

They have been caught, this was a "false flag" and this just goes to prove it. They have been caught with their a$$e$ handing in the breeze and now we'll see the blame game!


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Coastie dad said:


> First and foremost problem I see:
> DFACS has never sprung into action unless they thought they could grab a headline, and only then if it was an easy, non confrontational event.


I apologize for my language in advance:

As a DFACS asset, the last time I worked with them, a foster parent delivered a child to me. We met in the parking lot of a local pharmacy. A week earlier when I dropped that child off, he was clean, in good health, and in good spirits. When he was dropped off he was nasty and wearing the clothes of an 18 month old (at least that is what the pharmacist said when I asked her to be a witness for me.) The child was three at the time. But, the thing that whizzed me off the worst was that this child had bruises from where an adult had gripped his arm with enough force to leave severe bruises showing the imprint of their fingers.

I complained to DFACS, who then told me to mind my own effing business and quit calling them. I called the police. They said as long as it was a child in DFACS care, my only option was to contact DFACS. WTH? NOBODY was interested in pursuing DFACS... BTW, children die because that agency does not do its job properly. We complain, but we don't do anything about those sons of bitches and so far I've found NO support to go against them.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Chiefster23 said:


> @the register. Your solution sounds good. Just one problem...... you are assuming people will actually do their job at every step in the process you outlined above. We know people are lazy. We know that reports don't get generated. We know that sometimes when reports are written, they never get forwarded to where they need to be. We know that sometimes a bias or agenda interferes with an otherwise outstanding process. I'm not criticizing your ideas. I think they sound great. I just have no faith in "the system" because I have very little faith in my fellow human beings anymore. People suck and they are lazy. Lazy people tend to go where they can "just get by" and unfortunately that points to government service jobs.
> Nobody accepts any responsibility for their actions anymore. I have accepted that fact and I just hope that I am dead and gone before this once great nation crumbles down into the sewer.
> 
> I did see your last paragraphs about holding people accountable. But to hold people accountable someone further up the food chain has to "do their job." And we all know how that has been working out. Before Trump virtually no-one in government service was held accountable for anything!


Might I point out to you that under my plan, if someone does not do their job, they *will* be held accountable. We won't just hold the agency accountable, but by statute, those individuals who fail to do their jobs will be subject to both criminal and civil actions.

If the state agency does not do their job, the state's bureau of investigation will hold that agency accountable along with anyone going up or down the food chain. Today, in the Cruz case alone, the FBI admits they screwed up. But, the individual FBI agent that did not do their job is still on the payroll, still getting paid, and their family is probably safe at home... seventeen children are gone and the masses are trying to blame an inanimate object rather than the agency they paid to investigate and take dangerous people off the street.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Good to see a nice conversation, hate that we have to have it.
I don't know any answers, I can only touch on a few topics, yes, arm any teacher that wants it. Yes, protect our children with guns, everything else is.
Bring back the public execution of killers, hang them. Have the next person on trial dig the hole top put them in. On live TV.
Start holding govt officials responsible. Hang a few of them too.
Start teaching children about consequences, and responsibility. 
Finally, @The Resister, you and I have had some serious scuffles on here, and I do value your fight, and respect your experience.
Donnie


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

As a nation, we have grown both too afraid and too politically correct to hold anyone accountable.

Common sense will not be tolerated.

As soon as one persons parent/wife/child feels they have been wrongly judged by some government alphabet agency, the lawsuits begin from the aclu, the naacp or some whacked out liberal do-gooder.

The end is to grab the guns. The means will be anything and everything, no matter how unconstitutional or outlandish.

The bottom line...as time goes by and things heat up and you fail to even vote in the smallest local elections....you are helping to abolish the 2nd amendment.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

The Resister said:


> Might I point out to you that under my plan, if someone does not do their job, they *will* be held accountable. We won't just hold the agency accountable, but by statute, those individuals who fail to do their jobs will be subject to both criminal and civil actions.
> 
> If the state agency does not do their job, the state's bureau of investigation will hold that agency accountable along with anyone going up or down the food chain. Today, in the Cruz case alone, the FBI admits they screwed up. But, the individual FBI agent that did not do their job is still on the payroll, still getting paid, and their family is probably safe at home... seventeen children are gone and the masses are trying to blame an inanimate object rather than the agency they paid to investigate and take dangerous people off the street.


Laws and Statutes are inherently rigid; the enforcement of them is inherently flexible. The flexibility is a good thing when circumstances warrant (i.e...the 'necessity defense') but that same flexibility can be (and is) very much abused... especially on the front lines when you are dealing with people who do not have the morals to do the right thing. Your being told to eff-off is the perfect example of that.

I like your idea of accountability. And it would take yet another layer of gov't interaction...to force 'doing the right thing'. Which removes some of the flexibility, which perhaps is needed if the 'people' are so far sideways now they have to do their jobs under threat of prosecution.

I'm just not sure you can legislate human behavior.


----------



## soyer38301 (Jul 27, 2017)

MountainGirl said:


> Laws and Statutes are inherently rigid; the enforcement of them is inherently flexible. The flexibility is a good thing when circumstances warrant (i.e...the 'necessity defense') but that same flexibility can be (and is) very much abused... especially on the front lines when you are dealing with people who do not have the morals to do the right thing. Your being told to eff-off is the perfect example of that.
> 
> I like your idea of accountability. And it would take yet another layer of gov't interaction...to force 'doing the right thing'. Which removes some of the flexibility, which perhaps is needed if the 'people' are so far sideways now they have to do their jobs under threat of prosecution.
> 
> I'm just not sure you can legislate human behavior.


Trouble is "do the right thing" ... too much lee way depending on who is making that decision...but goes to your comment about human nature...

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

The Resister said:


> Might I point out to you that under my plan, if someone does not do their job, they *will* be held accountable. We won't just hold the agency accountable, but by statute, those individuals who fail to do their jobs will be subject to both criminal and civil actions.
> 
> If the state agency does not do their job, the state's bureau of investigation will hold that agency accountable along with anyone going up or down the food chain. Today, in the Cruz case alone, the FBI admits they screwed up. But, the individual FBI agent that did not do their job is still on the payroll, still getting paid, and their family is probably safe at home... seventeen children are gone and the masses are trying to blame an inanimate object rather than the agency they paid to investigate and take dangerous people off the street.


Your post just proved my point. Nobody is ever held to account. You can pass all the rules, regs, and policies you want. There is zero appetite in government to hold anyone accountable. Government has evolved to the point where it pretty much only exists to perpetuate itself and enrich the bureaucrats.


----------



## Robie (Jun 2, 2016)

Chiefster23 said:


> Your post just proved my point. Nobody is ever held to account. You can pass all the rules, regs, and policies you want. There is zero appetite in government to hold anyone accountable. Government has evolved to the point where it pretty much only exists to perpetuate itself and enrich the bureaucrats.


Can you say....*PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS*?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Deebo said:


> Good to see a nice conversation, hate that we have to have it.
> I don't know any answers, I can only touch on a few topics, yes, arm any teacher that wants it. Yes, protect our children with guns, everything else is.
> Bring back the public execution of killers, hang them. Have the next person on trial dig the hole top put them in. On live TV.
> Start holding govt officials responsible. Hang a few of them too.
> ...


Don't ever take it personally; I think we both want what we think best for our country and our family.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Laws and Statutes are inherently rigid; the enforcement of them is inherently flexible. The flexibility is a good thing when circumstances warrant (i.e...the 'necessity defense') but that same flexibility can be (and is) very much abused... especially on the front lines when you are dealing with people who do not have the morals to do the right thing. Your being told to eff-off is the perfect example of that.
> 
> I like your idea of accountability. And it would take yet another layer of gov't interaction...to force 'doing the right thing'. Which removes some of the flexibility, which perhaps is needed if the 'people' are so far sideways now they have to do their jobs under threat of prosecution.
> 
> I'm just not sure you can legislate human behavior.


Not to try to legislate human behavior. I want people that need help to get it and if the government employee don't do their job, it is not just ooops, we screwed up. It's statutory accountability.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Robie said:


> As a nation, we have grown both too afraid and too politically correct to hold anyone accountable.
> 
> Common sense will not be tolerated.
> 
> ...


I think you're looking at this from a defeatist attitude. If the ACLU wanted to challenge the law, they would have a minimum of seven bureaucrats to discredit individually. By contrast, if an individual needs help, they cannot say that the system was rigged against them since they have a variety of people assessing that child.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

The Resister said:


> Not to try to legislate human behavior. I want people that need help to get it and if the government employee don't do their job, it is not just ooops, we screwed up. It's statutory accountability.


I get that. My point is there's a difference between
"Oooop, we screwed up" <--after the fact, and
"We better not screw up because we'll be held accountable." <--before the fact. Which, if I'm understanding you correctly, is the purpose to legislate accountability.

I'm just not sure it would be enough. Especially, in public sector environments where 'make-work' is discouraged - and people who actually do try and go the extra mile, or do the right thing, are weeded out. Human behavior is already 'legislated' by the environment they're in. Go along to get along; they don't even follow their _own_ rules. Ever watch a bucket of crabs? The ones who are escaping are pulled back in by the ones at the bottom. Maybe we need to tip the bucket on it's side and start over!


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

The Resister said:


> I think you're looking at this from a defeatist attitude. If the ACLU wanted to challenge the law, they would have a minimum of seven bureaucrats to discredit individually. By contrast, if an individual needs help, they cannot say that the system was rigged against them since they have a variety of people assessing that child.


Ah..now that's a different thing entirely, and has merit, imo.

But it's still an 'after the fact' thing...rather than creating a preventative measure.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The Resister said:


> I quote you in full, hoping that people will read every word of what you just said.
> 
> Having worked as a DFACS asset, I learned all too well how content people are go to work for the government, go along to get along and fill out papers for a living without learning how to actually help people and do something other than control individuals while emptying their pockets.
> 
> ...


 The State agency don't care one bit. They are there to support an agenda . Not help not o protect to push the party line agenda and that is it. More money more meetings , pass the blame on our target of the year and move on . But in every case do nothing.
Heck in Madison WI they make is so it is a crime to report students to police.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> I get that. My point is there's a difference between
> "Oooop, we screwed up" <--after the fact, and
> "We better not screw up because we'll be held accountable." <--before the fact. Which, if I'm understanding you correctly, is the purpose to legislate accountability.
> 
> I'm just not sure it would be enough. Especially, in public sector environments where 'make-work' is discouraged - and people who actually do try and go the extra mile, or do the right thing, are weeded out. Human behavior is already 'legislated' by the environment they're in. Go along to get along; they don't even follow their _own_ rules. Ever watch a bucket of crabs? The ones who are escaping are pulled back in by the ones at the bottom. Maybe we need to tip the bucket on it's side and start over!


The primary purpose of what I'm proposing stops mass shooters *before* they act. The side benefit is that those who could act and are being paid to do a job will actually *DO* the job. Accountability will simply be a side benefit.

Today, if the government don't do their job; if the fail to act; if they do the wrong thing, it's no big deal. On this particular issue, the law changes that - and if we did a grass roots fight to implement it, the concept could conceivable spread to every branch and agency of government.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Ah..now that's a different thing entirely, and has merit, imo.
> 
> But it's still an 'after the fact' thing...rather than creating a preventative measure.


I disagree. Let us use Nickolas Cruz. I don't know the chronology of events, but if the cop who answered the call when Cruz attacked a family member and hit him with a gun, I doubt that cop would have driven away without Cruz in the back seat if he knew of Cruz's mental health problems, suspension from school for a violent act, etc.

People who commit a mass shooting aren't regular people that just wake up one morning and decide to go on a killing spree. They have a history of issues - behavioral and / or emotional that get expressed in acts of violence, obsessions with violent activity (threats on social media to fights in school, etc.) Everyone who knew Cruz said they were not surprised.

So, Cruz gets suspended from school and a report is generated. The neighbors report that Cruz is killing small animals in the neighborhood, but police cannot make a criminal case at the moment. Then the police are called to Cruz's home on a domestic beef. As soon as the police officer pulls up Cruz's file, he should have a copy of those incidents and that gives him probable cause to hold Cruz. But suppose that the third time Cruz generates a report that the police don't have and the police aren't involved... i.e. suspended from school for threatening a teacher. That state agency receives an alert the moment that third report is generated - when a school counselor generates the report.

That gives cause for a *non-criminal intervention* where the in-depth investigation takes place. That way you get people the help you need and you might even reduce the number of generational welfarites we create.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> The State agency don't care one bit. They are there to support an agenda . Not help not o protect to push the party line agenda and that is it. More money more meetings , pass the blame on our target of the year and move on . But in every case do nothing.
> Heck in Madison WI they make is so it is a crime to report students to police.


The state agency that I propose changes all of that since there entire job revolves around accountability. And, in Wisconsin, that crap of not letting the police know when a child is involved in a violent act is unconscionable. Think about it. Students tell a school counselor about a student that is intimidating them and threatening them - not to mention is on social media with pictures of themselves with firearms and cryptic postings. Now the school counselor knows that and does not report it. It would be illegal. Somebody calls the police for a routine disturbance at that child's home. Under my plan, when they pulled up the address, they would know that a school counselor reported someone from that household. So, the officer can research further before knocking on the door. Under the laws in your state, the police could be put into danger by not having available information about potential threats inside a home.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

The Resister said:


> The primary purpose of what I'm proposing stops mass shooters *before* they act. The side benefit is that those who could act and are being paid to do a job will actually *DO* the job. Accountability will simply be a side benefit.
> 
> Today, if the government don't do their job; if the fail to act; if they do the wrong thing, it's no big deal. On this particular issue, the law changes that - and if we did a grass roots fight to implement it, the concept could conceivable spread to every branch and agency of government.


Not possible, imo, to stop mass shooters *before* they act. Even by your own example...



> Let us suppose that there is a state agency of the government. Each time that a report is made regarding any child under 18 within their state, a copy is forwarded to that agency. When Nickolas Cruz shot at small animals and neighbors called the police, the police came out and generated a police report.
> ....
> Now, back to this state agency. When a *third* report is generated on any child, software within that agency's computers immediately alerts that state agency as if a bank robbery just occurred. That agency springs into action and...


What if Cruz, after shooting at small animals, decided to go to Parkland after only one report had been made? I understand and applaud your intentions - but without completely draconian monitoring of every action taken, every word spoken, of everyone - what you've proposed will not stop mass shooters. 
That doesn't mean your ideas don't have merit, they do. It doesn't help your cause, however,to suggest an outcome that isn't valid.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Deebo said:


> Good to see a nice conversation, hate that we have to have it.
> I don't know any answers, I can only touch on a few topics, yes, arm any teacher that wants it. Yes, protect our children with guns, everything else is.
> Bring back the public execution of killers, hang them. Have the next person on trial dig the hole top put them in. On live TV.
> Start holding govt officials responsible. Hang a few of them too.
> ...


Thats too grandiose, the whole reason they pull this kind of crap is to get the notoriety. I understand wanting them to be executed and somewhat I agree but a part of me entertains the idea that we should lock them up in a deep dark hole with no contact with the outside world and no comforts outside of the ones that are required to sustain life. Let them sit and think about what they did and endure for years while they fade away to nothing and die forgotten.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The Resister said:


> The state agency that I propose changes all of that since there entire job revolves around accountability. And, in Wisconsin, that crap of not letting the police know when a child is involved in a violent act is unconscionable. Think about it. Students tell a school counselor about a student that is intimidating them and threatening them - not to mention is on social media with pictures of themselves with firearms and cryptic postings. Now the school counselor knows that and does not report it. It would be illegal. Somebody calls the police for a routine disturbance at that child's home. Under my plan, when they pulled up the address, they would know that a school counselor reported someone from that household. So, the officer can research further before knocking on the door. Under the laws in your state, the police could be put into danger by not having available information about potential threats inside a home.


 State run agency do nothing but take up resources , waste what is give to them and push the agenda. Nothing more. You can have a drug deal child beating mother and State agency will insure she gets custody over a serviceman every time. Why it is the agenda. Saw it time and time again. Teacher having sex with students reported at best the Teacher is just moved to a new school. No the problem is STATE agencies and public education.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

The Resister said:


> I disagree. Let us use Nickolas Cruz. I don't know the chronology of events, but if the cop who answered the call when Cruz attacked a family member and hit him with a gun, I doubt that cop would have driven away without Cruz in the back seat if he knew of Cruz's mental health problems, suspension from school for a violent act, etc.
> 
> People who commit a mass shooting aren't regular people that just wake up one morning and decide to go on a killing spree. They have a history of issues - behavioral and / or emotional that get expressed in acts of violence, obsessions with violent activity (threats on social media to fights in school, etc.) Everyone who knew Cruz said they were not surprised.
> 
> ...





The Resister said:


> The state agency that I propose changes all of that since there entire job revolves around accountability. And, in Wisconsin, that crap of not letting the police know when a child is involved in a violent act is unconscionable. Think about it. Students tell a school counselor about a student that is intimidating them and threatening them - not to mention is on social media with pictures of themselves with firearms and cryptic postings. Now the school counselor knows that and does not report it. It would be illegal. Somebody calls the police for a routine disturbance at that child's home. Under my plan, when they pulled up the address, they would know that a school counselor reported someone from that household. So, the officer can research further before knocking on the door. Under the laws in your state, the police could be put into danger by not having available information about potential threats inside a home.


Wow.

Big brother / big government solutions. 
Yeah.. Nope. 
I'm out; others can play if they want. 
Take care & stay safe.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Not possible, imo, to stop mass shooters *before* they act. Even by your own example...
> 
> What if Cruz, after shooting at small animals, decided to go to Parkland after only one report had been made? I understand and applaud your intentions - but without completely draconian monitoring of every action taken, every word spoken, of everyone - what you've proposed will not stop mass shooters.
> That doesn't mean your ideas don't have merit, they do. It doesn't help your cause, however,to suggest an outcome that isn't valid.


I've been studying mass shooters for almost thirty years. Your scenario doesn't play out that way. That is so rare, it's not worth arguing over. You're wasting your time on that.

What I'm proposing stops mass shooters before they act.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Wow.
> 
> Big brother / big government solutions.
> Yeah.. Nope.
> ...


There are *NO* big brother solutions there. Yo simply do not understand the process. Neither can it be fully explained in a few paragraphs. Under my plan, it *reduces government*; it takes people *OUT OF THE SYSTEM*.

Just out of curiosity, will you disavow the attacks on the Fourth Amendment by supporting the elimination of background checks?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> State run agency do nothing but take up resources , waste what is give to them and push the agenda. Nothing more. You can have a drug deal child beating mother and State agency will insure she gets custody over a serviceman every time. Why it is the agenda. Saw it time and time again. Teacher having sex with students reported at best the Teacher is just moved to a new school. No the problem is STATE agencies and public education.


Thank you for not reading my posts and considering them. Keep chanting the mantra. Watch your gun Rights go south because you don't want to fix the problem - which my plan *DOES*. We can hold government accountable; we can impact generational welfarites. Most of all, we can stop mass shooters. If you don't want to do that, I understand.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Part of prepping means being able to read the signs of the future and prepare for the accordingly. So far, I've been accused of being on the side of big brother and other negative things that do *not* square with the facts.

But, I'm going to tell you where we are as a nation. Each time a mass shooting happens; each time an innocent person goes down, the left does not waste a moment to take advantage of it. They let no crisis go to waste. And so the puppet masters pull the strings and the masses dance.

I brought forth an idea that did not generate questions, but rather unfair criticisms from those who are afraid to think outside the box. The alternative this time is that you will either put a counter-proposal on the table or the next mass shooting will end the Second Amendment IF the Nickolas Cruz shooting doesn't.

My plan is* NOT* big brother because:

A) The information already exists

B) State and local agencies are *not* sharing the data which would make transparency easier

C) By* ONE* agency seeing the whole picture and their primary job to make sure children get the correct help at the earliest possible time, we save young lives

D) By agencies *NOT* acting, when we want to know who is to blame is to simply to follow the information trail. AND *NOBODY *is getting off the hook

E) No *individual* can be singled out for harassment by one branch of government (i.e. the county police may have it in for one family - individual)

F) As always, most records will be destroyed when a child reaches the age of 18 *UNLESS *they have an ongoing issue (like a criminal record or a mental health issue where they are adjudged to be incompetent, dangerous to society, etc.

Now, I will end with this:

I don't think there is any interest in this because as long as most people have their weapons, they are detached from the incidents and they won't be concerned until it's them or a loved one affected. Meanwhile, the left will chip away at the Second Amendment until it's totally worthless. Adding insult to injury, we are not doing anything that would force the left to put proposals on the table that would address the violence *without* gun control. I have done it. So, suppose, it don't go anywhere. You help with the grass roots effort and it fails. The upside is, it starts a new conversation that prevents the focus from being all about the left's narrative.

If you're going to do nothing, you're not a prepper. You are a defeatist and have already lost. This aspect of prepping is just as important as anything else you're doing.


----------

