Boulder shooting: Gunman kills at least 6, including police officer, at King Soopers

[Dashinka 24,941]

12 hours ago, laylalex said:

I don't think that the friends and family have a duty to report though. Unless they had a duty, the only people we can blame here are (1) the shooter and (2) the people running background checks who didn't catch this guy before letting him buy guns. 

So how do you fix the second one?

[Boiler 46,336]

Barack Obama insists 'disaffection, racism and misogyny' drove the Boulder and Atlanta slayings and says a 'once-in-a-century pandemic' shouldn't be the only thing stopping mass shootings

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9395295/Disaffection-racism-misogyny-drives-gun-violence-says-Barack-Obama.html

[Dashinka 24,941]

11 hours ago, Boiler said:

Sort of falls with the concept of Duty of Care and how far it extends.

For example some Activists want to make Manufacturers responsible for the harm their products do, Gun Manufacturers in this context. The argument is that it is foreseeable that guns can be used by evil people as cars can.

 

Actually there is very little that coud not fall within this extended definition, certainly his family would, now to what extent they fall into the regular definition I am not sure.

Makes one wonder when Apple/Samsung/LG will be sued when someone using a smartphone while driving kills somebody.

[Boiler 46,336]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Makes one wonder when Apple/Samsung/LG will be sued when someone using a smartphone while driving kills somebody.

They have the ability to disable the phone whilst it is moving

 

I am much more familiar with the UK common law definition, I realise US is different, the ability to sue a parent as a result of a car accident for example, makes sense they have developed differently.

[Dashinka 24,941]

Just now, Boiler said:

They have the ability to disable the phone whilst it is moving

 

I am much more familiar with the UK common law definition, I realise US is different, the ability to sue a parent as a result of a car accident for example, makes sense they have developed differently.

Still it is up to the user to actually enable to the driving function, as I am sure there are a lot of parents that would go nuts if their kids in the back seat could not use their phones while they were driving.

[Boiler 46,336]

Just now, Dashinka said:

Still it is up to the user to actually enable to the driving function, as I am sure there are a lot of parents that would go nuts if their kids in the back seat could not use their phones while they were driving.

They just make it a default setting which can not be changed.

[yuna628 9,752]

16 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I am not disagreeing with you on this. But from what I can see this falls on the family's fault for doing nothing when they knew he was off the rails. Now you have people calling for increased gun control laws when the laws already in place to stop something like this failed because the family and friends did nothing

How many times have we seen it though, again and again where people do report something and nothing is done? I can't say what the family dynamic here was... he was one of 11 children that came to the US long ago - and has always had a noted problem with mental health and rage. The wrestling team remembers when he threatened to kill everyone - no one did anything. He assaulted someone, seems like he got off light. People remember him having paranoid delusions, again nothing. I don't know what the mental health 'stigma' is from his culture, but it could very well be his parents didn't want to ever acknowledge that as a problem (as I see many don't). It comes actually from the same root issue as the Atlanta shooter. His parents knew he had a problem, but only wanted to acknowledge it from the perspective as a 'sin' and not a mental issue. Now he's on the FBI's radar because I assume he had been talking to some underground people that might have been trying to radicalize him (mentally ill people would make a good recruitment I guess?) and use his delusions and anger as a tool. Why didn't the family report? I don't know.. there's so many reasons. Were they scared of him? Did they just not want to acknowledge the problem? Who knows..

14 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

If the shooter hadn’t been hospitalized or treated for mental health issues, it wouldn’t show up on a background check. Only so much information is available about each of us. All of have personal information tucked away in a database somewhere. Colorado has red flag laws, the people that knew he was messed up mentally and saw him playing with guns really should have spoken up, IMO. It’s like knowingly letting a drunk get behind the wheel. 

This happens a lot though. I know from personal experience when a relative in my family had major problems with mental health? Ooh boy... no one wanted to talk about it or do anything. To see a therapist and talk about problems? To take medication? To admit there was a problem at all? All of these things were taboo. But there are still instances where family do take it seriously and it ends up nowhere.

[Boiler 46,336]

39 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

How many times have we seen it though, again and again where people do report something and nothing is done? I can't say what the family dynamic here was... he was one of 11 children that came to the US long ago - and has always had a noted problem with mental health and rage. The wrestling team remembers when he threatened to kill everyone - no one did anything. He assaulted someone, seems like he got off light. People remember him having paranoid delusions, again nothing. I don't know what the mental health 'stigma' is from his culture, but it could very well be his parents didn't want to ever acknowledge that as a problem (as I see many don't). It comes actually from the same root issue as the Atlanta shooter. His parents knew he had a problem, but only wanted to acknowledge it from the perspective as a 'sin' and not a mental issue. Now he's on the FBI's radar because I assume he had been talking to some underground people that might have been trying to radicalize him (mentally ill people would make a good recruitment I guess?) and use his delusions and anger as a tool. Why didn't the family report? I don't know.. there's so many reasons. Were they scared of him? Did they just not want to acknowledge the problem? Who knows..

This happens a lot though. I know from personal experience when a relative in my family had major problems with mental health? Ooh boy... no one wanted to talk about it or do anything. To see a therapist and talk about problems? To take medication? To admit there was a problem at all? All of these things were taboo. But there are still instances where family do take it seriously and it ends up nowhere.

Absolutely, there is a tend to simply this

Edited March 24, 2021 by Boiler

[Ban Hammer 13,695]

[spookyturtle 9,466]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

How many times have we seen it though, again and again where people do report something and nothing is done? I can't say what the family dynamic here was... he was one of 11 children that came to the US long ago - and has always had a noted problem with mental health and rage. The wrestling team remembers when he threatened to kill everyone - no one did anything. He assaulted someone, seems like he got off light. People remember him having paranoid delusions, again nothing. I don't know what the mental health 'stigma' is from his culture, but it could very well be his parents didn't want to ever acknowledge that as a problem (as I see many don't). It comes actually from the same root issue as the Atlanta shooter. His parents knew he had a problem, but only wanted to acknowledge it from the perspective as a 'sin' and not a mental issue. Now he's on the FBI's radar because I assume he had been talking to some underground people that might have been trying to radicalize him (mentally ill people would make a good recruitment I guess?) and use his delusions and anger as a tool. Why didn't the family report? I don't know.. there's so many reasons. Were they scared of him? Did they just not want to acknowledge the problem? Who knows..

This happens a lot though. I know from personal experience when a relative in my family had major problems with mental health? Ooh boy... no one wanted to talk about it or do anything. To see a therapist and talk about problems? To take medication? To admit there was a problem at all? All of these things were taboo. But there are still instances where family do take it seriously and it ends up nowhere.

I understand that is the way it is in many cases. What do you think would be a good way to prevent it from happening? 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

Just cause someone was known to the FBI does not mean they should have had the foresight to monitor him 24/7 or suspect he was going to kill people.  The FBI can not just arrest people cause they were known to them, nor does it have the manpower or legal right to monitor every questionable person in America 24/7

 

There has to be some probable cause or other mitigating evidence  to violate someone's constitutional  rights.  

 

 

The "Oh he was known the the FBI"  is nothing  more than  poor Barnum and Bailey journalism.

[Boiler 46,336]

Agree their is known and KNOWN, my inclination was that he had a passing involvement but was not on their radar.

[yuna628 9,752]

21 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

I understand that is the way it is in many cases. What do you think would be a good way to prevent it from happening? 

There's endless threads about this, every time one of these events happens. And there will be a ton more threads in the future. All we do is go in circles. The solution is difficult, and no one wants to budge out of their corners to work on it.

26 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Just cause someone was known to the FBI does not mean they should have had the foresight to monitor him 24/7 or suspect he was going to kill people.  The FBI can not just arrest people cause they were known to them, nor does it have the manpower or legal right to monitor every questionable person in America 24/7

 

There has to be some probable cause or other mitigating evidence  to violate someone's constitutional  rights.  

 

 

The "Oh he was known the the FBI"  is nothing  more than  poor Barnum and Bailey journalism.

Well that is certainly true, NB. I just kind of wonder if you pop up on the FBI's radar for whatever reason there should usually be a good reason, right? It just seems to happen a lot that when these crazies appear someone (FBI or police) have actually noticed them before.

[Boiler 46,336]

Same with the Terrorist incidents in the UK, the current focus on CNN is Gun Show Loophole, no such Loophole in Colorado.

 

Biden has just come on, he is giving a Press Conference!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

36 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Just cause someone was known to the FBI does not mean they should have had the foresight to monitor him 24/7 or suspect he was going to kill people.  The FBI can not just arrest people cause they were known to them, nor does it have the manpower or legal right to monitor every questionable person in America 24/7

 

There has to be some probable cause or other mitigating evidence  to violate someone's constitutional  rights.  

 

 

The "Oh he was known the the FBI"  is nothing  more than  poor Barnum and Bailey journalism.

 

  This guy isn't the first mass murderer who had a history of prior issues. He threatened to kill his entire high school wrestling team. Maybe those types of warning signs should be taken more seriously.