General "mass killings" thread

[Anacybele]

13 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Well, here's the thing: by saying all this, I condemn it. But in search of a solution, you can't nullify their feelings. And as it stands, these have been reasons for shootings. It's another common denominator and such movements exist.

Also, when you bring up Al Qaeda, you should keep in mind a few things. Attacks in the West from terrorism have been largely first generation immigrants simply because of the difficulty of fitting in. It often comes out in the form of a bunch of social abuse.

Imagine a boy. People make fun of him all the time in school. People beat him up, treat him like shit, he has no friends or close friends. After his daily beating -- and may or may not be assisted by worse goings on at home. Let's say no. But basically, he is isolated and alone. In some cases, these people don't talk to anyone.

Then they go online. Let's say to serenes. They meet a user on there. "Oh you're going through this too? Man I hate it. It all sucks. I wish they'd die or get beaten up or learn their lesson." Just a one off comment, seems innocuous cause people say things out of emotion. It's a red flag but nobody's really watching, to be honest, so nobody sees it. That friend takes them to a similar community.

They accept him. They tell him he's a great person. They offer an explanation for why the world is as is that's not outright hateful, but the explanations continue to be more hateful.

"It's (((them)))"

"The immigrants are coming in and that's why you can't get laid; they're raping our women before we can" (definitely something I've read before, I am not exaggerating)

"It's the people at school! School sucks and they should all die."

Then their hatred gets so intense that any mention that certain people are breathing is an attack on them. The existence of people become offensive and dangerous. Not their actions, their existence. Then they go out and shoot when their feelings of anger are strong enough. They even have a symbol for their movement sometimes.

The issue is that these things don't happen in a vacuum. The people I'm talking about aren't necessarily bad people, but it's a case of needing to fit in, and they got that somewhere else and were willing to die for a cause.

Then you have cases where the intent was not known, like in Vegas. That brings us to guns as a common denominator.

I'm not justifying it. I'm 10000% condemning their actions. It's just not productive to condemn them. Things don't get done by staring. You have to learn about what we as a people or society can do to make sure people a) don't feel the need to do this and b) don't have access to ways to kill a bunch of people at once. And the solutions are often very uncomfortable, because it means actively reaching out to communities and people that society waives off as weird and cold or something.

This has been another common denominator among shootings and thwarted shooters (boy do I have an anecdote to this that hits close to home in so many ways about a guy I went to high school with).

Yeah, I'm generally aware of all this. But that's where the issue of mental awareness and also bullying awareness come in. I bet you that a good number of those shooters who fit what you describe would never have done what they did if they'd just gotten help from someone or just plain had someone to be their friend and support them. One of my fictional characters is what you describe. ...Almost. He likely would've gone completely nuts and did something he'd regret if not for the fact that he managed to get one very close friend to keep him going. His dad also supported him as much as he could, but it sadly never seemed to be quite enough. No, this boy really needed a good friend his age and he happened to get that and he turned out okay in the end (though still kinda unnecessarily violent at times, and even that he changed as he got into later adult years).

Victims of bullying need to be helped more often, and people that bully others need to be dealt with when possible. Bullying not only can lead to what you describe, it can also lead to victims committing suicide, like my brother did. And also having been a bullying victim myself, I swear I'd do my best to raise more awareness for bullying and get people involved in this if I could.

Also, btw, Al Qaeda had planned the attack literally for years. Since around 1995, I believe. I learned this at the memorial site for the plane that went down in that field in PA. Shooters who are mentally messed up don't take so much time to plan. They're so screwed in the head that they just eventually get up, grab a gun, go to the building, and start firing, pretty much. Or if there's actually any planning, they only plan for maybe a few days, perhaps even weeks. But never years.

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Anacybele

[Lord Raven]

3 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Yeah, I'm generally aware of all this. But that's where the issue of mental awareness and also bullying awareness come in. I bet you that a good number of those shooters who fit what you describe would never have done what they did if they'd just gotten help from someone or just plain had someone to be their friend and support them. One of my fictional characters is what you describe. ...Almost. He likely would've gone completely nuts and did something he'd regret if not for the fact that he managed to get one very close friend to keep him going. His dad also supported him as much as he could, but it sadly never seemed to be quite enough. No, this boy really needed a good friend his age and he happened to get that and he turned out okay in the end (though still kinda unnecessarily violent at times).

Victims of bullying need to be helped more often, and people that bully others need to be dealt with when possible. Bullying not only can lead to what you describe, it can also lead to victims committing suicide, like my brother did. And also having been a bullying victim myself, I swear I'd do my best to raise more awareness for bullying and get people involved in this if I could.

Also, btw, Al Qaeda had planned the attack literally for years. Since around 1995, I believe. I learned this at the memorial site for the plane that went down in that field in PA. Shooters who are mentally messed up don't take so much time to plan. They're so screwed in the head that they just eventually get up, grab a gun, go to the building, and start firing, pretty much. Or if there's actually any planning, they only plan for maybe a few days, perhaps even weeks. But never years.

 

A few things I wanna clarify.

Mental health help is a very broad thing. The thing is that we can't diagnose mental illness as a broad term, we can diagnose certain diseases. From what I recall, Aspergers syndrome is a common denominator, but it's not a mental illness or really a cause. And it's insulting to people who actually have Aspergers to blame it on their Aspergers.

That's kind of the thing. It's really not just mental health, often times the kinds of conditions that would cause it could even just be depression or anxiety which is also insulting to those who have it. Clearly, we need to focus more on mental health, but it's also just a factor. Without defining specific terms it's kind of meaningless to mention, because mental health is a very broad concept.

I had originally typed something out about Al Qaeda that lead somewhere pretty crazy. When I referred to Al Qaeda I don't refer to the masterminds or the higher ups. In fact, the higher ups look at American media or western media, show them to people and say "you're not wanted here" and rile followers up against them. That's more or less what I mean. A lot of these things happen due to people's isolation and it's their way of lashing out against the world. In all honesty, a lot of these things happen because likely the US meddled in their affairs in a way that made them worse off, which is likely to bring people to comfort for radicalization.

It's very much akin to why people join a cult, in all honesty. I've read up too much on like cults and watched random crap about how recruitment works. It generally works by reaching out to or taking in a person who has tons of problems, feelings of isolation, and then seizing on them. It's not even just bullying. I'm throwing an example out there to illustrate what I'm trying to say. It's sometimes just flatly not fitting in. Here's the story of a potentially thwarted shooting at my high school.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-khalid-plea-hearing-20120504-story.html

This guy was actually not bullied at all while we were in high school, at least together (we were a year apart). A few people I knew just saw him as "quiet but very kind." Of course, not the kind of person you could talk to for ages on end, since he didn't have great social skills, but people never treated him like shit. They kinda didn't really acknowledge him at worst. He still felt alone. Bullying is not the sole problem, either, is all I'm getting at. I was mainly saying that the reason why these things happen is very similar to the kind of thing that causes people to join ISIS or Al Qaeda or Jihad Jane (read the article it's much more harrowing to say this in that context than it sounds like).

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Anacybele said:

Then you'd be banning like everything. So many things can become weapons. You can kill someone with a fucking pillow by holding it over their face and suffocating them. You can kill someone with a pencil by stabbing them in the face or chest with it. Hell, you could probably kill somebody with your smart phone by beating them over the head with it.

In fact, people don't even need other objects to kill other people! Someone can kill someone just by beating them to death with their own fists and feet. This is why much of the US disagrees with you.

Weapons don't kill people. People kill people. This country needs more people control, not gun/other weapon control. We need to be more aware of mental issues, and be more responsible with those who have mental issues that could lead to people harming themselves or others. Also be more aware of terrorists if there's a threat of terrorism. Crack down harder on illegal gun/other weapon sales and whatnot. This also includes securing the borders more because many guns/weapons are smuggled from out of the country as well. And no additional gun laws can do anything about that no matter how you slice it.

Yes, fewer people get hurt by knives or pillows or pencils or whatever than guns. But fewer still would get hurt if we controlled the people trying to get weapons rather than the weapons.

Take the guy who shot up that high school recently that JJ Watt paid for funerals for. I think he was mentally screwed up. With a gun, he killed quite a few people. If he could not get a gun, he probably would've grabbed knives and still killed a few people. But what if he'd been given necessary attention to his mental state? He probably would've never had the opportunity to grab any weapon or hurt anyone.

Obviously, no one can completely get rid of violent behavior 100%. But simply saying guns/weapons are the one and only problem is blind.

Just popped into say this and explain another point of view since I saw this sentence.

Mental Health awareness and gun reforms aren't mutually exclusive options. Every reasonably avenue of curbing the problem should be explored. It just so happens that, at least on a theoretical level, limiting the access to fire arms is something that is much easier to do compared to mentally evaluating every citizen in the country.

[Anacybele]

58 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

A few things I wanna clarify.

Mental health help is a very broad thing. The thing is that we can't diagnose mental illness as a broad term, we can diagnose certain diseases. From what I recall, Aspergers syndrome is a common denominator, but it's not a mental illness or really a cause. And it's insulting to people who actually have Aspergers to blame it on their Aspergers.

That's kind of the thing. It's really not just mental health, often times the kinds of conditions that would cause it could even just be depression or anxiety which is also insulting to those who have it. Clearly, we need to focus more on mental health, but it's also just a factor. Without defining specific terms it's kind of meaningless to mention, because mental health is a very broad concept.

I had originally typed something out about Al Qaeda that lead somewhere pretty crazy. When I referred to Al Qaeda I don't refer to the masterminds or the higher ups. In fact, the higher ups look at American media or western media, show them to people and say "you're not wanted here" and rile followers up against them. That's more or less what I mean. A lot of these things happen due to people's isolation and it's their way of lashing out against the world. In all honesty, a lot of these things happen because likely the US meddled in their affairs in a way that made them worse off, which is likely to bring people to comfort for radicalization.

It's very much akin to why people join a cult, in all honesty. I've read up too much on like cults and watched random crap about how recruitment works. It generally works by reaching out to or taking in a person who has tons of problems, feelings of isolation, and then seizing on them. It's not even just bullying. I'm throwing an example out there to illustrate what I'm trying to say. It's sometimes just flatly not fitting in. Here's the story of a potentially thwarted shooting at my high school.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-khalid-plea-hearing-20120504-story.html

This guy was actually not bullied at all while we were in high school, at least together (we were a year apart). A few people I knew just saw him as "quiet but very kind." Of course, not the kind of person you could talk to for ages on end, since he didn't have great social skills, but people never treated him like shit. They kinda didn't really acknowledge him at worst. He still felt alone. Bullying is not the sole problem, either, is all I'm getting at. I was mainly saying that the reason why these things happen is very similar to the kind of thing that causes people to join ISIS or Al Qaeda or Jihad Jane (read the article it's much more harrowing to say this in that context than it sounds like).

Yeah, that is true about mental health, I never meant to deny that. But multiple types of mental disorders can cause someone to be dangerous. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc. all of them can make a person dangerous if they're not on meds. That's why they're often forced to take them or else get locked up in some mental institution or something. But there are also people that complain it's wrong to force people to take meds or whatever. But I don't agree with this because, well, would you rather risk this person hurting themself or others? It's for the better that they're forced to take meds or put in those mental institutions. I'm not saying to literally shove the pills down their throats or anything, obviously, just...make it clear that they have to do these things so they don't risk people getting hurt.

Then there's also what you described, being driven to go shoot people or whatever due to bad experiences. That requires a different kind of help, but still requires help. I feel like these people don't get enough help, mainly because they're not taken seriously enough.

Also, wow, I see. I didn't read that whole article because it's kind of long. But I get the gist of it.

 

[NPR]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Mental Health awareness and gun reforms aren't mutually exclusive options. Every reasonably avenue of curbing the problem should be explored. It just so happens that, at least on a theoretical level, limiting the access to fire arms is something that is much easier to do compared to mentally evaluating every citizen in the country.

I second this. When it comes to the most recent school shooting in Texas, there are a number of things that can be done with both mental health and gun regulation that relate directly back to the issue. Gun regulation could easily take the form of a law that mandates properly securing weapons with biometrics systems. This kid got the things out of a dang closet for crying out loud.

When it comes to mental health, better access to and less stigmatization of mental health would be a great way to get the ball rolling. Also, government healthcare that covers mental health related check ups would be lovely. As a controversial point here, we already force kids to be vaccinated to come to school, why don't we force mental health checks? (To be my own devil's advocate, this could put more of a financial strain on lower income communities. Still, if the government paid for it that would alleviate the problem...)

When it comes to handling bullies, most schools already have fairly strict tolerance policies these days for such things. Although, how teachers can catch and report instances of bullying, much of which is taking place outside the classroom or online nowadays could be difficult to draft legislation on, as this article suggests. http://www.masslive.com/bullying/index.ssf/2011/02/attorney_general_martha_coakley_host_anti-bullying_hearing_h.html

Edit: Not saying the above shouldn't be done. It should, it is just the kind of legislation that teacher's unions may push back against. Or it is just hard to balance the civil liberties and the optics of it all. Also, the article doesn't necessarily suggest the online stuff, just that people might want to take the law in a number of far reaching places that may or may not be feasible.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by NPR

[Johann]

6 hours ago, Anacybele said:

Also, some terrorists just attack others because they don't believe as they do, you know. Al Quaeda saw us as enemies because we believed differently and did not agree with things they did, so as a result, we lost the Twin Towers, the Pentagon got a chunk of it blown away, and a plane ended up in the ground 80 miles outside my home city. They were radical Muslim terrorists. Radicals, of any religion or whatnot, believe that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is an enemy needing to be killed.

Not to derail, but terrorists such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc use religion or differing beliefs as a cover, it's not their real motivation (just like how the alt-right doesn't actually want free speech). Their motivation against the US, European countries, etc is based more on a sense that the US, etc are imperial powers. Their motivation against their own people, however, is purely about establishing themselves as the leading power in their areas. Nothing about what they do is fundamental to Islam, which is why the vast majority of Muslims condemn these acts and are the main victims of their violence.

The parallels between terrorist groups, hate groups, and lone school shooters are many. The recruitment strategy for ISIS and the alt-right are the exact same, in fact: Find unstable, depressed loners on the internet and convince them that their problems are caused by whatever that group's targets are. This also extends to people who are just harboring strong negative feelings, so it's never strictly a mental health issue. Even if they never actually join the groups that inspire them (ie: San Bernardino shooters weren't members of any terror group), they have motivation and potentially the means to carry out isolated attacks, whether it's through guns, bombs, etc.

Ultimately, this means we have several areas of focus when it comes to preventing these people, and doing something about their source is hatred is one. Increasing the difficulty to acquire dangerous weapons and materials (especially guns, as they're often the ideal weapon for these solitary actors) is a massive deterrent of equal significance.

[Stephen the Great]

At the risk of sounding like my head's been under a rock all this time: 

Why are some Americans so attached to their guns in the first place? What makes them think Amendment II is still necessary?

[Tetragrammaton]

8 minutes ago, Zawisza Czarny said:

At the risk of sounding like my head's been under a rock all this time: 

Why are some Americans so attached to their guns in the first place? What makes them think Amendment II is still necessary?

Fake security. They feel safer if they have a gun, the guns protect them against criminals or a corrupted government.

In contrast with other countries, where people think it is safer if no one has gun around at all.

Edited May 25, 2018 by hanhnn

[Excellen Browning]

So I found a website and thought of this thread:

https://www.dayssincethelastmassshooting.com/

it lies by the way, last mass shooting was today.

[Johann]

2 hours ago, Zawisza Czarny said:

At the risk of sounding like my head's been under a rock all this time: 

Why are some Americans so attached to their guns in the first place? What makes them think Amendment II is still necessary?

Lots of fear mongering about terrorists, criminals, and tyrants, and delusions of being a hero if shit goes down. In a lot of their minds, any gun control is the first step into some kind of dictatorship where they are powerless to resist. Of course, when the other Amendments are under threat, they don't seem to give a shit

[Lord Raven]

On 5/25/2018 at 7:42 AM, Zawisza Czarny said:

At the risk of sounding like my head's been under a rock all this time: 

Why are some Americans so attached to their guns in the first place? What makes them think Amendment II is still necessary?

There are a lot of reasons.

Self-defense is one. People around you have a gun, people around you have a lot of freedoms that they impose in a threatening way. You defend yourself.

Defending your property is another. Property is extremely important in the US because many people own a whole lot of it and there's a whole lot of good land here. On top of that, if you live in a rural area and the nearest regency service is 10-20 miles away you need to take matters into your hands, especially when there's wild animal attacks.

Hunting for food. It's a lot easier for the same demographic to obtain food via hunting than going 20 miles to the nearest grocery store.

Finally, fighting back against tyranny and being able to form a militia for self defense. There was a very good discussion about this in the past few pages and how valid this is would be how you interpret it. I can somewhat understand it from the perspective of someone living in a crappy situation, but it's a check in case things start to become dystopian. At least we had weapons for it.

It's not something that we can take care of with a blanket ban. There are people who legit need guns to make their lives significantly easier.

 

Imo handguns don't really contribute to society and certain rifles are almost necessary for certain people. Everything else isn't really needed. The amendment needs updating specifically because we need to analyze the intent of the second amendment. If it's about militias then that's what local government can be used for.

However it is not very easy to actually then America into a dictatorship without basically causing civil strife. There's too many levels of bureaucracy and too much turnover.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Shrimpica]

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Finally, fighting back against tyranny and being able to form a militia for self defense.

If a dictator took control and has the military under him, i doubt Civilians with guns will be able to do anything.

[Jotari]

32 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

If a dictator took control and has the military under him, i doubt Civilians with guns will be able to do anything.

The American defense budget being so ridiculously high is the real thing pissing on the second amendment. Someone was talking about the government going bankrupt if they were forced to buy back all the guns, I'm sure if they slashed the army's budget by like 5% they could probably buy back every fire arm in the country and then some.

[Lewyn]

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The American defense budget being so ridiculously high is the real thing pissing on the second amendment. Someone was talking about the government going bankrupt if they were forced to buy back all the guns, I'm sure if they slashed the army's budget by like 5% they could probably buy back every fire arm in the country and then some.

Yeah we could have free healthcare for all, free college for all.  Instead we spend many more times than any other country on the military.  Instead of making cuts there, we make them to social programs and the education system which is already really poor compared to most developed and even many undeveloped countries.  

[Lord Raven]

22 minutes ago, Jotari said:

The American defense budget being so ridiculously high is the real thing pissing on the second amendment. Someone was talking about the government going bankrupt if they were forced to buy back all the guns, I'm sure if they slashed the army's budget by like 5% they could probably buy back every fire arm in the country and then some.

Our defense budget isn't solely military. Like 60-70% of it makes its way back to us.

Just as an example: my current research (in materials) is being funded by the air force, and our lab has received a total of maybe two million in grants. I also had funding from the NSA through undergrad. That was part of the defense budget.

I know many, many other people who this applies to. The issue is that parts of the defense budget are used inadequately (see: the VA), but a good chunk of it is in R&D and education, which makes its way back to the American people.

I don't think cutting the defense budget fixes the fact that our healthcare spending is the highest as a percent of GDP. The amount of funding in healthcare is not the issue, the efficiency is. The defense budget is responsible for a ton of modern technology and it continues to pay dividends.

57 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

If a dictator took control and has the military under him, i doubt Civilians with guns will be able to do anything.

Don't underestimate a guerilla force, especially when the civilians are united against a Government. They won't use nukes, they may use drones, but they won't kill too many because who will the tyrants rule?

Guerillas are why it took so long to take out ISIS' headquarters. Don't underestimate civilians who are cornered.

I'm pretty sure our guns will be taken long before a tyrant takes over, though. We've actually had a discussion about the theory of this argument a few pages back which, again, I recommend you read, and the consensus is that there's no democracy worth saving if it gets to a point where we need arms to save ourselves. I'm not justifying it, I'm putting it out there as a reason and playing a bit of devil's advocate. Our military budget pretty much an orthogonal argument to the second amendment, though.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Our defense budget isn't solely military. Like 60-70% of it makes its way back to us.

Just as an example: my current research (in materials) is being funded by the air force, and our lab has received a total of maybe two million in grants. I also had funding from the NSA through undergrad. That was part of the defense budget.

I know many, many other people who this applies to. The issue is that parts of the defense budget are used inadequately (see: the VA), but a good chunk of it is in R&D and education, which makes its way back to the American people.

I don't think cutting the defense budget fixes the fact that our healthcare spending is the highest as a percent of GDP. The amount of funding in healthcare is not the issue, the efficiency is. The defense budget is responsible for a ton of modern technology and it continues to pay dividends.

Don't underestimate a guerilla force, especially when the civilians are united against a Government. They won't use nukes, they may use drones, but they won't kill too many because who will the tyrants rule?

Guerillas are why it took so long to take out ISIS' headquarters. Don't underestimate civilians who are cornered.

I'm pretty sure our guns will be taken long before a tyrant takes over, though. We've actually had a discussion about the theory of this argument a few pages back which, again, I recommend you read, and the consensus is that there's no democracy worth saving if it gets to a point where we need arms to save ourselves. I'm not justifying it, I'm putting it out there as a reason and playing a bit of devil's advocate. Our military budget pretty much an orthogonal argument to the second amendment, though.

A gurella force can be a powerful thing, but they won't win against a proper military force. The best they can do is not lose and be inconvenient enough to eventually sue for a treaty, but even then the ball will always be in the court of the more powerful martial force.

[Tetragrammaton]

On 5/27/2018 at 9:40 AM, Lord Raven said:

Our defense budget isn't solely military. Like 60-70% of it makes its way back to us.

Just as an example: my current research (in materials) is being funded by the air force, and our lab has received a total of maybe two million in grants. I also had funding from the NSA through undergrad. That was part of the defense budget.

I know many, many other people who this applies to. The issue is that parts of the defense budget are used inadequately (see: the VA), but a good chunk of it is in R&D and education, which makes its way back to the American people.

I don't think cutting the defense budget fixes the fact that our healthcare spending is the highest as a percent of GDP. The amount of funding in healthcare is not the issue, the efficiency is. The defense budget is responsible for a ton of modern technology and it continues to pay dividends.

Don't underestimate a guerilla force, especially when the civilians are united against a Government. They won't use nukes, they may use drones, but they won't kill too many because who will the tyrants rule?

Guerillas are why it took so long to take out ISIS' headquarters. Don't underestimate civilians who are cornered.

I'm pretty sure our guns will be taken long before a tyrant takes over, though. We've actually had a discussion about the theory of this argument a few pages back which, again, I recommend you read, and the consensus is that there's no democracy worth saving if it gets to a point where we need arms to save ourselves. I'm not justifying it, I'm putting it out there as a reason and playing a bit of devil's advocate. Our military budget pretty much an orthogonal argument to the second amendment, though.

ISIS should not be counted here since in some ways, it is backed by the US force.

[eclipse]

Since we just had a bunch of shootings at once, I'm gonna pin this until people put their trigger finger on a water gun.

[Shoblongoo]

...so we're just not gonna talk about that thing that happened in Alabama over Thanksgiving???

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/us/alabama-mall-shooting.html?module=inline

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/us/alabama-mall-shooting.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46333970

Mentioned a while back here how I see the twin issues of [prevalence of mass shootings] + [police literally getting away with murder when they kill young black men] as interrelated and playing into each other--they're the same issue, really. (what we've generally identified herein as America's desensitization to, excuses for, and unwillingness to do anything about mass killings) 

...the prevalence of gun violence in this country and the risk that any random stranger you encounter could be armed and dangerous feeding into the police mindset that in  civilian encounters where the officer thinks the civilian might be getting "belligerent," the reasonable thing to do is to reach for your service weapon and shoot first; ask questions later.

...the kid gloves with which we tiptoe around the issue of "second amendment rights" and the extraordinary lengths to which we go to place the rights of white gun owners ahead of any competing interests of law enforcement and public safety illustrating the intellectual dishonesty of the position that when cops encounters a black guy with anything even vaguely resembling a gun--well of course the cop at that point is behaving reasonably if he draws his own gun and acts "in fear of his life." 

Here's a story that ties it all together. 
___________

A shooter opened fire on thanksgiving in a crowded mall, in Alabama. Police responded to the scene and shot 21 year old Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., who they identified as the "shooter." 



Case closed.

Except that Bradford wasn't the shooter--the shooter escaped and is still at large. Bradford was a random 21 year old  bystander at the mall when the shooter opened fire.

And its not clear why the police thought he was the shooter (minus the obvious reason). Because since retracting their original statement and admitting that the story they put out when they identified Bradford as the shooter was "Not totally accurate"  (that's a bit of an understatement), the police have been unsurprisingly tight-lipped about what happened and why.

...they've refused to release officer bodycam or mall surveillance footage.

...they haven't responded to the family's request for a public apology.

...they haven't acknowledged any wrongdoing on behalf of the responding officers.

...with no public disclosures or release of video that would corroborate / fail to corroborate their current story, they put out a statement that Bradford was shot because he was brandishing a pistol and likely "involved in an altercation."  (i.e. boilerplate cover-up language)

Bradford's parent's have vigorously denied these accusations, and demanded that the police produce strict proofs thereof by releasing the video so-showing or stop slandering their son (they've retained the same civil rights attorney that represented the family of Treyvon Martin).

Bradford's mom has further stated that Bradford was a army-trained, licensed gun carrier who likely would have used his training and pistol to confront the gunman in an active shooter  situation (i.e. the 2nd amendment enthusiasts's fabled good guy with a gun)

Which makes the way this went down all the more illustrative of how problematic THAT particular fallback position is. And where the whole the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun mindset takes you in a country where racism and implicit bias and no real penalties for reckless homicide by police are still unresolved issues.    

https://rollingout.com/2018/11/26/cops-kill-soldier-in-mall-shooting-rampage-then-realize-he-was-innocent/

"The anti-gun control solution that a “good guy” with a gun can stop a mass shooter falls apart when that good guy is a Black man. By all accounts, Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., 21, was that good guy who tried to help at the Riverchase Mall when he pulled his US Army issued sidearm as a man started shooting during the beginning of the Black Friday shopping season. Bradford was not part of the fight that started the chaos but police saw a Black man with a gun and shot him dead, while the real shooter fled the scene." 


And of course this should go without saying--but to hell with the troll in the California shooting thread and the "all black men shot by police broke the law"  lie.

In a veritable laundry list of false statements, that was probably his most egregious falsehood.

****

Not the headline I wanted to be reading on Thanksgiving weekend.

But perhaps the clearest picture to date of what I've been trying to get across here.

(What does it say about what we pay attention to and what just flies under the radar that we spent 8 pages responding to a routine shooting spree in California--and absolutely no one thought this was discussion-worthy)
     





 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

Didn't even hear of this shooting. I guess that's the way things go when they go so common. "Routine shooting sprees" should never be a thing.

[Shoblongoo]

10 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Didn't even hear of this shooting. I guess that's the way things go when they go so common. "Routine shooting sprees" should never be a thing.

The underlying shooting itself is unremarkable--Its the accompanying police response that should make this one be a thing everything is talking about.

"Routine police killing of innocent black man, protests, and defiant cover-up" of course being a thing we're now just as numb to.

But to have them both wrapped up in the same headline like and so perfectly displaying how the pieces fit is a rarity. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Dr. Tarrasque]

I hadn't heard much about that particular story other than this one video and I guess I was numb to this particular incident because all the flags have already been checked with previous stories. We already got the silence from the NRA about their "good guy with a gun" talking point being shit on with the recent California shooting and barring that aforementioned troll, we're all just preaching to the choir here: many of us all acknowledge that this shit happens, it shouldn't happen and it's so bloody routine that it hurts.

The mainstream media is too busy covering the shit that comes out of Trump's mouth and the migrant caravan talk and it wasn't in the field of view for voters during the midterms. The NRA 2nd amendment defense is so ingrained into the US culture that there's something to be said about democrats avoiding guns in their platform to maintain hopes of continued wins in 2020.

If this is to become something that should be addressed, it needs to be pushed by members of the new congress and the people they're represented by. The 2 senators and congressional district rep of my location are all Republicans (Ted Cruz and John Cornyn for Senate,  Bill Flores for Rep), those fuckers will probably do nothing to help that fight.

[Tetragrammaton]

This is not mass shooting, but still......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/07/05/her-son-talked-about-placing-her-in-an-assisted-living-facility-she-then-killed-him-police-say/?utm_term=.466ef207b48c

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/04/us/elderly-woman-son-death-assisted-living-trnd/index.html

[Moblin Major General]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47261314

It's been a while, but here is another one. 

Seems this guy wanted to make the company pay for firing him. Honestly, what did he accomplish by doing this? 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Hylian Air Force

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-47261314

It's been a while, but here is another one. 

Seems this guy wanted to make the company pay for firing him. Honestly, what did he accomplish by doing this? 

Well to be uh...rather morbid, he probably has cost the company something.