School Shooting narrowly avoided!

[Cubo de Sangre]

Where does it say that he's part of a well regulated militia?

In a sense, we all are. The militia is the public. Or at least comprised of those members who choose to step up in a time of need.

 

[Sano]

AR 500 body armor is readily available and we already know how many guns are in the US. It's the deranged comments and behavior that raise red flags.

Yes that's what I'm saying. That a person can have 200+ rounds of ammunition, kevlar, a 100 round high capacity magazine and guns at their house and that doesn't raise flags. I know that's your culture, but it's just very strange from an outside perspective.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

“He had the tools necessary, the intent necessary. And the only thing that stood between him and evil … is law enforcement,” he added.

Based on this comment alone, one might think it wasn't a concerned citizen that initiated law enforcement's intervention.

 

[nac386]

Good.

I think a matter for discussion here is how this type of thing is handled when gut feelings are wrong. We had a very long thread in which a white woman harassed a black man because she wasn't sure if he belonged in her apartment building.

In this story, the gut feeling stemmed from an online threat. In the apartment story, the gut feeling stemmed from nothing at all. Also, in this story, the woman notified the authorities. In the apartment story, the woman pretending like she was some kind of authority.

 

[nac386]

You don't need to be directly threatened to have a gut feeling.

Having a "gut feeling" is not enough of a reason to harass somebody, block their path, follow them to their apartment, then call the cops on them.

The woman in this story did not just have a gut feeling. Her children were threatened.

 

[Higus]

You don't need to be directly threatened to have a gut feeling.

For example, I have a gut feeling this isn't your first account here.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

So you understand why someone might be suspicious in such a case, but you don't think they had enough reason to be suspicious? And you'd feel better about those suspicions if they simply were more discreet?

The case in this thread is pretty straightforward. The guy made it this lady's business by posting threatening messages. But what if you are a student and a guy is just acting in a way that creeps you out and you worry that he might go postal one day? Should people only complain if they have received direct threats?

Because the problem as I see it is that will be a lot of false alarms. I think some of those false alarms may be irresponsible or even mean-spirited. But a lot will be honest mistakes. We can't both say "if you see something say something" and then crucify people who thought they saw something and so said something, but who were wrong.

The shooter guy, who this woman didn't know, sent her a personal direct Facebook message insulting and threatening her children. That's way beyond being suspicious of someone who poses with a gun and makes some vague pro 2nd amendment post.

The other lady's only evidence was a guy walked in after her without using his card. That's it. Probably 3/4 of the residents would do the same thing.

I mentioned being discreet because it's better to investigate discreetly if you have such little evidence. Or just go home and call the cops and leave the investigating up to them. In a perfect world everyone would normally let the door close and use their ID or w/e, but in every apartment complex I've lived in that hasn't been the case and someone following behind me wouldn't set off any red flags.

 

[Andy Capp]

So you understand why someone might be suspicious in such a case, but you don't think they had enough reason to be suspicious? And you'd feel better about those suspicions if they simply were more discreet?

The case in this thread is pretty straightforward. The guy made it this lady's business by posting threatening messages. But what if you are a student and a guy is just acting in a way that creeps you out and you worry that he might go postal one day? Should people only complain if they have received direct threats?

Because the problem as I see it is that will be a lot of false alarms. I think some of those false alarms may be irresponsible or even mean-spirited. But a lot will be honest mistakes. We can't both say "if you see something say something" and then crucify people who thought they saw something and so said something, but who were wrong.

That's where personal responsibility comes into it, don't you think? People will judge you on your actions. If you judge inappropriately or incorrectly that you should report something, you will face criticism.

 

[nac386]

A gut feeling is enough to take action in what ever situation you get the feeling in.

Be prepared for the consequences when you're wrong. Nobody really cares about your "gut feeling" if you did not have a pretty good reason to have that feeling in the first place.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

If she was right though everything would be all good.

First, she wasn't right, and she had little to reason to believe she was. But even if she was right and he was up to no good, he could have attacked her or something before she called the cops.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

In this story, the gut feeling stemmed from an online threat. In the apartment story, the gut feeling stemmed from nothing at all. Also, in this story, the woman notified the authorities. In the apartment story, the woman pretending like she was some kind of authority.

So you don't think a gut feeling is enough to go on. You think there should be direct threats? My point is not that the lady in that case was right, I'm not trying to rehash that and I'm not trying to defend her. It's a question of where we are drawing lines here. An awful lot of bad things can happen without someone directly making online threats, but people may begin to get a gut feeling like something bad is going to happen from lesser clues. If we draw the lines too strictly, we may impede people from stopping things like this. But too broadly and we've got people calling the cops on each other for no reason.

So where do you think we should draw that line?

 

[Sano]

I see what you're saying. For sure in Denmark that would seem out of place.

I grew up with hunting rifles and double barrels. My dad is a hunter and I went to the shooting range and got my hunting license pretty young. I appreciate and respect firearms, but I would never want a gun in my home. Luckely we just don't have guns here for personal use and in order to aquire hunting rifles there's a very strict and stringent process. Handguns are pretty much impossible unless you are affiliated with certified shooting ranges. You have to take a lot of tests and go through a lot of hoops, but that also means that people here handle firarms so well and treat them with the respect they deserve.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Yes that's what I'm saying. That a person can have 200+ rounds of ammunition, kevlar, a 100 round high capacity magazine and guns at their house and that doesn't raise flags. I know that's your culture, but it's just very strange from an outside perspective.

If I saw a man wearing kevlar and a rifle and toting around a bunch of ammo anywhere near my kid's school, I'd get involved ASAP. It would raise red flags with me. If the guy has a bunch of guns and ammo at home I wouldn't.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The shooter guy, who this woman didn't know, sent her a personal direct Facebook message insulting and threatening her children. That's way beyond being suspicious of someone who poses with a gun and makes some vague pro 2nd amendment post.

The other lady's only evidence was a guy walked in after her without using his card. That's it. Probably 3/4 of the residents would do the same thing.

I mentioned being discreet because it's better to investigate discreetly if you have such little evidence. Or just go home and call the cops and leave the investigating up to them. In a perfect world everyone would normally let the door close and use their ID or w/e, but in every apartment complex I've lived in that hasn't been the case and someone following behind me wouldn't set off any red flags.

But she saw him use his key to his unit and walk in and then she called the police due to being "suspicious".

No, sorry, in that case she was suspicious, maybe at the entry way but by they time she followed him to his unit she was no longer suspicious. She called the police because she was mad he dared by uppity at the entry way and belonging there or not she was going to try and make him pay.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The shooter guy, who this woman didn't know, sent her a personal direct Facebook message insulting and threatening her children. That's way beyond being suspicious of someone who poses with a gun and makes some vague pro 2nd amendment post.

The other lady's only evidence was a guy walked in after her without using his card. That's it. Probably 3/4 of the residents would do the same thing.

I mentioned being discreet because it's better to investigate discreetly if you have such little evidence. Or just go home and call the cops and leave the investigating up to them. In a perfect world everyone would normally let the door close and use their ID or w/e, but in every apartment complex I've lived in that hasn't been the case and someone following behind me wouldn't set off any red flags.

Yeah, I agree that the reasons in one case are much stronger than in the other case. I've also stated many times I'm not trying to defend that lady. My question is something more like what is the minimum a person can do for you to be reasonably suspicious to the point of getting police involved.

 

[Sano]

If I saw a man wearing kevlar and a rifle and toting around a bunch of ammo anywhere near my kid's school, I'd get involved ASAP. It would raise red flags with me. If the guy has a bunch of guns and ammo at home I wouldn't.

Yeah that says a lot about how you live, as Americans I mean.

 

[TheGreatA]

Good job, but the charges seem pretty weak. Second-degree terroristic threatening? One count of harassing communications? That's all they got on the guy?

Seems that he will get a maximum of one year in jail. But most likely he will just get fined.

 

[nac386]

So you don't think a gut feeling is enough to go on. You think there should be direct threats? My point is not that the lady in that case was right, I'm not trying to rehash that and I'm not trying to defend her. It's a question of where we are drawing lines here. An awful lot of bad things can happen without someone directly making online threats, but people may begin to get a gut feeling like something bad is going to happen from lesser clues. If we draw the lines too strictly, we may impede people from stopping things like this. But too broadly and we've got people calling the cops on each other for no reason.

So where do you think we should draw that line?

I think there's always going to be some blurred lines when it comes to "see something, say something" type reports. What is something? That is different to everybody, I guess.

But what we can't have is a bunch of busy-bodies harassing people in the streets because of their gut feelings. For example, another story popped up today with a video of some maniac woman screaming at some Hispanics (who were here visiting) for being freeloaders and telling them to speak English. I guess her "gut feeling" was that those random people needed to be harassed. Her gut feeling comes from her demented mind.

I guess I have trouble trusting a lot of people to act on their "gut feeling" without any actual evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[AlexDB9]

Damn, kudos to the mother!

 

[MikeMcMann]

So you don't think a gut feeling is enough to go on. You think there should be direct threats? My point is not that the lady in that case was right, I'm not trying to rehash that and I'm not trying to defend her. It's a question of where we are drawing lines here. An awful lot of bad things can happen without someone directly making online threats, but people may begin to get a gut feeling like something bad is going to happen from lesser clues. If we draw the lines too strictly, we may impede people from stopping things like this. But too broadly and we've got people calling the cops on each other for no reason.

So where do you think we should draw that line?

the apartment lady was not right.

For her to be right here is her role.

"Excuse me sir but each resident is required to individually FOB in for security reasons and we are not to just follow other residents in. Would you please FOB in?"

Now he can or cannot and if he does not she should report him to the condo board or even police if she is concerned.

But instead she took it upon herself to be cop and jury and judge and launched into an interrogation which has as its underpinning an accusation of 'him not belonging', which immediately put him on the defensive. Had she said it my way above there would be no accusation.

When she then followed him up to his suite (stupid if she really believed he was ne'er-do-well or criminal) and saw him put his key in the door and enter that should have ended it regardless of how it started prior. But instead then, and only then, did she call the police knowing very well that such reports to police can often end up not very well for young black men regardless of right or wrong.

She may have started with the right intent but her execution was wrong the entire way through.