The Soft-on-criminals policy that enabled Parkland shooting

a reply to: MikeA

I'm usually not in favor of it either, and yea some of it will be to get paid but if they (the people that allowed the situation to occur) are not punished in some way this will continue to occur.


Massive civil suits are about the only recourse the families have to punish those responsible.

originally posted by: toysforadults
I don't think it has anything to do with being tough on crime.

Our "tough on crime" mentality has proven to be a total failure nationwide for all age ranges.

The problem here is a system of total failure. The kid had mental health issues, was bullied, treat as a resource by foster parents who then died, then treat as another resource by another set of whatever guardian he was given, the mental health program he was part of failed, the school failed.

"tough on crime" has not been working in this country

Being tough on crime would work if we were in fact tough on crime. A guy busted 50 times for drug dealing still on the street. The guy given life in prison gets out in 10 years. The murderer who gets probation because he was high. It's the claim of being tough on crime that's BS. Courts do everything they can to NOT send someone to prison. Even when they do prisons are little more than country clubs today. I live in Arizona where we HAD sheriff Joe. You may know him for his tent City idea. Most people were ok with it, but a lot of people thought it was wrong to treat them like that. Largely because of complaints coming from the criminals. It's hot, it smells bad, the last time I was here it was winter and cold at night. The last time? Here's an idea, if you don't like the conditions in jail STOP BREAKING THE LAW STUPID.

Bring back the real prison where the guards were in control not the family of the inmates. Also currently if a person DOES somehow get life there's nothing to stop them from commiting crimes in the prison. Selling drugs stabbing guards or inmates. Why, because all that happens is they get to go to court getting out of the day to day for a while. In the end they get 10 more years added to their life sentence. BFD. What after they die you hold onto them 10 more years?

How about we end the lip service and start punishing these scumb bags. If you take a life you forfeit your own. Since drugs kill add the charge of manslaughter to drug dealing, and so on.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: MikeA

I'm usually not in favor of it either, and yea some of it will be to get paid but if they (the people that allowed the situation to occur) are not punished in some way this will continue to occur.


Massive civil suits are about the only recourse the families have to punish those responsible.

I agree but I hope they go after the people behind the idea, and not just the deepest pockets. If they sue the school district it will be the other kids who will pay for it, not the people working for the school district who signed off on it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

One last thing to note. In order for people to be placed into the mental health issue no gun category requires a person to be involuntarily admitted to a behavioral health unit. Those forced actions are what gets reported to the courts and attaches to their records. If a person has mental health issues but fully cooperates with mental health there is no report made to the courts since the info at that point is protected medical info (voluntary admits).

So while the school / police policy played a part the fact the guy was never adjudicated as mental still would not have prevented him from obtaining a gun and going to the school.

I agree more or less with everything else you said, however this isn't the only way he could've been prevented from getting a gun. His death threats could have resulted in him being convicted of a felony, and his assault on his mother is technically a domestic violence conviction under Florida legal definitions. Either of those would cause him to fail a background check as well. So if they weren't going easy on this clown, he probably wouldn't have been able to legally buy guns. There have been some reports that a few of the guns he bought he purchased illegally though. If that's true, all of this is somewhat of a moot point. On the other hand, if this guy was in a mental institution or jail, he wouldn't have been able to kill anyone.

originally posted by: MikeA

originally posted by: toysforadults
I don't think it has anything to do with being tough on crime.

Our "tough on crime" mentality has proven to be a total failure nationwide for all age ranges.

The problem here is a system of total failure. The kid had mental health issues, was bullied, treat as a resource by foster parents who then died, then treat as another resource by another set of whatever guardian he was given, the mental health program he was part of failed, the school failed.

"tough on crime" has not been working in this country

Bring back the real prison where the guards were in control not the family of the inmates. Also currently if a person DOES somehow get life there's nothing to stop them from commiting crimes in the prison. Selling drugs stabbing guards or inmates. Why, because all that happens is they get to go to court getting out of the day to day for a while.

Not to mention an easier chance at escaping.

a reply to: face23785

Completely agree.. The only thing I would add for thought is yes it would be considered a domestic assault and yes, under law it would prevent a person from obtaining any firearm however it only occurs upon conviction.

Domestics are one of the very few laws that does not require the cooperation or consent of the victim. However most PA's dont push prosecution if the victim is refusing to cooperate and there is no clear party at fault. It goes back to that pesky "who is the primary physical aggressor" standard.

Either way the ball was dropped by law enforcement / school district personnel in this case.

a reply to: MikeA

Great idea and everything but empirical says otherwise.

Dont believe me?

Compares recidivism rates between the different systems deployed in different countries.

Your position makes for great rhetoric but isnt hasn't and wont work.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

Completely agree.. The only thing I would add for thought is yes it would be considered a domestic assault and yes, under law it would prevent a person from obtaining any firearm however it only occurs upon conviction.

Domestics are one of the very few laws that does not require the cooperation or consent of the victim. However most PA's dont push prosecution if the victim is refusing to cooperate and there is no clear party at fault. It goes back to that pesky "who is the primary physical aggressor" standard.

Either way the ball was dropped by law enforcement / school district personnel in this case.

Good points.