Any law enforcement officer who breaks the law and deliberately allows someone not legally able to have a firearm to get one should be prosecuted. And if the person who gets the firearm uses it in a homicide the charge should be felony murder.
Any law enforcement officer who breaks the law and deliberately allows someone not legally able to have a firearm to get one should be prosecuted. And if the person who gets the firearm uses it in a homicide the charge should be felony murder.
This is less a police problem and more a lack-of-regulation problem. 93% of mass-shooters would be considered legally sane *before* they carry out an attack. It is only *after* they carry out an attack that they get declared legally insane. This is why the cops/feds, NICS, and red flag laws will do little because while a lot of mass shooters show signs of psychological instability before they commit murder, those signs are not enough to declare someone legally insane and get them banned from owning guns.
What this country needs to understand is that every one of these mass-shooters--with the exception of those who steal firearms to commit murders--are simply "law-abiding gun owners" right up until the day they snap and commit murder. If there is no enhanced psychological screening that is required of shooters prior to purchases, then we're selling guns as time-bombs to people who will one day snap but aren't showing all the signs necessary to diagnose them as legally insane. Until that systems comes into place then we'll keep selling guns to future murderers. Of course, if you talk about making psych screenings mandatory for high-capacity semi-auto purchases then people like Boebert come out and say that it's a backdoor avenue for liberals to do gun grabs against conservatives and she'll campaign off of it and raise money, because that's how things work here, apparently.
I don't understand. Red flag laws, as I understand them, don't require the individual to be declared legally sane. Just a danger. And states vary in who can go to court and present their case to a judge. In some, family members can, in others they can't.
The case I'm most familiar with is the shooter in Highland Park, IL on the 4th of July. Illinois has the law and he wasn't stopped. "While the authorities who crossed paths with (the shooter) contend their hands were tied by the law, several people familiar with IllinoisтАЩ statutes told The Associated Press there were more than enough ways to block him from getting guns" (https://www.wbez.org/stories/should-illinois-red-flag-law-have-stopped-the-highland-park-parade-shooting/7f7327be-9b13-4feb-af22-61a1d5c3f5d4). It's law enforcement who failed in this case.
I'm always amazed that the old "The Gub'mint is gonna take away your guns!" argument even works. Has the government ever done that? Ever? Whose guns have they taken away? How many? Why?
They didn't take the guns after the Kennedys. They didnтАЩt take them after Columbine, or Sandy Hook, or Pulse, or Vegas. They're never going to take away your guns.
What about DV as a flag? Beau of the Fifth Column is big on that angle. Says 68% of mass shootings are connected in some way to DV (either prior, or current). Obviously you can only focus on the prior, but that might still be a decent net to cut down on this. No firearms for 5 years after a DV conviction (and while awaiting trial, if out on bail). Just a starting point suggestion.
Part 11i on the standard ATF Form 4473 clearly asks the purchaser: "Have you ever been CONVICTED in court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"
If 68% of mass-shooters have prior/current DV *connections*, does this mean *convictions*? Because if not, they're probably getting sold the gun.
I'd have to find it, but there was some research suggesting that looser involuntary commitment laws (ie the ability of an ER doc to send you to an inpatient psych facility against your will) decreases shootings. I can tell you from experience that NY made this the easiest of three states I've practiced in (and had the lowest number of mass shootings). It was really easy to do a 48 hour hold, and then get a hearing where we could advocate for a longer hold., This tracks with your observation that people are sane until the aren't. (Usually the patient chose to represent themself at the hearing. This almost always resulted in the judge letting the medical team determine length of stay).
I think a lot of states really need to re-visit their involuntary commitment laws in light of both mass shootings and the drug crises. It's a tough convo. I mean, you're giving the medical establishment the leeway to override a human's most fundamental right. On the other hand, how much agency does someone addicted to fentanyl and P2P meth really have over their life? How much risk should society bear given that the mentally unhinged have such easy access to weapons of mass slaughter. There is not going to be an easy answer.
This is a well-thought out argument and it does pose really difficult questions. NYC has the advantage of nobody owning handguns to begin with unless you're a cop, so when the guys in the white coats show up to put you in the van, they're not normally confronted with gunfire. That may be a different case in other states. There have been strings of "I ain't going to prison" shootings against law enforcement when they are taking suspects in on warrants, for example: https://www.kktv.com/2022/09/09/sheriff-2-deputies-killed-while-serving-warrant-georgia/
For what it's worth, I lived upstate and the handgun ban did not seem to dampen enthusiasm for hunting or recreation shooting. I knew a gang who frequently went skeet shooting, and the farmers around me got so many deer tags that they would give them away to people who trusted and let them hunt on their land.
So I don't buy into this idea that reasonable gun laws are going to be an anchor around the neck of responsible gun hobbyists. It was easy enough to shoot clay pigeons and deer if that was your jam. But it was harder to shoot people.
Modern "gun hobbyists" do stuff like 3-gun competitions where they swap from pistol to shotgun to assault rifle in the same match. They'll say that ditching high-capacity semi-auto is going to kill their little "hobby." Because we really needed to invent a "sport" like 3-gun. Wanna talk about "grooming"? There are parents teaching kids as old as 8 to do 3-gun matches in TrumpLand. The hobbies have changed over the years, especially in Trumpy states.
A former navy seal taught me to skeet shoot, I went to a high school with a rifle team, and have gone target shooting at gun range (well over a decade ago). I never saw myself getting real into it, but I see the appeal.
The change in gun culture is just unthinkable to me. I don't understand it at all. I wouldn't let an eight year old play with a BB gun.
The big problem isn't mass shooters. It is one on one homicides. Many involve domestic violence. Mass shootings get the publicity but most homicides are not from mass shootings.
The big problem with guns by the numbers is as you say, domestic violence homicides (and suicides) that involve handguns mostly. But what I'm talking about is hate-inspired stochastic terrorism using firearms.
Some of those shootings do involve handguns, but since 2004 the vast majority have involved assault rifles. You simply cannot do a Mandalay Bay 2018 with a Glock 19. You're going to have a very difficult time doing a Pulse 2016 with a handgun as well. The difference between what a rifle round does to the body with respect to kinetic energy and temporary stretch cavities makes handguns look weak by comparison.
The conversation about guns around the Colorado Springs shooting is about anti-minority stochastic terrorism and assault rifles. And while stochastic terrorism numbers are dwarfed in comparison by suicides and domestic homicides, their impact on society from a psychological standpoint is lower than the stochastic terrorism. You're not going to die randomly in a night club or movie theater because somebody killed themselves or their ex with a handgun ya know?
Well said: "while stochastic terrorism numbers are dwarfed in comparison by suicides and domestic homicides, their impact on society from a psychological standpoint is lower".
Yup, but suicide and domestic violence don't affect greater society psychologically the way that stochastic terrorism does. I'm not going to die at a country music concert or place of worship randomly because someone killed themselves or their ex with a handgun. That's why the small numbers hit society to a larger degree than the big numbers do. It's the qualitative difference.
This is the second story like this coming out of Colorado I've read this month. There was that Atlantic piece about the guy who murdered/maimed two dog walkers with a gun he "borrowed" from a police buddy. The police officer seems to have resigned but is working in a different police department.
Honestly, the police culture in this country is so broken, I don't know how it can be fixed. Ending qualified immunity is probably the policy starting point, but between this and Uvalde and my local police department using rubber bullets to break up a campus snowball fight, I'm sympathetic (although not ready to embrace) the "burn it down and start anew" attitude towards a lot of police departments. Does anyone really believe that the department refusing to enforce red flag laws has the capacity to meaningfully change?
" Ending qualified immunity is probably the policy starting point,"
That will accomplish nothing, and it might make things worse. Individual officers will have to get liability insurance. Most likely, the local taxpayers will have to eat the cost of that insurance just as they do for physicians who work in public clinics and hospitals. Alternatively, the salaries of police officers will need to be increased so that they can afford the insurance. More responsible officers will be discouraged from continuing in their positions, and the irresponsible ones will skip the insurance, and if they get sued and lose, simply declare bankruptcy. The only winners will be ambulance chasing lawyers.
The bargain I'm willing to make is, require much longer training for police like Germany's three years, but make the training free provide the graduate works as an officer for at least, say, five years after graduation.
Also, pay them a lot more while abolishing the union. Basically make it a white collar job.
I'm a doctor. While it's correct that malpractice insurance raises the cost of medical care, I think that it does impose a degree of restraint upon providers that I see as totally lacking in the field of law enforcement.
When I apply for a license, I have to list every other state I've held a license, any lawsuits I've been involved in, and any complaint/licensure issues I've had in other states. These problem police officers though just flit from department to department wrecking havoc across town and county lines.
I think modern day policing is the equivalent of old-timey doctors prescribing barbiturates and cocaine, lopping off appendages with hacksaws, and shrugging off bad outcomes as God's will. What most departments are doing is totally divorced from data, unrelated to the outcomes the community wants, and is a poor return on investment (exhibit A: the Uvalde Swat team). If "higher premiums" be the cost of better policing, I say so be it. No field that has life and death power over people should be so immune from oversight and accountability.
My concerns about improving our law enforcement isn't about money, it's about the safety of Americans and our Constitution. Perhaps you care about those, too?
I have no reason to think Charlie does not. We can get better policing but it's going to cost us and you know how Americans hate taxes. That's what he's saying.
This is an unfair response. Charlie's comment does not in any way show that he cares about money more than the safety of Americans. He is simply making some good points about the unintended consequences of ending qualified immunity.
How was the "law" broken? What was the "deliberate" action allowing someone to buy a firearm? Was the suspect in this case even barred from buying a firearm? (Since he was not convicted of a crime it would appear he could) Who, exactly, would you charge with "felony murder"?
Please stop making inflammatory posts based on speculation and wish casting. If anyone chooses to respond to this, please be specific in answering the above questions.
I think the point is that law enforcement can only respond when there is a victim who will testify against the perpetrator (or eye witnesses and other evidence). When mom says Go away, law enforcement goes away. No charges were filed. It was deemed a domestic incident and there are far more of those that do NOT result in charges than those who DO.
sorry; reply is above; I clicked in the wrong place
No, suspect was not barred (he had no convictions on record). His bomb threat case was never pursued. Record was probably sealed then. And it was over a year ago so protection orders long defunct. Nobody ever looked to see if he had weapons at the time, reportedly, but they would have been returned to him. And El Paso is a gun-toting county and "second amendment sanctuary" under the sheriff.
Perhaps the citizens of El Paso county want to think about whether they want to be a bomb making sanctuary.
come to think of it, maybe the anti-gun crown out to consider doing some advertising for Colorado Springs along those lines. It is a hell of a tourist destination, so some national advertising about how the whole area is a second amendment sanctuary might be interesting. Maybe spice it up with a suggestion that you might just get to see a real western gun-fight (images of body-armored guys with AR-15's recreating a high noon duel).
Couldn't agree more, Charlie. If a law enforcement officer refuses to enforce the existing laws, he/she should be fired, charged and prosecuted as an accessory.
Pols are not all involved in enforcement. In fact few are. And even if they are - enforcing to what extent? Thus the police with limited resources don't spend as much time on minor offenses and so on. and if thinking about immigration laws, if police in places like Paterson NJ or Astoria (Queens) started to ask immigration related questions of every witness to a crime, the witnesses would clam up. But in the Colorado shooting, the refusal to enforce was pointed and terribly misguided.
I was thinking of the concept of politicians who are reluctant to enforce established law on politicians, including former but not sitting Presidents. Yes, I understand there is no point in charging if there is not probability of conviction. IтАЩm worried the DOJ is going to run out of runway before they take off. It would be a convenient excuse personally but it would do untold damage to the United States as a democracy.
Any law enforcement officer who breaks the law and deliberately allows someone not legally able to have a firearm to get one should be prosecuted. And if the person who gets the firearm uses it in a homicide the charge should be felony murder.
Amen! Who could prosecute in this case? The CO AG?
This is less a police problem and more a lack-of-regulation problem. 93% of mass-shooters would be considered legally sane *before* they carry out an attack. It is only *after* they carry out an attack that they get declared legally insane. This is why the cops/feds, NICS, and red flag laws will do little because while a lot of mass shooters show signs of psychological instability before they commit murder, those signs are not enough to declare someone legally insane and get them banned from owning guns.
What this country needs to understand is that every one of these mass-shooters--with the exception of those who steal firearms to commit murders--are simply "law-abiding gun owners" right up until the day they snap and commit murder. If there is no enhanced psychological screening that is required of shooters prior to purchases, then we're selling guns as time-bombs to people who will one day snap but aren't showing all the signs necessary to diagnose them as legally insane. Until that systems comes into place then we'll keep selling guns to future murderers. Of course, if you talk about making psych screenings mandatory for high-capacity semi-auto purchases then people like Boebert come out and say that it's a backdoor avenue for liberals to do gun grabs against conservatives and she'll campaign off of it and raise money, because that's how things work here, apparently.
I don't understand. Red flag laws, as I understand them, don't require the individual to be declared legally sane. Just a danger. And states vary in who can go to court and present their case to a judge. In some, family members can, in others they can't.
The case I'm most familiar with is the shooter in Highland Park, IL on the 4th of July. Illinois has the law and he wasn't stopped. "While the authorities who crossed paths with (the shooter) contend their hands were tied by the law, several people familiar with IllinoisтАЩ statutes told The Associated Press there were more than enough ways to block him from getting guns" (https://www.wbez.org/stories/should-illinois-red-flag-law-have-stopped-the-highland-park-parade-shooting/7f7327be-9b13-4feb-af22-61a1d5c3f5d4). It's law enforcement who failed in this case.
I'm always amazed that the old "The Gub'mint is gonna take away your guns!" argument even works. Has the government ever done that? Ever? Whose guns have they taken away? How many? Why?
They didn't take the guns after the Kennedys. They didnтАЩt take them after Columbine, or Sandy Hook, or Pulse, or Vegas. They're never going to take away your guns.
BUT MAYBE THEY SHOULD.
Really well said. I've asked the same thing myself.
What about DV as a flag? Beau of the Fifth Column is big on that angle. Says 68% of mass shootings are connected in some way to DV (either prior, or current). Obviously you can only focus on the prior, but that might still be a decent net to cut down on this. No firearms for 5 years after a DV conviction (and while awaiting trial, if out on bail). Just a starting point suggestion.
Part 11i on the standard ATF Form 4473 clearly asks the purchaser: "Have you ever been CONVICTED in court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"
If 68% of mass-shooters have prior/current DV *connections*, does this mean *convictions*? Because if not, they're probably getting sold the gun.
I don't know. It probably isn't convictions.
I'd have to find it, but there was some research suggesting that looser involuntary commitment laws (ie the ability of an ER doc to send you to an inpatient psych facility against your will) decreases shootings. I can tell you from experience that NY made this the easiest of three states I've practiced in (and had the lowest number of mass shootings). It was really easy to do a 48 hour hold, and then get a hearing where we could advocate for a longer hold., This tracks with your observation that people are sane until the aren't. (Usually the patient chose to represent themself at the hearing. This almost always resulted in the judge letting the medical team determine length of stay).
I think a lot of states really need to re-visit their involuntary commitment laws in light of both mass shootings and the drug crises. It's a tough convo. I mean, you're giving the medical establishment the leeway to override a human's most fundamental right. On the other hand, how much agency does someone addicted to fentanyl and P2P meth really have over their life? How much risk should society bear given that the mentally unhinged have such easy access to weapons of mass slaughter. There is not going to be an easy answer.
Well said.
This is a well-thought out argument and it does pose really difficult questions. NYC has the advantage of nobody owning handguns to begin with unless you're a cop, so when the guys in the white coats show up to put you in the van, they're not normally confronted with gunfire. That may be a different case in other states. There have been strings of "I ain't going to prison" shootings against law enforcement when they are taking suspects in on warrants, for example: https://www.kktv.com/2022/09/09/sheriff-2-deputies-killed-while-serving-warrant-georgia/
For what it's worth, I lived upstate and the handgun ban did not seem to dampen enthusiasm for hunting or recreation shooting. I knew a gang who frequently went skeet shooting, and the farmers around me got so many deer tags that they would give them away to people who trusted and let them hunt on their land.
So I don't buy into this idea that reasonable gun laws are going to be an anchor around the neck of responsible gun hobbyists. It was easy enough to shoot clay pigeons and deer if that was your jam. But it was harder to shoot people.
Modern "gun hobbyists" do stuff like 3-gun competitions where they swap from pistol to shotgun to assault rifle in the same match. They'll say that ditching high-capacity semi-auto is going to kill their little "hobby." Because we really needed to invent a "sport" like 3-gun. Wanna talk about "grooming"? There are parents teaching kids as old as 8 to do 3-gun matches in TrumpLand. The hobbies have changed over the years, especially in Trumpy states.
A former navy seal taught me to skeet shoot, I went to a high school with a rifle team, and have gone target shooting at gun range (well over a decade ago). I never saw myself getting real into it, but I see the appeal.
The change in gun culture is just unthinkable to me. I don't understand it at all. I wouldn't let an eight year old play with a BB gun.
The big problem isn't mass shooters. It is one on one homicides. Many involve domestic violence. Mass shootings get the publicity but most homicides are not from mass shootings.
The big problem with guns by the numbers is as you say, domestic violence homicides (and suicides) that involve handguns mostly. But what I'm talking about is hate-inspired stochastic terrorism using firearms.
Some of those shootings do involve handguns, but since 2004 the vast majority have involved assault rifles. You simply cannot do a Mandalay Bay 2018 with a Glock 19. You're going to have a very difficult time doing a Pulse 2016 with a handgun as well. The difference between what a rifle round does to the body with respect to kinetic energy and temporary stretch cavities makes handguns look weak by comparison.
The conversation about guns around the Colorado Springs shooting is about anti-minority stochastic terrorism and assault rifles. And while stochastic terrorism numbers are dwarfed in comparison by suicides and domestic homicides, their impact on society from a psychological standpoint is lower than the stochastic terrorism. You're not going to die randomly in a night club or movie theater because somebody killed themselves or their ex with a handgun ya know?
Well said: "while stochastic terrorism numbers are dwarfed in comparison by suicides and domestic homicides, their impact on society from a psychological standpoint is lower".
We are talking about different things.
The largest number of gun deaths is, IIRC by suicide. This is rarely mentioned or addressed when talking about gun legislation.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000510/gun-suicide-homicide-comparison
Yup, but suicide and domestic violence don't affect greater society psychologically the way that stochastic terrorism does. I'm not going to die at a country music concert or place of worship randomly because someone killed themselves or their ex with a handgun. That's why the small numbers hit society to a larger degree than the big numbers do. It's the qualitative difference.
Oh, certainly. As always it is the edge cases that garner attention and create confusion, fear, and uncertainty.
This is the second story like this coming out of Colorado I've read this month. There was that Atlantic piece about the guy who murdered/maimed two dog walkers with a gun he "borrowed" from a police buddy. The police officer seems to have resigned but is working in a different police department.
Honestly, the police culture in this country is so broken, I don't know how it can be fixed. Ending qualified immunity is probably the policy starting point, but between this and Uvalde and my local police department using rubber bullets to break up a campus snowball fight, I'm sympathetic (although not ready to embrace) the "burn it down and start anew" attitude towards a lot of police departments. Does anyone really believe that the department refusing to enforce red flag laws has the capacity to meaningfully change?
"the department refusing to enact red flag laws "
Police departments don't enact red flag laws. State legislatures do.
Duly edited
" Ending qualified immunity is probably the policy starting point,"
That will accomplish nothing, and it might make things worse. Individual officers will have to get liability insurance. Most likely, the local taxpayers will have to eat the cost of that insurance just as they do for physicians who work in public clinics and hospitals. Alternatively, the salaries of police officers will need to be increased so that they can afford the insurance. More responsible officers will be discouraged from continuing in their positions, and the irresponsible ones will skip the insurance, and if they get sued and lose, simply declare bankruptcy. The only winners will be ambulance chasing lawyers.
The bargain I'm willing to make is, require much longer training for police like Germany's three years, but make the training free provide the graduate works as an officer for at least, say, five years after graduation.
Also, pay them a lot more while abolishing the union. Basically make it a white collar job.
I'm a doctor. While it's correct that malpractice insurance raises the cost of medical care, I think that it does impose a degree of restraint upon providers that I see as totally lacking in the field of law enforcement.
When I apply for a license, I have to list every other state I've held a license, any lawsuits I've been involved in, and any complaint/licensure issues I've had in other states. These problem police officers though just flit from department to department wrecking havoc across town and county lines.
I think modern day policing is the equivalent of old-timey doctors prescribing barbiturates and cocaine, lopping off appendages with hacksaws, and shrugging off bad outcomes as God's will. What most departments are doing is totally divorced from data, unrelated to the outcomes the community wants, and is a poor return on investment (exhibit A: the Uvalde Swat team). If "higher premiums" be the cost of better policing, I say so be it. No field that has life and death power over people should be so immune from oversight and accountability.
My concerns about improving our law enforcement isn't about money, it's about the safety of Americans and our Constitution. Perhaps you care about those, too?
I have no reason to think Charlie does not. We can get better policing but it's going to cost us and you know how Americans hate taxes. That's what he's saying.
This is an unfair response. Charlie's comment does not in any way show that he cares about money more than the safety of Americans. He is simply making some good points about the unintended consequences of ending qualified immunity.
Thank you.
How was the "law" broken? What was the "deliberate" action allowing someone to buy a firearm? Was the suspect in this case even barred from buying a firearm? (Since he was not convicted of a crime it would appear he could) Who, exactly, would you charge with "felony murder"?
Please stop making inflammatory posts based on speculation and wish casting. If anyone chooses to respond to this, please be specific in answering the above questions.
The law may have been broken (we don't have all the facts yet) by El Paso County law enforcment (where the shooting occurred) deliberately choosing to not enforce removal from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others. See https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1138197437/colorado-springs-shooting-suspect-red-flag-gun-law.
Saying that a law enforcement officer should obey the law is not inflammatory. And I was not commenting on the specifics of any case.
So you are happy with the out come?
And is your point there was no negligence involved or just that the negligence was not up to the level of capital murder?
I think the point is that law enforcement can only respond when there is a victim who will testify against the perpetrator (or eye witnesses and other evidence). When mom says Go away, law enforcement goes away. No charges were filed. It was deemed a domestic incident and there are far more of those that do NOT result in charges than those who DO.
I don't think that's right, although red flag laws vary across the states. In FL, the police just need to provide evidence that there is a risk.
sorry; reply is above; I clicked in the wrong place
No, suspect was not barred (he had no convictions on record). His bomb threat case was never pursued. Record was probably sealed then. And it was over a year ago so protection orders long defunct. Nobody ever looked to see if he had weapons at the time, reportedly, but they would have been returned to him. And El Paso is a gun-toting county and "second amendment sanctuary" under the sheriff.
Perhaps the citizens of El Paso county want to think about whether they want to be a bomb making sanctuary.
come to think of it, maybe the anti-gun crown out to consider doing some advertising for Colorado Springs along those lines. It is a hell of a tourist destination, so some national advertising about how the whole area is a second amendment sanctuary might be interesting. Maybe spice it up with a suggestion that you might just get to see a real western gun-fight (images of body-armored guys with AR-15's recreating a high noon duel).
With a suggestion to tourists to wear their own body armor when they go there.
Rentable body armor for tourists! Mary, we're going to be rich!!!!
Lets check on what the rents are for shops at the Colorado Springs Airport!
Couldn't agree more, Charlie. If a law enforcement officer refuses to enforce the existing laws, he/she should be fired, charged and prosecuted as an accessory.
The same for any - and every - politician.
Pols are not all involved in enforcement. In fact few are. And even if they are - enforcing to what extent? Thus the police with limited resources don't spend as much time on minor offenses and so on. and if thinking about immigration laws, if police in places like Paterson NJ or Astoria (Queens) started to ask immigration related questions of every witness to a crime, the witnesses would clam up. But in the Colorado shooting, the refusal to enforce was pointed and terribly misguided.
I was thinking of the concept of politicians who are reluctant to enforce established law on politicians, including former but not sitting Presidents. Yes, I understand there is no point in charging if there is not probability of conviction. IтАЩm worried the DOJ is going to run out of runway before they take off. It would be a convenient excuse personally but it would do untold damage to the United States as a democracy.