• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224:1119]

Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

He is wrong because hes using tragedy to further a radical agenda. No one is arguing that people getting shot isnt a problem (although gun crime is plummeting except in areas where they accuse cops of being racist), but using still-warm dead bodies for political reasons is very, very wrong...and disrespectful to the families and victims quite frankly.

How is wanting to curb violence a "radical agenda"?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

He is wrong because hes using tragedy to further a radical agenda. No one is arguing that people getting shot isnt a problem (although gun crime is plummeting except in areas where they accuse cops of being racist), but using still-warm dead bodies for political reasons is very, very wrong...and disrespectful to the families and victims quite frankly.

I have heard this before however events like this are only in the news for a few days and then everyone moves onto the next big story. It might not be to everyone's taste but I think this is the perfect time to bring up potential issues, while the fire is still hot.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

We do have a problem, it's not guns, it's our privatized healthcare system and anti tax ideology. There's almost no resources for mental health issues, and it's not profitable to provide effective mental health care.

Quite true.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Are you ready to accept that HOMICIDAL IDEATION is not a mental illness/decease? Or are we only going with the part of the wiki link that you copied and ignoring that which directly contradicts your WebMD assessment?

Here it is again: Homicidal ideation is not a disease itself, but may result from other illnesses such as psychosis and delirium. Psychosis, which accounts for 89% of admissions with homicidal ideation in one US study,[3] includes substance induced psychosis (e.g. amphetamine psychosis) and the psychoses related to schizophreniform disorder and schizophrenia. Delirium is often drug induced or secondary to general medical illness(es) (see ICD-10 Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders F05).

You have now taken your SECOND giant step into irony in this discussion. You accused me of basing my argument on something I read in Wikipedia... only to now try and defend your argument using... Wikipedia. :roll:

But it's funny to see you destroying your own argument here. My initial statement was that the shooter had a mental illness, you claimed he wasn't. I showed you that thoughts of homicidal ideation are classified under delirium in ICD-10. Now you have come back to prove me wrong by arguing that homicidal ideation is not mental illness, but rather a symptom of mental illness, meaning that those who present homicidal ideation are mentally ill, 89% of which are due to psychosis and the rest primarily substance induced mental illness.

So again, as I said, seeing a group of people at a bible study and thinking they were a threat to you worthy of killing you have presented clear evidence of mental illness through the clear display of homicidal ideation.

Wait, where did I say he was or he wasn't mentally ill? I've said there is no evidence to prove one way or another as of yet. That remains true, don't be stubborn. Admit you made a silly claim and back away. :shrug:

So what you are holding out for is some subset of the 11% that are not born of psychosis, and that vast majority of the cases that are clearly born of mental illness are just not good enough for you?

He told the mostly female Bible study group that he was there to stop them from raping white women... are you ready to accept my diagnosis yet?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

How is wanting to curb violence a "radical agenda"?

Because war is peace, ignorance is strength, and slavery is freedom.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Data on use of force has nothing to do with actual policies across different departments. If you're going to waste forum bandwidth, you should at least make an effort.


Of course it does. That report detailed numerous differences between policies and individuals. Didn't I say conspiracy theorists don't accept facts?

You keep beating around the bush, insinuating on numerous threads that something "sinister" is going on in these police departments. Cut to the chase, already - what is it? What do YOU think accounts for the differences in the selective cases you've chosen?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

You have now taken your SECOND giant step into irony in this discussion. You accused me of basing my argument on something I read in Wikipedia... only to now try and defend your argument using... Wikipedia. :roll:

But it's funny to see you destroying your own argument here. My initial statement was that the shooter had a mental illness, you claimed he wasn't. I showed you that thoughts of homicidal ideation are classified under delirium in ICD-10. Now you have come back to prove me wrong by arguing that homicidal ideation is not mental illness, but rather a symptom of mental illness, meaning that those who present homicidal ideation are mentally ill, 89% of which are due to psychosis and the rest primarily substance induced mental illness.

So again, as I said, seeing a group of people at a bible study and thinking they were a threat to you worthy of killing you have presented clear evidence of mental illness through the clear display of homicidal ideation.



So what you are holding out for is some subset of the 11% that are not born of psychosis, and that vast majority of the cases that are clearly born of mental illness are just not good enough for you?

He told the mostly female Bible study group that he was there to stop them from raping white women... are you ready to accept my diagnosis yet?

At the risk of further inflaming you, I point you back to post #368.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

It's not only a defense but shows that the laws take into account what people are thinking or what motivates their actions.

So you feel that way about terrorism laws? We should wipe them off of the books as well?

When it comes to mental illness and the law it doesn't really follow the same definitions. The Legal system doesn't really care if you were suffering from a mental illness as such. What the law cares about is whether your mental illness caused you to believe you were doing good when you murdered someone. If you know you are breaking the law when you commit murder then the law treats you as sane in the eyes of the law.

In the case of Dylann Roof it will likely to be hard to plead mental illness in court even if it can be shown that he really was suffering from the delusion that all black people rape white women and deserve to die.. the reason is that after he murdered those innocent people he chose to run, clearly showing he knew what he did was against the law.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

At the risk of further inflaming you, I point you back to post #368.

I am discussing mental illness as a clinical term, not a legal term. Radical Muslims are bat guano crazy too.

And like anyone else who seeks to do violence I pray that they will one day find healing in the message of love and peace of Jesus Christ even though I know my own faults make me a hypocrite for wanting to fast track most of them on their appointment with the Almighty.
 
Last edited:
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

It's not only a defense but shows that the laws take into account what people are thinking or what motivates their actions.

The former ones really are used only in defense. Hate crime tagging has the opposite effect - it enhances the punishment. The truth is - unless someone kills someone accidentally or they're on drugs or something, their intent is usually hateful. The jilted husband literally hates his wife's new boyfriend and that drives him to kill. That hatred has the same devastating effect - yet that man won't be charged with a hate crime. It's just silliness. Charges should be charges and, if there is some horrible intent, the jury should hear it in the courtroom.

I have a feeling we'll regret this era in our judicial system because it's going to make some feel unfairly punished. Down the road, I think we'll look back and say - we should have treated everyone equally. A killer is a killer is a killer.


So you feel that way about terrorism laws? We should wipe them off of the books as well?

Well, first, I don't think they're any more effective than the death penalty is at reducing the risk of terror attacks. By and large, those willing to commit terrorist attacks are quite ready to pay the ultimate price. These are folks who seek attention for their horrific crimes and we've already given them a spiffy name - terrorists. Oooohhh, how scary. Just feeds into their power grab.

Do you think labeling someone as a terrorist makes them less likely to commit harmful acts? Isn't it a bit on the sensationalist side? Look what it did for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Put his likeness smack dab on the cover of Rolling Stones, and made the little girls swoon. That was really effective, wasn't it?

Bottom line - I don't think the scary labels work - and I think there's a good chance that they'll work against us.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I am discussing mental illness as a clinical term, not a legal term. Radical Muslims are bat guano crazy too.

And like anyone else who seeks to do violence I pray that they will one day find healing in the message of love and peace of Jesus Christ even though I know my own faults make me a hypocrite for wanting to fast track most of them on their appointment with the Almighty.

This response does not answer my questions.
 
Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Drugs were involved with the kid. He has apparently been known to take suboxone. Used to treat opiate addiction. Saw that on cnn. I will be looking up sideeffects when I get home.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Drugs were involved with the kid. He has apparently been known to take suboxone. Used to treat opiate addiction. Saw that on cnn. I will be looking up sideeffects when I get home.

5c3327685064733f6b1d20810abbced8.jpg
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

You have now taken your SECOND giant step into irony in this discussion. You accused me of basing my argument on something I read in Wikipedia... only to now try and defend your argument using... Wikipedia. :roll:

I didn't accuse you of anything. I pointed out that you didn't bother to actually read your own source. Good grief, reading comprehension REALLY is hard for you.

But it's funny to see you destroying your own argument here. My initial statement was that the shooter had a mental illness, you claimed he wasn't.

Nope, I claimed there is no evidence to suggest he was mentally ill. There isn't. Reading comprehension. Use it.

I showed you that thoughts of homicidal ideation are classified under delirium in ICD-10. Now you have come back to prove me wrong by arguing that homicidal ideation is not mental illness, but rather a symptom of mental illness,

It's almost like you didn't read it: The source said MAY result from mental illness, not that it is specifically a symptom of it. Again, reading comprehension.

meaning that those who present homicidal ideation are mentally ill, 89% of which are due to psychosis and the rest primarily substance induced mental illness.

Lol, again reading comprehension, what the source is stating is that psychosis includes substance induced psychosis. Seriously, if you can't even read the basics of the very sources you're reading, why go into the more complex stuff that has commas?

So again, as I said, seeing a group of people at a bible study and thinking they were a threat to you worthy of killing you have presented clear evidence of mental illness through the clear display of homicidal ideation.

Still trying this silly argument? I'd give it up after failing so horribly to comprehend your own source.

So what you are holding out for is some subset of the 11% that are not born of psychosis, and that vast majority of the cases that are clearly born of mental illness are just not good enough for you?

Good grief, you do realize that the source states that 50 to 91% of the US population has had homicidal ideation? If your reading comprehension was anywhere near as good as you pretend it is, we'd then have to say that 45% to 81% of the US is mentally ill. However, the most liberal estimates put it somewhere at ~20% (or 1 in 5 Americans). Do you not see a contradiction within this? How only ~20% of the population can be mentally ill by the most liberal estimates but if your flawed attempt to play psychologist works, psychologists have been off by a a factor of 2 or 3 at best?

That should give you a damn clue as to how silly your entire statement is. Homicidal ideation is the thought of wanting to kill somebody. It's not a mental illness, it can be a symptom of it, but not necessarily. However, even with that said, there is no evidence to suggest that this person was mentally ill. That remains true. :shrug:

He told the mostly female Bible study group that he was there to stop them from raping white women... are you ready to accept my diagnosis yet?

He blamed all blacks for perceived crimes. Your diagnosis is WebMD nonsense. :shrug:
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Bingo! And that is why I'd like to know if he was or has been in counseling, and the types of drugs he has taken, legally and otherwise. Most modern day young mass murderers have been connected to SSRIs or SNRIs. Those drugs can alter personalities, especially young people. The point being so many factors can be involved that we have no earthly idea what caused Roof to act as he did. It is important, however, that we find out.

I know a bazillion Christians and conservatives and I have yet to know one personally who has mass murdered people.

What a coincidence--so do I! I even know people of other faiths and secularists and even liberals and skateboarders and video game players who aren't mass murderers!

I'm very dubious about the source (Alex Jones, and his link to CBS News doesn't report what he says it does, at least that I saw), but according to Infowars:

According to a CBS News report, earlier this year when cops searched Roof after he was acting suspiciously inside a Bath and Body Works store, they found “orange strips” that Roof told officers was suboxone, a narcotic that is used to treat opiate addiction.
Suboxone is a habit-forming drug that has been connected with sudden outbursts of aggression. » Charleston Shooter Was on Drug Linked to Violent Outbursts Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Of course it does. That report detailed numerous differences between policies and individuals.

Good grief, I'll humor your trolling and weird obsession with me:

Wakey, wakey, no need for eggs and bakey because I can smell the bull**** from here. It's a simple question. There are no procedures so radically different when it comes to approaching the same supposed threat. As a matter of fact, the facts in these cases show that if police officers can respond without the suspect ending up dead in one scenario that it is possible to do it with others where the threat is nowhere near as high. Keep trying.

Here is the report:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-1.pdf

Emerging from the research is a more complete understanding of the frequency with which certain types of tactics are used and what types of weapons are displayed, threatened, or actually used. The consistent findings across all six jurisdictions are that most arrests (more than 80 percent) did not involve force by police (ex-cluding handcuffing) or by suspects. In 98 percent of arrests where force was used, no weapon was used, threatened, or even displayed. When police used some form of weaponless tactic (hitting, kicking, wrestling, etc.), the most frequent tactic involved only grabbing (about half thetime)

Consistently, officers reacted the same exact way in the overwhelming majority of arrests. Here is my contention:

the facts in these cases show that if police officers can respond without the suspect ending up dead in one scenario that it is possible to do it with others where the threat is nowhere near as high.

And your silly response:

What you might be smelling is your scorched idea, because you obviously know very little about law enforcement policies. You might want to do a little research to find out just how wrong you really are.

If the majority of police officers managed to resolve similar incidents the same way, how is it possible for others not to when the threat is not as high? Wait... there is more!

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330-1.pdf

xi said:
The first tactic used in an incident is nearly always the least severe use of force on the continuum; the second is almost always the second-most lenient; and so on, with very few exceptions.

This statement shows that there is really no difference in policies. Cops across the board (and as per the study) treat people in accordance to the state of the person. So how is it possible for my statement to be wrong if the policies for that treatment and their use is the same across the board?
 
Last edited:
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'm not afraid of anything. I'm also not someone who participates in faulty analysis from the cheap seats.

Out of curiosity, if the murderer happened to be "conservative", self-identified so, as you clearly for some reason hope he is, what about his affinity to conservative ideology would lead him to murder 9 black people in a church? I'd love to know because I sure don't want to wake up one day and find myself taking target practice in a neighbourhood church. So save me, please.

Why do you so fear anyone examinong a possible connection between extremist politics and acts of mental illness?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Bro...


29BE568800000578-3129109-image-m-40_1434636503324.jpg



see those flags?

1. apartheid era South Africa
2. White rule era Rhodesia



body cams? I don't think so.

Okay, that face, that picture...I will have nightmares. I have to catch up on the hundreds of posts in this thread....he looks like an amazingly angry young man. Crazy expression.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Okay, that face, that picture...I will have nightmares. I have to catch up on the hundreds of posts in this thread....he looks like an amazingly angry young man. Crazy expression.

If I was looking at that photo and not knowing what he had committed, i would say deep sadness and pain within.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'm sorry, I know I should read all 400 posts. He had a criminal record? For what?

Why does a boy from the US wear clothing that shows flags of Rhodesia?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'm sorry, I know I should read all 400 posts. He had a criminal record? For what?

Why does a boy from the US wear clothing that shows flags of Rhodesia?

Believe it was cocaine.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'm sorry, I know I should read all 400 posts. He had a criminal record? For what?

Why does a boy from the US wear clothing that shows flags of Rhodesia?

I don't know about the flag, but Roof had a misdemeanor charge of trespassing and a felony drug charge.
 
Back
Top Bottom