• 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]

It is a serious problem. But both sides of the political spectrum like to exploit various tragedies for political gain. Both sides tend to single out various groups as the problem. Truth is it is across the board in this country which makes it easy as hell to find examples whether it be white crime, black, Muslim, Christian, immigrants, citizens, tall people short people, ect. America is becoming more and more violent. From what I see on various sites, people, news agencies, politicians, most people only want to address part of the problem.

Well done.

The key to analysis of any problem is finding the actual root cause.

This is akin to peeling back many layers of the proverbial onion to find the real cause.
 
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.

I'll fill you in:

1. People are confidently claiming he's mentally ill, even though nobody here has the expertise or knowledge to make such an assessment in a serious manner.
2. His views on race can't be part of the discussion, I don't know why...
3. Some people are still not entirely sure he was racist, even though the guy is wearing the flags of countries that stopped existing because... you know.. people didn't like racism anymore.

Be ready, it's quite the ride. There are 3 kinds of people in this thread. Those who want him disassociated from the right, those who seek to associate him with the right, and those who are simply saying that it's too soon to know anything for sure. I fall in the last one. I don't care whether he's right or left, doesn't matter to me. Hell, even if the guy was mentally ill, and there is no indication of it from any source worth taking into consideration, none of it suggests that the mental illness caused the violence.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Why do you so fear anyone examinong a possible connection between extremist politics and acts of mental illness?

Who said I feared that? Why are you so obsessed with blaming a murderous act on politics?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'll fill you in:

1. People are confidently claiming he's mentally ill, even though nobody here has the expertise or knowledge to make such an assessment in a serious manner.
2. His views on race can't be part of the discussion, I don't know why...
3. Some people are still not entirely sure he was racist, even though the guy is wearing the flags of countries who stopped existing because... you know.. people didn't like racism anymore.

Be ready, it's quite the ride. There are 3 kinds of people in this thread. Those who want him disassociated from the right, those who seek to associate him with the right, and those who are simply saying that it's too soon to know anything for sure.

Thanks for the synopsis. Do we have anything to indicate the answer to which of the 3 groups you mention at the end is right?

He looks nutz, that's for sure. But then again Ted Bundy was handsome, and he was nutz, so looks aren't everything. Is he American? WTF is his interest in Rhodesia? We have 2 Rhodesian Ridgebacks, and I dont' think my kids even know where Rhodesia is (was).
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Thanks for the synopsis. Do we have anything to indicate the answer to which of the 3 groups you mention at the end is right?

He looks nutz, that's for sure. But then again Ted Bundy was handsome, and he was nutz, so looks aren't everything. Is he American? WTF is his interest in Rhodesia? We have 2 Rhodesian Ridgebacks, and I dont' think my kids even know where Rhodesia is (was).

Given his apparent outlook on race, his interest in Rhodesia and South Africa isn't hard to fathom.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'll fill you in:

1. People are confidently claiming he's mentally ill, even though nobody here has the expertise or knowledge to make such an assessment in a serious manner.
2. His views on race can't be part of the discussion, I don't know why...
3. Some people are still not entirely sure he was racist, even though the guy is wearing the flags of countries who stopped existing because... you know.. people didn't like racism anymore.

Be ready, it's quite the ride. There are 3 kinds of people in this thread. Those who want him disassociated from the right, those who seek to associate him with the right, and those who are simply saying that it's too soon to know anything for sure.

1 more. The ones who are looking at probabilities.

He is likely to have some kind of mental health issue. It seems like drug abuse now given his background and one drug he is known to have taken has a 1-10% chance on impacting psychiatric functions.

Mental illness doesn't mean someone will become a mass shooter. But remember that many shooters are mentally ill. There is a link and we don't know why. Personally I want to look at drugs. This isn't going to be textbook because he targeted a specific race. But certain actions he made seem very odd. And he has a criminal record.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Thanks for the synopsis. Do we have anything to indicate the answer to which of the 3 groups you mention at the end is right?

To be honest, I couldn't tell you. What I know is that he planned this out, probably took a cue from past incidents (see: burning of black churches), and was coherent enough to find out meeting times at this church. I'd put him in the Timothy McVeigh camp but similar to the lone wolf attack we see from some radical Muslims in the US. He probably read a bunch of things on the internet, got himself pumped up by Stormfront trolls and decided to go and put himself in the history books for the same cause David Duke types write about.

He looks nutz, that's for sure. But then again Ted Bundy was handsome, and he was nutz, so looks aren't everything. Is he American? WTF is his interest in Rhodesia? We have 2 Rhodesian Ridgebacks, and I dont' think my kids even know where Rhodesia is (was).

I'd never heard of Rhodesia before Blood Diamond. But yeah, the whole thing stinks to high heaven and I'd be interested in seeing what is on his computer and what type of sites he visited.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Just listened this hour to a South Carolina GOP State Senator named Tom Davis on the Ed Show for several minutes uninterrupted.
Just an incredibly wonderful testimonial to State Senator/Reverend Pinckney as he knew him for 14 years.
I hope some of you from all political persuasions get to see the remarks of State Sen. Davis .
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Given his apparent outlook on race, his interest in Rhodesia and South Africa isn't hard to fathom.

Wonder where the little **** got those views?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Wonder where the little **** got those views?

Who knows? I'm sure we'll find out more. Could have been from his upbringing, could have been from the interwebs. Or both.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

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

I'm just questioning you on your own posts - that's hardly trolling or obsessive.

But, Bravo! I'm glad to see that you're finally taking an interest in why different officers respond differently.


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.

Possible, yes, but let's examine what the reports says about officers that use force. Quotations from the report.

Some situational factors may increase the
chances that force of questionable legitimacy
will be used. For example, officers sometimes
use force on the slightest provocation follow-
ing a high-speed car chase, when adrenaline
levels are high. They may use force more fre-
quently when they are alone, because they
feel more vulnerable or believe that they can
get away with it. They may use force more
frequently as a way of emphasizing their
authority when suspects are disrespectful or when there is a hostile audience to the
encounter.

That indicates that officers respond differently in different situations. Note that one of the reasons was if they "believe they can get away with it." Yes, there are some bad cops out there. Disrespecting law enforcement in general, is just silly. Every case has to weighed on the evidence, which is why whatever parallel you were trying to draw is moot.


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!

Not a bad point, actually, and you're right - there is more. From the report:


About 1 percent of people reporting con-
tacts with police indicated that officers
used force or threatened force. In the ma-
jority of those instances, respondents said
that their own actions, such as threatening
police or resisting arrest, may have pro-
voked officers.

We've seen a lot of that lately, haven't we? The resisting arrest thing. It's a good thing even suspects understand when their actions trigger unwanted force against them.


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?

I don't know that poster or why you feel the need to cite his post as evidence of anything, but you didn't actually make a statement - you made vague insinuations but you never came right out and stated your theory, although I asked you to do so. You've also made the comment about the "threat being higher" in some incidents than in others, but, hopefully, you understand that it's the officers who have to determine to what extent they feel threatened - not you. In the case of the wife killer, perhaps the officers knew the shooter and didn't feel threatened.

All kinds of scenarios are in play in these incidents and drawing false parallels doesn't serve anything.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Wonder where the little **** got those views?

My guess is the internet.

Apparently he spent allot of time in his room alonen
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

My guess is the internet.

Apparently he spent allot of time in his room alonen

Yup, that is a common cause.

Mommy and Daddy were either involved or stupidly clueless.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'm just questioning you on your own posts - that's hardly trolling or obsessive.

But, Bravo! I'm glad to see that you're finally taking an interest in why different officers respond differently.

You do realize your source doesn't support this right? It shows that across the board officers reacted similarly and policy seemed the same in the overwhelming majority of cases. That is what I have stated from the beginning and you claimed was wrong. There simply isn't a wide variation in policies and your own source confirms that by the tactics used/preferred by officers and their outcomes.

Possible, yes, but let's examine what the reports says about officers that use force. Quotations from the report.

That indicates that officers respond differently in different situations.

Good grief, it's like you post just to waste bandwidth. Are ANY of the factors above applicable to the Tamir Rice incident? No? Then there is no reason to believe that the officers couldn't have reacted in the same way as the overwhelming majority of their colleagues. The rest of your post is meaningless drivel. What does that leave us with? The fact that this "many factors" argument to determine the outcome is simply nonsense.

The options available to police are nearly identical as they concern use of tactics and escalations. That is what YOUR article shows. The resolution to these incidents is nearly indentical, once again ACROSS THE BOARD and in spite of "many factors". That demonstrates without a doubt that if we can have situations where cops can apprehend dangerous and armed suspects without violence, there is absolutely no reason for them to not be able to deal with 13 year olds and their toys. Are we done here? Or are you going to make another post where you simply go on and on without an actual point?
 
Last edited:
Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

I'm not going to read most of the comments in detail but I cringe whenever mental illness is brought up. It tends to be associated with stereotypes of insanity and public danger.

The usual replies: more beds, more restrictive environments, more punishment for being mentally ill.

Yes, we need more beds. But guys, mental illness isn't a public enemy where anyone with it needs to be locked up and have the key thrown away.

The destruction of the mental health system is the utter lack of respect for giving people treatment options and support, only giving them the options of being put into police custody or if you're lucky, in the hospital. People have wrongly believed that the destruction of the mental health care system came with deinstitutionalization. That's incredibly asinine.

Realize that kids are having their families broken up to get treatment. Parents are often forced to give up custody of their kids just to get needed mental health treatments. We don't treat other health issues this way, but it's become government policy to break up families in return for healthcare. Service providers do not coordinate well with each other, making it impossible for people in emergency situations to get the help they need. There's no community services, nothing. Meanwhile the entire apparatus requires people to wait until **** hits the fan to get the help they need.

We need a massive infrastructure development at the community level. People with mental illness are incredibly incredibly unlikely to be a public danger. They are, however, being seriously maligned by society who thinks it's appropriate to wait until Stage 4 to give anyone any help, and if they get help, we want them to stop being treated like American citizens.
 
Last edited:
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Yup, that is a common cause.

Mommy and Daddy were either involved or stupidly clueless.

It could be the former, but the latter is far more common in these stories. The Columbine shooters' parents come to mind.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Funny how right wingers love to say Muslims are threats yet more people in America have been killed by right wing attacks than Muslim extremists since 9/11. Condolences to the victims.

This was a right wing attack?

Was Newt Gingrich driving the getaway car?
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Yup, that is a common cause.

Mommy and Daddy were either involved or stupidly clueless.

Sometimes it's hard to see these things man. My parents thought something was wrong with me because when some kids would go outside to play, I'd stay indoors with my sketchbooks. I'd say I hated the way the sun hit my cheeks, but they thought I was slightly antisocial. I just really enjoyed coloring and drawing. As I grew older, I figured out a way to balance it all and they toned down but it's not always that easy to notice. The kid may have been in his room playing video games or reading and they just thought he was the intellectual type or the geeky kid. So they might be a little clueless but sometimes it's just that people get the wrong idea.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

What a dumb ass. Leaving off poor target selection, what piss poor execution and failure to meet his own objectives. Only idiots use guns for something like this. They are low lethality weapons and a waste on group targets.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Who knows? I'm sure we'll find out more. Could have been from his upbringing, could have been from the interwebs. Or both.

He is reported to have been busted for drugs in April and reported to have gotten a gun from his dad for his birthday in April. What's up with that? It would be interesting to know which came first. If dad bought his son a gun after his drug bust I'd like to know what the hell dad was thinking.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

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.

Sandy Hook was in the news....then a couple months later Congress was voting on gun control laws. Thankfully none of that crap passed.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

Yup, that is a common cause.

Mommy and Daddy were either involved or stupidly clueless.

There are stories out there trying to piece together a profile of the shooter. Some of the kids he went to school with said he was a pill popper. He had pending charges for possession of prescription drugs in February and trespassing in April of this year. On his Facebook page his friends were both black and white.

It isn't just the fact he chose black folks as his victims. He also chose people of faith congregated at church of worship to carry out his heinous crime. A place where there wouldn't likely be anyone around to physically stop him.

So while everyone tries to figure out this 21 year old man's reasons for what he did and who is to blame, (the drugs, the parents, the internet,) it is important to remember sometimes there are those among us who are just evil.
 
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]

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

Wanting to curb violence and actually curbing violence are not the same thing. Gun control has NEVER EVER EVER TIMES A BILLION curbed violence.

Perhaps I should call it an Insanity Agenda? Gun control certainly fits the dictionary definition.



Curbing violence isnt the agenda anyway.....curbing civilian firearm ownership is. Hence why Bozo made executive action to stop WWII M1 Garand rifles from being shipped back to the states. When is the last time you hear someone getting shot by one of those?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom