https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...i-was-right/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.8e28a032dbad
I guess I was late to the game. I warned about this in 2012.
The government is clearly not going to stop these
terrorists. And
they're quite easy to find and catch.
So what are people of color to do now? Lay down and wait for some white supremacist to kill more of us en masse? Vote Republican so the killing can accelerate? Apparently the Left hates self defense and the Right will say "but self defense is violence!"
So what are we, the targets of white supremacist killings, going to do to survive?
Red:
If you mean it's easy to find and apprehend terrorists (presumably other types of villains too?) after they'd done their deed, yes, in most instances, these days, it is, particularly when the actus rei occur in cities and are "ad hominem" in nature. Perpetrators of deeds undertaken in rural locales and subterfuge may be harder to find and arrest.
When it comes to school-shooting terrorism, FBI agent, Mary Ellen O'Toole, and a small group of academics, law-enforcement professionals and psychologists began examining the phenomenon in the late 1990s and, in turn, published
some of the first research on mass shootings in schools. Two decades later, some of them say not much has changed: the risk factors they identified back then still apply; the recommendations they made remain valid. Yet, between then and now, the incidence of school shootings has increased and students are still dying. Politicians, then as now, bromidically say "we should be concerned about this and that." Um...O'Toole and others identified that 20 years ago. Did they not read that stuff? They've had 20 years to do so.
O'Toole is among the pioneers in the multidisciplinary field of
predictive policing. (Did you watch the Minority Report?) Predictive policing has between then and now developed models that allow for
predicting victims and offenders, as well as making predictions based on modus operandi. In short, predictive policing is what I'd call psychographics applied to law enforcement. It's taking data from disparate sources, analyzing them and then using results to anticipate, prevent and respond more effectively to future crime.
The following video provide a very high level view of how predictive policing works....now. As you'll see, it's pretty rudimentary and is nowhere near the level research and technology can enable....
Some LEOs, policy makers and researchers see predictive policing as the "wave" of the future.
For better or worse, however, US laws permit firms to use the most sophisticated modeling to abet them in separating consumers from their money, but LEOs haven't comparable imprimatur in fully exploiting it to disabuse society of criminal risk.
Predictive policing faces a host of hurdles, privacy and due process concerns are key among them. The NSA phone "debacle" adequately illustrates the nature of opposition "full bore" obstacles predictive policing faces.
Perhaps most challenging however is that we are currently saddled with legislators and politicos who, to abet political ends, decry and discount the validity of modern science findings of all sorts, including the science that makes predictive policing possible. Were these pols to embrace the findings of predictive policing, they'd have to disabuse themselves of some of the major political stances that provide them some of their most "nourishing" political "hay."
For example, if one embraces predictive policing to interdict shooters, one cannot logically also say that the very same information that allows predictive policing to identify "such and such" individuals as very high risk (probability) for executing a terrorist attack should nonetheless be allowed to buy a gun.
So, yes, it's "theoretically" easy to preemptively and reactively interdict criminals; we have the tools and knowledge to do so. It's hard to do so because -- partly on account of ignorance about the science and partly due to profit-loss concerns in certain industries -- there isn't the political will to avail the nation of our ability to do so.
