Officer at Florida School Waited Outside Instead of Confronting Shooter

Naio posted:

Any other solutions to the mental health issue? Or do we just ban guns so the mentally ill can't get their hands on them?

Lots of luck getting the ACLU to come to the table and thus lots of luck getting 60 votes in the senate for a federal solution and it probably is best left to the states anyway. In times past state institutions were appallingly bad and through ACLU lawsuits and legislation many people who can't function in the real world are out in society. To place people in state care requires a judge's signature and considerable effort by state mental health employees and lawyers. Naturally it is best for those who have minor problems to get treatment outside of mental wards; but people who are a threat to themselves and others should be definitely placed in institutions.

The tricky part naturally is finding the funds to do things properly and getting politicians and state employees to do their jobs. I might note that the problem has been around for quite awhile:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10....html?pagewanted=all

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

Any other solutions to the mental health issue? Or do we just ban guns so the mentally ill can't get their hands on them?

Lots of luck getting the ACLU to come to the table and thus lots of luck getting 60 votes in the senate for a federal solution and it probably is best left to the states anyway. In times past state institutions were appallingly bad and through ACLU lawsuits and legislation many people who can't function in the real world are out in society. To place people in state care requires a judge's signature and considerable effort by state mental health employees and lawyers. Naturally it is best for those who have minor problems to get treatment outside of mental wards; but people who are a threat to themselves and others should be definitely placed in institutions.

The tricky part naturally is finding the funds to do things properly and getting politicians and state employees to do their jobs. I might note that the problem has been around for quite awhile:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10....html?pagewanted=all

It's tricky but isn't it worth the effort?

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:

Any other solutions to the mental health issue? Or do we just ban guns so the mentally ill can't get their hands on them?

Lots of luck getting the ACLU to come to the table and thus lots of luck getting 60 votes in the senate for a federal solution and it probably is best left to the states anyway. In times past state institutions were appallingly bad and through ACLU lawsuits and legislation many people who can't function in the real world are out in society. To place people in state care requires a judge's signature and considerable effort by state mental health employees and lawyers. Naturally it is best for those who have minor problems to get treatment outside of mental wards; but people who are a threat to themselves and others should be definitely placed in institutions.

The tricky part naturally is finding the funds to do things properly and getting politicians and state employees to do their jobs. I might note that the problem has been around for quite awhile:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10....html?pagewanted=all

It's tricky but isn't it worth the effort?

It might be worth the effort, but if it were an easy issue to handle; almost 60 years of bad decisions wouldn't have been made. Because of the "snake pit" conditions of years past, the ACLU will fight any law that makes commitment any easier than the present mess we have. I also suspect that other interest groups will fight tooth and nail to keep their share of the state budget from being diverted to mental health programs and state institutions.

Recratican posted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...school-shooting.html

So now we know the deputies were following orders. Makes a big difference, doesn't it?

Not really; from your posted article:

"The order goes against the sheriff's department's policy to immediately enter the site of a shooting until the suspect is in custody. "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...g.html#ixzz5917tPG2p 

It does reinforce the fact that goobermint failure from top to bottom killed a lot of innocent people. 

Let's see how that works...

The sheriff issues a policy via a booklet or handout or oral orientation that says "go in." This would have been how long ago for these deputies?

The deputies' superior says during a crisis not to go in, but wait for SWAT (whom we assume can actually hit a moving target, unlike the deputies).

Which order do you think is uppermost in their minds? Do you actually think under those conditions, any one of them would have thought to ask if the sheriff had approved the captain's orders or would that simply be a logical assumption?

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×