Talking about the Fort Hood shooting today...

[C_Felix]

I had a work-place violence training type of thing today.
Signs to look for...
What do to when the #2 hits the fan...
...etc...

Fort Hood came up as an example.
(This is the basics of the conversation.)

A few of us during lunch started talking about it.
"Well, there were signs, weren't there?" one said.
"Yes, I think so." I added.
"Well, why didn't they do something?"
"Who are they?"
"The people on the base, the people in charge. Couldn't they have done something?"
"Could have," I began, "Do you mean sending him to a shrink or something."
"Yes. Force him to go to a shrink."
"If they did something, wouldn't that be almost guilty until proven innocent? I mean, sending him off to see a shrink because we think he might do something..."
"No. He's not guilty at all" she cut in.
"You're making him see someone because of signs. He didn't do anything. Plus, if his mind is made up, its made up. You can't jail him to prevent him from doing anything..."



So...In a case like that, where someone is showing signs of possibly going postal, what can be done?
Does intervention really work?
Can "we" legally act (and force him to go to a shrink) because we have a feeling and he hasn't done anything?
Yes, just like in the movie "Minority Report"


(I'm really tired and I know I'm not articulating this well, but, hopefully you see where I'm going with this.)

 

[uk_dave]

Restrict their access to guns.

 

[slingblade]

So...In a case like that, where someone is showing signs of possibly going postal, what can be done?
Does intervention really work?
Can "we" legally act (and force him to go to a shrink) because we have a feeling and he hasn't done anything?
Yes, just like in the movie "Minority Report"


(I'm really tired and I know I'm not articulating this well, but, hopefully you see where I'm going with this.)

Prevention equals restriction. The only way to prevent someone doing a given thing is to restrict his life to the point where doing that thing would be impossible in any circumstance imaginable, no matter how unlikely or extreme.

I don't find that acceptable.


I'd have asked the woman who thinks people should be "forced to see a shrink" how effective she thinks it would be if I were to force her to see a shrink, based on my subjective evaluation of her behavior and what it might mean. Of course, I can't be certain, but I'd think her first thought would be, "but I'm normal!" Because I've found that when people propose an idea like that, they often mean it would be fine for everyone but them. Or their family. Or their friends. It would be fine for, you know, "those people."

Frankly, people often "show signs" of being dangerous, because people are inherently and potentially dangerous. That doesn't mean they are, in fact, a danger to anyone.

I'm not at all a fan of prevention of that sort. Potential crime isn't crime. It's only potential. If people were to be restricted in some way based on what they might do, we'd all be restricted. We're all capable of anything, given the right combination of circumstances.

Intervention does sometimes work. I'm not saying it never does. But the inherent problems I can foresee with that person's suggestion give me a great deal of pause.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I think offering people support (possibly in the form of a counsellor/psychologist etc)when they don't seem to be coping well is a better idea than forcing people people to see a shrink because you think they might be dangerous.

 

[Mark6]

Restrict their access to guns.

You may or may not have been joking, but I think it is entirely legitimate in this situation. Major Hassan was (actually, still is) in the Army. The Army can and does subject its personnel to all sorts of restrictions and involuntary tests which in civilian life would be unacceptable without a court order -- in part BECAUSE these personnel have access to guns. So no, I do not think that ordering Major Hasan -- or any soldier, -- to undertake psychological tests when he shows signs of dangerous behavior is at all out of the line. And if he refuses, kick him out of the Army -- possibly with Bad Conduct Discharge, for disobeying a direct order.

 

[patchbunny]

So...In a case like that, where someone is showing signs of possibly going postal, what can be done?
Does intervention really work?

Dunno, but I fail to see what's wrong with pulling the individual aside and having a friendly chat. Being able to vent with someone who is willing to listen certainly can help relieve stress.

 

[AlBell]

Restrict their access to guns.

And make sure you have one.

 

[Elind]

(I'm really tired and I know I'm not articulating this well, but, hopefully you see where I'm going with this.)

Yes, and no.

 

[GreNME]

Wait, wasn't he just a Muslim turriss?

 

[Travis]

A Muslim tourist?

Yeah, some of them are pushy asking for you take pictures of them but what do they have to do with the Fort Hood shooting?

 

[C_Felix]

Yes, and no.

It is morally justifiable and/or legally permissable to intervene before someone does something (like the Fort Hood shootings) because he's showings "signs".

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It is morally justifiable and/or legally permissable to intervene before someone does something (like the Fort Hood shootings) because he's showings "signs".

What is the sensitivity and specificity of using these particular signs to predict future violence?

 

[Puppycow]

Restrict their access to guns.

Can't. It's a constitutional right.

 

[EvilSmurf]

Can't. It's a constitutional right.

AFAIK, the Military can restrict someone's first, fourth and fifth amendment rights (at the very least), why should second amendment rights be sacrosanct?

 

[hgc]

AFAIK, the Military can restrict someone's first, fourth and fifth amendment rights (at the very least), why should second amendment rights be sacrosanct?

The second is the bestest of them all. That's why.

Charton Heston said so.

 

[Mark6]

AFAIK, the Military can restrict someone's first, fourth and fifth amendment rights (at the very least), why should second amendment rights be sacrosanct?

As I recall from my stint in the military, carrying around an unauthorized weapon was a VERY bad offence. So yes, the military most certainly can restrict someone's second amentment rights.

 

[JWideman]

Military justice isn't the same as civilian justice. If some guy who handles explosive ordinance one day says he's going to kill someone, even jokingly, it will likely be treated as a real threat. He'll lose his security clearance, be sent for psychological evaluation, and probably get kicked out. If he's smart, he'll say he was under a lot of stress and it will be a medical discharge instead of bad conduct.
Of course, it has a lot to do with what clearances one has. If I had made such a threat when I was in, people would have laughed and said "What, you'll shove them in a washing machine?" Likewise, Hasan didn't have the clearance or access that would have made him an obvious danger. He had purchased his own weapons and he wouldn't have been allowed to carry them around. He didn't use his authority to enter a vital location - he didn't HAVE that authority.
As for forcing him to see a shrink, I'm not sure what that would accomplish. He WAS a shrink.
No, there's no way this would have been prevented, short of kicking people out based on their religious beliefs, which is NOT going to happen.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

AFAIK, the Military can restrict someone's first, fourth and fifth amendment rights (at the very least), why should second amendment rights be sacrosanct?

As I recall from my stint in the military, carrying around an unauthorized weapon was a VERY bad offence. So yes, the military most certainly can restrict someone's second amentment rights.

In fact, the base he went onto to shoot up --IIRC - did not allow the personnel to carry weapons inside the gate.

So as it turns out, problem solved. He WAS restricted from carrying weapons at the time of the attack.

 

[Ranb]

The bases I have been on while I was in the Navy seemed to be large "gun-free" zones. No one except security was allowed to carry firearms. Guns owned by Sailors in the barracks were required to be locked up at the armory or off-base. Guns were allowed to be stored by families in base housing, but if they were taken out of the house it was only to go to a hunting area, target range or other place off base where they were allowed.

Restricting access to guns and actually preventing guns from being accessible are two very different things that many people tend to forget.

Ranb