Talking about the Fort Hood shooting today...

C_Felix · 19th October 2010, 10:31 AM

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 · 19th October 2010, 10:33 AM

Restrict their access to guns.

slingblade · 19th October 2010, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by C_Felix

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 · 19th October 2010, 11:26 AM

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 · 19th October 2010, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

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 · 19th October 2010, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by C_Felix

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 · 19th October 2010, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Restrict their access to guns.

And make sure you have one.

Elind · 19th October 2010, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by C_Felix

(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 · 19th October 2010, 08:19 PM

Wait, wasn't he just a Muslim turriss?

Travis · 19th October 2010, 08:28 PM

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 · 20th October 2010, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Elind

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 · 20th October 2010, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by C_Felix

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 · 20th October 2010, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Restrict their access to guns.

Can't. It's a constitutional right.

EvilSmurf · 20th October 2010, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

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 · 20th October 2010, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by EvilSmurf

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 · 20th October 2010, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by EvilSmurf

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 · 20th October 2010, 11:10 AM

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 · 20th October 2010, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by EvilSmurf

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

Originally Posted by Mark6

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 · 20th October 2010, 02:24 PM

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

19th October 2010, 10:31 AM	#1
C_Felix Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Right outside Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,041	Talking about the Fort Hood shooting today... 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.)

19th October 2010, 11:22 AM	#3
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by C_Felix 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.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

19th October 2010, 11:26 AM	#4
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,351	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.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

19th October 2010, 12:39 PM	#5
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	Originally Posted by uk_dave 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.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

19th October 2010, 01:08 PM	#6
patchbunny Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Location: Right about... here. Posts: 1,551	Originally Posted by C_Felix 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.
	__________________ "So, they laugh at my boner, will they? I'll show them! I'll show them how many boners the Joker can make!" -- The Joker, Batman #66

19th October 2010, 10:33 AM	#2
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Restrict their access to guns.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

19th October 2010, 02:15 PM	#7
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,500	Originally Posted by uk_dave Restrict their access to guns. And make sure you have one.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,500	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

19th October 2010, 07:04 PM	#8
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by C_Felix (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.

19th October 2010, 08:19 PM	#9
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Wait, wasn't he just a Muslim turriss?
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

19th October 2010, 08:28 PM	#10
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,943	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?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

20th October 2010, 06:05 AM	#11
C_Felix Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Right outside Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,041	Originally Posted by Elind 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".

20th October 2010, 08:07 AM	#12
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,351	Originally Posted by C_Felix 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?
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

20th October 2010, 08:40 AM	#13
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,761	Originally Posted by uk_dave Restrict their access to guns. Can't. It's a constitutional right.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

20th October 2010, 10:09 AM	#14
EvilSmurf JREF Bowl Pool Champion Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The USA Posts: 1,551	Originally Posted by Puppycow 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?
	__________________ Ah, Australian animals. If it isn't venomous, carnivorous, or has foot-long claws, it's a tourist.

20th October 2010, 10:16 AM	#15
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,014	Originally Posted by EvilSmurf 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.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

20th October 2010, 10:51 AM	#16
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	Originally Posted by EvilSmurf 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.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,176	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

20th October 2010, 11:10 AM	#17
JWideman Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,241	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.

20th October 2010, 12:34 PM	#18
NoZed Avenger Bitter Whiner Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,313	Originally Posted by EvilSmurf AFAIK, the Military can restrict someone's first, fourth and fifth amendment rights (at the very least), why should second amendment rights be sacrosanct? Originally Posted by Mark6 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.
	__________________ [This Space Available. PM for Rates.]

20th October 2010, 02:24 PM	#19
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,108	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