New laws, anyone?

[summer44]

Ya think? When they are being taken into custody now is not working. That's the entire issue.

Yeah but you want to lock somebody up cuz you think they might be crazy, I'm saying you got to have a little more than think they might be

 

[Bear44]

Whichever agency is responsible for the investigation. Quit playing games to try to win a debate. both of the recent Shooters warranted further investigations than what they were given before the shooting place. And had those investigations been more detailed we might have found reasons to detain either or both shooters

I'm not playing games. I'm pointing out that the current laws do not give LE agencies enough latitude to take potentially dangerous crazy people into custody.

You keep claiming that a more detailed investigation would have stopped this from happening. What makes you think that?

 

[Bear44]

Yeah but you want to lock somebody up cuz you think they might be crazy, I'm saying you got to have a little more than think they might be

Yeah, it's called evidence. Just like is used to lock someone up on suspicion of committing a crime. But the proving part comes at a later date in court for criminals. I would be satisfied with an evaluation by a qualified mental health professional.

Potential criminals can be taken into custody with little or no evidence. Why should it be different for mental evaluations?

 

[summer44]

See post #299.

BTW, you are completely wrong about the Constitution telling you what you have the Right to do. Completely. Read the 9th Amendment. It's quite clear.

But you don't have the right to rape murder Rob and steal

 

[summer44]

See post #299.

BTW, you are completely wrong about the Constitution telling you what you have the Right to do. Completely. Read the 9th Amendment. It's quite clear.

But you don't have the right to rape murder Rob and steal you said all laws restricted rights and I'm saying that's false

 

[summer44]

Yeah, it's called evidence. Just like is used to lock someone up on suspicion of committing a crime. But the proving part comes at a later date in court for criminals. I would be satisfied with an evaluation by a qualified mental health professional.

Potential criminals can be taken into custody with little or no evidence. Why should it be different for mental evaluations?

Rally are they taking in with no evidence, they got this thing called probable cause

 

[summer44]

I'm not playing games. I'm pointing out that the current laws do not give LE agencies enough latitude to take potentially dangerous crazy people into custody.

You keep claiming that a more detailed investigation would have stopped this from happening. What makes you think that?

Because nobody did follow-up interviews with these guys nobody tried to find out what was going on before the shooting when problems were reported they made one simple report and shoved it under the stack. That's the normandies cases and that's the problem.

 

[Bear44]

Because nobody did follow-up interviews with these guys nobody tried to find out what was going on before the shooting when problems were reported they made one simple report and shoved it under the stack. That's the normandies cases and that's the problem.

I'm done. To much of the pigeon showing up in this thread.

 

[BIKER13]

truth is that group will argue with this group for the sake of the argument.Nothing will be accomplished and some one gonna get their little feels hurt.Happens every day

 

[summer44]

truth is that group will argue with this group for the sake of the argument.Nothing will be accomplished and some one gonna get their little feels hurt.Happens every day

Yep