GUILTY FL - 17 killed in Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Parkland, 14 Feb 2018 #4 *Arrest*

[KaaBoom]

If they are getting training that officers safety is paramount and at the same time you have to go confront the shooter then they are getting contradictory training. Confronting the shooter with cop having a 9 mm and shooter armed with an AR-15 is obviously not a safe thing to do.

I tend agree, but they needed a scapegoat, and the cop was a good one.

 

[Gardenista]

Officials were so concerned about the mental stability of the student accused of last month's Florida school massacre that they decided he should be forcibly committed.

But the recommendation was never acted upon.

A commitment under the law would have made it more difficult if not impossible for Nikolas Cruz to obtain a gun legally.

But more than a year earlier, documents in the criminal case against Nikolas Cruz and obtained by The Associated Press show school officials and a sheriff's deputy recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be involuntarily committed for a mental evaluation.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...as-cruz-parkland-shooting-20180318-story.html

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Officials were so concerned about the mental stability of the student accused of last month's Florida school massacre that they decided he should be forcibly committed.

But the recommendation was never acted upon.

A commitment under the law would have made it more difficult if not impossible for Nikolas Cruz to obtain a gun legally.

But more than a year earlier, documents in the criminal case against Nikolas Cruz and obtained by The Associated Press show school officials and a sheriff's deputy recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be involuntarily committed for a mental evaluation.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...as-cruz-parkland-shooting-20180318-story.html

His birth date is Sept. 24, 1998.

Depending on when in September 2016 the recommendation came, he might have still been a minor.

Then it would get complicated again once he turned 18.

The story says there’s no “evidence” he was committed. It doesn’t say whether he received treatment or not outside of involuntary commitment.

Here’s a timeline that better shows how it all unfolded. It’s an older story (Feb. 2018), so it doesn’t include the Baker Act episode.

However, it DOES show that around that same time in 2016, more than one professional recommended AGAINST involuntary commitment.

So the recommendation for it wasn’t a standalone incident that was ignored. IMO. Because it isn’t.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201684874.html

ETA: this from the prior link. He might not have qualified to be Baker Acted for a reason we don’t know about.

“The documents do not say why Cruz was not committed under the Baker Act or whether he may not have qualified for other reasons.”

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

My guess is that there was a push by some to get him committed immediately before he turned 18. Some professionals disagreed; some agreed. From the timelines, it’s clear he was in crisis. Imo

Then, he turns 18. It’s a lot more difficult to do. For reasons we clearly don’t know, he wasn’t committed. He might not have legally qualified to be Baker Acted.

More on the Baker Act.

http://www.cchrflorida.org/question...ida-involuntary-commitment-law-the-baker-act/

NOTE: The mental health law in Florida was amended in 2017 to offer better protection for minors and the flow chart has not yet been updated to reflect this change.

Question: How long may a person be held for involuntary examination, a Baker Act?

Answer: An adult may be held up to 72 hours for an involuntary examination. However the examination period for a minor, anyone 17 or younger, is 12 hours. Specifically the examination “shall be initiated within 12 hours after the patient’s arrival at the facility.”

(snip)

Question: What are the criteria used for involuntary examination, a Baker Act?

Answer: Florida Statute 394.463, Involuntary examination, states:

(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness:

(a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; OR

2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; AND

(b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; OR

2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

It appears he was receiving treatment/counseling Sept. 2016-early 2017. This might be a contributor as to why he wasn’t Baker Acted back in Sept. 2016. He might not have legally qualified. IMO.

I’m not making any statement as to whether or not he should have been in hindsight, just adding context.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting.html

From the article:

The state agency investigated whether Mr. Cruz intended to harm himself in September 2016, when he made the alarming social media posts after an argument with his mother. Mr. Cruz, who had depression, was upset over a breakup with a girlfriend, his mother, Lynda Cruz, told investigators. The report does not say who called in the complaint, which was given “immediate” priority.

The report shows that investigators closed the case about two months later.

The agency determined that the “final level of risk is low” — an analysis that one of Mr. Cruz’s counselors at his school felt was premature — because his mother was caring for him, he was enrolled in school and he was receiving counseling.

By the time of the shooting, however, Mr. Cruz had lost at least two of those elements: His mother was dead, and he had left Stoneman Douglas High School. It is unclear if he was still seeing a counselor.

 

[Gardenista]

Such a shame

Even the N.R.A. Wants This Gun Law. So Why the Drama?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/opinion/nra-domestic-violence-background-check.html

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Great link, Gardenista. Thank you

 

[grammieto5]

I was being facetious about agent orange, ricin, etc.

And a home-made Fat Man/Little Boy? Really? The nuclear/atomic bombs that wiped out Nagasaki?!

You really believe there’s a disaffected teen in a suburb somewhere piecing together an atomic bomb to blow up a school?

Like, it’s just as easy and dangerous as making a pipe bomb?

I hope you’re being facetious, too.

We’re missing the point by arguing about weapons we both admit do not exist. The issue is what do we do to reduce gun violence and mass shootings? What do we do to keep our kids from being slaughtered and wounded by it RIGHT NOW??

Nope I was not being facetious. I find no humor in any of this. I would not be surprised IF there were a teen somewhere planning more evil. Thinking he’ll do worse, kill more people. There was a time when I would never have believed the type of weapons used in war would be used by a civilian. Yes I believe it’s possible there could be someone somewhere thinking they could make another atomic bomb to blow up a school. I have no idea what can be done to stop all the gun violence. Unless every gun in the world is destroyed anyone anywhere will be able to get a gun.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Nope I was not being facetious. I find no humor in any of this. I would not be surprised IF there were a teen somewhere planning more evil. Thinking he’ll do worse, kill more people. There was a time when I would never have believed the type of weapons used in war would be used by a civilian. Yes I believe it’s possible there could be someone somewhere thinking they could make another atomic bomb to blow up a school. I have no idea what can be done to stop all the gun violence. Unless every gun in the world is destroyed anyone anywhere will be able to get a gun.

One teen?

Compared to the dozens-plus who currently and have committed horrendous, violent crimes using firearms?

*A* teen might be building an atomic bomb? To blow up a school?

And how might this possibility impact or prevent someone like Cruz from shooting up a school?

How does it negate finding ways to reduce gun violence and save lives?

A kid could invent a device that sprays acid out of a unicorn horn. It’s possible.

Does that mean we do nothing about keeping weapons of mass-murder — that exist right now, right this very minute — out of the hands of people who probably shouldn’t have them???

Bombs are illegal, for one.

Unicorn acid-sprayers would be outlawed, if they existed.

The gun Cruz purchased isn’t.

 

[mpnola]

That's where I totally disagree. He was capable of living a life if that what was he wanted. He had a job (apparently no issues there), and the gun loving family he was living with for the last three months claim he behaved himself and they had no issues with him.

That's not the way these mental and behavioral issues work. At all. At all at all.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[enelram]

Florida has had it's first activation of the new "Red Flag Law" just passed, that states LE can remove all guns from a
person deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. A 51 yr. old had their guns removed.

 

[jjenny]

It appears he was receiving treatment/counseling Sept. 2016-early 2017. This might be a contributor as to why he wasn’t Baker Acted back in Sept. 2016. He might not have legally qualified. IMO.

I’m not making any statement as to whether or not he should have been in hindsight, just adding context.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting.html

Yea, my guess it's the same deal. I presume he was deemed not legally qualified because he supposedly wasn't an immediate threat to himself or others. Also seems to me he could talk his way out of these situations, deny he was a threat to himself or others, and thus wasn't committed. This guy wasn't stupid. I think he knew just what to say to avoid being committed.

"He also told the clinician he owned only a pellet gun and was not capable of doing "serious harm" to anyone."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/wanted-shooting-suspect-forcibly-committed-2016-53842487

 

[grammieto5]

One teen?

Compared to the dozens-plus who currently and have committed horrendous, violent crimes using firearms?

*A* teen might be building an atomic bomb? To blow up a school?

And how might this possibility impact or prevent someone like Cruz from shooting up a school?

How does it negate finding ways to reduce gun violence and save lives?

A kid could invent a device that sprays acid out of a unicorn horn. It’s possible.

Does that mean we do nothing about keeping weapons of mass-murder — that exist right now, right this very minute — out of the hands of people who probably shouldn’t have them???

Bombs are illegal, for one.

Unicorn acid-sprayers would be outlawed, if they existed.

The gun Cruz purchased isn’t.

WOW! Jump back sparky, I never said “do nothing”. Of course something should be done, I said IF anyone wants to get a gun, they will find a way, even if those guns were to become illegal. I said if a person wants to do evil they will find away, legal OR illegal. “A kid could invent a device that sprays acid out of a unicorn horn. It’s possible” That’s sweet, you believe in Unicorns. I believe in Karma. The only thing you and I disagree on is finding humor in all this mess.

 

[x_files]

Officials were so concerned about the mental stability of the student accused of last month's Florida school massacre that they decided he should be forcibly committed.

But the recommendation was never acted upon.

A commitment under the law would have made it more difficult if not impossible for Nikolas Cruz to obtain a gun legally.

But more than a year earlier, documents in the criminal case against Nikolas Cruz and obtained by The Associated Press show school officials and a sheriff's deputy recommended in September 2016 that Cruz be involuntarily committed for a mental evaluation.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...as-cruz-parkland-shooting-20180318-story.html

Who would be respsonible for committing him his mother? or authority figure?

 

[jjenny]

Who would be respsonible for committing him his mother? or authority figure?

Soounds like mental health professionals decided he didn't need to be committed. Apparently this was done more than once.
"School officials in Parkland, Fla., sought to use the same law for Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old accused of killing 17 students and employees there last month, records show. But, more than a year before the massacre, a mental-health counselor told them Cruz didn’t need to be detained."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.c261ebceeabd

 

[KaaBoom]

WOW! Jump back sparky, I never said “do nothing”. Of course something should be done, I said IF anyone wants to get a gun, they will find a way, even if those guns were to become illegal. I said if a person wants to do evil they will find away, legal OR illegal. “A kid could invent a device that sprays acid out of a unicorn horn. It’s possible” That’s sweet, you believe in Unicorns. I believe in Karma. The only thing you and I disagree on is finding humor in all this mess.

That is not the case in other countries where guns are illegal. In Japan a handgun costs $8,000 to $10,000 on the blackmarket, and bullets cost $100 a piece. But an average Japanese citizens can't buy them at any price, even if they have that much money to spend. The only way for them to get a gun is if they have organized crime connections, and even Yakuza gangsters can't get assault weapons A Japanese high school student couldn't get his hands on a gun no matter how bad he wanted one. Gun control has been proven to work.

Bad blood among Japan’s yakuza gangs shoots up handgun prices _ South China Morning Post

 

[grammieto5]

BBM

Nope.

HI, thanks for your response. How is it different with your schools? What type of issues do your students deal with?

 

[grammieto5]

That is not the case in other countries where guns are illegal. In Japan a handgun costs $8,000 to $10,000 on the blackmarket, and bullets cost $100 a piece. But an average Japanese citizens can't buy them at any price, even if they have that much money to spend. The only way for them to get a gun is if they have organized crime connections, and even Yakuza gangsters can't get assault weapons A Japanese high school student couldn't get his hands on a gun no matter how bad he wanted one. Gun control has been proven to work.

Bad blood among Japan’s yakuza gangs shoots up handgun prices _ South China Morning Post

So would that be complete 100% gun control? If so, that would never ever happen here. We are a country who loves our guns. No matter how much damage a person can do with a gun some people no matter what will never give up their guns.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

WOW! Jump back sparky, I never said “do nothing”. Of course something should be done, I said IF anyone wants to get a gun, they will find a way, even if those guns were to become illegal. I said if a person wants to do evil they will find away, legal OR illegal. “A kid could invent a device that sprays acid out of a unicorn horn. It’s possible” That’s sweet, you believe in Unicorns. I believe in Karma. The only thing you and I disagree on is finding humor in all this mess.

I don’t believe in unicorns and I don’t believe in coincidences, so jump back Grammiepants.

So many people will worry about “what’ll be used next,” but all those things already exist. They’re not worrying about what we can do NOW. Moo

If buying age of this type of rifle was equalized to age 21, this shooting would not have happened. If that gun wasn’t legal for him to buy and use it wouldn’t have happened.

Dozens of people wouldn’t be wounded or dead. Even with a handgun, or a crossbow, the toll would be reduced.

He also be easier to stop.

* plink *

My two cents.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

So would that be complete 100% gun control? If so, that would never ever happen here. We are a country who loves our guns. No matter how much damage a person can do with a gun some people no matter what will never give up their guns.

WOW. Nobody’s talking about the wholesale banning of firearms.

It’s called “control” or “reform,” but the word gun is still there. In America we have a right to use guns to protect ourselves.

Read Heller. Gun reform is expected and legal, per the US Supreme Court. The decisions and opinions are here:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290