I didn't watch the Presidents speech last night,

[Jim in Anchorage]

It was at a university. So probably, none.

A bi-lingual version would have been awesome. Major Browne points with BO's base. Also a gay one with no sleeves that only goes to the navel.

[OCinBuffalo]

1. The University has already said the WH had nothing to do with it. If the guy that made up the shirts comes out and says, "The design of the shirts was entirely my idea. I lobbied the school to let me distribute them. No one is to blame but me."; would you then state that Obama handled this event well and did a good job?

No you dipshit, because this:

No you (*^*&%^$^#a memorial service was turned into a campaign event by the disrespectful idiots in the audience. Can't you see the difference?

is the general "takeaway" from this entire episode for the American electorate.

 

The President of this country shouldn't have been allowed to be seen within miles of these t-shirts. This shouldn't have been made into a phony, political event, or shouldn't have given the other side the opportunity to interpret it that way. Obama would have been better served had he simply gone to the service, made a 5 minute speech, and left.

 

Obama's staff isn't "the gang that couldn't shoot straight", it's a bunch of people that don't even know what shooting is.

 

Other notable takeaways:

The Sheriff, who should have done his job and had the shooter committed, instead, looked the other way because the shooter's mom worked for the county, better start looking at retirement.

And, the liberal blogger/columnist/commentator set has lost HUGE credibility this week, and it's all self-inflicted, as usual. This is what you get when you base your entire existence on hatred and jealousy.

[DC Tom]

The Sheriff, who should have done his job and had the shooter committed

 

That's complete bull ****. There was no cause for committing him. In this country you can't just incarcerate someone because they're nuts.

 

It's really easy to say "Oh, he should have been committed" after the fact...precisely because it's after the fact. Where's the point at which he presented an imminent and credible threat before he opened fire?

[ExiledInIllinois]

In this country you can't just incarcerate someone because they're nuts.

 

 

They used to... When that did that change? Thank God for you and me! Moreso for you. Your craziness is clinically documented.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's complete bull ****. There was no cause for committing him. In this country you can't just incarcerate someone because they're nuts.

 

It's really easy to say "Oh, he should have been committed" after the fact...precisely because it's after the fact. Where's the point at which he presented an imminent and credible threat before he opened fire?

Tom, you are way off base on this one. Did you see the youtube video? The sheriff was fully aware of this. The kid had run ins with campus security 4 Times. He was suspended from college? Really? How do you get suspended from community college, Tom?

 

These are only the big points. There was an additional stack of EVIDENCE that this kid needed to at the very least be evaluated. Arizona is perhaps one of the easiest states to commit someone, and NOTHING was done.

 

The simplest explanation: his mom worked for the county, and was in denial about his condition.

 

And besides, even if I was wrong, which I'm not, it doesn't matter, because, like I said, this is the "takeaway" whether you like it or not.

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dan]

No you dipshit, because this:

 

is the general "takeaway" from this entire episode for the American electorate.

 

The President of this country shouldn't have been allowed to be seen within miles of these t-shirts. This shouldn't have been made into a phony, political event, or shouldn't have given the other side the opportunity to interpret it that way. Obama would have been better served had he simply gone to the service, made a 5 minute speech, and left.

 

Obama's staff isn't "the gang that couldn't shoot straight", it's a bunch of people that don't even know what shooting is.

 

Other notable takeaways:

The Sheriff, who should have done his job and had the shooter committed, instead, looked the other way because the shooter's mom worked for the county, better start looking at retirement.

And, the liberal blogger/columnist/commentator set has lost HUGE credibility this week, and it's all self-inflicted, as usual. This is what you get when you base your entire existence on hatred and jealousy.

You're funny.

 

I suppose everyone who's made a ranting youtube video should be committed? Must be a nice world in which you live.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Tom, you are way off base on this one. Did you see the youtube video? The sheriff was fully aware of this. The kid had run ins with campus security 4 Times. He was suspended from college? Really? How do you get suspended from community college, Tom?

 

These are only the big points. There was an additional stack of EVIDENCE that this kid needed to at the very least be evaluated. Arizona is perhaps one of the easiest states to commit someone, and NOTHING was done.

 

The simplest explanation: his mom worked for the county, and was in denial about his condition.

 

And besides, even if I was wrong, which I'm not, it doesn't matter, because, like I said, this is the "takeaway" whether you like it or not.

 

Is it really the Sheriff's prerogative to just insist that a citizen be evaluated?

[DC Tom]

Tom, you are way off base on this one. Did you see the youtube video? The sheriff was fully aware of this. The kid had run ins with campus security 4 Times. He was suspended from college? Really? How do you get suspended from community college, Tom?

 

These are only the big points. There was an additional stack of EVIDENCE that this kid needed to at the very least be evaluated. Arizona is perhaps one of the easiest states to commit someone, and NOTHING was done.

 

The simplest explanation: his mom worked for the county, and was in denial about his condition.

 

And besides, even if I was wrong, which I'm not, it doesn't matter, because, like I said, this is the "takeaway" whether you like it or not.

 

I'm way off base? Tell ya what...why don't you go to court and try to get someone committed for having a crazy youtube video and getting kicked out of community college, and see how far you get with it.

 

You actually need evidence of an IMMEDIATE THREAT to commit someone. Evidence of merely crazy is not enough.

 

Is it really the Sheriff's prerogative to just insist that a citizen be evaluated?

 

Not even remotely.

[OCinBuffalo]

You're funny.

 

I suppose everyone who's made a ranting youtube video should be committed? Must be a nice world in which you live.

Yes, that was the only evidence I mentioned, and I didn't say that there was a whole bunch of other things I didn't mention.

 

If I am funny, you are certainly stupid.

[OCinBuffalo]

Is it really the Sheriff's prerogative to just insist that a citizen be evaluated?

Who else? Honestly?

 

Apparently DC_Tom thinks we should we send the county highway department?

I'm way off base? Tell ya what...why don't you go to court and try to get someone committed for having a crazy youtube video and getting kicked out of community college, and see how far you get with it.

Here, or in Arizona? Why? Because it's a hell of a lot easier there, and, that's the sheriff's job there.

 

What did he get suspended for Tom? Missing class? Or, was it making irrational, violent threats? This happened 4 times, not a few, 4. WTF else do you need to know? Never mind the fact that this guy's friend specifically tried to get him help.

 

At some point, the public's safety outweighs your right to be crazy. Since when is crazy a right? Whose job is public safety, Tom? The highway department? The DMV?

You actually need evidence of an IMMEDIATE THREAT to commit someone. Evidence of merely crazy is not enough.

Well then nobody gets to complain about this shooting one iota.

 

There should be some sort of law that at least requires a mandatory psych evaluation, and/or a 24 hour hold at a hospital.

 

Otherwise, we have to live with this.

[Dan]

Yes, that was the only evidence I mentioned, and I didn't say that there was a whole bunch of other things I didn't mention.

 

If I am funny, you are certainly stupid.

Actually, you only mentioned one other thing - he had run ins with Campus security and was suspended from college. That's not a whole bunch. I guess you did say there's "an additional stack of EVIDENCE" as well. I guess that counts as a bunch of things? Boy you got me there. You're right, the Sheriff needs to check up on all the youtube accounts of the college drop outs and lock any up that say some weird stuff.

[OCinBuffalo]

Actually, you only mentioned one other thing - he had run ins with Campus security and was suspended from college. That's not a whole bunch. I guess you did say there's "an additional stack of EVIDENCE" as well. I guess that counts as a bunch of things? Boy you got me there. You're right, the Sheriff needs to check up on all the youtube accounts of the college drop outs and lock any up that say some weird stuff.

See, this is the retarded part of the board. If I were to list every single thing I have heard/seen about this guy, as simply as casual observer, since it's not like I have been seeking out this info, and posted all of it...

 

...believe me, there would be retards complaining about the length of the post in an instant.

 

Edit: do you really think that where his mom works has nothing to do with this at all? Really?

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[....lybob]

Actually, you only mentioned one other thing - he had run ins with Campus security and was suspended from college. That's not a whole bunch. I guess you did say there's "an additional stack of EVIDENCE" as well. I guess that counts as a bunch of things? Boy you got me there. You're right, the Sheriff needs to check up on all the youtube accounts of the college drop outs and lock any up that say some weird stuff.

Sorry Dan, you are doomed, there is no winning against OC he will brilliantly rip apart arguments you never made and score point after point in a debate that exists nowhere except his fevered little mind- but if you think emoticons are the foundation of good conversation then he's your man.

[OCinBuffalo]

Sorry Dan, you are doomed, there is no winning against OC he will brilliantly rip apart arguments you never made and score point after point in a debate that exists nowhere except his fevered little mind- but if you think emoticons are the foundation of good conversation then he's your man.

Pfft! Still waiting for you to refute what I said in the other thread.

 

You can't, and you know it, so, once again, you can't debate the content...so it's on the process.

[Dan]

See, this is the retarded part of the board. If I were to list every single thing I have heard/seen about this guy, as simply as casual observer, since it's not like I have been seeking out this info, and posted all of it...

 

...believe me, there would be retards complaining about the length of the post in an instant.

 

Edit: do you really think that where his mom works has nothing to do with this at all? Really?

Prior to his shooting rampage, what had he done to warrant a full investigation, let alone being committed? The police don't investigate every kid that gets in trouble with campus police. They certainly don't cruise the web looking at youtube accounts. They don't even investigate people that commit multiple misdemeanors like smoking pot. It's easy with hind sight to say this guy was troubled. But, how many people are walking the streets right now that behave similarly. There are lots of social outcasts running around taking drugs and spouting anti-government, anti-everything rhetoric. But, there's little anyone can do until they actually commit a serious enough crime to warrant an investigation.

[OCinBuffalo]

Prior to his shooting rampage, what had he done to warrant a full investigation, let alone being committed? The police don't investigate every kid that gets in trouble with campus police. They certainly don't cruise the web looking at youtube accounts. They don't even investigate people that commit multiple misdemeanors like smoking pot. It's easy with hind sight to say this guy was troubled. But, how many people are walking the streets right now that behave similarly. There are lots of social outcasts running around taking drugs and spouting anti-government, anti-everything rhetoric. But, there's little anyone can do until they actually commit a serious enough crime to warrant an investigation.

I see a pattern that should have easily been recognized. Sure, you can say "hindsight". But, I don't think so. We can disagree on whether the pattern was strong enough to merit action, but not on whether it existed.

 

This looks like CYA to me. It has every indicator: especially the sheriff coming out the the irrational "political discourse" thing. This looks like a lame attempt at deflecting the question: why was this guy not locked up? What does his mom have to do with it? <-- That's a perfectly reasonable question. All the kids I knew in high school whose parents were public officials consistently held themselves to a higher standard, because they knew what awaited them if they made their parent look bad.

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dan]

I see a pattern that should have easily been recognized. Sure, you can say "hindsight". But, I don't think so. We can disagree on whether the pattern was strong enough to merit action, but not on whether it existed.

 

This looks like CYA to me. It has every indicator: especially the sheriff coming out the the irrational "political discourse" thing. This looks like a lame attempt at deflecting the question: why was this guy not locked up? What does his mom have to do with it? <-- That's a perfectly reasonable question. All the kids I knew in high school whose parents were public officials consistently held themselves to a higher standard, because they knew what awaited them if they made their parent look bad.

I can agree that there was a pattern there. But, the police can't arrest or commit someone based on a pattern of misdemeanors and odd behavior. It's no different than the husband that beats his wife, she gets a restraining order, and he eventually kills her. There's little the police can do. Yes he was convicted of beating her, lost his job, called her every night and called her names, even bought a gun. But, none of that means they can do anything. Of course, when he snaps and shoots her; we all knew it was coming. But, they can't put the guy in jail because he fits a pattern of a person that abuses his wife and then kills her.

 

Perhaps this nut's mom had something to do with the sheriff not being more strict with the guy; I don't really know. But, there's also, legally, very little anyone could have done to stop this.

[OCinBuffalo]

I can agree that there was a pattern there. But, the police can't arrest or commit someone based on a pattern of misdemeanors and odd behavior. It's no different than the husband that beats his wife, she gets a restraining order, and he eventually kills her. There's little the police can do. Yes he was convicted of beating her, lost his job, called her every night and called her names, even bought a gun. But, none of that means they can do anything. Of course, when he snaps and shoots her; we all knew it was coming. But, they can't put the guy in jail because he fits a pattern of a person that abuses his wife and then kills her.

 

Perhaps this nut's mom had something to do with the sheriff not being more strict with the guy; I don't really know. But, there's also, legally, very little anyone could have done to stop this.

As I have said: I smell BS. The irrational "political discourse" thing from the sheriff screams CYA.

 

Perhaps you are right, but then, why are we willing to live with this situation? It's not like we don't spend enough on police(except in Philly).

 

So, what are we saying: the current law doesn't mandate that we lock people up before the fact? Ok, so why aren't we sentencing people to mandatory counseling and observation(kind of like parole)? We have all these government employees that we have to keep paying massive benefits/pensions, is it too much to ask that they do their jobs?

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dan]

As I have said: I smell BS. The irrational "political discourse" thing from the sheriff screams CYA.

 

Perhaps you are right, but then, why are we willing to live with this situation? It's not like we don't spend enough on police(except in Philly).

 

So, what are we saying: the current law doesn't mandate that we lock people up before the fact? Ok, so why aren't we sentencing people to mandatory counseling and observation(kind of like parole)? We have all these government employees that we have to keep paying massive benefits/pensions, is it too much to ask that they do their jobs?

You see CYA from the sheriff, others see partisan rhetoric as the root of his comments. Maybe the guy's just incompetent. I honestly don't know what, if anything, motivates his actions or inaction.

 

I think the concern is that if we "pre-emptively" lock people up or order them for counseling based upon patterns of behavior, we're on a slippery slope. I'm sure many would bring up the McCarthyism of the 50's. Who determines what behaviors are bad, what patterns warrant counseling, etc? Imagine the flack a congress person would get for proposing a bill that youtube accounts be reviewed for suspicious behavior?

[OCinBuffalo]

You see CYA from the sheriff, others see partisan rhetoric as the root of his comments. Maybe the guy's just incompetent. I honestly don't know what, if anything, motivates his actions or inaction.

 

I think the concern is that if we "pre-emptively" lock people up or order them for counseling based upon patterns of behavior, we're on a slippery slope. I'm sure many would bring up the McCarthyism of the 50's. Who determines what behaviors are bad, what patterns warrant counseling, etc? Imagine the flack a congress person would get for proposing a bill that youtube accounts be reviewed for suspicious behavior?

You are right to say that we can't "know" for sure about anything. Yet. I would like to see an investigation by the Arizona state police. But, really? That's for the people that live there to decide. I defer to them.

 

Again, I think that's for each local community to decide. I sure as hell don't want some massive Federal bureaucracy to decide. You take one look at CMS, and that's all you need to know. (Medicare and Medicaid should be disbanded and that power given to each county, for example...and oh hell yeah, I can back that up)

 

I don't want Congress to have anything to do with local law enforcement issues that don't cross state lines. How does somebody in DC know better what to do about local crazy guy than local sheriff guy? (or local Alzheimer's patient than local county health official?)

 

I find it interesting, and telling, that your proposed "solution" immediately involved the Federal government.......

Edited January 16, 2011 by OCinBuffalo