quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
As long as due process of law and the rights of the accused are protected, I don’t have an issue with regards to red flag per se.

I do have issues with giving felons the vote but banning gun ownership over domestic violence misdemeanor convictions.

I also have issues with red flag laws that do not get brought forward with defense allowed.

Too many acquaintances with guns taken and damaged over divorce accusations.

Red flag isn’t that new. It’s widening and allowing it to proceed on accusations alone that bothers me.

And yes, there are quite a few people who shouldn’t own guns.

DVO as the Supreme Court permits as a restriction on the right are not criminal convictions but civil bench trials. The burden of proof in DVOs in KY is preponderance of the evidence, 51 percent, more likely than not.

I have only seen two be denied. The bottom line is they are constitutionally sound. Thus, I see Red Flag laws as being analogous and constitutional.

I see and somehow agree with both above posts.

But I'm not sure that LHeym500 understands or appreciates this statement by crbutler, which is true:

"allowing it to proceed on accusations alone that bothers me."

Actually, I agree with butler's whole post. It's actually deeper than he states. The bingo word is "fear" (in the law) whether real or not. The claim is everything in a DV claim or incident, and the gender advocacy knows it. The claim commonly triggers the arrest, and what follows, and the officers are trained to ask the specific question "are you afraid". Trained by whom and at who's request? It's a double-edged sword. The officer gets to go home and enjoy his evening with family and dinner and not have to worry about being called out again over an escalating incident, and the following court proceedings ain't his problem, where a lot is presumed just from the arrest. A restraining order is also common, which means the guy has to find another abode, for a while. And legal defense is costly.

But, we digress.

The high school shooting incident in GA is different.

And I don't agree with the OP at all.

That is because CrButler’s desire is not the status of the law.

In every jurisdiction an epo is issued on mere allegations. Then a hearing on those allegations has to be heard within a statutory time period. The epo based on that testimony is either converted to a DVO or the DVO is denied with the EPO dismissed. The epo is a temporary, stop gap, injunction/protective order granted ex parte to keep the peace until the hearing is held. They are constitutional.

Some judges will restrict the right at the epo level which is an ex parte petition. That is constitutional.

Every judicial action starts as mere allegations. Hearings are for proof. The burden is civil and a low bar. Some states may few a clear and convincing burden. That is the law. That is constitutionally fine according to the Fed Supreme Court.

Thus, the same procedure applied to Red Flag laws seems fine.

They are no different than epos/dvos the Supreme Court just upheld. They being Red Flag laws.

===================================

You say: "That is because CrButler’s desire is not the status of the law." Well, perhaps that's what he's complaining about.

You also say: "In every jurisdiction an epo is issued on mere allegations." "Thus, the same procedure applied to Red Flag laws seems fine."

=================================
Please clarify, or affirm for my understanding of the comparisons you made re DV and RF.

Are the Red Flag laws applied through the epo first step, then the hearing, and subsequently affirmed or denied?

And is the hearing equivalent to a bench trial, burden of proof variable per state? Is such bench trial at the magistrate level or superior court level?

Are Red Flag law applications triggered by accusations alone or is evidence needed?

In the case of DV, the accused is removed from the scene or home, by arrest or whatever, at least overnight or maybe longer if it's a weekend, until the judge or magistrate comes to work on Monday, assuming it's not a holiday, to issue the epo. So far this is all per accusations alone. There is zero burden of proof to actuate the arrest. Now, how does that compare to actuate a Red Flag Law? Does that cause arrest while the guns are removed, prior to conviction?

And you say re DV and the DVO it's a civil matter, presumably a misdemeanor, and the burden of proof bar is low (51% ?). And you say you have seen only two denied. Out of how many - total? Why? Was the evidence that good or was it the guy didn't have representation, or what?

And is an affirmation of the accusations, per the judge, a civil conviction, misdemeanor, or criminal?

In your experience how does the broad latitude of (one judge) Judicial Discretion (a variable) play into this?

Some things reported that really make this worse were last year when a complaint was investigated the father lied and said they only had 'hunting' rifles in the home. Apparently that means no AR's? The father said their firearms were kept locked up at all times.

Also, that the son had asked for mental illness help.

Now, if these details come to truth over these lives lost it just makes such even worse. Though how to measure that I cannot perceive. Parents are responsible in the end. It is just to charge them. Think back to the Oxford, MI incident. Correct.

I know plenty of people who do hunt with their AR's so this assumption, that they are not 'hunting rifles' is a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Some things reported that really make this worse were last year when a complaint was investigated the father lied and said they only had 'hunting' rifles in the home. Apparently that means no AR's? The father said their firearms were kept locked up at all times.

Also, that the son had asked for mental illness help.

Now, if these details come to truth over these lives lost it just makes such even worse. Though how to measure that I cannot perceive. Parents are responsible in the end. It is just to charge them. Think back to the Oxford, MI incident. Correct.

I know plenty of people who do hunt with their AR's so this assumption, that they are not 'hunting rifles' is a problem.

It's actually worse than that. Apparently a few months after telling law enforcement that his "hunting rifles" were kept locked up the father bought the then-13-year-old an AR-15 clone for Christmas, the rifle used to kill 2 students and 2 teachers.

The charges filed against the father seem abundantly justified to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
As long as due process of law and the rights of the accused are protected, I don’t have an issue with regards to red flag per se.

I do have issues with giving felons the vote but banning gun ownership over domestic violence misdemeanor convictions.

I also have issues with red flag laws that do not get brought forward with defense allowed.

Too many acquaintances with guns taken and damaged over divorce accusations.

Red flag isn’t that new. It’s widening and allowing it to proceed on accusations alone that bothers me.

And yes, there are quite a few people who shouldn’t own guns.

DVO as the Supreme Court permits as a restriction on the right are not criminal convictions but civil bench trials. The burden of proof in DVOs in KY is preponderance of the evidence, 51 percent, more likely than not.

I have only seen two be denied. The bottom line is they are constitutionally sound. Thus, I see Red Flag laws as being analogous and constitutional.

I see and somehow agree with both above posts.

But I'm not sure that LHeym500 understands or appreciates this statement by crbutler, which is true:

"allowing it to proceed on accusations alone that bothers me."

Actually, I agree with butler's whole post. It's actually deeper than he states. The bingo word is "fear" (in the law) whether real or not. The claim is everything in a DV claim or incident, and the gender advocacy knows it. The claim commonly triggers the arrest, and what follows, and the officers are trained to ask the specific question "are you afraid". Trained by whom and at who's request? It's a double-edged sword. The officer gets to go home and enjoy his evening with family and dinner and not have to worry about being called out again over an escalating incident, and the following court proceedings ain't his problem, where a lot is presumed just from the arrest. A restraining order is also common, which means the guy has to find another abode, for a while. And legal defense is costly.

But, we digress.

The high school shooting incident in GA is different.

And I don't agree with the OP at all.

That is because CrButler’s desire is not the status of the law.

In every jurisdiction an epo is issued on mere allegations. Then a hearing on those allegations has to be heard within a statutory time period. The epo based on that testimony is either converted to a DVO or the DVO is denied with the EPO dismissed. The epo is a temporary, stop gap, injunction/protective order granted ex parte to keep the peace until the hearing is held. They are constitutional.

Some judges will restrict the right at the epo level which is an ex parte petition. That is constitutional.

Every judicial action starts as mere allegations. Hearings are for proof. The burden is civil and a low bar. Some states may few a clear and convincing burden. That is the law. That is constitutionally fine according to the Fed Supreme Court.

Thus, the same procedure applied to Red Flag laws seems fine.

They are no different than epos/dvos the Supreme Court just upheld. They being Red Flag laws.

===================================

You say: "That is because CrButler’s desire is not the status of the law." Well, perhaps that's what he's complaining about.

You also say: "In every jurisdiction an epo is issued on mere allegations." "Thus, the same procedure applied to Red Flag laws seems fine."

=================================
Please clarify, or affirm for my understanding of the comparisons you made re DV and RF.

Are the Red Flag laws applied through the epo first step, then the hearing, and subsequently affirmed or denied?

And is the hearing equivalent to a bench trial, burden of proof variable per state? Is such bench trial at the magistrate level or superior court level?

Are Red Flag law applications triggered by accusations alone or is evidence needed?

In the case of DV, the accused is removed from the scene or home, by arrest or whatever, at least overnight or maybe longer if it's a weekend, until the judge or magistrate comes to work on Monday, assuming it's not a holiday, to issue the epo. So far this is all per accusations alone. There is zero burden of proof to actuate the arrest. Now, how does that compare to actuate a Red Flag Law? Does that cause arrest while the guns are removed, prior to conviction?

And you say re DV and the DVO it's a civil matter, presumably a misdemeanor, and the burden of proof bar is low (51% ?). And you say you have seen only two denied. Out of how many - total? Why? Was the evidence that good or was it the guy didn't have representation, or what?

And is an affirmation of the accusations, per the judge, a civil conviction, misdemeanor, or criminal?

In your experience how does the broad latitude of (one judge) Judicial Discretion (a variable) play into this?

DVOs are civil actions. Misdemeanors are crimes and have a different process. The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence (51 percent ) because unlike crimes that is the civil burden of proof.

I have answered my that question. A DVO is an adjudication and not a conviction. I have seen 2 EPOs subsequently be dismissed and the DCO denied in my professional life.

The total of 2 is out of hundreds.

One of my offices processes all the EPO petitions for the jurisdictions bc the Clerk’s office which is statutorily required to refuses to do it.

The underlying point is whether one agrees or not the process is constitutional and is constitutional to restrict the possession and transfer of firearms.

At the EPO level, the initial petition for protection, that can grant the emergency ex parte order less than 5 a month gets denied. Once, the EPO is entered a hearing on those allegations must be had in 14 days of service to convert to DVO or dismiss. A Judge must restrict the right at adjudicating an act of DV occurred and entering a DVO. Here a judge has discretion when granting the initial EPO. One Judge lawyers restricts at the EPO and the other does not in my jurisdictions.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

It's actually worse than that. Apparently a few months after telling law enforcement that his "hunting rifles" were kept locked up the father bought the then-13-year-old an AR-15 clone for Christmas, the rifle used to kill 2 students and 2 teachers.

The charges filed against the father seem abundantly justified to me.

And Jeff, here we agree. I reckon we will start hearing some more bad behavior that this father engaged in.

I would like to see death penalties in these incidents- wishful thinking though.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

It's actually worse than that. Apparently a few months after telling law enforcement that his "hunting rifles" were kept locked up the father bought the then-13-year-old an AR-15 clone for Christmas, the rifle used to kill 2 students and 2 teachers.

The charges filed against the father seem abundantly justified to me.

And Jeff, here we agree. I reckon we will start hearing some more bad behavior that this father engaged in.

I would like to see death penalties in these incidents- wishful thinking though.

Don't feel bad, we were bound to agree on something eventually.

I think the kid is too young to get the needle, even if he is tried as an adult, and what the father is charged with, at least so far, doesn't include a capital offense.

quote:

Vance, who in June called school shootings a fake issue, just said that school shootings are just a fact of life.

That’s BLATANT LIE!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:

quote:

Vance, who in June called school shootings a fake issue, just said that school shootings are just a fact of life.

That’s BLATANT LIE!!!

There's video of him saying it.

Link

Somebody should try to explain to Slider, and his God Emperor Trump, that a "lie" is something that is not true, not something you don't like.

This can be analyzed and nit piccked forever! Keep in mind, law enforcement took only (Media reports) two minutes to respond.

They made only one mistake...they arrested the little bastard...should have been taken out in a body bag.

That mistake can be correted...it's called the death penalty. Have no idea why hanky twisters say "too young".

You kill a rattle snake whether he's 8" long or 8 feet long

The Vance topic has been on every channel/station.
Most are walking back what they originally said.
What was aired was a chopped piece of his speech, taken out of context.
How can there be so many idiots that believe the first thing the media puts out there?
FFS, people, do a little deeper reading, and get a brain.

So much for trusting the AP and the rest of the MSM.

Deliberately ran disinformation on Vance.

American gun owners, shooters, and citizens in general, need to be a little bit proactive. In fact, they needed to do this years ago. Again, the country will be polarized as usual, with two camps at opposite ends of the spectrum. There will be few who are willing to consider opposing viewpoints or look for practical solutions going forward.
As far as politcizing of this sort of tragedy is concerned, it has happened with every such occurrence which lent itself to such exploitation, for as long as I can remember. Generally, the anti-gun ownership faction started it, and the pro-gun ownership faction countered. From there, the die was cast, and accusations flew back and forth just like here. There will, as always, be no desire expressed, by either side, to try and address the possible root causes of such inexplicable violence. Instead, one side will scream for restriction, while the other will holler about 2nd amendment rights. Once again, the real victim will be the nation. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
DVOs are civil actions. Misdemeanors are crimes and have a different process. The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence (51 percent ) because unlike crimes that is the civil burden of proof.

I have answered my that question. A DVO is an adjudication and not a conviction. I have seen 2 EPOs subsequently be dismissed and the DCO denied in my professional life.

The total of 2 is out of hundreds.

One of my offices processes all the EPO petitions for the jurisdictions bc the Clerk’s office which is statutorily required to refuses to do it.

I presume that DVO means Domestic Violence Order. I don't know what DCO means, but it's probably a typo.

So you have lots of experience with this sort of thing. Don't you find is astonishing that only two Emergency Protection Orders (EPO) out of hundreds, didn't result in DVO?

You should know darn well, with your experiences, that accusations are sometimes weaponized simply due to the immediate results. So, are you saying that weaponized accusations are practically moot, or something else?
Somehow, IMO, you seem a bit too proud of those stats.

You said and we know that the arrest and EPO stems from accusation, often with no actual evidence of harm or physical violence. So, if there is no physical evidence of harm or potential harm at the time of arrest, how does that play into the hearing, supposedly due process?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Some things reported that really make this worse were last year when a complaint was investigated the father lied and said they only had 'hunting' rifles in the home. Apparently that means no AR's? The father said their firearms were kept locked up at all times.

Also, that the son had asked for mental illness help.

Now, if these details come to truth over these lives lost it just makes such even worse. Though how to measure that I cannot perceive. Parents are responsible in the end. It is just to charge them. Think back to the Oxford, MI incident. Correct.

I know plenty of people who do hunt with their AR's so this assumption, that they are not 'hunting rifles' is a problem.

It's actually worse than that. Apparently a few months after telling law enforcement that his "hunting rifles" were kept locked up the father bought the then-13-year-old an AR-15 clone for Christmas, the rifle used to kill 2 students and 2 teachers.

The charges filed against the father seem abundantly justified to me.

Nancy Lanza might have been charged similarly, but she'd already paid the price...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:

quote:

Vance, who in June called school shootings a fake issue, just said that school shootings are just a fact of life.

That’s BLATANT LIE!!!

There's video of him saying it.

Link

Come on, Jeff. Why be so low?

https://youtu.be/cP7kK9Cd96s?si=JAbZiEhCe0so3Mt-

How can authorities charge Apalachee High School shooter's father?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Some things reported that really make this worse were last year when a complaint was investigated the father lied and said they only had 'hunting' rifles in the home. Apparently that means no AR's? The father said their firearms were kept locked up at all times.

Also, that the son had asked for mental illness help.

Now, if these details come to truth over these lives lost it just makes such even worse. Though how to measure that I cannot perceive. Parents are responsible in the end. It is just to charge them. Think back to the Oxford, MI incident. Correct.

I know plenty of people who do hunt with their AR's so this assumption, that they are not 'hunting rifles' is a problem.

It's actually worse than that. Apparently a few months after telling law enforcement that his "hunting rifles" were kept locked up the father bought the then-13-year-old an AR-15 clone for Christmas, the rifle used to kill 2 students and 2 teachers.

The charges filed against the father seem abundantly justified to me.

Me too!

The father is definitely culpable!

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Slider:

quote:

Vance, who in June called school shootings a fake issue, just said that school shootings are just a fact of life.

That’s BLATANT LIE!!!

There's video of him saying it.

Link

Come on, Jeff. Why be so low?

So now it's "low" to call you out as a fool & prove it?

I took Ann's remark as a joke. Backdoor acknowledgment sorta. I could be wrong.

Like this:

9 dead from I75 sniper jets in KY.
Killer is from my county but the murders happened up the interstate.

He is still not found.

He Told a bunch of family members he was going to kill as many folks as he could today, went out and bought an AR, and 2k rounds of ammo all in the same day.

He has No prior felonies, no dvos, no dv assault misdemeanors.

I am for red flag laws now that would have allowed the family to petition based on those threats and stopped him from buying this rifle used in this mass killing

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
DVOs are civil actions. Misdemeanors are crimes and have a different process. The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence (51 percent ) because unlike crimes that is the civil burden of proof.

I have answered my that question. A DVO is an adjudication and not a conviction. I have seen 2 EPOs subsequently be dismissed and the DCO denied in my professional life.

The total of 2 is out of hundreds.

One of my offices processes all the EPO petitions for the jurisdictions bc the Clerk’s office which is statutorily required to refuses to do it.

I presume that DVO means Domestic Violence Order. I don't know what DCO means, but it's probably a typo.

So you have lots of experience with this sort of thing. Don't you find is astonishing that only two Emergency Protection Orders (EPO) out of hundreds, didn't result in DVO?

You should know darn well, with your experiences, that accusations are sometimes weaponized simply due to the immediate results. So, are you saying that weaponized accusations are practically moot, or something else?
Somehow, IMO, you seem a bit too proud of those stats.

You said and we know that the arrest and EPO stems from accusation, often with no actual evidence of harm or physical violence. So, if there is no physical evidence of harm or potential harm at the time of arrest, how does that play into the hearing, supposedly due process?

The fact that some accusations may be weapons does not not mean the process is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held the dvo process constitutional and the dvo process an acting as a means of restricting the right to posses firearms as constitutional.

Here is the process
Person A files a Petition for EPO Emergency Protective Order)
A judge reviews that petition to determine if on the FS e the person has alleged facts that meet the statute. The judge must take the allegations as true.
The judge issued the EPO. This is an emergency, temporary, stop gap order that a judge can restrict the right to possess firearms but does not have to. The judge has discretion. Upon service LE shall take weapons and revoke any carry conceal licenses.
A hearing must be had w/in a statutory period of time after service.
This hearing is adversarial. The rules of evidence apply. You may present a counsel, but it is not a right. The action is civil. Thus, the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. It is a bench trial adjudicated by the judge.
After taking testimony and any evidence the judge must make findings of fact and render an adjudication. The judge must either dismiss the spot and not convert the episode into the dvo (domestic violence order), or grant the dvo.
When a judge grants the dvo, the judge does not have discretion to allow the respondent to retain the right to possess firearms. The dvo is reported to the state police, sheriff, and ATF. The person will now flag if they try to purchase and to posses or attempt to purchase is a violation of Fed law and most states have a mirror stature.

That process has been held by the Supreme Court to be constitutional.

Thus, it would appear a similar process would be constitutional for red flag laws.

Regardless of whether you like it is a discussion of policy. I believe they are constitutional. I also think they would be good policy given the cost benefit analysis.
Are EPOs used inappropriately? Yes, some no doubt are. That does not change the process is constitutional and the alternative is worse.

Food for thought, when I was in law school I took a writhing seminar on domestic violence. The social scientists tell us that a true abusers kill when eps get issued bc they feel the power over the person being broken. The person has taken to leave the dynamic. The abuser cannot abide this and kills to prevent the person from leaving. It is when a person is perceived to be actually ending the relationship, exiting by the abuser the abuser kills.

quote:

Food for thought

I'm quite sure that there are crazy/mean guys who not only abuse their wives and family but also get into a rage when "they feel the power over the person being broken" by means of the law and enforcement. It's a "look what you made me do" thing.

It's the worst case scenario, and law enforcement and lawyers too, start there and ratchet down based upon THEIR collective judgment during the process. IOW, when accusations are made, they don't position themselves to ratchet up later, they start at the top, which usually means removing the alleged "abuser" from the scene/home by arrest.

That alone is going to piss most guys off. Of course, most won't respond with violence or murder thoughts, and control themselves. Some won't and seethe and brood.

I'm sure this thinking saves lives and harm, but it is also mighty convenient for the officers and court. Often there is a breakdown in the ratcheting down.

And also, you skipped some steps in "Here is the process". One thing you skipped is that there are women's advocacy groups who are on-call for such events, and they advise the "victim" on how to achieve an EPO. It's SOP. These same advocacy groups work through their legislators and gain access and influence to the officer's training and continuing ED required to remain certified. They also have a cadre of pro-bono attorneys for such occasions, who also get credit in their continuing ED and certifications for pro-bono services.

It's pretty easy to see how that works out. The concept of cahoots for outcome/stats plays into it, not to mention the feel-good thing about weaponizing the law. In some ways it self-perpetuates and self-justifies. It's too easy for those inside the machinations to be righteous. It's unfortunate that I can't think of better solutions, but that's the way it is.

There's a lot more to this. I consider it a rare opportunity to discuss this with an attorney who has lots of experience in the midst of it.

I posted here to save a space right after your post so I won't have to quote you.

I'll finish later.

quote:

There's video of him saying it.

It's taken out of Context WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO!!! The news had to Walk Back the Headlines!!! Typical Democrats take it all out of context to Persecute a Political Rival.. BANNANA REPUBLIC

So, you want context?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b5c7d08b23bafe&ei=46

Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls for More 'Good Guys With Guns' After Shooting
Story by Jordan King • 1d • 3 min read

=======================================

Also:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f45004121e7f98&ei=88

Mother of mass shooting suspect called Apalachee High School with warning after getting alarming text, grandfather says
Story by Isabel Rosales, Sara Smart and Dalia Faheid, CNN • 2h • 8 min read

This is seeming to be a bigger CF than originally thought.
The mother called the school to report her son was going to school with bad intent. The school fumbled it from there, with plenty of time to lock down the school and find the kid.

Democrats could Lock Down Schools and have Armed Guards and stop this BS. They Won't!!! Why BECAUSE THEY WANT YOUR GUNS!!!

FBI is here our local mass killer shot it out w locals and still out large

There were 109 public mass shootings in the United States and 35 public mass shootings in 35 other economically and politically comparative countries between 2000 and 2022. The United States makes up 33 percent of the combined population of these 36 countries; however, it also accounts for 76 percent of public mass shooting incidents and 70 percent of victim fatalities in these countries. Yet we continue to just whistle past the graveyard, literally, pretending gun violence is just a fact of life.

Partially indirectly in response to Slider, here's something to consider:

I'm not going to say it explicitly, for reasons easy to figure and understand.

https://www.google.com/search?...yxwE&sclient=gws-wiz

Must be law school doesnt teach common sense Jines.
This kid had a neon sign around his neck saying trouble.
He was on a FBI alert. He begged for mental help. His father knew, and bought him a gun. His mother called the school 30 min before the kid started shooting, and the staff fumbled. What more is there to know. What is your answer? The one before this the parents knew, and are charged. People have to get their heads out of their ass.
I have no formal training. But I can recognize aggression in a kid. I make a point of getting in front of them. Make eye contact, talk to them. I even invite them to work out some of their aggression.
Maybe take a break from ambulance chasing and do the same with kids in your neighborhood? The same with all the other whine asses. It's bound to make a difference on a few.

Rather than rooting around in the weeds based on this specific example, try explaining the macro trend.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Rather than rooting around in the weeds based on this specific example, try explaining the macro trend.

Destroyed in actual, let's pivot to where we can make up strawman tactics?

. . . good boy. Sit.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . good boy. Sit.

ahh ... aren't your precious ..

lose the argument, resort to absurdity -- well, even if i didn't know you weren't a trial lawyer, this would have removed all doubt...

here's your scooby snack ..

What % have advanced warning signs? Half?
It's not like this is hidden from anyone, it is on the news for days, anyone should know the warning signs by now of kids in trouble.
I have told many times what I do, tell me, what do asshole lawyers do besides make money off them?

My question is why are the US statistics so out of line with the non-US statistics?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Rather than rooting around in the weeds based on this specific example, try explaining the macro trend.

Could be many things but something sure has changed since my school days.

Could it be the lack of corporal punishment in the home and at school? Yup, had that in my school days.

Could it be the lack of outdoor play and socialization activities? Had plenty in my school days.

Could it be the lack of teaching respect, manners, how to earn something instead of being a spoiled brat?

Could it be the shitty fast food (low quality nutrition) so many people rely on to feed themselves? Did not have that in my school days.

Could it be the 'best friend' over being a parent in the last couple of generations? No expectations? Participation prizes? No teaching of self determination and skills for independent living and family life? Just teaching entertainment is number one? Medicating 'hyperactive' kids?

Really too many things but not one to blame.

We had plenty of firearms in my youth. No one shot up schools, freeways, concerts, etc. Simply need to look back to those times were none of this happened and start there.

. . . and things don’t change in other countries? Why is this a particularly US phenomenon?

quote:

Why is this a particularly US phenomenon?

If "we" knew the answer, couldn't we "fix" it?

I did a search on the question, and found a lot on what the status is, but nothing on Why, so far. "We" know the problem, just not the why or the cure.

https://www.google.com/search?...b-AQ&sclient=gws-wiz

I'm still thinking and searching, but it's late.

My thought is that it's related to the reasons Trump is the GOP candidate.

And also related to this post in another thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
How unfortunate that we used to all think The State of the Union address and national debates were at one time, "must see tv" and now it's a carnival side show if not just repulsive.

There's no way I'll watch, I'll read the news about it I need to.

Maybe I'm connecting dots that don't connect, but I think they do somehow.