On reaching a consensus re mass shootings in the U.S.

Please cite the law that was broken.

 

The only negligence was the failure to pass a tip onto the local field office.
The FBI is not required by law to pass on every tip it receives to a local field office, to my knowledge.
It was a judgement call.
People make judgement calls all the time.

What do you recommend the FBI do in response to this error in judgement?

 

Yeah, well we covered that already... no specific threat.

 

Yes they didn't follow protocol. Someone judged that there was no "potential threat to life".
So anyway, The FBI needs to be more diligent in following protocol.
Okay. I have no problem with that.
I'll even include it in our consensus list (I put it at number 5 to keep things in order):

A Consensus on Mass Shootings​

1. All mass shootings are the product of abnormal behavior.
2. Something must be done about abnormal behavior in relation to mass shootings.
3. We will never eliminate every firearm in the U.S.
4. We will never eliminate every mass shooting.
5. Everyone, including law enforcement officials need to be more vigilant in respect to potential mass shootings.
6. Background checks are limited in their value and are only one tool available to lessen mass shootings.
7. Mental health screening and treatment is limited in value and only one tool available to lessen mass shootings.
8. Outside venues can't be made absolutely safe from mass shootings.
9. Private homes can't be made absolutely safe from mass shootings.

 

Time to move on. Let's talk about "hardening" schools and other buildings.

I think we can all agree that resource officers are a reasonable option in school buildings.
Resource officers (SROs) are typically uniformed local police officers who have expressed a desire to serve in a school building, usually a high school.
SROs have the ability to respond to incidences, and make arrests. By Federal law search and seizure requirements are relaxed. In 2011 the average SRO's pay was $63,294, higher than the average teacher's salary. Funding seems to be a combination of the school district, state, and local police force funding.

In districts that don't have a local police force, the school district itself would have to hire a private school based law enforcement officers (SBLE). They are typically lower paid and trained.

The other option is to rely on the state police.
In the last district I worked in we had a local officer in one suburban high school and rotating state police officers in the other, as there was no local police force in that township. The state police officers were not present everyday, and I don't know if they still cover that building.

The National Association of School Resource Officers recommend that all SRO's get an addition 40 hours of training in school policies and carry all standard police equipment including a gun. They recommend one officer per building or 1,000 students.
They are against arming anyone in the building except active sworn law enforcement officers based upon:
NASRO
Click to expand...
There are were 98,271 grade 1 through 12 public schools in the U.S. in 2014.
Total cost for one year of implementation of one officer for each building in the U.S. would be over 6 billion dollars a year. ( Based on the average uniformed officers salary $63,294 X 98,271 = $6,219,964,674; the cost would be lower if some private school district police officers were paid less)
That's not counting private schools, colleges, and universities.

 

I'm really amazed that you have such trouble understanding this thing.
He didn't say he was going to shoot up his school.
He said "I'm going to be a professional school shooter". No specific school was named.
It's very similar to the general statement made by FOX news spokesmen Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!"
Clearly a call to shoot unspecified government officials.

I have no idea what you're talking about with your right and wrong statement.
Yes it was wrong that he committed a mass shooting, I agree.
I agree we should let a judge decide, that's what I've been saying all along.

 

Whatever.

 

There are too many to list.

Now, how are you going to enforce such a vague law as you propose? "If you hate, you must be executed?"
What kind of law is that?
If you hate what?
How do we determine what hate is?

If I say I hate your race, creed, color, gender, disability, diet, hairstyle, occupation, home location, nail polish, Costco Membership, foot gear or political affiliation I must be executed?
LOL!

Current Federal hate laws prohibit injuries, etc., because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin or the damaging religious property or interference with religious beliefs or injuries, etc. due to gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
A large number of individual state laws prohibit injuries, etc., due to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Not the vague "if you hate" thing you propose.
In 1995 there were 10,469 hate crimes identified, in 2014 5,479.
But regardless, to say that a law isn't working because the intended crime has increased is a simplistic understanding of society and crime.
It may be working very well as the rate of crime could have doubled, tripled, or increased a hundred fold without the law.