It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disturbing look inside the mind of the Parkland gunman

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
What common sense gun laws would have stopped this kid?

He wanted to commit evil, no laws would have stopped him.


We don't make it easier then. It's a start.




posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Wouldn't he have been automatically given an attorney before being interrogated in such a high profile case?

?


Uh, no.

No one is automatically given an attorney, no matter how low or high-profile the case is. Where is the WORLD did you get the idea that an attorney is EVER automatically provided?


Cops are allowed to LIE to suspects while they question them. You think if they can do that, that there is also some rule that gives them an attorney automatically, in a high profile case?


Do they need to lie to him in order to charge and convict him in this particular case? No.


*Sigh*

I was using that as an example of why it's a bit absurd to think an attorney would be automatically provided just because this is a high profile case. I was not suggesting they needed to use that tactic here.



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Wouldn't he have been automatically given an attorney before being interrogated in such a high profile case?

?


Uh, no.

No one is automatically given an attorney, no matter how low or high-profile the case is. Where is the WORLD did you get the idea that an attorney is EVER automatically provided?


Cops are allowed to LIE to suspects while they question them. You think if they can do that, that there is also some rule that gives them an attorney automatically, in a high profile case?


Do they need to lie to him in order to charge and convict him in this particular case? No.


*Sigh*

I was using that as an example of why it's a bit absurd to think an attorney would be automatically provided just because this is a high profile case. I was not suggesting they needed to use that tactic here.



OK. Fine. When someone is read their rights, if I remember correctly, they are then asked of they understand what they've just heard. So, since you seem to know more than I do about it, can you tell me if they have to ask the person if they want a lawyer before they question them? Do they have to get a yes or no or does the person have to take the initiative? How did they get to this point where he is answering their questions and they somehow don't know he wants a lawyer?

Anyway, I did not imply that they lied to him so I don't even know why you brought that up. They may or may not be allowed to lie to people during interrogations but they are not allowed to arrest someone without explaining their rights. The guy is chained to the floor so he's definitely under arrest.

I was just wondering why they would risk their case by releasing this video to the public at this time. And I was pointing out you can clearly hear him ask for a lawyer AFTER he confesses. A lawyer is of no use at that point, right? What is a lawyer going to do for him then? Run and bring him some more water?

So. We must assume they read him his rights and told him he has a right to remain silent AND a right to a lawyer. They likely THEN asked him if he understands his rights. So, if he didn't want a lawyer, why did he ask for one in the video? Why does he talk to the cops BEFORE he asks for a lawyer? I don't know much about the way these things work but I do know that someone who is arrested does not HAVE to talk to the cops and if they want a lawyer they have to give them one. Everyone knows that. Every street thug knows that.

He could be the dumbest person on earth and I think he would still understand the concept of "you have the right to remain silent". If he didn't, I don't know how he ever made it through first grade. Admittedly he doesn't look to bright but still.

edit on 10-8-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: ChristianParr
a reply to: 727Sky



We do not live in a society that simply puts down the sick, the key really should be making sure it doesn't happen in the first place.

b) if you know someone is ill or not taking their meds report it! As a society we all have a part to play in keeping everyone safe.


Society should prevent this, huh? In this case, society TRIED. How many times were the authorities contacted about this guy? Surely you know that people reported this guy to the FBI MULTIPLE times. He had also been expelled from school, and I believe he had been checked up on by county child and family services in the months leading to to his killing spree.

What ekse could society have done with this one? Scare up an armed posse and capture the guy against his will? And then take him to the police or FBI who already knew about him and did nothing?

I don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty sure its not passing the buck to "society."


Understand that 'society' also includes the school.. FBI... mental health services.. Clearly there were alarm bells already and the 'good guys' did NOTHING So that's my point. The end result was people died because of someones mental health when it could of been stopped should those in power chosen too.....



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChristianParr


Understand that 'society' also includes the school.. FBI... mental health services.. Clearly there were alarm bells already and the 'good guys' did NOTHING So that's my point. The end result was people died because of someones mental health when it could of been stopped should those in power chosen too.....


OTOH, there are probably millions and millions of people who seem crazy and never do anything so it's not entirely reasonable to expect them to lock up anyone who doesn't seem quite normal. Is it?

The thing is that involuntary commitment used to be a big thing in the US and the reason it was stopped was because it was being abused. The possibility that it could be abused for political purposes is very real and has (in fact) happened often in the past in other places. Where is the line where we should say "You're not allowed to be weird"?



edit on 10-8-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I am the king of weird! That being said when someone has access to firearms, makes threats to others, mentions they hear voices that is enough to get you into a mental hospital. You cannot simply allow everyone who is ill to fend for themselves in the community in fact doing so is unethical for their own safety. In the UK we have stringent laws that means such threats are taken seriously and will result in what is called a section where you are detained until such time that you are not a threat to yourself or others. If the US chooses to void such a law based on civil liberties then frankly they can't whine when # like this happens.

Mental health is a complex thing and of course not everyone who is suffering is a threat to themselves or others but when they are...well the argument of 'it might be abused' is null and void. If that is the issue fix that as well!



posted on Aug, 10 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChristianParr
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I am the king of weird! That being said when someone has access to firearms, makes threats to others, mentions they hear voices that is enough to get you into a mental hospital.


Sure. And what happens when someone who just seems a little off does the same thing and the criteria for what is "enough to get someone in a mental hospital" has to be changed again and again to satisfy the public demand for complete and total safety?

How many times has it happened that there was a mass shooting or something and the perp just seemed a bit weird but nothing major? How many times has it happened that the person didn't make any threats at all?

Basically, what I'm asking here is where does it end once you start persecuting people for being odd? It is a perfectly valid question and it is one that will have to be asked eventually. It has happened before. The Soviet Union comes to mind. Nazi Germany used psychiatric commitment against their political enemies. If you're posting on this forum, you should be asking these questions already.

Frankly, I think religion is a mental illness. And I'm not the only one.
edit on 10-8-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
In my conspiracy minded thought processes, I could believe that the authorities don't want to address the mental health issues for a variety of reasons.

With the changes in what society had chosen to accept as "normal" behavior these days, it would be hard to determine just what is crazy anymore. "Abnormal" would seem to be the new "normal" in many cases. I could supply some examples, but I don't want any sensitive folks to get all riled up because social engineering has changed much over the past 50 years or so. All I can say is that today it's the people who have common sense and traditional values that are the real crazies who pose the biggest threats to society apparently.

Another thing to consider is the environmental stresses on the human mind and body. Poor nutrition, toxins in the environment as well as in prescribed medicines, economical stresses, social stresses, political turmoil, etc. All these things would have to be swept under the rug to keep the status quo and to continue with the agendas TPTB are working toward.

No one with any power or authority would want to cast any light on the failures of the system they want to perpetuate to maintain their power. I think this is the basic problem, along with the fact that many people these days seem not to want to take responsibility for anything in their lives and will pass the blame where ever and when ever possible.
edit on 11-8-2018 by MichiganSwampBuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChristianParr

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: ChristianParr
a reply to: 727Sky



We do not live in a society that simply puts down the sick, the key really should be making sure it doesn't happen in the first place.

b) if you know someone is ill or not taking their meds report it! As a society we all have a part to play in keeping everyone safe.


Society should prevent this, huh? In this case, society TRIED. How many times were the authorities contacted about this guy? Surely you know that people reported this guy to the FBI MULTIPLE times. He had also been expelled from school, and I believe he had been checked up on by county child and family services in the months leading to to his killing spree.

What ekse could society have done with this one? Scare up an armed posse and capture the guy against his will? And then take him to the police or FBI who already knew about him and did nothing?

I don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty sure its not passing the buck to "society."


Understand that 'society' also includes the school.. FBI... mental health services.. Clearly there were alarm bells already and the 'good guys' did NOTHING So that's my point. The end result was people died because of someones mental health when it could of been stopped should those in power chosen too.....


Right, so be specific, because it seems like you are saying the regular people of society could or should have prevented this. When in this case, the regular people of society are the only ones who took any action to try to stop this guy from murder. And they stayed within the bounds of the law. That's why I mentioned the armed posse; we aren't allowed to do that. Had people done that, THEY would have gotten in trouble with the law. So again I'm gonna object to your characterization of "society should prevent this."

The authorities: law enforcement,law makers, school administrators, etc. THEY should have prevented this. They had multiple oppetunities.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: ChristianParr


Understand that 'society' also includes the school.. FBI... mental health services.. Clearly there were alarm bells already and the 'good guys' did NOTHING So that's my point. The end result was people died because of someones mental health when it could of been stopped should those in power chosen too.....


Where is the line where we should say "You're not allowed to be weird"?




When a person starts making mention of becoming the next school shooter.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: ChristianParr
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I am the king of weird! That being said when someone has access to firearms, makes threats to others, mentions they hear voices that is enough to get you into a mental hospital.


Sure. And what happens when someone who just seems a little off does the same thing and the criteria for what is "enough to get someone in a mental hospital" has to be changed again and again to satisfy the public demand for complete and total safety?



Ugh....this is a good point, Flanders.



posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: ChristianParr

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: ChristianParr
a reply to: 727Sky



We do not live in a society that simply puts down the sick, the key really should be making sure it doesn't happen in the first place.

b) if you know someone is ill or not taking their meds report it! As a society we all have a part to play in keeping everyone safe.


Society should prevent this, huh? In this case, society TRIED. How many times were the authorities contacted about this guy? Surely you know that people reported this guy to the FBI MULTIPLE times. He had also been expelled from school, and I believe he had been checked up on by county child and family services in the months leading to to his killing spree.

What ekse could society have done with this one? Scare up an armed posse and capture the guy against his will? And then take him to the police or FBI who already knew about him and did nothing?

I don't know what the answer is but I'm pretty sure its not passing the buck to "society."


Understand that 'society' also includes the school.. FBI... mental health services.. Clearly there were alarm bells already and the 'good guys' did NOTHING So that's my point. The end result was people died because of someones mental health when it could of been stopped should those in power chosen too.....


Right, so be specific, because it seems like you are saying the regular people of society could or should have prevented this. When in this case, the regular people of society are the only ones who took any action to try to stop this guy from murder. And they stayed within the bounds of the law. That's why I mentioned the armed posse; we aren't allowed to do that. Had people done that, THEY would have gotten in trouble with the law. So again I'm gonna object to your characterization of "society should prevent this."

The authorities: law enforcement,law makers, school administrators, etc. THEY should have prevented this. They had multiple oppetunities.


Star for that one KG.

I agree except that I don't believe that innocent, law abiding citizens would be acting outside the law when defending themselves and others. In fact, I believe that any law or statute that may be violated in such a situation is irrelevant, IMO it is a civic duty.

I would reserve the rights of average citizens to protect themselves and others from a clear and present danger like a school shooter. When the LEOs and other "authority" aren't available, then it becomes the responsibility of law abiding citizens to step in and end the threat. This is especially true when all the proper channels have already been utilized.

Of course this is merely my personal opinion, otherwise I agree about how the law could be big trouble when you have to defend your own life and other lives around you. Makes more sense to me to consider self-defense a civic duty and a moral obligation, esp. when innocents lives can be spared.
edit on 11-8-2018 by MichiganSwampBuck because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2018 by MichiganSwampBuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Oh I totally agree with you. It's just that with the corruption and incompetence of our "leaders" and officials these days, I think that if regular citizens had tried somehow to prevent Cruz early on, they would have gotten in trouble with the law. It shouldn't be that way, though. It's supposed to be as you say, that we have the right to defend ourselves when they fail. It's depressing and frustrating to consider the reality of our "rights" these days.


edit on 12-8-2018 by KansasGirl because: ed/ing



posted on Aug, 13 2018 @ 05:12 AM
link   
You need to consider the voices beamed into the head. I've had this. I've heard a voice beamed into my head. It is real. I am not the type that would do some crazy beamed-in stuff, but I've heard it. If this kid can be manipulated then the voice can do the manipulating.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join