When are we going to get serious about the criminally insane?

[bellisarius]

Yeah - the ACLU is the problem.

Yet another idiot reads what wasn't written.

 

[coati]

I didn't ask you if my view was clear.


You have beef....you want to end free speech....I'm asking you why.

Can you not explain your position?

My position is that free speech should not include advocating for deadly physical violence as a means to silence those who are either hated or hold opposing political views within our country. Your position is that this advocacy is currently covered by the First Amendment, and it should remain that way.

The legal definitions of mental illness do not appear to be a good indicator of who will commit an act of mass violence. Threat or advocacy for deadly physical violence appear to be a much better indicator of those violent actions and of creating peer support within society for those actions.

My position is that economic and policy decisions should be decided at the ballot box, and that open advocacy for physical violence should be closely monitored by law enforcement.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your position is that this advocacy is currently covered by the First Amendment, and it should remain that way.

Indeed, I'm a free speech supporter 100% all day every day.

You can add "hate speech", scientific research that blows lefty (D)erp up and all the other non-directly endangering/inciting speech the "progressive" left wants banned to the list of speeches I support being free.

My position is that free speech should not include advocating for deadly physical violence as a means to silence those who are either hated or hold opposing political views within our country.

My position is that economic and policy decisions should be decided at the ballot box, and that open advocacy for physical violence should be closely monitored by law enforcement.

This is self contradicting.

You either make speech advocating violence punishable under the law or you don't. There is no between wiggle space on that.

So which is it??

Do you want people who advocate violence monitored (free) or prosecuted under the law (not free,) ???

 

[coati]

You can add "hate speech", scientific research that blows lefty (D)erp up and all the other non-directly endangering/inciting speech the "progressive" left wants banned to the list of speeches I support being free.

…..
This is self contradicting.

You either make speech advocating violence punishable under the law or you don't. There is no between wiggle space on that.

So which is it??

Do you want people who advocate violence monitored (free) or prosecuted under the law (not free,) ???

First of all, don't lump me in with people who want to ban hate speech. That has nothing to do with crossing the line of advocating for deadly physical violence. BB gets away with hate speech hourly, but when he crosses the line with advocacy for deadly violence, he deserves to be banned.

Regarding your second response above, it is becoming increasingly obvious that with the advent of new communication technologies, allowable free speech needs to be re-examined if we want to avoid massive civil strife. I said I thought it was time to ban open advocacy for deadly physical violence as a means to achieve political ends within our country.

However, having said that, I understand how the courts have parsed over that fine line regarding the incitement of deadly violence. So, unless that line is redefined by the courts or by legislation or by amendment, the best we can do is monitor those groups and individuals who are openly advocating for deadly physical violence. This involves both citizens and law enforcement, and it is much harder to accomplish with the advent of the internet.

In the old days, violent and extremist groups were more isolated from each other than they are now. Now, it is much more likely that a lone wolf can stew for months in internet chatter before snapping. New conditions call for new solutions-- monitor the crackpots who advocate for deadly physical force against those who are simply exercising their rights to free speech and free existence. Monitoring them will send a message that threatens their perceived anonymity on the net.

 

[BotanyBoy]

First of all, don't lump me in with people who want to ban hate speech. That has nothing to do with crossing the line of advocating for deadly physical violence.

You're hardcore authoritarian leftist, advocating banning more speech for the same lefty reasons the ban hate speech folks are.

Sorry for the confusion.

Regarding your second response above, it is becoming increasingly obvious that with the advent of new communication technologies, allowable free speech needs to be re-examined if we want to avoid massive civil strife.

And who gets to decide who gets to say what?

Who gets to be the final arbiter going down the censorship road???

I said I thought it was time to ban open advocacy for deadly physical violence as a means to achieve political ends within our country.

So stop BS'ing about monitoring anyone, be honest, advocate prosecuting them.

 

[coati]

Expected response from the BotBoy

So stop BS'ing about monitoring anyone, be honest, advocate prosecuting them.

As an intellectually lazy and manipulative pot-head, you conveniently left out my third paragraph, regarding how prosecution would be difficult, given the court decisions. It's much easier to eliminate parts of a poster's argument when you are trying to characterize them in a stereotypical fashion.

Monitoring and questioning extremists about their open advocacy for violence are the best options under the current legal conditions. I hope the BBs of this country and their excuse-makers are garnering the attention of law enforcement officials. There certainly is a lot on record in Lit's archives as I am sure there is on GAB and other cites that may not be monitored as closely as Facebook and Reddit. After all, this issue is just as important as sexual predation.

And, in the future, I hope that advocating for deadly physical violence to address American political issues will be banned.

 

[HisArpy]

As an intellectually lazy and manipulative pot-head, you conveniently left out my third paragraph, regarding how prosecution would be difficult, given the court decisions. It's much easier to eliminate parts of a poster's argument when you are trying to characterize them in a stereotypical fashion.

Monitoring and questioning extremists about their open advocacy for violence are the best options under the current legal conditions. I hope the BBs of this country and their excuse-makers are garnering the attention of law enforcement officials. There certainly is a lot on record in Lit's archives as I am sure there is on GAB and other cites that may not be monitored as closely as Facebook and Reddit. After all, this issue is just as important as sexual predation.

And, in the future, I hope that advocating for deadly physical violence to address American political issues will be banned.

So, you're all for repealing the 1st Amendment then. Got it.

 

[beew]

wrong thread

 

[BotanyBoy]

As an intellectually lazy and manipulative pot-head, you conveniently left out my third paragraph, regarding how prosecution would be difficult, given the court decisions. It's much easier to eliminate parts of a poster's argument when you are trying to characterize them in a stereotypical fashion.

Cutting past all the BS to the chase is hardly lazy or manipulative.

I know being direct and honest is just a MIND BLOWING concept to the authoritarian left but I didn't ask you about all that other bullshit.

Monitoring and questioning extremists about their open advocacy for violence are the best options under the current legal conditions.

Yes, damn that right wing first amendment!!!!

After all, this issue is just as important as sexual predation.

Yea free speech is totally on the same threat level as sexual predation

And, in the future, I hope that advocating for deadly physical violence to address American political issues will be banned.

Well that wouldn't work well for (D)'s.....
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/L21wr3ezV3M/hqdefault.jpg


You either have to give them an exception from that ban or be a racist Nazi white supremacist.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Victims EVERYWHERE!

So, you're all for repealing the 1st Amendment then. Got it.

Hey Timmeh? Is teh First Amendment absolute?

Yes, damn that right wing first amendment!!!!

Same question goes to you, Mooch....is the First Amendment absolute?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Hey Timmeh? Is teh First Amendment absolute?



Same question goes to you, Mooch....is the First Amendment absolute?

Nope...never said it was either.

What's your point bigot?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Nope...never said it was either.

What's your point bigot?

That's correct, little fella...You never claimed so directly. You lack the testicular fortitude to go on the (R)ecord.

Instead, you (R)evert to form by insinuating that your (R)ight wing brethren are bein' oppressed...OPPRESsED, DAMMIT!....solely because they want to incite a little old (R)iot or two. Or ten.

One gets the feeling that you regard them as teh "(R)eal Victims" here....almost as much of a victim as you!

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's correct, little fella...You never claimed so directly.

I never implied it indirectly either.

You lack the testicular fortitude to go on the (R)ecord.

The fortitude to go on the record with some idiotic shit YOU fantasized about?

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a20ddd95ed33c6937246c1f37232e519/tenor.gif?itemid=10111909

Instead, you (R)evert to form by insinuating that your (R)ight wing brethren are bein' oppressed...OPPRESsED, DAMMIT!....solely because they want to incite a little old (R)iot or two. Or ten.

One gets the feeling that you regard them as teh "(R)eal Victims" here....almost as much of a victim as you!

More of BigotDownSouth's fantasy.


What's your point to any of this other than you having fantasy time and flailing around in the dark???

 

[coati]

You can't incite violence with your speech, that's not the same as advocating.

You can advocate violence all day long.

I do it regularly, 100% legal.

Thanks 1A and our right wing Constitution.

Given that most of our domestic terrorists and mass killers have been home grown, keep an eye on this California guy BotanyBoy. Military background but with a big chip on his shoulder, fancies himself as a Constitutional expert, fascinated with his guns, and supports those who advocate for deadly physical violence against perceived political enemies (in the name of "free speech").

 

[CandiCame]

Read with a little more care in the future. You've once more managed to read words never spoken.

To recap, in my opinion anyone who sets out to randomly murder people is insane. We don't have the legal tools to deal with the chronically mentally ill let alone the insane. Within the group we'll refer to as the "mentally ill", the majority of whom are non-violent, there is a subgroup that is truly criminally insane and without intervention will become the next mass murderer. Therefore society needs a way to identify and deal with that subgroup.

The laws ARE in place to deal with the insane re. gun ownership, unfortunately they're more notable in their lack of observance than the contrary. In virtually every case (yes, there are exceptions) of mass shootings there were warning signs that were NOT acted on for one reason or another.

Those warning signs WERE NOT INDICATIONS OF MENTAL ILLNESS, THEY EXPLICITLY SPOKE AGAINST MENTAL ILLNESS, LIKE I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER. This premise is FALSE. Less than 5% of mass shooters are neurodivergent in any way. You can use whatever terminology you want, but you'll still be wrong.

To be criminally insane, you have to be unaware of, and therefore unaccountable for, your actions. Lawyers hate that shit because it's a super difficult, and often stupid, defense. You have to prove that you were in a state where you legit didn't know you'd done something, and prove that you'll never be in that state again.

If you're posting threats on facebook, sending out letters, or telling your roommate, you're not criminally insane, you're just an asshole.

Putting crazy folks in institutions or taking our guns will NOT DO A GODDAMN THING to reduce violent crime. Spending time and resources to hurt people who are already at risk just makes you an asshole.

It's simply not true that you have to be crazy to kill somebody. Far more sane people kill people than crazy folks. It's so rare to be able to argue a case around criminal insanity that it's not worth talking about. It's just not a thing that really happens, in the really real world, only in your head, and the heads of others who are afraid of what they don't understand.

Are you legit scared of me? The language of these laws is that anyone with a behavioral disorder, especially those who have had outbursts in the past, will have either restricted ownership, or they'll be completely unable to own or register a gun. I am that person. I'm not a mass shooter. I've never hurt anyone. I had an undiagnosed disorder as a kid that I tried to self-medicate, so I had a couple outbursts where I lashed out at people or myself- no one was ever severely injured, and I'm sure as fuck that no one was ever killed. I've never even shot anyone accidentally.

Yet I am the person these laws are geared toward. Not the sane guy who has the ability to think ahead and tell everyone what he's going to do.

I didn't do anything. And, not for nothing, but a lot of neurodivergent people aren't particularly strong, because nerd culture is more accepting of that kind of thing than other subcultures. You have no reason to fear me. You could kick my ass pretty easily. A particularly determined dog could probably kill me. We are, on the whole, simply not a threat.

We are real easy to hurt, and real likely to BE hurt.

If a crazy person was gonna shoot somebody, there would be no warning signs. That's not how behavioral disorders work. You wouldn't know it, because /I/ wouldn't know it more than a few minutes in advance. And the only reason I would know for those few minutes is because I've been trained to know my body chemistry well enough to know that I need to go take my prns. It's to help me not hurt myself, not to keep myself from becoming a danger to society.

And if I did go into an outburst and shot someone? Which would be pretty hard to do because I'd have to be able to operate a gun, which is... a little bit unlikely, but I could see it happening. Unlikely but not impossible. I'd have to have the sense to remember to expect the recoil and I just... having been in that state don't see myself or anyone else in the middle of an outburst not breaking their fucking nose with a rifle or throwing their shoulder out or something, because you just... are not in a mindset where that shit registers. But say that I did somehow shoot someone, not hurt myself so bad that I had to stop and could conceivably shoot someone else, then I went to court, and I tried to tell my lawyer to put in an insanity plea?

He'd say that the prosecutor would ask why the hell I didn't take my meds when I was in the mindset to be able to do so. He'd say that not adequately controlling my disorder meant that it was premeditated and therefore NOT insane. One of the big differences between LEGAL sanity and insanity is that if you're insane you cannot make a plan and follow through with that plan, because you do not have the capability for rational thought. You're not able to control your actions and therefore are not responsible for them.

It is impossible to premeditate a murder, let alone a mass shooting, if you're legally insane at the time of the murder.

Your core concept is just WRONG.
You're looking for a scapegoat, and yhall are getting pissed when us crazies won't be that for you.

Anyone who sets out to do ANYTHING isn't insane, because they set out to do something. They planned it.

And mass shootings generally aren't random. We have the interviews with the murderers, and they give real, tangible reasons. It's not, "Oh I was just out taking my daily gun walk and I thought, 'I'll kill a bunch of people today'." They have plans that make sense because they are sane. They say, "I thought I would wait until Latino night at a gay nightclub, because I think that hispanic people are trying to change my culture, and I also think that gay people becoming more prevalent is hurting the concept of the nuclear family. I thought that these people were making my culture worse, so I decided to take them out."

That's not something a crazy person says. He wasn't hallucinating that they were space monsters, he had an actual reason that, to certain people who are socialized a certain way, was a GOOD reason. That is not a CRAZY thing to think, it's a SHITTY thing to think. There's a big difference that you're not getting.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Given that most of our domestic terrorists and mass killers have been home grown, keep an eye on this California guy BotanyBoy.

Yea but I'm not white, so you and all the other progressive bigots can calm your racist ass's down.

Military background but with a big chip on his shoulder, fancies himself as a Constitutional expert, fascinated with his guns, and supports those who advocate for deadly physical violence against perceived political enemies (in the name of "free speech").

Look at all that made up shit.

You're either totally illiterate or just dishonest as it gets....I'm guessing both???

Gotta be both.


And as I already told you...they know who I am, where I'm at at and everything I'm capable of, they taught me.

They know more about me than I do.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lpQvoHDEkrs/hqdefault.jpg

 

[coati]

Yea but I'm not white, so you and all the other progressive bigots can calm your racist ass's down.

I never said anything about being white as an indicator of propensity for mass violence in America. I said homegrown, with an internet history of including the advocacy of deadly physical violence against perceived political enemies as a perfectly acceptable form of free speech. You fit that description.

Your whole I'm-not-white thing is just a weak dodge you regularly invoke, because you are half-Asian, but that only emboldens you to promote the white nationalists' reverse discrimination claim. American extremism includes all sorts of mixes, a broad range from pure white to pure black.

You are probably very quiet and reserved in person, but hell-on-wheels inside your mind and on the internet, as in, "Oh, except for very occasional gun fire, he was quiet and kept to himself. I never knew he held so much rage, and living right here in my own neighborhood! I never would have suspected it."

 

[Ramone45]

Generations before us understood that, sadly, some people had to be removed in order to preserve the safety of society as-a-whole. There are individuals who are defective and resistant to therapy. We have no protocols to help those who fall through the cracks. They end up abandoned by our so-called "compassionate society". Although admittedly rare, and not really the focus of this thread, some of these people can be a threat. In any case, it is sad and depressing. I also admit there is no good solution. Asylums are certainly not ideal. But, at least they might protect society and provide a somewhat better environment and opportunity for those who are too mentally ill to care for themselves.

 

[bellisarius]

Generations before us understood that, sadly, some people had to be removed in order to preserve the safety of society as-a-whole. There are individuals who are defective and resistant to therapy. We have no protocols to help those who fall through the cracks. They end up abandoned by our so-called "compassionate society". Although admittedly rare, and not really the focus of this thread, some of these people can be a threat. In any case, it is sad and depressing. I also admit there is no good solution. Asylums are certainly not ideal. But, at least they might protect society and provide a somewhat better environment and opportunity for those who are too mentally ill to care for themselves.

In many cases the individuals you speak of are more a threat to each other than to society. This city, and more than a few others, have tried to establish "homeless camps" in an effort to provide a little protection and services. The cops end up babysitting those "camps" because of the fights that break out between the 'residents' on a daily (or many times a day) basis. Weapons of convenience, rocks, sticks, broken bottles, etc. are often employed. It's virtually all drug related and I see no end, or solution, in sight.

 

[HisArpy]

Given that most of our domestic terrorists and mass killers have been home grown, keep an eye on this California guy BotanyBoy. Military background but with a big chip on his shoulder, fancies himself as a Constitutional expert, fascinated with his guns, and supports those who advocate for deadly physical violence against perceived political enemies (in the name of "free speech").

Yeah, but does he show up at Antifa rallies with a mask over his face?

I'm thinking not.

You see, WORDS are protected under our Constitution. Violent acts are not. You seem to land on the side of those who act violently in order to suppress the words of those who oppose it.

They say that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st. Apparently the new battle plan is to eliminate the 1st so we don't need the 2nd.

 

[doowdniw]

Apparently the new battle plan is to eliminate the 1st so we don't need the 2nd.

Would you say Trump is helping or hindering with regard to the first part of "the new battle plan"?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I never said anything about

Yea and then you made up a bunch of lies, because you're dishonest and or illiterate.

So if you want to get specific about things stop making shit up, or be fucked mmkay cupcake?

Your whole I'm-not-white thing is just a weak dodge you regularly invoke, because you are half-Asian, but that only emboldens you to promote the white nationalists' reverse discrimination claim.

LOL It's not a white nationalist claim you idiot.......it's common knowledge to anyone who's read the DNC platform and doesn't have their head up their ass.

Just because it's racist/sexist shit you support? Doesn't make it stop being racist and sexist.

You are probably very quiet and reserved in person, but hell-on-wheels inside your mind and on the internet, as in, "Oh, except for very occasional gun fire, he was quiet and kept to himself. I never knew he held so much rage, and living right here in my own neighborhood! I never would have suspected it."

Oh look an armchair psychologist fail.

You're almost as bad as cowsling with the making shit up bit.

No I'm actually pretty average, I'm just comfortable with violence enough I go to dipshit rallies to collect teeth from anti-Fa fuckers and weak ass leftist.

It's a thing I started with the Taliban

 

[coati]

Yeah, but does he show up at Antifa rallies with a mask over his face?

I'm thinking not.

You see, WORDS are protected under our Constitution. Violent acts are not. You seem to land on the side of those who act violently in order to suppress the words of those who oppose it.

They say that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st. Apparently the new battle plan is to eliminate the 1st so we don't need the 2nd.

Antifa members and other who promote violence will also need to come under law enforcement scrutiny. This faux revolutionary crap is not new-- it has simply become more prevalent with the advent of the internet.

Look back to the 60s and 70s. There were radical white and black groups actively promoting violence in alternative newspapers, fliers, and speeches. Those statements attracted law enforcement attention like flies on shit. All that big talk about killing pigs and changing the society through violence only resulted in more violence, casualties, arrests, and prison time.

So, yeah, fuckheads have the opportunity to spout off crap about how deadly violence is somehow justified, but given the amount of mass killings we are experiencing, it is high time for law enforcement to aggressively monitor and infiltrate these domestic terrorists.

 

[coati]

So if you want to get specific about things stop making shit up, or be fucked mmkay cupcake?
……….
Oh look an armchair psychologist fail.

You're almost as bad as cowsling with the making shit up bit.

No I'm actually pretty average, I'm just comfortable with violence enough I go to dipshit rallies to collect teeth from anti-Fa fuckers and weak ass leftist.

It's a thing I started with the Taliban

BotBoy, you are truly a legend in your own mind.

 

[coati]

BotBoy, you are truly a legend in your own mind.

Chronic pot use tends to reinforce those visions of grandeur. Must be those compounds that mimic endorphins...