Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
There was never anything to worry about in the first place.
That is not correct. One judge seems to believe that and others did not.
Now you know everyone that thought otherwise before the last judge ruled was overreacting.
Quote:
If you disagree with how it works you can provide a better alternative or stop complaining.
…or elect someone else who will.
Quote:
I am not as concerned as you are since I know I have nearly none of the information used to make the determination.
The only thing that concerns me is that someone was hospitalized for an overreaction. That it ultimately took more than one judge to figure that out is concerning as well, but immaterial. If there was something substantial, he’d still be in custody.
Quote:
You realize the changes you may be looking at are the Oklahoma City or Colorado type?
Some of the changes, yes, not that I’d mind a course of action that effectively reduces the magnitude that much if doing nothing maintains an Oklahoma City-grade baseline.
Quote:
No, I would rather fork out a few funerals and ER hospital bills. They are cheaper in the long term .... really they are.
Quote:
Quote:
Facebook posts, apparently.
That is one aspect ... public statements. Were there others involved? You have decided the peopel involved were foolish based on a very little information.
No, the last judge did that despite whatever information there was.
Quote:
Quote:
No, I seek correction. You can chase perfection, but you’ll never catch it. I don’t expect folks to sit on their asses and become complacent knowing they never will, however.
Sure sounds like it. What should these people have done when notified of the concerns? Ignored them until there was a history of violence?
Not at all. Wig out at any and all opportunities.
Quote:
How was it unnecessary?How do you know beforehend whether it is or is not necessary?
I don’t. I guess we should evaluate everyone who’s ever made similar statements.
Quote:
Unless you can give some clear criteria that works for all cases you are blowing smoke.
Steam, and I’m hardly interested in creating the perfect system. That’s a bogus argument and you know it. At the same time, I’m not interested playing it safe with criteria that is nearly impossible to validate in the first place.
Quote:
So how exactly was the first case determined to be necessary? Does that work for all cases?
Medication overdose—a concrete action demonstrating sole intent to harm or kill oneself. I’d say such actions, in addition to those that place others in immediate physical danger, necessitate intervention in any case, would you not? I’m willing to except high-risk sporting activities, including NASCAR.
Quote:
Sorry, it should have been "no, it wasn't and no they didn't" The one judge did not bleieve there was sufficient evidence but that still does not mean it was BS.
If one judge trumps another, the trumped one is just as good as wrong in their interpretation of whatever evidence there is.
Quote:
Quote:
So, you’re okay with the additional costs incurred to do what we did? Comfortable now, at least?
Compared to the gamble for not doing anything? Yes. The other option is to remove all acess to ranged weapons for all of us.
Ranged weapons weren’t what got the guy in trouble. That was his…er…computer and internet. Yeah, that was it.
Quote:
Quote:
For wasting time and money on a non-threat.
If they were not omniscient how do they know it was a non-threat?
Good sense, perhaps. I do realize it’s not that common anymore.
Quote:
Not at this time, but there is that first case for everyone.
Wow, everyone? I thought we were just concerned with those who talked smack.