He always hated women. Then he decided to kill them.

[harmonica]

the old ''hate whitey'' agenda --when it's really blacks who are the jackasses

While you're entitled to your opinion, I dont' appreciate you coming to my thread and intentionally lying, so either contribute something of substance or leave.

I know--the truth hurts
.....what you really mean is you don't like the truth--blacks are far worse in committing hate crimes/rape/etc--FACTS

 

[harmonica]

the old ''hate whitey'' agenda --when it's really blacks who are the jackasses

While you're entitled to your opinion, I dont' appreciate you coming to my thread and intentionally lying, so either contribute something of substance or leave.

hqahahahhahaha--how come you didn't reply to my other post with the facts in it ??!!!!!

 

[Theowl32]

Just like any cocksucker liberal. Goes from THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE to a political agenda. Disguised under this "care" for the victims.

And what political agenda do you imagine this to be?

Here. Watch and learn.



And yes that is all relatable to this topic.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

But they can act. We have laws against harassment, and making threats, and touching people without their consent (the numerous instances of groping that Beierle was banned from several campuses/worksites for)

Yes, that is so. Problem was people didn't want to press charges or the DA declined to prosecute. Also in Florida (as in many states) a police officer must observe a misdemeanor being committed before he can arrest the person. So while there are plenty of laws on the books it won't change things if people don't act.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Be careful what you wish for. If you think law enforcement should have the power and the resources to prevent crime you would be entering into the realm of socialist dictatorships.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. There was plenty of documentation in both of these cases to indicate that the individuals involved were committing criminal aggressions. Once it got past 3 separate offenses, in my opinion something should have been put in place or someone should have began working on a case so that when it happened again our system could have intervened.

You don't think that had something been done early on that perhaps Cruz would have never made it to offense 38 which was the Parkland shooting? Isn't it possible that had someone intervened at some point before they got into the 30s that maybe the shooting could have been adverted even if for no other reason than because he was locked up for a crime less significant than murder?

I'm all in favor of 3 strikes and you are out, but dems and minorities scream bloody murder.

Well I found this information:

School shooter in the making’: All the times authorities were warned about Nikolas Cruz

Nikolas Cruz’s dangerous and disturbing behavior was flagged repeatedly to authorities, both local and federal, over a span of two years starting in February 2016. But no one stopped him before he killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Here’s a time line of incidents where Cruz was reported to law enforcement. Many of the incidents involve the threat of a school shooting.

By Nicole L. Cvetnic

▪ Feb. 5, 2016: A Broward Sheriff’s Office deputy is told by an anonymous caller that Nikolas Cruz, then 17, had threatened on Instagram to shoot up his school and posted a photo of himself with guns. The information is forwarded to BSO Deputy Scot Peterson, a school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

▪ Sept. 23, 2016: A “peer counselor” reports to Peterson that Cruz had possibly ingested gasoline in a suicide attempt, was cutting himself and wanted to buy a gun. A mental health counselor advises against involuntary committing Cruz. The high school says it will conduct a threat assessment.

▪ Sept. 28, 2016: An investigator for the Florida Department of Children and Families rules Cruz is stable, despite “fresh cuts” on his arms. His mother, Lynda Cruz, says in the past he wrote “hate signs” on his book bag and had recently talked of buying firearms.

▪ Sept. 24, 2017: A YouTube user named “nikolas cruz” posts a comment stating he wants to become a “professional school shooter.” The comment is reported to the FBI in Mississippi, which fails to make the connection to Cruz in South Florida.

▪ Nov. 1, 2017: Katherine Blaine, Lynda Cruz’s cousin, calls BSO to report that Nikolas Cruz had weapons and asks that police recover them. A “close family friend” agrees to take the firearms, according to BSO.

▪ Nov. 29, 2017: The Palm Beach County family that took in Cruz after the death of his mother calls the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office to report a fight between him and their son, 22. A member of the family says Cruz had threatened to “get his gun and come back” and that he has “put the gun to others’ heads in the past.” The family does not want him arrested once he calms down.

▪ Nov. 30, 2017: A caller from Massachusetts calls BSO to report that Cruz is collecting guns and knives and could be a “school shooter in the making.” A BSO deputy advises the caller to contact the Palm Beach sheriff.

▪ Jan. 5, 2018: A caller to the FBI’s tip line reports that Cruz has “a desire to kill people” and could potentially conduct a school shooting. The information is never passed on to the FBI’s office in Miami.

▪ Feb. 14, 2018: Nikolas Cruz attacks Stoneman Douglas High. Peterson, the school’s resource officer, draws his gun outside the building where Cruz is shooting students and staff. He does not enter.

Miami Herald staff writer Carli Teproff contributed to this report.

Nicholas Nehamas: 305-376-3745, @NickNehamas
‘School shooter in the making’: All the times authorities were warned about Nikolas Cruz
​

Then there's this

Nikolas Cruz: A history of disciplinary incidents
Nikolas Cruz: A history of disciplinary incidents





​

 

[airplanemechanic]

So do our laws need to change, should there be a threshold for specific acts before automatically requiring being charged with an actual crime? I'm don't the answer but this is what I'm thinking.

Laws can change, but any law must be balanced against an individual's constitutional rights. That's were problem falls. Many states are, or already have, red flag laws to use to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are unbalanced. These laws though are like any other, somebody must stand up and notify authorities, or press charges. DA's must take the time to find out if there are these kind of hateful writings, recordings, etc. While they may be legally protected speech they can be used to show state of mind and potentially get restrictions on the individual from possessing or purchasing firearms. Minimally the DA can chose to prosecute whatever charges are against the individual to begin the paper trail that could remove his right and ability to access firearms.

Will this keep these types of shootings from occurring? Maybe some, but if a person really wants a firearm they can and will find a way to get them. The suspects in the May 2019 school shooting in Highlands Ranch, CO, are under 21 and could not legally buy handguns. Instead the broke into the gun safe of one of the suspects parents and took weapons (of which 2 or 3 were handguns) that they used in the shooting.

So what is the answer? What laws, short of totally disarming the nation (good luck with that and they can't have mine), will prevent mass shootings?

Someone who makes as much sense as you and writes as eloquently and articulates his points so well has no business being on this forum.

Your reply lacks key requirements for this forum:

1. It must contain at least one curse word.
2. It must contain at least one grammatical error.
3. It must be a personal attack aimed at a liberal.
4. It must barely make a scrap of sense.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

the old ''hate whitey'' agenda --when it's really blacks who are the jackasses

While you're entitled to your opinion, I dont' appreciate you coming to my thread and intentionally lying, so either contribute something of substance or leave.

hqahahahhahaha--how come you didn't reply to my other post with the facts in it ??!!!!!

This is the last time I'm telling you this. If you continue then I will consider your comments as nothing more than harassment since I've stated to you that your opinion on THIS thread if not pertinent to the topic is unwanted.

Being an ignorant racist is your right, harassing people, especially me, on a thread where the topic of discussion is men who hate women and commit acts of violence against them is not a right.

I've asked you once to cease your behavior, now I'm telling you to do so. You know what comes next.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But they can act. We have laws against harassment, and making threats, and touching people without their consent (the numerous instances of groping that Beierle was banned from several campuses/worksites for)

Yes, that is so. Problem was people didn't want to press charges or the DA declined to prosecute. Also in Florida (as in many states) a police officer must observe a misdemeanor being committed before he can arrest the person. So while there are plenty of laws on the books it won't change things if people don't act.

Well you know what? This whole case against Scott Petersen is inherently unjust in m opinion because he at least tried to get Cruz committed, but now he's being criminally charged as a "caregiver" because he was unable to stop an ambush that he warned people about.

 

[MarcATL]

Why are so many "conservative" guys neither sexual? They don't like men. They don't like women.

They don't even like themselves.

 

[MarcATL]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. There was plenty of documentation in both of these cases to indicate that the individuals involved were committing criminal aggressions. Once it got past 3 separate offenses, in my opinion something should have been put in place or someone should have began working on a case so that when it happened again our system could have intervened.

You don't think that had something been done early on that perhaps Cruz would have never made it to offense 38 which was the Parkland shooting? Isn't it possible that had someone intervened at some point before they got into the 30s that maybe the shooting could have been adverted even if for no other reason than because he was locked up for a crime less significant than murder?

If Cruz had gotten the black treatment, he wouldn't have been able to make it to 10 offenses unscathed, muchless 38. He'd have been arrested and charged w/a harsher sentence that would have put a major cramp in his walk.

 

[Claudette]

Even with all his ranting, raving and hatred towards women, what could police do? It's very unfortunate that police must wait for a law being broken, or see the crime developing before they can do anything. Too many victims pay with their lives.

I agree. Police are reactive, they can never be proactive because the crime has to be committed before they can act.

People should learn to use and carry a gun and be prepared to use it.

 

[MarcATL]

Laws can change, but any law must be balanced against an individual's constitutional rights. That's were problem falls. Many states are, or already have, red flag laws to use to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are unbalanced. These laws though are like any other, somebody must stand up and notify authorities, or press charges. DA's must take the time to find out if there are these kind of hateful writings, recordings, etc. While they may be legally protected speech they can be used to show state of mind and potentially get restrictions on the individual from possessing or purchasing firearms. Minimally the DA can chose to prosecute whatever charges are against the individual to begin the paper trail that could remove his right and ability to access firearms.

Will this keep these types of shootings from occurring? Maybe some, but if a person really wants a firearm they can and will find a way to get them. The suspects in the May 2019 school shooting in Highlands Ranch, CO, are under 21 and could not legally buy handguns. Instead the broke into the gun safe of one of the suspects parents and took weapons (of which 2 or 3 were handguns) that they used in the shooting.

So what is the answer? What laws, short of totally disarming the nation (good luck with that and they can't have mine), will prevent mass shootings?

What's your stance on 'Stop & Frisk' policing?

 

[Lysistrata]

I've met two obvious woman-haters in my time, the rest being more subtle.

1) an old guy who worked at the university I went to as a bookbinder, I think. Sick and filthy mouth. In your face. He started in on me in the rathskeller and I think some of the guys took him outside.

2) I went to a 7/11 to get something to eat around midnight, while coming home from a rough road trip to get my friend and her babies up north, as her father-in-law had just died. I'm covered with baby-spit, standing there waiting to pay for a pint of ice cream. The guy ahead of me turns around, looks me straight in the eye, and starts yelling about women being whores, we are all just c**ts, etc. At least he didn't try to kill me, just left me shaken. To have someone spit this at your face in the middle of the night is just appalling.

I don't know what we can do about this, or what the police can do unless they witness this sort of behavior. This is a diseased mind. Some of these types do it on the basis of sex, others by race, religion, ethnicity.

I am alarmed at all the dead and missing little girls. There should be no more Maleahs and Lizzie's. Is this a rising trend, or is this just a product of the internet keeping us up to date by the minute?

 

[depotoo]

There is a problem here. He legally could not purchase the guns. Broward failed to flag it. His history forbid him from being able to purchase, but local law enforcement are supposed to flag it. They didn’t.

My reason for posting this story is primarily due to the fact I've been partipating in a discussion about the Broward County school resource officer Scott Petersen who was recently arrested in connection with the Parkland shooting at Majorie Stoneman Douglas high school.

The person I've been communicating with is a staunch gun control advocate who blames the entire incident solely on the fact that Cruz was able to legally purchase the weapons he used and doesn't appear to place much credence in the theory that perhaps Cruz would have simply obtained a weapon unlawfully if his initial lawful attempt had been thwarted.

My position is that had Cruz been made a prohibited person due to this mental state (Petersen attempted to get him committed under Florida's Baker Act) or had he been arrested and tried on any of the numerous assaults that it's been reported he committed AND had the FBI viewed his online threats more seriously when viewed in light of the totality of the 37 contacts with law enforcement that he/his family had, then maybe they could have adverted this tragedy.

The thing I found most interesting about this article is how they detail the numerous complaints and discipinary actions taken against Beierle and how none of them resulted in any criminal charges being filed against him. This means that on paper he looks clean as most background checks look for criminal history, specifically convictions and sometimes arrests as well, but there were none for this guy. So that means in spite of all of his aggressions against a multitude of women in a variety of locals, and his violent writings indicating his desires to harm women, he was not a prohibited person who was able to walk into a gun store and legally purchase the weapon he used to commit this crime.

Just like in the Parkland case, everyone knew about his propensity for aggression & violence. And in both this case & Parkland, these individuals not only wrote about their desires for violence or aggression, they actually committed some of these acts before they actually graduated to murder.

So do our laws need to change, should there be a threshold for specific acts before automatically requiring being charged with an actual crime? I'm don't the answer but this is what I'm thinking.

 

[22lcidw]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. There was plenty of documentation in both of these cases to indicate that the individuals involved were committing criminal aggressions. Once it got past 3 separate offenses, in my opinion something should have been put in place or someone should have began working on a case so that when it happened again our system could have intervened.

You don't think that had something been done early on that perhaps Cruz would have never made it to offense 38 which was the Parkland shooting? Isn't it possible that had someone intervened at some point before they got into the 30s that maybe the shooting could have been adverted even if for no other reason than because he was locked up for a crime less significant than murder?

If Cruz had gotten the black treatment, he wouldn't have been able to make it to 10 offenses unscathed, muchless 38. He'd have been arrested and charged w/a harsher sentence that would have put a major cramp in his walk.

For what it is worth, Cruz had a dad.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why are so many "conservative" guys neither sexual? They don't like men. They don't like women.

Asexuals don't feel rejected. If someone is not sexually attracted to men or women they don't want to be bothered. They are the least likely to shoot up a school or anything else.

 

[Lysistrata]

Why are so many "conservative" guys neither sexual? They don't like men. They don't like women.

Asexuals don't feel rejected. If someone is not sexually attracted to men or women they don't want to be bothered. They are the least likely to shoot up a school or anything else.

So why do these guys who describe themselves as "conservative" hate women and men at the same time? I will never forget seeing some guy interviewed on tv who said he was a member the the southern-baptist cult and was a "reverend." He openly bragged that he won disagreements with this woman who was stupid enough to marry him because he has a penis and she doesn't. I am not making this up. He wins arguments with his dick.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why are so many "conservative" guys neither sexual? They don't like men. They don't like women.

Asexuals don't feel rejected. If someone is not sexually attracted to men or women they don't want to be bothered. They are the least likely to shoot up a school or anything else.

So why do these guys who describe themselves as "conservative" hate women and men at the same time? I will never forget seeing some guy interviewed on tv who said he was a member the the southern-baptist cult and was a "reverend." He openly bragged that he won disagreements with this woman who was stupid enough to marry him because he has a penis and she doesn't. I am not making this up. He wins arguments with his dick.

Asexuals don't hate anyone they are not sexually attracted to either men or women. How does this translate to hate in your mind?

One man who thinks he wins arguments with his dick is just too inconsequential to even think about. Why in the world would anyone find meaning in one person's opinion?

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

What's your stance on 'Stop & Frisk' policing?

It's been quite a few years since I've read Terry v Ohio (392 U.S 1 [1968]) which is the first case law involving stop and frisk. The Supreme Court ruled that police could stop and frisk absent probable cause if the police had a reasonable suspicion that the person they stopped has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit a crimes, and the police have a reasonable suspicion that the individual "may be armed and is presently dangerous."

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia

There has been further SCOTUS cases on different aspects, but Terry v Ohio remains the basis for stop and frisk. I have no problem with a stop and frisk provided the court's ruling is complied with. SCOTUS gave police officers a lower standard to work with from the normal probable cause. We were trained that we should be able to articulate our reasonable suspicions before stopping an individual and frisking them. This reasonable suspicion can be gained during a consensual encounter too.

So, police must keep the individuals rights protected while gaining the information he/she needs to reach the reasonable suspicion. Now were the individual is already known to be a risk from information provided by sources known to be in contact with the individual, or writings the individual has posted in some online forum, that could provide some of the reasonable suspicion. The police would then only need to focus on the other elements.

Even with stop and frisk it will still be difficult to prevent a mass shooting. Police do not have the resources to follow and observe a potentially dangerous person 24/7. The main resources are still the people around the individual (parents, sibling, friends, etc). Victims of ANY crime committed against them by the individual, no matter how minor, must press charges and DA's must prosecute.

 

[Moonglow]

Male supremacy

Don't you have a male that rules over you?