I've stated before that I'm skeptical about "Red Flag" laws and how they seem to infringe on the presumption of innocence. But as we learn more about the Uvalde and Buffalo shooters, it seems clear that both of them had engaged in behavior that was illegal long before they started shooting. I guess like a lot of alleged solutions, if we aren't going to do anything to these people when they break laws, then I'm skeptical of why one more law would be the magical answer.
The Uvalde shooter engaged in "animal abuse" and other "abhorrent behavior", yet was never brought to the attention of the police or anyone else. His teachers feared him, yet seemingly did nothing, or were prevented from doing anything.
Likewise, the Buffalo shooter posted the following on social media days before his rampage, “I’m going to have to kill that security guard at Tops I hope he doesn’t kill me or even hurt me instantly.”. Further, although he purchased his gun legally, he made "illegal modifications" to it. It seems reasonable to conclude that adding one more law for him to break wouldn't have deterred him from his actions. Further, in light of the plethora of serious charges he's likely to be convicted of, I find it hard to believe that tacking another few years on to his longer than lifetime sentence will make a bit of difference to anyone.
A while back I posted on some things I'd consider as ways to deal with this sort of thing, since then I've asked why we aren't looking at more things than the simplistic "it's the gun's fault" mindset we usually see.
It's a complex situation, but if we're going to ignore the breaking of existing laws as red flags, I fail to see how more red flags is going to help.
2 comments:
In both cases, "Red Flag" law would have resulted in no difference in outcome. The reason is because as you point out, the behavior of these two were known early enough for some intervention to have taken place, had only adults stepped up to initiate it. "Red Flag" laws are to remove weapons from those suspected of having a high potential to cause harm. These two clearly fall under that heading. If no one reports their mentally erratic behaviors, or acts on any such reports which my have been lodged, what good does a "Red Flag" law do?
Let's go back a bit. In both the Parkland, FL case, as well as the Trayvon Martin case, we had two instances where each engaged in mentally erratic or criminal behavior. They were purposely allowed to maintain their freedom under policies pushed by President Obama intended to delay or prevent a kid from beginning a life of incarceration in hopes doing so would present a chance for repentance...though it was as much to keep arrest/incarceration rates down...the same dynamic was at play and bad consequences resulted.
Here's one more: In 2017, the Sutherland Texas church shootings was again a case where a known wackjob was not reported. As with the two recent shooters, and the Parkland shooter, the ball, as they say, was dropped. Those who should have done their jobs, which in doing so would have put these people in some form of restriction, did not.
"Red Flag" law requires and depends upon those who know the threat act on that knowledge to arrest the threat before harm can be perpetrated. If "good" people aren't compelled to act or are for some reason unwilling to act, this law is no better than the thousands already on the books. Instead, it is far more likely to be abused and itself used as a weapon by pissed off girlfriends, political enemies and in the meantime, maniacs will continue to shoot large quantities of people.
I'd add that this recent spate of Soros DA's and cities refusing to prosecute certain "minor" crimes or to let criminals out of incarceration with no regard to their potential for recidivism, will effectively nullify any red flag laws. It's pretty commonly known that animal abuse is a red flag for more serious crimes, yet the Uvalde shooter apparently was known to abuse animals, and no one did anything.
The more we see about the Uvalde situation, the more I believe that the Police bear a great deal more responsibility for many of the deaths than is normally the case. Obviously that shooter should be punished for his actions, but it seems clear that police inaction caused many more people to be shot or killed.
I wonder how red flag laws will work in black communities where the narrative is that the police are racist and will kill unarmed blacks with impunity. How many folks who believe that are going to turn in their own kid or a neighbor if they're exhibiting red flag behavior?
I definitely think that we need to revisit civil commitment laws and be more vigilant and proactive when people engage in actions that can be precursors to these sorts of events. I cringe at punishing people for thoughts rather than actions.
Post a Comment