OT...Getting Sick of this Spit

[Kung Wu]

1. I believe I heard Cecile Richards state that they had plans and they drilled to them.
2. The patients and employees went into safe rooms it was reported they were taught to do that through training.
3. The PP office had bullet-proof glass panes. This complicated the police efforts to respond. This implies that a risk assessment had been performed. They just didn't get the part right about what they would do when someone got inside.
4. The PP office had surveillance cameras. This is how police found the shooter. Again, surveillance cameras are not there to catch employees, but to protect them.

Okay, then I assume they had indeed performed company wide drills.

I don't understand why you wouldn't just say, "I read that PP ...." instead of making a bunch of statements that look like guesses and then draw a random conclusion from those statements? It confuses me when you do that, but then again, I'm easily confused.

Kung, we just don't think alike.

You can thank your mama and your papa for that. It's hell living in my brain.

Most organizations have some sort of contingency plans to address risks. How much do you know about incident response plans, have you ever looked at one and do you know why an organization might want to have one?

Most companies that I know of do not have an active shooter response plan in place, unless and until they are specifically threatened. Which come to think of it, I bet PP gets threatened quite often. The companies I have worked for in a past life all had tornado plans and disaster recovery plans in place, but not active shooter plans.

I have had to read and assess incident response plans (albeit for different applications) as part of my job. My prior employer had one. They had to develop it about 20 years ago when a jealous ex stormed the office, took his ex-wife into a conference room and killed her. He later shot himself when the police closed in.

Yeah, I guess that's what I mean. Until there is a threat (or worse in your case an actual event), I don't think the average company has an active shooter response plan in place -- unless the business is a high risk type of business. I bet that trend is changing quite a bit now though.

[shocka khan]

Kung, I don't know what happened, I tried to quote your post and failed miserably. Must have been a user interface problem. :)

Thanks for your kind response. I sometimes assume that readers know as much about a topic as I do, so I appreciate you pointing out to me that I did not context the subject enough.

Incident Response plans are usually highly kept secrets, so most people don't know they exist. Letting people know what you're protecting and how you're protecting it works against the whole notion of having a plan.

PS: I appreciate your work this week in getting the database on Shockernet fixed.

[wufan]

If a mentally unstable person is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, they can be detained against their will in a mental hospital until they are deemed safe. Is this the type of gun control law some are proposing?

[MoValley John]

If a mentally unstable person is deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, they can be detained against their will in a mental hospital until they are deemed safe. Is this the type of gun control law some are proposing?

An EPC, or emergency protective custody, as you have stated, is very limited. In Nebraska, it's 72 hours. I don't know how long it is in Kansas. Therefore, a mentally unstable person can be placed on the custody of a mental health center, or hospital for a very limited amount of time, not until they are deemed safe. In order to hold a mentally unstable person longer, they must be committed. Commitment can be voluntary, otherwise, a court order, with an appeals process is necessary. In other words, what you are describing provides due process for the person being held.

The Patriot Act sidestepped due process, as does gun control legislation currently being floated.

[wufan]

An EPC, or emergency protective custody, as you have stated, is very limited. In Nebraska, it's 72 hours. I don't know how long it is in Kansas. Therefore, a mentally unstable person can be placed on the custody of a mental health center, or hospital for a very limited amount of time, not until they are deemed safe. In order to hold a mentally unstable person longer, they must be committed. Commitment can be voluntary, otherwise, a court order, with an appeals process is necessary. In other words, what you are describing provides due process for the person being held.

The Patriot Act sidestepped due process, as does gun control legislation currently being floated.

Exactly! I could get on board with gun control laws that followed similar requirements for mentally unstable as the "commitment" laws. I'm not sure if that's what is being proposed, thus the question.

[Rlh04d]

The one thing that doesn't make sense - they could have have killed more than they actually did. So I wouldn't rule out work place violence. Then I'm pulled back that they had mask, body armor, pipe bombs, hand guns, rifles......that pulls me back to terrorism.

I'm personally wondering if this was actually work place violence BY terrorists.

Given the stash these folks had, they obviously WANTED to be terrorists. They were clearly planning something bigger. Yet then they blow their load on what ultimately amounts to a pretty small attack, relative to what could have happened. I wonder if this really was workplace violence, in a way that saved a LOT more people from the terrorist attack they wanted to have.

The only other explanation I can think of is that they were so stupid they thought they could do both. Personally, I think these two were planning something bigger, and the guy snapped at a party, and decided to toss aside the real plans to get revenge on his co-workers.

If this is the case, then the 14 people who lost their lives here may have saved a lot more people from whatever the real attack was meant to be, and if this wasn't actually planned, hopefully they didn't cover their tracks enough to prevent us from grabbing information from their phones/computers/etc. that may lead enable the government to identify others they were in communication with, and possibly prevent other attacks.

[Rlh04d]

These days you can almost assume it's gonna be Muslim terrorism when you hear something happened. I'm sorry but it just keeps happening. It's not like anyone is surprised. It's always just "don't jump to conclusions!" Because we have to be politically correct, but everyone knows it's pretty much gonna be that.

Somebody told me the French are calling it out now. Could it be that they, not us, are the ones with the balls now?

We literally just had an example of extreme Christian terrorism several days before this.

Not saying the numbers are comparable ... but I'm also not saying the media coverage is comparable, either. Muslim extremism sells a lot better than other types.

[Dave Stalwart]

We literally just had an example of extreme Christian terrorism several days before this.

Not saying the numbers are comparable ... but I'm also not saying the media coverage is comparable, either. Muslim extremism sells a lot better than other types.

I guess I'm probably a victim of what tends to get reported. At the very least I can still complain about the media :) I also don't follow news that closely so my opinion is really weak and pointless, I'll admit.

I just feel like it's pretty frequent that we go through a certain sequence of events. First we hear of a violent attack, then everyone says we are searching for a motive so don't jump to conclusions, then we hear a middle eastern sounding name as a suspect and again we hear don't jump to conclusions one more time, and then eventually we hear it was a Muslim extremist who posts crazy statements on social media or something and then eventually everyone admits it was a Muslim terrorist.

I should probably still try to be fair. It's just becoming so common that you almost start feeling dumb for not calling it what it is.

[Rlh04d]

I guess I'm probably a victim of what tends to get reported. At the very least I can still complain about the media :) I also don't follow news that closely so my opinion is really weak and pointless, I'll admit.

I just feel like it's pretty frequent that we go through a certain sequence of events. First we hear of a violent attack, then everyone says we are searching for a motive so don't jump to conclusions, then we hear a middle eastern sounding name as a suspect and again we hear don't jump to conclusions one more time, and then eventually we hear it was a Muslim extremist who posts crazy statements on social media or something and then eventually everyone admits it was a Muslim terrorist.

I should probably still try to be fair. It's just becoming so common that you almost start feeling dumb for not calling it what it is.

In the US, even violent attacks are very rarely carried out by Muslims in the way you're describing.

It seems to me it's far more likely to be someone that's been bullied. School shootings are the most common, up through colleges, and none (that I can think of) of those have been Muslims.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you ... but I also think the news is a lot more likely to hang on something long term if there's a Muslim connection to it, and quickly move past (like the PP shooting) ones that don't.

[SHOXAAC]

In the US, even violent attacks are very rarely carried out by Muslims in the way you're describing.

It seems to me it's far more likely to be someone that's been bullied. School shootings are the most common, up through colleges, and none (that I can think of) of those have been Muslims.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you ... but I also think the news is a lot more likely to hang on someone long term if there's a Muslim connection to it, and quickly move past (like the PP shooting) ones that don't.

iDK...if it looks like a walrus, waddles like a walrus, eats like a walrus...has a mustache like a walrus...it must be Craig Stadler.

[Rlh04d]

iDK...if it looks like a walrus, waddles like a walrus, eats like a walrus...has a mustache like a walrus...it must be Craig Stadler.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

The statistics don't back up generalizing mass-murders as being tied to Muslims.

Although your point there is actually pretty true, except that "Craig Stadler" in this case is "Muslims."

[SHOXAAC]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ones-full-data

The statistics don't back up generalizing mass-murders as being tied to Muslims.

Although your point there is actually pretty true, except that "Craig Stadler" in this case is "Muslims."

i'm more interested in the mass murders that pass the common eye test research about "what does the name sound like.? "What social media cultural circles do they run in?". "What does it mean when multiple personal and familia sources connect with SA?" Ding, ding, ding, ding...introducing Craig Stadler.

[Rlh04d]

i'm more interested in the mass murders that pass the common eye test research about "what does the name sound like.? "What social media cultural circles do they run in?". "What does it mean when multiple personal and familia sources connect with SA?" Ding, ding, ding, ding...introducing Craig Stadler.

So your only point is that if you see an Arabic name tied to it, then you generalize to based on extremist Islam?

Sure. No problem with that. That's not what I was responding to at all, though:

These days you can almost assume it's gonna be Muslim terrorism when you hear something happened.

[Shocker-maniac]

Seems like splitting hairs and arguing semantics. It was an attack by radical Muslims in which one pledged allegiance to ISIS. The attack was planned ahead as shown by the evidence (accumulating ammo, building incendiary devices, clothing, rental car, taking baby to grandparents before the attack, attempts to erase digital fingerprint before and during the attack).

[Dave Stalwart]

In the US, even violent attacks are very rarely carried out by Muslims in the way you're describing.

It seems to me it's far more likely to be someone that's been bullied. School shootings are the most common, up through colleges, and none (that I can think of) of those have been Muslims.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you ... but I also think the news is a lot more likely to hang on something long term if there's a Muslim connection to it, and quickly move past (like the PP shooting) ones that don't.

I see. I am probably a little too emotional and a little too low on statistics. I'm thinking of events like Ft Hood, Boston, Paris, this recent California deal, the crazy decapitation incident in Oklahoma, etc.
I wasn't really thinking about all of the many other ways it keeps happening. Maybe I was being a little biased. There are crazy people everywhere you look. At least in the other cases you are talking about, there doesn't seem to be a network of support for the violence the same way you get the feeling there is with terrorism. That's one of the things that bothers me most... When you have people celebrating mass murder. I get a little sensitive when I find out that the network of support is almost always Islamic.

When people who claim to be Christian go off and shoot up abortion clinics, you won't find a network of support. They are on their own and their actions get denounced. Same with crazy school shooters. There is no network for that. They are nuts.

I just have trouble articulating my real thoughts sometimes because a lot of these big time issues escape me a little bit when you are inclined to have emotional responses. Thanks for helping me get down to it a little better.