Boulder shooting: Gunman kills at least 6, including police officer, at King Soopers

[yuna628 9,882]

39 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

So the relatives were "concerned" and didn't say or do anything. All the while the FBI had him on their radar and didn't do anything either.

 

But yet for some reason we need even more gun control to do something about this? I just looked and Colorado is a red flag law state so potentially the family and friends could have done something 

Honestly, we always say that someone should have done something but... goodness sake remember the Christmas Day bomber? How many people DID do something and still the police and FBI twiddled thumbs...

 

He was clearly a bad dude with psychological issues.

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I have CNN on and their coverage is somewhat different, actually I think the current comments contradict their earlier coverage.

 

They had an expert who said he had a high powered rifle that fired bullets at 2,000ft per minute, about 20mph?

 

From local coverage he had a Ruger in 5.56.

 

Makes me wonder why all were killed? No injuries, That is a pretty small bullet and even with a bigger round all killed?. Did he finish them off?

The court documents talk about what weapons he used. One old man he shot point blank over and over..

[Boiler 47,548]

The suspect’s identity was known to the F.B.I. because he was linked to another individual under investigation by the bureau, according to law enforcement officials.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/23/us/boulder-colorado-shooting

 

Which raises more questions. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

51 minutes ago, Boiler said:

His brother said he was paranoid, they know he had bought this gun and did nothing. Also homophobic.

 

Judging by the pictures of the victims it does seem it was racially motivated, all the victims seems to be of one race. Which ticks the box for hate crime. More so than Atlanta.

 

   Seems to tick the box for "you still don't get it". 

[Boiler 47,548]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Seems to tick the box for "you still don't get it". 

If Atlanta is a hate crime with a mix of victims this one is much more so.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

If Atlanta is a hate crime with a mix of victims this one is much more so.

 

    Anyway, good luck figuring it out. I can't really explain it any clearer than my previous attempt. Maybe someone else can give it a go.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Honestly, we always say that someone should have done something but... goodness sake remember the Christmas Day bomber? How many people DID do something and still the police and FBI twiddled thumbs...

He was clearly a bad dude with psychological issues.

I am not disagreeing with you on this. But from what I can see this falls on the family's fault for doing nothing when they knew he was off the rails. Now you have people calling for increased gun control laws when the laws already in place to stop something like this failed because the family and friends did nothing

[laylalex 7,301]

I don't think that the friends and family have a duty to report though. Unless they had a duty, the only people we can blame here are (1) the shooter and (2) the people running background checks who didn't catch this guy before letting him buy guns. 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

10 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I don't think that the friends and family have a duty to report though. Unless they had a duty, the only people we can blame here are (1) the shooter and (2) the people running background checks who didn't catch this guy before letting him buy guns. 

If the shooter hadn’t been hospitalized or treated for mental health issues, it wouldn’t show up on a background check. Only so much information is available about each of us. All of have personal information tucked away in a database somewhere. Colorado has red flag laws, the people that knew he was messed up mentally and saw him playing with guns really should have spoken up, IMO. It’s like knowingly letting a drunk get behind the wheel. 

[Boiler 47,548]

51 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I don't think that the friends and family have a duty to report though. Unless they had a duty, the only people we can blame here are (1) the shooter and (2) the people running background checks who didn't catch this guy before letting him buy guns. 

Sort of falls with the concept of Duty of Care and how far it extends.

Quote

 

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise) but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law).

Duty of care may be considered a formalisation of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law.

 

For example some Activists want to make Manufacturers responsible for the harm their products do, Gun Manufacturers in this context. The argument is that it is foreseeable that guns can be used by evil people as cars can.

 

Actually there is very little that coud not fall within this extended definition, certainly his family would, now to what extent they fall into the regular definition I am not sure.

[TBoneTX 47,591]

The ultimate extent:  one North Korean unsuccessfully tries to flee the country, and his entire extended family unit is executed.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Sort of falls with the concept of Duty of Care and how far it extends.

For example some Activists want to make Manufacturers responsible for the harm their products do, Gun Manufacturers in this context. The argument is that it is foreseeable that guns can be used by evil people as cars can.

 

Actually there is very little that coud not fall within this extended definition, certainly his family would, now to what extent they fall into the regular definition I am not sure.

In general, people owe a duty of care to act as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. You breach that duty when you act like a blithering idiot and your unreasonable conduct causes harm. But it is important to note that in American law, an affirmative duty of care only exists in certain cases. The mnemonic device is SCRAPS: 

*Statue

*Contract

*Rescue  (once started, you must reasonably finish)

*Assumption of duty (voluntarily)

*Peril (you put someone in it)

*Special relationship (parent/child, doctor/patient, etc.)

 

The parents of an adult child owe no duty of care to ensure their child can't get his hands on a gun, unless some statute creates the duty. Siblings are never going to have that kind of duty, and friends likewise. On the other hand (and I saying this knowing exactly squat about Colorado law), it could be that a local governmental body responsible for issuing licenses does owe a duty of care to the public to ensure that only people who are eligible to own firearms are able to purchase them.

 

Alternatively, one could merely rely on the "I blame society" defense, always popular.

[Boiler 47,548]

[TBoneTX 47,591]

I would never want to get into any SCRAPS with Maven in regard to mnemonic* devices.

 

*this word looks like something that NB might come up with at any given moment as any part of speech

[Ban Hammer 14,310]

11 hours ago, laylalex said:

I don't think that the friends and family have a duty to report though. Unless they had a duty, the only people we can blame here are (1) the shooter and (2) the people running background checks who didn't catch this guy before letting him buy guns. 

yet obama said if you see something, say something.
while it may not be a "duty" it is a moral obligation

[Dashinka 25,928]

13 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Anyway, good luck figuring it out. I can't really explain it any clearer than my previous attempt. Maybe someone else can give it a go.

So it is OK to kill people of one apparent racial makeup as long as they are not an identified marginalized group?