BrianBM

Notes on the Florida 2/13 school shooting

97 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, BrianBM said:

Couple of random notes.

 

The terms "psychopath" or "sociopath" are dropped from the latest Diagnostic Systems Manual, but I don't know the current label, so I'm using them. I don't think he is one.

 

There is a triad of behaviors that associated with the development of a sociopath.

 

1)  Sexual violence. No details, but he was apparently abusive of a girlfriend. 

2)  Torturing or killing animals.  He loved killing animals, posted photos of dead toads, and so on. 

3)  Arson is the third, and it's going to be interesting as all heck if it turns out he has an association with firesetting.  I haven't seen anything about firesetting yet.  

 

I suspect that he doesn't qualify because of what he did at the end. He didn't shoot himself, or wait to die in a hail of police bullets. He abandoned his rifle and fled with other kids, seemingly seeking to blend in.  At some point he changed his clothing. It's as though he thought he could walk away from this. Clearly there is a mental health issue(s), but I wonder if he isn't also learning disabled and/or retarded. It's as though, once he'd shot a bunch of people, he got calmer.  He wasn't out of ammunition. He's been claimed as a member of a white supremacist group, but most or all of the people identified so far as victims are also white. Not a politically motivated shooter. He had been receiving mental health care for awhile, symptoms, severity and duration still unknown. 

 

Watching the news this evening, Wolf Blitzer got a call from Gov. Rick Scott. Among other things, Blitzer noted that in Florida, you can buy an assault rifle at 18, but can't legally buy beer until you're 21. Blitzer pressed Gov. Scott as to whether this makes any sense.  Governor, do you think that gun control needs to be a part of the discussion on preventing this kind of trauma?  What followed was a grotesque kind of black comedy, Blitzer politely pressing the Governor to say yes or no, while Scott did everything possible to not address the question. Please, I might run for President someday!  Blitzer then ran footage of the distraught mother of a dead 14 y.o. girl, screaming at the camera about guns and children and so on.  Scott sounded shaken, quite reasonably, but he wasn't going to made to speak to the point.   Not only is gun control taboo, even discussing gun control is impossible.             

 

It occurs to me to wonder if artificial intelligence might have an application to this kind of thing. Should an A.I. be looking at Facebook, Instagram, etc., for discussions of violence? Photos of dismembered animals, talk about shooting people? Should the A.I. then flag such posts for a follow-up with phone calls to a kid's school, to gun stores, to the local juvenile court?

 

Such a system wouldn't have detected a Stephen Paddock, who gave no indicia of bad intentions before breaking a hotel window in Las Vegas. But we regularly read of arrests of people who babble online about making jihad; why not apply that kind of technical expertise to massacre prevention even without a specifically criminal motive? 

 

 

Two things - one, I think it's disgusting that people think it's inappropriate to discuss gun control after one of these events happens.  Regardless of your position on the topic, this is exactly the time to be discussing them.  It's akin to not wanting to talk about economic policy during a financial crisis.

 

Two - with regards to AI - I work in the field, and do a lot of work related to analytics and machine learning, in particular to sentiment analysis (looking at things that are written and trying to determine the overall sentiment and potential motivations of the author).  The social media platforms are already doing this kind of analysis, as are the intelligence agencies (for different reasons, in particular related to terrorism).

 

The problem is procedural.  YouTube, Twitter, etc. are filled with morons making vile comments.  You could probably dig up a hundred idiots who made a similarly charged statement just last week.  The problem we face is that there's no good way to weed out the s**t talking morons from the mental cases hell bent on causing some kind of chaos in real life.

 

We're not far from that, though.  Add in cooperation between different platforms and doing a second and third level type of analysis (to make links between not just idiotic statements, but to try to identify the moron in question and see what associations he has, what people he talks to, what criminal indiscretions he might have had, what firearms he legally owns, etc.).  We'll reach a point where in an automated manner, they'll be able to do a better job of weeding out the idiots with a keyboard from the ticking time bombs.

 

Which is why I caution my kids on the Internet constantly, and tell them to avoid social media platforms.  They're good kids - but in the future, just being connected a degree or two out from some nutjob is going to put you in the bullseye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, Firinne said:

Put the pipe down dickhead!

I'm totally sober (though I don't plan to remain so for much longer).

 

So answer the question. It's well established that it's perfectly legal and acceptable for cops to force people into a game of Simon Says and then execute them if they fail...

Not so clear is why they need machine guns to do this. Or why their targets shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with similar weapons. (And that is the topic of discussion, "Gun Control".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, Seal said:

I'm totally sober (though I don't plan to remain so for much longer).

 

So answer the question. It's well established that it's perfectly legal and acceptable for cops to force people into a game of Simon Says and then execute them if they fail...

Not so clear is why they need machine guns to do this. Or why their targets shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with similar weapons. (And that is the topic of discussion, "Gun Control".)

As Frank Rizzo .....R- I-Z- Z- O  famously once said "Look Jerky, I don't need to talk to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need to do is make it less profitable. We need to harden our schools, let qualified teachers carry, etc. I went to the (tiny) Social Security office in a nearby podunk town, there was an armed guard inside the door :idea:  

 

:v:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 mins ago, gadwall8 said:

What we need to do is make it less profitable. We need to harden our schools, let qualified teachers carry, etc. I went to the (tiny) Social Security office in a nearby podunk town, there was an armed guard inside the door :idea:  

 

:v:

They had an armed cop. So did the Pulse nightclub.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a bit in the paper this morning that I didn't know.

Ct is one of only 4 states that can confiscate weapons if someone goes mental, and they actually seized 1800 (iirc) .

That seems like an awful lot, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Fishing Nerd said:

Two things - one, I think it's disgusting that people think it's inappropriate to discuss gun control after one of these events happens.  Regardless of your position on the topic, this is exactly the time to be discussing them.  It's akin to not wanting to talk about economic policy during a financial crisis.

 

Two - with regards to AI - I work in the field, and do a lot of work related to analytics and machine learning, in particular to sentiment analysis (looking at things that are written and trying to determine the overall sentiment and potential motivations of the author).  The social media platforms are already doing this kind of analysis, as are the intelligence agencies (for different reasons, in particular related to terrorism).

 

The problem is procedural.  YouTube, Twitter, etc. are filled with morons making vile comments.  You could probably dig up a hundred idiots who made a similarly charged statement just last week.  The problem we face is that there's no good way to weed out the s**t talking morons from the mental cases hell bent on causing some kind of chaos in real life.

 

We're not far from that, though.  Add in cooperation between different platforms and doing a second and third level type of analysis (to make links between not just idiotic statements, but to try to identify the moron in question and see what associations he has, what people he talks to, what criminal indiscretions he might have had, what firearms he legally owns, etc.).  We'll reach a point where in an automated manner, they'll be able to do a better job of weeding out the idiots with a keyboard from the ticking time bombs.

 

Which is why I caution my kids on the Internet constantly, and tell them to avoid social media platforms.  They're good kids - but in the future, just being connected a degree or two out from some nutjob is going to put you in the bullseye.

 

And what gives social media the right to determine that?? Do they not have to abide by the 4th amendment?? That just smacks of big brother is watching. A very slippery slope. :dismay: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 mins ago, MikeMc said:

 

And what gives social media the right to determine that?? Do they not have to abide by the 4th amendment?? That just smacks of big brother is watching. A very slippery slope. :dismay: 

In that scenario it sure sounds like they'd be acting as agents of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, MikeMc said:

 

And what gives social media the right to determine that?? Do they not have to abide by the 4th amendment?? That just smacks of big brother is watching. A very slippery slope. :dismay: 

It is a slippery slope. But we're seeing enough of the bad side of the net that I think there's gonna be some changes coming...because of the effects on society as a whole.

10 hours ago, The Fishing Nerd said:

 

 

The problem is procedural.  YouTube, Twitter, etc. are filled with morons making vile comments.  You could probably dig up a hundred idiots who made a similarly charged statement just last week.  The problem we face is that there's no good way to weed out the s**t talking morons from the mental cases hell bent on causing some kind of chaos in real life.

 

We're not far from that, though.  Add in cooperation between different platforms and doing a second and third level type of analysis (to make links between not just idiotic statements, but to try to identify the moron in question and see what associations he has, what people he talks to, what criminal indiscretions he might have had, what firearms he legally owns, etc.).  We'll reach a point where in an automated manner, they'll be able to do a better job of weeding out the idiots with a keyboard from the ticking time bombs.

 

 

I'm been thinking about that more and more. It's not just about people like this perp posting on social media, it's also about fake news stories, directed ads by foreign govrrnments, and so on.

 

I've gotten a whiff of what's been been happening as social media CEO's get called before Congress re Russian interference efforts. Government wants more info about who's paying for ads, etc. In a more general sense, big social media has been able to avoid responsibility for some of what gets posted on their sites because they call tuemselves platforms, not publishers...the latter of which would get them under more regulatory control, and I guess more liability for what gets posted, when something bad comes of it.

 

It seems to me it'd be a business model shattering thing if they get called publishers. The social media and big tech companies are well aware of that, and are trying to do some cleaning up of content through their own efforts.

 

My guess is that there'll be more of what you're talking about. Plus at least some direct censorship.Some of which might not at all be unwarranted.

 

You know way more than me about this. Have any further observations or gut feelings?

 

 

Edited by patchyfog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BrianBM said:

Very possible.  It's also possible that he was briefly in therapy for the kind of problems that are part of many people's lives, like breaking up with his girlfriend, or the loss of his bioparents and then the loss of his adoptive mother. 

Yes.  When I penned my initial post, my tunnel vision was focused on therapy for aggressive/abusive/sociopathic ("craziness")  types of behavior which should disqualify someone from getting a permit to purchase a firearm.  As you say, there are many other reasons people seek therapy for which they should not be disqualified from owning a firearm.  :th:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 mins ago, MikeMc said:

 

And what gives social media the right to determine that?? Do they not have to abide by the 4th amendment?? That just smacks of big brother is watching. A very slippery slope. :dismay: 

So the popup ads that target you based on your usage, along with the spammers calling your home and cell,  coupled with the us mail you recieve from lawyers when you get a traffic ticket and not to mention the junk mail you get from others based on what business you conducted......all ride that slippery slope of big brother is watching. 

There is no privacy anymore and given the state of terrorism and how its getting out of control, anyone who publically states he or she intends harm to someone allows probable cause and leaves themselves open to search and seizure.  Many terrorists have been stopped in their tracks because of the monitoring. Not necessarily a bad thing but like everything else only if its used correctly...and we all know how that goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 mins ago, MikeMc said:

 

And what gives social media the right to determine that?? Do they not have to abide by the 4th amendment?? That just smacks of big brother is watching. A very slippery slope. :dismay: 

How about if you are crazy enough or stupid enough to post something like this on social media then you are too crazy or stupid to have a firearm. Is big brother watching? Probably but it ain't bothering me one bit because I have never posted anything I should be worried about. I don't post pics of guns or brag about how many I have. But none of this matters because no matter what big brother or anyone try's to do there is a lawyer out there to make a scene and tie up resources because some nut job has rights. Perfect example. Years ago I get a call from my neighbor that a car drove right into my house. Got home and found this big old lincoln stuck right through the side of my house. Kids were in school so only property damage. The amazing thing was that the car was stuck in the side of my house in reverse plus there was a single skid mark right down my street where he was spinning his wheel all the way down to my house and there were two parked cars that had been hit and knocked right up into the front lawns. Old man leaning against the side of the car when I arrived. Cops came and knew the man who was 83 years old. The tow truck arrived and he knew the old man because he had other incidents just like this. I asked the cops, why was he still driving. He told me there are plenty of drivers like this but when they try to take the license away the ACLU jumps in and they waste time and money. I ended up going to my daughters school so the school bus would pick up kids at a different location and not right in front of my house that was located right on a big turn on our street. 

There are people who shouldn't be driving. There are people who shouldn't own guns. I'd feel better if someone was watching them closely and if there were fewer lawyers out there ready to take any case even when they know they are defending the wrong people. Just had to rant now beat me up, I'm outta here. 

PS. Already told my daughters. When I'm too old to drive take the keys. I'll respect their judgement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BrianBM said:

Couple of random notes.

 

The terms "psychopath" or "sociopath" are dropped from the latest Diagnostic Systems Manual, but I don't know the current label, so I'm using them. I don't think he is one.

 

There is a triad of behaviors that associated with the development of a sociopath.

 

1)  Sexual violence. No details, but he was apparently abusive of a girlfriend. 

2)  Torturing or killing animals.  He loved killing animals, posted photos of dead toads, and so on. 

3)  Arson is the third, and it's going to be interesting as all heck if it turns out he has an association with firesetting.  I haven't seen anything about firesetting yet.  

 

I suspect that he doesn't qualify because of what he did at the end. He didn't shoot himself, or wait to die in a hail of police bullets. He abandoned his rifle and fled with other kids, seemingly seeking to blend in.  At some point he changed his clothing. It's as though he thought he could walk away from this. Clearly there is a mental health issue(s), but I wonder if he isn't also learning disabled and/or retarded. It's as though, once he'd shot a bunch of people, he got calmer.  He wasn't out of ammunition. He's been claimed as a member of a white supremacist group, but most or all of the people identified so far as victims are also white. Not a politically motivated shooter. He had been receiving mental health care for awhile, symptoms, severity and duration still unknown. 

 

Watching the news this evening, Wolf Blitzer got a call from Gov. Rick Scott. Among other things, Blitzer noted that in Florida, you can buy an assault rifle at 18, but can't legally buy beer until you're 21. Blitzer pressed Gov. Scott as to whether this makes any sense.  Governor, do you think that gun control needs to be a part of the discussion on preventing this kind of trauma?  What followed was a grotesque kind of black comedy, Blitzer politely pressing the Governor to say yes or no, while Scott did everything possible to not address the question. Please, I might run for President someday!  Blitzer then ran footage of the distraught mother of a dead 14 y.o. girl, screaming at the camera about guns and children and so on.  Scott sounded shaken, quite reasonably, but he wasn't going to made to speak to the point.   Not only is gun control taboo, even discussing gun control is impossible.             

 

It occurs to me to wonder if artificial intelligence might have an application to this kind of thing. Should an A.I. be looking at Facebook, Instagram, etc., for discussions of violence? Photos of dismembered animals, talk about shooting people? Should the A.I. then flag such posts for a follow-up with phone calls to a kid's school, to gun stores, to the local juvenile court?

 

Such a system wouldn't have detected a Stephen Paddock, who gave no indicia of bad intentions before breaking a hotel window in Las Vegas. But we regularly read of arrests of people who babble online about making jihad; why not apply that kind of technical expertise to massacre prevention even without a specifically criminal motive? 

 

 

All they had to do was keep the door of the school locked.  They didn’t.  Maybe next time they will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.