• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

It's an anecdote, but, my kid is not an inherently violent kid with horrible parents, but she still got paranoid thoughts in her head and brought a knife to school 2 years ago. That was mental illness, all the way. The situation with her did not escalate to severe and significant violence, because we had already recognized her illness, organized our lives such that she did not have access to serious weapons, registered her problems with the school (we had an IEP in place), had her in treatment, and took steps that very week to withdraw her from school and send her to a residential mental health facility. That's how these things are stopped before they "start," by taking mental health seriously right from the get go. We don't do that though. Mental health is stigmatized and no one wants to talk about it and then people don't know what to look for let alone seek treatment. I actually remember the school counselor discouraging us from filing the IEP for "Emotional disability" with the school, because it might make my kid ineligible for jobs like being a police officer or joining the military, and my ex-wife said "Mam, there is no way this child should ever have a job that involves caring a gun, for her own and everyone else's safety."
 
No doubt. But there's a difference between actual mental illness, diagnosed or not, and just presuming someone has a mental illness because they did something wrong to give them the benefit of the doubt like scooter seems to be doing.
 
No doubt. But there's a difference between actual mental illness, diagnosed or not, and just presuming someone has a mental illness because they did something wrong to give them the benefit of the doubt like scooter seems to be doing.

Sure, I don't think mental health diagnosis or not gives someone an excuse for making bad decisions with violent outcomes (in this case it's a kid though and that adds complexity). There has to be consequences to the fullest extent of the law for this kid, his parents, and probably the vice principle (or whichever administrator) too. How ever dismissing the role that mental illness plays in these catastrophes makes it much harder to stop the next one from happening too.
 
scooter, have you said a murder committed by a Black boy was due to mental illness? Probably not. That's just not something we do in this society. White gun violence? Mental illness. Black gun violence? Culture of violence.

Bullshit. You give me a scenario like this with a black kid, or a brown kid, or whatever and I'll call it mental illness.

If a kid of whatever color goes to a school with a gun and kills another kid over a vendetta or an act of disrespect or over a girl - or whatever - I'm most likely going to say that is due to a culture of violence. If a kid of whatever color is hearing voices and fantasizing about killing random classmates and is drawing depictions of it that are literally asking for help - that is pretty clearly mental illness.
 
No doubt. But there's a difference between actual mental illness, diagnosed or not, and just presuming someone has a mental illness because they did something wrong to give them the benefit of the doubt like scooter seems to be doing.

I'm not presuming anything - everything I have read has provided plenty of evidence of severe mental illness in this case. This case appears to be much more clear in that regard than most others and I think your efforts to say otherwise are completely misguided.
 
I'm not presuming anything - everything I have read has provided plenty of evidence of severe mental illness in this case. This case appears to be much more clear in that regard than most others and I think your efforts to say otherwise are completely misguided.

Thus my points.

"White gun violence? Mental illness. Black gun violence? Culture of violence."
"presuming someone has a mental illness because they did something wrong to give them the benefit of the doubt"

You're using the "mental illness" framing in the media to defend framing this as mental illness.
 

Could have stopped here.

This POS was acting on a culture of violence. So was the kid at Mt. Tabor. So were the kids at Columbine. Like many things this has nothing to do with race.
 
Bullshit. You give me a scenario like this with a black kid, or a brown kid, or whatever and I'll call it mental illness.

If a kid of whatever color goes to a school with a gun and kills another kid over a vendetta or an act of disrespect or over a girl - or whatever - I'm most likely going to say that is due to a culture of violence. If a kid of whatever color is hearing voices and fantasizing about killing random classmates and is drawing depictions of it that are literally asking for help - that is pretty clearly mental illness.

Vendettas and killing over a girl are, at least party, also a mental Heath problem. No one in a right state of my gets so obsessed with a negative thought that they are willing to kill over it.
 
Vendettas and killing over a girl are, at least party, also a mental Heath problem. No one in a right state of my gets so obsessed with a negative thought that they are willing to kill over it.

I've always wondered this part about the insanity defense. Yeah, of course this person is engaging in insane behavior. Premeditated homicide is inherently outrageous conduct that you'd need to be unhinged to engage in in the first place. It's almost as if an element of the underlying behavior constitutes a defense. One I'm quite comfortable deterring anyway.

I've never bought the "He didn't appreciate that his actions were right or wrong." I've seen that tried successfully in my lifetime in North Carolina. One in Winston and another in Chapel Hill. That's never been a persuasive defense to me. Even if you view it as exculpatory (again, bull), it doesn't mitigate the risk to the public, which itself is a valid reason for punishment.
 
I've always wondered this part about the insanity defense. Yeah, of course this person is engaging in insane behavior. Premeditated homicide is inherently outrageous conduct that you'd need to be unhinged to engage in in the first place. It's almost as if an element of the underlying behavior constitutes a defense. One I'm quite comfortable deterring anyway.

I've never bought the "He didn't appreciate that his actions were right or wrong." I've seen that tried successfully in my lifetime in North Carolina. One in Winston and another in Chapel Hill. That's never been a persuasive defense to me. Even if you view it as exculpatory (again, bull), it doesn't mitigate the risk to the public, which itself is a valid reason for punishment.

I agree. I don’t think mental health is an excuse for bad behavior and therefore warrants a lesser punishment. I do think that understanding and transparently discussing mental health is an important part of violence prevention. That and significant gun control.
 
Yes. It’s mental health. We all have mental health. That’s how we should discuss it.

Mental illness framing sets up some people as ill and others as well.
 
Thus my points.

"White gun violence? Mental illness. Black gun violence? Culture of violence."
"presuming someone has a mental illness because they did something wrong to give them the benefit of the doubt"

You're using the "mental illness" framing in the media to defend framing this as mental illness.

No I'm not - I am using the facts being reported to frame this as mental illness - if the facts and circumstances as reported are incorrect, that is a different matter.

And to be clear, saying that the kid is mentally ill in no way defends or excuses his actions. I am not talking about the level of mental illness that is required for an insanity defense - that is being incapable of knowing right from wrong. That is not what I mean and I have never said anything about giving the kid the benefit of the doubt or excusing his actions or anything like that.

Do you have examples of similar cases where the white perpetrator was "excused" due to mental illness while the black perpetrator's actions were said to be caused by a culture of violence?
 
Also, if we are going to dissect something, let’s dissect the concept of a “culture of violence.” What does that mean? America is a violent culture. It’s not divided up by race or income. Our country glorifies violence and guns.

This Michigan kid was definitely living in a culture of violence. His fucking dad bought him and hand gun and taught him how to shoot it. If that is not a culture of violence, what the fuck is?
 
No I'm not - I am using the facts being reported to frame this as mental illness - if the facts and circumstances as reported are incorrect, that is a different matter.

And to be clear, saying that the kid is mentally ill in no way defends or excuses his actions. I am not talking about the level of mental illness that is required for an insanity defense - that is being incapable of knowing right from wrong. That is not what I mean and I have never said anything about giving the kid the benefit of the doubt or excusing his actions or anything like that.

Do you have examples of similar cases where the white perpetrator was "excused" due to mental illness while the black perpetrator's actions were said to be caused by a culture of violence?

Literally all the time.

Here’s one study:
https://news.osu.edu/white-mass-shooters-receive-sympathetic-media-treatment/


———-
“Much of the media coverage of white shooters framed them as sympathetic characters who were suffering from extreme life circumstances. But black shooters were usually made to seem dangerous and a menace to society.”

For example, when shooters were framed in the media as mentally ill, 78 percent of white attackers were described as being victims of society – as being under a lot of stress, for example – versus only 17 percent of black shooters.

….

The researchers controlled for a variety of factors that could influence coverage, including the number of victims; whether any victims were women, children, family or romantic partners; whether the perpetrator committed suicide; whether the shooting took place in public; and whether the shooting was framed as gang violence.

After taking these factors into account, findings showed that whites were 95 percent more likely than blacks to be described in coverage as mentally ill. Latinos were 92 percent more likely than blacks to be described as mentally ill in media reports.



The researchers identified several themes in articles that framed mass shooters as mentally ill. The most common theme – found in about 46 percent of the articles – was that the shooter was a “victim of society.” This included articles that said the shooter was “going through a lot,” was “stressed out” or “suffered abuse as a child.”

About 28 percent of articles that framed shooters as mentally ill offered testimony to the attacker’s good character, while another 21 percent said the shooting was unexpected or out of character. Another 14 percent said the shooter came from a good environment.

But these descriptions were almost always about white shooters, Duxbury said.

“Black shooters who were described as mentally ill never receive testament to their good character and the media never describe the shootings as out of character,” he said.

“And only white shooters were ever talked about as coming from a good environment.”

The researchers contrasted the coverage of two mass shooters – Josh Boren, a white man, and David Ray Conley, a black man.

“The comparison between Conley and Boren is striking. Both shooters were adult men who murdered their families. Both had a history of domestic violence and drug abuse and both had received treatment for mental illness. However, whereas the media described Josh Boren as a quiet, gentle man – a teddy bear – coverage of Conley described him as perpetually violent, controlling and dangerous,” the researchers said.



“When the media frame a mass shooting as stemming from gang violence, they talk about the perpetrators as being perpetually violent and a menace to society,” he said.

“But when a shooting is attributed to mental illness, the media treat it as an isolated incident, or the result of the pressures on the perpetrator.”
—————

Again, the fact that the media coverage even discusses his mental health makes my point. There’s plenty other research and coverage of this as well.


f0c22e3ebb21704c7001ebc1062d7168.jpg


e759305b9b361be951e5052c45a12fad.jpg


I’d hope after over 20+ years on these boards of discussion social and racial issues with you all, at some point you’d stop and think, “Hmm…Ph probably knows what he’s talking about here. Maybe I should take note, look it up for myself, read up on the issue, and not dive into a counter argument based simply on what I believe to be true.”
 
Literally all the time.

I’d hope after over 20+ years on these boards of discussion social and racial issues with you all, at some point you’d stop and think, “Hmm…Ph probably knows what he’s talking about here. Maybe I should take note, look it up for myself, read up on the issue, and not dive into a counter argument based simply on what I believe to be true.”

I'm sure you know lots of stuff. I would also hope you would give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not an idiot. Here you are focused on big media trends and statistics - I was focused on one incident. Unless the reported facts are incorrect, this kid is mentally ill and that played a major role in what he did. That doesn't lessen the evilness of it or the punishment he should receive - it is just a fact.

As a comparison, I never saw any facts that led me to believe that the shooter in the Las Vegas mass shooting was suffering from mental illness so I would conclude he was just a bad dude that wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. Now you will probably go find an article somewhere where someone portrayed him as mentally ill - I'm not going to claim I read everything about that case. Mostly I remember no one knew of a motive so it seemed really weird. In that case I don't doubt that someone said that he was a normal, quiet dude and that it came out of nowhere. I would expect that to be the case in most mass, random shootings.

I can't help the way media deals with different incidents - I am not in control of them. I can only judge by what I read and what I can reasonably infer. If the media is hiding facts from me that would support a finding that some black shooter was suffering from mental illness, I can't help that. Or if they are hiding facts from me that would support a finding that some white shooter was really a violent gang member, I can't help that. That is on the media - and I don't doubt that bias of some sort colors every story I read - whether it be political, racial, or whatever. That is the world we live in. I do try to read stuff with a that in mind - and with a grain of salt.

I disagree with anyone that says we should never attribute shootings to mental illness. Mentally ill people can be under paranoid delusions, or all kinds of other unhealthy conditions that lead them to do terrible things. Again, this doesn't excuse the act, but it does help explain it. We know that mental illness is a real thing and that it can be treated. Without treatment, depressed people take their own lives all the time - with treatment they go on to live happy, productive lives.
 
"He didn't appreciate that his actions were right or wrong."…it doesn't mitigate the risk to the public, which itself is a valid reason for punishment.

You aren’t interpreting that scenario correctly. Prison is conceptually intended to rehabilitate criminals so that they can eventually be reintroduced to society. A person who doesn’t understand right and wrong can’t be rehabilitated and by that understanding it would be cruel for the state to force them into rehabilitative incarceration. The very very few people who successfully plea insanity are institutionalized for the rest of their lives.
 
I’d hope after over 20+ years on these boards of discussion social and racial issues with you all, at some point you’d stop and think, “Hmm…Ph probably knows what he’s talking about here.

Lol

Chef’s kiss
 
You aren’t interpreting that scenario correctly. Prison is conceptually intended to rehabilitate criminals so that they can eventually be reintroduced to society. A person who doesn’t understand right and wrong can’t be rehabilitated and by that understanding it would be cruel for the state to force them into rehabilitative incarceration.

Rehabilitation is only one of the 4 justifications for incarceration, the others being deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. A person who can’t be rehabilitated can still be punished and his incarceration can deter others from committing crimes.
 
Back
Top