NYPD To Identify 'Deranged' Gunmen Through Internet Chatter 292
Hugh Pickens writes "Michael Wilson writes in the NY Times that top intelligence officials in the New York Police Department are looking for ways to target 'apolitical or deranged killers before they become active shooters' using techniques similar to those being used to spot terrorists' chatter online. The techniques would include 'cyber-searches of language that mass-casualty shooters have used in e-mails and Internet postings,' says Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly. 'The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.' There are also plans to send officers to Newtown and to scenes of other mass shootings to collect information says the department's chief spokesman Paul. J. Browne adding that potential tactics include creating an algorithm that would search online 'for terms used by active shooters in the past that may be an indicator of future intentions.' The NYPD's counter-terrorism division released a report last year, 'Active Shooter (PDF),' after studying 202 mass shooting incidents. 'So, we think this is another logical step,' says Kelly."
FTW (Score:5, Funny)
Beat that.
Re:FTW (Score:5, Funny)
You're nitrate is no good without diesel. Unless your form of terrorism is making me now the lawn 3 times a week.
Re:FTW (Score:5, Funny)
"Unless your form of terrorism is making me now the lawn 3 times a week."
Just write 'asshole' in big letters on your neighbor's lawn at night with the fertilizer, so that he can see it from his bedroom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're nitrate is no good without diesel. Unless your form of terrorism is making me now the lawn 3 times a week.
Frankly, I'd be more scared of that than the other sort of terrorism. I'm far far more likely to be the victim of being made to mow the lawn 3 times a week than the victim of any terrorist attack.
Re:FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
We didn't start the fire...
Welcome To The Wonderful World Of Thought Crime. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you forgot iraq, syria, lybia, al quaeda, taliban, rocket launchers, saudi arabia, russia, cheechen, north korea, scud
Why Not Identify Them The Most Obvious Way? (Score:4, Insightful)
With their badge numbers?
I am a terrorist. (Score:3, Informative)
I am mad and I have a gun and I will be shooting everyone. I am announcing this beforehand so that the police can stop me. There is no sarcasm in this text whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's more than likely a felony. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
posted as an anonymous coward makes it even better.
Wearing your Guy Fawkes while you post? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why use someones open wireless or you run it thru a bot on some hapless idiots computer. Then you laugh when the PD/FBI/ATF kicks their door in. Just remember not to leave a trail back to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Your 4Chan Ion Cannon buddies also thought the Secret Service would NEVER be able to figure out their IP addresses.
Only retard would think that, 4Chan servers got hijacked by feds a long time ago.
Yes I'm an idiot. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reported. This is clearly a matter of national security. Better safe than sorry!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, you sound interesting. I will monitor your online game play to see if your style, as in how you play those games matches the typical profile for psychopaths. Play like a dick and don't be surprised if you get a visit ;).
good luck (Score:3)
Seriously, it's not going to work with the presence of popular internet shorthand.
Re:good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
lol i no rite
Seriously, it's not going to work with the presence of popular internet shorthand.
it'll "work". ... but what they'll actually do is hang around on gun nut boards and try to sell illegal automatics to the people hanging around there. because think crime isn't enough but seemingly creating the actual crime is legit.
Re:good luck (Score:5, Informative)
Though if they try to sell "illegal automatics" on most gun forums, they'll find themselves banned and reported to the ATF faster than you can empty a magazine.
Re: (Score:3)
You can legally own a fully automatic ("machine gun") in the US. You need a special permit for it, but it basically takes no more effort than getting a CCW - It just costs more ($200, and you pay that per-gun).
think crime isn't enough
Ahahahahaaha... How cute.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, they do. We had a summer of fires here. Every few days, someone reported a fire in a pasture, an abandoned building, along the roadside. There are fires every year, of course, but that one year, we had more fires in the previous decade.
Someone noticed that a particular volunteer fireman was the first to arrive at many of these suspicious fires. He was watched. He was caught setting fires.
Imagine that. If you want to be a hero badly enough, you can just set up the situation that you believe
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Leonard_Orr [wikipedia.org]
man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK you can be "Sectioned" If you appear to be a danger to yourself or others but these days policy seems to be "Care in the community" or shut as many mental facilities as possible and let fate take care of the problem.
Trouble is it is cheaper to ignore the problem, than do anything about it.
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:5, Insightful)
Trouble is it is cheaper to ignore the problem, than do anything about it.
No, it's not.
The problem is that there's no legal mechanism to send the bill to the society.
To every kid being killed, there're expenses on funeral and emotional support for his/her relatives, but there're also all the practical expenses of the day-to-day life, as medical/dental bills, educational expenses, toys and little amusements, vacations, necessities (clothes, etc) that go to the trash bin.
To every adult being killed, we have all that expenses since his/her childhood, more the LACK of the future (and present) funds to do the same with his/her kids. With luck, another adult will take for him/herself this expenses - at the cost of the expenses of his/her own kids (present of future).
So, YES, there're a lot of waste of money on every people being killed by a nutcrack. People are used to avoid talking about this, because we're used to think that a "human life is invaluable and, so, can not be monetized". What I, also, agree - there're no money on the world that can pay my life.
However, the COST of being alive is measurable. If a life can't be brought back, the costs incurred on being alive can be.
So, NO. IT'S A HELL OF SHIT EXPENSIVE ignoring the problem. Thing is that the bill does not goes over the shoulder of the bastards that make that decisions.
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:5, Insightful)
We have to sacrifice our rights and live in a police state, because that is the "price to protect us from three or four crazy lunatics that we'll never actually be able to protect society from, anyway" because it's going to "save so many innocent people (presumably, children)".
With this sort of math, we need to be sacrificing a lot more rights and liberties across the board for every other thing which results in more deaths than school shootings (in other words - EVERYTHING INCLUDING JAY WALKING). After all, if every life has a precious cost associated with its lost that is of such intense value to society that all of society must make sacrifices that are most "sacred" to the foundation and existence of our entire society (the Constitution), then why focus on the random unavoidable nutjobs that conduct "mass" shootings? What about seat-belts? What about parents who drink or smoke and put children at risk? What about mothers who bring questionable "step-dads" into the family? What about jay-walking? What about soda? What about sports? What about lighters, pocket knives, stairways, sidewalks, and bicycles?
If the important thing is the value of a life, then why is the life of someone shot by a nutjob more valuable than that of someone who is killed through any other accident or negligence or criminal act? Especially when those things happen far more frequently?
The secret key here is that: Yes, bad shit will happen to people and that is the cost of enjoying a free life and society. Bad shit doesn't go away just because government clamps down on society. The only thing lost there is your freedom. You *gain* nothing. And all in the effort to do the impossible -- protect every last human being from unpredictable freak occurrences. Crazy shit that pops out of the brush and happens. And it will always happen. And we will always be shocked (that's the nature of it being a FREAK occurrence).
I can guarantee you a great deal of safety and security. Just let me lock you in an underground bunker and control everything you consume and everything you do. It won't be enjoyable and it won't be a life worth having lived, but you'll probably live longer than being out in the big scary world with all sorts of awful things that can happen to you, including being t-boned in an intersection by a guy running a red-light or a nutjob in the office that loses his shit when he's fired and brings a firearm to work. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. You are right too.
We live in a society that fails to prevent the most basic "accidents" (it's God Damned easy to avoid drinking and driving!).
However, I think the same logic applies. We can't restore a life, but we can issue the people responsable for it a hell of regret for doing that. Not only the perp, but everybody else that enabled him/her.
Re: (Score:2)
Since all the gun advocates love to bring up Switzerland - why not go all the way and implement their gun laws as well? They don't seem to live in a police state, they're nicely federal... really, what give? Does not being able to own as many semi-automatic rifles with large calibers and long barrels and high muzzle velocity really mean that you live in a police that? Is the next step after that really locking everyone in an underground bunker?
No. And making these arguments makes you sound like a nut job I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By your logic, it's bad to keep drunken drivers from the street. =P
Look, pal. I'm not a defendant of a police state. But you can bet you damned ass I'm a defendant of the people's life.
We are not talking about natural disasters, but about predictable and avoidable disasters that happens to be promoted by ourselves! We deliberately give up every single chance to detect and correctly deal with these nutcracks.
I'm not talking about killing them. I'm not even talking about locking them (but if this is the only
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone dies, so the cost of living isn't more wasted by an unnatural or untimely death. [...]The rest of your reasoning is a series of cognitive illusions.
Cognitive illusion is to think that every nutcrack in the world has the right to go free killing people.
Of course every human being has rights. But what you fail to acknowledge is that the killed kids have rights too. As their relatives.
So, who we prosecute in order to protect the people's right to be alive?
The fact that everybody will die someday is a pitty of an argument, and makes me think that *YOU* don't make any kind of value (no necessary financial) to human life per se.
I'm make huge investments on m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Property developers were after the Victorian buildings with high ceilings and bay windows - that architecture had been specifically chosen to provide patients with plenty of sunlight (cure against depression) and fresh air (cure against lung infections).
MP's spun this as saving costs in maintaining dilapidated buildings (could have been renovated instead) and social integration (allowing the patients to live in the community. They did the same with special-needs schools.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One reason that we can not track mental patients is that most people spend a portion of their lives with some form of mental illness. In essence it is normal to be a bit cracked at times. Secondly the public has refused to fund reasonable mental health care forever. For many individuals treatment is slow, the ability to work is often missing and the cost of effective therapy can be staggering. We also lack a legal system that has any ability to deal with crimes before they happen. In essence w
Re: (Score:2)
Mental Health industry is one giant fucking scam, to enforce the current social order.
Re: (Score:2)
>Another really thorny problem is that substance abuse is behind much of the violence that we see.
You may have this backwards. People with 'problems' are the ones more likely to abuse substances in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Oppositional - Defiant Disorder.
Yep.
You fit.
Re: (Score:2)
"Even being critical of your government or questioning authority qualifies for a mental illness diagnosis."
which is were they are going with this, they want to arrest critics, and even potential critics, by labeling them mentally ill, and vaugely "dangerous".
Again, lets review,
Forcible incarceration, no jury, no trial, no lawyer, no appeals, you lack the basic rights even prisoners have, and access to REAL medical care while incarcerated.
Re: (Score:3)
Brandon Raub anyone? Post lyrics to facebook, get committed.
https://www.rutherford.org/key_cases/key_cases_brandon_raub/ [rutherford.org]
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:4, Interesting)
Both the Colorado movie killer and Virginia Tech Killer had been identified with mental illness with red flags.
A constant theme around these is that plenty of people noticed "red flags" in the person, and yet none of them did anything about it to get them help. I think this is probably more 20/20 hindsight than useful observation. And then everyone gets the idea that if only the system worked better, they'd have got help.
How do we improve the system? Who's responsible for getting people help? One person might know someone with social anxiety disorder, while another person might only see a "red flag" in a gun-collecting guy with scruffy hair who never looks anyone in the eye. Is every person who doesn't intimately know you but sees some odd behavior supposed to harass you about getting help?
I think this is a more complicated thing than many will let on, and it's a slippery slope to TSA levels of worthless profiling.
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, apparently two people on the U of Iowa admissions committee saw something wrong with him before the fact -- the program director, Daniel Tranel, said "Do NOT offer admission under any circumstances". I don't think Tranel has ever said what he saw, though.
But in general, if you want to maintain anything approaching a free society, you can neither lock up everyone you think might be a homicidal nutcase, nor restrict everyone to the level of freedom appropriate to homicidal nutcases.
Re: (Score:2)
A common theme among these shooters is they have all been systematicly disenfranchised and the solution always seems to be systematicly disenfranchising MORE people, than fixing a broken system which leads to broken people, which leads to a rare handful of shootings.
How many lives are ruined because people accused of being killers, or murders, with no real evidence are ostracized, arrested, get the typ
Re: (Score:2)
A constant theme around these is that plenty of people noticed "red flags" in the person, and yet none of them did anything about it to get them help. I think this is probably more 20/20 hindsight than useful observation.
This whole idea of "red flags" regarding "anti-social" people is what really scares me - and should for a lot of Slashdot. I'm single, fairly quiet, only have a few friends. By most of those definitions I'm likely to be an anti-social nutcase just waiting to go off.
It almost seems like they're trying to criminalize being a quiet person that keeps to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
A constant theme around these is that plenty of people noticed "red flags" in the person, and yet none of them did anything about it to get them help. I think this is probably more 20/20 hindsight than useful observation. And then everyone gets the idea that if only the system worked better, they'd have got help.
And it's nothing new [youtube.com].
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:5, Insightful)
And who the hell do we trust with the power to remove the freedom of others?
I would insist on a jury of shrinks from no less than four different mental health agencies.
I think we should treat it the same way we do criminal justice.
Re: (Score:2)
I would insist on a jury of shrinks from no less than four different mental health agencies.
What makes you think that those four different mental health agencies pursue different goals?
Re: (Score:3)
I would choose the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", there was an intent to harm.
We need to stand up to this rhetoric, before we further strengthen laws that authorize extra-judicial detention.
There also needs to be a right to apeal.
Re: (Score:3)
Easier said than done. There are many, many people who match the same symptoms and most of them are not about to start shooting people.
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:5, Insightful)
what stops this sort of crime is when we start treating people better. Mental Health serivces create these sorts of disasters
but that never seems to be an option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't need to be institutionalized, they just need to be stopped from buying guns. Is that really too much to ask?
Adam Lanza didn't buy any guns...
Granted, the vast majority of these shooters do buy their own guns through legal channels, so trying to stop the purchase of guns by the deranged is a valid option to explore. But identifying the tiny fraction of strange antisocial people who will commit violent crimes is not as easy as it sounds...
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:4, Insightful)
"They don't need to be institutionalized, they just need to be stopped from buying guns. Is that really too much to ask?"
How about preventing them from buying fertilizer and Diesel? Or chemicals to make Chlorine gas? Or sprinkling the salad bar with Ricin? ...
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying there were mass shootings regularly, and that abruptly stopped when they banned those firearms?
Approximately 1 every 18 months over the two decades before the new restrictions. Reduced to just 1 in the 16 years since the change (using matched criteria for classification. Although it was at the bottom limit of the classification.) A ten-fold reduction in the number of mass shootings so far, and a greater than ten-fold reduction in the number of people killed in mass shootings. Realistically, 16 years isn't long enough to work out the true post-reform rate, it's too low to measure.
We have the same media, movies, TV, music, video games, as the US. We didn't improve our mental health system, we didn't improve our economy, we didn't change our law enforcement systems. Other crime rates followed their prior trends, some small differences that may be attributable to the change (reduction in murder rate (ditto suicide), increase in some other categories) but they're all around the 10% variation, too small to show causation. None as sharp and dramatic as the immediate near cessation of mass shootings. Hell, even the number of firearms returned to the previous level within a couple of years. So it's not even a matter of weapon numbers.
We restricted certain weapon types, and magazine capacities, we had a buy-back of newly banned weapons and accessories from law abiding gun owners (at market value + 10%, IIRC)... and the number of mass shootings dropped by an order of magnitude. And there was no increase in other forms of mass killing; bombs and poisonings, mass-knifings, mass cricket-battings, etc.
The myth that the mass-killers will just find other ways to mass-kill is demonstrably false. They don't. Regular criminals, yes, nutters, no. There's something about certain types of firearms that is deeply empowering to paranoid delusional freaks.
And I don't know why.
Seriously, I didn't see it working. Although I'm okay with reasonable gun control, I could not see the new laws having any impact on mass killings. I remember saying as much online at the time. Outliers are notoriously immune to systematic changes, and this change just screamed "knee-jerk politics" (just like this NYPD story)...
And yet... the numbers are there.
Re: (Score:2)
His mom was fucking a lunatic.
We need to stop being such a police state, and we'll stop seeing men do desperate things to escape it.
Re:man, that is stupid. cyber think crime, no than (Score:4, Insightful)
Why was his mom a fucking lunatic? Because she was a shooting enthusiast, had lots of guns, and encouraged her kids to shoot as well? Or was it because she didn't institutionalize her troubled son "just in case"? I genuinely don't know if there is new information that points to her mental state...
The problem here is in terms of mental health issues, let's say you are institutionalized for being suicidal. Does that mean you can never have a gun, ever? Why? This "reform" of the mental health system people are clamoring for is nothing more than an end-round play to ban guns based on "mental stability." I hate to break it to the /. crowd, but most of us could be considered "unbalanced" if the state, or an overzealous mental health system (or relatives) decided we were. Do we want to go back to the early 20th century where we put everyone who didn't fit a mold (gays, mildly retarded, sexual "deviants") into an institution and shocked, prodded, and medicated them until they really WERE fucked in the head?
The rational thing to do is to stop inching towards a police state in ALL aspects. That includes these symbolic "bans" on "assault" weapons and other horse shit. Return to a minimal Constitutionally sanctioned federal government...
this can only be described as... (Score:2, Insightful)
Doubleplus ungood.
It was easy (Score:2)
Apolitical? (Score:2)
So they are going to start arresting people for not having an interest in politics?
Re: (Score:2)
You joke? Our leaders love people with no interest in politics.
Just pay your taxes, Citizen, and don't bother looking behind the curtain. It gets so messy back there anyway - You just kick back with your permitted intoxicant of choice, enjoy the Monday Night Gladiatorial games, and let the boys in Washington worry about all that nasty, complicated stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, eat some cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a moment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What?
Did you REALLY think this was going to stop with a ban on scary-looking guns (that are otherwise identical to many hunting rifles, other than using weaker cartridges)?
Re: (Score:2)
They do not need excuses. they already monitor everything. chat, twitter, facebook, emails, shopping, credit card purchases, shipping, everything
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait a moment... (Score:4, Funny)
How it actually works. (Score:3)
do{
message=getmessage();
if(message.contains("Mass Effect"))
email("Alert@fbi.gov", "TERRORIST DETECTED", message);
while(1);
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't close your squiggly brackets. So what looks superficially like a Do-while loop is actually a do with no while, and, and the while at the end is a self-contained endless loop.
Wow. Slashdot even has code syntax checking. Who knew?
Now, if they could only get Unicode support, we'd be golden. No need for Visual Studio at all!
Re: (Score:2)
I should have picked up on that. I was too busy deciding exactly what language to use before deciding 'screw it, make it anything vaguely like C in syntax and they'll get the joke.'
Well this is helpful (Score:3)
Check the anti-social networking sites first (Score:2)
I'm sure this will work great, since all of the people who do these kinds of thing are very social people who love telling others what they're about to do, and in detailed ways that will trigger a detection.
Sweet. (Score:4, Insightful)
This has worked so many times in the past; how can it fail?
"Distraction" by Bruce Sterling (Score:2)
Bleh (Score:3)
If the profile was always 'young white male, bit of a loner,' I'd start to wonder, openly, why it is that they ALWAYS fit that mold. Like there is some sort of factory somewhere that just stamps them out for officers to pick up. Does this not bother anyone else?
Seriously, I'd start to question my reason for existence. I've been created, to catch 'criminals,' which are, like the endings of Scooby-Doo episodes, always the same guy. And I am not, for whatever reason, supposed to think "if they are always the same guy, doesn't that signify that there is something wrong on a higher level?" I mean, these are human beings, they have brains capable of anything -> so why does this one type always choose to be a loaner, be white, be male, and to shoot up a school? It's almost like they're programmed to do it. Why is there never any major changes? The guy visits his mother's grave before he shoots up the school, or he was an outgoing football player, or whatever? Or, given that our population is more than 50% female, one from their gender?
Does everyone just blindly accept the reasons they're given here? "Oh yeah, he was a white male, a loaner, that happens to them sometimes."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now we're accepting mass surveillance for the sake of stopping rare crazed killers?
You see, you can't take away everyones rights in one big legislation. So instead you take just a small bit of rights away for every million to one shot. There is an endless supply of rare events to rinse and repeat this upon...
Meanwhile we are using drone strikes on American citizens without even a facade of due process...
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile we are using drone strikes on American citizens without even a facade of due process...
You know, this is the attitude that pisses off most of the rest of the world. You don't even consider that using drone strikes against people who are not US citizens might be wrong.
It's all "Oh no, Obama blew up an American, how terrible". Never mind the Afghan, Iraqi, and Pakistani kids being blown to bits, they're brown and not American so they don't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we have this whole "due process" thing here. Written into the Constitution, even.
The Fifth Amendment, for instance, seems to preclude blowing up American citizens with drones, absent the whole Grand Jury, Trial, etc.
It should also be noted that most of us aren't too thrilled when we blow up innocent bystanders with drones (or any other w
Re: (Score:2)
it will be used to ruin the reputations, and with drugs, the mental capacity, so they don't get a chance to tell their stories.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire discussion about crazed killers is irrational and emotional. 55 people/year on average get killed in random mass shootings, and that number hasn't gone up since the 90s despite the impression you might get from the media. More people get killed by lightning each year.
Re:So, terrorists weren't enough (Score:4, Funny)
Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing animal.
Heinlein.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we're accepting mass surveillance for the sake of stopping rare crazed killers?
How about we provide a proper mental health system instead, so that when people go seeking help early in the process, they actually get it? They're willing to spend billions of dollars on a surveillance state, but heaven forbid parents be able to get the help they need at a reasonable price or for free when their kids have problems.
There's nothing "logical" about the approach they're talking about. It's completely irrational and emotional.
Although I agree that access to mental health care in the US is both necessary and extraordinarily lacking in the US, you have to realize that Adam Lanza WAS under such care at the time he launched.
Don't expect 'mental health care' to be a panacea. It's all about balancing the society's safety and individual rights. It's always going to be much easier in retrospect (like most other difficult problems, imagine that).
Re: (Score:2)
you're so lucky over there in NYC, at least you get to have the chance for an orgasm from police brutality. over here in Chicago, the cops will just beat the crap out of you for entertainment. Well, unless you're a hooker, in which case they'll rape you then beat the crap out of you
Re: (Score:3)
We all know how well this worked out in Minority Report?
But it DID work in Minority Report. They had a crime free society, and only ONE GUY (played by Tom Cruise) was accused unjustly. Our false conviction rate is WAY higher than that today. The problem with the NYPD plan is not that it is a bad idea in principle, but that it will WILL NOT WORK and is a waste of limited resources. There are only a very tiny number of these deranged killers. Over the past two decades only 1 in 1200 gun deaths was from a mass killer. So the false positive rate will be enormo
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem with the idea is that it will probably result in innocent people in jail or at least labeled as terrorists for the rest of their lives because of some silly thing they posted on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
no way to dispute false convictions. Its a closed system
"I think this is just grandstanding by politicians that want to be seen "doing something", and will fade away once the media moves on to the next "crisis"."
Its the same fear and hysteria we had after columbine with the same disaster results.
You will more or less get peo
Re: (Score:2)
"But it DID work in Minority Report. ...
no way to dispute false convictions. Its a closed system
In the movie there was no appeal process, but that is not a fundamental attribute of a "precrime" system. I remember the opening scene, where they stop the guy from murdering his wife when he overheard her having sex with another guy. Then they locked him up for the rest of his life. I thought that was silly. They could have just taken the guy away to cool off for a few days, and lined him up with a divorce lawyer, and then let him get on with his life. It is unlikely he would have posed a danger to so
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the NYPD plan is not that it is a bad idea in principle, but that it will WILL NOT WORK and is a waste of limited resources.
The problem is that it will be abused as existing similar plans already are. Criticize someone connected? Shut up or be committed. Complain about the threat? Be committed for Oppositional - Defiant Disorder. Desiring freedom and being left alone is being redefined a mental disorder in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
He also used guns he couldn't legally own - BUT, the guns themselves came from legal, regulated channels; thus, the fearmongering from the left about more stringent background checks, "waiting periods", or closing the "gun show" loophole wouldn't have changed a single aspect of Newtown.
He also apparently only stopped when he got bored, not because someone physically prev
Re:only problem is... (Score:4, Funny)
more stringent background checks
How about "Are there any crazy people living in your house?"
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it is the responsibility of the Homeland Security Investigations.
http://www.ice.gov/about/offices/homeland-security-investigations/ [ice.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
But that is nowhere near what it takes to go on a shooting spree. I'm one of the most peaceful people you'll meet; I've never fired a gun, and never been in a fight.
Ah, "It's the quiet ones you have to look out for." So you've never fought or shot a gun, eh? Then you must have a lot of pent up rage just waiting to pour out violently given the right trigger... Conversely, if you take boxing and/or fire weapons at the shooting range then you're practicing for homicide.
In the future, will I have cops showing up on my door for writing a comment like this?
You just identified your probable trigger. So instead of the regular Police showing up, we'll just use the Secret ones instead to snatch you while you're sleeping. It's the only way to be sure you do