Active shooter in Boulder

[Brucker]

Good times...

https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/shooting-boulder-king-soopers-table-mesa/73-f5825a61-8b9b-4b5a-a550-36edf1c44d50


BOULDER, Colo. — Emergency crews are responding to an active shooter situation Monday afternoon at a King Soopers in Boulder.


The King Soopers is located at 3600 Table Mesa Drive, the Boulder Police Department (BPD) said. That's about two miles south of the University of Colorado Boulder campus.

The Jefferson County Sheriff's Office at 3:20 p.m. said its SWAT team was en route to assist.






https://youtu.be/ikujTMetrUk

[Swank1975]

Ugh.

[Tom]

6 dead including 1 police officer.

[Brucker]

At least 10 dead including the officer.

They release the officer's name: Eric Talley, 51 years old that joined the force in 2010

[The StRanger]

It is truly a sad day...
RIP officer

[Brucker]

https://youtu.be/UzsNmFOao8k

[Jim]

Rep. Boebert has a level headed article on the issue.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/laurenboebert-colorado-shooting-politicization/2021/03/23/id/1014913/

[Tom]

Rep. Boebert has a level headed article on the issue.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/laurenboebert-colorado-shooting-politicization/2021/03/23/id/1014913/
Not a fan of Boebert, but that made a lot of sense.

[FINOCJ]

I am also not a Boebert fan....but some of her commentary is justified....current gun regulations do not seem to be helping reduce such violence, although one could argue that we don't know what possible incidents such legislation may have prevented...at least that's what my mother used to say when I protested her rules. In short, the current environment isn't working, but I am neither convinced that more regulation will help, nor convinced that a high percentage of general public with open carry or concealed carry will help. I would be tempted to support some new out of the proverbial box ideas that neither focused on more regulation nor more public carry options.... unfortunately I just don't know what that is.

[TDash]

I would be tempted to support some new out of the proverbial box ideas that neither focused on more regulation nor more public carry options.... unfortunately I just don't know what that is.


It starts with more support for the police to help combat mental illness but unfortunately all extra funding for the police goes to futher militarization which only helps deal with things after the damage is done not help with prevention. It's a society and public issue not a gun rights issue at least in my opinion.

I fully support open and concealed carry, but I don't believe more people carrying just magically makes these problems go away the same way strict gun rights doesn't magically make them go away.

Hopefully we don't get too political here though.

[derf]

I'd agree that it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue.

But there's no money in mental health care. On the other hand, both pro and anti gun groups raise a ton of money, especially when they exploit tragedy like this.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

[Getaklu]

The New York Times and other outlets reported that he was previously known to the FBI. There was a chance for prevention that was not acted on apparently.

[newracer]

According to reports it seems many members of his family thought he had mental health issues. With that the current Red Flag law could have been used to remove guns from his possession.

[Jim]

And that is the point where I think _something_ could have happened.

Now, could the injured parties sue the family members for not taking action where they reasonably could/should have? That could be an odd consequence for the red flag law (which I don't think should exist - if a person has enough concern that a member of society could/would/might inflict harm to themselves or others we already have laws for a psych hold (three days??? with an eval) - which covers all methods of harm - more encompassing than "guns").

[derf]

From what I read, he legally bought the gun about a week ago. If the FBI knew about him, how did he pass the background check?

[Jim]

He didn't have a conviction (court judgement) on his record that would have made him a prohibited possessor (I assume).



Additionally, I am quite wary of the "FBI knew him" / they should have "done something" that some news stories elude to. I don't know of any legal action a law enforcement agency can take upon a person if they have not done anything wrong / broken any law. Mabe he could have been placed on a psych hold or family could have invoked the red flag law.

Once a person breaks the law, is taken to court, had their day in court, and a judgement was made - then they could be put onto the prohibited persons list for purchasing a firearm (and a background check _should_ come up denied). From that point on, should he try to purchase a firearm, assuming he fills out a background check form when buying a firearm, he has to lie by stating he's not a prohibited possessor (a question on the form shortly before it is submitted for the background check).

[FINOCJ]

Additionally, I am quite wary of the "FBI knew him" / they should have "done something" that some news stories elude to. I don't know of any legal action a law enforcement agency can take upon a person if they have not done anything wrong / broken any law. Mabe he could have been placed on a psych hold or family could have invoked the red flag law.

Interesting topic....one reason this catches my attention is tied to how many of us would (and maybe have) reacted when there is suggestion of government intervention without just cause. In other words, is it better from our citizen POV to have an overly active government agency that might intervene and infringe on someone's personal liberty when in turns out there was no concern, or have them be more limited to protect personal liberties, but risk missing or being unable to intervene in some situations that might become tragic. Getting and managing the information needed to help protect society without unnecessarily infringing on other innocent people's rights and liberties is a tough balance....

On a slight tangent - if you believe the information in the NYT this morning, the total yearly amount of gun related deaths (includes all murders, suicides, accidents, mass shootings etc) is around 45,000. Only about 1 in 400 are associated with mass shootings - albeit, I don't remember how they defined mass shooting. Sometimes is 2 or more, or 3 or more etc...anyway, it does bring some thought as to what people/society/law makers/law enforcement etc might think about as they prioritize the larger picture....

[Java]

I think this is ultimately going to be solved by technology, not legislation, just like vehicle emissions and telephones for deaf people. In this particular instance, and perhaps James Holmes and some others, data was collected but not reported, analyzed or interpreted correctly. A guy with documented mental health issues legally bought a gun and used it to kill people. There is something to work with there. In car terms crap from the tank is getting into the injectors, we need a finer filter. The data existed, we just need better processing, and in my opinion more layers to the process. I think this is a job for software engineers, not politicians. My last purchase took all of 5 mintues online and 20 or so at the range for some guy who just gave me a form I swore not to lie on, took my money and said maybe 10 words to me. If I was insane he would never have had the chance to have any insight on that, no chance to help me or prevent me, we hardly spoke before he armed me. I can flex a little for the greater good and expand that process. It's too easy for the wrong people to slip through.

Rights that can be given, taken away or changed at anytime are not really rights.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gkjWxCl6zE