|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 16, 2018 11:59:04 GMT -5
Thank you, RJ, for proving my point. Note that I listed several items and clearly stated that I endorse none of them (though I did make a couple of comments). In your continued unthinking partisanship, you regurgitate NRA talking points that nothing can be done to stop the constant shootings in our country -- not just the all-too-numerous school shootings, but the overall level of shootings and deaths. With an attitude like that, with an attitude like President Trump shows, with an attitude like most conservatives show, it's no wonder that nothing ever gets done and the violence continues. Thank you for your continuing indifference to this serious problem. PAM, you explicitly state that you don't endorse any of your proposed solutions either. You already know they are unfeasible, undesireable, impractical, and/or ineffective. Yet you push them anyway. Why? WTF is wrong with you? How about actively trying to address a problem instead of demanding stupid and useless gestures? But of course you don't really care about stopping mass shootings at all. If you did, you'd be offering up proposals that would actually address the problems. Instead, you find mass shootings to be a useful tool to demonize the GOP and NRA, and your proposals are about punishing your enemies, rather than saving lives. At least some of these people (including Cruz) have been under psychiatric care, or have had disqualifying criminal histories, and should not have been able to pass background checks. But the necessary reports were never made. That can and MUST be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 16, 2018 18:37:18 GMT -5
And now we have the FBI admitting that they screwed up, again, and allowed this dirt bag to shoot up a school. How many is that, now, 4? 5? Where the Feds knew about the perps, and did nothing. But we are supposed to relinquish our rights because "we have to DO something".
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 16, 2018 19:35:20 GMT -5
So what do YOU suggest, RJ? Instead of just shooting every suggestion down, what do you suggest?
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 16, 2018 19:39:58 GMT -5
And I've seen no reference to Cruz being under any sort of mental health care. Got a link?
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Feb 17, 2018 1:40:40 GMT -5
The FBI could have done a better job when they were told he planned to become "a professional school shooter." (Actually, they probably couldn't. I'm sure they get hundreds of these tips, given the proclivity of adolescents to post outrageous stuff on the internet.)
We could raise the age to purchase any kind of gun to 21. (Hell, I favor returning the age of adulthood to 21. Credit card companies wouldn't like that, though.)
We could add having been expelled from school to the background information, somehow. That would seem to be a red flag. (I know that infringes on juvenile privacy rights, but if they're going to be able to buy a gun next year, should they be a blank slate? Would an 18-year-old convicted of a violent crime be able to purchase a gun because his record, being sealed, was "clean"? Just wondering.)
Maybe, we should stop "angsting" about these events. News sources (respectable ones, anyway) do not report suicides who jump off bridges. They refrain, because they know suicides (especially amongst young people) tend to come in clusters. Conformity is locked in the DNA of social animals, and we are social animals. I know these events cannot be kept secret, but politicians can refrain from jumping in front of cameras to peddle whatever pet program they're promoting, and network news outlets might refrain from leaving regular programming to cover them. Just because "FEAR SELLS!" doesn't mean we should be selling it. Sometimes, ethics trump ratings.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 17, 2018 8:36:20 GMT -5
So what do YOU suggest, RJ? Instead of just shooting every suggestion down, what do you suggest? I've already made it twice: Several of these shooters were able to purchase because either psychiatric or legal professionals failed to report disqualifying conditions to the proper authorities which didn't show up when the background checks were run. There need to be penalties for this. Cruz' shrink needs to be looked at. Acquaintances reported him to the FBI. He was on the radar in a big way. There is no way he should have passed a background check. You've already said, several times, that more thorough background checks need to be done. The reason this is nonsense, is that with access to the proper databases, you can pretty much check everything that there is to know about an individual, from credit checks to criminal histories almost instantaneously. When you get pulled over by the police and provide an ID, they know who you are and what your history is within just a few minutes. This breaks down when people who ought to effing know better - like allegedly professional psychiatrists, courts, and the military - fail to report threats. Running "additional checks" - whatever that might be - is meaningless when no reports are made. These failures aren't on the people who run the checks (gun sellers), and aren't properly the burden of normal people who wish to purchase a weapon. They're on the "professional" people who KNOW when there's an individual who represents a threat to himself and others, but don't bother reporting these threats to the organizations who keep the databases. And lets face it, the psychiatric community is an insane, depressing joke. This is a group of people who are diagnosing Trump as psychotic without having met him out of political prejudice; but who won't let the FBI know about this Cruz guy who wanted to become a 'professional school shooter,' even though one of their number was treating him. It's more like a priesthood than a scientific field.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 17, 2018 8:39:39 GMT -5
The FBI could have done a better job when they were told he planned to become "a professional school shooter." (Actually, they probably couldn't. I'm sure they get hundreds of these tips, given the proclivity of adolescents to post outrageous stuff on the internet.) We could raise the age to purchase any kind of gun to 21. (Hell, I favor returning the age of adulthood to 21. Credit card companies wouldn't like that, though.) We could add having been expelled from school to the background information, somehow. That would seem to be a red flag. (I know that infringes on juvenile privacy rights, but if they're going to be able to buy a gun next year, should they be a blank slate? Would an 18-year-old convicted of a violent crime be able to purchase a gun because his record, being sealed, was "clean"? Just wondering.) Maybe, we should stop "angsting" about these events. News sources (respectable ones, anyway) do not report suicides who jump off bridges. They refrain, because they know suicides (especially amongst young people) tend to come in clusters. Conformity is locked in the DNA of social animals, and we are social animals. I know these events cannot be kept secret, but politicians can refrain from jumping in front of cameras to peddle whatever pet program they're promoting, and network news outlets might refrain from leaving regular programming to cover them. Just because "FEAR SELLS!" doesn't mean we should be selling it. Sometimes, ethics trump ratings. The military wouldn't much like the idea of raising adulthood to 21 either. Then again, it seems more 18 year olds need to grow up than ever before. We spend a lot of time infantalizing people these days.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 17, 2018 21:14:20 GMT -5
The FBI could have done a better job when they were told he planned to become "a professional school shooter." (Actually, they probably couldn't. I'm sure they get hundreds of these tips, given the proclivity of adolescents to post outrageous stuff on the internet.) We could raise the age to purchase any kind of gun to 21. (Hell, I favor returning the age of adulthood to 21. Credit card companies wouldn't like that, though.) We could add having been expelled from school to the background information, somehow. That would seem to be a red flag. (I know that infringes on juvenile privacy rights, but if they're going to be able to buy a gun next year, should they be a blank slate? Would an 18-year-old convicted of a violent crime be able to purchase a gun because his record, being sealed, was "clean"? Just wondering.) Maybe, we should stop "angsting" about these events. News sources (respectable ones, anyway) do not report suicides who jump off bridges. They refrain, because they know suicides (especially amongst young people) tend to come in clusters. Conformity is locked in the DNA of social animals, and we are social animals. I know these events cannot be kept secret, but politicians can refrain from jumping in front of cameras to peddle whatever pet program they're promoting, and network news outlets might refrain from leaving regular programming to cover them. Just because "FEAR SELLS!" doesn't mean we should be selling it. Sometimes, ethics trump ratings. Kemmer, in nearly every state one does have to be 21 to buy a sidearm. Long arm ages vary somewhat. As for the FBI, they have admitted that they failed to follow protocol, and this is, I think, the 5th mass attack where the FBI had the perps "on their radar", but failed to do anything about it. Using school expulsions as a reason to terminate any Constitutionally enumerated right is problematic. There is no day in court, no finding of guilty by a jury of his peers, and in many cases, no appeal. If we start using things like that as a determining factor, where, exactly do we draw the line? Should he be prohibited from voting? Going to church? Joining a political party? A better method might be to give the FBI or a local LEA the authority to investigate cases like this, and recommend to a judge mental examinations. Much like getting a search warrant, they would have to present probably cause, and show real, actual evidence that he should be examined.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Feb 17, 2018 23:35:52 GMT -5
The military wouldn't much like the idea of raising adulthood to 21 either. Then again, it seems more 18 year olds need to grow up than ever before. We spend a lot of time infantalizing people these days. I couldn't vote (or enter a legal contract, et al) until I was 21. (Yeah, I'm that old.) The military had no problem drafting 18-year-olds. When you think of it, basic training and bootcamp are highly supervised environments, moreso than universities which operated in loco parentis back then. It was the hysteria surrounding the Viet Nam War that led to lowering the age of adulthood to 18. Oddly, we were allowed to drink in many states at 18 (only 3.2 beer in Ohio). In Maryland, one had to drive into DC, but there was far less concern about alcohol. Here's a funny one: When women got the right to vote, Ohio raised the age of consent to marry without parental signature to 21 for girls-- same as it was for boys. I know there's a lot of "helicoptering" going on these days, but I don't think 18-20-year-olds have ever been fully adult. (Have you ever heard of a 40-year-old "mooning" anyone?) Hmmm... maybe, we're hearing about fraternity house hazing deaths because they no longer have adult chaperones living on the premises? We've always had specific words for young people on the cusp of adulthood: youths and maidens, fellas and gals... Considering that most people say they didn't feel like "a grown up" until they were in their early 20's, it seems reasonable to return that age to 21.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Feb 17, 2018 23:56:13 GMT -5
The FBI could have done a better job when they were told he planned to become "a professional school shooter." (Actually, they probably couldn't. I'm sure they get hundreds of these tips, given the proclivity of adolescents to post outrageous stuff on the internet.) We could raise the age to purchase any kind of gun to 21. (Hell, I favor returning the age of adulthood to 21. Credit card companies wouldn't like that, though.) We could add having been expelled from school to the background information, somehow. That would seem to be a red flag. (I know that infringes on juvenile privacy rights, but if they're going to be able to buy a gun next year, should they be a blank slate? Would an 18-year-old convicted of a violent crime be able to purchase a gun because his record, being sealed, was "clean"? Just wondering.) Maybe, we should stop "angsting" about these events. News sources (respectable ones, anyway) do not report suicides who jump off bridges. They refrain, because they know suicides (especially amongst young people) tend to come in clusters. Conformity is locked in the DNA of social animals, and we are social animals. I know these events cannot be kept secret, but politicians can refrain from jumping in front of cameras to peddle whatever pet program they're promoting, and network news outlets might refrain from leaving regular programming to cover them. Just because "FEAR SELLS!" doesn't mean we should be selling it. Sometimes, ethics trump ratings. Kemmer, in nearly every state one does have to be 21 to buy a sidearm. Long arm ages vary somewhat. As for the FBI, they have admitted that they failed to follow protocol, and this is, I think, the 5th mass attack where the FBI had the perps "on their radar", but failed to do anything about it. Using school expulsions as a reason to terminate any Constitutionally enumerated right is problematic. There is no day in court, no finding of guilty by a jury of his peers, and in many cases, no appeal. If we start using things like that as a determining factor, where, exactly do we draw the line? Should he be prohibited from voting? Going to church? Joining a political party? A better method might be to give the FBI or a local LEA the authority to investigate cases like this, and recommend to a judge mental examinations. Much like getting a search warrant, they would have to present probably cause, and show real, actual evidence that he should be examined. Thoughtful response, thank you. I've only used rifles and shotguns, but I've been told it's much harder to fire a handgun accurately. Anyway, it's long arms that are used in these attacks. Maybe, we could use school expulsions (and, trust me, it's damned hard to get yourself expelled from a public school) as a "red flag" for anyone under 21 who wished to purchase a gun. Remember, 19-year-olds don't have a long track record to determine mental / social fitness to function as a full member of society. Your idea of making it, not an automatic disqualifier, but a reason for further investigation is a good one. Yeah, the FBI dropped the ball. But consider the millions of teens posting outrageous stuff on the internet MOST OFTEN as a joke, or just to get a rise out of people. How many computers do you want the FBI to confiscate and paw through? Maybe I'm weird, but I've always thought having occasional murderous or suicidal thoughts was part of a normal childhood. My generation could never post our "angst" to be preserved for eternity (or, at least until North Korea deals us that EMP that'll shut everything down.) Anyway, I don't expect government operatives to be perfect, always, and in every way. And I worry about giving them too much power over "we the people". I know it's hard to accept, but there is that "liberty vs security" problem.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 18, 2018 8:10:41 GMT -5
The military wouldn't much like the idea of raising adulthood to 21 either. Then again, it seems more 18 year olds need to grow up than ever before. We spend a lot of time infantalizing people these days. I couldn't vote (or enter a legal contract, et al) until I was 21. (Yeah, I'm that old.) The military had no problem drafting 18-year-olds. When you think of it, basic training and bootcamp are highly supervised environments, moreso than universities which operated in loco parentis back then. It was the hysteria surrounding the Viet Nam War that led to lowering the age of adulthood to 18. Oddly, we were allowed to drink in many states at 18 (only 3.2 beer in Ohio). In Maryland, one had to drive into DC, but there was far less concern about alcohol. Here's a funny one: When women got the right to vote, Ohio raised the age of consent to marry without parental signature to 21 for girls-- same as it was for boys. I know there's a lot of "helicoptering" going on these days, but I don't think 18-20-year-olds have ever been fully adult. (Have you ever heard of a 40-year-old "mooning" anyone?) Hmmm... maybe, we're hearing about fraternity house hazing deaths because they no longer have adult chaperones living on the premises? We've always had specific words for young people on the cusp of adulthood: youths and maidens, fellas and gals... Considering that most people say they didn't feel like "a grown up" until they were in their early 20's, it seems reasonable to return that age to 21. Lol... There are plenty of immature 40 year olds. I suspect the reason you don't hear about 40 year old "moons" has more to do with a sense of shame over the condition of their moons relative to those of the average 20 year old.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 18, 2018 8:20:51 GMT -5
The FBI could have done a better job when they were told he planned to become "a professional school shooter." (Actually, they probably couldn't. I'm sure they get hundreds of these tips, given the proclivity of adolescents to post outrageous stuff on the internet.) We could raise the age to purchase any kind of gun to 21. (Hell, I favor returning the age of adulthood to 21. Credit card companies wouldn't like that, though.) We could add having been expelled from school to the background information, somehow. That would seem to be a red flag. (I know that infringes on juvenile privacy rights, but if they're going to be able to buy a gun next year, should they be a blank slate? Would an 18-year-old convicted of a violent crime be able to purchase a gun because his record, being sealed, was "clean"? Just wondering.) Maybe, we should stop "angsting" about these events. News sources (respectable ones, anyway) do not report suicides who jump off bridges. They refrain, because they know suicides (especially amongst young people) tend to come in clusters. Conformity is locked in the DNA of social animals, and we are social animals. I know these events cannot be kept secret, but politicians can refrain from jumping in front of cameras to peddle whatever pet program they're promoting, and network news outlets might refrain from leaving regular programming to cover them. Just because "FEAR SELLS!" doesn't mean we should be selling it. Sometimes, ethics trump ratings. Kemmer, in nearly every state one does have to be 21 to buy a sidearm. Long arm ages vary somewhat. As for the FBI, they have admitted that they failed to follow protocol, and this is, I think, the 5th mass attack where the FBI had the perps "on their radar", but failed to do anything about it. Using school expulsions as a reason to terminate any Constitutionally enumerated right is problematic. There is no day in court, no finding of guilty by a jury of his peers, and in many cases, no appeal. If we start using things like that as a determining factor, where, exactly do we draw the line? Should he be prohibited from voting? Going to church? Joining a political party? A better method might be to give the FBI or a local LEA the authority to investigate cases like this, and recommend to a judge mental examinations. Much like getting a search warrant, they would have to present probably cause, and show real, actual evidence that he should be examined. In some ways, this case is the textbook example of nearly every reason gun control doesn't work. From various reports, we've been told Cruz was under the care of mental health professionals, was investigated by the local Department of Children and Families, had upwards of 20 contacts with the Broward County Sheriff's Department, and was referred to the FBI by concerned citizens. He basically told the world he was going to do this, and all of the relevant authorities sat down and let it happen. If the government and the shrink communities are so incompetent and bureaucratically paralyzed, it can't stop a teenaged mental patient who is telling them "I'm going to be a professional school shooter" in spite of both of those groups being in regular contact with him, and members of the community begging them to intervene, there is no way any new law will help. If these reports are true, Cruz' head-shrinker, the FBI, and the Broward County Sherriff's Department and DCF all have blood on their hands.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 18, 2018 15:57:42 GMT -5
I realize that you have problems with "shrinks," RJ, along with most professional disciplines. But I'm not sure that diagnoses of ADHD, autism, and depression are severe enough issues to warrant not letting someone buy a weapon. The shooter had been evaluated and determined not to be a severe risk to himself and others. He was on medication and receiving some counseling. But the conditions he presented with are found in thousands of people throughout the country.
You really should do more homework before posting some of the nonsense you foist on us.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 18, 2018 21:38:23 GMT -5
Kemmer, in nearly every state one does have to be 21 to buy a sidearm. Long arm ages vary somewhat. As for the FBI, they have admitted that they failed to follow protocol, and this is, I think, the 5th mass attack where the FBI had the perps "on their radar", but failed to do anything about it. Using school expulsions as a reason to terminate any Constitutionally enumerated right is problematic. There is no day in court, no finding of guilty by a jury of his peers, and in many cases, no appeal. If we start using things like that as a determining factor, where, exactly do we draw the line? Should he be prohibited from voting? Going to church? Joining a political party? A better method might be to give the FBI or a local LEA the authority to investigate cases like this, and recommend to a judge mental examinations. Much like getting a search warrant, they would have to present probably cause, and show real, actual evidence that he should be examined. Thoughtful response, thank you. I've only used rifles and shotguns, but I've been told it's much harder to fire a handgun accurately. Anyway, it's long arms that are used in these attacks. Maybe, we could use school expulsions (and, trust me, it's damned hard to get yourself expelled from a public school) as a "red flag" for anyone under 21 who wished to purchase a gun. Remember, 19-year-olds don't have a long track record to determine mental / social fitness to function as a full member of society. Your idea of making it, not an automatic disqualifier, but a reason for further investigation is a good one. Yeah, the FBI dropped the ball. But consider the millions of teens posting outrageous stuff on the internet MOST OFTEN as a joke, or just to get a rise out of people. How many computers do you want the FBI to confiscate and paw through? Maybe I'm weird, but I've always thought having occasional murderous or suicidal thoughts was part of a normal childhood. My generation could never post our "angst" to be preserved for eternity (or, at least until North Korea deals us that EMP that'll shut everything down.) Anyway, I don't expect government operatives to be perfect, always, and in every way. And I worry about giving them too much power over "we the people". I know it's hard to accept, but there is that "liberty vs security" problem. In this case, they had not only 'murderous jokes', but statements of intent, and evidence of the materials and capability of doing so. He was reported by more than one individual. They also had 39 police visits for domestic violence. This was a bit more than "juvenile highjinks".
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 18, 2018 21:43:29 GMT -5
I realize that you have problems with "shrinks," RJ, along with most professional disciplines. But I'm not sure that diagnoses of ADHD, autism, and depression are severe enough issues to warrant not letting someone buy a weapon. The shooter had been evaluated and determined not to be a severe risk to himself and others. He was on medication and receiving some counseling. But the conditions he presented with are found in thousands of people throughout the country. You really should do more homework before posting some of the nonsense you foist on us. Apparently, then, those determining his status were incompetent. Or, maybe, as in nearly every other mass shooting, maybe it was the psychotropic drugs were at least a contributing factor. Then again, maybe the psychiatric community doesn't know nearly as much as they claim they do, and shouldn't be the ones making the decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 19, 2018 8:01:38 GMT -5
I realize that you have problems with "shrinks," RJ, along with most professional disciplines. But I'm not sure that diagnoses of ADHD, autism, and depression are severe enough issues to warrant not letting someone buy a weapon. The shooter had been evaluated and determined not to be a severe risk to himself and others. He was on medication and receiving some counseling. But the conditions he presented with are found in thousands of people throughout the country. You really should do more homework before posting some of the nonsense you foist on us. I understand that the first sign something was off with this kid in your mind, was when he shot up his High School. But just THINK for a moment. DCF came to look at this guy. Dozens of interactions with the Sherriff's Department. Neighbors calling into the FBI. Social Media posts where he says he's going to be a professional school shooter. Nicolas Cruz IS the gun control movement. He is what you get when you rely on "professionals" to stop gun violence.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 19, 2018 17:11:41 GMT -5
Like I said, RJ, you have problems with professionals. It would appear that your knowledge of psychology/psychiatry rivals your knowledge of legal matters -- there's little if anything there.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 19, 2018 17:31:38 GMT -5
Like I said, RJ, you have problems with professionals. It would appear that your knowledge of psychology/psychiatry rivals your knowledge of legal matters -- there's little if anything there. This is a man who wrote "I'm going to be a professional school shooter" on his social media, for all of the world to see. Someone made the FBI aware of it, and the FBI did nothing. It's been said some things are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them. In this case, the multiple ghastly failures of Broward County Children and Families, Broward County Sherriff's Department, the FBI, and whatever psychiatric professional Cruz was seeing are so profound, so obvious, and so deadly that no one can deny them. Not even an intellectual. I do not have a problem with professionals. There aren't any to be found here. Not at DCF. Not at BCSD. Not at the FBI. I have a problem with amateurs pretending to be professionals. We have those as far as the eyes can see here. But no actual professionals. There was PLENTY of opportunity for professionals to stop Cruz. The fact that he was able to successfully carry out this atrocity is ample proof that either there were no professionals anywhere near this, or that they were content to let him carry out his plan. I have given them the benefit of the doubt. Please try to pretend to be serious.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 20, 2018 9:52:44 GMT -5
Like I said, RJ, you have problems with professionals. It would appear that your knowledge of psychology/psychiatry rivals your knowledge of legal matters -- there's little if anything there. What "professionals"? The self declared ones trotted out by every fake news outlet, spouting such irrelevant nonsense that even the mouthpieces don't believe them? You have a very low bar for "professional".
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 20, 2018 13:08:17 GMT -5
I am serious, RJ. Apparently you're the one who isn't -- more unthinking partisanship tied with NRA talking points.
You claim that the people who talked with/examined the shooter are not professional. Why? Because he ended up doing something that possibly or probably could not have been predicted?
We don't know what was said, what tests, if any, were given. A judge heard a motion yesterday to determine if the shooter's mental health records and evaluations should be released. I don't know if he's made a final decision yet (haven't seen any news today).
Until we have firm evidence that the professionals acted improperly or reached an erroneous conclusion, I'd recommend that amateurs like you keep quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 20, 2018 13:24:56 GMT -5
I am serious, RJ. Apparently you're the one who isn't -- more unthinking partisanship tied with NRA talking points. You claim that the people who talked with/examined the shooter are not professional. Why? Because he ended up doing something that possibly or probably could not have been predicted? Again, Cruz, on more than one occasion, openly said he was going to become "a professional school shooter" on his social media accounts. The idea that him shooting up a school couldn't be predicted is simply a denial of reality. This is why you're not being serious, and why the alleged professionals (some of which were made aware of these posts) can't be taken seriously as professionals. The proof is plain for anyone who is paying attention. THIS GUY TOLD THE WHOLE WORLD HE WAS GOING TO SHOOT UP A SCHOOL. The only way his action was unpredictable relies in wilful ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 20, 2018 13:44:48 GMT -5
Whatever you say, RJ. You obviously know a lot more than any mental health professional, expecially since you've never interviewed the shooter and know almost nothing about his background. Are you available for counseling and therapy?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 20, 2018 13:54:46 GMT -5
Whatever you say, RJ. You obviously know a lot more than any mental health professional, expecially since you've never interviewed the shooter and know almost nothing about his background. Are you available for counseling and therapy? It doesn't take being a health professional to predict that someone who threatens to shoot up a school might shoot up a school. Apparently though, it does take a mental health professional to come to the opposite conclusion. Who was right? The concerned blogger who went and told the FBI? Or the professionals who decided not to act?
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 20, 2018 14:33:59 GMT -5
How many times have you threatened to kill someone? Said something like that in anger? Ever act on it? Saying something doesn't necessarily mean that there will be action. Sorry you can't see that. Again, stop jumping to conclusions with no evidence. Let's wait for the medical reports.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 20, 2018 15:04:53 GMT -5
How many times have you threatened to kill someone? Said something like that in anger? Ever act on it? Saying something doesn't necessarily mean that there will be action. Sorry you can't see that. Again, stop jumping to conclusions with no evidence. Let's wait for the medical reports. Wow. You're just living to deny reality today.
|
|