Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Also, would a "chat" really alway work? It may just alert them to being monitored and either send them underground or prompt them to bring matters forward.

I cannot say this for certain. However, looking at his family background, his "conversion" to racism, etc., I'm a bit optimistic that there might have been a psych hold placed on him following an interview by police.

I don't know South Carolina law, but In CA, if a person was deemed a risk to his own well-being or the well-being of others, we could commit him/her for a 72 hour evaluation. Would that have changed things? We'll never know.

Hmm. I have to say, I didn't expect a "chat" to be committal.

But, this man is definitely "not right" in the head.

Well, yes, we know that now. But even so, there is a lot between "not right" and being observably at a level the police could get a commital order.

Even if the police did approach, you're relying on being "a bit optimistic". Which isn't much.

I wonder if this did become a policy though, police finding people writing hysterical screeds on the internet and putting them under 72-hr holds, how long before people start screaming about the overwhelming power of the state. Especially if it involves people making political statements.

As for websites, any website espousing overt racism and even violence ought to be detected and monitored. If they can't pick up this stuff using the programs and computers they have, then what good is the NSA, FBI, and the Patriot Act?

You still have not answered all of my questions.

How many websites? is it tens, thousands, hundreds of thousands? Identifying them is one thing, but how many cops / FBI agents etc are going to be tasked with having "chats" with the authors.

How are they easily tracked to individuals? There is such a thing as IP masking

I just saw a story on internet harassment where women have received even death threats and the police are not really equipped to deal with it. It's hard to know who the one serious guy out of perhaps thousands of people who say over-the-top stuff. Owen points out there are serious of freedom of speech concerns here ( and perhaps concerns that oversight might be done for political reasons). Also police have to husband their resources and I am not sure you can "data-mine" with regard to websites for key words like you can for telephonic communications. A large group with a website is worth monitoring but solitary guys like this...I don't know.

danivon wrote:Hmm. I have to say, I didn't expect a "chat" to be committal.

One of the joys of the job: you never know until you get there.

But, this man is definitely "not right" in the head.

Well, yes, we know that now. But even so, there is a lot between "not right" and being observably at a level the police could get a commital order.

In this case, who can say?

However, if you have ever met someone who's mad, it's not all that difficult.

Even if the police did approach, you're relying on being "a bit optimistic". Which isn't much.

Right. So, let's consider what has been proposed:

1. Banning the Confederate flag. Oh, that would have stopped him!

2. More gun control! Again, epic fail.

All I'm suggesting is that some LE contact might have had an effect. Maybe his roommate would have said something (which is a problem to begin with, but . . .)

I wonder if this did become a policy though, police finding people writing hysterical screeds on the internet and putting them under 72-hr holds, how long before people start screaming about the overwhelming power of the state. Especially if it involves people making political statements.

It's not political statements. It's racist rhetoric coupled with violent threats (which he had made to his roommate and, presumably, others).

How many websites? is it tens, thousands, hundreds of thousands? Identifying them is one thing, but how many cops / FBI agents etc are going to be tasked with having "chats" with the authors.

Come on. You're being a rectal thermometer.

Someone in our government is going through jihadist stuff now, yes? If not, they would not catch any of them.

There are not hundreds of thousands of racist/KKK-like websites in the US. Even if there were, if spambots can be designed to hack into websites and post spam, then surely a bot can be programmed to find said websites and flag violent content.

How are they easily tracked to individuals? There is such a thing as IP masking

Yeah, this guy looks like he is of the IP-masking sort.

freeman3 wrote:My point is that you cannot totally separate what this guy did from the larger culture. The about- face regarding the confederate flag by many politicians (many of them Republican) in South Carolina is a reflection of this. Apparently they need a lot less "proof" than you need. You keep up bringing up this straw man as if I were saying the entire culture is racist . My point was we should not put this under the rug as if it were the aberrant act of a single person and we need not take a look at the larger culture to see what may have set him off. Yes , he was troubled but that does not mean we should not make that examination.

Yes it does.

Society needs an enema because a nut goes crazy? That's what nuts do.

You've established nothing in terms of the "larger culture" that "may have set him off."

We cannot pretend that in 50 years our culture has been transformed so that it is not conscious of race . The notion is absurd.

Those who accuse others of building straw men should not build one so fine.

". . . it is not conscious of race." Who set that standard?

There is a massive canyon between what you started with and a culture "not conscious of race."

Yes, it is a great step forward that most of us now at a conscious level are not racist even though we probably all carry around to a greater or lesser degree stereotypes about other groups. But when we deal with people in person one- to- one there is generally no problem as far differences in race. But the brain is not politically correct, our brain is not just the cerebral cortex, and the goal of our brain is for us to survive. So in a life-or-death situation if we have been conditioned to think a young black is more dangerous than other groups that will have a tendency to affect how we react. That doesn't make us bad people-- it just makes us human.

Mandatory military service does the trick. You can't live with people and hold stereotypes. They won't hold up.

Did the Tea Party form solely because of concerns about the budget or were they motivated in part because of underlying concerns that other non-white groups would take advantage of the safety net?

Budget.

There are more whites on welfare than "others." We all know that.

I think it is naive to think that negative feelings about other groups did not play a role with regard to the above, even if not consciously admitted.

I think it's naive to believe that liberals do not believe the tea party folks are racists.

We'll never know what set this man set off but we can be sure he was influenced by the culture around him. Taking down the Confederate flag is a concrete step in removing a symbol of racism (after all it was put up to protest the civil rights movement) that could motivate other racist acts.

Let's remove everything offensive to everyone. If no one is ever offended, no one will ever go off! We'll live in a hate-free society, holding hands and eating sunflower seeds!

What can we call that? Oh, yeah, a dream.

As long as we are conscious of race, we will have a tendency to favor our own racial group over others. Again that kind of thinking is pretty hard-wired into our brains after several million years of hominid development Are we in a post-racial world? I don't think so.

I just don't believe that.

I have a friend who recently moved to South Carolina. He and his wife are white, but have adopted non-white children. Fifty years ago, that would have been a problem.

Not today.

My wife an I adopted a black child while in Virginia. The people who had the most difficulty with our decision were blacks.

Not one white person had a problem with it. My wife and I counted 12 negative comments from black people.

Who had a bigger problem with desegregation of the races?

So let me see if I'm clear on this, DF--are you still defending South Carolina continuing to fly that Confederate flag, which only went up as defiance of the civil rights movement (meaning it was flown to symbolize defiance in the face of "northern" attempts to desegregate their state)? Maybe blacks are too sensitive about that symbol...

Also did you see that sales of Confederate flags skyrocketed on Amazon? Yeah, things are a lot better, but it was not "conservatives" that made it so (at least back in the 60s)And there are still people out there that don't like how things are going with race relations.

Good for you, Brad. I don't know what the rationale for their comments was but racism/prejudice goes both ways and their comments were wrong. Ignore them. But lack of power among blacks has historically made prejudice among their people less impactful (though still hurtful)

A tangent: I find it fascinating that this guy sat through a church service for an hour and then started shooting. Even if you are a non-believer, it's hard to hate people who are praying, singing, etc.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Banning the Confederate flag. Oh, that would have stopped him!

I don't think it would have "stopped" him. And even so, I see call not so much for a "ban" on the flag as for not having governments legitimising a symbol of armed insurrection and defence of institutionalised racial slavery. I was a little surprised to find that the one most are concerned about was there because a LAW says it has to be there "in perpetuity".

2. More gun control! Again, epic fail.

More than what? Has much new gun control legislation been passed since Sandy Hook? Is Charleston a massively anti-gun place? I know that some have blamed one of the victims because he voted against carrying guns in public places, but I believe that was not a new restriction.

All I'm suggesting is that some LE contact might have had an effect. Maybe his roommate would have said something (which is a problem to begin with, but . . .)

And all I am suggesting - which Freeman managed to work out quite easily - is that it isn't that simple.

It's not political statements. It's racist rhetoric coupled with violent threats (which he had made to his roommate and, presumably, others).

Racial rhetoric is political. And maybe the people he did talk to were not in total disagreement.

How many websites? is it tens, thousands, hundreds of thousands? Identifying them is one thing, but how many cops / FBI agents etc are going to be tasked with having "chats" with the authors.

Come on. You're being a rectal thermometer.

And there it comes - if in doubt avoid the question. If that doesn't work, time for the personal digs.

Someone in our government is going through jihadist stuff now, yes? If not, they would not catch any of them.

They don't catch all of them, though. And they are also monitoring the far right in the USA - have had to for decades.

There are not hundreds of thousands of racist/KKK-like websites in the US. Even if there were, if spambots can be designed to hack into websites and post spam, then surely a bot can be programmed to find said websites and flag violent content.

I will take your word for it you have a clue on how much is out there. But as much as a webcrawler could flag content, what would it be flagging it for? What intervention (apart from the "chat"/3-day psych hold)?

How are they easily tracked to individuals? There is such a thing as IP masking

Yeah, this guy looks like he is of the IP-masking sort.

It is very easy to do. They have applications that do it for you.

Ray Jay wrote:A tangent: I find it fascinating that this guy sat through a church service for an hour and then started shooting. Even if you are a non-believer, it's hard to hate people who are praying, singing, etc.

It's possibly easier if you are a believer, just in something different.

It is unusual, though. The normal method for people attacking places of worship is to just start. Or do it when empty.

freeman3 wrote:So let me see if I'm clear on this, DF--are you still defending South Carolina continuing to fly that Confederate flag, which only went up as defiance of the civil rights movement (meaning it was flown to symbolize defiance in the face of "northern" attempts to desegregate their state)? Maybe blacks are too sensitive about that symbol...

Thank you for asking.

I'm sorry to respond with a question. When did I "defend South Carolina continuing to fly the Confederate flag?"

Oops: two questions. What does this have to do with the shooting? I know you keep insisting it does, but does it?

Also did you see that sales of Confederate flags skyrocketed on Amazon? Yeah, things are a lot better, but it was not "conservatives" that made it so (at least back in the 60s)And there are still people out there that don't like how things are going with race relations.

Actually, Republicans ended slavery and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was Democrats (17 with one Republican) who led the filibuster against it, including such luminaries as Byrd and Thurmond.

Good for you, Brad. I don't know what the rationale for their comments was but racism/prejudice goes both ways and their comments were wrong. Ignore them. But lack of power among blacks has historically made prejudice among their people less impactful (though still hurtful)

It depends on where you are, doesn't it? There are a lot of areas of Los Angeles where being white will get you hurt, just for being white.

Ray Jay wrote:A tangent: I find it fascinating that this guy sat through a church service for an hour and then started shooting. Even if you are a non-believer, it's hard to hate people who are praying, singing, etc.

Oh, it's more than fascinating. It's heartbreaking. He said he "almost" couldn't do it because the people were so nice.

It would be easier to understand if he'd just gone in and done it. Well, maybe not "easier," but certainly less puzzling. His hate was in no way modified by their kindness.

I hope he has a fair trial. After he's found guilty, he should be sentenced to death and promptly executed. As the families of the victims told him, may God have mercy on his soul.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Banning the Confederate flag. Oh, that would have stopped him!

I don't think it would have "stopped" him. And even so, I see call not so much for a "ban" on the flag as for not having governments legitimising a symbol of armed insurrection and defence of institutionalised racial slavery. I was a little surprised to find that the one most are concerned about was there because a LAW says it has to be there "in perpetuity".

It's a State issue. They appear to be moving--led by their non-white GOP governor and their non-white GOP Senator.

2. More gun control! Again, epic fail.

More than what? Has much new gun control legislation been passed since Sandy Hook? Is Charleston a massively anti-gun place? I know that some have blamed one of the victims because he voted against carrying guns in public places, but I believe that was not a new restriction.

What gun law would have prevented this?

And there it comes - if in doubt avoid the question. If that doesn't work, time for the personal digs.

No, I try to respond reasonably to unreasonable questions and you act like a jerk.

I'll take the blame. I should know better than to get into the cesspool with you.

There is no way for me to know how many racist websites there are. There could be 100. There could be 10,000. Either find the info yourself or ask a racist.

There is no way to estimate how many officers/agents would be needed. It would not be a full-time job in most of the country. I'd venture to say in most situations a local car could be sent out to assess whether further investigation is warranted. It's the kind of thing cops do ALL THE TIME.

Someone in our government is going through jihadist stuff now, yes? If not, they would not catch any of them.

They don't catch all of them, though. And they are also monitoring the far right in the USA - have had to for decades.

Oh brother. "The far right" is so far right that it's left.

There are not hundreds of thousands of racist/KKK-like websites in the US. Even if there were, if spambots can be designed to hack into websites and post spam, then surely a bot can be programmed to find said websites and flag violent content.

I will take your word for it you have a clue on how much is out there.

Oh, yes, because you never resort to name-calling. That was "subtle," but name-calling nonetheless.

*cue the semi-clever denial.*

But as much as a webcrawler could flag content, what would it be flagging it for? What intervention (apart from the "chat"/3-day psych hold)?

Stop.

I am not designing a law enforcement program. If you want to, feel free. Otherwise, cut with your stupid questions.

How are they easily tracked to individuals? There is such a thing as IP masking

Yeah, this guy looks like he is of the IP-masking sort.

It is very easy to do. They have applications that do it for you.

I will take your word for it you have a clue on what sort of IP-making tools are out there.

Your questions are idiotic and you know it.

Well , you quoted me with saying that taking down the Confederate flag in South Carolina would be a good step and you responded by saying let's remove everything offensive to everyone. That certainly sounds like you were defending South Carolina keeping their Confederate flag. But perhaps you could clarify. Or not.

As for Republicans being involved in civil rights those kind of moderates don't exist anymore in the Republican Party. The conservative southern Democrats who blocked civil rights legislation for many years in the Senate switched over to the Republican Party after 1968. That is why I focused on the word conservative and not party identification. Yes, there were some liberal Republicans who supported civil rights but they were not conservative (they would be called Rhino today) Lyndon Johnson , a Democrat , was primarily responsible for getting civil rights legislation passed. But you knew that history. I wonder why that alleged white supremacist who helped to inspired Roof donated a lot of money to the Republican Party-- he thought he was donating to the civil rights party ?

The biggest problem I have with the Confederate Battle Flag is that it is a flag of another nation that was in conflict with the United States. That is similar to flying the Nazi flag over the capital buildings in a state. It would be unheard of! I cannot support ANY Confederate flag being flown over a government building. If someone wants to fly it over his/her private property, so be it. They would have that right.

Pretty amazing how easily this can be solved since many southern states are removing this symbol. I wonder what the media will latch onto in order to not talk about the Democratic party nominees.

freeman3 wrote:Well , you quoted me with saying that taking down the Confederate flag in South Carolina would be a good step and you responded by saying let's remove everything offensive to everyone. That certainly sounds like you were defending South Carolina keeping their Confederate flag. But perhaps you could clarify. Or not.

Sure. I think this is a State issue. The people and government of South Carolina determine their flag, not the people and government of the USA or the people and government of California.

I was responding more generally to your notion that the Confederate flag and other items might have "triggered" this man. We cannot make the world a "trigger-free" zone. We don't know what set the murderer off. For all you or I know, it could have been a picture of Michael Bolton.

What we do know is he talked about this for months. We do know that it was borne of racial hatred. The only way he would nave not shot up the AME church that night is if the attendees were all white.

As for Republicans being involved in civil rights those kind of moderates don't exist anymore in the Republican Party.

Again, you make a claim and offer no proof. Are you suggesting the Republicans today are racists? Would Tim Scott, the only Black in the Senate (unless someone claims to be transracial), vote against the civil rights act of 1964? Would any Republicans now serving? If not, then what's the point of your claim?

I wonder why that alleged white supremacist who helped to inspired Roof donated a lot of money to the Republican Party-- he thought he was donating to the civil rights party ?

Define "a lot of money." Go ahead. You made the charge. Back it up.

I think you're confused anyway. Only one party cares anything for the individual and it's not the Democratic Party. It is clearly the collectivist party.