After just 13 months in office, 170 political scientists are ready to say Trump is the worst U.S. president; reaction from presidential historian Doug Wead.
Perhaps, but being able to say, "We've got our eyes on you, son" is a pretty dull tool.
btw, what is the FBI's jurisdiction in this, anyway? Is it their job to run around the country trying to identify wackos? I thought they did interstate crimes. Seems to me the local police would be the first point of contact.
Minor point, there weren't any foster parents - he was an adult and some people were kind enough to give him a roof and a chance. Good for them. They had his guns in a safe and he was supposed to only be able to access the guns through them. They probably should have asked the school why he was kicked out, but what could they have done?
Sure it's a dull tool, but it's better than nothing.
I think the FBI is also tasked with terroristic-type stuff too, but I also think that thread gets a mite tenuous sometimes.
Good point about the neighbors: he is an adult after all, at least in the eyes of the law. I don't know if the tipster contacted local authorities first, but I agree that seems like the place to start.
From what I've gathered, which ain't much, the FBI spoke with the person who raised the concern. But did not talk with the person of concern, the shooter. Or the school, or the foster parents, or pretty much anybody else. Any one of those contacts could have provided more information. They didn't have to break down any doors or even confiscate his (legally owned) weapon. Just pursuing the case a bit further could have changed the outcome. I understand they cannot possibly chase every tip, and hindsight is 20/20, but the tip was good enough they went to talk with the tipster personally. There were other clues too, but they didn't do any follow-up.
FYI, for hunting fowl and game, guns are limited in capacity and action. It is illegal to hunt deer with an AR-15, for example. Shotguns are limited to three (?) shells: all new shotguns come with a 'plug' that limits their capacity. That said, feral hogs are an exception. AR-15s are favored by hog hunters. But even then you need a hunting license, etc. My point? Recreational firearms are already regulated in several ways. The problem is with firearms purchased willy-nilly, upon which you and I agree entirely. c.
Perhaps, but being able to say, "We've got our eyes on you, son" is a pretty dull tool.
btw, what is the FBI's jurisdiction in this, anyway? Is it their job to run around the country trying to identify wackos? I thought they did interstate crimes. Seems to me the local police would be the first point of contact.
Minor point, there weren't any foster parents - he was an adult and some people were kind enough to give him a roof and a chance. Good for them. They had his guns in a safe and he was supposed to only be able to access the guns through them. They probably should have asked the school why he was kicked out, but what could they have done?
We are talking about the SSA and the VA. They have there own legal systems that act independent from criminal and civil courts, just as the IRS has its own court system where you are assumed guilty and must prove your innocence.
SUMMARY The committee identified a number of points for comparison of the programs reviewed in this chapter, including the overall size of the program, the number of beneficiaries deemed incapable (or comparable determination), potential triggers for capability assessment, types of evidence considered, instructions to informants, appeals processes, and review processes. SSA's programs, both overall and with respect to the number of beneficiaries determined incapable, are significantly larger than all of the other programs examined by the committee.
Among the programs reviewed, SSA guidance provides the most in-depth information on potential triggers that call capability into question. However, a unique aspect of the OPM program in this regard is its use of computerized matching; although such matching is primarily for analysis of benefit disbursement from other programs that may impact OPM benefits, it may also provide information that brings capability into question.
That's not the happiest read I've come across (there aren't even any pictures), but there is some interesting stuff in there. Apparently, the VA does require medical evidence and SSA only requires "lay evidence" at least - which is pretty disconcerting, depending on who's doing the evaluations. I don't see how being "incapable of handling one's finances" is equated with "dementia", but perhaps that is the biggest concern. They can be related and many people may suffer from both disorders, but they are obviously not the same thing. As to the "computerized matching", keep in mind, that the OPM oversees civilians working for the Federal government, e.g.: postal employees, Health & Human Services, etc., and history has shown that there were some postal employees who probably should not have had access to firearms.
"The legal procedure for declaring a person incompetent consists of three steps: (1) a motion for a competency hearing, (2) a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and (3) a competency hearing. Probate courts usually handle competency proceedings, which guarantee the allegedly incompetent person Due Process of Law."
The determinations are not made by clerks at the SSA or by computer algorithms.
We are talking about the SSA and the VA. They have there own reviewing systems that act independent from criminal and civil courts, just as the IRS has its own court system where you are assumed guilty and must prove your innocence. The definition you provided above has no relevance in these venues.
SUMMARY The committee identified a number of points for comparison of the programs reviewed in this chapter, including the overall size of the program, the number of beneficiaries deemed incapable (or comparable determination), potential triggers for capability assessment, types of evidence considered, instructions to informants, appeals processes, and review processes. SSA's programs, both overall and with respect to the number of beneficiaries determined incapable, are significantly larger than all of the other programs examined by the committee.
Among the programs reviewed, SSA guidance provides the most in-depth information on potential triggers that call capability into question. However, a unique aspect of the OPM program in this regard is its use of computerized matching; although such matching is primarily for analysis of benefit disbursement from other programs that may impact OPM benefits, it may also provide information that brings capability into question.
There's a bit of weird disconnect here with Trump's statements that the FBI somehow should have stopped the shooter before it happened. Like what were they going to do with the tools at their disposal? They couldn't legally keep the gun out of his hands, they couldn't imprison him. I suppose they could have gone, busted down his door and shot him like that poor sod in California or wherever who was killed by police acting on an intentionally false tip.
I suppose you could look at it like any other government program like food stamps where the Republicans want to limit access. I mean no one has to take disability. If owning a gun is that important to you, opt out. Ok, I don't really believe that's a good solution, but there are plenty of other options. If you are in a high risk category, then you can have a double barrel shotgun and hunt ducks to your heart's content. Or a bolt action rifle for deer but not something for blowing away lots of kids. Or just keep anyone from having weapons of mass murder and then it's equitable.
There are several nice things about Australia's gun limits. If someone is running around with a gun illegally, then that means that they can be stopped proactively. If anyone can carry a gun into a burger king then you have no way to prevent gun crimes. Yes, the bikey gangs can get guns. But it's harder and they are harder to replace after you shoot someone and throw them into the ocean. So crims factor that into their decision on whether to blow someone away. Is it worth the trouble and expense to them? People with guns are far more worried about someone stealing them than they are about getting attacked. So they take care to lock them up and have a neighbour look after them when away for extended periods.
From what I've gathered, which ain't much, the FBI spoke with the person who raised the concern. But did not talk with the person of concern, the shooter. Or the school, or the foster parents, or pretty much anybody else. Any one of those contacts could have provided more information. They didn't have to break down any doors or even confiscate his (legally owned) weapon. Just pursuing the case a bit further could have changed the outcome. I understand they cannot possibly chase every tip, and hindsight is 20/20, but the tip was good enough they went to talk with the tipster personally. There were other clues too, but they didn't do any follow-up.
FYI, for hunting fowl and game, guns are limited in capacity and action. It is illegal to hunt deer with an AR-15, for example. Shotguns are limited to three (?) shells: all new shotguns come with a 'plug' that limits their capacity. That said, feral hogs are an exception. AR-15s are favored by hog hunters. But even then you need a hunting license, etc. My point? Recreational firearms are already regulated in several ways. The problem is with firearms purchased willy-nilly, upon which you and I agree entirely. c.
By all accounts, incontrovertible evidence states that a powerful foreign state interfered in our domestic electoral process and the executive in The White House not only fails to take any action, but refuses to even admit the problem. Why? Because he is owned, lock, stock and barrel by that powerful foreign state. This is fine.
"The legal procedure for declaring a person incompetent consists of three steps: (1) a motion for a competency hearing, (2) a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and (3) a competency hearing. Probate courts usually handle competency proceedings, which guarantee the allegedly incompetent person Due Process of Law."
The determinations are not made by clerks at the SSA or by computer algorithms.
"The legal procedure for declaring a person incompetent consists of three steps: (1) a motion for a competency hearing, (2) a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and (3) a competency hearing. Probate courts usually handle competency proceedings, which guarantee the allegedly incompetent person Due Process of Law."
The determinations are not made by clerks at the SSA or by computer algorithms.
I did get a chuckle out of the image of Bob the Bureaucrat, sitting at his desk with the pile of files from H-L and his boss yelling at him - "Have you reviewed those files yet" on Friday afternoon at 4:30.
"The legal procedure for declaring a person incompetent consists of three steps: (1) a motion for a competency hearing, (2) a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and (3) a competency hearing. Probate courts usually handle competency proceedings, which guarantee the allegedly incompetent person Due Process of Law."
The determinations are not made by clerks at the SSA or by computer algorithms.
Has your wife been deemed incompetent? Was she placed on the NCIS list? Was she prevented from purchasing a firearm?
The financial conditions there do seem a bit odd, but it's not an unusual condition for people who are deemed incompetent (usually by a court, but also by other authorities, I've yet to hear of it being done by a computer). And there is a process for being declared incompetent, and it does involve due process.
The rest of the statement from Richard's link that you left out of your italicized bit says: "due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”:". So if those are the reasons that someone is being deemed incompetent and not being allowed to own a firearm, I'm not seeing a huge problem. Maybe we can just add some qualifiers on the financial bit, but overall it looks pretty reasonable - you do have the right of appeal as well, for additional due process.
"The legal procedure for declaring a person incompetent consists of three steps: (1) a motion for a competency hearing, (2) a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and (3) a competency hearing. Probate courts usually handle competency proceedings, which guarantee the allegedly incompetent person Due Process of Law."
The determinations are not made by clerks at the SSA or by computer algorithms.
There's a bit of weird disconnect here with Trump's statements that the FBI somehow should have stopped the shooter before it happened. Like what were they going to do with the tools at their disposal? They couldn't legally keep the gun out of his hands, they couldn't imprison him. I suppose they could have gone, busted down his door and shot him like that poor sod in California or wherever who was killed by police acting on an intentionally false tip.
I suppose you could look at it like any other government program like food stamps where the Republicans want to limit access. I mean no one has to take disability. If owning a gun is that important to you, opt out. Ok, I don't really believe that's a good solution, but there are plenty of other options. If you are in a high risk category, then you can have a double barrel shotgun and hunt ducks to your heart's content. Or a bolt action rifle for deer but not something for blowing away lots of kids. Or just keep anyone from having weapons of mass murder and then it's equitable.
There are several nice things about Australia's gun limits. If someone is running around with a gun illegally, then that means that they can be stopped proactively. If anyone can carry a gun into a burger king then you have no way to prevent gun crimes. Yes, the bikey gangs can get guns. But it's harder and they are harder to replace after you shoot someone and throw them into the ocean. So crims factor that into their decision on whether to blow someone away. Is it worth the trouble and expense to them? People with guns are far more worried about someone stealing them than they are about getting attacked. So they take care to lock them up and have a neighbour look after them when away for extended periods.
All of Benghazi belongs to Hillary. That will never change!
It's time to talk about what Trump can/can't do. It's way too obvious that every time someone points out Trump's incompetence - and remember his selling point was that he's not a politician nor one of the elites - someone pops up to say "what about "Hillary" or "what about Obama" and hope that folks get distracted. This is in place of a cogent argument that might sway people's minds.
it would pertain exclusively to the subset of Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed incompetent to handle their own financial affairs.
Deemed is the big one there. How is deemed congruent with Due Process for openers ? You have to prove yourself innocent to get removed from the list.
My wife is permanently and totally disabled because a motherfucking cellphone driving a car rear ended my wife's car immediately ending her contracting career and leaving her wife a 20lb weight limit, two back surgeries resulting in hardware and intolerable intermittent pain and serious permanent background pain. She has not worked nor been able to work a single day since. She also ended up with a PTSD diagnosis as a result of dealing with the injury and my cancer as she was to be the one to support us through my shit as I was done working, for obvious reasons. This happened as she on the way to the hospital to visit me during one of my early rounds of 24 hour week long rounds of chemo. It took 5 years to settle this claim. As a result of our attorney fucking us over and the 5 years of financial devastation before getting the settlement, she had to declare bankruptcy to end it all. Bankruptcy would easily be a sign of being incompetent to handle their own financial affairs. Right ??? And with my cancer and being married to someone who went bankrupt would make me equally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs.
Yeah, let a bureaucrat or a computer deem you to be something that you are not or have not been proven to be and then leave you the burden to prove otherwise.
Now you want to go re examine my statement you quoted for accuracy, eh ??????????????????????????????????
I'm done here on this one. Gotta take a xanax in order to get to sleep now.
Goodnite ...
Has your wife been deemed incompetent? Was she placed on the NCIS list? Was she prevented from purchasing a firearm?
The financial conditions there do seem a bit odd, but it's not an unusual condition for people who are deemed incompetent (usually by a court, but also by other authorities, I've yet to hear of it being done by a computer). And there is a process for being declared incompetent, and it does involve due process.
The rest of the statement from Richard's link that you left out of your italicized bit says: "due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”:". So if those are the reasons that someone is being deemed incompetent and not being allowed to own a firearm, I'm not seeing a huge problem. Maybe we can just add some qualifiers on the financial bit, but overall it looks pretty reasonable - you do have the right of appeal as well, for additional due process.
it would pertain exclusively to the subset of Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed incompetent to handle their own financial affairs.
(... ) Now you want to go re examine my statement you quoted for accuracy, eh ??????????????????????????????????
I'm done here on this one. Gotta take a xanax in order to get to sleep now.
Goodnite ...
Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”
