Threatening someone can be a criminal offence in Canada. It is defined as such in the Canadian Criminal Code as Uttering Threats in section 264.1.
A conviction of Uttering Threats will result in a criminal record for the accused. As explained in the Criminal Code an individual convicted of Uttering Threats is liable to imprisonment for a term of up to five years if the Crown proceeds by indictment, or of a term of up to 18 months if the Crown proceeds summarily.
Threats can be expressed through different modes of communication. Threats can be communicated verbally, in text (text message, social media, email, letter etc.), or communicated though a third party, or conveyed through physical gestures.
In Canada, if a threat is determined to be credible by the police, then they may be able to arrest the aggressor, who could then face criminal charges for making the threat. Although making threats is generally a misdemeanor offense, it is a serious offense and frequently results in jail time if a defendant is convicted.
Threats to kill can be a felony. Illegal threats include threats to do bodily harm, threaten to destroy property, or threats to do anything “which is maliciously intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety.”
Way to go! No nonsense. It's called "prevention". Better safe than sorry.
http://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/is-it-a-crime-to/crime-threate...
1
I'm sure Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell and the cast and crew of "Minority Report" are reading this, mouths agape.
2
Mr. Sawyer was arrested with a detailed written plan including dates and a "kill list", acquisition of a weapon to commit said plan, and once arrested made a verbal confession of his full intent to follow through with his plan. He was freed on bail the week of the Boston Marathon. If in 2013 Boston PD had received a tip of a potential threat and had arrested the Marathon bombers in the process obtaining a written plan, acquisition of materials to commit said plan, and a verbal confession of intent should Boston PD have let them go because they did not carry out their threat. Vermont Supreme Court would say yes. I understand adherence to ISIS is different from adherence to the Columbine shooters but the result is the same.
1
Where in this article is mention of an involuntary commitment? Mr. Sawyer while engaging in threatening behaviors and failing to take his medicine poses a threat to the people of Fair Haven and to himself as many mass shooters have wound up dead.
Why didn't the Police or the local DA take a more measured approach and place Mr Sayer in a mental hospital instead of jumping the gun, no pun intended, and go The Mental Hygiene Law route? New York a few miles further west has such a procedure. The answer is found in narrow minded local small town politics. The Vermont Supreme Court saw that
As a nation, without a doubt, we do not have an enlightened, or even informed, way of dealing with the many mental health problems present in our citizenry today. However, a part of this specific case highlights that fact that we are bending our lives and our laws into untenable and unworkable positions in order to accommodate insane gun laws as dictated by the NRA and their Republican lapdogs. The Parkland kids have this right - stop the NRA.
2
Perhaps, any state legislators who allow this lenient law to remain unchanged, should enroll THEIR RELATIVES in this school?
At least, publish their names!
You can’t even get what my letter says how can you be a chemistry teacher. Alls it takes is one teacher at home teaching to hundreds at home on their own paid for by them computers
I am still thinking anout this article a day later- that’s how powerful I found it. Is anybody else out there thinking that this describes the perfectly designed sociological experiment? We may not know the results of the study for another 10 or 15 years (“...eventually he will carry put his plan.”) but I don’t see us as a society being willing to deny him access to guns so the outcome may be quite bleak.
3
If you look at some of the massacres that have happened, they were planned out. This kind of planning indicates the possibility of such a massacre. A thorough psychological evaluation and deprivation of weapons, possibly isolation in a padded cell, is in order.
No, it's definitively not a crime......
You cannot put someone in jail in this country for “thought crime.” I understand the concern in the community but you simply cannot just arrest someone because they wrote something scary down or said something threatening and then bought a gun. While it is true that saying you have a bomb in an airport will get you arrested, it really shouldn’t. It’s absolutely ridiculous since you didn’t actually commit an act. Since when is fantasizing a crime?? I feel really bad for these people who go through life scared. Frightened of terrorists, frightened of school shooters. The truth is that it is a one in a million chance of these things happening to you yet the buzz phrase you constantly hear now is ‘an abundance of caution.’ It’s simply a culture of fear and an abundance of ignorance.
2
No! You can’t arrest someone for thoughts or writings, however violent. But here, this sick individual took his thoughts and writings a significant step further. Society needs to act before there is yet another tragedy.
4
So a teenager in Vermont engages in the following behavior:
1) Publicly praises the mass shooting at Parkland.
2) Clearly writes in his journal plans to stage a mass shooting at his local high school.
3) Makes violent threats again his local high school.
4) Keeps a shotgun with ammunition in his car.
5) Has more than one book about the mass shooting at Colombine in his car.
6)Suffers from depression and anxiety and stopped taking his medication
And the conclusion of the state Supreme Court is that he should be released into the community. This is the result of a broken legal system. Due to the the incompetence of the prosecution and the disingenuous arguments of the defense team, the court is setting a precedent for more mass shooting and more horrendous suffering of American families. God help our troubled nation!
5
Our society has a continuing journey to transform it's family culture. Women are equally lost and confused and hypersexualised, and yet this issue of raisng young boys at a deep level as remained ironically almost mute despite all of the carnage, mayhem and madness at all levels of our society. Just glance at this book and subsequent work by the author of "Real Boys". It's really almost anti-American to be real in a surreal & broken society, with women bringing children into the world who know nothing about the inner conflicts of young boys and the lives they are forced to live by default.
Real Boys: William S. Pollack
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/pollack-boys.h...
2
This is why an 18-year-old should not be allowed to buy a gun. Ever.
4
Why do all the other first world countries not need armed teachers?
3
There is nothing short of a 2 MD Consent court order that will compel someone to take their medications if they don't want to. The best we can hope for is the case manager who'll have the time to try to talk them out of their crises. That often includes trying to reason them out of buying a gun. But there's too many venues for the young and disenfranchised to obtain them. And there is becoming less and less case managers.
2
Making detailed plans to kill people and purchasing weapons are the sorts of things terrorists do.
4
And this sick individual is, and should be treated as, a terrorist — detailed plans for mass carnage and the means to accomplish that goal.
2
Hopefully Mr Sawyer is on a permanent No Buy - and no Fly list. He is a disturbed young man and dangerous and it is just a matter of time - he will do something to make sure we all remember his name.
Sawyer is the reason we need a national registry for guns paid for with a tax on ammo
Sawyer is the reason why we need to close the gun show loophole
Sawyer is the reason why we need to eliminate private gun sales.
6
The bottom line is it's possible this angry young man may soon be free and able to acquire guns again (although maybe not so easily in Vermont now). Meanwhile, communities are on edge wondering if and when he'll act on his violent impulses.
If he were in England, which has strict gun control laws and very little gun violence, he would not be able to get his hands on a gun. The community would not be worried that he would shoot up a school.
So which country has a sensible approach to guns, and which country doesn't?
3
He moved past thought when he wrote out his plans
He moved past plans when he told people his intent
Hee moved past thought, plans and intent when he bought a murder weapon
Thought, plans, intent, murder weapon. They add to this man terrorizing his community. Try him as a terrorist.
3
What needs to be considered here is what is proper intervention. We know this person is a possible threat. The nature of the "fantasy" and the steps taken to carry it out- including purchasing a firearm and ammunition- means intervention is needed. Is jail the answer? Should we not have a health and mental health system equipped to intervene and help this young man, so that such aggression is addressed and diffused? Simply releasing him back to be angry and aggressive in the community is definitely NOT the answer.
1
We need to reopen all those mental institutions that we closed to save money. There are people who should not be on the street and trusted not to act on their evil plans. A few years ago a person criticized this idea by saying I wouldn't be saying this if it was my child. Yes, I would. There are plenty of parents who are afraid that their mentally ill kids will act on their crazy thoughts. Some people are worried that their civil rights will be violated. What about society's civil rights to not be afraid that a mentally ill person will commit mayhem, especially when the plans have already been made as they were in this case. I bet the judge wouldn't want to live in his neighborhood.
4
Ignore the hypocrisy of a white kid being free on bail with blatant evidence of planning for mass murder, but a black man is convicted without any physical evidence, based on the evidence of gold diggers. Nothing happening here.
3
can't say bomb on an aircraft. Can't write school shooting and not be investigated, because it is a crime.
1
It is natural that the students’ parents are feeling fears for the safety of their children. Mr.Sayer should be detained until he recovers from his mental illness and his doctor assures his patient will never commit carnage. The human right of Mr. Sayer is important but the safety of other students should be much more respected.
1
Just like diabetes and hypertension, the incidence of several neuropsychiatric comorbidities are on the rise because of the pressures of modern day society, and we are all uniquely susceptible to varying degrees. Despite our best efforts at therapy and supportive care, there will always be individuals with psychiatric issues who are drawn to acts of violence during vulnerable periods in their illness.
Given this fact of life, common sense would dictate that one effective way to prevent mass murder/sucide by such individuals is to make it harder or nearly impossible for them to access tools of mass murder (aka guns).
You can have all the school security you want but if this man is intent on committing an atrocious crime, he may very well find the means as long as we continue to pretend like guns play no role in this debate!
2
The system worked in that people with knowledge alerted the cops and school administration, which prevented things from going farther, just in case. The system didn't work in that typical American prosecutors made a felony of all things out of something that wasn't yet even a crime. Instead of limiting this kid's actions and access to guns and such, and making him get help and follow through with it, they increased the fear that was already aroused by the initial revelations.
Americans love dealing with problems with a sledgehammer.
2
Anyone, anywhere, arguing that the NRA is not complicit in a culture of fear surrounding gun seizures, and stripping of second amendment rights is simply lying.
And anyone who says the NRA is not complicit in the equally abhorrent culture of fear and self-protection they constantly whip up is also being dishonest. The NRA is directly responsible for the ease of gun acquisition in this country.
The NRA is a business lobby which is about profiteering, it just so happens that there is a constitutional amendment which they willingly distort and manipulate to further their goals.
Under no logical circumstance can a rational argument be made to support the type of firepower in one persons' hands when all the weapons extant at the time of writing the 2nd Amendment were single shot muzzzle-loaders.
All arguments to the contrary are simply intellectually and factually dishonest, distorting and misleading.
3
The bigger picture to this story is that the archaic 2nd amendment has resulted in severe unintended consequences and should be significantly corrected.
This is more clear than ever for us now. My wife and I are just back from 9 weeks in Asia where guns are illegal - most police don't even carry them - yep they uses sticks. There have never been mass school shootings in this countries - in fact murders and other crimes using guns are nearly non existent. These places are extremely safe but one can go days without even seeing a police presence on the streets as they really are not needed. These places save on police and incarceration costs and get a lot more tourist who feel safe there.
The benefits of a least restricting gun ownership: lives and injuries saved, saving government budgets for more useful things ( education and much more ) the economic advantage of increasing tourism and bringing in foreign students outweigh the arguments against seriously restricting guns, which , as near as we can tell, are simply 2nd amendment based. "We have our rights !" Don't we also have the right to feel safe and not waste tax dollars ?
Time to correct the archaic 2nd amendment to make it more relevant to the 21st century . We don't have legal militias now - the main premise to the 2nd amendment- and they didn't have Uzzis and AK 47s then. Our society will benefit on many different levels if 2nd amendment corrections ever happens
2
Our criminal law has for a long time now required both a criminal intent and a criminal act. The intent might have been there although it's hard to say that clearly given the nature of mere fantasy that so many boys around his age have. What's definitely missing is a criminal act and the court got it right on that one. Unless our statutes change, this should be the result that's landed on every time a case like this comes up. Kudos to the court for applying the law fairly and clearly.
Whether we should change the law is another matter. Perhaps, what with social media leading to so much public airing of an individual's mind so that we can now see more or less clearly how close he is to really carrying out his "fantasy", the distinction between the act and the intent should narrow.
It's a tough call and changing a statute like that would have implications on so many others types of crime as well.
if my kid was in this school, i'd have a friend of a friend call a guy from Rhode Island and take this kid out. and i'd feel good about it.
The FBI is already crafting their statement after this man carries out his threats. "Yeah, he was on our radar."
dear Jack...whatever obsession has you fantasizing about killing people, then likely killing yourself, just know that failing to execute yourself could bring a result you would regret..even if you don't care about other people, you probably don't want to be a vegetable or in a prison for life being abused. just a thought.
Hope the young people of the USA get back out on the streets and try to find a way forward despite your President backing the NRA. It seems to me looking from afar it is really all about money and when you put the mighty dollar above all else what do have left?
2
The quandary of living in a free country... it is easy for me to defend this guy’s rights to be threatening, buy a gun, and write down his thoughts about committing violence.
Then again, my daughter is a teacher, and I worry everyday about her safety... and I then easily slip into a mode where I’d put this guy away in a dark dungeon and throw away the key.
Those whom gods wants to destroy they make them insane and stupid. Thats all this is. The entire country is going mad - a bunch of us hopped up on opioids which are legally provided. Another bunch clutching to myriad guns and weapons of war which is again legally provided. All in name of freedom. All in name of american values.
For once - we caught a guy before mass murder and now we are letting him go. This is the final straw of sanity - the gods plan to make us mad is going splendidly well. Guess what comes next?
So keep pontificating on gun “rights”. For crying out loud It is an amendment - it was amended once and it can and should be amended again. It aint written in stone. Make the amends until its too late.
And arresting him and charging him helped him how? Releasing the contents of his journal helped who? No one. In fact it wasn't anyone else's business but his. If we want to prevent school shootings let's start by making it very hard for underage people to get their hands on guns. And if we want to help people who are upset or who seem to be on the verge of committing a crime like the one described here how about getting them help rather than arresting and charging them? Presumed guilty doesn't solve the problem. It does stigmatize the person(s) and the family. It helps to isolate them even more.
I could understand this better if this individual had a history of committing crimes. I once complained to the local police about a man who was a known child molester muttering around me about getting a gun to shoot me. The police couldn't arrest him but they did talk to him. I'd've preferred to see him arrested especially since he was a known pedophile. But this person hadn't done anything and what was done here is dangerous.
What the NRA is doing is dangerous. Why aren't they being held accountable for their statements and actions?
10
Sometimes these really minor steps like an arrest or just an interview are enough to scare reality into some of these youth.
He is 18 and is or was receiving mental health care. What, however, are the responsibilities of his parents or his clinicians, or those who have released him into the community, if he carries out his threats and kills somebody?
3
They go to prison for20 years
Ahhh, it would be a different story if he wasn't white.
33
No. It wouldn't.
If you're going to revoke a constitutionally protected right without due process, why stop at just the Second Amendment? Perhaps he should be required to submit to warrantless searches of his home, and to be dragged into court and compelled to testify against himself without benefit of a lawyer's representation. If he doesn't wish to comply, perhaps cruel and unusual punishment should be used to compel the behavior we want of him.
3
The second amendment doesn’t provide protection for the private ownership of firearms. It protects the private ownership of firearms for the formation of a militia (a “well-regulated militia”). This country hasn’t had the need for a militia since the end of the 18th century/beginning of the 19th century. At the very least, at this point in time, the second amendment is an anachronism. It is has no relevance, it is meaningless text and it ought to be repealed.
2
It is not a constitutionally protected right for dangerous, mentally ill people to have access to deadly weapons.
1
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you about the 2nd Ammendment.
1
So if I write a mystery in the third person it's ok, but if I write in the first person I'll be arrested?
3
If we start convicting people for merely thinking about a crime we will end up with a Minority Report situation. However, it certainly seems like this young man needs help, and maybe he shouldn't be just turned loose out on bail instead of being assigned psychiatric help. I know there are strict rules about commitment to, but something is obviously wrong with this situation.
7
I agree that you can't detain an individual before he's committed a crime, but this is a clear case of someone who should not be allowed to buy a gun. Without the gun, his fantasy goes nowhere.
18
After having, personally, dealt with someone determined to end their life while having every facet of mental health-care available, including tremendous support and love from family and friends, I've come to doubt there being an "ounce of prevention" fix for this. I do believe, though, that the number of people choosing to end their and other's lives rises proportionately with society's level of anxiety over being able to cope with what appear to be a rising number of mentally distressing concerns and/or interests. For those least able to cope - especially those clinically mentally ill - such rising levels of anxiety lead more of them to take their and, sometimes, other's lives.
I think it impossible to decipher our coping mechanisms as they relate to our thoughts, at the moment and, thus, impossible to predict who may choose to take this next step or how or when they may choose to do it. Dialing back the level of societal anxiety may help dial back what seems to be an uprising by those who once could cope and who, now, wish an apocalyptic end to their existence.
3
This makes the whole zero tolerance, which is inherently stupid to begin with, thing look extremely stupid. Kids getting expelled for carrying nail clippers? No problem. Possessing a firearm and written plans to kill a lot of people at a school getting serious charges? A problem.
7
In a liberal democracy, we cannot possibly get valid data to answer the question whether or not a person who talks about or writes about shooting up a place ought to be treated as a criminal. You have to be willing to get baseline data that answers the question: 'of the people who write crazy things how many actually do it'? That would mean snooping on people's private writings. It is far better to use our sociological imaginations to come up with sensible gun regulation. For that we only need to compare ourselves to other liberal democracies. They have the same level of mental illness as we do but they don't have anything near our level of mass shootings.
10
The NRA won't allow gun regulation so why suggest it? Don't you know they rule our country?
1
We need adequate mental health facilities for people like this. He obviously needs therapy and treatment.
5
which is a problem: He IS in treatment. He WAS in treatment. He decided not to take his medications (per the article.) We really do not know his defined conditions, and can mainly guess at his problems, but there is an implication that perhaps court ordered treatment, possible with court orders to take prescribed medications. might be necessary in some instances.
13
Debra, and Cheryl,
Another commenter in this thread suggested something that might help. He mentioned electronic surveillance, which could be court ordered for people with certain mental conditions. (No matter what the court orders, you can't force someone to take their meds, unless you're there to do it every day.)
Electronic surveillance could ensure that mentally challenged people don't buy weapons or show up in places where they shouldn't, like schools — while allowing them considerable freedom to live otherwise go about their business.
It's a half way point between between letting people who threaten society run loose and convicting them of crimes they didn't commit.
4
He must be confined in a mental institution till it is established that he is safe
to leave.
Every time there is a mass shooting in America, citizens, news outlets, blogs, and law enforcement agencies emphasize, among other possible remedies, the importance of identifying dangerous individuals BEFORE an incident of mass murder occurs...
This is the perfect case.... And the court system had to let him out because existing law is not equipped to deal with this relatively recent phenomenon... As we all know, the NRA lobby combined with corrupt government officials has made sure nothing has been done...
The paltry number of comments on this article that actually DEALS DIRECTLY WITH a case that DEFINES THE PROBLEM is surprising. In fact, it is depressing.
Guns are way too easy, folks.... Let's focus as a people and take care of this escalating problem...
27
You couldn't have said it better!
8
If he was under treatment for mental health issues, why was he able to purchase a gun?
18
Many, including this newspaper, believe that most mentally ill people should be able to purchase guns, because denying them this right would amount to discrimination.
I disagree with this. But, you may find this front page article from the Times, from October, 2014, of interest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/nyregion/mental-reports-put-34500-on-...
Mr. Sawyer's case is different from most, given the extreme violence described in his writings, and I'm sure most people would feel he should be denied guns; he may have purchased his before his journal came to light.
But a person with mental illness who is set on committing violence doesn't need a gun; a car will suffice. So, the question is, when should people with the kind of mental illness Mr. Sawyer suffers from be subject to long term involuntary confinement in a psychiatric hospital, to protect society?
My own feeling is that in a case like this, such confinement in entirely appropriate.
12
Not just appropriate but mandatory.
The precious Second Amendment is not worth the life of one single child.
PERIOD.
29
The First Amendment is not worth the life of one single child. Nor is the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth. In fact, put in that rhetorical a fashion, it's kind of hard to imagine ANY piece of paper being worth the life of one single child.
Apparently, our existing NRA lobbyist laws now weigh the "right" of a disturbed individual to plan and prepare for an attack on a high school and buy weapons, over the targeted kid's attending the high school right to live...
Yeah, Thank You Republican Party! MAGA!
19
After this troubled kid of our troubled society was arrested, authorities should have forced him immediately to put his beloved killing machine up for sale. In that way, the authorities could have directed the sale to a responsible buyer who melts down guns for production of society-friendly products (e.g., ankle monitors). And the troubled kid would have had his bail money ... and ankle monitors.
5
As an aspiring member of the "well-regulated militia," Mr. Sawyer would be a fine spokesman for the NRA and its business model. The more the USA is flooded with guns and militancy, the more it must promote safety through arms sales and militant training. It's a business model to die for.
8
This is a sad story because it’s all so obvious:
A withdrawn, socially isolated white male with psychiatric illness and access to guns is caught planning a domestic terrorist attack. our laws haven’t kept up with our society. A revolution is coming so the laws can be rewritten, or better start with a clean slate. The horse is already out of the barn on the withdrawn, socially isolated, psychiatrically compromised white males with a firearm use disorder. What is increasingly obvious is psychiatric care doesn’t alter this personality disorder. The only way out is legal reform.
15
I understand and greatly appreciate that the US Constitution guarantees that all citizens have a right to due process... But, in this case, the process is absolutely flawed.
Read this disturbed young man's journal, then you make the call:
https://www.rutlandherald.com/articles/accused-shooting-plotters-journal...
Anyone with an ounce of sense can see this guy had planned and was determined to commit a mass murder at his former high school... His journal entries even contain explanations and apologies to his family... This guy is not safe to be on the streets... We need new laws, Folks.
10
I agree it's not safe to have him on the streets. Do you think he should be in jail or in a mental institution, though? He's a threat but not actually yet a criminal. Arresting him seems a bit Minority Report-ish, no? That said, we should absolutely keep guns out of his hands (and maybe cars too).
Mental health issues are often not permanent. With treatment and time/age, he might likely recover and become a contributing member of society. I don't see any reason to limit that future with a criminal conviction.
2
A criminal conviction would prevent him from buying a gun in the future.
Did you read his journal? He states over and over how he is fooling people to think he is getting better, when he describes in detail, through his thoughts of mass murder, how he is not getting better. And he states that he is proud of himself for fooling everybody. So it seems that mental health care is not working, in his case.
The only thing to prevent this individual from carrying out his intents is to prevent access to guns and monitor his movements electronically.
I am a high school teacher who has experienced the fear students feel when their school is under threat of a mass shooting. Easy access to guns is an enabler to those with intent to harm others or themselves.
The only way to help a mentally ill person is if they want that help. This young man does not want to be helped....he wants to kill.
Nothing like some legal language to put the imminently violent back on the street. Please read the Boston an Maine news for the recent killings by those whom legal technicalities were unable to hinder from harming us. If his fantasy happens, as he hopes, there will at least be some jobs created to demolish the school and build a new state of the art one replete with the latest super expensive lockdown sensor systems. Vermont wrong!
3
Ïntent"is not an act but "plotting" is. Buying a gun with intent to shoot at a school is an act.
Also, the bail is up to the judge. And in most states, having a plan to hurt others is grounds for involuntary commitment.
10
Another case of lazy, untrained police.
They invaded his privacy by releasing his journal and his picture.
He bought a shotgun -- not to date the choice of a mass murderer.
Instead of putting him under surveillance -- which might have been justified -- they were too eager to get back to Dunkin Donuts so they egregiously arrested him and overcharged him with attempt crimes. I hope for this false arrest he winds up owning everything the cops own. And the prosecutor if he/she was involved.
2
Wow! Have you read his journal? I'm assuming you haven't.
But if you have, please answer this:
Are your kids attending his targeted high school?
My guess is your answer would be "No"
12
12 people were killed with a shotgun during the Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting in 1913 see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Navy_Yard_shooting
Read the article - there were plenty of reasons before the shooting to think that the shooter would do something like this although there a surely folks who do crazy things and thoughts never become mass shooters.
5
A slaughter like fish in a barrel indeed can happen when folks are forced to give up their right to defend themselves and rely on others to do it for them.
As a former public school teacher, part of the problem, is a result of insufficient funding and availability for inpatient or residential mental health programs for school age children. If we had more of these residential programs that were available for families to access for their children on a sliding fee schedule, the programs would protect these children from harming themselves and others. Most programs cost thousands of dollars. Most families just can’t afford the high cost, so consequently, the child doesn’t get help.
11
Read this young man’s journal. The residential treatment program he was in was doing no good. He was proud of how he was fooling everybody into thinking he was getting better.
I am a public school teacher, too, and I see where you are coming from. But students have to WANT to be helped. As teachers, we also have a duty to protect all the other students who deserve to get an education free from fear of being killed.
What has gone on in this country? When I was growing up in the 60's guns were everywhere. People had rifles, pistols, there were rife clubs in school. There were NO acts of mass shootings.
Our culture has changed for the worse. The value of human life is not respected. Video games have children killing thousands of people. In movies bodies are all over the place. We are suppose to respect diversity and cultural differences, even if these different cultures decapitate people or burn them alive.
We are told we are no longer a nation with "christian" values. To say that is somehow racist and xenpohobic.
The family unit has been shattered, with single mothers doing almost the impossible and failing. Pornography is so widely availible as to be free, cheaping relations between men and woman.
It is WAY past time to say STOP, some cultural ideas are better than others, respect woman, respect your neighbor, Love one another,
7
The act of buying a gun in addition to his words as written and spoken, go way beyond "just thinking about it". At least he should have his firearms taken from him, as well as any in any house he's likely to gain entry into. He should be required to have a monitoring bracelet on him.
Else, no one should be surprised if a citizen takes a panic action and "Stands their ground" the next time they see this kid - which would be a tragedy on top of an injustice.
6
A person may have a personality disorder, such as psychopathy or narcissism, AND experience mental illness such as depression, anxiety, paranoia and schizophrenia. Further, a person may have a congenital disorder such as autism.
Low IQ or brain damage resulting from repeated impacts to the head also affect judgement, empathy and self-control.
If regularly consuming psychosis-producing recreational drugs such as alcohol and/or marijuana, if reading, watching or listening to inflammatory propaganda that contains lies, then someone already teetering may be pushed over the edge.
Lack of social integration, no friends, no girlfriend, no qualifications, no skills, no training, no job, no prospects, the fear of being a loser for the rest of one's life, nothing to look forward to, no joy, no hope, lack of status, lack of respect from one's peers, the corrosive rage one feels towards the world — these will push young, white men towards savage retribution and mass murder.
Give them a semiautomatic pistol or a semiautomatic rifle with high-capacity magazines, garb them in body armour so that they feel invincible, and your next mass killings on the USA will shortly happen.
7
Only in science fiction can we read a person's mind and know the seriousness of their intent. We cannot know if or when they will snap, but we can at least try to block their access to guns.
Can you see any way this situation can end well? I can't, but it's important to try, instead of using diversionary talk about mental health.
4
Sawyer's lawyer assures us that his family is committed to keeping the community safe. Since they've been doing such a good job so far, I'm sure this reassures everyone in the community. And the lawyer says he "simply" wrote a plan for a mass murder and bought a gun. The word "simply" does not belong in this sentence. The N.R.A. tells us that we don't need gun control, we need to root out potential perpetrators. Here is a textbook case that illustrates that this approach is very limited at best. There should be a high age requirement to buy a gun and all assault weapons need to be banned. If for no other reason - and there are plenty of other reasons - we need to vote the Republican N.R.A. out of Congress. We need to take back our streets and our schools. People shouldn't have to live in fear of their lives and their children's lives because the N.R.A. has bought Congress.
16
What I find surprising is that the reaction to this risk is to try to insulate all the schools. Why not just have a squad car with two officers tail this guy? That would be a lot cheaper and far more effective than "$150,000 on new school security measures".
6
Other comments clearly point out that this is a nation of laws and that detaining, arresting, and jailing a person because some of us think the danger is obvious may not be supported by laws. The answer is to make sure that the laws state clearly who may an who may not own a gun including people who have made threats.
There are to bigger issues. The NRA opposes any and all laws that restrict gun ownership of any kind for any reason. Citizens who vote for candidates who support those extreme views, and by extension, support the NRA are complicit in the murders that occur because law enforcement is handcuffed against doing anything. "See something, say something" only works if written threats and gun ownership can legally be restricted.
Secondly, recently the FBI has gotten a bad rap for "not doing anything" when informed of written threats and plans to murder people. Since it is just obvious that if the FBI "did something" several cases of mass murders would not have occurred. It would appear that at least in some of the murder cases, the murderer didn't commit an enforceable crime until he pulled the trigger and started killing!
If citizens want law enforcement including the FBI to "do something" then vote to make sure that the NRA doesn't write the laws for our country, like they do now.
7
I don't know why people think law enforcement is qualified to address this situation and others like it. The duration of training to become a cop in most communities is measured in weeks, maybe months.
The Joe Manhood acting principal doesn't inspire confidence either. The principal in my violent high school had a PhD, and he successfully made the school safer.
3
When people are imprisoned for what they write in their journals we may as well pack up and shoot ourselves right now, because 1984 is truly upon us.
People use journals for all manner or reasons, and in all manner of ways. I know I'd have been arrested years ago for what I've written in mine - all because I think it's much healthier to vent any and all frustrations on paper than to think about them and let them fester.
If writing thoughts down becomes a crime, what then of being able to read minds? Will we truly have our thoughts "policed" if the opportunity arises?
Scaring people isn't a crime, because it isn't an act. One can no more make people victims of their own paranoia than make a spider responsible for scaring your grandmother.
We live in an age where real things affect us every day. Gun use is out of control, and desperately needs to be curtailed.
On the other hand we've become a society of wimps: scared of our own shadows and anything that's different to what we perceive as being out of our own ever decreasing comfort zone.
3
Reading this kid's journal, he's definitely emotionally disturbed. He is depressed, suicidal, indifferent to others' suffering and seems to want his death to be infamous. He wants the attention. It's not revenge; he wants fame in his death; his thinking is warped and obsessive. Seems he's been getting mental help for a long time but he's still not well. Might not be a cure for what he has. I am sure some of the top psychiatrists would like a chance at fixing what is wrong with him; let them try. If they are not going to lock him up, it's imperative he get the best medical treatment available or peoples' lives will be in danger. His obsession with fame and creating chaos after he dies is mind boggling. He doesn't seem to care about ruining peoples' lives; even his own family who he claims to love. He's a very selfish kid. Psychopath? Sociopath? He sounds more than just depressed and anxious.
6
Again, another example of the simple fact that mentally ill people should not have such easy access to firearms. When will we learn?
7
The constant racializing of this incident is as tiring as it is inadequate.
We learned recently that a young white male shooter had actually had his guns taken away by authorities (this was before he killed anyone). They were returned to the father on the strict condition that he keep them secured, away from his son. That the father was an idiot, and possible accessory, does not contradict that guns were taken away from an unstable young white male.
2
Oh, but he’s a nice looking white boy. So of course he gets his guns back and his freedom.
8
It seems that a preponderance of evidence exists, in this case, based on the facts, to keep the young man in jail. Buying a gun is a serious enough action to mandate his incarceration given every thing else he has done, read, and written.
If not in jail, he should be placed in a mental institution involuntarily, and until psychiatrists agree that it is safe to release him, that is where he should stay for the safety of the community.
4
Im sure a stern talking to will suffice.
3
Intent to kill. I do not know the law. But is'nt it a felony that can charged and the person put away without parole? This youth is sitting on a powder keg. He just needs to get an AR15 and multiple magazines and then BOOM! But then this America. Nothing happens after all BOOM, BOOMs when innocents die and leave families traumatized for life. Guns and drugs are so easy to get! For my own and family's safety I should have migrated to Australia.
7
Yes you should have. My family chose Canada.
How long do they plan on having state police guarding the school, I wonder...
4
The article mentions that the lawyer for Mr. Sawyer said that Jack..."simply had thoughts about committing these crimes, wrote in his journal about committing the crimes, wrote his fantasy plans, and he purchased a gun." If Jack had gone out to a few ISIS websites and communicated with the FBI of his intent, his fate could have been a lot different as was recently the case in Plano, Tx. Here is hoping that Jack gets the psychological help he needs. We should all be thinking long and hard about why we are raising sociopaths in Amercia.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/05/02/plano-teen-arrested-isi...
7
THREE major failures here:
1. Unsupportable charges made by Police
2. Insufficient codes to make supportable charges
3. Release with low bail.
Most small communities are ill-equipped to deal with the legal aspects of potential terrorist activities. When a situation like this is uncovered there must be procedures in place to deal decisively and immediately to prevent another school slaughter.
Here we have intent (stated to friends AND a written diary) and means (a gun purchase coincident with declaration) AND a young adult with psychological issues - all the makings of a fatal disaster.
At the very least, Mr. Sawyer should have been immediately remanded for psychiatric observation which, although often not definitive, might have at least offered insight into future actions.
If laws need to be changed to all for this, then it should be done everywhere immediately. Here, at least, there was a chance to intercept yet another massacre. The self-serving, criminally bribing low-IQ fake 2nd Amendment gun enthusiasts of the NRA must be sidelined. These are literally like-or-death issues and, without guns, would be irrelevant - period.
7
The quote “I think we are the ones in prison now,” said Jessica Nadeau, 37, whose daughter, Olasia, 14, spoke of a nightmare about Mr. Sawyer and the stories of what he might do. “Now we’re all the ones who are locked into this fear.” pretty much covers it for me. Someone who talks about shooting people and has weapons really needs to be disarmed. There are some sick people out there who really should not be allowed to purchase or possess weapons. They view killing as a form of entertainment and power to establish a sense of relevancy in life.
6
Individuals with mental illness who explicitly and repeatedly threaten violence should be locked up in a secure hospital. Society has a right to protect itself.
It many, probably most, cases it will be hard to draw the line. People with mental illnesses have rights just like the rest of us.
But this case seems clear cut. Mr. Sawyer repeatedly and explicitly made credible threats of extreme violence. He should be in a secure facility, until and unless he clearly responds to treatment, and if necessary for the rest of his life. I don't believe he committed attempted murder, but I do believe Vermont and the rest of us need laws to keep him securely confined. This is common sense.
5
We cannot continue to say that we "could not have predicted" such a heinous incident. Having a plan, writing it down, sharing with others, purchasing a gun - all of these are what Gavin De Becker (author of "The Gift of Fear") would call Pre-Incident-Indicators. I would be scared too, if I lived in this community. I totally agree that we need to continue to vigorously defend the First Amendment and our rights as citizens of a free country to think and speak the most "out there" opinions. Mental illness is not a crime. But this young man has taken action. We should strengthen the laws in regard to such actions, and fight against the idea that there is nothing we can do to reduce the number of and access to firearms in our communities. Access kills people.
9
I really miss the bad old days, when mentally-disturbed young men were put into mental institutions for their own safety BEFORE they killed scores of people.
"Over the last three decades, the overall national homicide rate has fallen from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,000 today, but the number of mass shootings has risen from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.
It is no coincidence that this rise correlates with the closure of the mental health institutions in 1969. After they were shuttered, they were supposed to be replaced by community outreach programs. Sadly, these programs never took root and many parents who are dealing with severe mental illness feel they are out of options."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/newtown-adam-lanza-...
6
Find "My Left Foot" - and watch it, then tell us how you feel once more. The mega psychiatric hospitals were a nightmare and had to be replaced by more humane treatment, but never were. Regimes and Administrations change, often for the worse, but these programs need serious attention (just like the VA) SPANNING ADMINISTRATIONS and oversees by COMPETENT people, not political appointee hacks like in this corrupt Administration.
3
True. People would rather lock away guns than individuals with mental illness. Unfortunately, there are other methods of killing. Just ask Europeans.
1
Mr. Sawyer's future looks about as bleak as anyone's would with his inability to grasp his deep seated mental illness of self-hatred which is manifesting outwardly by his lashing out at others, verbally for now.
What bothers me more than anything about us as a modern society, is how deeply we've failed to recognize and then take action when someone as publicly vocal as Sawyer is about harming, not himself, but others, is just left to his own devices instead of being justifiably diagnosed and then treated properly, for criminal insanity. He doesn't want to harm himself- he wants to harm OTHERS. Unapologetic and unempathetic, His is a classic case of criminal insanity last time I checked my notes from my abnormal psychology class twenty years ago.
Will we ever learn, twenty years post Columbine? Apparently we haven't.
8
So here we have a classic example of how focussing on mental health treatment for some of those at risk for mass shootings doesn’t actually lead to the hoped for outcome. In a Trump fantasyland, this young man would be committed to mental heath treatment and would never be able to obtain a firearm.
In real life, this often does not happen even when the “warning signs” are heeded. Having access to weapons of mass carnage is the single factor here that turns this case from unfortunate to tragic. And doubly so in those cases that fly under the radar in which the mental illness is ignored or in which there is no mental illness to begin with, only a savage desire to murder.
In the end, the only effective solution is to restrict access to firearms. As a great man once said, “listen to me now and believe me later.”
9
It's impossible to restrict access to firearms. There are 300,000,000 in civilian hands. Mass killing will continue at increasing frequency. One must escape. Leave this evil land.
This story is extremely disturbing. The state supreme court may well have gotten the law right, but if I had a child in that high school I'd seriously consider pulling her/him out till I could find a different school.
5
Put Robert Mueller and his team on this case, they’ll find a crime to get Mr. Sawyer off the streets regardless. At least then all the money they’ve spent can have been put to some good use.
1
Finally, the attention is where it needs to be -- that is, on laws and law enforcement. After Florida, too much attention and blame were incorrectly directed at the NRA. Meanwhile, the parties responsible for safety and who had dropped the ball -- the social workers, sheriffs and even the FBI -- were overlooked by gun control advocates. A wasted effort in my opinion. It's not the NRA's job to prevent school shootings. There are people responsible for responding to signals and obvious threats, and they should be held accountable. It's still not clear if anyone has been held responsible for Florida, aside from the NRA.
11
You’re right, of course. It isn’t the NRA’s job to prevent school shootings even though they give plenty of (bad) advice on how they think the shootings can be dealt with. What the NRA should be tasked with is to get out of the way and stop obstructing those community and government leaders who are seeking effective solutions to reduce the horrific numbers of school shootings that plague the US. They should return to their bailiwick of gun safety rather than proselytize their cultish beliefs of a Machine Gun Nirvana in which all crime magically evaporates and all fears disappear when everyone mandatorily carries and conceals a deadly weapon.
35
Thank you for unwinding the NRA's doodle from their spin machine funded by the lowest mindset in our country.
Our Congress bound as it is by constantly looking for campaign finance funding spends enormous amount of time tending to $'s instead of the will of the people --- which is their explicit charge - to care for the common good among other worthy goals representative of valuable leadership.
Take NOTE Supreme Court Justices: It is time to overturn Citizens United.
It adversely affects our lives every single day in so many ways --- free us, Supreme Court, from all such injustices pursued by the election 'piggy' bank task!
Thank you Mr. Canadian for being our friend!
4
By the NRA's standard this man is still a good guy.
With a gun.
14
Something bothers me about this story, haven't we read this type of story about fairly recent perpetrators of school massacres recently, when are we going to learn to prevent it.
1
Not as long as the NRA keeps bribing sleazy politicians with millions in campaign cash and cries that they're defending the second Amendment. STOP ALL GUNS = STOP ALL GUN CRIMES. Simple.
What legitimate "hunter" needs an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, bump stocks, huge magazines, a personal arsenal, etc? It's illegal to fish using dynamite - does the NRA think we are THAT stupid?
4
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of young angry males in this country capable of shooting up a school, or a movie theatre or a restaurant.
The bottom line is: MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO GET A GUN!
We need laws to prevent every angry, anxiety ridden male in this country from just waltzing in to a gun shop and buying a gun! Why can't we seem to make this happen!?
We blame everything but the gun. Meanwhile our "President" attends his 3rd NRA rally and says and does everything in his power to put more and more Americans in harms way.
What's happening to this country?
14
And angry young women. Cf. San Bernadino and San Bruno.
The nation grapples with mass murders like Parkland, Las Vegas, Columbine, Sandy Hook and......so on and on. Much attention is given to the importance of identifying the would-be gunman because in every case the murderer has revealed troubling behavior, a fact revealed by multiple acquaintances of the murderer - but after the massacres! Some including the mothers have reported such dangerous propensity to the authorities.
But stuck on technicalities and a person's rights, nothing is done until the person acts and mass murders innocents. Here we have explicit reasons to imprison and put away a would-be assassin and save society but the Vermont Supreme Court steps in put this deviant back into the society who he is planning to murder. How frustrating, especially for those people who will ultimately suffer. Frankly, the First and Second Amendments have become the bane of our civil society, although the Constitution is to provide rights to maintain a just society, civility and freedom in our Democracy. The irony!
2
Folks, you get what you pay for. You hire people with liberal agendas and they cannot differentiate between being fair and dangerous. Hold onto your hat, this could have been a mess and I hope the good people of Fair Haven will hire in government different people next time. Lesson, learned.
1
The State of Vermont, has a Republican Governor who recently signed 3 bills into law, in the wake of the Parkland shooting, and this recent Fair Haven incident. In a press briefing, Governor Scott admitted that after reading the journals of Mr Sawyer, and realizing how close Vermont came to a tragic school shooting, he supported the following laws;
1/A requirement that a background check be performed on ALL gun sales, even private ones (using NICS) in State.
2/An increase in the age to buy a firearm, to age 21 (except for military personal)
3/A statewide ban on the purchase or importation of hi capacity magazines..
So our Republican Governor, hardly has a "liberal agenda"
2
The bar to institutionalize needs to be lowered and more institutions need to be built.
1
"The bar to institutionalize needs to be lowered and more institutions need to be built."
How low should the bar be? Who pays to build and run the institutions?
There’s a good chance that if any teenagers die in Fair Haven in the next year (which I hope they don’t) it’ll be more likely to happen through automobile accidents, suicides, or opioid overdoses. Americans are truly very good at scaring the living daylights out of themselves by, among other things, glueing themselves to cable news channels to watch endless loops of every mass shooting that makes the airwaves. There are a lot of teenage diaries out there that would freak out anyone but no-one can be convicted of a crime they have so far only fantasized about. Jack Sawyer may well be a disturbed kid, but the only thing that could potentially make him a deadly threat would be easy access to weapons. It’s so obvious at this point what the solution to minimize school shootings is that it’s painful to watch our country stumbling around in a permanent state of panic. The rest of the civilized world shakes it head. Meanwhile, this rampant, infectious fear — understandable but defiant of common sense — costs students and teachers and parents sleepless nights and a fortune in “security” measures, and brings us the dreadful development of fortress schools. We know from the Florida school shooting how useful it is to have a Sheriff’s Deputy present. These “hardened” schools in the end are as useful as the “duck and cover” school exercises of the early Cold War.
2
I could be an author writing a thriller book about someone plotting a mass murder. I want the book to be as authentic as possible, so I personally visit and research the sites where my fictional crime occurs. I even purchase the firearms or other hardware that the killer in my book uses, and figure out how it would be used, its capabilities, and its weaknesses.
A nosy neighbor sees me doing all of this, and turns me in.
What crime have I committed?
2
None. But are you undergoing psychiatric treatment and not taking your medicines like this guy? Have you contacted people via social media, or told them verbally that you were going to shoot up a school ? I see your point, but it does not apply here. Would you send your kids to this school?
5
I agree he is sick. I agree that he is a danger to himself and others, and should be disarmed, as he would be under Vermont's new laws. But the charge was attempted murder, and being mentally disturbed is not an element of that crime.
3
Hopefully
Even though Mr. Sawyer has a mental illness that appears to manifest itself in part by "plotting" to commit a mass shooting at his former school, no one has considered long-term commitment. I realize he is currently in voluntary treatment, but that may not be enough to keep either students or him safe.
In addition, buying a gun seems a material action toward committing the crime. Why was this not considered enough for the more serious charges?
1
I am not a lawyer, but lots of people buy one gun for whatever reason. If there was a purchase, or more likely, a series of purchases that only made sense to facilitate the commission of a crime, that might be very different.
The question to ask is: Would a black young man have received the same treatment? A cynic would say that the only reason he is free on bail is that he is white and apparently from a well-off family. If that is truly the case, history tell us that much trouble is on the horizon.
3
School shooters are usually white.
4
Except for the Washington Navy Yard. And Fort Hood. And San Bernardino. And the black killer of a bunch of cops in, what was it, Dallas?
In fact, considering that white males are the second largest demographic group in the country,, their proportionate participation in this sorry business is about what would be expected.
But you did say school shootings. With that really essential distinction noted, Betty, I guess you're right.
All that needed to be done was tae the gun away, get this kid to a psychiatrist or other counselor, and then followup to see that all is well. There was absolutely no reason under the sun to arrest or charge this kid with anything. Suddenly a young teenager with a vivid imagination is a potential terrorist?
What is truly troubling is the reaction of adults. That is frightening. Why is it necessary to ruin this young man's future?
Let's get the cops out of every situation and think a little bit before we go after young people who basically pose no threat.
If we took every threat of every teenager seriously we'd have to lock them all up. Can't we act with more discretion and less harm? Do we really fear so much that every word uttered or written is considered that explosive and threatening?
The problem is not the teenager its the adults. Paranoid, scared to death adults who no longer have the patience or understanding to deal with teenagers.
5
The precedent is that an incarcerated inmate amassed a dozen instruments capable of sawing through the metal bars of a jail cell, yet he was deemed not guilty because he hadn't started his carpentry project yet? Was their legalized marijuana in Vermont back then? What were the judges smoking?
Reminds me of Charles Dickens quote in "Oliver Twist" from Beadle Mr. Bumble, "the law is an ass."
If this kid shoots his guns in a massacre I hope the defense attorney and the responsible judges figure prominently in the list of family members linked to the victims.
one of the things for sure with this type of illness is that the patient has an obsession that will most likely be carried out, if the conditions are in place. my little sister eventually committed suicide by drowning. she was in and out of a mental hospital over many years but her obsession was around water. she also had tactile hallucinations that made her think she had a terminal illness, and would prefer to kill herself than go through that. my brother said, it wasn't a question of if, it was a question of when. even with the best of care, following long term hospitalization and 14 years in a wonderful supervised group home in Canada, she had a psychotic break due to sneaking off her meds, probably pretending to swallow. prior to her hospitalization she had attempted to drown herself in a river and the ocean. anyone who thinks this guy won't try a school shooting, at some point, is naive.
in the USA we are so far behind in mental health care, and have easy access to guns. the conditions are set.
6
Social awkwardness, excessive shyness, listening to death metal music, dressing differently, being different, an inability to make friends, behaving oddly, holding grudges, and expressing opinions not in sync with the community are indicators of someone who represents a danger to others. It is necessary to sequester these people for the safety and peace of mind of all. The rights of the individual are outweighed by the need to assure the well being and contentment of the community. It's just common sense. Lock him up until he becomes normal -- that's the ticket.
1
I sure hope that this is sarcasm. It’s not coming across that way. I know plenty of kids (myself being one) who listened to punk and death metal, dressed “weird”, were socially inept yet straight A students, who were just different than status quo. Doesn’t make any of us mentally ill, unstable or needing locking up until we “turned normal”.
2
Of course it's sarcasm. And you recognized it as such. As to how it comes across -- a great many people, including some of the commenters to this article, find it perfectly reasonable and correct. That is what frightens me. Not the maladjusted loser with a gun and a dark fantasy, but the people who are ready to trample individual rights and the law because they are scared.
Yes it is the ticket.
I understand the problems with locking up this young man for expressing an interest in committing a crime. The state's ability to do so should not be used lightly.
But there is no reason why he should ever, ever be permitted to purchase a gun. By expressing his thoughts to multiple people and purchasing a gun, he has demonstrated that he is not worthy or safe for gun ownership.
And that's the problem. We're debating whether he should be thrown in prison for decades (no), and not whether there should be a high bar for gun ownership (yes).
It really IS the guns.
6
100% . It astounds me that people are suggesting that someone who is likely mentally ill but has literally done nothing should be locked up rather than rendered mostly harmless via an inability to purchase weapons. Thank god my friends' hs diaries were written pre-Columbine!
Obviously, this youngster is mentally ill. Why is he able to buy a gun? This young man also said when arrested that he has the intention to kill at this school at one point in the future. I am not familiar with the law but as much as thoughts are free, it feels like he is danger to society. Why not placing him in a locked psychiatric ward and provide meds and treatment. I feel for the community in Vermont.
Very reassuring to know that Don just made great promises to the NRA.
1
Has this young man been convicted of anything? Has he been brought to trial? Has he been accorded the presumption of innocence? Hay s the prosecution proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt?
If not, he should be on bond with appropriate (standard) conditions, including no possession of a firearm/other dangerous weapons, ankle monitor, daily reporting to pre-trial release personnel.
Or has the Republic party achieved one of its many goals to undermine our democracy by eliminating due process of law?
4
"has the Republic party achieved one of its many goals to undermine our democracy by eliminating due process of law?"
Due process? What a quaint concept. :-)
“A raft of new gun laws”. The last time I checked, there was a law against murder, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping anyone. This man has stated his intentions and is known to law enforcement; why do the courts and government prevent LE from doing their jobs? More laws never prevented anything.
I think this young man has earned a closely-supervised probation period with mandatory counseling, and the rest of us need to not stampede into a victimological crouch. It is us, our society, that is alienating so many children who find impending adulthood to be an overwhelming task. And yes, I am sorry, but I have to call out the obvious obvious obvious fact that we have more guns than any other civilized society and we have more gun deaths than most every other civilized society, and there is no true argument against regulating gun sales and possession.
18
The cops were right to detain. And this guy definitely needs to be watched. But "attempted murder"?!! Any first year law student knows that on these facts that charge is ludicrous.
21
My crim final is in two days and you are correct; no "substantial step" towards the crime was taken.
2
So far, ''Minority Report'' is still just a story. A GOOD story, but just that.
Take an adolescent male who seems emotionally unbalanced and put him in a remote area to live his days and you have a recipe for disaster.
4
Hard to see what solution your advocating. I guess, none.
If only there were a clear definition of what constitutes emotional imbalance. Sure, some examples of emotional imbalance are perfectly clear, but the application of that criterion broadly to people who have committed no crime is definitely going to get the attention of the friendly, hypersensitive folks at the ACLU.
Besides, Claudia, will the result be better if he lives in a densely populated area, where the number of potential victims is exponentially greater?
I am both a Vermont resident, and a psychiatrist. I am familiar with dangerousness assessments, and the fact that it is well nigh impossible to predict which ones of, let's say, 10 young males who have problems like this young man, might commit mass murder. I would take a wild guess that it might be one in ten. Or perhaps none of them. But if so, which one?
We would use the individual's past history as a guide: were there other acts of violence, the torture of animals, or simply a history of follow through on plans that showed very poor judgment? Such a history might up the odds. Was there a history of recent loss, recently narcissistic injury (losing a job or a girlfriend). What were his on-line viewing habits? And so on.
Such an assessment is an educated crap shoot, but everyone, even someone with obvious mental problems, has first amendment rights and should not be railroaded.
Keeping this young man away from guns is an obvious start, but good luck with that in our gun-saturated society. Phil Scott, to his credit, is trying to do something about this type of situation. Vermont society, both sides of the internal gun debate, is riled up about what he and the legislature have done. Perhaps some clarity and good measures can come out of all this.
126
Sensible post.
3
"Keeping this young man away from guns is an obvious start, but good luck with that in our gun-saturated society."
That's the problem in a nutshell. We are down to "good luck with that". You should be pointing at the idiotic rants from our president, no less, talking about knives in the UK at the NRA meeting. Political corruption is at the heart of our misery with this issue.
12
Well thought out. Thank you.
4
They have birth control implants that can be injected under the skin and work for up to three years. Why don't they develop similar implants for medications like those Mr. Sawyer was on as well as those for schizophrenia? Then people who need these medications couldn't just stop taking them and become a danger to themselves and others.
13
Unfortunately it is not that simple for psychotropic drugs. Dosages need to be monitored and adjusted, often frequently. Why not prohibit any person prescribed psychotropic drugs from purchasing or possessing firearms for as long as a physician continues the prescription?
1
He is dangerous but our officials will not protect us. It's only a matter of time....thoughts and prayers time.
9
Another case in which the most simple solution is to limit the availability of firearms.
36
In which case he would simply switch his plan to running a bunch of students over, going on a stabbing spree, or any one of a multitude of alternate ways to harm people. Banning guns does nothing but change the method of an attack and make victims unable to defend themselves. Personally, I'd rather be shot than run over by a bus...
I think that is the most rational solution - he cannot be allowed to own firearms. But I think it should also be a serious crime for anyone to sell or give him one, as well.
2
you know, government and the private sector has attempted for over 60+ years to llmit drugs but that doesnt seem to work, right. So it will be with guns.
In most states, this young man could be involuntarily committed. The question is whether he suffers from a mental disease or defect and is dangerous to himself or others. It appears that a case could be made on both scores. The criminal system doesn't deal well with mental issues, and the court is correct in finding that holding him on felonies isn't warranted. A mental commitment would get him off the streets for up to a year and back on his meds. Adequate gun laws would keep him from acquiring a gun in the future. Not the perfect solution, but hopefully effective.
63
Too late for gun laws. There are 300,000,000 guns in US. Anyone can get one or ten.
3
At least you seem to know the applicability of law more accurately than the Vermont authorities.
1
Law in Oregon is different than the law in Vermont ... each state is different.
The core cause is teenage adolescent anger issues. Whether its from bullying, spurned by a girl or bad parenting .. These kids are exploding with rage and resentment. I was a nerd in High School - I know what it's like to be made fun of and laughed at. The popular jock and pretty cheerleader mocking and laughing-- it destroys self esteem. Gun control laws can't prevent this- People need to be nice to one another and learn to respect differences. Prayer in public school doesn't seem like a bad idea after all.
And I am as liberal as they get!
19
Prayer is already allowed in every school in the nation. Students are fee to silently pray any time they feel like it. In public schools, it just can't be a part of the school's curriculum, and can't disrupt the learning process for other students.
19
We had the typical adolescent bullies and snobs at my highschool. There was never a shooting incidence. What has changed since the 60s is easy access to firearms and much less regulation.
23
Gun laws can help prevent extra deaths. The underlying problem that you have brought up is a serious one in its own right.
4
Responding to Redrat: ost Mental Health professionals do not tend to go easy on this type of individual if by easy you mean ignore the situation.
If by easy you mean mental health professionals would go easy by talking with him and observing him in a respectful and open manner, that's true. Mental health professionals are mandated to report incidents threatened or committed.
When warned, and before a crime is committed, the most striking difference between mental health and others is in attitude. The individual is perceived as troubled rather than a criminal by MPH. Besides assessing need for treatment a successful assessment does not add to the individuals resentment and anger.
Besides assessment we are bound by law to take/or to restrain actions that would remove an individual from the community and confine that person in a locked mental health facility. The article stated he was in a residential mental health facility, not a locked one. An assessment to determine which type of facility would be best for the person and for the community would be helpful.
Workers in mental health should possess the distinct skills needed to provide best practice treatment. Most often they don't because of lack of funding and the still prevalent attitudes and beliefs about mental health, and mental heath patients.
2
couldn't VT Supreme Court judges raise themselves to the realities, uphold the charges and let the case be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court?
He's free - and the entire town is in jail !
Did they take away the gun he'd bought or, was it also not possible for reasons of 'sanctity of personal property' ?
5
From the article: "They said they seized a shotgun, ammunition, the journal and books about the massacre at Columbine High School from his car."
2
This story takes a lot of power away from the "If you see something, say something" mantra. As with gun ownership, individual rights trump everyone else's health and right to life. Our court system just said so. If in the future this young man obtains the weapon and carries out his plans against the school, what will the courts say then--thoughts and prayers?
11
His right to liberty and due process is regulated in the Constitution. But I agree, take away the guns.
4
I realize that there are Constitutional rights for this young man just as there are the same Constitutional rights for the students and staff of that high school and community. Justice is learning how to balance those rights so we all can live our lives safely and sanely. The right to own a gun--any kind of gun--seems to outweigh all others in America right now. We're out of balance and it is costing people their lives every day.
4
We know everything but have learned nothing.
11
Since the schools in America have failed to protect students from bullies and according to teachers are underpaid it is time to let home schooling take root . One teacher in high school can teach hundreds of students a day. The tax payers of the town won’t have to pay for expensive Apple computers for several family members. The students could use one computer at home. As a tax payer who has not been in school for decades we will finally not have to keep paying for teachers never ending pay raises.
4
You are implying that there is a parent at home to do the educating, and who is intellectually capable of doing so. Not all parents are.
I teach public school. Are you telling me I don’t deserve a raise for my expertise? I can’t even begin to tell you how many times a parent has said to me, “Thank God you’re teaching my son chemistry, because I failed it in high school and couldn’t help him if I tried. “
The answer isn’t home schooling for everybody. The answer is restricted access to guns and logical gun laws.
Having a plan to kill others, and buying a gun to enact that plan, makes him a danger to himself and others. As a mandated reporter, I would have had this person involuntarily hospitalized. Here in California, that is my legal responsibility.
Why isn't this person in a locked mental institution?
30
This comment is Exhibit A in why the psychiatric profession is thoroughly corrupted. Why would anyone go to a shrink when shrinks have attitudes like sfdphd's? How are patients supposed to share their fantasies with "therapists" when the therapist is so ready to get the patient locked up? Even if you decide to walk through the door, you need to sit there and actively censor your thoughts lest you are led away from the "therapy" session in handcuffs.
3
Here's a question that occurred to me -- what if he passes psychiatric tests that show he's not not mentally ill? Presumably there are non-ill criminals who have a period during which they intend to commit a crime but have not yet committed it. Saying they are all ill by definition contradicts our legal concept under which criminals are usually competent.
You have a good point. I tend to take your side, but I'm still thinking about it.
"All we need is one good guy with a gun."
"Let's arm teachers."
I've not seen these two sentiments expressed here. I do not advocate these thoughts but I find their absence interesting.
1
I was a teacher in an urban vocational high school, and I think arming teachers is a worse that terrible idea and I think that is why you don't see any mention of it in the article. Do you know personally a teacher who thinks it's a good idea to arm teachers? I'm really interested, I would very much to hear your answer.
7
More guns, more weapons, is not the answer.
Let's all calm down, disarm voluntarily, and make a safe, peaceful world. Violence solves nothing.
I'm a 50 year old teacher and I have never held a gun in my life. I don't plan to...95% of the teachers in my school are females, and most are juggling work and family responsibilities. For the most part, we are a bunch of moms. I think arming the teachers is a joke. Trained guards? Sure, but no match for all of the stupid, dangerous firearms we let anyone and everyone purchase.
1
Thy brother’s keeper? “No” and “yes.” Theoretically and existentially thought is not crime. Contemplation and fantasy are not felonies. In mental health terms, past behavior is the best “predictor” of future behavior. How these factors coalesce is the continual challenge to the law, culture, and sociology. Is there a racial factor also at play in Mr. Sawyer’s case? Had he been of color would his charges have been reassessed and reduced? It is probably better to err on the side of life and caution. No one actually died here. Blacks are gunned down on the streets just for being on the streets; questions asked later. However, when depression manifests as homicidal ideation there are many contributors. The culturally accepted availability of firearms should also be considered here. Armed teachers and vigilantes could have responded to this young man with lethal force. However, the safety of the community and the rights of the individual are not mutually exclusive propositions. Without making assumptions we would do well to examine what kind of society we explicitly endorse but implicitly encourage.
4
In cases like this, it would be great to have sensible gun regulation. Federal gun regulation, so he can't go into the next state and acquire one.
12
I think this was not handled correctly by the prosecution. It's plainly a crime to threaten violence against identifiable people. Why wasn't he charged with that?
6
Keep reading, Mike:
"Prosecutors added misdemeanor charges of criminal threatening and carrying a dangerous weapon, and dropped the felony charges against Mr. Sawyer. The lowered charges carry a maximum sentence of three years in prison, in all, and Mr. Sawyer was released from jail on $10,000 bail."
Three years in prison might help him develop some maturity and perspective.
4
I think that's one of the charges that still sticks.
Doesn't a threat have to be expressed to the intended victim? I don't know the law on this. If you tell your mother that you intend to kill the principal of the school, have you committed a crime?
It is pretty clear this is a disturbed young man who has a lot of time on his hands. Is his family going to monitor him 24/7? The law seems to function only after a crime has been committed. From the facts in the article, his journal and possession of a weapon should have at least warranted steps to separate him from society until he was medically evaluated and treated. That he no longer takes his medication is not a good sign. As for the GOP and NRA they still insist guns don't kill, people do. And the people who do are mentally ill. As it stands the mentally ill aren't treated adequately, the laws don't help the citizens they are supposed to protect, law enforcement's hands are tied and we are own our own, help hostage to a dysfunctional system. The citizens are right to be outraged.
9
We (whites and blacks) fear young black men because we reflexively (and unthinkingly) associate them with crime. And now we will fear young, skinny, nerdy, loner misfit white boys because of mass murders. At the core of all of it is guns. Easy access to guns guns and more guns. The damage wrought by guns goes beyond shootings and affects our daily lives in ways we don't even know, none good. But gun defenders think it's all worth it. There is such a thing as collective insanity.
21
What I didn't seem to see in this story was.... was his gun taken away, and some type of a 'flag' put into a national database (oh that's right, we don't HAVE a national database!!) .... to indicate he should not be allowed to legally purchase a weapon?
Must be wait for his 'carefully-laid plans' to be executed first, and then we will have more hand-wringing??!!
16
Well if this guy is innocent until proved guilty, under what circumstances would a court take his guns away? Hey, I am most certainly not an NRA or 2nd Amendment freak here, but the law is the law. As long as our system operates on this "innocent until proved guilty", this guy gets to keep his guns. Now if you happen to live in a state that does have some sort of mental health qualification for gun ownership, there isn't much that can be done.
1
Well therein lies the problem with our "innocent til proved guilty" idea. We can think about all kinds of God-awful things, but we are guilty of a crime only after being convicted by a jury or our peers. In between, we are innocent as the driven snow.
Another problem here is the psychological evaluation itself. Psychology is not yet where our physical sciences are. So it is difficult to get an analyst to definitively say that this person is insane and should be put behind bars.
Hey, add to this that the defense attorney will surely find another psychiatric expert who will say that the kid is not insane but normal. Then what do you do? If the lenient expert gets the kid out, then the kid sues the other guy who institutionalized him. At the end of the day, most mental health experts tend to go easy on these kinds of people, just to avoid being sued or the hassle.
2
Stories like this...and we have a President and VP pandering to the NRA. It is appalling.
23
Welcome the the NRA's version of "Freedom"...you now have a whole community terrorized by just one very disturbed individual who is probably reveling in the power from the fear he is creating. These guys love the attention - this one is enjoying his notoriety while alive.
27
Misdirect anger. It's not the NRA "version" of freedom. It's the law.
This is what happens when liberals are interpreting the law. This kid did everything that other previous school shooters did before committing their school mass shootings. This kid was a loner with mental health issues. This is a clue, as these are just the type of people who commit these heinous crimes. He wrote his plans in a journal and on Facebook. This is another clue, he is showing his intent to commit this crime. Then to top it off, in furtherance of his intent to commit the crime, he goes out and buys a gun. If all this doesn’t add up to telegraphing that he intended to go to his old high school and shoot and kill as many children as possible, then i don’t know what it shows. Hello?? The police stopped another mass school shooting and this kid needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If we don’t hold him accountable for his intended actions, which are supported by his purchasing a weapon, then how can we protect our students? Wake up people! We need to take these attempted crimes serious so we can protect our children and prevent these tragic school shootings in the future. Liberals, stop getting in the way and feeling sorry for these criminals. Put on your big boy or big girl pants and do your jobs. Stop protecting these criminals.
10
Blaming incidents like this on “liberals” is disingenuous. “Liberals” should be given credit for trying to keep guns out of the hands of “criminals,” as you call them, like Mr. Sawyer.
14
You assume a lot. Politicizing these events is not helpful. Labelling all people needing mental health treatment and how all should be treated is part of this on going travesty. Insulting other groups is not helpful, except perhaps to make yourself feel better because it mistakingly provides a sense of comtrol.
1
Vermont Governor Scott just signed into law bills that will, inter alia, require universal background checks, prohibit bump stocks and high-capacity magazines, enable authorities to take away guns in high-risk situations, and raise the age to purchase a gun to 21 unless the purchaser has taken a gun safety course. It was the conservative gun owners who raucously protested these actions.
2
Bob Dylan said, "If my thought dreams could be seen they'd put my head in a guillotine." this is true legal over reach. sad but true.
1
Hmmm.. I wonder what the outcome would be if this teenager were a black male. Think about it; exact situation, just a different race. I can guarantee you that people would not be suggesting that he be hospitalized, rather stick him under the jail for the rest of his life... #WPP
16
And there it is. Twisting a complicated issue and turning it into a race issue instead of adding something constructive and relevant.
1
What happened to the gun?
7
Anyone who vouched for him, or had a role in setting him loose again, should be held accountable if this time-bomb of a kid goes off and dies in a suicide-by-cop.
5
I think if the judge was not shown the face of this boy and was told that he is non-white, the kid would have been jail by now. I am sure his skin color gave him another shot at the school shooting.
6
Black population is just over one percent in Vermont. I don't think the judge needed a picture to conclude that the accused fell into the ninety-nine percentile demographic. What happened after that was egregious.
2
Since he is young, white and male he is presumed innocent and safe. Must be really nice to be free while white in America.
22
You are right, Sawyer = White Privilege and if he had been a Muslim or Native American, or Black teen, he would have been treated far differently. For shame!
4
This is a tired old trope. Yeah, white people murder all the time and are rewarded with Club Fed. Ask Tim McVeigh.
2
The 'benefit of the doubt' will be slanted in his favor, and excuses will be made, but he's a marked man. Nobody cares what color someone is when they're a threat to their children.
2
Gun control anyone?
5
Jack Sawyer = White privilege
7
By his own lawyer's account, he wrote out his plans and bought a gun which add up to attempted murder. No wonder the NRA thrives and Trump's contempt for the judicial system is widely shared.
8
Typical it is far easier to "press Charges" than top get him the mental health care he so obviously needs!
Sorry but it seems that the "Caring Progressives" would much rather these ill people roam free to commit atrocities that they can use for political goals than get them into treatment BEFORE they act out!
1
It is very easy to say "get him mental health care" but have you tried tot get it?? There are just not that many mental health care specialists out there to care for these young people who need it. In many states, the waiting period to see some specialist who can even attempt to help him, might be 6 months or more.
Mental health care is not like going to the ER for some wound or accident, you get in almost immediately. Mental health care is not where we are as in biological health care. Psychology and psychiatry have a long way to go yet. perhaps one day we will be there--just not today.
2
I don't understand why you are blaming all 'caring progressives.' I'm liberal and I'm furious that this young man's case is being handled this way. Let's stop painting everybody with a broad brush.
9
Better dust off the old 'he slipped thru the cracks' excuse.
4
He was willfully allowed to "slip through the cracks".
1
Just start blaming the NRA and be done with it.
1
Many commenters seemed to have missed this line in the article:
"Ms. Green said that Mr. Sawyer was receiving mental health treatment in a residential facility, which prosecutors said was voluntary."
7
How about requiring him to wear a monitoring device that would allow the community and him to have far greater assurance of safety from his potential lethal acts. While this would be an infringement on his rights to privacy, given the potential risk he poses it seems a "common sense" compromise.
9
As a Criminal Defense Lawyer, I believe that the Vermont Supreme Court got it wrong. Thinking about committing a mass shooting is not illegal, but buying a gun is a significant step into putting those thoughts into action. At the very least, buying the gun, is enough evidence that Mr. Sawyer took the requisite action to make this a serious crime. If not in jail, Mr, Sawyer should , at the very least, be electronic monitoring and searchable for any weapons.
206
I'm also an attorney (civil), and I also thought that the acquisition of a gun is a "substantial step," sufficient for an attempted murder charge to stick. This is baffling.
13
An attempted murder charge is a little far-fetched. That could be levied with equal justification every time he puts his hands on a steak knife at a weekend BBQ. Given practice and determination that could be almost an equally effective weapon under the "right" circumstances.
Equally, electronic monitoring is not practical. That would have to happen life-long and would only harden the resentment.
On the other hand, banning him from owning or accessing a firearm for life would be reasonable, and making sure that everyone in his environment knows. Also making it a felony to allow or witness a breach of that requirement without reporting it, i.e. making whoever closes their eyes an accessory to whatever happens.
That would go a long way towards preventing any disaster. Not completely, but substantially mitigate it.
4
Perhaps in a state where gun ownership is very popular, purchasing a gun is not assumed to be a criminal act?
2
Human beings are hard-wired, for good survival reasons, to prefer safety and security over freedom and privacy. And that's especially true nowadays when our fear instinct is so easily and often triggered by one gruesome story after another played out over multiple media platforms on a 24-hour a days basis 7 days a week.
I'm glad I'm old as we are marching willingly down a truly Orwellian path in our never-ending quest to eliminate each and every potential threat with any attempt to balance the risks of an intrusive police state with the risk to public safety.
And it's not just Trumpians. Barack Obama was famous for saying that as it might save one child's life, he was prepared to put thousands, if not millions, of people on a list who should be barred from buying guns.
It's a tragic irony that it's our instinctive drive for safety which may end being the source of our destruction, or at least the destruction of a society worth living in.
4
After having, personally, dealt with someone determined to end their life while having every facet of mental health-care available, including tremendous support and love from family and friends, I've come to doubt there being an "ounce of prevention" fix for this. I do believe, though, that the number of people choosing to end their and other's lives rises proportionately with society's level of anxiety over being able to cope with what appear to be a rising number of mentally distressing concerns and/or interests. For those least able to cope - especially those clinically mentally ill - such rising levels of anxiety lead more of them to take their and, sometimes, other's lives.
I think it impossible to decipher our coping mechanisms as they relate to our thoughts, at the moment and, thus, impossible to predict who may choose to take this next step or how or when they may choose to do it. Dialing back the level of societal anxiety may help dial back what seems to be an uprising by those who once could cope and who, now, wish an apocalyptic end to their existence.
Without adequate funding the families and friends of those who love and know someone with serious mental health issues will continue to feel helpless, and exhausted by a system that is not equipped to offer long term solutions.
Communities will continue to be terrified by the very small number of those with serious mental health issues who have reoccurring thoughts of doing harm to others and who can purchase a gun as easily as they can buy a pack of cigarettes.
The NRA and the Republican Party have shifted the gun control debate to one of mental health, lets see if they mean it.
Take a moment and write your representatives a letter demanding the funding that is so desperately needed.
2
If you are suicidal and have a plan and the mean to carry out the plan, then you can be hospitalized. If you have a plan and the mean to do harm to someone else, then authorities can do nothing unless you actually do something. In this case, even if the man is not jailed or hospitalized, the law should recognize that a plan and the ownership of the mean to carry out the plan should at the least enable law enforcement to confiscate weapons and put the person on probation, to enforce mental health treatment and encourage all to consider the person dangerous to others, much as family is encouraged to do "suicide watch" on those who have threatened and have a concrete plan. If there were such prevention of homicide laws, those who now make comments in "jest", particularly if they have weapons, would think twice about doing so. This would dramatically reduce the hostile comments so prevalent everywhere no.
46
Susan,
Thank you for your remarks. In California mental health professionals are mandated to report intended harm to others as well as to self. That's where it gets tricky because of the laws about the next step whether to commit for the safety of the community and the individual, or not.
6
It seems like this kid should have been evaluated by a mental health professional to determine if he is dangerous to himself or others. From the information given in this story it seems that he is dangerous to others, however most likely he could only be held for 72 hours before he would have to go to court to determine how long he could be held. We live in an imperfect system.
If we had common sense gun laws we would not have to debate whether or not someone who has only thought about a crime should be detained. We are looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. Detaining someone against their will should be the very last resort.
2
Common sense gun laws will only come from common sense, rational thinking about guns. Hardly the case when people insist on taking away everyone's guns.
Which people are that?
Will Mr. Sawyer’s gun be returned to him? What is preventing it?
Will Mr. Sawyer be allowed to purchase other guns?
4
America stands apart from all other Western developed countries : its citizens live in fear and this fear determines the behavior of many, many of its citizens just as fear of the wrath of the Almighty drove it's first settlers here from Europe. An exceptional country indeed
2
The solution is simple enough: Stop voting for republicans.
There's no other way.
8
I am old and perhaps I have suffered some minor strokes
and so I am no longer in touch with reality but if having
12 hacksaws in Jail is not a sign that you will be attempting
to escape then what is - after all I it was not like the prisoner was going to be polishing his nails with them.
Mr. Sawyer is deeply troubled.
He obviously has long thought about committing violence
against his school.
For his own safety and that of the public -
put him in a asylum for the next decade and
see if he grows out of those murderous thoughts.
5
Reckless indifference, to not take medications, when these thoughts are in his head? We convict people for being careless about other's lives. We incarcerate mentally-ill people who are assessed to be a danger to society; what is the basis for that?
Some bureaucrats are hiding in process. They would be better off to figure out how to work the system to achieve a just result.
1
Just shows the insanity of the NRA cliche about “mental health” being our line of defense against guns. The judge is right: you cannot put somebody in jail for having violent fantasies, or we would all be incarcerated. You cannot put somebody in jail for writing these fantasies down, or a whole bunch of writers and film producers would find themselves behind bars. But we can make sure that this person does not get access to weapons of mass destruction. If it means abolishing the Second Amendment and having everybody who wants to have a gun undergo a thorough evaluation, so be it. And no, despite what Trump says, you cannot commit a mass slaughter with a knife, an ax or even a car. Yes, terrorists can run down tens of people but guns kill tens of thousands.
5
It probably is not a crime. Instead, states should pass legislation, using civil commitment principles, making public threats on social media and in other venues, as well as other types of dangerous behaviors involving guns, grounds for a variety of different types of custodial and non-custodial interventions to protect communities from the clear and present dangers that these behaviors represent. Such interventions should be based on actions and actual threats, not the individuals' beliefs about guns or their mental status. Currently, I am working on a more detailed essay explaining how this could be done.
1
A number of serious psychological conditions tend to manifest in adolescence or early adulthood. Most of the sufferers are not in any way dangerous to others. However, some definitely are. We should start discussing whether some sort of psychological exam should be required for gun-owners under (say) 26.
10
Sure as soon as we discuss one for those who wish to vote or express their opinion! Remember a restriction on one right can be a restriction on all rights.
1
"Remember a restriction on one right can be a restriction on all rights."
So true ... the law requiring me to stop at a red traffic light is just the first step in the grand plan to repeal the Second Amendment.
1
Those who say that we must respect the rule of law are right. But so are those who say that we cannot allow a clear and present danger like Sawyer to walk free.
The solution is simple: As someone with mental health issues who is a clear danger to himself and others, Sawyer should be committed to a secure mental institution until and unless mental health professionals conclude that he is no longer a threat to society.
That this has not happened speaks volumes about the excessive difficulty of committing those with dangerous mental illness.
21
It does say he is receiving treatment now at a residential facility, as he did in the past. When stable and released he will likely again stop taking his medication and become a true threat AGAIN. We need to recognize the need for involuntary commitment and implement it. We thought mental institutions were awful, expensive places and closed them; they frequently are but they are necessary awful, expensive places.
2
We are now paying for what we did some 4 decades ago when you could put someone away by a simple accusation from a relative or spouse. It didn't take much. So over the past several decades, courts and the law have moved to a far more lenient approach of not institutionalizing these people.
Over the past 40-50 years, we seem to have adopted a very broad, broad definition of that is "normal" behavior. Too many of us have seen bizarre behavior on TV and thought it funny, but "hey, it's funny and Ok". In so doing we have molded a measure for what we call "normal behavior". Unfortunately, we all think we know what "normal behavior", we know the extremes that define it. But when you get into the middle part, it become damn gray and hazy.
2
It seems to me that we lurched from one extreme to the other, and that the reason this was allowed to happen was essentially that the states didn't want to pay for mental hospitals. The promised community assistance didn't materialize and medically uncontrolled psychotics were left to die in the streets, or, in cases like this, terrorize others.
3
Legally and Constitutionally, the problem is that speech does not equate to action. Many people talk about doing something illegal (both seriously or in jest) but do not actually follow through on what they said.
10
As I stated elsewhere, suicidal people with a plan can be hospitalized. But if you have a plan to hurt someone else, we can do nothing. The presence of a plan is a crucial sign that someone is dangerous and the action many indeed take place.
4
It is not illegal to plan a crime, but it is illegal to take action to put the plan into action. Buying a gun seems to me to be that illegal action. I pray that Mr. Sawyer does not now put his plan into action.
4
And if someone threatens to kill you, you'd be content to wait and see if they were serious or just joking?
4
Is it too late when the perpetrator is on campus, seen through the surveillance cameras?
3
This story omits what I think are very important points that would give a more balanced perspective on this story. This is information I have picked up from the local Vermont papers and news feeds so I am relying on my memory. Perhaps Jess Bidgood could have found this information as well.
Jack Sawyer has recently spent time in a facility or school for troubled kids in northern Vermont. When Jack was recently released on bail It was on condition that he be the custody of his father. I believe it was 24hr in house. Before this incident the father had sought help for Jack at the Brattleboro Retreat, a Vermont facility for persons needing help with both psychological and drug problems. No bed was available and so they were waiting. There is a shortage of beds throughout Vermont for mental care.
Jack Sawyer is a troubled 18 year old who needs help that he would not get is prison. With the right help he could get paste this. I am surprised that the New York Times is not telling the whole story.
16
I read with fear that another mass murder by a young man has written in his journal about committing murders. He wrote” I will try and kill as many as I can” in his journal! He was apprehended, charged with a crime but yet no one questions why a young man
Would want to do this? No mental health evaluation or treatment was recommended by the judge but imprisonment and a fine!
Our mental health system is not being utilized! Putting a mentally unstable young man in a prison without treatment is negligible and inhumane. Our insurance industry does not allow for the proper coverage for psychiatric care so many people go untreated because of the cost of care! It is an illness just like impotence!
Our laws are to protect us but when a parent cant obtain mental health car for her mentally ill child/adult the state will not allow it to be mandated without a police warrant and then they will hold them for 72 hours! The mentally ill person can refuse all treatment!
The only time you may mandate mental health care is after this person commits a crime! We must do something to provide mental health care to those who need it!
12
Be careful, this is a slippery slope. If we can force someone to be detained because WE think the person is dangerous to himself or others, we have to determine who decides. Being able to shut people up against their will for mental health is the kind of thing that can and has been abused, most notoriously in the Soviet Union. The US does not, to my knowledge, prosecute for thought crimes.
32
Buying a gun goes beyond a "thought" crime.
This is the same red herring used to justify stasis, inaction and irresponsibility. We have a judiciary that is perfectly capable of "deciding" who should be committed for mental health issues based on expert opinion and for what period of time. Most states, however, only empower them to do so temporarily for "crisis intervention" and typically only on the request of family members. As a consequence, our urban streets are filled with very sick people who cannot care for themselves and pose a danger to themselves and others so that the ACLU has the satisfaction of knowing they are enjoying their "civil liberties," and conservatives don't have to fund long-term custodial treatment.
As for the Soviet Union, another red herring. The people who were sent to gulags or asylums never went before an independent judge who thoughtfully considered arguments made by doctors, caretakers and family members. If it ever comes to a point here in the U.S. where government is seriously bent on carting people away to camps for thought crimes, it will already be too late.
1
When you buy a gun it is not "an attempted murder" but it certainly is "pre-meditated" for something or someone.
10
Most laws, and especially those regarding guns, are written to permit the maximum personal freedom until something actually occurs. Thus, people obtain caches of human assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and so forth without penalty. In Mr. Sawyer's case, it is clear that
1) His mental state should be preventing him from possessing firearms.
2) His written intent, combined with acquisition of firearms, poses a clear and present danger to the school.
3) Schools deserve an extra measure of protection, as they serve young, innocent people who are not able to defend themselves in case of an attack.
So Vermont, get to work and change the laws to tighten the reins on Mr. Sawyer and his ilk. Show the rest of the country how it can be done.
22
Then after Vermont, how about the rest of the country waking up and enacting stronger gun access legislation?
3
Vermont would be an interesting test case. Bernie Sanders said half its residents are gun owners. I would certainly trust responsible gun owners to come up with careful and rational laws to limit gun rights in these cases over people who are terrified of guns and have had no exposure to them except in media.
I wonder if the Vermont Supreme Court would allow anyone carry a gun in their courtroom. Never! However, their view is that anyone carrying a gun with verbal or written intent to use it for depraved reasons is not against the law, henceforth, there’s no future threat of criminal activity. What a dangerous and simplistic viewpoint from elitist snobs.
Strangely, guns in courthouses, federal, and state government buildings are strictly forbidden, but we taxpayers who pay for their security detail and apparatus, have no such protections.
Our courts and politicians are bias, corrupt, lack good sense, and forethought.
12
Guns are strictly forbidden in schools as well as courthouses. Shootings occur in both, so forbidding something does not prevent it entirely. This kid never carried his gun into school (and no indication he carried it anywhere apart from bringing it home from the gun shop) so he never showed any intent to carry out his "plans". You have to attempt something before you can be charged with attempting something. Not just talk about it. To be sure, he may well be disturbed based on his writing, but the same could be said of many celebrated authors.
3
It is clear from the article that there is no reason for people to fear Mr. Sawyer, except for one thing: his access to guns. If he did not have the ability to acquire guns, there would be no reason to be afraid of this person. It also points to the lie that is the NRA's slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The reality is that, "People use guns to kill people."
Although I very well understand the anger of the community, I think the Vermont Supreme Court was right: there's a big difference between saying you will do something and actually taking steps to do it. But again, this points to the extreme nature of guns: The ease with which someone can acquire a gun and use it, and the ease with which guns can kill, makes the distance between making a threat and carrying it out so much smaller and so much more dangerous. The problem is that the law doesn't reflect this.
What stands out to me in this case is the speed with which the Republican governor has apparently broken with the NRA to propose strong new gun control measures. While I consider these half-measures, I hope nonetheless that they will stand strong in the face of what will certainly be an aggressive campaign by the NRA to stop it. Ultimately, I'd like to see Vermont -- and the nation -- take much stronger steps to rid our country of the menace of guns.
54
And if Mr. Sawyer decides to use a large knife...
1
Vermont Republican Governor Phil Scott didn't just "propose" strong new gun control laws. He signed them into law.
I wonder if the children and grand children of those Vermont Supreme Court judges are safely tucked away in private schools.
20
he cannot be charged with a crime. he may have conveyed the message, but he never did it.
it's no different, for example, if someone was to say publicly, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters."
38
Under the current laws it is ok to arrest this young man who POSSIBLY may be dangerous and charge him with felonies, but it is not ok to take away the guns. This doesn't serve that individual or society.
17
No, he shouldn’t be in jail for what he thought, or even what he intended. But he also should not be allowed to buy a gun ever again - he’s too high risk, no matter what treatment he gets. He will buy a gun though. Someone will sell him one, without consequence. Because the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) will immunize the dealer from liability - and the manufacturer too, even if the gun he buys is a semi-automatic weapon of war, like an AR-15. That law has to be repealed. Because if the dealers and manufacturers could have liability if this guy manages to get a gun, we’ll have some insurance that he won’t get one.
270
Mr. Sawyer has both First and Second Amendment rights. I do not see how a mere journal entry can justify charges of "assault", much less "murder", so the Court was right to vacate the charges. I would seek a court order to confiscate his gun(s) and prevent him from obtaining others.
2
Shouldn't the person who buys the gun be required to have insurance?
Virtually all firearms were "weapons of war", or similar to them, at some point. This phrasing does not seem to ever be used by people who know much about guns.
"According to a police affidavit, Mr. Sawyer told them that he had left a residential program where he had been getting treatment for depression and anxiety and that he had stopped taking medication that was prescribed to him..."
AND,
"Ms. Green said that Mr. Sawyer was receiving mental health treatment in a residential facility, which prosecutors said was voluntary."
We'll see.......
5
“The average person on the street can understand that all of that is not good, but it’s not an attempted murder.” No, but it is conspiracy to commit murder.
17
Check the legal definition of conspiracy. One person cannot conspire to do anything.
4
A conspiracy with yourself? Thankfully only some states here allow for that ridiculous notion.
1
With whom did he conspire?
2
We need to keep the mentally unstable under close scrutiny, even if it is not on a criminal law basis. Making a plan and buying a gun is sufficient to warrant very intrusive monitoring, and even civil commitment, to keep the public safe.
14
The balance of "individual rights" for the mentally ill has gone well beyond crazy.
As a society, we need the pendulum to swing back in order to protect the rights of the innocent, non mentally ill.
More people need to be forced into treatment for all of our protection.
20
We will probably never know what was in this young man’s mind. It’s not even clear that he felt some hurt that needed to be revenged. It may have simply been a desire to show off.
He was receiving psychological treatment, but did not continue it. So his reintegration into society as a self-managing person will require some external authority.
Perhaps he could be committed to a well-regulated militia.
13
Illustrative of the challenges in dealing with the apparently dangerous people among us. The Supreme Court was of course correct in its analysis. The legislature has to act to define the crime of threatening and to deny access to firearms for those who threaten. We should take people at their word. Threats are not mere words, they are verbal acts that should not be ignored. Say what you want, but you will be responsible for what you say. Terroristic words must be criminalized. It's called self defense.
7
"If you see something, say something" isn't a quote from any criminal statute in the United States. This community really expects a person to be imprisoned for decades because he wrote down violent thoughts?
Yes, we desperately need legislative action to minimize school shootings. What we don't need is to criminalize scary journals.
Also, any half-educated adult knows that the prosecutors were disingenuous in filing these charges. They knew they would be shut down in court, but now they get to turn to voters and say "those out-of-touch judges wouldn't let us equate journal writing with attempted murder."
There's a word associated with this sort of behavior. I believe it is spelled T-R-U-M-P
87
In many states - you can be incarcerated for writing down terroristic thoughts - Minnesota and NJ among them -so yeah - you can be prosecuted for 'scary journals' that make threats.
4
So, you have a better idea to prevent this kid from shooting up the high school?
I believe it is spelled G-U-N C-O-N-T-O-L.
There will always be crazies and as you say, we can't lock them up; instead, society should keep guns and ammo out of their hands.
6
Especially when the journal writer is ALSO BUYS A GUN!
2
The district spent $150K on new security measures, a 14 year old is having nightmares, a mother called the police to report her son, a community has become consumed by fear... all because an 18 year old kid was able to buy a gun. Take the gun out of the picture and $150K is still in the district's coffers, a child is sleeping soundly, a mom is calling a friend, and a community is preparing for the end of another school year.
188
The money was spent because of what happened elsewhere. The nightmares and fear are because someone who had not committed a crime was arrested and charged to generate publicity by prosecutors, and the non crime was splashed over the headlines just to incite that reaction. Prosecutors and papers got what they wanted. Attention.
3
You do realize there are multiple ways to kill other than a gun? Taking away the gun does not fully remove the danger and it won't make people sleep well at night, etc.
Take away the gun, yes, but they need to address the danger and that is this troubled young man. Otherwise he will use one of many other means: vehicle, knives, bombs. It's not just about removing access to guns, it is about finally beginning to properly support people with mental illness.
1
What he did was not a capital crime, and the judge was correct to dismiss most of the charges. The governor was correct in trying to put in place better protections for his state. I would hope that he would start with eliminating the right of this individual to use or own a gun, and make it retroactive. Perhaps Vermont will lead the country in adding gun laws that make sense.
26
What most impressed me about the story and the comments so far is that only one person suggested the young man be hospitalized. Clearly he has serious psychological issues that must be treated. We are all thankful that the authorities acted. They did the right thing in preventing a horrible crime, and each one involved should be proud that they acted.
Now it is up to mental health care professionals in Vermont to make sure he gets the care he desperately needs. We Americans do not know how to deal with those with mental disabilities. We need to learn.
11
My understanding is an adult, a person over 18, cannot be forced to get mental health care, so Vermont cannot "make sure" he gets any, it can only be offered.
4
Don't know how much contact you have with the mentally ill. Ask someone who does (I do, BTW). "Treatment" has a beautiful sound, but to call it unreliable would be generous. If you personally have secret knowledge of "how to deal with those with mental disabilities", we would all love to hear it.
2
This truly is a disturbing story. Regardless of the legal technicalities of Vermont law on this subject, common sense dictates that this dangerous young man be prevented from leaving the residential facility where he's being given treated. I do not, for a minute, believe that his treatment is going to change him into a benign member of society.
Here we have the chance we always say we wish we had with other mass shootings, to know ahead of time that the person would erupt and kill. Yet we allow a legal idiosyncracy to let him loose. Remember, gun laws are so ineffective that even if his guns are taken, he can easily get more.
Let's apply some common sense here! This is a mass killing just waiting to happen.
4
What this demonstrates is that it's very difficult to prevent a school shooting. Myriad rights and laws are involved. The mental health profession is not really equipped. Law enforcement and courts are limited. Even the FBI, responsible for domestic threats, failed to do its job in Florida.
Sometimes I feel people blame guns as a scapegoat. Easier to blame guns than actually address all these difficult hurdles.
Scary stuff, having a potential mass murderer (by his own admission) around the corner, pretty much free now to plan his demented purpose in life. His brain does not seem to process reason nor feelings as one would expect in a social being co-dependent on others for survival and for his own joy in life. I am sure others would agree with me that jailing a young fellow who has not killed anybody ...yet, may sound excessive, even unjust. But, what do we do in a society that allows the license (not just freedom) to purchase a weapon at will just for the asking, and with the clear intent to mow down as many people as possible? This is clearly a psychiatric case and in need of mandatory supervised treatment, if not humane confinement, as prevention of Sawyer's credible threat. We are living in a permissive country where the second amendment is abusing the first one. And that is the rub.
3
Contemporary US secondary education seems to have devolved from the study of democracy and civics to a training in duck and cover.
22
What to do? Isolation is a problem, we are a world of daddy issues, and as a society we are neglecting our children. These conditions all are reparable, and your motivation to make a difference is these folks are not the only who suffer.
Our society is made. We make it. Everyone's behaviors matter. Our upsetness and desire to contain troubled souls is only a short term lan driven by our basic survival skills of eliminating immediate dangers. What is also need is a long range plan.
Social science research (what, you think we only study penguins?) is revealing. The power of a situation over a person's disposition is skillfully depicted in Urie Bronfebrenner's Ecological Systems Theory.
Social psychology helps us understand what we all know at heart - a sense of belonging is a fundamental human need. Isolation is stressful - it contributes to eating disorders, substance abuse and terrorism.
Caring relationships, skill building, clear and high expectations, meaningful participation and community involvement is the recipe for a healthy human and society. Innate motivation comes from autonomy, relatedness and connectedness.
The fear mongering and moral panics and authoritarian practices of our lower nature thinking, is dividing us and unsettling to our souls and our neighborhoods.
If you feel thrown, figure out. way to develop your resilience, your character, your ability to be a safe base.
5
You're talking about baseline normal people. None of this matters if someone is really mentally ill. There are innumerable examples of kids being raised with love and care and still exhibiting severe mental illness. It's just a reality.
1
Access, access, access. Only in the USA js virtually everyone guaranteed access not just to pistols and hunting rifles, but actual military hardware. This is the problem.
102
Oh, please. This man could just as easily plan something with explosives. Blaming guns for his behavior is terribly misguided and really moves the conversation in the wrong direction.
In "Debt of Honor", Tom Clancy wrote a detailed plan to decapitate the United States government. Does that mean he should be arrested?
As to the proposed domestic terrorism law, it would be an act of terrorism to use a gun to kill multiple people. By that standard, a burglar who shoots a homeowner and his wife is now a terrorist.
What the State of Vermont needs to do is to prosecute Mr. Sawyer on the counts which with he is currently charged and which involve actual actions, not try to prosecute him for what he might be planning to do.
8
I understand where you're going with this, but I do think Clancy isn't a good analogy, as his writing is accepted as fiction
1
@Victoria Bitter - And until and unless the plans are carried out, so is Mr. Sawyer's notebook.
1
"The Vermont Supreme Court...justices said, someone would have to not only prepare to commit a crime but take clear steps toward carrying it out." Perhaps if Sawyer takes the "clear step" of obtaining a gun, that would convince them...
5
This reminds me of our open carry nonsense where a neighbor reported a guy she knew who was acting agitated and walking down the middle of the street with a gas can and a rifle and the dispatcher here said Well it's legal and didnt inform law enforcement to check it out.
Less than an hour and 3 dead people later including an Iraq Vet bicycling by, the police could set up a temporary morgue.
At some point sanity needs to have a role here.
268
Thank the NRA who are against the seizure of guns under virtually ANY circumstances. While they say that they support keeping guns from people with mental health problems after a judicual review, they do not advocate for FUNDING such things and they know that in any circumstance that burden of proof would be so high to make such a procedure completely ineffective.
Under Reagan involuntary commitment was abolished leaving another pissible avenue to protect the public by the wayside.
So, if you want to do somerhing about this problem, you want to stop your pathetic handwringing and stop voting for ANYONE who takes money from the NRA, Stop being too lazy to go out and vote against peoole who preach idiot things like the "slippry slope" excuse to not pass reasoble legislation like Universal Background Checks and the money to actually make them work
44
Guess we'll just wait till this innocent white boy shoots up a hundred kids before doing anything... what else can we do right? He's not black
44
it has nothing to do with skin color, it's the nature of the illness. easy access to guns, too many guns, and lousy laws or lack of enforcement, creates the perfect storm. there will be many more mass shootings in the US.
2
If Jack Sawyer were a black man, you can bet that this story would have been different!
71
No. You can bet that. It's time to retire that narrative.
It would not have been different.
3
You could bet your house on that.
Just like the treatment given to the "Waffle House" killer.
He's alive and in custody; if he were African-American or from a middle-Eastern country, especially those on the current banned list, the outcome would have been completely different.
Of course, only here in America, of all nations on the Earth, especially industrialized nations, do we have to worry about these problems thanks to the NRA.
1
Sorry, but just because you're tired of hearing it doesn't mean it's not true.
2
"Common sense" is too commonly used a term to justify our own personal beliefs - but not necessarily those of others, and this possibly mentally ill person's lawyer should not be throwing around the term so lightly. It might require a Federal law to put persons who clearly appear to be a serious threat to society to be committed for extensive mental evaluation. If they are found non compos mentis, then they would be put on a national list preventing ownership of a firearm. Do not leave this to states or "sure as shoot'n" a dozen of them will find a way to support the highly compensated NRA leaders and allow the craziest among us to run the asylum.
23
This man is a dangerous psychopath. His journals have been released- he was actively planning to murder large numbers of people.
Our legal system has reached the point of absurdity. An entire community is now, essentially, imprisoned by fear and the criminal is free.
Our system no longer works. Instead of defense attorneys assuring that their clients get a fair trial they ensure that their clients walk away without any penalty.
This man will commit murder. It is only a matter of time. All those involved in his release are morally culpable.
We need to start protecting innocents- not the criminals.
60
I can see the argument about state law, but:
White male? Check.
Between the ages of 16 and 24? Check.
Psychiatric history that includes treatment and meds? Check.
Extensive fascinations with school shootings? Check.
Poor social ties and employment history? Check.
Clear, articulated plans for a specific attack? Check.
Recently bought a gun and lots of ammo? Check.
I'll be amazed if they haven't handed him back his guns and ammo yet.
257
The obvious here is hardly addressed in this article. This kid should never have been able to buy a gun. Moreover his guns should now be taken away, as he has mental problems and has threatened mass murder. Are we a civilized society or not?
13
I don't want to hear anything about "thought police." This maniac needs to be institutionalized and/or behind bars. If this is not tantamount to making terroristic threats, what is?
69
Say "Bomb" in line at the airport and you're whisked away. You've committed a crime. You don't have to have a bomb in your pocket, you don't have to light any fuses. That this kid wrote down his plans should be enough.That in addition to that he bought a gun...should be enough. In mass shootings past people often say, "We had no idea!" and then writings like these are found -- and, of course purchase or access to guns. We simply cannot wait for people to be killed.
338
Say bomb in line at the airport and you are whisked away because of security theater. Like most of the measures at airports. Now we are doing the same thing at our schools. How many of these expensive countermeasures are really going to stop someone truly committed to mass murder? Like locking up your house and car. It only keeps honest people honest. It's mostly for show and so they can say look what we are doing.
17
So, are they waiting for him to actually make a move to put him away? Ok, I get it! We have to wait til he pulls the trigger and maybe or maybe not kills someone!!
What will they do then, find he is mentally unstable and shouldn't be jailed?
1
Agreed. Whether he intended to carry out his plans or not, his words have terrorized a community. That alone should be criminal.
2
It does seem that the Vermont legislature should take a look at their law regarding "attempted" crimes and bring them into line with other states. The court cannot be faulted if the law is insufficient. Judges are often accused of overreach; now they're being criticized for not reaching past the law far enough.
27
Reading this article reminded me of this: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20english.html
I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure "we couldn't have known" isn't it.
7
This is among the consequences of the rule of law. A person's liberty may not be lightly taken. Mr. Sawyer is clearly disturbed, but that is not a crime.
It is telling that many people seem quite willing to lock up a person who represents a possible threat, but remain quite unwilling to enact broad weapons restrictions.
Mr. Sawyer seems to draw his twisted motivation from other school shootings, nearly all of which involved disturbed young men who had easy access to weapons of mass destruction.
We humans tend to respond to cultural narratives that become the scripts for our own aspirations and behavior. This narrative has played out over and over again and become the animating fantasy for troubled, sad, lonely and angry boys.
Schools and families must address the bullying, isolation and mental illness that plague boys like Jack Sawyer. The rest of us must change the gun culture in America. Boys like Jack existed when I was a teenager, but they had neither the repeated narrative to emulate nor the ability to access a killing machine.
Now we have both, and these incidents will recur unless and until we remove guns from our culture and our communities.
300
"Now we have both, and these incidents will recur unless and until we remove guns from our culture and our communities."
The military, and thus guns and the entire culture surrounding it, are central elements of our country. Indeed, upon becoming an American citizen you have to affirm that you are willing to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that you are in effect willing to take up a gun to do so.
How am I supposed to fulfill this pledge if the instruments to do so are taken away from me?
Besides, it is only a matter of time until the MOA of these disturbed individuals will shift to a different, and even easier, weapon of mass destruction, i.e. the car, the killing instrument that is responsible for more deaths than guns annually. Already there have been several incidents in which cars were used as weapons.
At that point you will be left to say:
"These incidents will recur unless and until we remove cars from our culture and our communities."
We need to change our culture, period. The kids - and many adults - are losing their anchor in society. When life is losing its purpose and anxiety replaces the societal safety net, then nihilism has an easy hand.
That's what we need to address. That this kid must never be allowed to have access to guns is a no-brainer. And to ensure that, rigorous background checks without loop holes are essential.
5
If yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is a crime, how come writing about murdering innocent people and going out to buy a gun to carry out this plan isn't?
As a society, do we need to follow this guy around until he puts bullets in the chamber, goes to the school, and has a finger pulling on the trigger to say, "yeah, I think he's probably going to do something bad, now."
The insane are ruling the asylum.
20
Not sure about the assertion that boys like him did not have access to guns when you were a teenager, but the rest is well-written...
3
Phil Scott, Republican Governor of Vermont, deserves credit for a sane response to this public safety threat by signing new common sense gun laws.
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/government/2018/...
"I understand I may lose support over the decision to sign these bills today, but those are consequences I am prepared to live with," Scott said on the steps of the Statehouse.
"But if we had not even tried to reduce the possibility of a tragedy here in Vermont like Parkland or Virginia Tech, Aurora, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Dallas or Charleston," Scott continued, "if we didn't try to reduce suicide and the pain felt by the families left behind, or if we didn't try to prevent another death from domestic violence and another child growing up without a mom — that would be hard to live with."
"That's why today we choose action over inaction, doing something over doing nothing, knowing there will always be more work to do. But today, we choose to try."
"I thought, as the safest state in the nation, Vermont was immune to this type of violence. As I've said many times throughout my political life, public safety is the top priority of any government," Scott said, drawing applause. "It's a responsibility I take very seriously as governor."
Meanwhile, our Imposter-In-Chief doubled down on 2nd Amendment Derangement Syndrome at the annual NRA conference yesterday.
Deplorable.
254
Phil Scot is a decent guy and well liked in Vermont. He might be the only sane and decent Republican politician left in the U.S.
13
This shows why, for all the talk about acting early in response to "red flags", it it not as simple as it sounds. The checks and balances built into the legal system are there for a reason. The reality is that the Parkland survivors are right--there has to be fundamental change at the level of statute law to keep access to guns restricted.
313
This shows how the NRA and Republicans have forced all Americans to live with the fearful recognition that the mentally unhealthy and/or begrudged amongst us often marinate their delusions or grievances in a stew of firearms.
8
The judge is right - no crime was committed. Our legal system is set up to prove crime and punish people - not stop crime. That is up to WE THE PEOPLE.
Parents and other concerned people in the community should set up 24/7 volunteer surveillance of this young man and under NO circumstances should he have/buy a gun. He should be shunned by his "friends". Perhaps the unwelcome attention will cause him to understand that he's talking about destroying real people - not video game figures or impersonal internet phantoms who are not real.
14
To take your view to the next logical step: why shouldn't this man have guns? He hasn't committed any crimes.
It is absurd that a man who has continually expressed his desire to commit mass murder, and who has planned it to such great detail, is free to continue planning.
So many of my fellow citizens are insane in their commitment to defending psychopaths.
1
Shunning by his friends is a sure fire way to complete his isolation and will drive him to achieve his nihilistic goals by whatever means. The most logical tool to achieve that will be a car.
He must be prevented from ever having access to guns, for sure, but equally importantly he must be embedded into a societal safety net that gives him a feeling of belonging.
Start out with community service. His actions must have consequences, but incarceration is not the answer. We can't lock him up forever! And once his life has been destroyed, which is what prison does, what else does he have to look forward to that make good on his promises.
8
"He should be shunned by his "friends". Perhaps the unwelcome attention will cause him to understand that he's talking about destroying real people" - comment by njglea
This man is mentally-ill. Further "shunning" by his friends will confirm his paranoia, and in his own mind further justify violence. He's a time bomb wairting to explode and needs to have all access to weapons denied.
3
As to the title of this story, there is no question about whether this was a crime- both prosecution and defense acknowledge a crime here. The story is about an overreach of charges by the prosecution which, if upheld, would have set a dangerous precedent. No doubt this is a tough situation and it is easy to feel for students and families at FHUHS. But reactionary sensitivity brought upon by current events/popular movements can't outweigh the lack of legal precedent and just cause for such charges.
5
Love your highfalutin theoretical arguments. Spoken like someone who doesn't have a kid in that high school.
9
How is it a 'dangerous precedent' to imprison people who are planning on committing mass murder?
This mans journals are clear. We know what he was going to do- from his own words.
It is a dangerous precedent to let him go. Dangerous to the public at large. The initial charges were appropriate.
4
This sounds like white privilege. I am highly doubtful that if Mr. Sawyer was Muslim he would have been set free. While Mr. Sawyer is apparently in a voluntary mental health institute he should have been required to enter into a mandatory mental health institute and held there until a panel of mental health professionals deemed him "safe". The law in this case is not protecting the people.
270
“White” is a race. A “Muslim” is an adherent of a certain set of religious beliefs. The former is used to describe a certain subset of phenotypic features in humans. The latter is a follower of a set of ideas built around a religious doctrine that can, at times, predictably guide or influence behavior. These facts aren’t the end of the conversation, but they’re a fundamental part of the discussion you seem to want to have and they’re missing from your point. The two parallels you’ve drawn here not directly related. One’s whiteness isn’t predictive of behavior any more than an Arab Muslim’s brownness would be. However, observing the degree to which one adheres to a written religious faith with, at times, overtly violent tones can absolutely offer useful indicators for predicting future behavior. Somehow, this is an incredibly controversial concept in liberal circles. Good intentions misapplied, I suspect.
7
"This sounds like white privilege."
No, this sounds like we need new laws.
10
re: X
I'll allow you to keep your opinion that adherence to certain faiths can be considered a risk factor for future violent behavior. But the depiction of Mr. Sawyer also reveals powerful risk factors (introverted, fascinated by violence/news of other shootings, intentionally causing social discomfort, gun purchase) of future violent behavior, especially considering the profiles of recent devastating school shootings. Even though Mr. Sawyer and a fanatically adherent Muslim may have the same risk of violent behavior, their treatment by law enforcement and the media will be vastly different (Kirsten's argument) because our society has been racially conditioned to be far more fearful of the latter. This is white privilege.
2
Seriously?
He has the means and has clearly stated his intent. He stopped treatment for mental health issues.
And he’s written down specifics: the very technique recommended to those who want to increase the likelihood of actually meeting goals. (The same principle used by get-out-the-vote organizations, when they ask people to state exactly when they will go to the polls and how they are getting there.)
So now we’re going to wait around until he decides to act? I know that thoughts are not crimes. But there is something very wrong with a system that ties our hands in this kind of situation.
93
"...thoughts are not crimes." Full stop. If you allow it here, you allow it to become precedent. That doesn't mean he is not a threat. It means that the judges would not allow the precedent to be set.
7
Isn’t the fact that, after writing down his plan, HE BOUGHT A GUN, an overt act? That’s not planning; it is the first step to ACTualize his intent.
IMO, the judges in Vermont got it wrong.
24
It appears that new laws are needed to keep people like Mr. Sawyer off of the street.
41
Ms. Green said. “The average person on the street can understand that all of that is not good, but it’s not an attempted murder.” Perhaps, in light of Ms. Green's comment, we should consider the anticipation of, or threat of murder by a "red flag" troubled individual should allow for intervention and prosecution.
23
What should his parents do? How can they control him if he is 18.
Unfortunately he is now a target of other angry or frightened people.
2
You’re talking as if his parents are victims, but you never acknowledge the fact that it is their negligence, I assume, that produced this troubled individual.
3
Jiacheng Wu - You don't know that. If this young man is mentally ill his parents aren't responsible and are probably feeling anguished and helpless.
5
The people he was planning on murdering have a fundamental right to defend themselves- especially since our legal system has deemed a murderous lunatics rights more important than their own.
And it is clear that they have credible reasons to believe that Mr. Sawyer was going to kill them and their children.
Buying a gun and indicating his intent to kill others weren't steps he took prior to the thwarted attack?!?
53
Millions of people won guns. I am sure that many of them have had moments where they said they would like to kill someone, shoot someone - do something. It could be said aloud or sent in an e mail. If the purchase of and ownership of the gun is legal then you can say quite a bit without being guilty of a crime.
If Sawyer were slightly darker of skin, he'd be in lock-up. If he were Muslim, he'd be in GTMO. The law is not blind.
227
Sad but true, Mr. Johnson.
16
This is pure speculation but the way the said of people who really read the text and journaling. Is it possible that the other side of the threats of massacre are threatened to sexually assault and possibly have some more nefarious ends.
1