Workplace violence

16 answers Last reply
More about workplace violence
  1. The gall of that lawyer, you need to prove your sanity to buy a gun, and here, people have access to them 24/7, this guy needs to go away, as well as the murderer of course
  2. Wow... Unbelievable that the FBI knew, yet they didn't notify the military. Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing...
  3. Well you can assert that an individual is / will be / might be to DHS in the US.

    Obviously generalising by saying ALL Muslim subscribe to that behaviour / view is unacceptable and won't be tolerated in this forum.

    The behaviour of one does not reflect on the many ... otherwise we would allow anti-Christian sentiment to be broadcast here on the forums on the basis of a few "Cults of personality" ... which we do not.

    Just because the Australian opening batsmen are faring poorly in cricket at the moment we have not written off the entire side.

    Do these examples help?

    By the way ... giving a psychiatrist / psychologist a gun is a bad idea ... I haven't got one.

    :)
  4. Deciding to inform the public with no description of a particular person is not only useless, its an affront of our abilities to forgive/understand/empathise and basically discern whats going on, and leaving it to certain individuals to describe such things/people, is not only dangerous, but very insulting.
    If one group has alot of trouble makers within their group, you can bet that the FBI/DHS etc etc, is keeping a keen eye upon those within that description.
    To either dull this knowledge, deflect it within said groups, such as the FBI, is the danger with which we could find ourselves, if the hesitency is found there.
    While clarification is needed, it also shows sometimes that the message isnt being read or heard correctly, and often the messenger recieves attitudes not truly applicable to their intentions.

    After saying all this, if I said this every time , for clarification, it would eventually dull the very information the messenger intends.

    Now, OT, if the afforementioned government groups foresaw these potentials, it only leads to further contacts.
    The problem that these groups are facing is, many of the Majors followers in his particular beliefs are acting out on their own, as their collaborator is believed, within their eyes, to be God Himself, and doesnt need fellow conspirators.
    This raises the bar, and diminishes the FBI's et al abilities to find ties within an organization that may or may not exist.
    So, it may mean the FBI et al, may find acting sooner rather than later may have a greater effect upon our safety
  5. I didn't say it was a crime ... but generalising comments to a larger population is not appropriate.
  6. I agree
    But denying the obvious is a crime to our sensibilities
    Obvious being who people are, their motivations etc.

    Denying, or not allowing for this, is not only dangerous, but disengenuous
    I believe the lynch mobs seen in history needs attention as well, but not at the cost of the truth

    PS If someone includes decriptions of a murderer, whether it be anything attributal to that person, calling in to question the messengers facts is somewhat describing more the messenger than the message, and can lead to the very thing we, you and I, abhor
    If some choose to take the lazy way out, and fall to their own failures, as someone once said, you cant fix stupid.
    OTH, omitting the truth, whether it be descriptions or other pertitnent fact, with worries towards certain potential lynch mob effect, once again leads us back to step one, not at the cost of the truth.
  7. What exactly do you mean?

    Gee the guy needs to be dealt with for sure ... and surely people knew something was wrong well before it occired ... and they could have relieved him of his command.

    Beyond that what?
  8. Theres been a complete holding back of facts because of political correctness

    One example was, recently, there was an armed bank robber afoot in a certain city, the media said to be on the look out for them
    No description (which the media had at the time) was given, whether it was a female , male, white black, etc etc, only the height (and that was guesstimated)

    Now, being affraid of some who would point their fingers at the media on a complete description, they withheld such info, causing an overall diservice and greater harm to that particular community.
    Other groups are also seen to withold certain infos, and are in denial of certain activities, such as being on the lookout for certain groups, and only certain bad groups are readily identified as to what their particular beliefs or potential mindsets are.
    If we keep failing in this direction, and turn the other way, in fear of creating a lynch mob attitude towards a few bad people of certain beliefs, we fail ourselves eventually.
    The us against them mentality, which you can find in certain areas thruout the world does this, and its not until the us is described as everyone but the bad people, and the truths are no longer withheld, we will continue down this path of disservice and ineptitude towards our fellow man, this time tho, on the reverse side of things, since taking only 1 tact is only half right.

    Im sure the reluctance of the FBI et al to admit such things, as well as the military, keeping an eye on some, was there, and openess about such things are heavily clouded each time someone brings to attention the intentions of those who brings such things up
  9. I disagree.

    There is just us ... humanity.

    There is no need to marginalise and negatively label groups of people.

    Take the woman with 15 kids in the other thread ... that should have been nuked right from the start ... what was the purpose of it if not to gloat and look down upon some one else less fortunate ... less able?

    I think various groups are on the lookout for people behaving radically, and those plotting and scheming. You already have big brother there in the US.

    If big brother missed one ... as seems the case here ... then so be it.

    It is highly likely he acted alone ... therefore did not rate high enough on any radar and when he went postal it was purely and individual action.

    If authorities banned hate speech sites from the net people would have less access to offensive and violence enabling material.

    The sad thing about that is where does it stop?

    I think removing any site material that promotes violence on religious grounds is a good start.

    Banning religious groups that promote violence in your country is another ... Gelnn Beck is probably one who should be locked up ... he is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    We have a couple of radical groups in Australia that are being watched ... our laws now mean that they can be more easily dealt with should they cross the line.

    What constitutes crossing the line ... that's something worth exploring.
  10. Reynod said:
    There is no need to marginalise and negatively label groups of people.

    Take the woman with 15 kids in the other thread ... that should have been nuked right from the start ... what was the purpose of it if not to gloat and look down upon some one else less fortunate ... less able?


    There's nothing wrong with talking about a specific situation/circumstance, and calling it what it is. Calling a poor family poor, or calling a gay person gay, or a white person white, isn't any kind of slight to a larger group. It's simply stating a fact. And if the larger group was then talked about, in a group context, then you would need to look at the context of what was said about the group, to see if it was derogatory or not. Still no harm in simply discussing what exists.
  11. The whole point here is, as aford said, in specific circumstances, knowing all the facts are helpful.
    In certain neighborhoods, you cant find the bad guys, either because people that know them are afraid, and having cops are therefor useless, or, theyre looked at as "the man", making them useless once again.
    My intent was to show that people, or all of us, needs to focus on these bad individuals, from whatever creed/color/religion etc etc they crawl from, and not just throw a wide blanket and said weve done enough.
    Government has shown a complete failure at using the proper granularity it needs in many ways, but I draw the line at our safety, and seeking the truth.
    Having the intent of doing this is within all bounds of common sense, and only serves to help us all, not only in stopping the furthermentation of such things, but also allowing for the understanding it takes to define, in a much more granular way, as to who these people are, and their intentions.
    If people choose to be stupid, and hate or be racist, as I said, you cant fix stupid, but those that hear such things can begin to have a wider understanding that most of us are in line with the right thing to do, which is all of us wanting the bad to stop.
    By diverting the subject reduces all this, and doesnt allow for a greater understanding of all peoples of all walks of life, and thus my point.
  12. Not going to wade into what shouldn't really be an ideological discussion, but-

    Quote:
    No one did anything because of the politically correct stigma of accusing a Muslim of being a radical, violent, terrorist.


    The report doesn't indicate anywhere or at any point that one of the causes for not acting was political correctness based on the perpetrator's religion. It was a failure of communication and cross-agency buy-in. The report didn't focus on motivation, for which I think everyone understands is radical fundamentalism, simply put - but rather the report focused on effect, operations and what went wrong.

    Let's take a step back here, friends, and cool off a bit.
  13. You remember in The Princess Bride when Vizzini kept using the word "inconceivable" and Inigo Montoya's second most famous line was "I do not think that word...means what you think it means."

    Well, as far as terrorism goes... I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. There's a fine line between actual terrorism and the just plain outright cracking mind of an insane person. But we don't need to go back and forth on this - all we have to do is check into some other incidents and what they've been called. Post office shootings. Terrorism or not? Not, it would seem. Jared Loughner's attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords that left 6 people dead and 14 wounded? Not so much either, though I'm not sure how much more of a blatantly political statement you can make by killing a judge and trying to kill a Congresswoman.

    As an aside, you are linking to a story on a site called workplaceviolencenews.com. Is it really beyond the pale to expect that workplaceviolencenews.com is going to talk about the workplace violence news?
  14. I know the history and the root of the word "assassin". The guy who flew his plane into the IRS building a short while back was not an "assassin". Again, I do not think the word means what you think it means.
  15. Thanks oldmangamer. Though truth be told, I didn't actually need to research it in-depth. I know what an assassin is, and already knew of their background in history.
  16. .
Ask a new question

Read More

World News