Now that I've had some time to read it over, I'm not really seeing what's concerning you guys so much.
This bill establishes a task force to jointly
review behavioral threat assessment
processes and best practices, a way to
implement them more widely, and funding.
This is NOT a task force as @critter is implying that is made up of a bunch of rando people that get to decide whether you've committed a thought crime, compile lists, and detain you. That is a complete falsehood and misrepresentation of the written text.
If that's wrong, please clarify as I may have missed something.
You are not wrong, however the use of “task force” implying an LE task force making arrests is a poor choice of words.
Unfortunately the use of the phrase “task force” is trendy right now - for example the model for integrated response to active shooter events by LE, Fire/EMS, local emergency management agencies, hospitals etc being referred to as the “rescue task force” model
The threat assessment processes described in this bill are already in use. Right now you have different states and localities forming their own working groups of LE, LE Intel / fusion centers, mental health professionals, fire/EMS, school officials etc to share information. They are a resource for LE to try and identify viable threats from those just talking the talk and to give options other than arrests, such as mental health services,etc.
The issue is these group statements are all doing different things and using different processes. This bill would create a “commission” that would look at all these existing working groups, ID what they are doing right /wrong, and create a model of best practices and “what not to do” to improve existing working groups and create a model for other places that want to stand up a threat assessment working group.
Think something like the standardized NIMS template.
Let's make some things clear:
1) Statutory Law is Statutory Law. You cannot make up crimes outside of statutes: You cannot go to jail because an investigative entity has simply evaluated that you are a person of interest, dangerous threat, etc. This is asking for a pow-wow between the players in this field to come up with a better way to identify active shooters. This is not creating the Minority Report or thought crimes,
this is not adding any new laws or authorities. You still need to commit a statutory crime to go to jail, and you still have to go to court like any other crime.
2) The use of behavioral threat assessments are already in practice, and have been for decades, by the USSS Protective Intelligence Division, DSS Protective Intelligence Investigations, FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, and others. Behavioral threat assessments are nothing new. They are simply an investigative technique and tool. Whatever the fuck is going on through your mind about what they are, that's probably
not it. It's simply a way of identifying whether a person is actually dangerous, and how much so (historically used for the protection of dignitaries).
__________________________________________________
My only concern about this right now is that it's $25,000,000 of funding for something that is essentially already done by the FBI JTTF. Contrary to what a lot of people think, the JTTFs aren't just focused on chasing brown people with beards that believe in Islam. A large portion of their work is using behavioral threat assessments for identifying potential active shooters, and working with other federal, state, local LE to come together under a unified command to accomplish such. So, my only real question is why the duplicative effort/funding. To me, without further insight, it looks like a turf war/power grab by DHS to put their hands in the FBI's rice bowl more than anything.
The rice bowl thing is at least partially correct. There is already a Threat Assessment certification process for mental health professionals such as Psychologists and LCSW.
https://www.atapworldwide.org
https://www.atapworldwide.org/page/TAPS
@
HCM for further review.