Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 51

Thread: H.R. 838 TAPS act -- is Precrime becoming a reality?

  1. #1

    H.R. 838 TAPS act -- is Precrime becoming a reality?

    I didn't see another thread on this one.

    H.R. 838, the Threat Assessment, Prevention, and Safety (TAPS) Act

    This one raised the hair in the back of my neck.

    Quote Originally Posted by excerpt from HR838
    ...
    The term ‘‘behavioral threat assessment and management’’ means the systematic and evidence-based process of— (A) identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence; (B) investigating and gathering information from multiple sources to assess whether an individual described in subparagraph (A) poses a threat, based on articulable facts; and (C) the subsequent management of such a threat, if necessary.
    ...
    This is a collaboration of 'mental health professionals,' law enforcement, schools, and apparently everyone and everything else.. and necessarily database programmers to store it all.

    I'm pretty sure that being a conservative, speaking against the Identity Politics narrative, etc., would be considered extremely violent behavior by the Ministry of Newspeak. I bet there's a special literallyHitler flag in the database..

    I think this one is a very slippery slope. Read the entire bill. Parts of it just scream with potential for errors or abuses from a variety of 'participants.'
    God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best. - Voltaire

  2. #2
    The first thing that came to mind was "Time Cop". Secondly, when you look up the elements of a crime by definition in Georgia Code Annotated, you need intent and the wrongful act (I'll spare everyone the latin). This type of peemption, does away with the process on many levels and goes more to guilty until proven innocent and shift the burden to the accused.

  3. #3
    sharpening knives blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    blue ridge mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by Tackleberry40sw View Post
    The first thing that came to mind was "Time Cop". Secondly, when you look up the elements of a crime by definition in Georgia Code Annotated, you need intent and the wrongful act (I'll spare everyone the latin). This type of peemption, does away with the process on many levels and goes more to guilty until proven innocent and shift the burden to the accused.
    As designed...
    “Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” - Sun Tzu | "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

  4. #4
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Erie County, NY
    I see three problems:

    1. Nothing wrong with putting funding into evidence based evaluation procedures and processes to identity risks. The problem is that current technology has not been successful in before the fact identification. The only useful predictors are past violent behaviors and threats. If there are other ones that work, I'd like that to be discovered and tested.

    2. If such technology can be developed, what is the false alarm or miss rates? What is the acceptable level for these errors?

    3. If the technology does work with an acceptable error rate (note we accept error rates all the time in all kinds of things), what would be the implementation of procedures to deal with the errors, when discovered, and protect the rights of individuals whom the technology pin points from arbitrary decision, imprisonment, confiscation, hospitalization, stigmatization, loss of schooling and/or employment?

    Or is it following words of our Great Leader:


    President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.

    “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

    “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
    Recall, the new President (haha) of the NRA says their first priority is the election of DJT.

    I would be afraid that such a program as proposed would simply default to ban all the guns. However, a legit research program without this as a pre-conclusion would be good. The grant evaluation process from this effort would probably be stacked with gun rights opponents who just want bans.
    Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; 06-01-2019 at 12:36 PM.

  5. #5
    I understand what this bill is attempting to do, and it's (seemingly) an honest, laudable pursuit to reduce specific criminal atrocities... but this wording comes across as thought crime Orwellian:

    "...patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest,..."
    God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best. - Voltaire

  6. #6
    Miss Manners
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    In the desert, looking for water.

    Minority Report

    Have these people not seen Minority Report? Because this is how you start the process to get Minority Report. And probably Skynet isn’t too far behind.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Duelist View Post
    Have these people not seen Minority Report? Because this is how you start the process to get Minority Report. And probably Skynet isn’t too far behind.
    Skynet is learning.
    Last edited by Tackleberry40sw; 06-02-2019 at 10:50 AM.

  8. #8
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Seminole Texas
    Yeah that has wrong written all over it from front to back.

    The whole premise is flawed because "concerning behavior" is now a literal political weapon.

    And "management" of threats could mean everything from denying a gun purchase to having your house stormed with 100 swat guys because you mis-gendered someone on the internet.

  9. #9
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    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.

    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.

    @HCM for further review.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  10. #10
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    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.
    Last edited by HCM; 06-02-2019 at 01:01 PM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •