Can We Legislate Against the Next Mass Shooting?
In the clear light of hindsight, it is argued that somebody should have done something to head off the Parkland shooting. But what?
April 09, 2018 at 11:00 AM
5 minute read
It is widely reported that the shooter in our latest school shooting was a classic rotten kid: in constant disciplinary trouble in school, getting into fights, getting expelled, killing small animals, boasting about his gun collection, joining a racist militia group, and posting on social media about his violent intentions. His schoolmates even joked that he was the kid most likely to shoot up the school. In the clear light of hindsight, it is argued that somebody should have done something. But what? The would-be shooter in Florida had as yet committed no crime. He truthfully checked all the boxes on the federal background check form—he had neither been indicted nor convicted of a felony, nor been in a mental institution, nor, so far as has been reported, used drugs. The criminal law has only a limited reach to forestall crimes that may or may not ever be committed.
One possible recourse is to make threats themselves criminal, even if unaccompanied by action. It has long been a crime to threaten the president, or to falsely threaten to bomb an aircraft. The rationale of such statutes is that the need to respond to the potential for real injury is itself a burden on society. As a practical matter, this kind of criminal statute allows the police to intervene and to get the threatener into some kind of imprisonment, psychiatric or otherwise. The Model Penal Code criminalizes “terroristic threats,” those made with the intent to intimidate another, to cause evacuation of a public place, or to cause public inconvenience. N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3 enacts the Model Penal Code provision, and our New Jersey statute already makes terroristic threats a crime of strict liability when there is a state of declared national or state emergency. The Legislature should consider a similar broadening of the required mens rea to include threats against schools and workplaces, which must now all be taken seriously. Query, though, whether the kind of “someday I'd like to” boast that was involved in the Florida case amounts to a criminal threat. At some point, particularly in the political context, the First Amendment imposes a requirement that the threat be imminent.
Another possibility that has come to light is what are called “red flag” statutes. Connecticut and four other states have statutes that allow law enforcement and/or family members to petition the courts to declare an individual an imminent threat to himself or others, place him under a restraining order, and temporarily confiscate any guns he has. A bill to enact a similar statute, A-1217, is currently pending in our Legislature. It would provide for ex parte restraining order and seizure warrant proceedings at the suit of “any person,” followed by a post-seizure hearing within 14 days at which the state has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual poses “a significant risk of personal injury to himself or others by owning or possessing the firearm.” If the burden is met, the court can prohibit possession of firearms for up to one year. It is debatable how effective such laws have been, but we urge the Legislature promptly to examine the issue and consider A-1217.
A third possibility, which New Jersey already has in the field of child abuse, is to impose a legal duty to inform the police of suspected dangerous individuals and enforce that duty by civil or criminal liability. There is a distinction, though, between reporting acts that have already taken place and reporting suspicions of what might happen in the future. We think the cultivation of preemptive informers resembles too much the old Soviet penal code, which made it a crime to hear anti-Soviet statements and not report them.
Such measures, unfortunately, are both overbroad and too narrow. The country has always been full of ill-adjusted, angry, resentful individuals who posture, boast and make generalized threats but who never act. If most of them weren't restrained by some combination of incapacity, conscience and cowardice, we would have a tragedy like this last one every week. But that doesn't happen. Social media has turned these powerless, solitary basement brooders into self-advertisers, and for many that turns out to be sufficient release. Both an expanded criminal law of threats and “red flag” laws are likely to burden the police and the courts with false positives—men who exhibit signs of danger but who will never actually do anything. Red flag proceedings could also trigger into desperate action some who would have contented themselves with fantasy. They are also an open invitation to the kind of envious, spiteful or fearful people who have always abused the power to inform.
Perfect preventive foresight like “Minority Report” is still in the realm of science fiction. Here and now it would be safer to live in a society where brooders like the Florida shooter couldn't just go out and buy a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine, a paramilitary weapon with no sporting use. While past experience counsels pessimism, the upsurge of public opinion after the Florida shooting gives grounds for hope.
Meanwhile, Bill O'Reilly has called these tragedies “the price of freedom.” Although he didn't mean it that way, O'Reilly is perfectly correct that they are the natural and inevitable consequence of the widely held belief that any adult who hasn't been in a jail or mental hospital should have the unlimited right to arm himself for protection against whatever terrors his imagination holds. As long as that remains the case, more invasive surveillance of our children, our neighbors, our colleagues and our school fellows is the poor second best we can hope to attain. The next victims won't deserve what befalls them. Our society does.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Division Rulings Remind Us That, Despite Arbitration's Informal Nature, There Are Rules
7 minute readAppellate Division Ruling on Uber Eats Contract Highlights Evolution of 'Holding the Pen' Concepts
3 minute readDriving in New Jersey While Using Handheld Cellphones Is Still a Significant Problem
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250