Actually, he did not "seem like a nice guy"
April 22, 2017 12:15 PM Subscribe
Jim's social media posts hint that he may be planning a shooting spree. What are appropriate responses?
In many ways, Jim closely matches the psychological profile of a spree shooter. He is charismatic, narcissistic, methodical, motivated and he owns a gun. Some people who know him are reasonably concerned that his mental health may be slipping. Some of Jim's online posts suggest that he may be planning an assassination attempt on a particular high-profile individual.
It is certainly possible that Jim isn't planning anything, and so far he doesn't appear to have broken any laws. Still there are enough red flags that it seems wise to notify the authorities. This is in Canada. Our local police force are notoriously clumsy and may react in a way that spooks Jim, driving him to conceal or accelerate his plans. The provincial or national police force may be a better choice.
Jim's troublesome posts are spread across a long timespan of social media activity, and require cross-referencing to interpret. Compiling Jim's most worrisome statements requires an amount of selection and scrutiny that might make the sender seem non-credible or even invite scrutiny towards the sender- especially since we'd like to make the warning anonymous to avoid any chance of incurring Jim's anger.
There are also some specific local individuals who could possibly become targets of Jim's rage, although the person he's most concerned with is not local. It feels unethical not to warn the local people, but doing so could also lead to Jim getting spooked or reveal the whistleblowers' identities.
What should we do?
In many ways, Jim closely matches the psychological profile of a spree shooter. He is charismatic, narcissistic, methodical, motivated and he owns a gun. Some people who know him are reasonably concerned that his mental health may be slipping. Some of Jim's online posts suggest that he may be planning an assassination attempt on a particular high-profile individual.
It is certainly possible that Jim isn't planning anything, and so far he doesn't appear to have broken any laws. Still there are enough red flags that it seems wise to notify the authorities. This is in Canada. Our local police force are notoriously clumsy and may react in a way that spooks Jim, driving him to conceal or accelerate his plans. The provincial or national police force may be a better choice.
Jim's troublesome posts are spread across a long timespan of social media activity, and require cross-referencing to interpret. Compiling Jim's most worrisome statements requires an amount of selection and scrutiny that might make the sender seem non-credible or even invite scrutiny towards the sender- especially since we'd like to make the warning anonymous to avoid any chance of incurring Jim's anger.
There are also some specific local individuals who could possibly become targets of Jim's rage, although the person he's most concerned with is not local. It feels unethical not to warn the local people, but doing so could also lead to Jim getting spooked or reveal the whistleblowers' identities.
What should we do?
This post was deleted for the following reason: -- Eyebrows McGee
« Older Filmmaker seeking public domain songs that could... | Yr favorite niche podcast Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.