U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 23, 2023 10:00 AM UTC
24 Comments
Semi-serious rhetorical questions, I swear not directed at Herod.
Every time something like East happens, I see folks write something like "we need to address the root causes." Sure, but how, and can it be done before the end of history? Are not root causes different for different people in different situations? Are we somehow going to eliminate (or more reasonably, seriously curtail) broken homes, poverty, hopelessness, personal conflict, or the ever-present exposures to news of world and national violence?
I opined yesterday that "mental health is the problem" is a red herring to distract from the need for gun legislation. In fairness, I'm wondering if "address the root causes" is an equivalent red herring, to distract from the need for policing.
But if someone has tangible ideas on how to effectively address root causes, I'm all ears.
The "we need to address the root cause" mantra is up there with "thoughts and prayers." It gives people something to say which will not anything that is actionable.
It’s every minor politician’s first duty during times of crises — offering bromides and simple solutions to massive and intractable problems.
That’s the least they can do.
"That’s the least they can do."
And in many cases, that's the maximum they do, too.
So far, there's a policy debate going on based on what has happened in a very few instances, all centered on the problems of firearms.
As a reminder, the decision LAST round was fueled by social justice concerns that included bad anecdotes and reporting on an overall trend, according to Denverite's Kyle Harris and Desiree Mathurin.
Current counts:
So "only" a 14% bulge in enforcement over population.
Do each of the top 4 have their own statements post-shooting? If so, please link?
Michael, I was thinking about responding to your question yesterday but got sidetracked, by lunch. It was very good.
The Post ran this story with reactions from candidates, maybe it could help?
https://www.denverpost.com/2023/03/22/denver-mayor-candidates-react-east-high-shooting/
Agree with both statements above. I think Australia did a good job of addressing the actual "root cause" and, well, shocker, its working. From FactCheck.org…
In 1996, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement after a mass shooting in Tasmania in April of that year. In that incident, a 28-year-old man, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shot and killed 35 people, and injured 18 others, in what was known as the Port Arthur Massacre.
Under the 1996 law, Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. It also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the 1996 law.
During the buyback program, Australians sold 640,000 prohibited firearms to the government, and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent.
In 2002, Australia further tightened gun laws, restricting the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.
Since 1996, the number and rate of homicides — defined as murder and manslaughter — has fallen. Below is the chart that appeared in our 2009 Ask FactCheck article, showing a 20 percent decline in homicides from 1996 to 2007.
The ammosexuals would have a fit and go running to SCOTUS whining about their rights to unfettered gun ownership, and probably win.
For goodness sakes, SROs are not the answer…It is my understanding that two armed officers were on site when this happened. They had been there since the soccer student was shot in his car.
My questions:
1. When SROs were removed, was there any alternative created? What happened to that budget line item? (More psychologists? After school programs??))
2. Coming out of Covid, what plans, if any, were put in place to support students? Districtwide and at the school level.
3. How long had this student been under his plan and was he already being patted down daily? If he knew he would be patted down, why did he take a gun to school that particular day?
4. Who decided that administrators were the best choice to execute the plan–especially since the student had been found with a “ghost gun”?
5. How widely was the student’s plan communicated…who all knew?
Remember waaaaay back when he first ran, Hancock branded himself as the “education” mayor? Like all of his other “big ideas,” nothing changed after all his talk. Unless there are some real hard conversations., plans and $$$$ to execute them, we are nowhere.
I'm not going to take the time to go through the entire DPS budget, but they had 169 psychologists and 151 social workers on staff, according to the 2022-23 draft budget (not sure if that was what was approved). This was up from 101 psychologists and 87 social workers in 2015-16.
I appreciate your point #3, TDO. I'm going on limited samples, but it just seems too frequent to me that people know a person is a serious threat before they finally commit their act of violence. That's why we have red flag laws in Colorado and many other states.
The increase in psychologists and social workers is an indirect result of the elimination in SRO's in DPS, but I don't think that the reduction in funding by eliminating SRO's was reallocated there. There were 4-5 new mental health and restorative justice positions created at the district level, but the number Campus Safety Officers was not increased. In fact, it looks like DPS reduced the number of CSO's from (82) FY21 to (78) FY22.
I'm thinking that the DPS Board had such an extreme position on any kind of law enforcement presence that they were willing to let the safety environment deteriorate in the name of restorative justice in spite of the increases in incidents there were seeing as it was a calculated risk. There's likely a course correction followed by a political reckoning coming.
Two Dog, Channel 9 News noted that there was at least one officer or guard in the school. But the guard was not armed. The student was being patted down daiy as part of some sort of plan.
Thanks for the clarification about the number and kind of officer on site that day.
There are SROs, and SROs. Years ago, at Montbello high school, SRO Henry was one of the finest human beings I ever met. He mentored kids, he walked that fine line between justice and safety for the school population- he was a role model for adults as well as kids.
And then there are prople like this S Carolina SRO and this NY SRO slamming an 11 year old girl to the ground.
In my view, schools need to be selective about SROs and generously fund the alternatives to police intervention- psychologists, counselors, restorative justice programming, peer / youth courts.
I have questions.
1. Where does a 17 year old get a gun?
2. Why did this student feel he needed to bring a gun to school?
3. If he was already on admin’s “radar” and subjected to a daily pat down, then what other steps were being taken to help this student? Was there any concern over his home life? Was there any type of mental health intervention? Should he have even been in that type of school setting? Would he have benefitted from some sort of residential school setting and treatment?
This student was failed by lots of adults and in the end, two administrators were injured, the student committed suicide and an entire high school was terrorized. Seems like preventing this would have been a better plan. I don’t think that SRO’s in the school would have stopped this unless they were doing the pat downs.
Can we instead look at actual mental health interventions that would have put this student on a path to healing instead of the path of destruction? Seems like that would be the better option for everyone.
As to the mayor’s race, looks like this will be a talking point for candidates that will lead to nowhere in the end. Sigh.
1. Where does a 17 year old get a gun?
Pretty much anywhere. He does live in the US of A.
2. Why did this student feel he needed to bring a gun to school?
Because the gun nuts tell him that to prevent becoming a victim of gun violence, it is important to be carrying yourself. And as the revised version of the good book says, "Do unto others before they get the chance to do unto you."
Yep, that seems to be their message.
In fairness, I just read a Westword interview with candidate Terrance Roberts that delved into "root causes." He did a good job of identifying things to work on, but I still didn't get any sense that the city would be able to do a largely effective job of implementation. But I thought it was an interesting read.
https://www.westword.com/news/denver-mayor-terrance-roberts-public-bank-poverty-16431265
Where, by the way, did this "resource officer" stuff come from? Is that supposed to be a less threatening name? They're cops. Call them that. We had "security guards" when I was in high school, way back when. They weren't armed; just big, burly civilians, but no one pretended they weren't there to deal with troublemakers.
My guess is the name SRO was devised sort of euphemistically, to sound "not like they are cops," but yes, they are sworn law enforcement officers. They operate in school settings, so their day-to-day job responsibilities are tailored to that environment.
And Denver School Board just voted to put DPD officers back in schools, at least through the end of the year.
I'd like someone to take the "perfect" armed adult in a school scenario and make it into a realistic short film. Let's go with an SRO for this example, since that's what we're talking about here.
Scene 1: Armed SRO is welcoming students as they come in. SRO is nice. Students seem to like the SRO. Everything is fine.
Scene 2: Maybe a montage of SRO dealing with one student who is having worse and worse issues. SRO tries to be caring but authoritative and feels for the student with issues. The student gets angrier as this goes on.
Scene 3: Student comes into the school with a gun ready to shoot. SRO uses his excellent marksmanship and training to see the threat and kill the student.
Scene 4: SRO is hailed as a hero of their community. Everyone is happy again. No one is traumatized at all.
You could make it a documentary...
None of the stories say if the officer knew the shooter. That's the scenario I imagine to be more common if we had more adults in schools with guns.
From what I can tell, Officer Dallas only knew Matt Milby as "The Shooter" or "The Threat" or "The Suspect" and not as "that troubled kid named Matt that I tried to help"