This is one of the stories where I've resolved not to go deeper than headlines and tweets. But the headlines say the father is lashing out at society and cops and policymakers and and and...

And who knows what the father should have done? From this blog post, he had some information which might have helped cops restrain the kid. It would have been humiliating, painful, disruptive for the rest of the family and uncertain of an outcome. Dad knew the kid had a problem. But how much do we want to blame the family?



I want society to understand than sometimes things can go violently wrong. This one may not be a a guns problem or a law problem or medical policy problem or a disintegration of the family problem. Maybe everyone did pretty much what they're supposed to do, and this still happened.

This planet is like that.

I wasn't there, so i don't want to second guess anyone, but I would hope that police departments near college campuses would have large budgets for training re: mental illness issues.

IIRC, college students are at peak age for schizophrenia.

On the other hand, it also seems as though this is another case in which a college campus has avoided their own responsibility regarding "in loco parentis".

When students are over 18, often (due to FERPA?) colleges ignore parents cries and worries related to them about their kids and do not update the parents with issues involving the kids. The kids are adults!

So young adults we have treated as idiot irresponsible helicoptered children in K-12 are suddenly on their own in college and at that point the colleges do terribly shitty jobs of making sure the students are okay.

A kid doesn't show up for their classes? Whatever.

So in this case, I have to wonder with the guy's history of videos how come neither the cops or the school or the students at the school flagged him much earlier.

OK, read the Hill piece, hated the last addendum. In the wake of this much killing, there will be people very eager to point fingers at this-or-that cop or dispatcher and say 'You made the wrong decision!'…

But there are weirdos in every community. They make these decisions every day.

Let's be clear and blunt when offering suggestions to improve circumstances like these.

I'm pretty sure they're like almost all of America's biggest challenges. They're going to require better involvement with people on a personal level, not a policy level.

No pussyfooting.

Put another way: If you really think that people shouldn't own handguns, don't bother whining to me about the law or the NRA. Go out and involve yourself in the lives of people who want to have guns to protect themselves... That's when I'll believe you're sincere.

Or if you really think cops are supposed to know how to take control of a mental health case, go out there and do a few yourself. Not just drive-by observations, but really get out there and make a troubled life better.

Let's not pretend we can casually assign government employees to make solutions happen for these issues.



The idiot Sandra Fluke has been polluting my mailbox with campaign literature for the California State Senate run.

I've been daydreaming about asking her, since government-provided birth control is so important for her, whether or not she ever sent her own money to a stranger who needed it to bu birth control… Because if Fluke hasn't been living in abject poverty, the correct answer could only be yes, she has… Presuming her charitable impulse is sincere.

I hold no such presumption. But isn't that how the rest of deal with charity? Don't we all go with what's important, when it's our own money?

If this kid had been a homo he would have gotten a mad amount of blonde guys.

This is a moment where I'm glad I'm not a blonde woman, ya'll get the creepiest motherfuckers sometimes.

Nah, Ppen, gay dudes may be easier but even they don't like crazy hatred, I don't think. Even he hadn't been a hateful narcissist, but was still (gasp!) 5'9" and half-Asian he would've eventually had some luck with a blonde girl---he actually was a good-looking kid, lots of girls go for that type. My little sister actually just broke up with a kid who looked pretty similar. That's been striking me funny---here is a rich, good-looking asshole who can't get girls, but he complains that that's because women only like good-looking assholes.

But for the actual article, it really is outrageous. The cops had a duty to investigate the threat, and they didn't. Even if we say, for argument's sake, that cops shouldn't investigate threats expressed via YouTube videos because of first amendment concerns, then the cops shouldn't have knocked on his door at all, should've told his parents there was nothing they could do until he actually became violent. Half-assed is worse than nothing at all.

He was good-looking. Not my kinda good-looking but I have a friend who likes those pretty-boy types. Another guy, without the mental problems, looking the same, would have gotten girls.

"The cops had a duty to investigate the threat, and they didn't."

You can believe that if you want, but it simply isn't true. As thuggish as I believe most police departments are, they do not have the resources to investigate most reported threats, nor should they have to.

The shear volume of calls is overwhelming.

The job of the police is the respond to actual crimes in progress, and make an arrest if possible.

I am not in favor of expanding their mission to investigating pre crime. It is a utopian fantasy, that this would even be possible.

"Even he hadn't been a hateful narcissist, but was still (gasp!) 5'9" and half-Asian he would've eventually had some luck with a blonde girl"

Why is it,when discussing a person, who was clearly bat shit crazy, that you and others want to pretend that his stated reason for mass murder was actually was some sort of rational desire?

Do you also nod in agreement when Arab terrorists call for the extermination of Israel, and threaten to murder every Jew on the planet, like somehow, if they got what they wanted, that their insanity and angst would be eradicated?

Meet their stated demands, and their mental illness, like a two year old's tantrums, just goes away?

Isab, I'm not saying they have an obligation to investigate every threat that gets called in. But if they're going to disturb someone (here they disturbed Rodger and his poor, doomed housemates) they have an obligation to make that disturbance worth everyone's while.

I'm sure they recieved calls in the past few months and decided to take no further action. That's fine. But here, a half-assed job was done, which was worse tthan thst. Rodger may well have moved his "day of retribution" plans to a sooner date once he realized the police and the parents were (somewhat) aware. Or, if the parents were told from the start "sorry, we're not investigating" rather "nope, he's fine", they might've taken a different action to deal with their son. It's like---if you go to the doctor, describe your symptoms and say "I think I have XYZ disease", even if that's ludicrous and your doc things it's intensely unlikely that you have that disease, the doctor has two ethical choices. He can either tell you that he will not examine/test you for that disease, because you're fine (also known as PRATFO), or he can do a full and proper exam/test to rule that disease. He can't half-ass a test just to humor you while avoiding the trouble of a full exam.

Besides that, making terroristic threats is a crime in and of itself, so it's not a good idea to consider this only about "investigating pre-crime".

" they have an obligation to make that disturbance worth everyone's while."

And how do they legally do that without a search warrant, or the grounds to get one?

Perhaps you think for every health and welfare check,the police should have the authority to bring a swat team, and break down the door, based on the slightest suspicion (or no provocation at all) that something isn't right?

You have a nice mind reading fantasy going on here, but you have no idea how many of these calls come in every day.

Isab, WTF, read my comment again.

I understand that if he'd somehow gotten laid, he'd still be a nut. If it wasn't women ruining his life, it'd be Jews, or chemtrails or flouridated water. If he wasn't a nut, he'd also be able to get girls. What this has to do with exterminating Jews to appease Muslims, I really don't know.

So, no, again, his mental problems caused his girl problems, not the other way around. In case you didn't get that.

Mostly, though, I thought this was funny---the internet is FULL of guys saying some variation of "I'm a nice guy, but women don't like nice guys, because they are shallow and only go for rich, good-looking assholes" and here is a rich, good-looking asshole who can't get girls because he's an asshole (his assholery was caused by mental illness, but still).

Look, if they had watched the damn video in which he names a sorority he plans to attack, they might well have had enough to get a search warrant.

I'm just marveling at this still---the cops could've watched the videos without disturbing or risking alarming Rodger at all. Instead they knocked on his door, uninformed. That's the part with all the risk and pain, and that's the part they rushed in to do.

How many videos do you want the police to watch?

I don't know what the family reported, but more than likely, they didn't watch them because there's not enough time to watch all the deranged videos on Youtube.

And so they watch the video, go out and ... then what?

Yeah. We've completely gutted all the Mental Health (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, ya'll!) system, because it was unfair and mean and...

So they'd gone out, and even gotten him on a 3-day involuntary hold (which is hard to do.)

Then.. what?

Would it have changed anything with his rage? With his intentions?

No.

It's great to look backwards and point all the people who magically should have done SOMETHING.

But making creepy videos isn't a crime. Actionable threats _might_ be. Maybe. Had someone targetted complained, maybe.

But it's not likely.

Look, if they had watched the damn video in which he names a sorority he plans to attack, they might well have had enough to get a search warrant.

Posted by: Jenny Had A Chance at May 26, 2014 7:25 AM

How many videos do you think are posted to YouTube every day? And how many people do it under their real legal name?

Then the police have to determine that the person posting those threats is actually physically residing in their jurisdiction, and that the threatened person or organization is also in their jurisdiction. After that they can start working on whether the threat is credible, which is not within the ability or the mission of your local police department.

Connecting the dots is only easy in hind sight.

The police have neither the resources or the prescience to go looking for world wide threats on YouTube, because 99.999 percent of people that do this sort of thing, never actually carry out their threats, or don't even live in California.

From RSM, who waded through the massive screed so we don't have to:

I continued searching for a job, but I still wasn’t able to find one. . . . The problem was that most of the jobs that were available to me at the time were jobs I considered to be beneath me. My mother wanted me to get a simple retail job, and the thought of myself doing that was mortifying. It would be completely against my character. I am an intellectual who is destined for greatness. I would never perform a low-class service job.

Yeah, this wasn't a "MRA issue".

Kid was a Democrat. Dedicated liberal.

And a "Special Snowflake" driving a Beemer.

How many videos do you think are posted to YouTube every day? And how many people do it under their real legal name?

-------

Isab. Try to follow along. The parents called about specific videos, so the police should've watched those specific videos. NOT every video on YouTube; that would be ridiculous. Likewise, some times a flyer placed on your car in a parking lot is a threat, sometimes it's not. Police don't need to look at every flyer, just the ones that people bring in and file a report about. For fuck's sake. This thread is about police responses to citizens reporting threats/concerns about vulnerable adults, stick to that.

@Unix-Jedi, I think a three-day hold could well have done him and those around him quite a bit of good. Since he has a long history of mental problems (he was even living in an apartment for adults with such problems), and did have weapons and documented threats, there's a pretty decent chance that it would've led to a longer commitment or a release under the conservatorship of his parents or another sane adult. His parents would've been able to take away his car and his weapons if he were released under conservatorship, and with the commitment on his record, he wouldn't pass the background check to buy more guns (which, I know, I know, is not the end-all be-all, since he's plenty dangerous with knives). He may even have begun taking the anti-psychotic he was prescribed (but never took) under outpatient psychiatric care. He may have hit some other combination of drugs and therapy that worked for him. Or he could've just been kept away from others like his poor housemates.

And once again, I'm not even saying that every time someone calls up and says "I think this person is a threat based on this video" the police should watch it. Some phone calls/reports are not credible, and I understand that. But in THIS case, they found the parents' calls credible enough to warrant at least two officers getting in a car, driving down to this guy's apartment, and interviewing him. That visit cost money and imposed on people, so it either should've been done thoroughly---with police reviewing the threats that were reported by watching the video beforehand---or not done at all. Likewise, if I called the police and said "My neighbor is threatening me by sticking notes on my door" I'd expect them to actually look at the notes before interviewing my neighbor.

Jenny:

Isab. Try to follow along. The parents called about specific videos, so the police should've watched those specific videos.

You're the one not caught up here.

If they had sent them to the police, that would be one thing.

But the police, are not going to sit and watch hours upon hours of unactionable video - how many cops do you want to pay in LA to watch youtube?

there's a pretty decent chance that it would've led to a longer commitment

No. It was an almost non-existant chance. You don't know how few cases actually get escalated like that. Hell, look at Amanda Byrnes for a good example. She had to lose her shit IN PUBLIC - not just on Youtube - but fully in public and get it public before that happened.

He may even have begun taking the anti-psychotic he was prescribed (but never took) under outpatient psychiatric care. He may have hit some other combination of drugs and therapy that worked for him. Or he could've just been kept away from others like his poor housemates.

I love your ironclad certainty there, Jenny.

May, may, might, can I have this wish I wish tonight.

Nope. There's not the infrastructure in place to do what you're talking about doing. Period. Only once someone does something actionable - and notice nothing he'd done before was actionable - not the failure to cooperate, not the failure to take the drugs, not the weapons...

You're wanting it to not happen the way it did, and that's understandable.

But do you have any idea - and if you say yes, I want numbers - HOW MANY reports for crazy LAPD gets?

Also notice that as worried as his parents were, they apparently didn't cut off the spigot of cash.

So you think the parents just called police and said "my son posted threatening videos, but no I won't tell you the URL or send you the link"? That seems unlikely.

I fully understand that a more thorough investigation may not have prevented this. Nothing is 100% certain. But that doesn't mean I can't criticize what I think was a less than adequate response. I think that there is something to learn from the dropped ball, here.

Also, again, making terroristic threats is actionable in and of itself. With a more thorough investigation, Rodger may well have been charged with that, which would've led to another opportunity for him to be committed to inpatient psychiatric care, or even just locked up in the county jail for a while.

So maybe that's the lesson. Instead of reporting it as a concern about their son, maybe the parents ought to have reported the videos as crimes, somehow? Or maybe they should've alerted the university, and then the university could contact the police since they were actually the target?

But still---if it wasn't "actionable" then the police shouldn't have visited Rodger at all. The parents likely got a false sense of security from their dismissal, and the son may well have been further triggered. He did buy the weapons two years ago, so he probably wavered on using them.

You can believe that if you want, but it simply isn't true.

It is true, the police would have seen an open threat had they watched the video they were handed on a platter. That would have been enough for them to have a phych evaluation and if he passed; a charge of "threat of violence" or "intimidation", the same charges we use against other terrorists.

This falls outside the first amendment as well. You have the right to say many things but when you state you are going to use violence it no longer applies. This qualifies because it creates a "likelihood of imminent lawless action", the Brandenburg test (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969))

"How many videos do you want the police to watch?"

One for every donut, one for every illegal search, one for every crime they've committed, one for every person they've assaulted, planted evidence on, or lied about in court, and one for their buddies on the bench supporting their claim that they don't actually have a responsibility to respond to 911 calls for help.

Plus one for every sheep in America who blanket-labeled all uniform-wearers as "heroes" after the 9/11 attacks.

> I'm just marveling at this still---the cops
> could've watched the videos without disturbing
> or risking alarming Rodger at all.

See? See? I told you people were going to be ninnies about this.

Amy: No, it isn't easy to put a psych hold on somebody...

I was just about to ask what the grounds would be for doing this and then saw NakkiNyan's post.

I did some quick reading about Brandenburg and, from what I can see, it has to do with inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action, not the threat of lawless action by an individual. Does it also apply in the latter situation?

JD- The Brandenburg test is inapplicable in cases of "rage," especially when it's used as "fuel."

Keep reading, Pilgrim!

"I fully understand that a more thorough investigation may not have prevented this. Nothing is 100% certain. But that doesn't mean I can't criticize what I think was a less than adequate response"

We pay more attention to criticisms when someone offers a viable constitutional alternative to the policies, and practices that the police operate under today., that do not rely on magical thinking (20-20 hind sight.)

I think the police already break down too many doors, and snoop in too many glove boxes. The parents here were the ones that had the ability and the knowledge to act.

If I had a kid who was this crazy, I would not only file charges in order to have him arrested, I would notify the people who run the firearms data base in California, and go over and search his apartment myself with a hired thug if necessary to disarm him, and I would certainly take the car, which I bet is registered in the dad's name.
Without that car, there would not have been ten different crime schemes, in ten minutes.

I hope someone sues the shit out of these parents for supplying him with the money and the car to act on his craziness, and failing to make sure his name triggered a no buy alert when he purchased the firearms.

Of course, that would not have prevented him from stabbing his roommates to death, and apparently, he didn't threaten them in a YouTube video.

Did these parents even warn his roommates that their son was crazy? I am betting not. They thought calling the County Mounties was sufficient, and then washed their hands of the matter, while they continued to enable him.

“Love is fuel for the soul.”
― Molly Friedenfeld, The Book of Simple Human Truths

California WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 5150-5155

How could his parents have triggered a no-buy alert? His weapons were purchased legally, because he'd never been committed. One layman can't just demand that another be put on a no-buy list; a person has to notify the police about their mentally unstable loved one, and then the police have to---wait for it---actually investigate. They don't take away your gun-buying rights for *all* mental health treatment, just involuntary commitments. Involuntary commitments are hard to get, and they're harder when police don't investigate thoroughly.

Furthermore, the parents are not mental health or law enforcement officials. If the police check him out and say "he's fine" how are they suposed to know better? Again, I'll use the doctor analogy---If I take my kid to the doctor, explain her symptoms, and the doctor gives her an exam that looks thorough to my untrained eye but is actually half-assed, and pronounces her healthy, the doctor is the one who has been negligent if it turns out she was really quite sick.

The parents didn't need to warn the housemates; the entire apartment complex was for people with mental issues trying to live (mostly) independently.

But yes, let's blame the parents some more.

> ― Molly Friedenfeld,

Dude, it was a joke. I wanted to watch you dance.

At this point, after all your timidity, it will be tough to convince us that you're interested in literal, non-allusive truth.

The Google!

Molly Friedenfeld - Goodreads

Molly Friedenfeld is the founder and president of Violet Wisdom LLC, and creator of the global radio show called Violet Wisdom Radio. She is a Teacher of...

Molly Friedenfeld - She Writes Press

Molly Friedenfeld is a businesswoman, mentor, spiritual teacher, writer and successful Internet radio show host. Molly's life passion is to motivate and teach ...

What's your "life passion," JD?

"The parents didn't need to warn the housemates; the entire apartment complex was for people with mental issues trying to live (mostly) independently."

Then the police should not have needed a warrant, and the people who ran the apartment should have been conducting health and welfare checks, of the individual rooms every damn day.

Merely moving into such a facility should have been enough to be placed on the no buy list for firearms in California.

But you still seem to want to let the parents off the hook for buying him the guns, and the car. Why?

The guns were purchased without the parents' knowledge over 2 years ago, before their son's mental illness had progressed to the point of his needing such a high level of supervision. So I'm not "letting them off the hook" for buying him guns---they didn't buy him guns, and don't approve of guns themselves (I know, shocking that a pair of Hollywood types don't like guns). They bought him the car around the same time, after finally forcing him to learn to drive, as common sense (and multiple medical professionals) would say is an essential independent-living skill in Southern California. You keep talking about hindsight and magical thinking, but you're expecting the parents to have known two years ago that they shouldn't teach their son (who had a diagnosis of high-functioning autism, which is typically not associated with violence) to drive, buy him a car, or give him cash, because he might, two years down the line and many miles down the road to CrazyTown, hurt someone. Even once his condition worsened, how could they legally repossess the car or take the guns (assuming they ever knew about them, which it seems they didn't)? Mentally ill people, who aren't yet committed or placed under conservatorship, have property rights.

And, we don't even know how much cash they actually gave him in recent times---he certainly would've qualified for Social Security and other programs. So just the fact that he had gas in the car doesn't mean they paid for it.

Maybe moving into an assisted living facility should be enough to get on the no-buy list, maybe it shouldn't. I don't think he lived there two years ago, and I don't think the parents have any control over his being placed on the list or not.

It's possible that the social workers at the apartment were negligent. I think, though, that the protocol when they suspect a resident has crossed into a dangerous place is to call the police and begin the process of involuntary commitment, and if the police don't investigate thoroughly, that puts them in an unfortunate spot. Besides, I imagine that the basic standard of care for someone who was pretty functional like Rodger was to visit the apartment, make sure it was clean and the occupants healthy, and conduct interviews. If they did that, and contacted the police where appropriate, they did their job. They can't monitor all their residents' online activity, either. If the parents contacted the apartment director/social worker about the videos and they didn't watch them, or didn't report them to the police or take some other proper step, then I do agree that they were negligent. But we don't know whether they did or not.

Really, I read much of Rodger's manifesto and came away with enormous sympathy for the parents, which he certainly didn't intend. They proactively sought out special schools, counselors, social skills coaches and other help for the son, from the time he was very young, and they continued after they had no legal obligation to. It's tough.

> It's tough.

YES! Exactly! So stop right there. Don't start holding cops responsible for the murders of a madman because they didn't watch specific videos on YouTube.

Jesus Christ--- The sheer, trans-generational obviousness of that sentence is so poignant that I feel compelled to type it again... Not just for you, JHAC, though you should certainly do a second fly-by... But for the millions of Americans yet to be born, future students of history who will look back at our times and ask What were they thinking?

Well, Future Baby, with your unitards and your liquid diet and your camera-aperture doorways, some of us were clear-headed, and it's important for you to know that. So this is for you, too:

Don't start holding cops responsible for the murders of a madman because they didn't watch specific videos on YouTube.

After despicable tragedy like this, people will look for conveniently simple break points: If only the cop had watched that video.

But as a matter of probability AND as a matter of responsibility, you might just as well say If only Elliot had been killed by a drunk driver the night before, instead of that one farmer up in Humboldt County.

Americans demand to live in freedom. They'll make considerable sacrifices to do so, and insist that others make sacrifices as well.

We shouldn't let our paniced & mournful responses force us to accept simplistic, reductive responses to these horrible events.

You ARE correct: It's tough.

"The guns were purchased without the parents' knowledge over 2 years ago, before their son's mental illness had progressed to the point of his needing such a high level of supervision. "

This is impossible. You have to be 21 in any state to buy a handgun, and must pass a background check. It requires two government forms of ID, and proof or age, and residence in the state.

California has even more stringent controls on handgun purchase and possession.

Here they are:

Safety Certificate
A person must obtain a handgun safety certificate (HSC) from a California Department of Justice-approved instructor before they can legally obtain or purchase a handgun in California. A person who sells, loans or otherwise transfers a handgun to a person who does not have a HSC is guilty of a misdemeanor under Section 12801 of the California Penal Code. It is also a misdemeanor to purchase or otherwise obtain a handgun without possessing a valid HSC.

Handgun Purchase
A person must be at least 21 years of age to purchase a handgun in California. All handgun purchases or transfers must be made through a licensed firearms dealer. This includes private sales of handguns.

Additional Requirements
Purchasers of a handgun must provide proof of residency other than a driver's license or state I.D., such as a utility bill or lease agreement. There is also a 10-day waiting period before the handgun can be transferred to the purchaser.

I can also find no journalistic evidence of your assertion that the apartment complex was exclusively for the mentally ill.

Would you please cite your source?

At this point it appears that you are just making shit up, in order to bolster your initial nanny state hysteria.

And no, I have no sympathy for parents who leave a mentally ill man in possession of handguns, a BMW, and an unsecured credit card.

Article with excerpts as to when and how he bought his guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/25/justice/california-shooting-revelations/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Pampered little freak had been planning this for a couple of years.

That, and whining about lack of vag, blaming his mother for not marrying rich, and on and on.

Bleh.

Here is the cite that he lived in an assisted living facility

http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/05/25/elliot-rodger-roommates-names-police-identify/

It names the facility as Independent Living Institute at Santa Barbara, and explains what the facility is for.

Here is a cite for when he bought the guns

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us/even-in-a-state-with-restrictive-laws-gunman-amassed-weapons-and-ammunition.html?_r=0

The first was in 2012, but late in the year so not quite two years ago. When I read that the first time, I somehow got it as November 2011. Mea Culpa. Check his birthday---he was just about to turn 23, he bought the guns starting just after he turned 21. It does say that he bought the guns with money his parents gave him for college expenses, which brings us back to square one---at that stage of the game, they had no reason to think he would buy a gun with that money.

Do you think all autistic people should be kept from driving and having cash? Even high-functioning ones who haven't yet shown any sign of violence? And if so, how do you propose that those autistic folks who aren't violent (the vast majority) go about becoming independent? Should they be in their parents' homes forever? And after the parents die...?

Look, if the police had made a good faith effort to fully investigate the threats made in April, I'd understand if they just didn't think it was enough to charge him or hold him. But they didn't even look. That, to me, is the problem.

"Do you think all autistic people should be kept from driving and having cash? Even high-functioning ones who haven't yet shown any sign of violence?"

No, but that isn't the situation here.

What I think is that if you are free, and competent with a job, and paying your own way, and of legal age, you get treated as an adult.

No one should be in a position to deny you money you earn yourself, or a car you buy with your own money.

But if you are too mentally ill to do that, and are living with your parents, or in a mental institution, or in a facility dedicated to low level supervision of the mentally ill, you are essentially the equivalent of a minor child, ward of the state, and you need to be monitored, and checked on, like the incompetent mental 12 year old that you are.

Everyone intuitively knows this right? Or he would not have been a supervised living situation at all.

As I stated before, merely listing the address of a independent living facility for the mentally ill on the federal firearms purchase application should have generated a denial.

If law enforcement has any culpability at all, it is their failure to run a background check on the kid for firearms ownership.
( and let's get real here. It wouldn't have saved the three young men he stabbed to death at the apartment building.)

You don't give someone like Elliot Rogers money for college expenses without getting a receipt or paying those expenses for him yourself.

There are no college expenses that cannot be paid by phone call, or an internet transaction.

Credit card transactions leave a record of where money is spent, and what it is spent on.

I guess they hoped he was putting it up his nose.

Those guns, magazines, and ammo were over 3k by my estimation. Hardly pin money.
It will be interesting to see what the gun shop records reveal, and also the records of the expensive firearms permit instruction, he signed up for.

I am sure the parents are telling all sorts of lies at this point to try and cover their asses legally. Chances are good, it wont work.
In the law there is a concept for negligence that you either knew about something, or SHOULD have known.
If you should have known something, and chose not to, you will be just as legally liable, as if you knew, and did nothing.

These parents were almost as guilty as the kid himself, and their criminal negligence is going to be exposed.
(Don't confuse this with criminal law, it isn't the same thing)

My prediction, the parents will be successful sued by all the victims, and the apartment building he lived will also be successfully sued.
If they are smart, they will settle for the limits of their insurance policy quickly.

This is not about the police failing to watch a fucking You Tube video.

> Look, if the police had made a good faith
> effort to fully investigate

Weasel words: good faith, effort, fully

There will always be opportunities to say that one guy didn't do enough that one time.

As I stated before, merely listing the address of a independent living facility for the mentally ill on the federal firearms purchase application should have generated a denial. -- Isab at May 26, 2014 3:10 PM

Even if he was living there two years ago when he bought them just saying "independent living facility" should not be a disqualify someone from owning a firearm.

If you look at their website it is home for anything from hearing disabilities to disabled to mental health issues. Just like an assisted living facility. Basically they are apartments for those who can't do some things on their own or need guidance and help.

If I were in a wheelchair and worked graveyard shift in some downtown location I would get my concealed carry license in a heartbeat. But by your standard, because I'm living in such a facility I would be automatically disqualified?

If I were in a wheelchair and worked graveyard shift in some downtown location I would get my concealed carry license in a heartbeat. But by your standard, because I'm living in such a facility I would be automatically disqualified?

Posted by: Jim P. at May 26, 2014 4:38 PM

No. And this kid did not have a concealed carry permit.

But an independent living facility that accepts the mentally ill, is held to a different standard.

Legally, if they claim to offer services to supervise the mentally ill., they would be regarded as in loco parentis and somewhat responsible for the health and safety of anyone in their facility.

If they aren't doing that, then what exactly are they selling?

You cant claim to offer supervision, without legal liability for stuff perpetrated by your residents, just like a business that claims to offer security, can become legally liable if they fail to protect you, or your property.

If the facility has a no weapons policy, which I bet they do, they cant just post a sign on the door and call it good. They need to actively check the rooms, and living quarters to insure their residents are not a danger to themselves and others.

Not doing that exposes them to civil liability.

The police have no duty to protect you. The Supreme Court has spoken on that subject.

However, an assisted living facility that claimed to offer services to the mentally ill, but utterly failed to take reasonable precautions to insure their residents are not armed, and dangerous, is asking to be sued.

Oh, and an address triggering a question mark on a federal firearms application, is not the same as an outright denial.

The state of California is trying to give it's residents the appearance of checking for mental illness before allowing their citizens to buy guns. Clearly the system they have in place is more paperwork, and money than actual background check.

I would like to see the paperwork, to see if the transactions were as clean as the people giving interviews claim it was.

I am sure there are already attorneys looking into it.

Hi there! I work for television!

Television's the one with the picture.

Business is good, and thanks for asking.

But this sets my heart free.

Any bets on when a payment is made to some sorority girl for her breathless recounting of how she turned down a date with psycho-of-the-week?

Side bet on whether they loose Nancy Grace on the parents.

But an independent living facility that accepts the mentally ill, is held to a different standard. -- Isab at May 26, 2014 5:28 PM

Please show me that standard?

If the facility has a no weapons policy, which I bet they do, they cant just post a sign on the door and call it good. They need to actively check the rooms, and living quarters to insure their residents are not a danger to themselves and others. -- Isab at May 26, 2014 5:28 PM

Well looking at the California of Consumer Affairs – Landlord Tenant Rules I don't see a single thing that says a landlord has a right to search your property for any or no reason whatsoever.

And with the exception of Illinois most states, landlords and even hotels can't restrict you from having a firearm in your own residence. (Note that I had to look up the hotel rule because the hotel had a GFZ sign on the front door because the bar was in the same room as the check-in desk. Once I was in my room it was perfectly legal.)

So even though it was an independent living facility it is still essentially an apartment building with extra staff.

"He was good-looking. Not my kinda good-looking but I have a friend who likes those pretty-boy types"

My kind of good looking involves guys that look like they belong under a bridge.

Landlord tenant law is not what covers it.

It will be tort law, both statutory and case.

The facility assumed a contractual legal duty, and their negligence in fulfilling that duty contributed to two or possibly three of their tenants being murdered. The third guy may have been a visitor but they would be on the hook for him too.

If I recall correctly, California is a joint and several liability state, so even if a jury determined the facility was only ten percent responsible for the tenant having lethal weapons in his apartment, they would be on the hook for 100 percent of the damages.

"My kind of good looking involves guys that look like they belong under a bridge. "

So you're into dentists?

@jim

Also, take a guess how many hotels have been successfully sued, by women who were raped in one of their rooms, by either an employee, another guest, or someone who walked in off the street?

You pay for security,when you rent a hotel room. If you are assaulted in any way while you are there, the hotel will most likely be on the hook for damages.

"Well looking at the California of Consumer Affairs – Landlord Tenant Rules I don't see a single thing that says a landlord has a right to search your property for any or no reason whatsoever."

Also Jim, Aren't you the guy who was trying to argue a few months that you could put absolutely anything in a contract?
When we were telling you that you cant contract away the rights of children to support?

I'm willing to bet that all residential facilities catering to the mentally ill, have a clause in the lease saying that they can search your room at anytime for contraband, and evict you if they find any.

Your constitutional rights only apply to the use of anything they turn up in that search, to bring criminal charges against you, which isn't what they are interested in.

The facility assumed a contractual legal duty, and their negligence in fulfilling that duty contributed to two or possibly three of their tenants being murdered. The third guy may have been a visitor but they would be on the hook for him too. -- Isab at May 26, 2014 7:53 PM

Please show me the contract they signed. You are assuming things that are not in evidence. Most facilities in the ALF/ILF have a standard lease and then the support contract is a separate document. And it still doesn't give them the right to search just for the hell of it.

If I recall correctly, California is a joint and several liability state, so even if a jury determined the facility was only ten percent responsible for the tenant having lethal weapons in his apartment, they would be on the hook for 100 percent of the damages. -- Isab at May 26, 2014 7:53 PM

There is a difference between a jury determining guilt and actual facts in a civil case. That's how a lot of pharmaceutical companies are on the hook.

I'm willing to bet that all residential facilities catering to the mentally ill, have a clause in the lease saying that they can search your room at anytime for contraband, and evict you if they find any. -- Isab at May 26, 2014 8:15 PM

I'm fine if the tenants did that. But please show me the contract. Also there is a difference between an ILF/ALF/SNF and confined facility. I can check myself into XYZ sanitarium or ABC hospital and that effectively gives up my rights. Walking into an ILF/ALF is saying I need help with some things, but still doesn't remove my rights to privacy. And while privacy wasn't explicitly mentioned it was found in Griswold v. Connecticut and other decisions.

Now the next step that you have to do Isab is actually point at something that says you are right. Everything you say has no source. Please identify where your arguments come from.

Don't quibble, Jimpers.

No he should! I'm quite enjoying it.

OK, but can we formalize this one? Can we ask him to state, in one (no more than gently-compounded) sentence, without name calling or needless detail, exactly what principle he's defending?

Then, in the next comment, he can go sick with paragraphs and cites and stuff.

Also- I first thought of this.

But Goggers brought home the trophy:

☑ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 26, 2014 7:53 PM

Everyone's going on about the guns, you wouldn't know it from the media either but hardly anyone seems to realize that his first few murders were stabbings. A few years ago when someone else did something similar they killed by driving people over with a car. The guns are not the real problem here. Guns didn't cause this kid to feel so tortured that he reached snapping point.

What did? Well, we don't really need to guess, because he has told us in his 'manifesto' - years and years of loneliness and isolation and bullying and ill treatment from others. Nobody wants to face this uncomfortable truth because it might force us to reconsider and face a problem that is common in every community we live. In every school near any one of us, there are kids right now, some who come from already painful home environments, who are being abused and bullied and are crying out for help and feeling tormented and pushed to their breaking point ... it's easier to ignore their cries, and just reassuringly tell ourselves this was 'just a crazy kid' and not that it's actually our collective inability to provide love and support to children and to do something meaningful about the ongoing maltreatment and abuse of children in our society that occurs today in every town, every school etc. He told us the cause - years of torment, loneliness, bullying.

Instead we condone the bullying because bullying is mild compared to murder. Of course, that's true in one sense. But if a wife is abused by her husband for 10 years, and she finally snaps - generally we acknowledge that the years of abuse probably contributed to her snapping. So why do we expect children to endure as much abuse and come out happy?

Most kids in this situation "just" commit suicide, instead of going on a rampage. Sure, fine. But is that what we want, is that the best we can do? To look the other way and not worry about the problem because hey, it's OK, it's just kids committing suicide - shrug - as long as they don't kill others? Are those are our values as a society?

@"But yes, let's blame the parents some more."

Apart from feeding your kids, a parent's primary job is to provide a loving home for children with an emotional support system in place. Even if being bullied at school, which is one thing, the parents should have offered him the appropriate care and love and support to help him deal with this, and it seems they didn't. Instead they seem to have thrown money at the problem, but it seems to me that he was raised without any real emotional support system at home - so lonely and alienated at home, then bullied for years at school. So yes, I think the parents failed. I could be wrong. But I'd venture to speculate that they might even have been abusive.

"But do you have any idea HOW MANY reports for crazy LAPD gets?"

And why does that happen? I'll tell you part of the answer: because we used to institutionalize people like that, but nowdays we let them run around loose until something like this happens. Yes, there were abuses, but when we got rid of the institutions we threw out the baby with the bath water. It's a sad fact that there is a small percentage of the population who are simply too mentally ill to be able to function in society, and as we've just seen, they are capable of doing a disproportionate amount of harm if allowed to run around loose.

On the topic, I think it surely is part of the JOB of the police to at least try properly investigate reports of videos with violent threats.

@".. we used to institutionalize people like that, but nowdays we let them run around loose until something like this happens"

Yes, also this ^. Our mentally ill need better care.

One final thought. If Elliot Rodgers had transplanted, along with his BMW etc., into any of many other cultural environments, he probably would have found many wonderful women who would want to be with him. I feel like this should be telling us something, like there is something 'missing' from our culture that I can't put my finger on.

You are assuming things that are not in evidence

Damn near everyone is doing that

ne final thought. If Elliot Rodgers had transplanted, along with his BMW etc., into any of many other cultural environments, he probably would have found many wonderful women who would want to be with him. I feel like this should be telling us something, like there is something 'missing' from our culture that I can't put my finger on.

Posted by: Lobster at May 27, 2014 7:37 AM

-------

What the hell kind of women do you know? Which culture are you talking about? Why would any woman want to be with such an obvious narcissist?

I admit he was good-looking, and he seems to have come from a nice, successful family. But damn. Look at his videos, read the manifesto and see how he talks/writes about women. He doesn't recognize them as people, with desires and rights and feelings as real as his own. His mother's refusal to marry a rich man (not his father, some ten years after their divorce) in order to provide him with an even-more-privileged lifestyle is taken as a personal insult to him. His grown sister's relationship with a Mexican man? Yep, another personal insult to Elliot. He says of his stepmother and father, when his stepmother sets rules at their home that his 19-year-old ass doesn't like "I'm the eldest son. His house should be mine before it's ever hers". He won't work a retail job because he's "too intelligent"---and this comes like a page after he explains that he failed the learner's permit test (you know, the one where you have to demonstrate that you know what a stop sign means) at 19.

His parents did seem to provide a loving environment for their son, with social skills instructors, therapists, life coaches and extraordinary efforts to help him learn to socialize (his biggest weakness) and grow up happy and healthy. Rodger himself describes his pre-puberty childhood as loving and happy. His mom was a SAHM, his parents appeared---by his own account---to take great care to maintain a good relationship, with 50/50 custody, after the divorce. Please, do show, Lobster, how they abused him.

It just now occurred to me that Lobster might have been facetiously referring to Islamic cultures as ones where Rodger could've had wonderful women wanting him (because all the men share the same disgusting attitude, so his good looks and wealth would put him way ahead), and the "something missing" from our culture as a negative thing, Islam, instead of some positive thing we lost somewhere along the way. So, if you were joking, Lobster, I apologize for not getting the joke. That's the trouble with a pitch-perfect parody, sometimes.

"And why does that happen? I'll tell you part of the answer: because we used to institutionalize people like that, but nowdays we let them run around loose until something like this happens."

That was part of my point, Coz Dave.

There's no system - really - to deal with. Cops don't have time to do 4 hours of research for each call. That 2 cops went and interviewed him is a testament to the time they did take.

Sometimes, there's nothing that could have been reasonably done.

You can always look backward and see inflection point - often many - in any situation with choices.

In NTSB crash investigations, often, there's not one single bad choice, but several.

Which is true, but misses how many times bad choices *didn't* lead to problems. Almost every pilot I know has made some really bad decisions at some point in time and survived. (Some I can't understand how) - but they made it - that time.

Maybe the police would have arrested him had they seen the videos.

It would not have been assured that he would not have gone on his killing spree.

@Unix-Jedi, one of the articles I linked above says that seven cops actually responded. Which annoys me more. For the same cost (figuring 7 man-hours if the visit and the transportation two and from took one hour, 14 if it took two) they could've had just two cops examine quite a bit of the video that prompted the call and those same two cops interview Rodger at his apartment. If you figure two hours of examining the footage (which is plenty, his videos are not long) two hours of interviewing/driving to the apartment, that's a more thorough investigation that costs as much or even less than the half-assed investigation that was done.

JHAC:

I look forward to your new career as LAPD Police Chief. Don't screw it up.

@"It just now occurred to me that Lobster might have been facetiously referring to Islamic cultures as ones where Rodger could've had wonderful women wanting him"

To be clear I was not thinking of Islamic cultures at all. I know very little about what these cultures are like so I can't comment.

@"Lobster, how they abused him."

What do you think this kid is referring to when he keeps saying he was constantly bullied for years? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he probably meant just that, that he was constantly bullied for years.

@"I admit he was good-looking, and he seems to have come from a nice, successful family. But damn."

They were financially successful but how do you know they were 'nice'? Evidence? All the evidence suggests that he had NO proper emotional support system at home. You think rich people always have happy homes and never abuse kids? I come from one of those 'nice, successful' families where I was abused. Trust me, people like that are very good at making a nice show to the world of how 'nice' they are.

From what I've read, this dad was away travelling for years to record movies ... so it sounds like the father might not even have been all that present.

@"It just now occurred to me that Lobster might have been facetiously referring to Islamic cultures"

Apart from the Middle East, there are plenty of African countries, South American countries, and Asian countries where someone like him would have had plenty of decent women knocking down the door. I have no idea why you took my example and came up with the 'straw man' Islamic countries ... the world is big.

What do you think this kid is referring to when he keeps saying he was constantly bullied for years? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he probably meant just that, that he was constantly bullied for years.

--------

He describes his bullying in his manifesto. It's not done by his parents, and what does happen at school (which his parents were good about addressing with the school, and moving him to different schools when necessary) is rather mild. He describes boys making fun of him, occasionally, and girls ignoring him. He whines that a girl two years ago than he would come to his house after school and play with his younger sister instead of paying attention to him. He describes his home life in minute detail, and his complaints about his parents are---

1. They gave his sister the room he wanted.
2. His father made an unwise investment decision, briefly causing their family to temporarily plummet from hugely wealthy to merely upper class.
3. His stepmother made him go to his room for an hour during a playdate---humiliating him so, so badly---because he was mean to his sister, whose playdate it also was (note: this is not his stepmother's daughter, so it's not a case of favoring her biokid over her stepkid).
4. He was required to do chores, and when he didn't his laptop was taken away.
5. His mother wanted him to get a retail job, when he was out of high school and dragging his feet about starting college.
6. His mother wouldn't marry a rich man

Also, Peter Rodger worked in commercials, staying in the area, most of his career, and didn't begin working in movies until Elliot was well into his teens. Check IMDB---he only has the documentary credit (the poor investment) and Hunger Games.

What do you think this kid is referring to when he keeps saying he was constantly bullied for years? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he probably meant just that, that he was constantly bullied for years.

--------

He describes his bullying in his manifesto. It's not done by his parents, and what does happen at school (which his parents were good about addressing with the school, and moving him to different schools when necessary) is rather mild. He describes boys making fun of him, occasionally, and girls ignoring him. He whines that a girl two years ago than he would come to his house after school and play with his younger sister instead of paying attention to him. He describes his home life in minute detail, and his complaints about his parents are---

1. They gave his sister the room he wanted.
2. His father made an unwise investment decision, briefly causing their family to temporarily plummet from hugely wealthy to merely upper class.
3. His stepmother made him go to his room for an hour during a playdate---humiliating him so, so badly---because he was mean to his sister, whose playdate it also was (note: this is not his stepmother's daughter, so it's not a case of favoring her biokid over her stepkid).
4. He was required to do chores, and when he didn't his laptop was taken away.
5. His mother wanted him to get a retail job, when he was out of high school and dragging his feet about starting college.
6. His mother wouldn't marry a rich man

Also, Peter Rodger worked in commercials, staying in the area, most of his career, and didn't begin working in movies until Elliot was well into his teens. Check IMDB---he only has the documentary credit (the poor investment) and Hunger Games.

Bleh. Stupid phone. "A girl two years ago" should be "a girl two years younger."

Bleh. Stupid phone. "A girl two years ago" should be "a girl two years younger."

It would not have been assured that he would not have gone on his killing spree.

Posted by: Unix-Jedi at May 27, 2014 9:52 AM

Also, in the more recent news articles, the time line on the YouTube videos seems to have changed.

The really disturbing bat shit crazy one, was detected by the mother and the therapist, about the same time he started the rampage.

Even if the police had watched it, it would have been too late.

Now the next step that you have to do Isab is actually point at something that says you are right. Everything you say has no source. Please identify where your arguments come from.

Posted by: Jim P. at May 26, 2014 9:13 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Prosser-Keeton-Torts-William-Lloyd/dp/0314748806/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401229164&sr=1-8&keywords=torts+restatement

Bleh. Stupid phone. "A girl two years ago"
> should be "a girl two years younger."

Dear God, woman. You've typed thirty-three hundred words onto this web page. Are you saying you typed them all through your telephone???

You're a savage. Less human than beast. You're a blog comment viper.




Besides, I still think you're wrong.

You're too fascinated with the cops-watching-videos as the breakpoint in the flow of outcomes... Such that if only that one thing had changed, these lives would have been spared.

But there were ten thousand contingencies like that in Rodger's life on Friday morning alone.

Someone else in the family could have gotten sick, distracting him. One of the dozens of mental health professionals from the last FIFTEEN years of his life might have casually looked at his file and decided to intervene. One of his car parts might have failed. He might have remembered he had to pick up some dry cleaning for a thing on Sunday. His first victim might have been more alert and belligerent. God in Heaven might have sent him a head cold, or sent Santa Barbara a devastating earthquake.

But no, you want to pretend the most poignant contingency is the cops and the video...

And yet you haven't really offered any broad policy proscriptions from your insight. Apparently, you just want a few cops —men and women whose service and performance are almost certainly beyond prosecution, or beyond even reproach and condemnation— to lose sleep over this for the rest of their lives.

That's rilly mean. Of you.

I don't want the police to beat themselves up for it, but, yeah, I do think a look at the procedure they used is in order. Specifically, instead of sending 7 cops out for a 1-2 hour interview and neglecting the video evidence (or written evidence, in cases where someone calls in about threatening or crazy-sounding letters), I'd like to see them have a pair of cops look at the evidence and *then* go interview.

But it's nice to know that you care enough about their *feelings* to want to quash criticism of their jobs.

Also, I have damn near perfected voice-to-type.

In the NYTimes, by Richard A. Friedman, professor of clinical psychiatry and the director of the psychopharmacology clinic at the Weill Cornell Medical College

Why Can’t Doctors Identify Killers?

Mass killers are almost always young men who tend to be angry loners. They are often psychotic, seething with resentment and planning revenge for perceived slights and injuries. As a group, they tend to avoid contact with the mental health care system, so it’s tough to identify and help them.

*

Large epidemiologic studies show that psychiatric illness is a risk factor for violent behavior, but the risk is small and linked only to a few serious mental disorders.

*

What most people don’t know is that drug and alcohol abuse are far more powerful risk factors for violence than other psychiatric illnesses. Individuals who abuse drugs or alcohol but have no other psychiatric disorder are almost seven times more likely than those without substance abuse to act violently.

*

The sobering fact is that there is little we can do to predict or change human behavior, particularly violence; it is a lot easier to control its expression, and to limit deadly means of self-expression. In every state, we should prevent individuals with a known history of serious psychiatric illness or substance abuse, both of which predict increased risk of violence, from owning or purchasing guns.

> But it's nice to know that you care enough
> about their *feelings* to want to quash
> criticism of their jobs.

Absolutely! Baseless accusations of murderous incompetence convoke powerful measures of sympathy from my immortal soul. I worry about their professional reputations as well as their personal community standing.

Mostly I worry that the simple-mindedness of accusatory mobs will (recklessly and ironically) summon MORE intrusive authority for these constabularies, which would be bad for everyone involved… Except maybe the police unions.

But yeah, absolutely: If you were (stupidly but fiercely) accused of recklessly permitting six bloody murders, you'd probably want my sympathy too. And you'd get it.

> Also, I have damn near perfected voice-to-type.

Apparently! Complete with punctuation.

Any secrets? Apple or Android?

> In every state, we should prevent individuals
> with a known history of serious psychiatric
> illness or substance abuse, both of which
> predict increased risk of violence, from owning
> or purchasing guns.

Thank you, "Richard A. Friedman, professor of clinical psychiatry and the director of the psychopharmacology clinic at the Weill Cornell Medical College"… We'll be in touch.

Yeah, JD, I was pretty sure you had regulation and enforcement on your mind. Given the circumstances, it's a surprise that you couldn't say so in your own clear words, rather that fogging up the joint with fuel-y "rage"... It coulda been a compelling expression of "Life Passion™"!

Than, not that.

Sorry.

" In every state, we should prevent individuals with a known history of serious psychiatric illness or substance abuse, both of which predict increased risk of violence, from owning or purchasing guns."

Posted by: JD at May 27, 2014 6:58 PM

We already prohibit those with serious psychiatric illness and felony conventions from owning guns. This is what a background check is for.

I don't have a lot of trust in the "professionals" to determine who is a threat, and who is not.

Also the Supreme Court has spoken. How ever little you might like it, gun owndership, like voting is a constitutional right.

Drinking and many drugs were still legal in this country last time I checked.

This country has operated on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think it is in anyone's best interest to reverse that standard, based on perfectly legal behavior, whatever your violent tendencies might be.

I know some men who can go from Ghandi to shoot you dead, in about five seconds if someone is threatening them or their families. Is that the kind of violent tendencies you were thinking of?

Easy, simple, and wrong. He did less damage with three guns, than with a knife, and a BMW.

Why is it, when someone detonates a truck full of fertilizer, and diesel fuel, no one seems to think strict control of who owns trucks, and buys diesel is the answer.

Isab:

Why is it, when someone detonates a truck full of fertilizer, and diesel fuel, no one seems to think strict control of who owns trucks, and buys diesel is the answer.

Actually...........

That was, indeed, the first governmental reaction.

Getting fertilizer got a LOT more complicated, right away. And expensive. In fact, several times there were promulgated regulations and requirements that went out and got laughed at in our pre-9/11 mentality and ignored.

But yes, as silly as that was (and the OKC City bombing wasn't ANFO, but that's yet another rant), that was indeed the very first knee-jerked jerk.

JHAC:

Specifically, instead of sending 7 cops out for a 1-2 hour interview and neglecting the video evidence (or written evidence, in cases where someone calls in about threatening or crazy-sounding letters), I'd like to see them have a pair of cops look at the evidence and *then* go interview.

Your initial thesis was the cops were lazy and didn't do their work.

Now it turns out they did a lot of work (just not, magically, what you think would have been AHA! Throw him in the non-existent madhouse and toss the key!)

So your thesis is that they should have known what was coming, and prevented it.

I'm not a huge "fan" of the cops, but, Jenny, what the hell are you really proposing, other than magic and crystal balls?

7 cops went on this run, and you're still unhappy with their efforts? 7? And none of these 7 found reason, in person, to do anything.

But watching some random Youtube video would have?

Again, you don't understand our system, nor the system you're stridently advocating for.

Actually, "you don't understand" seems to sum it up pretty well.

Adult in LA makes multiple online posts about how he plans to murder people, parents call cops, cops dont bother to check that out before doing their welfare check, claim there is nothing they can legally do.

Minor in texas mouths off to a canadian involving himself in US politics, makes one single obviously sarcastic joke about how guns will force him to kill. Canadian makes anonymous international complaint, boy is still sitting in jail over a year later waiting for his day in court after being charged with making terroristc threats.

Lets not pretend there was nothing the cops in Cali could have done when we all know they could have if they'd been the slightest bit more diligent.

"Adult in LA makes multiple online posts about how he plans to murder people, parents call cops, cops dont bother to check that out before doing their welfare check, claim there is nothing they can legally do."

My understanding is that the online threats specifically targeting the sorority were made right before the rampage, and not a few weeks earlier. The online stuff posted much earlier was neither specific or violent, just disturbed like fifty percent of what goes on YouTube on a daily basis.

As for the kid in Texas, you make a specific threat against an individual, and the threatened person files charges,that usually gets law enforcement's attention.

Your initial thesis was the cops were lazy and didn't do their work.

Now it turns out they did a lot of work (just not, magically, what you think would have been AHA! Throw him in the non-existent madhouse and toss the key!)

-------

Please quote where I said they were lazy. I said they had a duty to investigate thoroughly, which they did not do.

Please quote where I said they were lazy. I said they had a duty to investigate thoroughly, which they did not do.

Erm.

JHAC? Maybe you need to put the phone down for a bit.

I said they had a duty to investigate thoroughly, which they did not do.

Yeah, that's what I said you said. That then you asked me to repeat to you, then you repeated.

Thinking that someone didn't do a proper job doesn't mean thinking they're lazy. Which was my point. You put words in my mouth by saying I called them lazy.

Really, though, what would be the problem with the scenario I posed, of having two cops review the videos for an hour? The "how much do you want to pay for cops to watch videos" argument doesn't apply, because they paid more by having seven cops do a job two could do. Privacy arguments don't apply, because YouTube is public. Free speech arguments don't apply, because terroristic threats are not protected speech, and if this particular video didn't have such threats, I wouldn't want him arrested for that.

Thinking that someone didn't do a proper job doesn't mean thinking they're lazy.

You might want to look up the word "Lazy".

It's close enough to synonymous with what you're saying to be usable.

Really, though, what would be the problem with the scenario I posed, of having two cops review the videos for an hour?

2 cops, given the pay rate for cops, we'll assume $50/hour. So that's $100. For just this video. Which might not be enough to actually commit/remove him from the street. How much are you willing to commit - in real dollar figures here - to maybe and what-if's?.

Plus all the policing they're not doing in the meantime. Plus all the OTHER calls that are going to come in.

You fail to understand that quite literally, you cannot ever cover "all the bases". The police here did a lot, and yet you still think they should have done more. But there is always more that could have been done.

Always. Always more. At some point, enough is enough, and you can't expect more.

> I said they had a duty to investigate
> thoroughly, which they did not do.

Ludicrous. Petty. Quibbling. Infantile.

A woman cleans your 29-room mansion: You see a speck of dust in the third upstairs bedroom: You weren't thorough!

There's just no sensible sentence to follow the one you keep repeating, JHAC. The only possible follow-up to what you're saying is '…And so we must force the police to endlessly study every corner of our lives in minute detail at all times.'

I doubt you believe that, but you keep hammering on the cops as if you personally were going to be next on the list of blame-ies.

We wonder why.

There are reasons besides laziness for not doing a proper job. Like improper procedure, bad use of resources.

For example, Crid, in your cleaning analogy, if my housekeeper brings along three assistants to polish the hot-water tap in the bathroom sink, and spends three hours doing it, but doesn't even check the toilet, she wasn't lazy---but still not thorough. She used her resources badly, and used a bad procedure. Therefore, without being lazy, she did a bad job.

2 cops, given the pay rate for cops, we'll assume $50/hour. So that's $100. For just this video. Which might not be enough to actually commit/remove him from the street.

----------

Once again, assuming your figure, of $50 an hour per cop, they spent $350-$700 on this call,which was prompted by the video. Yes, I do think I'd rather spend between $200 and $400. And yes, I do think that's an appropriate amount to spend on investigating credible calls. If it wasn't credible they should've spent no more than the dispatcher's pay taking the call and the pay of whoever determines which calls are credible.

JHAC, You initial understanding of how this went down is incorrect.

All the more recent stories indicate that the threatening YouTube videos were only posted minutes before the attack.

Let's run a little experiment here, to see if your thesis that law enforcement should have done more is correct.

Let's take every phone call the police receive in LA of a person making disturbed YouTube videos, or vague threats for a six week time period

Redact all the names and addresses, and then you personally pick out the ones that will go postal.

Five years later check those reports against your predictions and actual murders, then tell us all how well you did.

While you are at it, tell me next weeks lottery numbers. I really need to know, from someone who thinks they can read minds, and that the police ought to be able to do it too.

More here, especially for JHAC, who refuses to consider the consequences of her own rhetoric.

(Yeah! The problem is that the "cleaning staff" isn't offering enough value for the dollar...)