Police didn’t search database showing Calif. shooter had bought guns

[hack89]

Source: Washington Post

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — With the toughest gun-control regulations in the country, California has a unique, centralized database of gun purchases that law enforcement officers can easily search. It offers precious intelligence about a suspect or other people they may encounter when responding to a call.

But this rare advantage wasn’t enough to help authorities head off the May 23 rampage in Santa Barbara that claimed six victims.

Before a half-dozen sheriff’s deputies knocked on Elliot Rodger’s door last month in response to concerns raised by his mother about his well-being, they could have checked the database and discovered he had bought three 9mm semiautomatic handguns. Several law enforcement officials and legal experts on gun policy said this might have given deputies greater insight into Rodger’s intentions and his capability for doing harm.

The deputies did not check the database. They left his apartment after finding him to be “shy, timid, polite and well-spoken,” in the words of Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown. The deputies saw no evidence that Rodger was an immediate threat to others or to himself.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/police-didnt-search-database-showing-calif-shooter-had-bought-guns/2014/05/30/59ad5186-e74f-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

---

I imagine after this the police will be making greater use of that database.

[derby378]

1. Elliott Rodger is an albatross hung around the neck of CA's gun laws and law enforcement

After all the indignant anger we've witnessed over the past few days, we learn this shooting could have been prevented by a simple check by deputies who simply got lazy and didn't follow up. Even Rodger himself said as much in his "manifesto" - if they had checked his bedroom, he wrote, they would have had him dead to rights.

[asiliveandbreathe]

5. Do you suppose

considering what we know now, affluenza, may have played in the decisions made along the way by law enforcement? After all, here we have a young man of privilege, BMW etc etc - why would we suspect anything could possibly go wrong? Why didn't the mother or father know? - Why didn't the mother tell law enforcement her son had purchased weapons? Law enforcement put themselves in harms way, as well, not checking for weapons purchase...I suspect this will not happen again, no matter who calls for domestic help - "a simple check by deputies" (as you stated) absolutely critical....I heart all who have been affected by this senseless act - come to think of it, that would be all of us...

[derby378]

7. I regard the affluenza defense the same way I regard the Twinkie defense

It's shallow, unethical, anti-egalitarian, and makes pretense for a true mental illness, further complicating efforts to get to the bottom of Rodger's mental state and motivations.

I'm still idealistic enough to believe Lady Justice should keep her blindfold on and not peek at the scales.

[RainDog]

9. Yes, I absolutely think his privileged place in society protected him

His appearance was non-threatening b/c he was a small guy (as he complained about himself) and he had the benefit of knowing how to behave in a variety of situations (that, in fact, was part of his problem - he felt entitled to women who were not interested in him.)

BUT - police should have psychologists in their ranks who go on such calls to question the person separately. I read how this has worked in the past - the psychologist asks open ended questions about the person's life, rather than simply check to see if someone is obviously mentally unstable by physical appearance.

Sociopaths know how to behave.

[jeff47]

10. Um, no.

we learn this shooting could have been prevented by a simple check by deputies who simply got lazy and didn't follow up.

How, exactly?

He had committed no crime. He was not threatening to commit a crime. He was not ruled legally insane.

There's no grounds under which the police could have taken his guns.

[derby378]

13. As the OP states, however...

...the deputies came to Rodger's home in response to his mother's fears about his well-being. And wasn't he seeing a professional mental health counselor at the time?

Sounds like perfect justification in California for at least a temporary confiscation until this kid could sort his life out and get whatever help he needed.

[jeff47]

15. It sounds lovely. But that's not legal.

The law requires him to have committed a crime, directly threatening to commit a crime, or to meet the enormous threshold for legal insanity.

He did none of the above. Even if the police knew about his guns, he still would have done none of the above.

Hence the need for a change. Make it so that a therapist's concerns or a family member's concerns allow the police to take his guns.

That way the police can seize his guns based on the mom's concerns, and then he can have a hearing before a court to get them back. That gives time for a more thorough evaluation of the situation while erring on the side of safety.

[alcina]

28. It's been legal for some time now...

but it requires a possibly more experienced* therapist:

"The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California

*I, of course, have no insight into the skills of this therapist; and if, as some suggest, the shooter was a true sociopath, he could easily have fooled someone who was more used to dealing with mainstream mental health issues. If, however, the therapist has any notes suggesting that the shooter was a potential homicide/suicide risk, I sure hope he or she has a sh**load of liability insurance.

[jeff47]

29. He didn't have a therapist at the time.

Basically, I'm talking about extending that concept to include family members, in cases like this where the person is not being seen by a therapist at the time.

[alcina]

33. So which therapist warned his mother?

I admit I'm probably not spending nearly as much time as I should reading all the articles and analyses of this event, so I've jumped to a few conclusions -- most recently, that he was currently in therapy. Certainly this one article suggests that:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/27/could-therapy-culture-help-explain-ellio

Note that this link was found in a very quick search of "elliot rodger's therapist", so I cannot attest to its credibility.

Do you happen to know when he last saw a therapist? I'm asking that seriously, since there's every indication that his parents knew he needed ongoing help.

[jeff47]

35. IDK offhand

Several news reports claimed that he had seen multiple therapists in the past, but was not currently seeing one. Now that I'm googling for them, I keep coming across the stories about emailing the manifesto, which aren't completely clear on the subject. They're written as if he "emailed his therapist", but don't indicate if he was currently seeing the therapist - it's just a sentence thrown in the story.

In any case, I'm proposing adding family due to other mass shootings where the parents knew something was up, but couldn't get the shooter into therapy. Such as the Giffords shooting. Or when they stop seeing their therapist, as in the Aurora shooting.

[medeak]

34. suffered reading his manifesto

and his quote counselors just took him to lunch and dinners to socialize arranged by his mom

[seveneyes]

56. They could and should have taken his guns

The little psycho punk was making threats and showing signs of impending disaster. I sometimes wonder if the police intentionally allow sick pukes like this to run amok to help justify their brutish actions and budgets. For those of us that have been through this cycle and survived, there is no doubt this prick should have had his weapons confiscated and his ass and head straightened, or locked up until he was not a threat.

[Sunlei]

62. His family did not know he had guns. He didn't speak of his threats/hate/rage to the Doctors.

He did act 'weird' with hateful threats/ "fantasize brutal killings" with the couple of friends he had.

That's probably why his couple 'friends' distanced themselves from him and people didn't like him.

[Sunlei]

63. IMO any person on Doctors major medications should be banned from gun/alcohol buys.

Let the Doctors prescription flag the person.

They tell people anyway to get rid of guns and do not drink on the medication.

Our gun laws suck.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Damnit california.

This shit is what makes it so hard to actually pass meaningful gun regulations. Just about every single proposal has been tried already in California, and can be pointed to as a cautionary tale of shitty implementation.


Yes, I am a gun owner, and I have lots of guns. But I am also in favor of registration for a variety of reasons. But I get California thrown in my face every time I bring it up, because in California, the used the Assault Weapon registry to confiscate some rifles (or force them to be sold out of state, turned in, or destroyed) because part of the registration period was overturned by a judge.

It's cool that California wants to be progressive with this sort of regulation, but if they could please stop fucking it up, that would be great, tia

[frylock]

18. california didn't fuck up shit. the blame lies with the lazy fucking cops.

[alp227]

3. With the new facts coming out lately about the negligence by police,

I wonder if Rodger were black, Latino, or... Middle Eastern, the police would have investigated Rodger a lot more aggressively and stopped Rodger in his tracks. Honestly, I can NOT imagine a Muslim getting away with publishing a hundred page manifesto and a bunch of crazy Youtube videos like Rodger did. The feds would have been wiretapping the Muslim immediately.

[pnwmom]

4. The parents of the dead who were shot might have a legal claim against the city.

I hope they try -- and succeed. There is no excuse for the police not using the available data base. What the heck do they think it's for?

[christx30]

44. Police have no obligation to protect people, just enforce the law.

They don't have to stop someone from murdering me, as long as they investigate and arrest my murderer.

[seveneyes]

57. You're damn right and it happens more often than people know

And had you defended yourself against him, and he died in the process, you would be locked up, sleeping on the floor of an overcrowded jail with real criminals all around you. After tens of thousands of dollars later and perhaps weeks or months in jail, you MIGHT get it all cleared up and be free to wait for it to happen again.

[christx30]

59. So you are against self

defense, then? Someone's life is at the whim of criminals and psychopaths.
Police don't have to give a crap if you live or die. People are on their own.

[seveneyes]

60. I'm all for self defense

What I am against are the authorities leaving obviously dangerous people armed after they have made threats to do harm to others. That, and how people who defend themselves are mistreated when they are forced to defend themselves.

[Tikki]

6. I wonder if the mother had asked for a domestic violence check instead of a well-being check

that the police/sheriff would have entered the premises and checked out the apartment?

Tikki

[jeff47]

8. And?

Let's say they had searched that database.

Under what law would they have been able to seize the guns or arrest him?

From the article:

“Their assessment could have changed if they knew about the gun purchases and asked him about them,” said Daniel W. Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “They could have asked to see the guns. They could have let him know they knew he had them.”

And then what?

The article says the DB would have shown he bought a lot of ammo. Again, not grounds for an arrest.

“If they found out he bought 40 magazines, that would have been the end of it,” said Wintemute, who is also an emergency room doctor and professor of emergency medicine. “I don’t think anyone could talk their way out of 40 magazines. Three handguns could be aggressive collecting; 40 magazines is stockpiling. You are preparing for some kind of event. With the family saying he was possibly suicidal, it wouldn’t have been too hard to connect the dots.”

Stockpiling isn't illegal. Having suicidal thoughts and stockpiling are not illegal.

First, deputies could have confronted Rodger with the details of his purchases and asked to see the firearms, requesting that he surrender them. Rodger might have complied if pressed.

He also might have put on a tutu and started singing Wagner.

Second, the deputies could have returned to Rodger’s family with the information about the gun purchases and asked for more details about his situation. This could have helped the deputies secure a search warrant and to make the case that he was a danger to himself and possibly others, giving them the authority to seize the weapons.

Secure a search warrant based on what? Still no crime. Also gun ownership or large ammunition purchases aren't grounds for involuntary committal.

Thanks the the efforts of the NRA, there is no law under which the police could have seized those guns. He would have to have already committed a crime, or be directly threatening to do so, or be so crazy that he gets involuntarily committed. And thanks to shitty funding after Reagan, the threshold on that last one is extremely high.

What needs to change is a family member or therapist should be able to report that they suspect that person is going to harm themselves or others. That should result in an immediate confiscation of firearms and ammo, and blocking new purchases, until a hearing can be held. At that hearing, the person can make the case to get their guns back. They'll either get the guns back, or the court can order the ban to continue based on the individual case.

[hack89]

11. 5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold)

Section 5150 is a section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code (specifically, the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act or "LPS&quot which allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person suspected to have a mental disorder that makes him or her a danger to self, a danger to others, and/or gravely disabled. A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician, can request the confinement after signing a written declaration. When used as a term, 5150 (pronounced "fifty-one-fifty&quot can informally refer to the person being confined or to the declaration itself, or (colloquially) as a verb, as in "I have a possible 5150 here" or &quot Someone) was 5150ed".

CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, SECTION 5150, second paragraph, "... an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, and stating that the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_%28involuntary_psychiatric_hold%29

If you had put all the pieces together (guns, ammo and videos) would you doubt for a second that he was a potential threat to himself or others?

[jeff47]

12. And the threshold for that is well beyond what he was doing.

The threshold for

suspected to have a mental disorder that makes him or her a danger to self, a danger to others, and/or gravely disabled.

is well beyond what he was displaying at the time. Angsty videos and a worried mom do not reach that threshold.

He would have had to say something like "I'm going to go use these guns to shoot up everyone at that sorority". Instead, he said he was lonely, depressed and mad at society. No direct threat.

If you had put all the pieces together (guns, ammo and videos) would you doubt for a second that he was a potential threat to himself or others?

Again, this is the law, not after-the-fact finger pointing.

There were no grounds to seize his guns. That's kinda the point of the change I proposed - to make there be grounds to seize his guns.

[petronius]

14. There is a (revived) proposal for a 'gun violence restraining order' in CA

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/us/california-killing-spree-legislation/

Sounds like what you're describing...

[hack89]

16. Sieze the guns?

so he could only knife his room mates and run over people in his car? I guess that is an improvement.

Why not change the threshold so he can be involuntarily committed?

[jeff47]

19. Because the goal isn't to stop only this specific incident.

The goal is to make this incident not as bad, as well as the theater shooting, the Giffords shooting, Columbine, and so on. Even with the change I'm proposing, Sandy Hook would have still happened.

We know now that he was crazy, but that's only after the incident. Before the incident, his public behavior was similar to "angst-ridden teen". Even his mom's concerns were not based on any specific incident.

To capture him within your threshold, that threshold would have to be extremely low. It would cover an enormous percentage of the teen/young 20's population.

[hack89]

22. But you will have to give him his guns back unless he is adjudicated mentally unfit to own guns.

that's the problem - you cannot permanently revoke a constitutional right without due process. So he is either convicted of a felony or adjudicated mentally unfit. You just can't permanently take away his guns because he has the potential to do harm.

Due process is not a concept we want to weaken.

[jeff47]

24. And that's why my proposal includes a hearing.

The guns are only taken away until that hearing.

Basically, err on the side of safety until that hearing can happen, which is not going to be an unreasonable amount of time.

At the hearing, the judge can give the guns back, rule him unfit, or rule for further psychological care and schedule another hearing.

[hack89]

27. I would have no real problem with that

as long as there are strong civil rights protections

[petronius]

36. Here's a link to the CA Assembly Bill I mentioned above:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml

They are proposing a procedure by which anyone can petition a magistrate for a firearm restraining order or removal warrant.

DIVISION 3.2. Gun Violence Restraining Orders

18100. (a) A gun violence restraining order is an order, in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate, prohibiting a named person from having under his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms for a period of up to one year.

(b) A firearm seizure warrant is an order, in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate, regarding a person who is subject to a gun violence restraining order and who is known to own or possess one or more firearms, which is directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to seize any firearms in the possession of the named person and to bring the unloaded firearm before the magistrate.

18101. (a) Any person may submit an application to the court, on a form designed by the Judicial Council, setting forth the facts and circumstances necessitating that a gun violence restraining order be issued. A gun violence restraining order shall be issued to prohibit a named person from possessing a firearm if an affidavit, signed by the applicant under oath, and any additional information provided to the court demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, the named person poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself or herself or others by possessing firearms.

(b) A firearms seizure warrant may not be issued but upon probable cause, supported by an affidavit, naming or describing with reasonable specificity the facts and circumstances justifying the order and listing any firearm or firearms to be seized pursuant to the order.

(c) A firearm described in the firearms seizure warrant may be taken from any place, or from any person in whose possession the firearm may be.

18102. (a) The magistrate, before issuing the gun violence restraining order, may examine on oath, the person seeking the order and any witnesses the person produces, and shall take his or her affidavit or affidavits in writing, and cause the affidavit or affidavits to be subscribed by the parties making them.

(b) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the magistrate shall consider all of the following:
(1) A recent threat or act of violence by the named person directed toward others.
(2) A recent threat or act of violence by the named person directed toward himself or herself.
(3) A recent violation of an emergency protective order pursuant to Section 646.91 or Part 3 (commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code.
(4) A recent violation of a protective order issued pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 10 of the Family Code, Section 136.2, Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(5) A conviction for any offense listed in Section 29805.

(c) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the magistrate may consider any of the following:
(1) The reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the named person.
(2) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the named person against other persons.
(3) Any prior arrest of the named person for a felony offense.
(4) Any history of a violation by the named person of an emergency protective order issued pursuant to Section 646.91 or Part 3 (commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code.
(5) Any history of a violation by the named person of a protective order issued pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 10 of the Family Code, Section 136.2, Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(6) Evidence of recent or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the named person.
(7) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.

(d) The affidavit or affidavits shall set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the application, or probable cause for believing that they exist.

(e) In lieu of the written affidavit required in subdivision (a), the magistrate may take an oral statement under oath using the procedures prescribed in Section 1526.

[pediatricmedic]

39. That honestly looks like it is perfect for abuse of a persons rights

Guess what, I don't like you, so I am going to go file a GVRO on you. You were waving a pistol around and acting all crazy. So what if you don't own any guns, you must have hid it before the cops arrived. You are guilty now because you won't show them the gun and won't cooperate with their authority.

If you are any color except for white, you have a really good chance of the cops beating or shooting you in a situation like this.

Do you see how this could be abused?

[joshcryer]

43. At minimum it would've been cause for a search warrant.

And you know it.

[jeff47]

50. Already addressed that.

Already covered that in the post you replied to. Search warrant based on what? He hadn't done anything yet.

And then they find....jack shit. The guy didn't directly threaten anything until right before he started his spree.

[joshcryer]

52. I didn't say they would get one based on that.

But they could've turned that nervous polite kid into a babbling mess if they knew he had guns. They could've used all sorts of mind tricks.

"Sir, we're concerned for your safety, may we see the way your weapons are stored?"

The kid wrote in his manifesto that he was worried they'd go into his room. There was no indication that he wasn't going to comply with them.

400 rounds, guns, a known mental patient, they could've easily used that information to continue forward with the investigation. I know first hand what happens when the cops are called and "he has a gun" is mentioned. They want to see the gun first and foremost. They want to make sure its safed somewhere.

[jeff47]

53. Again, investigation of what?

Again, he had not done anything that would have allowed the police to do anything until right before his spree.

So search his room. Despite his fears, there was nothing the cops could do. (Based on all currently available information)

[joshcryer]

54. We don't know what they could've found.

But I know first hand what happens when the cops are called and guns are mentioned.

At minimum his room would've been looked over. Who knows what other probable cause could've happened.

You act as if there is nothing that they could've done, you don't know what the police would've observed had they looked over his guns (and ammunition). He said as much in his manifesto.

[msanthrope]

45. Knowledge of the fact he was armed would have undeniably changed the stance of the

cops and their interactions with him. What the result would have been, we do not know.

[jeff47]

49. So it would have caused magic pixies to save the day. (nt)

[msanthrope]

58. No--but I think he benefited from his rather meek, upper middle class appearance. Had they

known he was armed, I think the questioning would have been more extensive, and perhaps the police would have been more guarded.

[frylock]

17. didn't bother to watch the videos, didn't bother to check database..

just what the fuck are we paying these people for?

[jeff47]

20. And if they had done so, what would have changed?

The videos at the time did not include a direct threat. The only one with a direct threat was uploaded as he started the attack.

The ownership of guns, ammo and lots of magazines isn't grounds for an investigation either, thanks to our friends at the NRA.

[frylock]

21. who the fuck knows?!

maybe it scares this kid enough after the cops find his arsenal that he doesn't follow through. we'll never know because these fucking incompetents couldn't even make the minimum effort.

[jeff47]

23. The entire point is there was nothing the cops could do

even if they had found his "arsenal".

You're relying on the fantasy that he confesses when the cops ask "what's with the guns?" Given that he was sucessfully not confessing to anyone else, that's pretty damn unlikely.

There's plenty of "bad" cops. We should criticize the ones who actually are.

[frylock]

25. the entire point was there was nothing they did. full fucking stop.

good day.

[jeff47]

26. So you want the cops to break the law.

That's an excellent plan.

So which cases should the cops ignore the law, and which ones should they obey the law?

Perhaps instead of that, we could actually change the law so there would be something the cops could have done?

[frylock]

30. what laws did i suggest the cops break?

link to post please.

[jeff47]

32. You are suggesting that they should have seized his guns

Which, thanks the the NRA, is forbidden via a bunch of laws and regulations, up to this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Only way the cops could have legally done anything is if he:
1) Was convicted of a crime (nope)
2) Was making a direct threat to commit a crime (he wasn't)
3) Met the extremely high threshold for involuntary committal (he hadn't done anything sufficiently insane)

You are insisting that the cops could have done something. Therefore, you are insisting they break some law. Perhaps if they roughed him up a little he would have started talking.

The man had done nothing up to this point that would have allowed the police to seize his guns. Which is why we need new law, so that is not the case in future incidents.

[stone space]

55. The law needs to recognize that guns and ammo are a privilage, not a right. (nt)

[Hekate]

41. What law would they have broken if they had bothered to watch his video online? It was on YouTube

The fact is, his own mother called the cops on him she was so worried, and told them about the video. Why did they not go online and watch it? They would have gotten a whole different read on his character, wouldn't they?

All as legal as you please, since he had uploaded it for the whole world to see.

I don't understand your tangent.

[TorchTheWitch]

47. "the video" wasn't online until just a minutes or so before the attack

He commenced the attack immediately after uploading "the video" and sending it to his parents and his therapist. At the time of the welfare check weeks earlier his mother wasn't even worried about him killing anyone including himself. She asked for the welfare check because she had seen OTHER videos he had online at that time that only described how he was lonely and depressed. There was nothing at the time of the welfare check to indicate he was in danger of harming himself or anyone else. When they talked to him during the welfare check they found him to be fine. He told them that when he did the benign videos he was just having some teenage angst and was ok now. They believed him because he was good at acting perfectly fine, well-spoken and embarrassed that he'd worried his mother because of the videos that he said he made at a time he was feeling down.

Whatever the mother told the police wasn't sufficient to be all that concerned since she didn't have any idea how bad he was either. He was VERY good at hiding his madness from everyone particularly the people closest to him like his parents and anyone like the police that could thwart what he intended to do.

The bottom line is that there just wasn't anything at the time including his mother's worries in what she told the police and what they believed when they made the welfare check, and he seemed perfectly fine even explaining away the benign videos that gave his mother some sort of concern.

It's all very well in hindsight to say why didn't the police do this or that when in talking to his mother, doing the welfare check and finding him to be perfectly normal and when the law forbids them to do anything else... he hadn't done the manifesto yet, they couldn't search his place, and even if the guns he bought were in plain sight they still couldn't legally confiscate them.

NO ONE, including his mother believed he was either suicidal or homicidal at the time of the welfare check, and without his manifesto online at that time there was no reason to suspect that he was anything but perfectly normal when they did the welfare check. He even said in his manifesto that he went out of his way to behave perfectly normally during the welfare check and even made a plausible excuse for his benign videos about being lonely and depressed that were all that was available at that time.

[onecaliberal]

31. You can bet your bottom dollar

that is this kid had been black, the swat team would have answered the initial call. The cops dropped the ball in so many ways, they are partly culpable. Had they done their job, people might still be alive.

[DallasNE]

37. It's Hard To Say

Unless the Santa Barbara deputies are somehow reprimanded then there is no disincentive and nothing changes. That is, unless people of color are involved.

[theHandpuppet]

38. Sloppy police work

But he was such a nice, polite boy!

Do you think the response might have been a little different had he been a poor black kid caught with a joint?

[Hekate]

42. I think the response would have been different if they had bothered to watch the video

[Historic NY]

40. If there was one merged database...

perhaps this wouldn't have gotten by. I thought after 911 LE agencies were supposed to coperate and share information. Apparently its only as good as the place it ends up. There is no reason in this day that inputing a name will result in all the data assigned to that name or names for sorting.

Hell credit agencies know if you farted while filling out a loan form.

[mackerel]

46. I mentioned this to a group I was with and one of the men in the group

Last edited Sun Jun 1, 2014, 02:19 AM - Edit history (1)

is in law enforcement and he swears there is no such database and that basically this article that I mentioned is just left wing b.s.

[Jefferson23]

48. That was terrible lack of follow through by police. His parents funded his needs, no?

How were the guns paid for, by cash..did he have his own credit card, pay his own bills?

Lots of questions remain.

[Duckhunter935]

51. I agree with you

They had the data, they visited him prior to the murders and really could have stopped it.

[Sunlei]

61. He hid 5k of family gifts $ to buy guns, and he hid the fact he bought guns from his family.

He hid the fact he went to 'rent a gun'-ranges and got comfortable using guns.

It was his Mothers home, she could have asked the police to search his room. The shooter hid a lot from his whole family and the police.
In his writings he was ready to kill his step-mother and his little brother.

He even 'fooled' the police. In his writings he intended to suicide (using 2 guns) when police closed in on him. And he did.

[antiGOPin294]

64. Yet more evidence that the police in this country are a bunch of incompetent dopes.

Honestly, would the police have needed that much more time to do a background check on this maniac? Maybe then this horrible tragedy would have been averted.