CA - Elliot Rodger kills 6, injures 13 in Isla Vista, Near UC Santa Barbara, #2

[Flutterby80]

I was thinking about all of this the other day. It seems like in cases like being dispatched to ER's apartment last month, officers have to quickly weigh the target's rights (ER) against those of the general public. Usually, I am guessing, without much information. And it makes sense that when you think of ER's rights that day, LE looked at those as if he is not perceived by them as a threat, they have no right to take him in or interfere with his life. Remember, the call to them was to check on HIS well-being, and he seemed fine to them. Awkward and sad, but not dangerous to himself or others.

They were WRONG, of course, but it doesn't seem to me that they were negligent.

One thing that does trouble me is that he had 3 legally registered weapons and that should have been very easy for LE to look up. It seems like there should be some sort of more intensive protocol when checking on the mental well-being of someone who owns firearms. Either taking the guns away until a doctor clears the person as safe, or doing at least a more in-depth interview with them.

 

[jjenny]

JMO It might be ER being the son of a famous Hollywood director afforded him special treatment. At least I think that's what OP was saying.

How? Especially considering the relative was the one initiating the wellness check, special treatment for police would be to check everything, including the videos, to make sure he doesn't plan to kill himself or others.

 

[jjenny]

I was thinking about all of this the other day. It seems like in cases like being dispatched to ER's apartment last month, officers have to quickly weigh the target's rights (ER) against those of the general public. Usually, I am guessing, without much information. And it makes sense that when you think of ER's rights that day, LE looked at those as if he is not perceived by them as a threat, they have no right to take him in or interfere with his life. Remember, the call to them was to check on HIS well-being, and he seemed fine to them. Awkward and sad, but not dangerous to himself or others.

They were WRONG, of course, but it doesn't seem to me that they were negligent.

One thing that does trouble me is that he had 3 legally registered weapons and that should have been very easy for LE to look up. It seems like there should be some sort of more intensive protocol when checking on the mental well-being of someone who owns firearms. Either taking the guns away until a doctor clears the person as safe, or doing at least a more in-depth interview with them.

They were told about the videos and they didn't view them. If that is proper procedure, what would be the improper one? If they had viewed the videos, and he is suicidal/homicidal in the videos, they could have taken him for involuntary commitment, searched his room, found his guns and manifesto, and stopped this whole thing from happening.

 

[jjenny]

I'm not sure what the other videos were that were uploaded on April 30. Whatever they were, the content was concerning enough that someone reported him to the police.

From what I have seen reported, his mother was the one who reported him to a mental health professional, who then called police. So, yes, must have been concerning enough, but police didn't bother to view them.

 

[Flutterby80]

They were told about the videos and they didn't view them. If that is proper procedure, what would be the improper one? If they had viewed the videos, and he is suicidal/homicidal in the videos, they could have taken him for involuntary commitment, searched his room, found his guns and manifesto, and stopped this whole thing from happening.

I haven't seen anything that suggests he posted homicidal videos before the day of the actual crimes, but maybe I missed it. And I am just thinking about the logistics of watching the videos before going to check on him. I imagine these were patrol officers already out on patrol and just quickly responded to the call vs. watching videos first. I doubt anyone who called it in said they thought he was dangerous to anyone but himself.

Again, I could be wrong.

 

[Isabelle]

I really don't think the father is that famous. He was an assistant director on one film which did fairly well and director, writer, producer, etc. on one filmed which totally bombed.

I think he was much more successful and probably better known in the international world of commercial photography and advertising. IMO, the mother and father and step-mother are by no means the epitome of the Hollywood elite that some of the media personality / talking heads keep saying.

And what a film to be associated with. I know it's all the rage but considering the circumstances...

 

[Quester]

The official SBCSO story as of yesterday, BBM:

April 30, 2014 "Check the Welfare" Call
At approximately 10:17 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2014, the Santa Barbara County Emergency Communications Center received a call from a mental health staff member assigned to answer the Santa Barbara County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Toll Free Access Line. The staff member requested deputies check the welfare of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who lived at an apartment in the 6500 block of Seville Road in Isla Vista. The staff member said she had been contacted by a person who identified himself as a friend of Elliot Rodger. Based on information from the caller and Elliot Rodger’s mother, the staff member on the Mental Health hot line requested a welfare check on Elliot Rodger.

http://local.nixle.com/alert/5206455/
​

[modsnip]

 

[lawstudent]

They were told about the videos and they didn't view them. If that is proper procedure, what would be the improper one? If they had viewed the videos, and he is suicidal/homicidal in the videos, they could have taken him for involuntary commitment, searched his room, found his guns and manifesto, and stopped this whole thing from happening.

We have to know more about the exact sequence of events and all that before making a judgment, but one issue is that I don't think people realize how many videos and posts there are threatening violence all over the Internet. Most of them are jokes, because they are literally in every single comments section online and yet are rarely carried out. Teens like to be stupid and dramatic. So many people say awful things in breakups or while trying to be cool. There are more and more getting arrested for online threats that in many cases do seem to be stupid jokes, but now people don't want to take the chance. So the police are only going to get worried when the threats are very particularized, usually naming a specific place or person, and then they usually will go follow up with the person and figure out how weird they seem and if they have a history of violence.

I can't figure out what info we have - who called in the videos? The mom, right? If it was a welfare check, it doesn't sound like she emphasized the fact that she thought he'd attack others, as maybe she didn't watch the whole thing, but just realized he wasn't acting right and he wasn't responding to her and making comments in the email that sounded suicidal. The police determine he is alive and aware and non-threatening, and that's it.

Even if they had viewed them, they have to judge whether the threats are serious and particular enough, and if he's acting normal, they probably could have charged him criminally, but not have held him in a psych hospital (maybe without bail, though). That may have been enough for a search warrant and then hopefully this all would have been avoided. Merely holding him for being a danger doesn't justify a search warrant, though. But in this case, he was expressing intent to commit a crime, so it would have.

ETA: And weren't they taken down?

 

[Quester]

Is there anyway of looking at the properties, or whatever, of each video to look for the date each one was filmed?

Or would we only find the date the video's were uploaded? TIA

 

[Bernina]

I was thinking about all of this the other day. It seems like in cases like being dispatched to ER's apartment last month, officers have to quickly weigh the target's rights (ER) against those of the general public. Usually, I am guessing, without much information. And it makes sense that when you think of ER's rights that day, LE looked at those as if he is not perceived by them as a threat, they have no right to take him in or interfere with his life. Remember, the call to them was to check on HIS well-being, and he seemed fine to them. Awkward and sad, but not dangerous to himself or others.

They were WRONG, of course, but it doesn't seem to me that they were negligent.

One thing that does trouble me is that he had 3 legally registered weapons and that should have been very easy for LE to look up. It seems like there should be some sort of more intensive protocol when checking on the mental well-being of someone who owns firearms. Either taking the guns away until a doctor clears the person as safe, or doing at least a more in-depth interview with them.

If the caller (health facility or whatever ER's mom contacted) had indicated "suicide/homicide" as far as a well being check, LE would have asked "the caller" if ER had access to weapons. That would have initiated a background check for weapons. They would have asked if ER was on meds so they could ascertain if he presented as a possible overdose in process.

As far as I know, NO ONE knew he had weapons (except the roommate(s) and the gun stores).
The health facility/therapist wouldn't know about weapons unless ER, or some other entity had told them.
ER was not involuntarily hospitalized at any point, so no flags for "prohibited possessor".

If you are mentally ill, own guns, and have never been "titled" into a mental health facility, protocol for Arizona is your DR./therapist/whoever to give you a document stating that you are aware that your Dr. has cautioned you against owning fire arms. They also send you the same document. Been there, done that.

The point being, LE/Dr.s, etc., can't do anything without prior knowledge.

 

[Whiteorchids]

Are we allowed to post a photo of his sister or is that against TOS? She's very pretty. It's strange ER doesn't mention her very much in his manifesto. I doubt they were close.

 

[Quester]

Santa Barbara rampage: San Jose victim posthumously cleared of 'candle theft'
http://www.contracostatimes.com/new...-rampage-san-jose-victim-posthumously-cleared

 

[Bernina]

This has been posted several times before:
One source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/justice/california-elliot-rodger-timeline/

December 2012: Rodger bought his first hand gun, a Glock 34 semiautomatic pistol. He wrote that it was his "first act of preparation" for his planned attacks. "I did this quickly and hastily, at a local gun shop ... " he wrote.

Spring 2013: "During this Spring of 2013, I began to seriously think about planning the Day of Retribution," Rodger wrote. He purchased a second hand gun, which he said was "of a much higher quality than the Glock" he bought in December. The Sig Sauer P226 was "a lot more efficient."

He had $5,000 saved to "buy all of the supplies and equipment I would need," he wrote.
"The Spring of 2013 was also the time when I came across the website PUAHate.com," he wrote.

July 2013: Rodger wrote that he attempted a "last ditch effort of desperation" just days before his 22nd birthday "to live an enjoyable college life" in Isla Vista.

Rodger, intoxicated from shots of vodka, tried to push girls off a 10-foot ledge after a "dark, hate-fueled rage overcame my entire being," he wrote. Instead, he fell off the ledge and hurt his leg.

Also that month, Rodger filed a complaint against a roommate who he accused of stealing $20 worth of candles from him, according to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff.

August 2013: Rodger's broken leg meant a delay.
His mother gave him "a better car" in August, he wrote. The BMW 3-series coupe "gave me one last twinge of hope as the remaining months of 2013 passed."

September 2013: Two new roommates moved into the Isla Vista apartment with Rodger. He quickly added them to the list of people he planned to kill. "I knew that when the Day of Retribution came, I would have to kill my housemates to get them out of the way. "

January 2014: Rodger picked a date for his attacks: April 26, 2014. He ruled out Valentine's Day because he needed more time to prepare, although he wrote that the date "would have been very fitting, since it was the holiday that made me feel the most miserable and insulted."

April 2014: The only preparations remaining as Rodger's chosen date approach was the completion of his "My Twisted World" manifesto and recording his last video, he wrote. He uploaded several videos to YouTube "in order to express my views and feelings to the world" in the week leading up to April 26, he said. One was titled "Why do girls hate me so much?"

Rodger's mother saw his new videos online in late April and called police to ask that they check on her son. Seven officers knocked on his apartment door on April 30, he wrote. (NOTE*several articles say she called a health facility* added by me )

He took down the videos from YouTube that disturbed his mother.

May 2014: "During the last few weeks of my life, I continued my daily adventures around town, trying to experience as much of the world as I could before I die," Rodger wrote. He uploaded the "Why do girls hate me so much?" video again to YouTube on May 22.

Rodger uploaded his final video, in which he described his motives, just before leaving his apartment for his shooting spree.

At 9:17 p.m., he e-mailed his 107,000 word story -- titled "My Twisted World" -- to about a dozen people, including his parents and a therapists. His mother watched his final video online, called her ex-husband and then police.

 

[Salem]

Are we allowed to post a photo of his sister or is that against TOS? She's very pretty. It's strange ER doesn't mention her very much in his manifesto. I doubt they were close.

No, no posting of photos, except for the perp.

Thanks for asking first :loveyou:

Salem

 

[lawstudent]

Ok, so the police didn't have access to that threatening video at the time. Thanks for the timeline.

If the caller (health facility or whatever ER's mom contacted) had indicated "suicide/homicide" as far as a well being check, LE would have asked "the caller" if ER had access to weapons. That would have initiated a background check for weapons. They would have asked if ER was on meds so they could ascertain if he presented as a possible overdose in process.

Even if his mom knew he had weapons, a background check wouldn't have shown anything, would it? And I would assume if they talked to him as part of a well-being check, they would notice if he appeared to be ODing on something, as it would have been obvious (if you OD on sedatives/painkillers, you go unconscious first and your breathing slows). They would have been entitled to take him to the hospital at that point. So I would assume he hadn't taken tons of meds at the time the police visited. As you said, their hands were tied.

 

[Bernina]

Ok, so the police didn't have access to that threatening video at the time. Thanks for the timeline.



Even if his mom knew he had weapons, a background check wouldn't have shown anything, would it? And I would assume if they talked to him as part of a well-being check, they would notice if he appeared to be ODing on something, as it would have been obvious (if you OD on sedatives/painkillers, you go unconscious first and your breathing slows). They would have been entitled to take him to the hospital at that point. So I would assume he hadn't taken tons of meds at the time the police visited. As you said, their hands were tied.

California requires all guns to be registered and ER DID buy his firearms through authorized guns stores that did do a background check. It would have shown up on LE's computers IF they had run a firearm check.

But............no one knew or said anything about firearms.

PS. California has one of the strictest fire arms policy in the Nation. My BiL, who is retired San Jose LE even has to go through all the hoops when he buys a firearm (he's a collector).

 

[Whiteorchids]

I haven't seen anything that suggests he posted homicidal videos before the day of the actual crimes, but maybe I missed it. And I am just thinking about the logistics of watching the videos before going to check on him. I imagine these were patrol officers already out on patrol and just quickly responded to the call vs. watching videos first. I doubt anyone who called it in said they thought he was dangerous to anyone but himself.



Again, I could be wrong.

I think in the future it would be very helpful to give officers more training on how to deal with MI people on calls. Get a short background history before they respond to the call. Teach them that people with Serious MI can easily hide their symptoms for a short time in order to appear normal. This is very common with MI and LE should not make their decision strictly on what the person says.

What should ER have opened the door crazed and psycho, told the cops yes I'm so crazy psycho mad and I am going to blow away every pretty girl and obnoxious guy in SB soon. Please come in and see all my guns. Is that the only way the cops would have said Ok we will commit him?

Im sorry I feel the cops let ER slip through the cracks. I hope they are held partly culpable for not doing more. Maybe it was time for their Friday donut break and didn't want to spend much time on this call. They could have politely asked ER to look around. I don't think ER realized they needed a warrant anyway. He never mentioned a warrant in his manifesto.

Sad, sad, sad

 

[Bernina]

I think in the future it would be very helpful to give officers more training on how to deal with MI people on calls. Get a short background history before they respond to the call. Teach them that people with Serious MI can easily hide their symptoms for a short time in order to appear normal. This is very common with MI and LE should not make their decision strictly on what the person says.

What should ER have opened the door crazed and psycho, told the cops yes I'm so crazy psycho mad and I am going to blow away every pretty girl and obnoxious guy in SB soon. Please come in and see all my guns. Is that the only way the cops would have said Ok we will commit him?

Im sorry I feel the cops let ER slip through the cracks. I hope they are held partly culpable for not doing more. Maybe it was time for their Friday donut break and didn't want to spend much time on this call. They could have politely asked ER to look around. I don't think ER realized they needed a warrant anyway. He never mentioned a warrant in his manifesto.

Sad, sad, sad

From everything I've read, LE did NOT drop the ball. They were given specific information on a "welfare check". The manifesto was sent out moments before his rampage, NOT the month prior when LE came knocking on his door.
They don't need a search warrant if there is "probable cause", but ER had it covered.

 

[Bernina]

This is the complete Manifesto:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225960813/Elliot-Rodger-Santa-Barbara-mass-shooting-suspect-My-Twisted-World-manifesto

It can answer quite a few questions that have been asked over the last few days.:twocents:

 

[Whiteorchids]

From everything I've read, LE did NOT drop the ball. They were given specific information on a "welfare check". The manifesto was sent out moments before his rampage, NOT the month prior when LE came knocking on his door.

They don't need a search warrant if there is "probable cause", but ER had it covered.

But if his mom and or Therapist would have given officers a quick rundown of his history and that mom and dad thought he could be suicidal they would have had reasonable cause to proceed further. The long time family friend said the parents thought he was capable of killing himself but not others.