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

[Sedonia Sunset]

The previous case was him making a citizen arrest on his roommate over candle theft. I don't know why that would lead to special treatment.

He also called the police (I think) when he was pushed off the ledge. When the police investigated and heard the other people's version, the issue was dropped, with the police leaning toward ER as being the instigator of the incident.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

They rarely name the "source". I don't buy it unless there's a name.
If these "alleged" threats exist, the media is feeding it.:twocents:

I think there ARE certain people who enjoy sending or posting "death threats" whenever they see anything in the news that garners a lot of attention. I don't know why anyone would do that in this day and age, considering the tools that could be used to find them, but it does happen. I agree that (most of the time) they are probably just blowing smoke and getting a sick sense of power by doing so.

OTOH, one of them could be the next ER in the making. HIS death threats were VERY real.

 

[gajonka]

Oh my goodness, thank you for that post, After hearing that I would HAVE to concur with you --its one person. If that was played to someone who knew nothing about this they would think there 8 bad guys running aroud

ANd in the first 3 seconds you can here his car crash _ I think after hearing that (his plan was to kill himself) BUT with bullets everywhere in all liklihood police killed him that might be why they are supsended until investigation done.

Autopsy please anyone know what kind of gun makes that final noise that thing was really creepy!

I just cant imagine "missing" with the amount of bullets flying around

//Good call on the three seconds - it does sound like (his) tires screeching. MOre to this video than we think, I think...
Enjoy,
G

 

[claudicici]

I love your last sentence--there is no doubt they are not sufficient. But the liberals and the rinos will all disagree.

As a liberal I completely agree with the last sentence if religion was substituted with spirituality.

 

[rose222]

hERE are the final moments.


Three unique shots at 0.16- 0.19 -




http://youtu.be/Bph7knnSdS8




I think sometimes LE is given way too much benefit of the doubt.
Is there a reason to riddle his car - and put 12 bullet holes in the kid?>? (it opens up with 12 straight shots)

If I was in command- I would issue a "take him alive order."

Cops- they spend a block of each day at the range. A large block for 7 days /week. Per Month. WHEN THE opportunity comes - when action permits... history has shown it gets overdone, overkill.

Now, I know you may disagree with vigor - but here's one:


Hofstra college - girls house- robber - invasion. Tells 1 girl to go to ATM for cash. She calls cops. Cops show up. Robber is outside of the house ( or maybe in the threshold of the door...)- with hostage - prettiest girl I have ever seen in like 3 years - he has her in front. Cops show up - BANG BANG. Kills girl, kills robber. (The sad part is the two girls were twins... so there were about five in the house... one twin went to ATM, other twin hostage... the father is LIVID... and he is irate at LE - he wants answers - is requesting disclosure about policy - and what happened that day - LE has been evasive, per the father, and reports in Newsday(the local bugle).

The officer was not from the hostage segment. So here he is - it's sort of like - what would you do if you were in his shoes? I am frustrated at how the events unfolded. There are some great LE officers out there - men of heroism, ethics, and intelligence.


Can you believe this?

Just saying, we need tact, - ER , his brain could be examined... answers... long term impact.

Plus, I hear overtime is a BIG thing in LE.

The video is the Boston bombing shootout, not the Elliot Rodger one.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

The thing is, people seem to not understand what 'rights' are provided by the government. Over and over again, I see "what about my child's right to live?" and "the criminals have rights, but what about us?"

The government guarantees you certain rights that it can control - most of these are things the government cannot do to you. The Constitution (and Court decisions interpreting it) guarantees that the government cannot subject you to cruel and unusual punishment, deprivation of property or liberty without due process, warrantless searches, slavery, discrimination, violation of your free speech and association rights, etc. We all have those rights. They tend to come up more once you've gotten in criminal trouble, but without these rights, a lot of everyday people would be affected by government intrusion.

The government does not guarantee that it will protect you from the actions of others, because it simply can't. It can try harder and do better, but it just can't guarantee it, so it really can't be a right. There is no right in this country to be safe, or to life, or to healthcare, or to a living wage, or to not be a victim of a crime, etc. The government cannot get in trouble for failing to provide these things.

It can be held liable for negligence in failing to comply with what it said it would, such as not following up when they clearly should have. So it's possible there could be a lawsuit against the police department itself, but it's unclear they deviated from established policy.

Obviously, I get why people are frustrated, but I think people misunderstand the role of government in this country, and its practical reach. It was never designed to protect us from other citizens.

.....but, but hold on there a second, Lawstudent. It makes no sense to say that they (governmental agencies) can't protect you and yet you say they can be held liable for negligence if they don't!!!!

For example, taxpayers pay for local police and fire, roadways,etc. As you very well know (being a lawstudent) with **payment**comes an automatic "contract". With a "contract" comes automatic duties which implies rites and some can assume guarantees that those duties will be performed within reason. . A good example is when a taxpaying citizen calls 911 on a home invasion. It is reasonable to assume that there will be a timely response---and if there is not, a lawsuit will ensue because the "contract" was broken...in essence the "guarantee" was broken.

We also have a lot of other examples where governmental agencies are hired and paid (i.e. a "contract") with a fiduciary resposibility to taxpayers aka citizens.
So what is implied and reasonably assumed is that this "contract" gives protection from not only government entities but also from other citizens.
It's about safety in general.

Lots of taxpayers would be really ticked if they were paying good money just so they would be protected from big government and not crazed/criminalistic citizens.

IMO, more protocols need to be put in place to prevent these recent college shootings done by crazed young men. We need better protocols & assessment tools for mental health and gun access. But that would probably be politically incorrect to classify the age, gender, type, of recent shooters which then negates any action. Sad but true.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Many prescribing providers are not licensed physicians (physician assistants and nurse practitioners, for example). Prescriptive authority can be given to PA's, ANP's, M's, DO's and others. Here is a link that describes this in my state of Colorado:

http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DORA-Reg/CBON/DORA/1251632267188

Currently, psychologists may only prescribe in two states, New Mexico and Louisiana, and in the U.S. military.

Which is why it is not EXTREMELY rare as you replied to one of my posts. And the scope of psychologists gaining script privileges is widening (legislatively).

 

[gajonka]

I agree. He kind of looked like the male version of Angelina Jolie.

It's amusing to see blonde girls - ranging all ages - emerge and you tube " If I saw his video I could have prevented this."

I'm convinced ( now , more than ever) regarding his condition:

"I am magnificent," "I am a supreme gentlemen,"

Maybe it's the "Oh Sherry," by Steve Perry musical adventure where he is sporting his Gucci blades - and gives a slight hiss to the camera.

He concedes in , I believe it's a gamer forum. "I am a metro sexual,"

I am rambling on here, but - cardinal rule - participate in sports, and you will make friends- these teams usually practice WEEKs to a month before the school year even started - so they are a band of friends.. there is nothing worse than having to listen to a bunch of people chat it up -with volume, with laughs, while you sit/ are forced to endure. Okay, now I remember where I/.m going with this -

Yes, the symptoms are there - and I will give him this : he WAS highly intelligent. As for looks - everyone has their preferences, but he shares with everyone:
"I mean, LOOK AT ME! I;m gorgeous."

I have a theory- and Kim Kardashian confirmed it for me. Here we have KIM - many use the term doll - a beautiful female- highly attractive.
One day, the 3 K girls were invited to attend a room filled with 100+ sales employees of Sears - as a new deal had been secured where Sears would not stock up on the Kardashian collection- like they do with Land's End, and like Kmart does with Martha Stewart.

(HANG with me - it's a good point)

Three empty chairs are positions in the front of a very large room - the employees of Sears have packed the place out, they rush to secure a seat, reference their notes, and chat amongst themselves, excited about the q+a session. Most of them are interested in hearing from Kim, and asking her what she thinks... she's the most popular of the three.

Back stage, the K girls huddle up and the host gives direction about the setting, and the types of questions they can expect.

"Wait, I have to answer questions? " Kim asks, freezing up.

Khloe and Courtney roll their eyes, and peak out to see the crowd assembled and getting restless.

"Yes, it's fine, easy questions about your style... and the line," replies the host.
" I can't do that..." Kim responds as the host steps out the door to formally begins the session. "I can't speak in front of large crowds," Kim finishes.



In a nutshell - the girls took their seats and Khloe and Courtney took turns answering the general questions that kicked off the road show.l
Fifteen minutes in.

"Uhm, this questions is for KIM, KIm can you tell us about your favorite product, and a little about your style?" a young female employee asks, smiling from ear to ear, excited to finally hear from Kim.

As it were, the entire room felt the same way - finally, they were going to hear from KIm, their leader, the most attractive, and talented of the K sisters... giving little utility to critics.

"Kim grips the mike...panics... silence. After 5 minutes of awkward silence, Khloe finally clicks her mike on and answers the question.


My theory is that sometimes, highly attractive people - feel they do not need, or maybe they aren't able to possess a talent - they stare in the mirror most of the time, and spend less time working hard to make something of their life.

ER had intelligence - but the moment de 86's the idea of becoming a write was the moment he sealed his fate.

It is sickening to think his logic was "Well, I analyzed authors, and most screenwriters and writers become millionaires at 40 or 50. I can't work my off for 20 years without sex!"

I may deleted this post - it is vague - but I am trying to convey a point about looks... where well, I'll stop...

Luv ya,
G

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Gajonka---

Don't delete your post! It brings up a lot of good points about Narcissism.

And I'm also still amazed at the brilliance of the article written by the Jeopardy guy that a poster put up. It highlighted misogony. It talks about men in our society believing that if they work hard and become successful that they **deserve** beautiful women, automatically. Beautiful women are just another accessory to their gradiose lives.

A bit O.T. = Here's my question: why do men think it is appropriate to make comments to women while they are simply doing their jobs (think professional job, professional attire)? Even if these comments are complimentary in nature, they are still so inappropriate and bizarre. For instance, I was told by a man **this week**...."you have such pretty hands" while I was typing in documentation (doing my job). And another one commented about my hair..."your hairstyle is so pretty---very retro---did you pick that or did your hairstylist"?

I'm not kidding! This week those two comments were said and a few others along those lines. Of course they are not nasty comments but as a woman, I would never go around telling a man while he was doing his job diligently---anything about his physical features or anything personal. It is to me a form of psychological power or pseudo-bullying. It is very arrogant.

Maybe it is Narcissism? (seguing back into the appropriate topic).:seeya:

 

[Snoods]

It's amusing to see blonde girls - ranging all ages - emerge and you tube " If I saw his video I could have prevented this."

I'm convinced ( now , more than ever) regarding his condition:

"I am magnificent," "I am a supreme gentlemen,"

Maybe it's the "Oh Sherry," by Steve Perry musical adventure where he is sporting his Gucci blades - and gives a slight hiss to the camera.

He concedes in , I believe it's a gamer forum. "I am a metro sexual,"

I am rambling on here, but - cardinal rule - participate in sports, and you will make friends- these teams usually practice WEEKs to a month before the school year even started - so they are a band of friends.. there is nothing worse than having to listen to a bunch of people chat it up -with volume, with laughs, while you sit/ are forced to endure. Okay, now I remember where I/.m going with this -

Yes, the symptoms are there - and I will give him this : he WAS highly intelligent. As for looks - everyone has their preferences, but he shares with everyone:
"I mean, LOOK AT ME! I;m gorgeous."

I have a theory- and Kim Kardashian confirmed it for me. Here we have KIM - many use the term doll - a beautiful female- highly attractive.
One day, the 3 K girls were invited to attend a room filled with 100+ sales employees of Sears - as a new deal had been secured where Sears would not stock up on the Kardashian collection- like they do with Land's End, and like Kmart does with Martha Stewart.

(HANG with me - it's a good point)

Three empty chairs are positions in the front of a very large room - the employees of Sears have packed the place out, they rush to secure a seat, reference their notes, and chat amongst themselves, excited about the q+a session. Most of them are interested in hearing from Kim, and asking her what she thinks... she's the most popular of the three.

Back stage, the K girls huddle up and the host gives direction about the setting, and the types of questions they can expect.

"Wait, I have to answer questions? " Kim asks, freezing up.

Khloe and Courtney roll their eyes, and peak out to see the crowd assembled and getting restless.

"Yes, it's fine, easy questions about your style... and the line," replies the host.
" I can't do that..." Kim responds as the host steps out the door to formally begins the session. "I can't speak in front of large crowds," Kim finishes.



In a nutshell - the girls took their seats and Khloe and Courtney took turns answering the general questions that kicked off the road show.l
Fifteen minutes in.

"Uhm, this questions is for KIM, KIm can you tell us about your favorite product, and a little about your style?" a young female employee asks, smiling from ear to ear, excited to finally hear from Kim.

As it were, the entire room felt the same way - finally, they were going to hear from KIm, their leader, the most attractive, and talented of the K sisters... giving little utility to critics.

"Kim grips the mike...panics... silence. After 5 minutes of awkward silence, Khloe finally clicks her mike on and answers the question.


My theory is that sometimes, highly attractive people - feel they do not need, or maybe they aren't able to possess a talent - they stare in the mirror most of the time, and spend less time working hard to make something of their life.

ER had intelligence - but the moment de 86's the idea of becoming a write was the moment he sealed his fate.

It is sickening to think his logic was "Well, I analyzed authors, and most screenwriters and writers become millionaires at 40 or 50. I can't work my off for 20 years without sex!"

I may deleted this post - it is vague - but I am trying to convey a point about looks... where well, I'll stop...

Luv ya,
G

Don't delete your post about looks, it's pretty amusing and sadly true! Um.....how does my hair look?

 

[Elley Mae]

The video is the Boston bombing shootout, not the Elliot Rodger one.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Flutterby80]

The fact is lots of women are bold. I would never comment to a virtual stranger (male) about his looks, but I would, and probably have, say something like "love your bracelet/hair/shoes" to a female. I am a female btw.
We had a young guy come to work for us at my old job. He was still 17, very recent high school grad and VERY shy. A couple of the older women (30s-40s) almost immediately started to tease him, just to make him blush. Some of the stuff they said was extremely inapropriate, and they are lucky he didn't sue them.
I know it is MORE common for men to do it, but women do it too.

 

[Elley Mae]

http://www.youtube.com/user/ElliotRodger

 

[Quester]

Celebrity counsellors could not save Virgin Killer [ER]

... [PR] ... asked [Dr. S] in late 2012 to meet his 21-year-old son, Elliot, ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uld-not-save-Virgin-Killer-Elliot-Rodger.html

 

[jjenny]

The video is the Boston bombing shootout, not the Elliot Rodger one.

It sure is.

 

[human]

..... they don't just check the registry without a reason to suspect a crime

they had no reason to search his apt - he had not broken any laws. A lot of folks, i think, are blurring everything into one thing.

On April 30 they had a welfare check, his welfare did not seem in danger in any way, and they left -- its the law,

Exactly. We are not a totalitarian state totally. We want "freedom".

It is all about laws and protecting rights. Until a judge makes a determination, we are all the same under the law. Of course unless you happen to be in one of those groups that is not the same such as a person of color or a person of affluence.

 

[Elley Mae]

Well... I have to add that when a police officer pulls you over, before he gets out of the vehicle he knows alot about the person that the vehicle is registered too, including whether they have a ccw permit. Now why it stops at vehicles and they don't use the same information when approaching a residence about the person they are doing a wellness check on, IDK.

or an oc permit

 

[CARIIS]

A really good piece on the commitment issues in America—from the clients point of view, from family members ,from therapists’, from LE , from the civil rights angle ,from the legal and judicial angle with a brief history of how the system we have evolved.

A worthy investment of time in order to understand the complexities of mental illness/involuntary commitment , and our societies woefully deficient mental health system .

http://www.jsonline.com/news/134341463.html

 

[CARIIS]

The video is the Boston bombing shootout, not the Elliot Rodger one.

Oh my god your right - for some reason I dont understand why but I was relieved that it was not ER!

Good catch !
Dont we wish msm had the ability to do what we do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ORIGINAL] 4/19/13 BOSTON BOMBERS SHOOTOUT IN WATERTOWN, MA - YouTube

 

[lawstudent]

.....but, but hold on there a second, Lawstudent. It makes no sense to say that they (governmental agencies) can't protect you and yet you say they can be held liable for negligence if they don't!!!!

They can be civilly liable for not following their own procedures put into place administratively or statutorily (depending on which governmental entity is being sued). Like the Jaycee Dugard case - they settled with her because they knew their officer had not followed the procedures for dealing with the reports. I am blanking on a good example at the moment, but the legislature could change the laws at any moment with regard to what the state has to provide you with. It's not a right - a court wouldn't overturn a law taking such protection away. I'm having difficulty saying what I mean, so if someone has a better way to put it, let me know.

For example, taxpayers pay for local police and fire, roadways,etc. As you very well know (being a lawstudent) with **payment**comes an automatic "contract". With a "contract" comes automatic duties which implies rites and some can assume guarantees that those duties will be performed within reason. . A good example is when a taxpaying citizen calls 911 on a home invasion. It is reasonable to assume that there will be a timely response---and if there is not, a lawsuit will ensue because the "contract" was broken...in essence the "guarantee" was broken.

Yes, but within reason is the key there - there is no guarantee that firefighters put out a fire in your home, or that they always enter a raging fire to save people. There's no right to them doing a good job. There are many situations without a timely response where a lawsuit was not successful - if the police were busy, for example, or 911 misdirected the call, it may be understandable. That's because you don't have a right to adequate police response - you have a claim for damages based usually on what state statutes allow.

We also have a lot of other examples where governmental agencies are hired and paid (i.e. a "contract") with a fiduciary resposibility to taxpayers aka citizens.
So what is implied and reasonably assumed is that this "contract" gives protection from not only government entities but also from other citizens.
It's about safety in general.

It's not a contract though. I get your comparison and what you are saying, but no contract is established between the individuals and the fire department. The state (aka the people) can bring an action for breach against a contractor, but not against itself, and a taxpayer can't on that alone. There's a lot of discretion on how taxes are used.

ETA: One thing I'm trying to articulate is the issue of government immunity. Entities can usually only be sued for negligence or where statute provides. So you could sue the county alleging negligence in this case, but not because they violated your right to protection from ER. You would have to say that the police acted unreasonably in carrying out their duties to you based on how police officers generally behave, not just that you wish they had done more, and that had they acted reasonably, it would have been prevented. Most times police officers are sued as individuals, it is done under a federal statute that provides liability where a person acting under the color of law deprives you of your civil rights. You can't sue them for deprivation of civil rights because only a government can violate your rights. That statute could be done away with by Congress and you'd lose that ability - you have no right to sue them individually without it because other statutes provide immunity.