welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Random News Stories of Note
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 792, 793, 794 ... 821, 822, 823  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't asked you to read his manifesto. What I have asked you -- repeatedly -- is to indicate which of the videos on his channel would lead you to believe he was a threat. OR to indicate that you think the video that the police would have seen was one he took down but, despite him clearly wanting people to know his motivations, did not re-upload for the world to see. If you're so sure the police would have seen something convincing in his videos, then show us all what it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
the ones that the parents/therapists/mental health professionals called to warn the police about? it would have been a place to start, anyway.


And which video is that, specifically?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17278
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
mouse wrote:
the ones that the parents/therapists/mental health professionals called to warn the police about? it would have been a place to start, anyway.


And which video is that, specifically?


no idea - i wasn't in on the phone call. the police, presumably, were.

and in any event, the question of whether (or even which) videos would have changed, or could have been expected to change, the police's actions is moot BECAUSE THEY NEVER LOOKED AT ANY OF THEM.

and you still haven't made clear why not bothering to look at the evidence clears the police of not being omniscient.

remember, the original question was "why was this person, who gave warnings of being violent, whose parents/therapists called the police to warn that he might be violent - why was he never held for a psych exam?" the answer seems to be "because the police never looked at the evidence the people warning them provided, and based their actions on talking to the guy for a couple of minutes".

if someone called the police and said "i just saw a picture of the guys who robbed the bank yesterday on the news, and one of those guys is my neighbor", and the police went to the neighbor's house without checking the description of the bank robber or looking at the robbery photos themselves, knocked on the door, said "did you rob the bank yesterday?" and then left when neighbor said "no" - would you shrug that off as "hey, the police aren't omniscient! and of course they couldn't look at any evidence - they had to race right over because the guy might be robbing someone AS WE SPEAK!!"
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10794
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm confused by this. mouse is supposed to know which video tipped off the therapist, who is trained at recognizing potentially threatening behavior, and which we know he did remove but only that he planned to re-upload (do we know that he, in fact, did)? That seems like an irrational request to me.

Also, let's be clear. You cited a law that supported you only semantically. I was 100% right about how the law works in actual practice.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17278
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh, hey - it turns out that not only didn't the police watch the videos, they didn't bother to check whether or not he owned any weapons. which information was readily available to them.
Quote:
Rodger’s ownership of the semiautomatic weapons was available in law enforcement databases, which apparently were not checked despite his increasingly erratic behavior.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-talked-elliot-rodger-3-times-didn-guns-article-1.1812855#ixzz33uJqzaqD



and even though they had talked to him once before about a violent incident in which they determined he had been the instigator.
Quote:
His first visit from sheriff’s deputies was last summer, when Rodger claimed he was assaulted — but investigators determined that he was the instigator. The probe was then suspended.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-talked-elliot-rodger-3-times-didn-guns-article-1.1812855#ixzz33uK6c8UW


so now we have more questions: if they determined he was the instigator in an assault, why did they just suspend the investigation? if they were warned about a potentially violent person (one they already suspected had committed assault), why didn't they check to see if he had any guns before confronting him? and again - why didn't they take a look at the evidence they were presented?

sorry, this is looking less and less like a problem with police not being omniscient, and more and more like a problem with police doing an incompetent job.

would you like to explain to us all now why we shouldn't expect the police to demonstrate some competence at their jobs?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
I'm confused by this. mouse is supposed to know which video tipped off the therapist, who is trained at recognizing potentially threatening behavior, and which we know he did remove but only that he planned to re-upload (do we know that he, in fact, did)? That seems like an irrational request to me.


Mouse is just certain that one of the videos he posted was disturbing enough to give the officers probable cause to initiate a 72-hour hold, but she can't/won't point to any of them to support her assertion. Rodger's manifesto indicates he pulled most of the videos after the police visited him on 4/30 but that he planned to upload them before his "Day of Retribution". If you check his channel, you can see the top nine videos were published between May 20th and May 23rd, the day of the event.

Can you provide a plausible reason why a person bent on a suicidal killing spree and expressing a desire for everyone to know his motivations would not re-upload all the videos he pulled a day or two before he planned to go on the attack exactly according to his stated intentions in his lengthy manifesto?

Quote:
Also, let's be clear. You cited a law that supported you only semantically. I was 100% right about how the law works in actual practice.


Relevance?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
oh, hey - it turns out that not only didn't the police watch the videos, they didn't bother to check whether or not he owned any weapons. which information was readily available to them.
Quote:
Rodger’s ownership of the semiautomatic weapons was available in law enforcement databases, which apparently were not checked despite his increasingly erratic behavior.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-talked-elliot-rodger-3-times-didn-guns-article-1.1812855#ixzz33uJqzaqD



and even though they had talked to him once before about a violent incident in which they determined he had been the instigator.
Quote:
His first visit from sheriff’s deputies was last summer, when Rodger claimed he was assaulted — but investigators determined that he was the instigator. The probe was then suspended.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-talked-elliot-rodger-3-times-didn-guns-article-1.1812855#ixzz33uK6c8UW


so now we have more questions: if they determined he was the instigator in an assault, why did they just suspend the investigation? if they were warned about a potentially violent person (one they already suspected had committed assault), why didn't they check to see if he had any guns before confronting him? and again - why didn't they take a look at the evidence they were presented?

sorry, this is looking less and less like a problem with police not being omniscient, and more and more like a problem with police doing an incompetent job.

would you like to explain to us all now why we shouldn't expect the police to demonstrate some competence at their jobs?


Didn't you read the article?

Quote:
“The issue of weapons did not come up,” said Kelly Hoover, spokeswoman for the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department.

“We had no information that he had weapons or reason to believe he had weapons,” Hoover told The Los Angeles Times.


It's likely his mother didn't know about them, nor his therapist when whoever it was contacted the police for the wellness check.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17278
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
Mouse is just certain that one of the videos he posted was disturbing enough to give the officers probable cause to initiate a 72-hour hold,


no - his mother and his therapist were certain the videos were disturbing. disturbing enough to warrant a call to the police, asking that they check on the guy.

i don't know this guy, i haven't seen the videos and i don't intend to look at them. they did know him. the police didn't. and the police decided they didn't have to bother looking at the evidence the people who knew this guy best were pointing them to.

what was taken down and/or put up when afterwards is irrelevant. at the time the police were initially warned, the videos were up. and the police just couldn't be bothered to check. (any more, apparently, than they could be bothered to check whether a person they were warned might be violent might maybe also have a gun...you'd think that was something you would want to know, before you go knocking on the guy's door. unbalanced people have been known to shoot first - especially at the police. generally wise to give yourself a bit of a heads-up on whether that might be possible, i would think.)

i'm really not understanding why you are so determined to defend the police in this. maybe they wouldn't have been alarmed at the videos, maybe rodger would have fooled the psychiatrist even during a 72-hr hold, maybe there truly was nothing that could have been done to prevent this - we can't know. what we _do_ know is that there seems to have been at least one (or even more) occasions when the police might have intervened...and they did a half-hearted job at best. even though they had the tools to do a much better one.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17278
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
mouse wrote:
oh, hey - it turns out that not only didn't the police watch the videos, they didn't bother to check whether or not he owned any weapons. which information was readily available to them.
Quote:
Rodger’s ownership of the semiautomatic weapons was available in law enforcement databases, which apparently were not checked despite his increasingly erratic behavior.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-talked-elliot-rodger-3-times-didn-guns-article-1.1812855#ixzz33uJqzaqD



and even though they had talked to him once before about a violent incident in which they determined he had been the instigator.
Quote:
His first visit from sheriff’s deputies was last summer, when Rodger claimed he was assaulted — but investigators determined that he was the instigator. The probe was then suspended.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/cops-talked-elliot-rodger-3-times-didn-guns-article-1.1812855#ixzz33uK6c8UW


so now we have more questions: if they determined he was the instigator in an assault, why did they just suspend the investigation? if they were warned about a potentially violent person (one they already suspected had committed assault), why didn't they check to see if he had any guns before confronting him? and again - why didn't they take a look at the evidence they were presented?

sorry, this is looking less and less like a problem with police not being omniscient, and more and more like a problem with police doing an incompetent job.

would you like to explain to us all now why we shouldn't expect the police to demonstrate some competence at their jobs?


Didn't you read the article?

Quote:
“The issue of weapons did not come up,” said Kelly Hoover, spokeswoman for the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department.

“We had no information that he had weapons or reason to believe he had weapons,” Hoover told The Los Angeles Times.


It's likely his mother didn't know about them, nor his therapist when whoever it was contacted the police for the wellness check.


Quote:
Rodger’s ownership of the semiautomatic weapons was available in law enforcement databases, which apparently were not checked despite his increasingly erratic behavior


they had no information because they didn't bother to check an available database. "i couldn't be bothered to find out" is not an excuse for "i had no information".
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10794
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
Mouse is just certain that one of the videos he posted was disturbing enough to give the officers probable cause to initiate a 72-hour hold, but she can't/won't point to any of them to support her assertion.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about this argument you're making already.

Quote:
Can you provide a plausible reason why a person bent on a suicidal killing spree and expressing a desire for everyone to know his motivations would not re-upload all the videos he pulled a day or two before he planned to go on the attack exactly according to his stated intentions in his lengthy manifesto?

Sure. He forgot. He decided it didn't matter. He decided it was redundant when viewed with his last video. He decided he didn't like the lighting. The point is that you can't assert that the video is available now unless you can prove it was re-uploaded. The mere fact he wrote that he planned to isn't evidence. You're asking for something you can't prove anyone has access to. You're the one claiming it's available. You bear the burden of evidence.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, let's be clear. You cited a law that supported you only semantically. I was 100% right about how the law works in actual practice.


Relevance?

Well, again, let's be clear. I said you were avoiding taking a position, instead attacking the positions of others and never offering a solution to the problem (that is, mass murders by gun). Which is totally your prerogative, it's simply annoying. Your retort was to say you'd looked up a law. A law you used to argue, incorrectly, against mouse's point (through me). So we're well off the path of relevance. Smile
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1188
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A solution to this might be getting the police to actually be concerned about mental health/wellness calls. Obviously, considering they didn't check whether he had weapons or look at the videos that were the original reason for the complaint in the first place the police couldn't give a damn or felt that it wasn't important in the first place, considering either of those things would have been relatively quick and painless to do.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
Mouse is just certain that one of the videos he posted was disturbing enough to give the officers probable cause to initiate a 72-hour hold, but she can't/won't point to any of them to support her assertion.

Yeah, I know. I'm talking about this argument you're making already.

Quote:
Can you provide a plausible reason why a person bent on a suicidal killing spree and expressing a desire for everyone to know his motivations would not re-upload all the videos he pulled a day or two before he planned to go on the attack exactly according to his stated intentions in his lengthy manifesto?

Sure. He forgot. He decided it didn't matter. He decided it was redundant when viewed with his last video. He decided he didn't like the lighting. The point is that you can't assert that the video is available now unless you can prove it was re-uploaded. The mere fact he wrote that he planned to isn't evidence. You're asking for something you can't prove anyone has access to. You're the one claiming it's available. You bear the burden of evidence.


Fair enough, but the people who imply that there was some video he didn't re-upload are making similar, as yet unproven, conjectures. Unless they have evidence of this missing video, of course. All we have is the evidence available to us, should we choose to examine it.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, let's be clear. You cited a law that supported you only semantically. I was 100% right about how the law works in actual practice.


Relevance?

Well, again, let's be clear. I said you were avoiding taking a position, instead attacking the positions of others and never offering a solution to the problem (that is, mass murders by gun). Which is totally your prerogative, it's simply annoying. Your retort was to say you'd looked up a law. A law you used to argue, incorrectly, against mouse's point (through me). So we're well off the path of relevance. Smile


My position is that the police did not make any errors that would have changed the tragic outcome -- even viewing the videos we know of would likely not have made a difference in their decision, nor would knowing he had legally purchased handguns (had they known it's likely they would have confiscated his handguns, but he seemed very determined to carry out his plan and would either have found another means of killing or gotten his hands on another weapon. Motivated killers do that sort of thing.) I base this on actually watching the videos in his channel and reading the more recent parts of his manifesto, although I admit I am not a LEO. Based on watching his videos, I suspect his mother was concerned that her son was going to be more a harm to himself than others, and I can reasonably conclude the police approached him with those concerns rather than the idea that he would go on a homicidal rampage. Rodger notes in his manifesto that they inquired if he had suicidal thoughts, and I suspect they asked if he had any weapons (that's usually SOP for police), and he very likely lied about both.

As far as the timeframe in which they went to see him, we live in such a litigious society that I suspect their standard procedure is to respond to calls for wellness checks immediately rather than delaying them to perform various and sundry investigations. If they had received a call about a disturbing video on May 23rd and delayed visiting him to check it out I am very sure they'd be criticized (IMO, rightly) for that. And this is coming from someone who is not normally an apologist for the police.

I strongly suspect police departments across the country are examining the circumstances that lead up to this tragic event and are instructing officers on their own to be a bit more vigilant, but they must still respect the Fourth Amendment and the civil rights of the people with which they interact. Any response should be measured. It's very easy to respond with strong emotion when something terrible like this happens, but I prefer that not to happen to legislators, even though they are motivated to appease emotional voters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3572
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My cop friends say there was nothing that could have been done without violating civil liberties.

It's cut and dry people.

Why must we play the blame game constantly? It accomplishes nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3316

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thy Brilliance wrote:
My cop friends say there was nothing that could have been done without violating civil liberties.

It's cut and dry people.

Why must we play the blame game constantly? It accomplishes nothing.


Looking at the youtube videos they knew were there dont violate civil liberties thy.

Go home, you're mentally incompetent.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arc Tempest



Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 4903
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For anyone who hasn't heard yet, Bill Watterson dun snuck back onto the funny pages.
_________________
The older I get, the more certain I become of one thing. True and abiding cynicism is simply a form of cowardice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 792, 793, 794 ... 821, 822, 823  Next
Page 793 of 823

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group