In the case of the Santa Barbara shooter the parents tried numerous times to involve law officials. However, medical privacy surrounding mental health superseded the parents attempts to mitigate what became a tragedy. How about this…no more sealed mental health records for anyone trying to obtain a weapon.
why is the press inside a private home?
It is an apartment, and the landlord allowed them in. Probably regretting that decision about now.
Why is the press inside a private home that is a possible crime scene?
That just becomes a catch 22, dietz. They will not seek mental health services or it will increase the likelihood they will try to obtain weapons illegally. Or both.
How would that work? How is the government supposed to access private records? I don’t mean how would the records be unsealed; I mean how would the government find them to unseal them? Is every mental health professional supposed to forward sealed records of all their patients to the government, in case a patient later tries to buy a gun and the records can be unsealed? And who is combing through all these health records to look for flags? I’m not saying it’s impossible. I just want to know how it’s supposed to work.
"Government’ can get access to systems like this:
Anyone who believe that our medical records are now still private is in denial. It’s just a question of WHO has access. And, given the trend towards increasing the nanny state…this is a logical next step.
BTW…certain health insurance companies in CA are now automatically enrolling their clients in this system. How long before it’s hacked?
I think much of the problem stems from the reality that many of the “signs” that become apparent in hindsight, as disturbing as they may be, aren’t really evidence of anything and, in fact, can be quite common behaviors among certain elements–like teenage boys or “loner” types. The VAST MAJORITY are NOT future criminals. Same with those suffering from mental illness.
Is stockpiling legal weapons, in and of itself, a “sign” of probable unlawful activity? Not necessarily, but I’d still report a neighbor who was doing it. Unless of course that neighbor was a LE officer himself or herself. Then I might fear reprisal. Or I might be relieved. Much will depend upon MY state of mind on any given day.
Re the Columbine shooters and the myth of the outcast: neither of the boys were outcasts. They may not have been the top of the social pile, but they had steady jobs, Prom dates, friends, and were generally seen as normal. Part of the way we cope with monsters among us is to decide, retroactively, that they weren’t “normal”. But of course, they usually seem “normal” and that’s why they can plan and execute their warped vision.
Yes, I recall that, and none of those had anything to do with religion - this case is solely about religious conversion to a terrorist version of Islam.
And this encapsulates what I have been saying - the people that others are calling Christian terrorists were not people who were unknown to police or to others for being mentally-ill or having said things about harming others. They were known dangers to others. Roof, admittedly, was more under the radar about his racism. However, posters are missing the fact that saying radical stuff is not a reason to lock someone up.
And as for trying for moral relativism again, the answer is rather simple - Dear’s wife and others saw all these other supposed Christian mass shooters as anti-social ill people. Are there any stories at all that any of them being normal, adjusted people into their communities who somehow changed? None that I recall - they all had people who knew they were potential dangers - and especially the parents should have been more vigilant. And for most of them, except for the Oregon shooter, reporting them as threats to people was done before in several cases, but cannot arrest for simply for being mentally unstable.
Again, the scariest part of these new crop of Islamic terrorists and their conversions to jihadi is they were all stable well-adjusted people with some well-respected in their communities - that is a wolf in sheep’s clothing hiding in plain sight. Dear was not hiding anything and people were already afraid and aware of him, even police.
And I truly understand why many Muslims are really troubled now because they look at the news and realize that the current crop of Islamic terrorists may be living among them and they may not even now - we take their word for it that they do not know. But worse of all, these islamic terrorists look and act just like them - stable, well-adjusted citizens, so it is impossible for other non-Muslims to tell the difference. There was nothing stable or well-adjusted about Dear and he was not hiding n plain sight.
I agree in let’s cal this exactly what it - terrorism being committed by once seemingly normal people. And it is this normalcy to killer switch that is by far the most disconcerting part of this equation.
Un-freaking-believable!
How many shooters actually have diagnosed mental illness prior to shootings? Really asking because I’m not sure.
I have been diagnosed with major depressive disorder for over 10 years and would hope no one would ever let me have a gun for what I hope are obvious reasons.
However, I’m in the minority for having a mental illness and and actually being diagnosed. Most will never be diagnosed let alone treated.
^Good point. I am positive my SIL is severely mentally ill, but she refuses to see a doctor. She’s always on the verge of being homeless, even though she has a PhD.
More details about the shooter’s mother:
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-85219062/?related=true
Apologies if this has been posted. The thread moves fast.
Agree that the normal-to-killer transformation is chilling ---- the same as it was to me for the Columbine teens.
This probably is a distinction without a difference with respect to Islamic terrorism, as they do not stop. 50 lone terrorists or a group of 50 really is just a definitional difference. If it is a larger group, then may get lucky and get others in advance. But, clearly there are others to take their place, so not sure if lone or group matters - there are more coming, and they will all look very normal like these folks until…
It is the proliferation of the internet that has made this all so scary and so possible. Used to be that evil spread in local klans, cults, gangs. Now, like-minded evil can reach out across the distance to fuel the fire of their common resentment.
And how would have this have helped prevent this event in CA?
Just wondering why on this thread about normal people, with no criminal and no mental illness record, who turned terrorists that mental illness records are even relevant? Just seems to have nothing to do with this event at all.
My guess is that the woman was a jihadist even before she came to the U.S. She came in July, 2014. A newly wed. Then in May, 2015 she had a baby. What mother could leave a 6 month old baby knowing she’d never see the baby again? She must have had a heart of stone to do that and that does not happen in a year, IMHO. She likely purposely never became emotionally attached to the baby knowing what the plans were.
“Nooo, please. Not an invitation, even tongue in cheek, to bring up the crusades. Then it will be Huns, goths and the French Revolution.”
And then the cousins… @-)