FBI ****s up.......again.

[tawadc95]

[Bill Carson]

I also recall Russia warning the FBI about the tsarnaev brothers plotting the Boston bombing. Might be time to clean house.

This.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

The phrase - "Be careful what you wish for." - comes to mind with many of these posts.

Simply blaming the FBI and (unfairly/inaccurately) labeling the personnel as 'incompetent' may be cathartic, but it doesn't necessarily breed the result you might think. Instead of reducing the agency's power, might it simply feed the typical response of increasing that power over the lives of citizens?

On page 13 of THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDELINES FOR DOMESTIC FBI OPERATIONS, you find the following paragraph...

All activities under these Guidelines must have a valid purpose consistent with these Guidelines, and must be carried out in conformity with the Constitution and all applicable statutes, executive orders, Department of Justice regulations and policies, and Attorney General guidelines. These Guidelines do not authorize investigating or collecting or maintaining information on United States persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. These Guidelines also do not authorize any conduct prohibited by the Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.

Note the portion I placed in bold.

If your response is "they should have known and done something about it," what are the likely results going to be perceived as being? Dismantlement of the FBI? Greater sharing of information? Or... Are we more likely to end up with things like enhanced background checks and the equivalent of 5150 holds in the manner being suggested by the Broward County Sheriff for things which are deemed "violent and threatening social media posts?"

In the latter case, what will be the 'enhancements' and what further limitations on your right to keep and bear arms might they represent? Who gets to determine what constitutes "violent and threatening social media posts;" bearing in mind that virtually this entire site could easily be deemed such by the inevitable algorithms which would be utilized in the determination.

Just remember that the FBI is limited by the information available and the very limits on their power we express a desire for on this site, particularly in relation to "Minority Report" style enforcement.

[ACfixer]

Just remember that the FBI is limited by the information available and the very limits on their power, particularly in relation to "Minority Report" style enforcement, we express a desire for on this site.

Following up on 37(!) police trips to a house over the last six years many times for violent behavior, a credible YouTube tip several months ago, then obviously a very credible tip a month ago that he was going to shoot up the school is hardly Minority Report style enforcement. It's called police work. That isn't an ex girlfriend or a pissed off wife in a custody battle grinding an axe calling in an anonymous tip to screw someone over, we're talking about a 19 year old that was seen by all his classmates and evidently several others and a messed up dude ready to do exactly what he did.

As has been mentioned, this isn't an isolated incident where FBI has dropped the ball... some of the biggest crimes in the last two decades come to mind. We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the ones on the book and use the tools already at hand. The whole patriot act BS was to ensure more accessible and freely shared information for the purpose of preventing exactly what happened here. Rather it appears it has been used instead as a political weapon. Heads need to roll here.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

It's called police work.

What law had the kid violated at that point which would allow the police to, essentially, 'arrest and incarcerate' him? Remember, under the 2015 ruling in Elonis v. U.S. -

...requiring only negligence with respect to the communication of a threat, is not sufficient... Section 875(c) does not indicate whether the defendant must intend that the communication contain a threat, and the parties can show no indication of a particular mental state requirement in the statute’s text... a general requirement that a defendant act knowingly is sufficient, but where such a requirement “would fail to protect the innocent actor,” the statute “would need to be read to require. . . specific intent.” ... Elonis’s conviction was premised solely on how his posts would be viewed by a reasonable person, a standard feature of civil liability in tort law inconsistent with the conventional criminal conduct requirement of “awareness of some wrongdoing,” ... This Court “ha[s] long been reluctant to infer that a negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes.” ... And the Government fails to show that the instructions in this case required more than a mental state of negligence. ... Section 875(c)’s mental state requirement is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat. The Court declines to address whether a mental state of recklessness would also suffice...

To me, this seems to indicate that they would have to show a specific intent rather than 'someone else' (reasonable or not) perceiving his posts as a 'threat' for law enforcement, which deals with criminal, not civil, issues, to act.

As has been mentioned, this isn't an isolated incident where FBI has dropped the ball... some of the biggest crimes in the last two decades come to mind. We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the ones on the book and use the tools already at hand.

Bearing in mind that law enforcement is not supposed to act based on how an ordinary, 'reasonable' person might, but based on your desired enforcement of existing laws/regulations, what laws would have allowed them to step in with this kid? What laws might you suggest could be written which would not ultimately be abused in the pursuit of agenda rather than justice or actual public safety? I mean, if this is the way you feel...

The whole patriot act BS was to ensure more accessible and freely shared information for the purpose of preventing exactly what happened here. Rather it appears it has been used instead as a political weapon. Heads need to roll here.

...then you need to remember that any law/regulation can be utilized as a "political weapon," particularly if the public allows it to be enforced based on the 'emotion of the moment' rather than through the balancing of individual liberty against Government power.

[digelectric]

Following up on 37(!) police trips to a house over the last six years many times for violent behavior, a credible YouTube tip several months ago, then obviously a very credible tip a month ago that he was going to shoot up the school is hardly Minority Report style enforcement. It's called police work. That isn't an ex girlfriend or a pissed off wife in a custody battle grinding an axe calling in an anonymous tip to screw someone over, we're talking about a 19 year old that was seen by all his classmates and evidently several others and a messed up dude ready to do exactly what he did.



As has been mentioned, this isn't an isolated incident where FBI has dropped the ball... some of the biggest crimes in the last two decades come to mind. We don't need new laws, we need to enforce the ones on the book and use the tools already at hand. The whole patriot act BS was to ensure more accessible and freely shared information for the purpose of preventing exactly what happened here. Rather it appears it has been used instead as a political weapon. Heads need to roll here.

[Citadelgrad87]

Why do you say it isn't their jurisdiction? Didn't they investigate the other shootings?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Not a federal crime. Murders generally fall under local jurisdiction.

[Citadelgrad87]

Id be very interested in knowing how many tips just like this come in a day or year or whatever.

I bet its a metric s ton.

[heidad01]

Why do you say it isn't their jurisdiction? Didn't they investigate the other shootings?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Bank robbery, kidnapping, high jacking planes, and crimes across state lines and possibly some hate crimes are federal cases. The Fed's do not give a chet if you shoot people in your home state.

[CessnaDriver]

What also pisses me off is people stepped up, they did what they were supposed to and owned it, did something, did the right thing and those jokers drop the ball. What message does that send? Don't bother reporting someone, they won't do anything anyways.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

What also pisses me off is people stepped up, they did what they were supposed to and owned it, did something, did the right thing and those jokers drop the ball. What message does that send? Don't bother reporting someone, they won't do anything anyways.

Yes. They did what they've been asked to do. (Whether it is the 'right' thing in this, specific case or always the 'right' thing is a different debate.)

As has just been observed by several of us, however, simply saying 'those jokers dropped the ball' and other 'name calling' isn't necessarily accurate and doesn't further the conversation.

They did do something within the confines of existing law and the guidelines/regulations used in their enforcement. Was it enough to prevent the shooting? Obviously not. But, short of "Minority Report" authority and/or a substantive reduction in liberties associated with several Constitutional Amendments, what could they have done which would have prevented this?

Contact local law enforcement? Okay. Under existing law, what could local law enforcement have done differently than the FBI in terms of involuntary incarceration, weapons confiscation, etc.? (Bear in mind that any interpretation of those laws/guidelines might be used beyond this, specific case and applied to gun owners at large.)

Isn't this the very debate we engage in regularly on this site; i.e., what is and/or should be the limitation on Government power insofar as the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution? What degree of compromise of those rights are you willing to accept so that the 'jokers' or 'idiots' or 'incompetents' in law enforcement are no longer deemed such in these cases; not to mention when they exercise their authority on others under the auspices of that compromise?

[CessnaDriver]

Yes. They did what they've been asked to do. (Whether it is the 'right' thing in this, specific case or always the 'right' thing is a different debate.)

As has just been observed by several of us, however, simply saying 'those jokers dropped the ball' and other 'name calling' isn't necessarily accurate and doesn't further the conversation.

They did do something within the confines of existing law and the guidelines/regulations used in their enforcement. Was it enough to prevent the shooting? Obviously not. But, short of "Minority Report" authority and/or a substantive reduction in liberties associated with several Constitutional Amendments, what could they have done which would have prevented this?

Contact local law enforcement? Okay. Under existing law, what could local law enforcement have done differently than the FBI in terms of involuntary incarceration, weapons confiscation, etc.? (Bear in mind that any interpretation of those laws/guidelines might be used beyond this, specific case and applied to gun owners at large.)

Isn't this the very debate we engage in regularly on this site; i.e., what is and/or should be the limitation on Government power insofar as the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution? What degree of compromise of those rights are you willing to accept so that the 'jokers' or 'idiots' or 'incompetents' in law enforcement are no longer deemed such in these cases; not to mention when they exercise their authority on others under the auspices of that compromise?

I realize the concerns. But consider what happened and the impact now on our 2nd amendment rights. So when is the line crossed and it's OK then?

Threatening online to kill children sort of changes things a bit don't you think?

[Tommy Gun]

Sheriffs were called to his residence 39 times also.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I realize the concerns. But consider what happened and the impact now on our 2nd amendment rights. So when is the line crossed and it's OK then?

Threatening online to kill children sort of changes things a bit don't you think?

If we accept that Patrick Purdy changed things because he didn't just threaten to kill children, but actually killed them, "crossing the line," then California's assault weapons ban, including subsequent iterations, was an acceptable response? I mean, it mitigated the impact on our 2nd Amendment rights, didn't it? We can still own firearms, right?

What about the handgun roster, microstamping, etc.? Wasn't some line crossed which changed things that would have a potential impact on our 2nd Amendment protected rights? So those measures, while not precluding our right, simply provided for our safety - right?

This is the trap you fall into when you say that 'something happened' which may impact our rights and offer to 'compromise' in the name of safety. The question isn't whether something has happened or will happen. The question isn't whether public sentiment changes, in either the short or long term. As is so often lampooned on this site when Liberals say "it's for or because of the children," that's not necessarily the real issue either.

Since your signature line includes the quote usually attributed to Ben Franklin regarding "A Republic... If you can keep it," I'll give you another one of his quotes...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Now, there's an interesting (and brief) discussion about that quote on NPR, which, distilled down, is...

It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security... maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties. But I do think it is worth remembering what he was actually trying to say because the actual context is much more sensitive to the problems of real governance than the flip quotation's use is, often. And Franklin was dealing with a genuine security emergency. There were raids on these frontier towns. And he regarded the ability of a community to defend itself as the essential liberty that it would be contemptible to trade. So I don't really have a problem with people misusing the quotation, but I also think it's worth remembering what it was really about. (bold emphasis mine)

That is the concern and the question. What degree of compromise of your fundamental rights are you willing to accept so that the 'jokers' or 'idiots' or 'incompetents' in law enforcement are no longer deemed such in these cases; bearing in mind that the rationale or authority granted the Government under the auspices of that compromise have and will never be strictly limited to what you might deem, as an individual, "those cases," but instead be implemented and/or used as a general grant of power?

[CessnaDriver]

If we accept that Patrick Purdy changed things because he didn't just threaten to kill children, but actually killed them, "crossing the line," then California's assault weapons ban, including subsequent iterations, was an acceptable response? I mean, it mitigated the impact on our 2nd Amendment rights, didn't it? We can still own firearms, right?

What about the handgun roster, microstamping, etc.? Wasn't some line crossed which changed things that would have a potential impact on our 2nd Amendment protected rights? So those measures, while not precluding our right, simply provided for our safety - right?

This is the trap you fall into when you say that 'something happened' which may impact our rights and offer to 'compromise' in the name of safety. The question isn't whether something has happened or will happen. The question isn't whether public sentiment changes, in either the short or long term. As is so often lampooned on this site when Liberals say "it's for or because of the children," that's not necessarily the real issue either.

Since your signature line includes the quote usually attributed to Ben Franklin regarding "A Republic... If you can keep it," I'll give you another one of his quotes...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Now, there's an interesting (and brief) discussion about that quote on NPR, which, distilled down, is...

It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security... maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties. But I do think it is worth remembering what he was actually trying to say because the actual context is much more sensitive to the problems of real governance than the flip quotation's use is, often. And Franklin was dealing with a genuine security emergency. There were raids on these frontier towns. And he regarded the ability of a community to defend itself as the essential liberty that it would be contemptible to trade. So I don't really have a problem with people misusing the quotation, but I also think it's worth remembering what it was really about. (bold emphasis mine)

That is the concern and the question. What degree of compromise of your fundamental rights are you willing to accept so that the 'jokers' or 'idiots' or 'incompetents' in law enforcement are no longer deemed such in these cases; bearing in mind that the rationale or authority granted the Government under the auspices of that compromise have and will never be strictly limited to what you might deem, as an individual, "those cases," but instead be implemented and/or used as a general grant of power?

“A person close to” Cruz called the agency’s tipline on Jan. 5 and reported the 19-year-old had a “desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts” and there was “potential of him conducting a school shooting,” the FBI said in a statement.

But the agency said it failed to pass on any of that information to its Miami field office, even thought its own protocols say he “should have been assessed as a potential threat to life."


-----------------

So lets go there.


What do you suggest should happen and how should it be done?

It is supposed to be the FBI, "I" meaning "investigation" not "infringement" by the way. If they investigated and found a credible threat, what then do you suggest?

What scenario would you approve of that this killer could have been stopped if any?

Follow him 24/7?