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

[TrappedinCalifornia]

“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?

That was the question I asked you earlier...

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.)

I'm not the one posting that the FBI are idiots, jokers, incompetent, dropped the ball, etc. I'm not the one posting that the FBI (and/or local law enforcement) should have done something simply because of what the kid might have done given the "signs." Thus, I'm not the one who needs to answer that question - for now.

On the other hand, since you (and others) are decrying the fact that they failed to "I"nvestigate... Realize that, by your own post, their failure wasn't a lack of investigation, but a failure of protocol to turn it over to the Miami Field Office for investigation. Which brings several questions to mind; two of which would seem directly on point...

1.) Who or what division of the FBI were given the 'heads up' by the tips? If not the Miami Field Office, then which one?

2.) Why was the protocol not followed in turning over the 'heads up' to the local, field office?

Question #1 is an issue of practicality. Calling the D.C. office regarding an individual in Timbuktu means a long trip around the countryside to get eyeballs on the target.

Question #2 leads us back to what we've been discussing...

Even had they followed protocol, turning him over to the Miami Field Office for assessment, what law had the kid violated or what law could have been used at that point which would allow law enforcement to, essentially, 'arrest and incarcerate' him, confiscating his firearm, and preventing him from accessing the campus with intent to do harm?

Since that would have been the only, likely way, to have stopped him, at least in the short term, what laws are you willing to accept that could be written which would have allowed for that; laws which could eventually and inevitably will be used, not just in these 'special' cases, but as a general guideline for law enforcement in myriad circumstances?

Internal actions of the FBI insofar as failure to follow protocol is warranted. But, that's NOT the context or extent of what's being discussed, either here or in the media or in the political arena.

As an example, here's an article 'defending' the FBI from Republican Governor Rick Scott's demand that the head of the FBI resign for failure to follow protocol...

Rick Scott: The FBI Director Must Resign (for a Mistake He Didn’t Make)

Here's one a bit more sympathetic to forcing the FBI to investigate, analyze, and strengthen its protocols...

Florida Gov. Rick Scott calls for FBI Director Christopher Wray to resign in wake of Parkland school shooting

The confusing aspect is that, in the latter article, there is some indication that the Miami Field Office did receive a certain tip about this kid regarding his YouTube post, indicating that: ...the agency investigated the comment, but said it could not identify the user who made the comment. He also said there was no connection found to South Florida.

So, at some level, protocol was followed, if not completely, and some investigation was done. How extensive that investigation was or should have been isn't really the issue. What is at issue is the $64 question that both articles neatly avoid asking; but, it's the one I've asked.

Even had the FBI more fully investigated, what law(s) had the kid violated...?

In short, calling names, pointing fingers, and looking for a scapegoat doesn't address, let alone solve the problem. Smooth out the kinks or failures in the existing system and you're still confronted with what to do given the existing laws. Remember, "innocent until proven guilty" and we don't arrest, incarcerate, and punish someone for what somebody thinks they might do. Right?

Remember, hindsight is, typically, 20/20. What we often "know," in retrospect, is, just as often, "unknowable," at least with any certainty, in foresight.

Also remember that if 'somebody' thinks 'you' might do something nefarious and turns you in as a potential 'threat,' while you might think you're 'clean' enough to survive the assessment, I'm not sure I'd want to wager my freedom and liberty upon investigators and prosecutors concerned with public safety while those same investigators/prosecutors are being castigated by 'everyone' for being an idiot, incompetent, a joker, et al.

[jdl6mm]

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.

Yes, but aren't firearms crimes involved in schools federal offenses?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[jdl6mm]

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

Does this not apply?

Most states allow some form of unlicensed carry by persons who are not prohibited by statute from owning or possessing firearms.[10]*This may be open-carry,[10]vehicle-carry,[11]*or concealed carry without the need for a permit.[12]*The Federal GFSZA prohibits unlicensed carry by making it a federal crime for an unlicensed individual to travel into a "Gun Free School Zone unless they meet one of the other criteria defined in Section 'B'."[4][5][6][7][13][14][15]*The large number of K-12 schools in developed areas makes it difficult for an individual to travel any distance without entering a Gun Free School Zone.[4][6][7][13][14]

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[jdl6mm]

See comment above. If he wasn't permitted, and it's a gfsza, doesn't that make it a federal crime and the FBI should get involved? What am I missing here?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[wpage]

So the FBI knew and the sheriff visited the kids home 39 times regarding his problems. Yet he was not a prohibited person?

[jarhead714]

Well, I'll give them a little credit. Unlike probably every other law enforcement entity in the country, they very, very quickly admitted and accepted responsibilty for f-ing up. Doubtful you'd see a 5-stars on the collar Sherriff or police chief hold a news conference and say what the FBI announced yesterday.

[VictorFranko]

James Holmes' psychiatrist warned local authorities a full 38 days before he walked into that theater in Aurora, Colorado but they did nothing..............also.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

So the FBI knew and the sheriff visited the kids home 39 times regarding his problems. Yet he was not a prohibited person?

Those who think something should have been done about this kid prior to the shooting might want to read this USA Today piece...

Warning signs for suspect in Florida school shooting: When can police act?

As I said in my first post in this thread... Be careful what you wish for.

Why? Because the gist of it is that law enforcement wants more... discretion... and (inferred) lower standards for being able to take a "person and bring them before mental health professionals ... involuntarily."

Here are the existing Florida Statutes regarding Involuntary Inpatient Placement.

You might note that the 1971 law referenced in the article is the "Baker Act" and notice the following paragraph found in this History of the Baker Act posted by the State of Florida...

The Baker Act prohibited the indiscriminate admission of persons to state institutions or the retention of persons without just cause. The Baker Act mandated court-appointed attorneys to represent each person for whom involuntary placement was sought and provided for independent reviews every six months of all involuntary placements The new law established a patients’ bill of rights, protecting persons’ rights to communicate with whomever they wished, to receive and send unopened mail, to use their own possessions, and to vote, among many other rights. The law also prohibited the placement of persons with mental illnesses in jails, unless they had committed criminal acts.

You might then note that there are 'mixed signals' about his background; i.e., the media is pushing the 'negative,' but there are other reports, from the family he was living with, his employer, etc., which state that he might have been a little 'different,' but they saw no signs of potential 'danger.' As one example, you might read through this CNN article.

There are additional accounts that he regularly introduced himself as a 'school shooter;' making the YouTube post something other than 'unique' and not necessarily indicative of an 'immediate danger.' Bearing in mind that he'd owned the AR-15 for nearly a year without incident and, so far, the only 'shooting' report that 'worried' neighbors involved an airsoft pistol, ask yourself these two questions...

Is it possible that the relatively recent death of his adoptive mother, for lack of a better term, 'triggered' a depressive episode and his actions?

Is it possible that, given existing law in Florida, there simply wasn't sufficient evidence to involuntarily commit him, confiscate his firearm, and have him placed on the prohibited list?

Bear in mind...

• the "39 calls" were over a 7 year period and, as all the articles note, there's no way to know which or how many directly involved him and that most documentation is marked "no written report"
  
• the prohibitions built into the Baker Act
  
• the mixed signals
  
• that we are viewing this in retrospect, through the filter of media coverage

I'm not saying there weren't "signs." What I am saying is that it's easy to scapegoat and it's easy to say something should have been done. What I haven't seen an answer to is what could have been done, under existing law, and what would you find acceptable vis a vis your rights, in the future, with the precedent and/or laws utilized?

[ACfixer]

What law had the kid violated at that point which would allow the police to, essentially, 'arrest and incarcerate' him?

I'm sorry, please quote the part of my post where I said he should have been arrested and incarcerated.

The FBI got credible info from someone close to him that he planned on "killing some people" and that a school shooting might be in the works. After the YouTube report and the 37 police visits to his house don't you think an interview or two between Jan 5th and Feb 14th were in order?

the "39 calls" were over a 7 year period...

How many times have the cops been called to your house in the last 7 years? 24? 43?

[Citadelgrad87]

Does this not apply?

Most states allow some form of unlicensed carry by persons who are not prohibited by statute from owning or possessing firearms.[10]*This may be open-carry,[10]vehicle-carry,[11]*or concealed carry without the need for a permit.[12]*The Federal GFSZA prohibits unlicensed carry by making it a federal crime for an unlicensed individual to travel into a "Gun Free School Zone unless they meet one of the other criteria defined in Section 'B'."[4][5][6][7][13][14][15]*The large number of K-12 schools in developed areas makes it difficult for an individual to travel any distance without entering a Gun Free School Zone.[4][6][7][13][14]

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

AFTER he does it? Likely. Suspicion of maybe some day, likely not.

[Citadelgrad87]

Well, I'll give them a little credit. Unlike probably every other law enforcement entity in the country, they very, very quickly admitted and accepted responsibilty for f-ing up. Doubtful you'd see a 5-stars on the collar Sherriff or police chief hold a news conference and say what the FBI announced yesterday.

My dad is retired AF flag officer. He always cmes unglued when he sees general of the army stars on some sheriff with 37 sworn officers under them....thought we were the only ones who noticed that.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'm sorry, please quote the part of my post where I said he should have been arrested and incarcerated.

The FBI got credible info from someone close to him that he planned on "killing some people" and that a school shooting might be in the works. After the YouTube report and the 37 police visits to his house don't you think an interview or two between Jan 5th and Feb 14th were in order?

How many times have the cops been called to your house in the last 7 years? 24? 43?

Are you saying that an "interview" would have sufficed as doing something?

Given all that I've posted above in relation to his mixed history (including the fact that there is no way to document how many of those "39 calls" were actually about him and that at least one of those was about a neighbor being 'scared' because he was target practicing in his backyard with an airsoft pistol) and the existing laws, what would (supposedly) another 'interview' have accomplished short of 'arrested' or 'involuntarily incarcerated?' Or, did you have another action in mind as the something that could have been done?

I know a number of people with 'problem' neighbors who've either called the police or had the police called on them a number of times over the years. That's not even counting the complaints to landlords or property management. None of them, that I know of, involved firearms. Most were related to noise, trash, parking issues, etc. But, a couple of them involved the potential for violence; i.e., the police were called so that cooler heads would prevail as a fist fight was imminent.

If you don't have such neighbors, congratulations. I've been fortunate over the years, for the most part. But, not everyone is a potential criminal just because they interact with police.

Again, I'm not saying there weren't signs of potential problems. But, without 'just cause' to label him a danger to himself or others, what 'something' could have been done that you suggesting or intimating from the Peanut Gallery?

[P5Ret]

See comment above. If he wasn't permitted, and it's a gfsza, doesn't that make it a federal crime and the FBI should get involved? What am I missing here?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

The simple fact that the crime had not happened. The FBI assists at mass shooting's, as they claim to have the forensic evidence gathering expertise, and that may be true since they wrote the book on evidence collection and storage.

[ACfixer]

Are you saying that an "interview" would have sufficed as doing something?

We all saw how well doing nothing worked out.

Yeah, an "interview" by some G-men interrogators that should have been able to assess the level of threat by his demeanor and the answers to their questions. There's a big difference between a tip from a pissed off girlfriend and a tip by someone close to him that obviously thought it was concerning enough to call the FBI, so sweat the little ****er down and see what he's up to. Considering the MANY warning signs I think it was certainly warranted and evidently the FBI did too after their weakass apology.

This isn't Monday morning QB stuff nor is it peanut gallery stuff, that's law enforcement 101. You have credible intel and a troubled past you follow up on it. If the local PD can storm a hotel and kill a guy with a BB gun for the simple MWAG call in a state where open carry is perfectly legal, I would think the FBI could pay a little more attention to this jackass. The FBI screwed up, they've publicly admitted it

[Quiet]

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.

Per FBI, since 2003, approximately 10,000 calls per year.