done

[swiftone]

done

[wjc]

Police Did Not Search Database Showing Elliot Rodger Owned Guns

Uh huh...

Several weeks before Elliot Rodger killed three people with a knife and three people with a gun, police followed up on a tip from his mother and interviewed him at his apartment.

However, they did not check the massive California database of gun owners before going, so they went to the apartment and left without knowing Rodger owned guns.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/05/30/FAIL-Police-Did-Not-Search-Database-Showing-Elliot-Rodger-Owned-Guns

[Mitch]

So what if they had? He was not a prohibited person!

[tnlrat37]

What's the point the whole system if their not gonna use it anyway, seems it should be the first thing u check before welfare and safety check. I'd hate to live with that on my conscience.

[Bill Carson]

They also did not check the machete or knife database. The BMW should have been a dead giveaway.

[Mitch]

Either one of these steps would had possibly prevented this tragedy.

How? Rodgers was not a prohibited person!

Is the WaPo now advocating we lock people up, take away their property, get them fired, whatever it takes, on the say-so of someone talking over a telephone line?

[Mitch]

What's the point the whole system if their not gonna use it anyway, seems it should be the first thing u check before welfare and safety check.

Why? What would the police have done with the knowledge that Rodgers possessed firearms?

[wjc]

So what if they had? He was not a prohibited person!

It could have given them more options, and a better idea of what they might be dealing with, when they went to call on him.

[Mitch]

It could have given them more options, and a better idea of what they might be dealing with, when they went to call on him.

What does that mean?

Let's say your sister in Iowa calls your local PD and says she thinks you are nuts. The cops consult the DROS records and can see you possess handguns. They come out to your home and interview on your doorstep you to see if your sister is right.

How is anything different?

[wjc]

What does that mean?

Let's say your sister in Iowa calls your local PD and says she thinks you are nuts. The cops consult the DROS records and can see you possess handguns. They come out to your home and interview on your doorstep you to see if your sister is right.

How is anything different?

They have the prior knowledge that you own firearms. That gives them an insight on the direction of questioning and traits they might need to be investigating. If, in their questioning, they determine a pattern of violent behavior the knowledge that you have firearms could be handy in determining the next step.

This story indicates a breakdown in the system that the legislators have put in place...like it or not.

...and my sister lives in New Jersey, God help her!

[Mitch]

We sure don't. All we can assume is that if the police had a reasonable respect for the basic civil rights of Rodgers, knowledge there were guns in his house could have had no effect on how they conducted themselves:

• He was not a prohibited person;
• He violated no laws;
• He conducted himself in a sane and reasonable manner during his interview with police.

That he was also a gun owner should have been immaterial to any police action. Unless you are really suggesting that all of us here on Calguns should have big red flags appear any time police check our ID or look up our names for any reason.

I have thought about it. I still don't understand how the police should have acted any differently based on who made the call. After all, maybe it's the mother that is crazy. They have no way of knowing.

Once again, I still do not understand on what grounds police should have done anything differently.

[RickD427]

How? Rodgers was not a prohibited person!

Is the WaPo now advocating we lock people up, take away their property, get them fired, whatever it takes, on the say-so of someone talking over a telephone line?

Mitch,

Realizing that hindsight is always 20/20 and that foresight is always a lot more difficult, there wasn't anything immediately meaningful that could have been obtained from DROS records. You're correct, Rodgers was not a prohibited person, and even with the information that we now know, the firearm's ownership information would not have changed anything with out a corresponding 5150 determination.

The videos may be a different story. I'm not clear from the media reports what level of access the officers had to those videos. If they were in Rodgers' possession, there would be no legal standing for the officers to view them without Rodgers' consent. Given Rodgers' post-LEO visit comments, I don't see that consent being given. If the videos had been provided by the parents, then they may have given the officers sufficient cause to detain him for emergency psychiatric treatment under WIC 5150. You have to remember the standard for a 5150 detention is quite high. Once a person meets the 5150 criteria, then there is an authority to seize firearms under their control.

[Mitch]

They have the prior knowledge that you own firearms. That gives them an insight on the direction of questioning and traits they might need to be investigating. If, in their questioning, they determine a pattern of violent behavior the knowledge that you have firearms could be handy in determining the next step.

Good, that's a straight answer.

However, we have no way of knowing or even assuming a different line of questioning would have revealed anything more about Rodgers' state of mind to the police. Apparently he was very canny in his dealings with them.

Also, wouldn't it be reasonable for police in this situation to assume the subject had firearms in any case? Half of US households do.

I'm a little surprised that I seem to be alone around here in resenting the implication that my mere status as a firearms owner should be viewed as a big scarlet letter by authorities any time they ever have dealings with me. Especially as I have had police come to the house after a call from a neighbor; they did interview me on my doorstep; they did notice that I was very agitated; and they went away since I was harming no one and doing nothing illegal.

Should their visit have ended differently if they knew I had guns (a lot of guns)?

[Mitch]

The videos may be a different story.

They might indeed have been. Like you, I'm not sure how (can cops bust down doors based on YouTube videos? They arrested and imprisoned Tincon based on Facebook photos, be we Calgunners all agree that was a terrible infringement), but I understand that's a different kettle of fish than a phone call from someone's mom.

But I was responding to the OP's insistence that "either one of these steps would had possibly prevented this tragedy."

I don't buy that the DROS record was relevant in any way. Not in a free country, anyway.

[Oceanbob]

His Shrink reported to the police as well and mentioned the troubling videos on YouTube. No one in law enforcement watched those videos.