done

[wjc]

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)?

yup, you make valid points.

The police should use an abundance of caution when dealing with a situation like this. Possibly, the answers to their questions and the foreknowledge of firearm possession could have resulted in a follow-up or some other action.

I'm not disagreeing with you...I just posted the article so others would be aware of it.

[tnlrat37]

Didn't he lie on the dros about mental issues? They said he's had them and been on meds for a long time. I thought the mom told them about the FB videos also. I understand what ur saying but it seems things were missed like most mass shootings. Either way he stabbed 3 and ran over others so the guns were not the main factor which the media seems to always focus on instead of the mental aspect.

[glockman19]

The unfortunate outcome of this event will likely be a new LE protocol where for their own "Officer Safety" and the "Safety of Others", will run DROS on ALL future investigations and possibly stops.

How will innocent firearms owners be treated? Will we all be more suspect?

[RickD427]

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

I haven't seen any reports of the "Shrink" making a report to law enforcement, but then I haven't followed the story as closely as others. What was your source for this info? Did the "Shrink's" report meet the requirements of WIC 8100(b)(1). If so, and if the LE agency and DOJ did the required follow-up, then Rodgers would have been a prohibited person.

[Mitch]

Didn't he lie on the dros about mental issues? They said he's had them and been on meds for a long time.

Sometimes I wonder whether I'm the only one around here who actually possesses firearms, or at least who's filled out a 4473, which asks:

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

Nothing there about meds. Was Rodgers involuntarily committed at some point? Apologies if he was, but even then, what does it matter if he lies on his 4473? How is anyone supposed to know?

Here are the instructions for Question 11.f:

Adjudicated Mentally Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

1. is a danger to himself or to others; or
2. lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

This term shall include:

1. a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
2. Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

I believe, but do not know, that none of that applied to Rodgers.

[Jimi Jah]

The problem with catch-all laws is you need catch-all cops. There is not enough man power to examine bogus DROS forms and there are no prosecutions for lying on them.

They feel good passing all these laws, but enforcement? Ask the Border Patrol about that incentive.

[67goat]

I built a deck the other day with a saw and a power drill. I had a hammer available, but I didn't use it because there were no nails.

The cops had their guns available to them when they went to the house and didn't use them, because the situation didn't call for it.

He was not prohibited. To say that they might have had some additional insight because he owned a gun is like saying everybody on this forum is suspicious because they own guns. If you think for an instant that cops go to a door without assuming they could have a weapon drawn on them (regardless of what is in some database), you are crazy.

Checking the database does nothing for them in this situation. I would think posters on this board would be pleased by the police using restraint and not abusing the firearms database.

[RickD427]

Didn't he lie on the dros about mental issues? They said he's had them and been on meds for a long time. I thought the mom told them about the FB videos also. I understand what ur saying but it seems things were missed like most mass shootings. Either way he stabbed 3 and ran over others so the guns were not the main factor which the media seems to always focus on instead of the mental aspect.

There is nothing on the DROS form that inquires broadly about "mental issues", or medication.

The only questions asked, on the DROS Form are:

1) "Is purchaser a danger/threat to self or others pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 8100, or a person who has been admitted to a mental health facility as a danger to self or others pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5150 through 5152 within the past 5 years?"

2) "Has purchaser ever been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to others, found not guilty by reason of insanity, found incompetent to stand trial, or placed under a conservatorship, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 8103?"

Both of these questions are very narrow in their scope and allow a lot of room for a person with "mental issues" to truthfully answer "no."

Postscript: Mitch beat me to the punch. I gotta learn to work and type faster.......................

[67goat]

No, I am just pointing out there were tools available to local law enforcement that was not utilized.

We don’t know if following up on either the videos or on the DROEs database would have prompted the LE to go deeper in their investigation or not. My question is why did the LE not use the tools available to them? Do you have to be a prohibited person to have a gun check run? Think about it – his Mother called and reported him – not a neighbor, friend or aunt from across the country.

I built a deck the other day with a saw and a power drill. I had a hammer available, but I didn't use it because there were no nails.

The cops had their guns available to them when they went to the house and didn't use them, because the situation didn't call for it.

He was not prohibited. To say that they might have had some additional insight because he owned a gun is like saying everybody on this forum is suspicious because they own guns. If you think for an instant that cops go to a door without assuming they could have a weapon drawn on them (regardless of what is in some database), you are crazy.

Checking the database does nothing for them in this situation. I would think posters on this board would be pleased by the police using restraint and not abusing the firearms database.

- dupe as result from thread merge

[P5Ret]

I can't count the number to times I've done welfare checks, because someone calls and says "we're concerned", or "something's not right". Not an awful lot to go on there. Now if mom called and said he has posted these video's on-line and they are disturbing to say the least, then yeah they screwed the pooch. Since none of us got the call from mom & dad we don't know what they said. The media is looking for a live person to focus on for their blame and crucify story on. Instead of focusing on mom & dad (who are part of the media) or the Dr. who prescribed the med's he wasn't taking, let's blame the cops. They were there and didn't do what we think they should have. Heck we can't blame the laws that didn't work because someone didn't do their part. It is real easy to say this should have been done, because this kid was a nut ball, but it is just as easy to say well hell they over stepped their authority when my ex called the cops on me after we got in a yelling match or some stupid BS. Because we all know, ex-girl friends ex-wives or whatever the first words out of their mouths when they are pissed is he's got guns in the house. It's a fine line when is it OK to cross it, and when is it not OK?

[Ninety]

I think looking into the data base is exactly what everyone here complains about registration being and ends to confiscation..

Shouldn't they need a warrant or PC to be able to even search the data base for firearm ownership and not just some sort of complaint or comment by family or aquaintence.. I know there is that recent ruling regarding traffic stops from concerned drivers calling someone in...

Freedom is a double edged sword.

I think a major failure is that the police never took the time to view the videos. There is the technology out there and AFAIK the police were informed that there were some disturbing videos posted.. I think those videos would have justified further scrutiny.. and the checking of registered firearms being that they would be a possible means to carrying out his threats.

[cjc16]

the information about recently purchased guns is available to the DOJ. Just because the police do a welfair check and know you have guns doesn't mean they have the right to confiscate them or even demand to see them. I think things would have gone much differently for this kid and the victims if the cops had known he was recently purchasing multiple pistols.

[Mitch]

I think those videos would have justified further scrutiny.. and the checking of registered firearms being that they would be a possible means to carrying out his threats.

Is it illegal to make vague threats? I don't even know.

[67goat]

the information about recently purchased guns is available to the DOJ. Just because the police do a welfair check and know you have guns doesn't mean they have the right to confiscate them or even demand to see them. I think things would have gone much differently for this kid and the victims if the cops had known he was recently purchasing multiple pistols.

Really? Exactly how would it go differently if the cops were aware that he was making perfectly legal purchases in a fashion similar to almost every poster on these forums? I bought more handguns than there were months last year, does that make me suspicious?

What in the information from the database would have allowed them to act any differently that the situation would have changed so drastically?

[cjc16]

Is it illegal to make vague threats? I don't even know.

vaguely threaten the POTUS online and see what happens.