done

[67goat]

take it easy bud. I'm on your side when it comes to registration and police access to info. I'm just saying that the information is readily available to law enforcement already if we like it or not. If you start ranting about killing someone with fertilizer bomb on this forum and the police can legally access information that you bought 1000lbs of fertilizer, I think you got a problem.

Obviously not on the same side if you think they should have checked.

At best it would be a waste of time. I'm not on the side of government agencies wasting time and money.

At worst, it would be a breach of individual rights and trust between the government and society. I'm never on the side of that either.

Your example is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of the law. If a person were to post a video with a direct threat, the police wouldn't need to look up anything to arrest them. Certainly they would do so to bolster their case, but an arrest could be made on the threat alone.

He bought his guns a year ago. The police had not seen the videos at that point. Even if they had, the video that actually detailed his plans was not released until the day of the killing. His manifesto was not released to anybody that had reported him until the day of the killing. The police visited him a month before the killings.

If the first videos had anything actionable, the police would not have needed to check the DROS records for anything. If the videos didn't contain anything actionable, checking the DROS records would not provide anything for. Them to act on. If they had nothing they could act on, I highly doubt that him buying two guns a year ago would be enough to justify putting surveillance on him for a full month (which might have just forced him to change the date as he had done twice before).

You have yet to explain how, in any way, checking the DROS records would have improved the response by police or given them anything they could have acted on.

[cjc16]

^ read his manifesto regarding the police visit. "hey kid, your mom says you want to hurt yourself or someone else. says here you bought 3 handguns in the last year. can we talk to you about that?" simple. no laws or personal rights trashed.
he might say go pound sand or he might say sure take a look or he might lose it and admit his plans. I don't know, do you? Read his manifesto and you decide what he might have done.
Buying guns is not a red flag on its own. hell, we'd all be on the radar. Sending videos to your family with obscure threats is a red flag. sending videos to your family threatening people and buying guns for the first time in your life IMO are 2 red flags. Would that justify surveillance? probably not. I don't know how a wellness check leads to an arrest. If you know, enlighten us. oh, and knock off the insults.

[67goat]

Actually, that does trash personal rights. If the police had reason to suspect him of a crime, had direct threats, or could show he was exempt, then that info would have helped them. Knowing he had guns gave them nothing.

Yes, he was afraid they would stop them, but that question you pose provides no more info than "you're parents are worried about you hurting yourself and told us about the videos."

The database should never be used for casual data mining. Period.

[Grimjack]

Grimjack,

Only a peace officer, or specifically designated medical professionals (those must be employed by a county-designated hospital facility) hold 5150 detention authority. (Refer to WIC section 5150(a)).

A psychiatrist in private practice does not have any authority to perform a 5150 hold.

I stand corrected;

a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility
designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the
attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated
by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a
mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county

however if the attending psych called the cops and said the kid needed to be committed the 5150 would have been written..

[RickD427]

I stand corrected;



however if the attending psych called the cops and said the kid needed to be committed the 5150 would have been written..

Grimjack,

Actually no.

You've correctly quoted the law. However the responsiblity for determining if the 5150 standards are met fall upon the LEO, or the county-designated medical professional.

I've responded to several requests where a non-certified emergency room physician has sought to have a patient placed on a 5150 hold. The medical doctor is certainly entitled to have their professional judgement respected, but in many cases, that medical professional was unable to articulate the substance of a 5150 hold and none was placed. Many other docs did provide an adequate articulation and I did place the hold. Nothing happens only only on the doc's "say-so". They've got to be able to back it up. Most of the cases where I declined to take the 5150 were where the doc would say something like "I think the patient would benefit from a psych consult and they don't agree". That's cool, and probably true, but it doesn't meet the requirements of the law. The doc doesn't sign the commitment form. I do.

[cjc16]

A..... you pose provides no more info than "you're parents are worried about you hurting yourself and told us about the videos."

The database should never be used for casual data mining. Period.

that's what happened and why it was called a "Wellness check". The parents called and 6 sheriff deputies responded to see if there was an issue. Police check the data base legally all the time as far as I can tell. Read up on all the people being visited by DOJ lately. I wouldn't call it casual data mining. They get a call about someone regarding threats and check for registered firearms. Not the other way around.

[donny77]

If they knew he had firearms and had watched the videos in conjunction with his mother's concern's, they may have gone to see a judge for a search warrant rather than just perform a welfare check. Maybe the judge grants it, maybe not, but it's worth investigating. What needs to come from this incident is a change in procedure. A welfare check when concerned about a person, and a concerned a person will hurt others needs to be treated differently. If there is fear of hurting others, they need to investigate, not talk to the guy and see if he's lucid. That investigation can happen within the confines of existing law and due process.

[67goat]

that's what happened and why it was called a "Wellness check". The parents called and 6 sheriff deputies responded to see if there was an issue. Police check the data base legally all the time as far as I can tell. Read up on all the people being visited by DOJ lately. I wouldn't call it casual data mining. They get a call about someone regarding threats and check for registered firearms. Not the other way around.

Because police have done something before, that makes it acceptable? The police have beat, shot, and even killed several innocent people and were acquitted, so police should just be able to shoot people indiscriminately?

Most of the stories I have read when cops are showing up; the guns were identified in a crime (though the owner may have reported it stolen or sold it and the records weren't updated), the person was first identified as prohibited, or the cops were actually violating people's rights.

If the information gives them nothing actionable, and has no way of providing actionable intelligence, then it is casual data mining.

Still not one situation has been described where having knowledge of firearm ownership would have changed anything.

[philobeddoe]

It's not the job of the police to prevent crimes. They did a check, he was fine and polite.

Parents should have picked him up in IV and brought him home.



____________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

[cjc16]

....Still not one situation has been described where having knowledge of firearm ownership would have changed anything.

I guess we'll never know.
I'm not sure what police misconduct regarding beatings and shootings have to do with this conversation.

[67goat]

It's not the job of the police to prevent crimes. They did a check, he was fine and polite.

Parents should have picked him up in IV and brought him home.



____________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

You assume an adult that had been planning an attack for two years and resented his parents would simply go with them.

[GM4spd]

I would think posters on this board would be pleased by the police using restraint and not abusing the firearms database.

Excellent! Pete

[Jason95357]

no, but then again most of our parents don't ask the police to do a welfare check either. IMO, it could have put the questioning of this kid on a more productive path. I'm sure they wouldn't have come back to the station and said he was a polite and perfectly harmless. I'm not saying they would have the right to confiscate or see the guns but just as another red flag to look a little deeper.

I'm guessing the police have to deal with a lot of helicopter parents who never learned to let go. Hard to separate the signal from the noise there. Even if she'd said he had guns (and/or she's an anti), the police shouldn't react on that alone - same as if they'd done a DROS check. Personally if I was an officer doing welfare checks, I'd do a DROS check just so I know what I'm walking into. I'd also use the info to chat up the person about guns - nothing invasive, but just to turn over the easy rocks and see if there is something to be concerned about - as it was a welfare check visit.

[philobeddoe]

You assume an adult that had been planning an attack for two years and resented his parents would simply go with them.

Yeah, that kid liked to whine and complain.
They could have lured him home by telling him how beautiful he is,
and letting him complain about how much the world sucks and isn't fair.

[67goat]

I guess we'll never know.
I'm not sure what police misconduct regarding beatings and shootings have to do with this conversation.

If you're not sure where that part came from, then you have demonstrated a complete lack of reading comprehension. You made the argument that police should have done it, because to your knowledge it had been done before (without providing a reference to a single case) and wasn't illegal. I made the point that police have done any number of abhorrent things that have been deemed legal. It doesn't mean they should make it standard procedure.

As for never knowing, we do know. I made the statement that you have not described a single way that checking DROS would have granted the police additional authority, or how it would have given them actionable intelligence. I'll go even further to say no other poster in this thread has either. So until you do so, my argument stands.