Posted on 05/30/2014 1:14:38 AM PDT by Rabin
CHENG YUAN HONG Hong, 20, who went by the name James, grew up in Taipei and was pursuing a degree in computer science.
/snip/
When Hong said he didn’t know where the candles were, Elliot performed a citizen’s arrest and called 911. Sheriff’s deputies found the candles on Hong’s bed. He was arrested and charged with a petty theft infraction.
/snip/
Friends said he was a hard-working and bright student who was always willing to help others. He would always smile at everyone he knows,’’ said Han Chou, who knew the victim at UC Santa Barbara, murdered this week by (fat cat, spoiled brat, real-time maniac, Elliot Rodger ) James Hong, and his two able room-mates were somehow slashed and stabbed more than 136 times. 21:17, emailed his mother, father and therapist.
/snip/
sheriff's office corrected an earlier assertion that deputies were unaware of the videos when they checked on him (were) aware of "disturbing videos" In January, Rodger accused Hong of stealing three candles, valued at $22, said Joyce Dudley, Santa Barbara County district attorney. When Hong said he didn’t know where the candles were, Rodger performed a citizen’s arrest and called 911. Sheriff’s deputies found the candles on Hong’s bed. He was arrested and charged with a petty theft infraction.
(Excerpt) Read more at beaumontenterprise.com ...
Exactly! The kid met them outside, so unless they finessed an invitation out of him, they’d have needed a warrant... a warrant that quite likely wouldn’t have issued. The real lost opportunity here was the parents and therapists not pushing the issue during the four weeks after the eval. Assuming they were acting in good faith, and that they knew the kid best, you’d have to conclude they didn’t think he was an immediate threat.
I’d check my understanding of the definition of the word ‘police’ (and look at the article title) if I were you, before I got on my high horse about inaccuracies.
I stand corrected on the shrink contacting them at this point, but you had the professional from the hotline who had spoken to both a friend and the mother and who conveyed the information about the disturbing videos to the police—yes, “police”.
What would it have taken the police to check out the videos as well as the individual’s recent purchase of multiple firearms? And, with that, to search his room?
The videos in question involved murder more than suicide, so your trying to pull in the suicide canard doesn’t wash.
What’s your vested interest to try to steer Freepers here away from the obvious?
That all depends on the content of the videos, combined with testimony from family and friends, prior legal run-ins, and the recent purchase of multiple firearms consistent with the content of the videos.
Immediate risk does not equal certainty, as some here would like to imply.
I think also time frame is important. I have been in LE for many many years...i have been in the same position as these cops...i hate it. Mental health is one huge grey area. These people have rights as well...and we have to balance those against public safety. Based on the backlash I see from this incident...cops are going to be expected to see the future...and peoples rights will be diminished. My 2 cents
What you find to be “obvious” is a series of assumptions and inventions that serve your pre-conceived fault assignment effort. I’m a little more interested in the actual facts of the case, and think most Freepers try to base their understanding on reality.
From your response to my hypothetical question, I can only assume that you want to confine pre-contact video viewing to cases where the videos depict murders. The same question arises, what happens if the guy goes on a rampage while you’re back at the station viewing videos? I presume your answer would be “well they should have known that this was one where they should go see him before viewing videos”.
So based on a 10-minute chat, this case went from “so important that we don’t have time to look at a video” to “all cleared up with no need to bother with looking at anything at all”?
I think better than having regular LE officers put on the spot in such situations would be having access to a professional to review the concern-causing evidence and also be present to speak with the subject.
A nice little chat instead of bothering to check any evidence surrounding someone who has been under life-long psychological care, has started posting murderous videos, and has family and friends vouching for concern just doesn’t cut it IMO.
I agree, but LE officers are handicapped by the system they work for. Sometimes all they can do is talk to the person. That is why, at least here in VA, the parents, or their therapist can call the magistrate directly, and swear out an ECO for that person. Once it is issued, police pick him up no matter what he says. Tough spot to be in...
I’m in a town of about 150,000. Check The Well Being calls, mostly suicide related, average about 25 a day. The average officer’s pretty skilled at sizing people up, but it’s more about perception and less about precognition. To hand law enforcement the authority to lock up people based on some third party’s belief that they might be a danger at some future date is an invitation for abuse from a variety of different parties.
As usual, the politicians are already proposing law changes to “fix” this situation, but policy based on wishful or magical thinking instead of a clear understanding of the facts invariably causes more trouble than it solves.
We had an OIS involving a kid who was terrorizing his family with a butcher knife. Several efforts with less than lethal force hadn’t worked, and he’d retreated to a closet. While officers were trying to talk him down, he burst out, knife raised, and got within about a foot of one officer when his partner shot him. The family then created a major uproar, announcing that the police “should have known” that he was going to do that and should have backed off and called the psych team. (They had some fantasy that the psych team would have magically made everything okay, I guess)
Well, our “city fathers” directed the department to change policy along those lines.
A month later, a kid was waving around a gun at his family, officers evacuated the family, then (per the new policy) backed off and waited for the psych team. While they waited, the kid shot himself. And, of course, the family sued, claiming that they “should have known” that if they didn’t disarm the kid he’d kill himself.
In both instances, the media was right there, second guessing along every step of the way.
Stuff like that annoys me.
So why didn't the police consider him a threat? Because they didn't bother to watch the videos. They "were aware he had posted disturbing videos but never viewed them before or after determining he was not a threat to himself or others, the department disclosed Thursday.")
"According to the statement from the sheriff's office, four deputies, a police officer and a dispatcher in training were sent to Rodger's apartment after being informed by the county's mental health hotline that Rodger's therapist and mother were concerned about videos he posted online."
Have you ever had "four deputies, a police officer and a dispatcher in training" show up at your door? I haven't. Sending 6 (six) LEOs out suggests that at least somebody was taking the threat very seriously. Which, as was eventually shown, was the correct interpretation of the facts.)
No, as I said initially, based on a 10 minute chat the assessment was made that the kid was not an immediate threat to himself or others, and that assessment proved to have been correct. That’s the law enforcement function.
At that point, the concerned parties need to get other agencies (Courts, Mental Health Agency, etc.) involved. Nobody did that.
Two Deputies were dispatched, the dispatcher was on a ride-along, not sure what the campus cop’s reason was, but the other two deputies were the one’s who’d handled the candle theft case and tagged along on their own. It’s not uncommon for someone who’s had previous experience with the occupants of a residence to go along in case their background info or prior knowledge of the “player” can be of use.
And the last time I checked, if they had searched his apartment, they would have found three legally purchased and legally possessed handguns. If that is a crime then I'd be twice as guilty.
My brother lost one of his mental health patients to Jeffrey Dahmer because the patient refused to take his meds, and they could not force him to get the mental health care he needed.
Thanks. I was mistaken (I thought it was 24 hours before). 10 minutes is not enough time unless there are cops in every little town watching Youtube or whatever 24 hours a day, and even then, 10 minutes is probably not enough time to stop it.
Yeah, good point.
You’re right, that’s a pretty common scenario.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.