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 ...
Cop bosses go wrong.....money
Eric slaughters Andy ....???
rab
Here’s the full text of the Sheriff’s release that makes it clear that they weren’t alerted to the final video or the Manifesto until after the incident was over. It also is at quite a variance with the story about the actions of the parents that night that’s been circulating.
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=135006
But they were alerted to the earlier videos and apparently didn’t bother to watch them.
It’s looking like proper police procedure would have prevented this.
Arm... “one of the most complex investigations in the history of the Santa Barbara”
Good to understand that racketeering (RICO) is alive and well for the spawn.
Rabin
I think the worst video, which said/implied the murders would be the next day, was probably not seen by the police.
They were dispatched to do an evaluation for a 72 hour mental health hold. In order to take the individual into custody you have to conclude that he presents an immediate risk to himself or others, they concluded he didn’t at that time (almost a month before the incident), and they were right.
So, the issue isn’t “proper police procedure”, it’s the absence of a program that allows in depth evaluation of an individual based on the say so of a third party. That’s something that should be handled by mental health professionals, and that is rife with potential for civil rights violations.
The worst video was apparently the last one, which he posted 10 minutes before he started shooting, and after he’d killed the three roommates. Given that the therapist, after seeing it, called the Sheriff’s department, it’s safe to say that it indicated an escalation of his prior fantasies. Neither the parents, the therapist, nor the Sheriff’s Department saw that one before the incident was over.
If you’ve got both the parents and shrink calling out of concern, pointing to wacked out videos as evidence, the troubled person with multiple recent gun purchases, and prior reported violence (shoving party goers off a ledge), there ought to be more than a couple of non-expert cops showing up for a 10-minute chat.
They would have had enough evidence, had they bothered to look at it (both the videos and the gun purchases), to search his room, which he himself pointed out would have revealed enough to stop the murders.
I find it useful in evaluating incidents of this kind to look at what the individuals involved actually knew at the time, rather than conflating a bunch of pieces of information no one person had, then applying “Woulda Coulda Shoulda” and 20-20 hindsight to the analysis. If you’ll take a look at that link I posted, you’ll see several of your assumptions aren’t accurate.
If he had been a veteran, or associated with the “Tea party”, would they have searched his room?
A conspiracist might argue the loons are permitted the free range to organize and realize their twisted desires... when the plot involves guns.
I think they would have searched his room if his Father had not been a Hollywood big wig.
Also, just because a danger doesn’t immediately come to pass doesn’t mean there wasn’t an immediate risk. (Hint: risk does not equal outcome.)
Your link addresses his final manifesto and video. The police were contacted by the shrink and his mother about his condition, with the evidence of his earlier videos—which the cops never bothered to look at, but initially claimed they hadn’t been made aware of.
What several of my assumptions are incorrect?
Yep. Probably wouldn’t have bothered looking at the videos for the opposite reason, in that case.
Videos are protected free speech. Police cannot use them as sole evidence to state that a crime is being committed, nor can they prevent crime.
This is a parenting issue. The young man was not insane IMHO, he was evil. The malaise is spiritual, not mental.
When parents raise perverted children , they do evil. The parents are THE MOST responsible for unleashing this evil on society.
Last time I checked, one needs a search warrant to search a private residence...i find it interesting how many people are just tossing that requirement and being outrages there was no search. If the parents and therapists were so concerned, they could have had an ECO issued for him, and the cops would come pick him up... Immediate danger to himself and others is the key issues here for cops to take someone into custody WITHOUT an emergency custody order. To expect the cops to make a psych arrest based on a video...well, that opens up a huge can of worms...
Well, just off the top...
The Sheriffs Department is involved here, not the police. They weren’t contacted by the shrink and the mother, they were contacted by an operator on the mental health hotline. She, also wasn’t contacted by the mother, but by a “friend”. She, then, called the mother, and after talking to the mother called the Sheriff’s dispatch center and asked for a welfare check. The shrink didn’t contact the Sheriff’s department at that stage.
The rest of your post is equally inaccurate. In short, you’ve started with the conclusion you wanted, then massaged the facts to fit it. As I said, “Woulda, Coulda Shoulda”. That can be a satisfying exercise, but it’s pretty useless when it comes time to propose policy changes that’ll actually make an improvement.
Just out of curiosity, let’s look at your apparent belief that every time someone calls a suicide hotline the deputies sent to the call should be pulled off the beat, rushed to the station, provided with any evidence the calling party thought relevant, and required to review it prior to contacting the individual involved. If that individual commits a preventable suicide while the deputies are back at the station reviewing video is that okay with you?
“This is a parenting issue. The young man was not insane IMHO, he was evil. The malaise is spiritual, not mental.
When parents raise perverted children , they do evil. The parents are THE MOST responsible for unleashing this evil on society.”
“Insane” is the new “evil”; godless liberals don’t believe in evil anymore (unless one of their pet constituencies is impacted). Rather than attribute someone’s actions to pure malevolence, they simply point at the actions as proof of their insanity. A teacher I know was disturbed that young students were reluctant to judge anyome as evil, including Hitler.
The fact that Elliot looked like a complete Pajama Boy no doubt served to deceive the cops. In short encounters, he could supress his rages. Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction is what cops would first think of as a threat.
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.