Shooting rampage at my alma mater, UCSB. 7 dead. Horrifying.

[Goldenpooch]

<p>“Hopefully, if and when you become a parent someday, you and your children will be perfect.”</p>

<p>Have a grown son.</p>

[sevmom]

<p>Yes, Goldenpooch, I can see where the father would express regret about spending so much time away. That is natural and I’m sure he is wracked with guilt.</p>

[sevmom]

<p>Sorry, Goldenpooch, I guess I was thinking of someone else. Thought you were a teenager.</p>

[Goldenpooch]

<p>“They knew something was up with him but nobody seemed to know the extent of his illness”</p>

<p>From everything I have read, I think they did know this kid was having significant problems, certainly more “than something was up with him”. The stepmother forbid him to come to her house and the mother told him he had to leave her house as well. Furthermore, he was telling the parents everything except for his plans to remedy his problems with the world. </p>

<p>It was as if this kid was trapped in his own torture chamber, and as far as I can tell, he wasn’t shy about frequently telling his parents the sordid details of his life.</p>

[arabrab]

<p>Exactly, TempeMom. We saw that same kind of paranoia and mean behavior. All well and good to suggest that the parents, somehow, should have done more, but when you actually know how little interventional capacity families actually have in these situations, you have a different impression.</p>

[sevmom]

<p>You quoted me but left off a lot of what I said- “and what he was capable of until it was too late.” Hopefully, you never have to deal with any mental health or substance abuse issues with your “grown son.”</p>

[Goldenpooch]

<p>Of course I can’t say for sure what I would have done because I have never been in this situation, but I do think I would have told this kid that unless he took his medication and participated in an extensive therapeutic situation (preferably inpatient) there would be NO money, car or any other material support. Since he didn’t have anyway to support himself, I bet he would have complied. Out of sight, out of mind is not the right answer.</p>

[fluffy2017]

<p>

The only exception seems to be if the person has made the professional aware of a direct threat towards someone else specifically.

</p>

<p>I don’t think that is correct.</p>

<p>Yes, in California, the police track and confiscate guns from people who no longer have the right to own them. I think NY is the only other state with this capability.</p>

<p>Yes, in California, the professional has the duty to warn if there is a direct and specific threat. As you noted though, it needs to be specific “I am going to get revenge on people who have been mean to me” may or may not fit that bill.</p>

<p>However, making that threat is not a legally sufficient reason to lose right to own a gun. They still have to get a court ruling that they are a danger to others…and then you can still get your right back if you are given a clean bill of health later.
<a href=“Possession of Firearms by People With Mental Illness”>Policy Research;

[collegevetting]

<p>@calla1 actually it WAS his parent’s decision to send him to SBCC when he failed at Moorpark College after failing at Pierce College after refusing to get a job. He had watched a movie ‘Alpha Male’ showing a teenager going to parties in Isla Vista and having sex with blondes and thought it might be just the thing, but that was why he agreed to it after they told him he was going (according to his manifesto). I’m not jumping on the blame the parents bandwagon, I think they tried a lot of things and were worn out and as someone on here said ‘living on hope’ at this point, but their patchwork of support was still ongoing with counselors and rentafriends etc. </p>

[Goldenpooch]

<p>“blame the parents bandwagon”</p>

<p>I am not necessarily blaming the parents but I also don’t think they are entirely blameless, either.</p>

[sally305]

<p>

maybe people just don’t WANT what is proposed by some over and over, no matter how many times it is proposed. Perhaps it is just not a logical premise to others who actually value access to guns or even just people who value being able to make their own choices as a general matter. Clearly it is easy to call for limits on something you don’t personally value.

</p>

<p>Actually, most people DO value sensible restrictions on gun ownership. Even the legislators who vote against them out of fear of the wrath of the NRA.</p>

<p>

My point is that the guns were not the focal point of his murder spree.

</p>

<p>Yes, they were. It was only when he got his first gun that he began to feel empowered to exact his revenge–he says so in the manifesto. And remember, the three guys in the apartment were just an inconvenience and collateral damage. He couldn’t have used his guns to kill them or he would have been thwarted in his plans to get out on the streets of Isla Vista and go after his primary targets, the beautiful blond girls and their boyfriends.</p>

[dietz199]

<p>

interesting that someone with untreated TB can be institutionalized against his will, and forcibly treated, but those with psychiatric disorders that are wildly uncontrolled are allowed to roam at will, inflicting damage where they choose.

</p>

<p>When California passed the Laterman-Petris-Short act it severely limited the ability of law enforcement, health care professionals or family members to force a mental health institutionalization. The LPS act also make it illegal to force a person to take medication against their will…unless they had PROVEN to be a danger. </p>

<p>

…The fourth and final ingredient was the passage of the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) act in 1967 by the California State legislature. The LPS act ended the inappropriate, indefinite and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons to institutions and encouraged the full use of existing agencies, personnel and funds to provide treatment, supervision and placement of gravely disabled persons. The authors of the LPS act envisioned an expanded system of community based mental health centers providing appropriate and timely support to those in need at a reduced cost to the State.</p>

<p>The LPS act was fully implemented into law in 1969. The release of thousands of individuals into the community from the State’s asylums and institutions began in 1970 and continued throughout the decade. One example vividly illustrates what it was like and what would happen in communities, large and small, across the State. Over 3800 mentally ill people were released from Agnews State Hospital on June 30, 1972 into the San Jose area. This resulted in the creation of a “mental health ghetto” overnight as various service providers converted vacant buildings and abandoned fraternity houses into board and care homes. Between 1969 and 1970, California counties would be required to provide mental health services to over 45,000 inpatients and 120,000 outpatients. While the authors of the legislation thought they were improving lives, what they actually did was release thousands of ill, confused and vulnerable individuals into communities that were simply unprepared to provide the services and support envisioned.</p>

<p>While LPS did reduce the cost of caring for the mentally ill to the State, it did not improve lives or lessen the stigma that the public associated with mental illness. Quite the opposite occurred. Communities that previously had little contact with mentally ill individuals were seeing them daily on their streets. Individuals with schizophrenia that were previously locked away in the back rooms of State asylums now found themselves in the back rooms of run down boarding houses. Parents and family that previously had limited contact and responsibility for their mentally ill son, daughter, parent or relative, were now facing difficult choices regarding their care and support on a daily basis. Job and housing discrimination towards mentally ill individuals was widespread. Opportunities were few. Many would end up living homeless on the street or worse. Even the community mental health professionals that supported LPS legislation would find that they had neither the time and resources or inclination to provide the care originally envisioned. Private insurance was not available or coverage was limited. Parents and families were on their own. They would have to learn to cope with the changing needs of their mentally ill family member without the community support originally planned and promised.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.namicalifornia.org/about-nami.php?page=history&lang=eng”>http://www.namicalifornia.org/about-nami.php?page=history&lang=eng&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>(Although it is often stated that a certain CA Governor 'kicked the mentally ill out onto the streets, it was actually patient rights advocates that caused the emptying of these facilities). Between the
inability to force a mental health hold beyond the 72 hours, the FERPA, HIPAA, etc privacy clauses which come into play the minute a child turns 18…the parents, doctors, counselors etc
had their hands tied. You can only act after the mentally ill individual has acted. </p>

[collegevetting]

<p>Sorry @calla1 I am not sure if his parents did entirely come up with the Santa Barbara plan. It sounds like it was his mother’s idea when proposed, but that he had wanted to do it a couple of years before:</p>

<p>

Since I was back in father’s good graces, my mother agreed to meet with him and me to talk about my life situation. We had dinner at a Japanese restaurant, where we had a long talk about what I was doing in my life, and what my college plans were. My mother and father both agreed that in order to change my life, I needed to remove myself from my current environment and start anew. Living at my mother’s apartment was becoming unhealthy, and they thought that things would improve if I had my own place. It was at this moment that we began to form the Santa Barbara plan, in which I would go to college in Santa Barbara and live amongst the students there.
The Santa Barbara plan was formed on that night, but its roots stretch all the way back to when I just turned eighteen. It was all because I watched that movie Alpha Dog. The movie had a profound effect on me, because it depicted lots of good looking young people enjoying pleasurable sex lives. I thought about it for many months afterward, and I constantly read about the story online. I found out that it took place in Santa Barbara, which prompted me to read about college life in Santa Barbara. I found out about Isla Vista, the small town adjacent to UCSB where all of the college students live and have parties. When I found out about all this, I had the desperate hope that if I moved to that town I would be able to live that life too. That was the life I wanted. A life of pleasure and sex. I talked to my mother about the prospect of going to college in Santa Barbara a few times during my eighteenth year. She thought it was a good idea; it would certainly free her of the burden of living with me, but we never seriously considered it. Until that day.
My mother proposed the plan to father, and father became very enthusiastic about it. We laid down the groundwork right then and there. Father was still suffering from his financial crisis, but he agreed to pay for my tuition and contribute five hundred dollars a month towards my living expenses, while my mother would pay for my apartment rent and continue to provide me with the car. I was to do one more semester at Moorpark for the time being, and then transfer to Santa Barbara City College in the summer.
This was a very astonishing turn of events. I didn’t expect this, and I had no idea how to react. I was completely dumbfounded. I thought it was just going to be a casual dinner meeting where we would simply talk about my life, and we ended up making plans to drastically change my life.

</p>

<p>In any event, reading this it sounds like his parents were trying to do the right thing but were reaching the end of their ideas</p>

[collegevetting]

<p>

Actually, most people DO value sensible restrictions on gun ownership. Even the legislators who vote against them out of fear of the wrath of the NRA.

</p>

<p>I’m pretty sure there are studies going both ways on this, with the definition of ‘sensible restrictions’ being diversely stated. Yes, the NRA has lobbying power. So do other groups. My comments have to do with the timing of raising these issues to piggyback ride on pain, rather than just making the arguments if they carry logical weight, at other times. People are going to disagree with what sensible or permissible gun restrictions are and I don’t want to get into either side, to be honest. I have my opinion, and others will have a different opinion. I just feel badly for the students at my alma mater and upset that this happened in a place as friendly as Isla Vista. I am not really interested in any political agenda that might try to make this its poster child. If good changes in procedure come out of examining this systematically, when emotions are less, then all to the good, but for me the jump to attach preexisting political causes to the event (some of which really don’t fit it, imho) is distasteful.</p>

<p>As for the guns being central, I read his manifesto, and yeah he felt empowered by the guns, but also by his Dad’s SUV and also by the idea of setting fire to a sorority and spoke of ‘his knives and guns’. He only ever once seems to have gone to a gun range. Three of the six people he killed besides himself were killed with machetes and a hammer apparently. Whatever. I am really not interested in debating this issue, I just don’t like looking like I might agree by letting the comments lie. Done now. Dibs on a placeholder that I disagree.</p>

[dietz199]

<p>When your ‘child’ turns 18 you, as a parent, lose all rights to their health information. You will of course still need to pay for their insurance, their tuition, and their upkeep, but the State has striped you of all rights relating to those areas. Indications are these parents tried but ER was an ‘adult’ and the State was protecting ER from his parents meddling. Ironically, these people who had no right to force a change in ER’s behavior will no doubt be the target of lawsuits claiming ‘they should have done something’.</p>

<p>This hit very very close to home. The 4 minutes between reading the headlines on Saturday morning and when S answered my panicked calls/texts were the longest of my life to date.</p>

[bookworm]

<p>oh dietz, how awful for you! I feel this way whenever I hear of such a shooting. I especially feel for the roommates, knifed to death, machete in hand; such terror. </p>

[TatinG]

<p>Parents are not legally liable for the actions of their adult children. So I don’t think they will be a target of lawsuits. There don’t appear to be any parties here who are responsible in a civil liability sense except the shooter and he had no money to go after. </p>

[fluffy2017]

<p>

In any event, reading this it sounds like his parents were trying to do the right thing but were reaching the end of their ideas

</p>

<p>If they just thought he was depressed because he was lonely (vs. homicidal) it seems like a good plan and one that he was interested in and excited about. I didn’t read that end of their ideas.
Despite reports that they were rich, seems like they were digging to help him out too.</p>

[sally305]

<p>

Yes, the NRA has lobbying power. So do other groups.

</p>

<p>No. They don’t, on this issue. There is NO group that has any comparable influence.</p>

<p>According to this recent study, here’s where the public stands, which is quite at odds with how fearful legislators vote. In other words, not on their behalf.</p>

<p>

According to the survey, released today, a majority of Americans support a wide array of policies being discussed in Congress: 89 percent support closing the so-called gun show loophole by requiring background checks for all firearms sale; 69 percent support banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons; while 68 percent support banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines…</p>

<p>To gain further insight, the Johns Hopkins researchers over-sampled gun owners and people living in homes with guns. “Not only are gun owners and non-gun-owners very much aligned in their support for proposals to strengthen U.S. gun laws,” said study co-author Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, “but the majority of NRA members are also in favor of many of these policies.” For instance, the survey found that 74 percent of NRA members supported universal background checks for all firearm sales.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/poll_finds_strong_support_for_gun_regulations/”>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/poll_finds_strong_support_for_gun_regulations/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[sally305]

<p>dietz, I can only imagine. We have all had moments where we have worried about our kids and been unable to reach them, but thankfully most of us have never had to fear them being part of such a horrific event. My heart would still be racing if I had been in your shoes.</p>