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

<p>I’m not concluding that the parents did all they could do. And as a parent, God forbid I were in this situation, of course I would look back and question if I had done all I could do! It is human nature to do that. But I’m just saying that these parents seemed to care, seemed to get help for the kid, seemed to keep tabs on him, even contacted authorities about their boy, and were not absentee. I just don’t like seeing them blamed. And one person actually blamed “dysfunctional family” for causing the kid’s behavior, whereas I see it as the kid had mental illness that the parents tried to deal with as best as they could, even if they could have done more, based on what others perceive they could have done for him. </p>

<p>I also do not think cutting him off financially in a punitive way and throwing him out on the streets to fend for himself would be a good thing to do when mental illness is involved and not simply poor behavior. </p>

<p>Yup, you cannot parent away mental illness. It’s just not possible. They’re not to blame in the least. </p>

<p>link still doesnt work soozie. you are gonna have to write it out with spaces or something. Or give the title and where its posted</p>

<p>Flossy, nobody could have foreseen he would do this rampage, that’s true. But I think the police just took the kid’s word for it that all was OK. And I think the videos disturbed the therapist enough to call police and so the videos were evidence that something was amiss…not evidence of a massacre being planned but beyond merely being depressed. Perhaps follow up was warranted? I’m just saying that the family and therapist provided some evidence that was concerning, and the police just chatted with the boy. I’m not sure the answer but viewing the disturbing evidence may have been a part of the action taken, with some follow up visits or mental health visitor or something. I feel like the family and therapist provided more to police beyond “will you see if my boy is OK?” </p>

<p>jym, when I copy and paste the link, it appears fine but when it goes to post, it seems to insert asterisks in it and I’m not sure why and I have tried it a a few times.</p>

<p>This is not the same article I tried to link to, but it reports the same facts and so try this:
<a href=“Police knew of killer's videos but never watched them”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/05/30/santa-barbara-elliot-rodger-videos/9757893/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It also says that the videos that were shared with police (though never watched by police) don’t just speak of “depression” as someone mentioned on this thread, but that ER says he will “punish you all for it.” Obviously, this got his mom and therapist rightfully concerned, enough to call the police. I think this was worth investigating by watching the videos and then investigating or following up on the case more than the police did. Not blaming them for the outcome but just speaking of this process. </p>

<p>Not sure what is new news in soozie’s link, but we’ve already discussed that the police knew about the videos before their visit to him. Here’s a link to an article, if anyone needs to see proof (well, journalistic proof for what that’s worth!) that they knew about the videos: <a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-knew-killers-videos-check-23921594”>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-knew-killers-videos-check-23921594&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Not familiar with the CA involuntary hospitaization law, but where I am the person signing the form to have the person transported must have personally seen the client with in the past 48 hrs where the person had expressed thoughts of violence which presents the probability (ie imminent risk) of physical injury to self or others. In this day and age with telemedicine and videos like this, it would be helpful if these procedures were updated.</p>

<p>Soozievt - Yeah, I understand. From what we are told call to police came from an agency, so who knows? In any case, the agency would know exactly what the procedure is in these things. Sure, someone could have followed up. There were 20 days for someone familiar with his level of potential disturbance to follow up. Police don’t follow up to make sure a possible 5150 is still stable. Everyone knows this. The therapist surely knows this. They were all hoping he was okay and the police have no more way of knowing or suspecting he wasn’t than anyone else. Probably less. </p>

<p>I don’t know, I guess I just think it’s too easy to blame police. The family spokesman who knew the boy says police were absolutely blameless. His quote - “Elliot fooled everyone. He was in many ways a monster.” That says it all imho. </p>

<p>We talked about it earlier in the thread, soozievt, and several people (including me) concluded that the police were the wrong people to be doing the assessment, because they are not qualified to assess mental health and should not be expected to do it. The police need to intervene when someone is crazy, violent, out of control, but they don’t know how to diagnose most mental health conditions any more than the rest of us do. </p>

<p>That is, if the police had knocked at his door and found a wild-eyed guy who hadn’t showered in three weeks and was ranting about being secretly controlled by squirrels, they would know there was a problem. But they can’t be expected to do subtle diagnostics on a clean, polite person who seems under control.</p>

<p>Shrinkrap pointed out that if we want mental health professionals to be involved in situations like that, we’re going to have to allocate more money to public mental health issues.</p>

<p>Did the video that the therapist saw make a specific threat to a specific sorority house? If so, she had a duty to warn them, under California law. <a href=“Mental Health Professionals’ Duty to Warn”>Policy Research;

<p><a href=“http://www.zurinstitute.com/tarasoff.html”>http://www.zurinstitute.com/tarasoff.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>CTTC…my link is apparently not “new news” to this thread. Sorry, I have not kept up reading the posts here in the last day or so. I read the news article and shared it here because it touched on something I had commented on a bunch days and days ago on this thread. In a rapidly moving thread that is this active, unless one keeps up hourly, it is hard to stay current with the discussion and I don’t have time to read back pages of posts. Sorry about that.</p>

<p>Jym - The video with threats was put up 10 minutes before the first gunshots were fired. There was a 911 call but it was after the rampage was underway.</p>

<p>This article <a href=“Frantic parents of shooting suspect raced to Isla Vista during rampage”>http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-frantic-parents-isla-vista-shootings-20140525-story.html&lt;/a&gt; says the video says “tomorrow is the day of retribution”. Not sure when it was posted. And didnt the therapist say he got the email from ER but didnt open it for several hours.</p>

<p>FWIW, emailing clients is not generally felt to be appropriate for a variety of reasons.</p>

<p>Jym - Yes, they thought they had more time. The video said tomorrow. But, it happened that night. He wasn’t dumb. He also had lunch plans with his parents “tomorrow”.</p>

<p>Did you read the article I linked?</p>

<p>"‘It was apparent he was very mentally disturbed,’ Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said, referring to the contents of the autobiography.</p>

<p>So disturbed that someone from a mental health agency, after consulting with one of Rodger’s relatives, requested police check on his welfare April 30, Brown said.</p>

<p>Rodger’s family contacted police after discovering social media posts about suicide and killing people, family spokesman and attorney Alan Shifman told reporters Saturday."</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/25/justice/california-shooting-deaths/”>California shooter Elliot Rodger thought plan was over in April - CNN;

<p>I keep seeing posts here implying that the family/therapist initially contacted the police because they were worried about the killer hurting himself, but many articles, like the one above, state that they discovered videos about suicide AND killing people. The killer even said, in his manifesto, that “It was all because of the videos. I must have expressed too much anger in them.” Please correct me if I may have missed something. </p>

<p>If I saw videos my child had posted that prompted me to request a police welfare check on my son, I am pretty sure I would have made that call on the ninety minute drive from the Valley to Isla Vista. My understanding is that the killer was not in the physical presence of his family at any time after the welfare check. Certainly not blaming, but not really comprehending either. </p>

<p>The one from May 25th in the Times? Yes, on May 25th. Sorry. I don’t mean to sound snarky at all but I do think I’m missing your point if you are even talking to me. Not sure. </p>

<p>I think the police should have asked permission to come in to his apartment and had a look around. They had the right ("at their discretion’) to ask if he had weapons. Apparently the did not. Lets put some of the responsibility on them.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And from the police:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“Deputies didn't know Elliot Rodger owned guns, officials say”>http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-rodger-weapons-20140531-story.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"I think the police should have asked permission to come in to his apartment and had a look around. They had the right (“at their discretion’) to ask if he had weapons. Apparently the did not. Lets put some of the responsibility on them.” </p>

<p>Agreed. </p>