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

<p>BTW, looking at California law…</p>

<p>A parent is jointly liable for actions of a child, but there are limits of the liability.
Related to this case, for the “discharge of a firearm”, the limit is $60k per occurrence. </p>

<p>For non statutory liability - no dollar limits, the failure of protecting people from someone they know (or should have known) about the dangerous propensities of the child.
The judgement comes down to whether or not the child had prior acts of violence. In this case, that seems to be a tough thing to prove, because there doesn’t seem to be previous violence, just videos. But once they saw the videos, they contact authorities who reported back no issues.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I brought it up because the murderer’s stated desire to have desired women to be placed in concentration camps and completely controlled by men has a direct parallel with what Mary Daly proposed in a past interview…only the genders were reversed. </p>

<p>That’s obvious. But strangely tangential to this discussion. </p>

<p>This is what I’m trying to get at. How much about his state of mind did others know? I think some knew plenty. What is the responsibility of an individual who knows that a person has fantasies about punishing women for not wanting him?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>None at all (unless you are in a class of people who have a duty towards this person or to protect others), unless it is regarding a minor in which case it might be part of why you ‘should have known’ he was dangerous in CA. And then with a minor you have the ability to control and to get facts you do not have with an adult.</p>

<p>This may sound harsh to those who haven’t studied it, but violent fantasy is not at all uncommon and most people who have violent fantasies don’t act on them - the fantasy itself is an outlet. Reason to avoid someone, obviously. Beyond that, to make strangers or people who are acquaintances who do not have any responsibility for you responsible opens a huge can of worms. Anglo American common law has worked out over time when you are responsible. There are all sorts of odd situations that can come out of it, for example watching someone die when you have a rope attached to a pier beside you and they are drowning within casting distance - no liability. However, courts will try to find a duty to act there, and that is when bad law can be made if they don’t realize the complications of the precedent they are setting. If you create a law you have to think about how it will be applied in all cases.</p>

<p>VP Biden offers heartfelt condolences to graduating UCSB students in this video:
<a href=“Vice President Biden's Message to UCSB on Vimeo”>http://vimeo.com/97881903&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I haven’t read through the whole thread, but this analysis is one of the best summaries of the current challenges facing law enforcement and mental health professionals scrambling to come up with solutions to mass shootings.
<a href=“Myth vs. Fact: Violence and Mental Health — ProPublica”>Myth vs. Fact: Violence and Mental Health — ProPublica;

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmmmm not sure why last two posts are dated as June 2, preventing thread from refreshing. Let’s see if this one bumps it up…</p>