https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6heavo-mw0

“Law officers who visited Elliot Rodger three weeks before he killed six college students near a Santa Barbara university were aware that he had posted disturbing videos but didn’t watch them, and they didn’t know about his final video detailing his ‘Day of Retribution’ until after the deadly rampage,” abc6.com reports. “The disclosure in a Santa Barbara County sheriff’s department statement on Thursday corrected an earlier assertion that deputies were unaware of any video when they checked on him on April 30.” As we said earlier . . .

Rodger fell through the net. The cops should have watched the video and made him the subject of a 5150 order – taking Rodger off the streets, enabling a search of his premises and removing his guns and gun rights for five years. AND making it possible to incarcerate him for an extended period.

The cops also failed to check the California database of firearms purchases to see if Rodger had firearms. So much for firearms registration for crime prevention.

I’d still like to know what kind of intel the cops had – and now we learn that there were at least four police present for the “mental health check” – when they decided Rodger wasn’t a threat. Meanwhile, gun control laws my ass.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

107 COMMENTS

  1. It’s funny how much crap I got from people when I claimed the cops dropped the ball… maybe those people feel just a bit stupid now.

    • “maybe those people feel just a bit stupid now”

      No, maybe you should work on your reading comprehension. From the abc6.com article:

      “The sheriff’s department also revealed new details about the timeline leading up to the killings. It said Rodger uploaded his final video to YouTube detailing his “Day of Retribution” and stating his plans and reasons for the killings, at 9:17 p.m. on the day of the shootings, May 23.”

      The cops interviewed Elliot Rodger in April. And we know the cops knew about his other “girls don’t like me” videos because they were discussed with Elliot when they interviewed him. I am continually amazed by how many people can’t get this right.

      • They interviewed him because his family called them; they were concerned about his state of mind then.

        The cops don’t just pick someone at random to interview.

        Read ALL the words; they’re important.

        • I’ve read it all. I’ve read his manifesto. I understand. Please educate us all on what actionable events occurred that would have prompted, or legally allowed, the police to take Elliot on a 5150? His interview didn’t reveal that he was suicidal or a danger to others. The police state so, and Elliot confirms that in his independent writing. Maybe you have reasoned that his therapist should have known he was a threat to himself or others. If so, make your case.

        • His THERAPISTS you mean. He’d been in therapy since he was eight, which should have been a stand-alone huge flaming CLUE to the Sherlocks who were too lazy to do basic police work beforehand.

          And I read everything I can find and factor out the inconsistencies and plain old BS. ONE article is just gossip.

          • Again, you’re short on facts. There are people who have been in therapy for years. Should they all be locked up as well?

      • They didn’t view those other videos which is the problem. Had they viewed them, they would have seen that he was mentally unstable and needed to be investigated and searched beyond what they did. Those videos showed violent intentions, but I’m guessing you didn’t watch those, just like they didn’t. The fact they didn’t even view the videos that prompted the call to them is deplorable. I’m predicting a big lawsuit is coming their way.

        • I watched every video of his. The only violent one was the Day of Retribution video. You’re trying to turn cops into psychologists. Neither his parents nor his therapist bothered calling the cops, despite what you read. There was an “anonymous” call to the SB Help Line about Rodger Elliot. They, in turn called law enforcement.

          However, you do know law enforcement called Rodger Elliot’s mother while they were there at his apartment, right? You do know she thought everything was okay and was fine with them leaving, right?

        • @Danny Griffin: +1

          Yeah, I was thinking the same thing regarding the videos. The only violent one I saw was the very last one. Good post… all of it.

    • Tell me: What was actionable in the prior videos?

      Before you can assert that the cops can come lock someone up, they have to have a reason to do so, per the law.

      I’m not finding stuff in his earlier videos that crosses the line into where California LEO’s could hold him.

      There are three reasons why a cop/LEO in California can put a 72-hour 5150 hold on a person:

      1. They’re a threat to themselves. They have to articulate a specific threat to kill or grievously harm themselves. None such here.

      2. They’re a threat to others. They have to articulate a specific threat to kill or injure another person.

      3. They’re not able to provide for themselves – ie, they’re living in filth, apparently unaware that they’re living in a dumpster full of crap, etc. This spoiled twerp was living a pretty lush lifestyle, all things considered.

      OK, here we’re talking about someone making threats against someone else, right? In the videos prior to his last, he’s doing a lot of whining and carping, but there are no specific threats.

      Mind you, for those of you who have not had the distinct pleasure of living in California, the case law has weakened the ability of LEO’s to take people in on 5150’s. If amorphous threats to “get back at some (insert class of people here)” were counted as viable reasons to place a 5150 hold on people, then politicians all over the state would get locked up, as well as lots of so-called public servants, radio show hosts, newspaper editors, etc. Compared to other states, California is positively filled with people who are as mad as hatters. Any cop in California can confirm for us that what passes for “sane” in California is a pretty low bar.

    • You and I both know the purpose of Gun Confiscation and that it has NOTHING to do with crime prevention

      • On these calls the officers should simply be there to make the situation safe for the psychoanalyst who actually has the skills and knowledge to make an assessment.

        And how come the cyber crimes division isn’t called to take a look at and report on the person’s public internet postings (particularly when that’s part of what’s scaring people into reporting in the first place).

        Then the investigator could make a determination to dig deeper or do something based on the full picture.

        Is all they teach in law enforcement school how to hang on the outside of a MRAP and throw flashbangs at babies now days?

      • Please realize that police routinely refuse candidates that score higher than 110 or so on the IQ test.

        • That’s because the fire departments get first dibs on the good ones……………………
          (I break myself up)

        • And refuse people because they think they’re pot smokers without any evidence other than a statement that the person thinks that marijuana usage should be legalized (ask me how I know…)

          • Maybe they don’t assume candidates are pot smokers, maybe they think the candidates will balk at arresting pot smokers.

            You know, like balking at arresting people for violating gun laws (magazine restrictions, ammo restrictions, type of gun restrictions…) Despite cops supposedly being pro-gun and pro-carry, they are expected to arrest people and put them in jail for owning certain guns and accessories, like AR-15s. Or standard-capacity magazines. Or hollow-point ammo. Or…

      • I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them did, but knew it would be his ass for institutionalizing the son of a Hollywood VIP.

    • Uh, not against the cops. In addition to precedent that police have no duty to protect an individual, the state has gone further and codified into the government code:

      845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
      failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
      police protection service or, if police protection service is
      provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
      service.
      …

      846. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
      injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to
      retain an arrested person in custody.

      855.6. Except for an examination or diagnosis for the purpose of
      treatment, neither a public entity nor a public employee acting
      within the scope of his employment is liable for injury caused by the
      failure to make a physical or mental examination, or to make an
      adequate physical or mental examination, of any person for the
      purpose of determining whether such person has a disease or physical
      or mental condition that would constitute a hazard to the health or
      safety of himself or others.

      • If protecting the welfare and safety of the general population is not a legal requirement of law enforcement then *why* do these government functions actually exist? Now think about that for a moment.

  5. pass a law that there must be donuts and fresh coffee in the break room at all times the police prepare to “chat” with persons of interest. Problem solved

    • We could give them time and a half while they are interviewing suspects and people of interest. Were already overpaying them, might as well keep them occupied behind a desk.

      • It’s not the police we’re overpaying, it’s the politicians, judges and prosecutors who built and support a thoroughly broken system.

  6. The part I don’t understand – the mother who warned police about her son – was she aware he had firearms?

    • The police, on the other hand, would have had access to that information, since all his guns were duly registered.

    • What I don’t understand is, when the parents and therapist saw the final video, why did they NOT call the SB Sheriff or Police Dept immediately? Instead they tried to make a frantic run by automobile up to Isla Vista, and ONLY called 911 when they heard about the shootings on the car radio. By then it was too late for the three stabbed in the apartment and at least two of the three girls he shot in front of the Sorority House. WTF? They knew the Sheriff or Police knew who he was and where he lived because of the April 30, “mental health check”.

      Now, that it has come out the authorities did not watch any of the other videos before the April 30 visit, it seems there is liability/culpability on both the parents and therapist, as well as the Sheriff or Police (whichever conducted the “mental health check and blew it).

      • Moral culpability on the Sheriff/police perhaps. But no legal liability/culpability. As I posted above,

        845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
        failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
        police protection service or, if police protection service is
        provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
        service.
        …

        846. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
        injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to
        retain an arrested person in custody.

        855.6. Except for an examination or diagnosis for the purpose of
        treatment, neither a public entity nor a public employee acting
        within the scope of his employment is liable for injury caused by the
        failure to make a physical or mental examination, or to make an
        adequate physical or mental examination, of any person for the
        purpose of determining whether such person has a disease or physical
        or mental condition that would constitute a hazard to the health or
        safety of himself or others.

      • Sometimes being well-connected and trying to keep stuff on the down low can be fatal.

  7. Where I come from we call this piss-poor police work. I see it’s becoming more commonplace.

  8. Let’s not forget that he murdered his three roommates using a KNIFE, and he ran over a bunch of people using his CAR. When will this nation stop the senseless violence by banning knives and cars?

    Oh wait, the media pukes and the “Bloomberg Mayors and Moms Against” all own kitchen knives and cars, so we don’t want to talk about those lethal weapons.

    • Come to think of it, I haven’t seen anything in the news about the action-deprived “moms” making any kind of “official” statement on this one. Have I just missed it?

  9. I’m not a huge fan of the police but expecting them to detect a manipulative little psychopath during a brief visit is unrealistic.

    The article mentions that his videos were disturbing, but is that true? His last one obviously was but were the ones prior to it hinting at any future violent acts? I don’t know and I don’t care to look through them enough to find out.

    • I haven’t seen the videos in question, but I found this statement from the family’s attorney on Fox News:

      Rodger’s family worried about him enough to call police about his videos on YouTube, saying they were alarmed by seeing him talk of suicide and killing people, family attorney Alan Shifman said Saturday.

      Emphasis mine.

      • Except for the last one, I don’t think any of the videos talked about killing others. I could be wrong, since I only watched a few of them.

    • Good point. The ones I watched were extremely self-pitying. I’d guess that the parents and therapist were more worried about suicide than homicide, until he put out that last video with the threats. Hence the “welfare check”. Isn’t a welfare check mainly to make sure the checkee isn’t lying on the floor in a pool of vomit/blood?

    • Nor constitutionally authorized to prevent.

      The pesky 4th Amendment mentions “probable cause” being required before seizure (arrest) can occur.

      I’d love to hear from the lawyers here on the history and development of that legal concept. I was taught “probable cause” means “a crime probably happened and so-and-so probably did it.”

      Now, I wondering if there is any basis to applying that concept to “a crime will probably occur and so-and-so will probably do it.”

      The fundamental issue, to my thinking anyway, is that it is clear to focus our justice system on actions that have happened and far more morally ambiguous to try to do the same on intents.

      Thoughtcrime is awfully hard to prove…

  11. let the finger-pointing commence. Who knew what and when did they know it? Who should have known? Could they have done more? (yawn…nothing to see here…move along)

  12. All,s same issues all come back bite in ass ever time that issue know one thinks that person has been in trouble with law is not welling go out kill other people. Ever one get strange idea that some one who kills other people must all,s be poor out work pissed off person lost job come back kill ever when used work for lose his job has trouble past with the law. Well be nice if that true but people kill other people have all been poor out work in lots trouble with law kind people. Here got case where all gun control in state that person in this case live at did nothing stop him because simple people look at fact he had ever been in trouble law instead fact that make youtube about killing people he did . What being forgotten creep kill some people in this case killed few with knife one with his car yet here no one there want ban knifes or BMW cars. What sad in case was because person killed people in blog did fit profile what killer should be no one stop him from killing people until to late, I know not use jerk name killed people in this blog because heard enough all ready. Here issue until are country get out denial about mental health issues stop blames guns for these tragedy all gun control in world is worthless.

  14. Everywhere I’ve ever worked there have always been slackers who half-ass it. Always. Even during my brief stint as an EMT. It’s unreasonable to expect that in law enforcement they are not slacking.

    Cops, paramedics, doctors, lawyers, military, everybody has slackers.

    Which is why I object so much to giving these people as much power as they have. Not investigating and tossing bangs into cribs come from the same attitude of half-assing it. The price we pay for their behavior is far too high.

    • You hit the nail on the head. A point I always try to make is that agents of the state are neither supervillains plotting evil in their mountain lairs nor knights in shining armor riding to the rescue. They are schlubs like all the rest of us.

      Yes, they’re trained. Yes, they go through a selection process. But that’s true of every occupation. Everyone wants highly skilled employees of unimpeachable integrity. And everyone ends up having to settle for what they can get.

  15. The beautiful truth…4 men in uniform charged with public safety…for whatever reason FAILED. Failed in duty, failed in conscience, failed in honor, failed their faith, failed their oath, failed citizens trust,

    THE ONLY THING THEY DID NOT FAIL WAS COLLECTING THEIR PAYCHECK, & MATCHING 401K CONTRIBUTION. Yes 4 officers living the dream, sucking the government tit with ZERO accountability.

    Oh well, culling the herd continues…without concern.

    • Regarding the Internet, most of them don’t know what to do but hit it with a nightstick. Oh, sorry – a BATON. Unless, of course, PR0n.

  16. All the cops had to do was watch the videos. They didn’t have to run or sweat or do any of the demanding tasks that cops dislike, such as thinking. All they had to do was watch the videos.

    I guess that doing their jobs was just too much to hope for.

    • Which videos, prior to the last, rise to the level of being actionable under the CA 5150 72-hour hold?

      Mind you, his therapist(s) could have initiated a 5150 hold on him. In California, pshrinks have the power to get their patients committed under 5150 based on what they hear in private sessions. If anyone was in possession of actionable information, it would have been his therapist(s).

      • There are people out in the SoCal area – who I consider to be nuts – that can do a pretty decent job of convincing a psychiatrist that they are sane over a short period of time. I’ve taken people in for 5150 holds and have had them subsequently released. The LA jail hospital 5150 wards are overcrowded. What is worse is having the shrink look at you and think that you are nuts for bringing them in.

      • We haven’t necessarily seen all of the videos. From the shooter’s “manifesto”, referring to the visit by the cops:
        It was all because of the videos. I must have expressed too much anger in them. I immediately took most of them off of Youtube”
        Maybe he didn’t re-upload everything.

  18. Can’t wait to see how leftist statists wrestle with the fact that their blue-costumed government saviors dropped the ball.

    Oh, they won’t because “NRA BUSH REDNECKS TEABAGGERS GUNS BLARGHLABLGRGL”

  20. Elliot didn’t make any threats to others until right before he started killing people, yet some here say the police should have locked him up over three weeks prior.

    Do some of you realize how many actual death threats the liberals have made publicly that go ignored by law enforcement and the gun-grabbers?

    Talk radio host Mike Malloy threatened to shoot NRA board members for backing Georgia’s Safe Carry Protection Act. Have the cops locked him up? Dozens, hundreds of liberals have tweeted death threats directly or indirectly to conservatives, particularly black conservatives, over everything from their stance on abortion to guns, and no one has done anything about them. If you’ve been paying attention to the news, you’ve seen them posted online over the last year or two. Have the cops locked any of them up?

    • “Have the cops locked any of them up?”

      Sounds to me like you’re volunteering, son.

    • Exactly.

      The people who want to go down the road of lowering the threshold of what constitutes actionable threats for a 5150 (or similar in other states) hold should think carefully about the results. There’s lots of liberals who will be caught up and hoisted upon their own petards on this issue.

      Heck, if we lower the bar far enough, the next time there’s an Occupy Wall Street protesting a bank with their signs about killing bankers (or encouraging them to jump out of windows), back up the bus, because a whole lot of liberals are going into the system.

      • Oh, you mean like what happened last year? One girl in NYC got nearly six months because an NYPD Sgt. copped a feel and she slugged him.

    • Elliot didn’t make any threats to others until right before he started killing people, yet some here say the police should have locked him up over three weeks prior.

      We don’t really know what threats he might have made prior to the LEO visit. According to his “manifesto”, he believed the visit was because of his YouTube videos, and he immediately removed “most of them” immediately after that LEO visit.

      Maybe he re-posted all of the videos prior to the evening of 23 May, and what we now see on YouTube (plus the “Day of Retribution” video that YouTube removed) is all he ever posted.

      Or, maybe he did not re-post everything that was on YouTube prior to the April LEO visit. Maybe there are videos, things that were on YouTube back in April and which prompted his family to get LE involved, that were removed and never replaced.

      • “We don’t really know what threats he might have made prior to the LEO visit. According to his “manifesto”, he believed the visit was because of his YouTube videos, and he immediately removed “most of them” immediately after that LEO visit.”

        He “believed” that because he was told that by the cops.

        “maybe he did not re-post everything that was on YouTube prior to the April LEO visit. Maybe there are videos, things that were on YouTube back in April and which prompted his family to get LE involved, that were removed and never replaced.”

        We pretty much know what was on there April 30 because he, his parents, and his therapist all confirm the same thing. Because some of his videos were depressing, asking why girls don’t like him, and walking around a park all alone sad, they thought he might be severely depressed, maybe even suicidal. The cops interviewed him and, through their conversation, found him to be “quiet and timid, polite and courteous.” He told them, convincingly, that he was not suicidal and that it was a misunderstanding. He didn’t make friends easily nor did he have a girlfriend, that’s all. The police said that, “he just didn’t meet the criteria for any further intervention at that point.”

        Could he have had videos posted on April 30 saying he was going to start killing people? I don’t think so, for several reasons. First of all, neither his parents nor his therapist that viewed the videos prior to calling the cops for a welfare check said anything like that existed. They were just worried because he seemed depressed. Second of all, Elliot said that his parents were merely worried–the videos caused them some concern–so he took his videos down to reduce suspicion on him. He didn’t want anyone to discover that he was planning on hurting people. Thus, a video like that didn’t exist yet. If it had, they would already know that. He also stated that he would repost them later, prior to killing people. There is no reason why he would continue to “hide” a video like that while simultaneously posting his “Day of Retribution” video that laid out exactly what he was going to do–kill people.

        So, yeah, we pretty much know exactly what he posted prior to April 30.

        • Could he have had videos posted on April 30 saying he was going to start killing people? I don’t think so, for several reasons. First of all, neither his parents nor his therapist that viewed the videos prior to calling the cops for a welfare check said anything like that existed.

          From http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-knew-killers-videos-check-23921594 :

          Family spokesman Simon Astaire has said Rodger’s mother became alarmed in late April after viewing bizarre YouTube videos posted by her son. She notified his therapist, who called health officials who in turn notified the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. Family attorney Alan Shifman has described the videos as “regarding suicide and the killing of people.”

        • Don, I know what the family attorney stated, but I am suspect. It was vague, he wouldn’t clarify, and it sounds like he is just wordsmithing to put the blame on the police. Elliot’s therapist has not said his videos talked of suicide and murder, and she’s the one that called the police in the first place. I do not believe there were any like that posted because of the reasons I posted above.

          Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d bet I’m not. I guess we’ll find out more info as the investigation progresses.

          Maybe Mike Malloy will finally be put in custody now.

        • My point is that we don’t yet know what was or was not posted on YouTube when the cops showed up at his door.

          The people who say “the cops should have done something” are basing that assertion on the presumption that there were damning videos posted.

          The people who say “the cops could not have done a damned thing” are basing that assertion on the presumption that what appears on YouTube today is what was there when the cops showed up.

          Neither presumption is valid. We don’t know what was there when the cops appeared at his door. Maybe someone will subpoena YouTube’s records and we’ll find out exactly what he’d posted that led his family to (eventually) get the cops involved.

        • it sounds like he [family attorney] is just wordsmithing to put the blame on the police

          But why would he do that? It doesn’t serve any purpose. It’s undisputed that the family [indirectly] called the cops because they were concerned. It’s undisputed that the cops showed up and talked to him. It’s also undisputed that the cops were aware of “disturbing” videos, though they may not have viewed them.

          If, somehow, the family members were on trial for some kind of culpability here, and the case hinged on “did the family try to do something”, I, as a juror, would vote in favor of the family. The actual content of the videos would be irrelevant. The attorney wouldn’t need to make any kind of CYA statement.

        • “But why would he do that?”

          PR. “It’s not our fault, we called the cops!”

          There have been a lot of comments in the press regarding the previous videos. This attorney’s statement is the only one that alludes to suicide and murder. The police don’t say they were told that at all. The police should release the 911 call from the therapist.

        • There have been a lot of comments in the press regarding the previous videos. This attorney’s statement is the only one that alludes to suicide and murder.

          It really isn’t (or shouldn’t be) surprising that press comments on the videos only refer to those that were visible on YouTube on or after 23 May. It’s pretty unlikely that anyone in the press was watching his YouTube channel in April. So far, we only have one source (who has gone public, at least) who describes the contents of the YouTube channel at the time of the April LE visit. That one source says the videos describe “the killing of people”.

          As you suggested, we really need to know what:
          * was seen by the family members
          * was reported by family to the therapist
          * was reported by the therapist to the “mental health service”
          * was reported by the “mental health service” to LE
          * LE did or did not know about prior to their visit

          At present, we don’t know ***any*** of the above. We only know what the YouTube channel contains now, what the killer wrote in his “manifesto”, and what the family attorney says. None of these tell us that LE a) should have or b) could not have done anything differently.

        • Don, all I can say is that Elliot Rodger’s parents hired a PR guy for this, so don’t think PR isn’t a part of it. They are already trying to cover their butts because they didn’t call the police on May 24. They have given a couple of different stories on that: that called 911, they called a sheriff directly, they called after the killing started. Anyway, I’ve got more detail on the police call I’ll post in the next message.

          In the meantime, if you want to get creeped out some more, check out a website called wizardchan.org It is for 30 year old virgins. There must be hundreds of guys on there that should be grabbed by the police for psych evaluations. What’s more, Elliot Rodger was a member and used to post his videos there. When he posted his Day of Retribution video, they seemed alarmed, and they were very familiar with all of his other videos, so it would seem that that was the first video where he talked about suicide or murder. There’s another data point for non-actionable videos prior to May. Anyway, here’s that thread:

          http://wizardchan.org/v9k/res/98593.html

          They are talking about going underground with Tor now because of Elliot.

  21. Anyone remember Jaws? It was a story about corrupt city officials keeping a deadly menace secret so that cronys could make money off of ignorant tourists. Of course the tourists died as a result.
    Based on a true story which is endlessly repeated because greed trumps human life.
    Same here

  22. I love this quote from the Washington Post link above:

    “Garen J. Wintemute, director of the University of California at Davis’s Violence Prevention Research Program, said knowledge of the guns could have been helpful, but knowledge of large ammunition purchases would have triggered a more urgent need to intervene.

    “If they found out he bought 40 magazines, that would have been the end of it,” said Wintemute, who is also an emergency room doctor and professor of emergency medicine. “I don’t think anyone could talk their way out of 40 magazines. Three handguns could be aggressive collecting; 40 magazines is stockpiling. You are preparing for some kind of event.”

    3 handguns is “aggressive collecting”? Really? So, what…2 handguns is “collecting”, and one handgun is “barely reasonable”? How are you a “collector” of anything with only 3 of that item? Do stamp collectors only have 3 stamps before they are “aggressively collecting”? Coin collectors only 3 coins? “What a maroon!” (said in Bugs Bunny voice).

    • Magazines are ammunition?

      The guy had two days worth of Wal-Mart daily purchase limits (when they were in place) in rounds.

    • “I don’t think anyone could talk their way out of 40 magazines.”

      There are those who think anything more than a few magazines is excessive, while I know there are other readers who are thinking, “Only forty?!” 😀

  23. I brought up hammering the failed cops several days ago. Don’t want to violate the poor 22year old virgin’s rights. Completely in agreement with RF.

    • And you get a similar reply today that you got before. Such a tactic has the very real potential of missing the mark and encouraging the expansion of police powers. It’s a bad idea. The real issue is that law abiding citizens were disarmed.

  24. Seems to me then that the LE involved should be held accountable at some level…if I knew of something, and didn’t report it, I could be charged with a variety of crimes, and any LE involved in this should be treated the very same way…

      • You must not have been paying attention, to recap, here’s the title to the article…
        “Police Knew But Didn’t View Elliot Rodger’s Videos”

        NM, I see now that you’re just another leftist/liberal troll…

        • “You must not have been paying attention, to recap, here’s the title to the article…
          “Police Knew But Didn’t View Elliot Rodger’s Videos”

          I’m going to make this real easy for you. List the exact videos of Elliot Rodger that the police should have viewed that showed he was a danger to himself or others. You can use the titles he did on youtube. We’ll wait.

          Btw, no one could confuse me with a liberal/leftist/progressive.

  25. I got a nickel that says if he’d had a III% flag they’d have picked him up. Domestic terrorist ya know.

  28. Most people thought Elliot Rodger’s parents or therapist called 911 on April 30, asking for a welfare check on Elliot, and we’ve all been wondering exactly what the police were told. Well, apparently that’s not how that went down. The Santa Barbara County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Hot Line people called them. They probably had little to no info. Here’s what happened.

    At approximately 10:17 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2014, the Santa Barbara County Emergency Communications Center received a call from a mental health staff member assigned to answer the Santa Barbara County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Toll Free Access Line. The staff member requested deputies check the welfare of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who lived at an apartment in the 6500 block of Seville Road in Isla Vista. The staff member said she had been contacted by a person who identified himself as a friend of Elliot Rodger (speculation: his therapist?). Based on information from the caller and Elliot Rodger’s mother, the staff member on the Mental Health hot line requested a welfare check on Elliot Rodger.

    So, it was not the mother or father who called, and it was not the police who were called, it was a Mental Health Hotline who got in touch with the Santa Barbara County Emergency Communications Center (911) and told them about Elliot Rodger. We’ve already got a game of Chinese Telephone going on here. Who knows what the story started out to be and ended up when the police heard it. But it is clear the Rodgers did not call the police and tell them that Elliot had posted videos about suicide and murder. They never called the police at all! Here’s more: as you will see below, the sheriff’s deputies called Elliot Rodger’s mother while there were there at Elliot’s apartment and even she was okay with them concluding the welfare check.

    April 30, 2014 “Check the Welfare” Call

    At approximately 10:17 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2014, the Santa Barbara County Emergency Communications Center received a call from a mental health staff member assigned to answer the Santa Barbara County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Toll Free Access Line. The staff member requested deputies check the welfare of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who lived at an apartment in the 6500 block of Seville Road in Isla Vista. The staff member said she had been contacted by a person who identified himself as a friend of Elliot Rodger. Based on information from the caller and Elliot Rodger’s mother, the staff member on the Mental Health hot line requested a welfare check on Elliot Rodger.

    Four Sheriff’s deputies and a UCSB police officer assigned to the Isla Vista Foot Patrol, along with a dispatcher-in-training, responded to the call. The Isla Vista Foot Patrol is made up of Sheriff’s deputies and UCSB police officers who offer community policing by patrolling the area in groups of two or three, primarily on foot or bicycle, to protect and serve the large student population and other Isla Vista residents and visitors. Typically, in a “check the welfare” call of this nature, only two deputies would respond. In this case, deputies who were not assigned to the call, but who were familiar with Rodger as a victim in a January 2014 petty theft case, also decided to respond.

    When Sheriff’s deputies arrived at Rodger’s address, they contacted him outside of his residence. Deputies found Rodger to be shy, timid and polite. When questioned by the deputies about reported disturbing videos he had posted on-line, Rodger told them he was having trouble fitting in socially in Isla Vista and the videos were merely a way of expressing himself. Based upon the information available to them at the time, Sheriff’s deputies concluded that Rodger was not an immediate threat to himself or others, and that they did not have cause to place him on an involuntary mental health hold, or to enter or search his residence. Therefore, they did not view the videos or conduct a weapons check on Rodger.

    A Sheriff’s deputy on-scene called Rodger’s mother and briefed her on the situation. He then passed the phone to Rodger so he could speak to his mother directly. During the conversation with his mother, Rodger told her he was fine and that he would call her later. Before leaving, deputies gave Rodger information on several local services he could contact if he needed help, including calling the Sheriff’s Office. Deputies’ contact with Rodger lasted approximately ten minutes.

    Based on the information reviewed thus far, the Sheriff’s Office has determined that the deputies who responded handled the call in a professional manner consistent with state law and department policy.

Comments are closed.