Posted on 02/25/2018 7:09:29 PM PST by grundle
Nikolas Cruz is the scumbag who murdered 17 people at Stoneman Douglas High School earlier this month. The school is part of the Broward County school district in Florida.
In September 2017, Cruz made a comment at YouTube, under his real name, which said:
“I’m going to be a professional school shooter.”
The operator of the YouTube channel told YouTube and the FBI about this comment. Even though the government can use IP addresses to find anyone, the FBI never arrested or even questioned Cruz. After the shooting, the FBI offered the following explanation for why it didn’t arrest Cruz:
“There was no particular information about the particular time, location or further identifiers about the person who posted the comment.”
I’m not buying that explanation. I’m pretty certain that if Cruz had threatened someone who was considered “important,” the FBI would have had no trouble finding him.
In January 2018, someone who knew Cruz in real life contacted the FBI, and told them about Cruz’s
“gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting”
And just like before, the FBI did not arrest or even interview Cruz. And this time, they didn’t have the bogus excuse of falsely claiming they didn’t know his name or address, because that information was given to them by the person who contacted them.
This is the FBI’s official response to accusations that it knowingly allowed Cruz to murder innocent people:
February 16, 2018
FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.
Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.
We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.
FBI Director Christopher Wray said:
“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.
“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”
This is not the first time the FBI knew about but failed to stop something like this. There have been at least three other instances. The New York Times wrote of this:
It is not the first time that the F.B.I. has come under fire for being aware of a threat and failing to stop an attack.
Congress criticized the bureau for not preventing the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, in which the gunman was known to the F.B.I. The bureau also knew of one of the two brothers who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. And Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people in an Orlando, Fla., nightclub in 2016, had been investigated by the F.B.I. for months before the attack. That case was closed before the shooting occurred.
Deputies had been called to Cruz’s home 39 times during the seven years prior to the shooting. After the shooting, the Washington Post wrote of these police visits:
Fla. shooting suspect had a history of… killing animals
The killing began with the squirrels. As a fourth-grader, Nikolas Cruz would try to bloody them with his pellet gun. Then he started going after chickens.
By the time Cruz was a teenager, he was sneaking into his neighbors’ yard across the street and trying to get his dogs to attack their baby potbelly pigs.
One resident watched him take long sticks to rabbit holes, ramming them down as hard as possible to kill any creatures trapped inside…
Instagram posts and photographs, including one showing a gun’s laser sight pointed at a neighborhood street. Another appeared to show a dead frog’s bloodied body…
He stole people’s mail. He threw rocks and coconuts and vandalized property, neighbors said. He lurked at late hours along drainage ditches running along the back yards of their houses. One woman said she caught him peeking into her bedroom window. Another caught him stealing their bike…
Three neighbors recalled seeing furniture on the curb to be hauled away every few months. The hutches and tables often looked like they had been kicked in or smashed up by someone…
Cruz started selling knives out of a lunchbox, Mutchler said, posting on Instagram about guns and killing animals, and eventually “going after one of my friends, threatening her.”
Prior to the shooting, the school found that Cruz had been carrying bullets in his backpack. And even then, the school still didn’t take any serious action. All they did was send him an email telling him he wasn’t allowed to bring a backpack to school.
There were so many warning signs. Something should have been done.
But there were social justice warriors trying to keep Cruz out of prison.
In order to end the “school to prison pipeline,” the NAACP had teamed up with the Broward County school district to prevent minority criminals from being arrested.
Meanwhile, president Obama had expressed support for a proposal which would punish students based on their race instead of on their behavior, and had ordered schools to reduce the number of racial minorities who get arrested.
The NAACP and Obama were both operating under a policy known as “disparate impact,” which wikipedia describes as
“practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral”
According to this theory, it is “racist” to treat everyone the same if this results in different outcomes for different races. Therefore, according to his theory (which I disagree with 100%), in order to treat everyone fairly, we must treat people differently based on their race. The New York Times explained it this way:
“A 2009 Princeton study showed Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chance of admission to leading universities.”
The original civil rights movement was about treating people of all races the same.
But today, if you support treating all races the same, the social justice warriors such as Obama and the NAACP will falsely accuse you of being a racist.
Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action does not actually increase a student’s chance of going to college. Instead, affirmative action affects which college a student will attend. It goes like this: without affirmative action, a student will go to a school that matches her abilities, and she will have a good chance of graduating. By comparison, with affirmative action, a student will end up going to a college that is beyond her abilities, and she will probably end up dropping out.
And this isn’t just a theory. There is real world evidence to support it. Real world evidence shows that affirmative action hurts the very people whom it is indented to help. This is from the Atlantic – not exactly a bastion of the political right. It says that although supporters of affirmative action have good intentions, the actual results are that the policy hurts black students. It hurts them by putting them into schools that are above their ability, so they either end up dropping out, or, they abandon the STEM major that they had wanted in exchange for an easier major.
It also talks about how blacks are more likely to have white friends at the school if the school does not have affirmative action, because people tend to choose friends who are of the same academic ability as their own. It also talks about how blacks are happier at schools that don’t have affirmative action because there is never any question as to their qualifications. It also says that the same problems happen with students who are admitted for athletic reasons, and for legacy admissions too – including students who are white.
But most importantly, it says that blacks benefited when UCLA banned affirmative action. After the school ended affirmative action, the number of black freshman was cut in half. However, the number of blacks from these freshman classes who went on to graduate stayed the same. In other words, the elimination of affirmative action did not reduce the number of blacks who graduated from the school. Instead, the elimination of affirmative action reduced the number of blacks who dropped out of the school. So instead of getting admitted to UCLA by affirmative action and then dropping out because they weren’t qualified, they ended up going to easier colleges, where they were qualified, and where they had a better chance of graduating.
Of course, none of this evidence has stopped social justice warriors from supporting affirmative action. Apparently, social justice warriors seem to think that dropping out of a college that’s above your abilities, is somehow preferable to graduating from a college that matches your abilities.
Here’s another real world example of the harmful results that happen when social justice warriors operate under the policy of “disparate impact”: when Barack Obama was working as a “community organizer” in Chicago, he filed lawsuits which forced “racist” banks to give mortgages to people with bad credit and low incomes. As a result, many of these borrowers ended up defaulting on their mortgages. As their attorney, Obama collected $23,000 in legal fees for himself.
To the social justice warriors, Obama was helping these borrowers fight against the “racist” mortgage standards which said that in order to get a mortgage, you had to actually be capable of paying it back. Social justice warriors think those standards are perfectly fine when applied to whites, but “racist” when applied to blacks. So the “disparate impact” policy required that mortgages be given to blacks who could not afford to pay them back. The fact that these blacks ended up defaulting is of no concern to the social justice warriors.
Anyway, all of this is relevant to the recent school shooting in Florida because the Broward County school district was trying to make its statistics look a certain way, and having a student named “Cruz” arrested would have gone against this goal. Just as the social justice warriors apply the “disparate impact” to college admissions and home mortgages, they also apply it to the prison system. In all three of these cases, social justice warriors believe that it is “racist” to treat all races the same, and so they insist on treating different races differently.
If it were not for this policy of trying to end the “school to prison pipeline,” the shooting may not have happened.
The Broward County school district knew that Cruz was a threat, but instead of having him arrested, they merely banned him from bringing a backpack to school.
The signs were there. The warnings were there. But the school district decided that this dangerous person should not be arrested.
If Cruz had been arrested, then depending on the outcome, a background check by the gun seller might have prevented him form buying the gun.
Like Cruz, Trayvon Martin’s school district was also in Florida. Martin was a student at Dr. Michael M. Krop High School, which is in the Miami-Dade County school district. The two districts share a common border.
After a security camera showed Martin spraying graffiti on school property, a search of his backpack showed that he was in possession of 12 pieces of women’s jewelry, including diamond earrings and silver wedding rings. He also had a screwdriver, which, in this context, is considered a burglary tool.
However, instead of having Martin arrested for burglary, the Miami-Dade school district reported the jewelry as having been “found.” Not “stolen” – but “found.” This is because the district was obeying Obama’s order for schools to reduce the number of racial minorities who got arrested.
Martin said that the jewelry belonged to a friend, but refused to say who that friend was. Why would a teenage boy bring a backpack full of diamond earrings and silver wedding rings to school? Do Martin’s millions of defenders really think that he was not a burglar?
On the night that George Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, when Zimmerman called 911 before shooting and killing Martin, Zimmerman said that Martin looked like he was casing houses like a burglar, and that he looked like he was stoned. After Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, a blood test showed traces of THC in Martin’s system, which only remains in a marijuana smoker’s system for a few hours after they smoke it. So Zimmerman was right about Martin being on illegal drugs.
The fact that Martin was in possession of stolen jewelry at school is perfectly in line with Zimmerman’s claim on the 911 call that Martin was acting suspiciously. And there had been quite a few burglaries in the area recently. So perhaps Zimmerman was right about Martin casing houses for burglary, just like Zimmerman was also right about saying Martin was on illegal drugs.
Finally, Zimmerman’s medical records showed that he had a broken nose, and that his head had been slammed into the concrete. So it’s very likely that his shooting of Martin was indeed in self defense. Of course, Martin’s defenders ignored this. Instead, they showed pictures of him from his childhood, instead of as a near adult, in order to try to falsely portray him as being physically incapable of hurting Zimmerman, in order to make Zimmerman falsely look like a murderer.
So Trayvon Martin was a burglar, used illegal drugs, broke George Zimmerman’s nose, and smashed Zimmerman’s head against the concrete.
And how did Obama respond to all of this?
Obama said:
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Meanwhile, an Ivy League black studies professor made both of her young sons cry by scaring them into falsely believing that George Zimmerman was going to kill them.
Cruz and Martin are both racial minorities. Both engaged in illegal activities which should have led to their arrest. But neither one was arrested because their school districts wanted to reduce the “school to prison pipeline.”
If the two school districts had actually been concerned with the safety of their students, then instead of trying to reduce the “school to prison pipeline,” they would have had both Cruz and Martin arrested. Nipping their criminal activity in the bud may have prevented Cruz from murdering 17 people, and may have prevented Martin from casing houses for burglary on the night that Zimmerman shot and killed him.
Political correctness prevented the Broward County school district from having Cruz arrested when his school found bullets in his backpack, which allowed him to later go on and murder 17 people.
Political correctness prevented the Miami-Dade school district from having Martin arrested when his school found stolen jewelry in his backpack, which allowed him to later case houses for burglary on the night that Zimmerman shot and killed him.
The two Florida school districts, the NAACP, and Obama are all responsible for both Cruz and Martin not being arrested, and the results in both cases were deadly.
What obama did to America is not just some policy. The damage is profound
Yes, this is laid directly at BO’s feet.
Nice article. I would enjoy reading the author expanding on how when felons ARE convicted they are given 15 years of probation instead of 3 years prison; turning what would have been a three year punishment into almost a quarter of a person’s life controlled with strict government oversight and intrusion.
This is all connected to the past 8 years of “justice reform.”
All of this is done to end the prison overpopulation and to “save money” but does little to actually protect citizens.
Yeah, but he meant well.
The ironic thing is Cruz is probably not actually hispanic.
I want someone to ask the leftist gun grabbers a question. Why do mass school shootings never happen at Black inner city schools? Could it be that it is because most of these schools have metal detectors, armed guards in the hallways and restricted entrance to the building? All measures reasonable people are calling for for all schools. Since most shootings occur at mostly white suburban schools, isn’t it racist to oppose these common sense measures for those schools.
To your question...why do mass school shootings never happen at Black inner city schools?
Ask the next logical question...why are the young mass shooters non-black? Go and look at every mass shooting over the past thirty years in a school....none involve a black kid.
My answer? I don’t think they are put on antidepressants or mood-meds as much as these white kids. If you do see some black kid in a shooting...it’s strictly a one-on-one, revenge, or robbery type situation. Go ask a hundred black young male kids if they get antidepressants....I’ll bet it’s less than one-percent that say yes.
Thanks. I’m the author.
Since he’s adopted, he may not really be hispanic. But for statistical purposes, he is. And they didn’t want their statistics to look bad.
No, just a blogger.
Hard to determine since we know nothing about his biological parents.
True enough which then brings up my next question. On one side we have white boys committing mass shootings, and on the other we have Black and Hispanic boys committing slow motion mass shootings. They may not kill as many at a time, but their overall lifetime achievement probably rivals Mr. Cruze’s one off performance. So here is my question. What have we done to at least a generation of young men that they have no problem with killing people with impunity?
In the case of the white boys...you gave them shoot-them-up games and plenty of mood-enhancement drugs to dull their mind and lose reality. In the case of the Hispanic/black kids.....you gave them gangs, weed, and lack of hope on jobs or some better life.
Oh, I would agree that probably half of the three groups are on some positive trail. But the other half aren’t.
Your ‘fails-safe’ system (the cops, the judges, the school system, etc) shifted around in the 1980s and started to lower their expectations. So now you have a bunch of losers within 20 miles of your house, and you probably come into contact with some Cruz-like kid at least once a year. Luck so far, has been on your side. It won’t always be that way.
Hard to determine since we know nothing about his biological parents.
*******************************************************************
Kinda like adopting a grown pit bull from a shelter instead of raising one from a puppy bought from a reputable breeder — you never know what you’re getting.
That sounds like a pretty good hypothesis about the medication being correlated to school shootings. I hope someone will do a study on that to see if it’s true.
Nice work.
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.