Skip to comments.Police knew about killer's videos
Posted on 05/30/2014 1:14:38 AM PDT by Rabin
CHENG YUAN HONG Hong, 20, who went by the name James, grew up in Taipei and was pursuing a degree in computer science.
When Hong said he didnt know where the candles were, Elliot performed a citizens arrest and called 911. Sheriffs deputies found the candles on Hongs bed. He was arrested and charged with a petty theft infraction.
Friends said he was a hard-working and bright student who was always willing to help others. He would always smile at everyone he knows, said Han Chou, who knew the victim at UC Santa Barbara, murdered this week by (fat cat, spoiled brat, real-time maniac, Elliot Rodger ) James Hong, and his two able room-mates were somehow slashed and stabbed more than 136 times. 21:17, emailed his mother, father and therapist.
sheriff's office corrected an earlier assertion that deputies were unaware of the videos when they checked on him (were) aware of "disturbing videos" In January, Rodger accused Hong of stealing three candles, valued at $22, said Joyce Dudley, Santa Barbara County district attorney. When Hong said he didnt know where the candles were, Rodger performed a citizens arrest and called 911. Sheriffs deputies found the candles on Hongs bed. He was arrested and charged with a petty theft infraction.
(Excerpt) Read more at beaumontenterprise.com ...
Cop bosses go wrong.....money
Eric slaughters Andy ....???
Here’s the full text of the Sheriff’s release that makes it clear that they weren’t alerted to the final video or the Manifesto until after the incident was over. It also is at quite a variance with the story about the actions of the parents that night that’s been circulating.
But they were alerted to the earlier videos and apparently didn’t bother to watch them.
It’s looking like proper police procedure would have prevented this.
Arm... “one of the most complex investigations in the history of the Santa Barbara”
Good to understand that racketeering (RICO) is alive and well for the spawn.
I think the worst video, which said/implied the murders would be the next day, was probably not seen by the police.
They were dispatched to do an evaluation for a 72 hour mental health hold. In order to take the individual into custody you have to conclude that he presents an immediate risk to himself or others, they concluded he didn’t at that time (almost a month before the incident), and they were right.
So, the issue isn’t “proper police procedure”, it’s the absence of a program that allows in depth evaluation of an individual based on the say so of a third party. That’s something that should be handled by mental health professionals, and that is rife with potential for civil rights violations.
The worst video was apparently the last one, which he posted 10 minutes before he started shooting, and after he’d killed the three roommates. Given that the therapist, after seeing it, called the Sheriff’s department, it’s safe to say that it indicated an escalation of his prior fantasies. Neither the parents, the therapist, nor the Sheriff’s Department saw that one before the incident was over.
If you’ve got both the parents and shrink calling out of concern, pointing to wacked out videos as evidence, the troubled person with multiple recent gun purchases, and prior reported violence (shoving party goers off a ledge), there ought to be more than a couple of non-expert cops showing up for a 10-minute chat.
They would have had enough evidence, had they bothered to look at it (both the videos and the gun purchases), to search his room, which he himself pointed out would have revealed enough to stop the murders.
I find it useful in evaluating incidents of this kind to look at what the individuals involved actually knew at the time, rather than conflating a bunch of pieces of information no one person had, then applying “Woulda Coulda Shoulda” and 20-20 hindsight to the analysis. If you’ll take a look at that link I posted, you’ll see several of your assumptions aren’t accurate.
If he had been a veteran, or associated with the “Tea party”, would they have searched his room?
A conspiracist might argue the loons are permitted the free range to organize and realize their twisted desires... when the plot involves guns.
I think they would have searched his room if his Father had not been a Hollywood big wig.
Also, just because a danger doesn’t immediately come to pass doesn’t mean there wasn’t an immediate risk. (Hint: risk does not equal outcome.)
Your link addresses his final manifesto and video. The police were contacted by the shrink and his mother about his condition, with the evidence of his earlier videos—which the cops never bothered to look at, but initially claimed they hadn’t been made aware of.
What several of my assumptions are incorrect?
Yep. Probably wouldn’t have bothered looking at the videos for the opposite reason, in that case.
Videos are protected free speech. Police cannot use them as sole evidence to state that a crime is being committed, nor can they prevent crime.
This is a parenting issue. The young man was not insane IMHO, he was evil. The malaise is spiritual, not mental.
When parents raise perverted children , they do evil. The parents are THE MOST responsible for unleashing this evil on society.
Last time I checked, one needs a search warrant to search a private residence...i find it interesting how many people are just tossing that requirement and being outrages there was no search. If the parents and therapists were so concerned, they could have had an ECO issued for him, and the cops would come pick him up... Immediate danger to himself and others is the key issues here for cops to take someone into custody WITHOUT an emergency custody order. To expect the cops to make a psych arrest based on a video...well, that opens up a huge can of worms...
Well, just off the top...
The Sheriffs Department is involved here, not the police. They weren’t contacted by the shrink and the mother, they were contacted by an operator on the mental health hotline. She, also wasn’t contacted by the mother, but by a “friend”. She, then, called the mother, and after talking to the mother called the Sheriff’s dispatch center and asked for a welfare check. The shrink didn’t contact the Sheriff’s department at that stage.
The rest of your post is equally inaccurate. In short, you’ve started with the conclusion you wanted, then massaged the facts to fit it. As I said, “Woulda, Coulda Shoulda”. That can be a satisfying exercise, but it’s pretty useless when it comes time to propose policy changes that’ll actually make an improvement.
Just out of curiosity, let’s look at your apparent belief that every time someone calls a suicide hotline the deputies sent to the call should be pulled off the beat, rushed to the station, provided with any evidence the calling party thought relevant, and required to review it prior to contacting the individual involved. If that individual commits a preventable suicide while the deputies are back at the station reviewing video is that okay with you?
“This is a parenting issue. The young man was not insane IMHO, he was evil. The malaise is spiritual, not mental.
When parents raise perverted children , they do evil. The parents are THE MOST responsible for unleashing this evil on society.”
“Insane” is the new “evil”; godless liberals don’t believe in evil anymore (unless one of their pet constituencies is impacted). Rather than attribute someone’s actions to pure malevolence, they simply point at the actions as proof of their insanity. A teacher I know was disturbed that young students were reluctant to judge anyome as evil, including Hitler.
The fact that Elliot looked like a complete Pajama Boy no doubt served to deceive the cops. In short encounters, he could supress his rages. Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction is what cops would first think of as a threat.
Exactly! The kid met them outside, so unless they finessed an invitation out of him, they’d have needed a warrant... a warrant that quite likely wouldn’t have issued. The real lost opportunity here was the parents and therapists not pushing the issue during the four weeks after the eval. Assuming they were acting in good faith, and that they knew the kid best, you’d have to conclude they didn’t think he was an immediate threat.
I’d check my understanding of the definition of the word ‘police’ (and look at the article title) if I were you, before I got on my high horse about inaccuracies.
I stand corrected on the shrink contacting them at this point, but you had the professional from the hotline who had spoken to both a friend and the mother and who conveyed the information about the disturbing videos to the police—yes, “police”.
What would it have taken the police to check out the videos as well as the individual’s recent purchase of multiple firearms? And, with that, to search his room?
The videos in question involved murder more than suicide, so your trying to pull in the suicide canard doesn’t wash.
What’s your vested interest to try to steer Freepers here away from the obvious?
That all depends on the content of the videos, combined with testimony from family and friends, prior legal run-ins, and the recent purchase of multiple firearms consistent with the content of the videos.
Immediate risk does not equal certainty, as some here would like to imply.
I think also time frame is important. I have been in LE for many many years...i have been in the same position as these cops...i hate it. Mental health is one huge grey area. These people have rights as well...and we have to balance those against public safety. Based on the backlash I see from this incident...cops are going to be expected to see the future...and peoples rights will be diminished. My 2 cents
What you find to be “obvious” is a series of assumptions and inventions that serve your pre-conceived fault assignment effort. I’m a little more interested in the actual facts of the case, and think most Freepers try to base their understanding on reality.
From your response to my hypothetical question, I can only assume that you want to confine pre-contact video viewing to cases where the videos depict murders. The same question arises, what happens if the guy goes on a rampage while you’re back at the station viewing videos? I presume your answer would be “well they should have known that this was one where they should go see him before viewing videos”.
So based on a 10-minute chat, this case went from “so important that we don’t have time to look at a video” to “all cleared up with no need to bother with looking at anything at all”?
I think better than having regular LE officers put on the spot in such situations would be having access to a professional to review the concern-causing evidence and also be present to speak with the subject.
A nice little chat instead of bothering to check any evidence surrounding someone who has been under life-long psychological care, has started posting murderous videos, and has family and friends vouching for concern just doesn’t cut it IMO.
I agree, but LE officers are handicapped by the system they work for. Sometimes all they can do is talk to the person. That is why, at least here in VA, the parents, or their therapist can call the magistrate directly, and swear out an ECO for that person. Once it is issued, police pick him up no matter what he says. Tough spot to be in...
I’m in a town of about 150,000. Check The Well Being calls, mostly suicide related, average about 25 a day. The average officer’s pretty skilled at sizing people up, but it’s more about perception and less about precognition. To hand law enforcement the authority to lock up people based on some third party’s belief that they might be a danger at some future date is an invitation for abuse from a variety of different parties.
As usual, the politicians are already proposing law changes to “fix” this situation, but policy based on wishful or magical thinking instead of a clear understanding of the facts invariably causes more trouble than it solves.
We had an OIS involving a kid who was terrorizing his family with a butcher knife. Several efforts with less than lethal force hadn’t worked, and he’d retreated to a closet. While officers were trying to talk him down, he burst out, knife raised, and got within about a foot of one officer when his partner shot him. The family then created a major uproar, announcing that the police “should have known” that he was going to do that and should have backed off and called the psych team. (They had some fantasy that the psych team would have magically made everything okay, I guess)
Well, our “city fathers” directed the department to change policy along those lines.
A month later, a kid was waving around a gun at his family, officers evacuated the family, then (per the new policy) backed off and waited for the psych team. While they waited, the kid shot himself. And, of course, the family sued, claiming that they “should have known” that if they didn’t disarm the kid he’d kill himself.
In both instances, the media was right there, second guessing along every step of the way.
Stuff like that annoys me.
So why didn't the police consider him a threat? Because they didn't bother to watch the videos. They "were aware he had posted disturbing videos but never viewed them before or after determining he was not a threat to himself or others, the department disclosed Thursday.")
"According to the statement from the sheriff's office, four deputies, a police officer and a dispatcher in training were sent to Rodger's apartment after being informed by the county's mental health hotline that Rodger's therapist and mother were concerned about videos he posted online."
Have you ever had "four deputies, a police officer and a dispatcher in training" show up at your door? I haven't. Sending 6 (six) LEOs out suggests that at least somebody was taking the threat very seriously. Which, as was eventually shown, was the correct interpretation of the facts.)
No, as I said initially, based on a 10 minute chat the assessment was made that the kid was not an immediate threat to himself or others, and that assessment proved to have been correct. That’s the law enforcement function.
At that point, the concerned parties need to get other agencies (Courts, Mental Health Agency, etc.) involved. Nobody did that.
Two Deputies were dispatched, the dispatcher was on a ride-along, not sure what the campus cop’s reason was, but the other two deputies were the one’s who’d handled the candle theft case and tagged along on their own. It’s not uncommon for someone who’s had previous experience with the occupants of a residence to go along in case their background info or prior knowledge of the “player” can be of use.
And the last time I checked, if they had searched his apartment, they would have found three legally purchased and legally possessed handguns. If that is a crime then I'd be twice as guilty.
My brother lost one of his mental health patients to Jeffrey Dahmer because the patient refused to take his meds, and they could not force him to get the mental health care he needed.
Thanks. I was mistaken (I thought it was 24 hours before). 10 minutes is not enough time unless there are cops in every little town watching Youtube or whatever 24 hours a day, and even then, 10 minutes is probably not enough time to stop it.
Yeah, good point.
You’re right, that’s a pretty common scenario.