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?
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”.