• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What could the FBI done had they received a tip on Cruz?

Couple months back in Florida, the Marine who shot and killed two cops in the head had been Baker Acted the month before the killing.

“There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment, he will cause serious bodily harm to himself or others" read the report.

Let out, and committed capital murder.

Suspect was likely to "cause serious bodily harm" a month before Kissimmee cops killed, records show - Orlando Sentinel

An eye opening article:

Florida's Baker Act - a revolving door? - Orlando Sentinel

<snip> "Of nearly 195,000 Floridians taken into custody for a Baker Act evaluation in fiscal year 2015-2016, the most recent data available, most were released with no follow-up."
 
When my mother-in-law started exhibiting signs of dementia, it was incredibly difficult to wrestle her "rights" away from her. In fact, it took YEARS to finally get full control of her financial affairs - and this was AFTER she had already been placed in a mental health care facility. The amount of documentation from medical professionals - that the court required - was simply mid-boggling.

My point is simply this: The bar for proving that someone isn't mentally competent is a lot higher that the average person thinks that it is. I know that it was certainly an "eye opener" for me.
 
Vetplus40 said:
shrubnose said:
Again, I simply ask you
how the FBI could have prevented this from occurring?
Click to expand...
Could the FBI have locked the boy up indefinitely? Could they have taken his guns based on his social media posts, or the numerous police calls to his home? If so, did those previous police calls not surface on his background check?
Click to expand...

FBI could have warned the local police who could have watched him-that's totally legal.

But the FBI did nothing until after the shooting stopped

Does anyone think that's OK-I don't
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vetplus40 said:
This is a very emotional subject to say the least. I dare say few if any on DP have ever personally experienced anything close to it. I have had two of these occur near where I live and I can tell you that the impacts are lasting.

That being said, while there is certainly a level of justifiable anger aimed towards the FBI because information about Cruz did not reach the Miami Field Office, I think that they may be a bit of emotionally based misunderstanding that such a tip WOULD have prevented this tragedy from occurring.

Yes, the FBI would have questioned Cruz as a result of this tip, and yes such questioning MIGHT have deterred him, but it may not have either. However, there is no provision that I am aware of that would have allowed the FBI to simply knock on Cruz's door and handcuff him as a result of this tip. As I understand it, he had no outstanding "wants or warrants" and he LEGALLY purchased his weapons. As such, he would have been guilty of NOTHING at the time he would have been questioned as a result of this tip.

This post is not intended to start a "flame war" on guns, so please don't take it there. My main issue is that while the FBI deserves some criticism for their procedural error of some sort (yet to be determined), I am not convinced that they are to blame either.

Other may have a different take and I am certainly interested in hearing what other "logical" and "respectable" opinions others have on the subject.
Click to expand...

They could have applied for a FISA warrant and placed him under 24 hour surveillance. Or, interviewed him, tricked him into perjuring himself and convicted him for lying to a Federal agent.
 
shrubnose said:
Vetplus40 said:
Oh for Christo thets sake! Nobody is defending the FBI. They made a huge mistake. [/QUOTE


THE FBI's feet should be held to the fire-I think that saying fits this massive screw-up.

Watch the FBI come after me for saying that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, given all the "free time" that they have, I am sure that monitoring DP is high on their list....................lol
Click to expand...
 
Vetplus40 said:
When my mother-in-law started exhibiting signs of dementia, it was incredibly difficult to wrestle her "rights" away from her. In fact, it took YEARS to finally get full control of her financial affairs - and this was AFTER she had already been placed in a mental health care facility. The amount of documentation from medical professionals - that the court required - was simply mid-boggling.

My point is simply this: The bar for proving that someone isn't mentally competent is a lot higher that the average person thinks that it is. I know that it was certainly an "eye opener" for me.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that Nicholas Cruz is mentally incompetant. His lawyer has already stated that he's remorseful for what he did. Genuine headcases don't feel remorse for murdering people.
 
Paperview said:
There's this too:

<snip> "President Donald Trump kept a loophole allowing people to obtain guns while undergoing mental health treatment that President Barack Obama had tried to close. Other mass shooters have gotten around restrictions by using weapons initially purchased legally."


Mass shooters use loopholes, lapses in checks to get guns | Fox News

https://www.snopes.com/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/
Click to expand...

Would that regulation have stopped Cruz from buying, or possessing a gun?
 
HowardBThiname said:
The FBI, themselves, said they dropped the ball on this one -- and they did. How do we know? Because they can do much, much better and they have a pretty good track record to back that up. In numerous posts in this thread you promote the idea that nothing they could have legally done could have changed the outcome, and I showed you exactly how they've changed the outcome in many, many cases.

There's no need to crucify them, but the position you're taking isn't helping their cause one bit -- and it's not intellectually honest because the FBI can do much better.
Click to expand...

So could the FBI have shown up at Cruz's house and taken him away in handcuffs? Yes or no?

Did the FBI state that their mistake ALLOWED this tragedy to occur? And yes, they can and must do better.
 
Vox said:
Maybe, maybe not.

You don't know.
Click to expand...

While true, no one knows for a certainty, I find it highly doubtful that the agents tasked with supporting the Mueller investigation would have any significant impact on legions of other FBI agents, specifically the Miami field office, who would have been called on to check on this potential threat.
 
shrubnose said:
Vetplus40 said:
FBI could have warned the local police who could have watched him-that's totally legal.

But the FBI did nothing until after the shooting stopped

Does anyone think that's OK-I don't
Click to expand...

Could the FBI have MADE local law enforcement do anything?

And nobody thinks that this is okay. However, placing unwarranted blame rarely solves anything.
Click to expand...
 
Paperview said:
geezuz, what a stoopid statement.
Click to expand...

It worked when they wanted to undermine President Trump. If they can do it to the president, they can do it to anybody.
 
Vetplus40 said:
So could the FBI have shown up at Cruz's house and taken him away in handcuffs? Yes or no?

Did the FBI state that their mistake ALLOWED this tragedy to occur? And yes, they can and must do better.
Click to expand...

Don't play childish games with me -- I gave you the link to Eric Holder's report on how the FBI goes about circumventing mass shootings. If you want to know how it's done -- read the report.
 
Vetplus40 said:
So could the FBI have shown up at Cruz's house and taken him away in handcuffs? Yes or no?

Did the FBI state that their mistake ALLOWED this tragedy to occur? And yes, they can and must do better.
Click to expand...

The question is: did they have the legal authority to arrest Nicholas Cruz?
 
Paperview said:
Over 35,000. And they get tens of thousands of tips annually. Sometimes some fall through the cracks. It happens. They get tagged for the ones they miss, when quite often, you never hear about the many thousands they prevent.
Click to expand...

Fair.

Paperview said:
"[A]uthorities said in a press conference that they had not determined whether the suspect was the same person who left the threatening comment on Bennight’s video. According to special agent Robert Lasky:

No other information was included in the comment, which would indicate a time, location, or true identity of the person who made the comment. The FBI conducted database reviews, checks, but was unable to further identify the person who made the comment."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...high-school/&usg=AOvVaw1SfiUo5_PUy3sZFi3x5fSC
Click to expand...

If you take the IP address, which may not give you an address but would give you state / town, add to that the name, a few phone calls to local LEOs, you'd have found him pretty quick.

Established protocol was not followed which is what was stated, that's what we'll have to go with until proven otherwise.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How many folks do think get locked up for making felony YouTube comments/posts? We have seen "comedians" posing with the severed head of the POTUS called "jokes" so why would the "just kidding" defense not work for a 19 year old known "nut case"?
Click to expand...

Yes, we've see that. However, those are not the same as 'professional school shooter' is it?
 
Paperview said:
<smdh>

What does the "F" in FISA stand for?
Click to expand...

So, you're ok with the FBI doing it when it's in your political interest, but not to stop 17 kids from being slaughtered. Gotcha!
 
apdst said:
I don't believe that Nicholas Cruz is mentally incompetant. His lawyer has already stated that he's remorseful for what he did. Genuine headcases don't feel remorse for murdering people.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He obviously was not interested in going down in a blaze of gunfire, yet he didn't readily surrender either.
What folks seem to keep forgetting is that had a mental evaluation been performed, it would have occurred BEFORE the shooting occurred. As such, the evaluator would not have had this tragedy to go in making a determination.

in any regard, such a mental health evaluation doesn't fall within the purview of the FBI.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Don't play childish games with me -- I gave you the link to Eric Holder's report on how the FBI goes about circumventing mass shootings. If you want to know how it's done -- read the report.
Click to expand...

And don't waste my time with your childish insults.

Show me the LEGAL statute. Then you can argue with several ex FBI agents that are now PUBLICLY making the same exact argument that I am. Show me where the FBI could have taken Cruz into custody BEFORE he committed a crime, and how long they could have detained him and taken his guns in a LEGAL confiscation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom