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

[apdst]

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.

He was trying to escape, as a matter of fact.

 

[Paperview]

It's irrelevant, judging by how the FBI applied for the warrant.

It's relevant. Then again, you may think Florida is a foreign country, considering the average low information grade of your posts.

 

[apdst]

It's relevant. Then again, you may think Florida is a foreign country, considering the average low information grade of your posts.

It's obvious that the humor and sarcasm is completely wasted in you.

You call people stupid, but you wanted to actually argue this. No wonder Liberalism is dying.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Give me the LEGAL statute that would have allowed the FBI to lock him up INDEFINATELY? You can't.

There is no statute that allows a US citizen to be locked up indefinitely unless it was due to a crime. But who says Cruz would have had to have been locked up indefinitely?

Show me where he would have FAILED a mental competency test even if one had been administered? You can't.

If you want specifics you're not going to get them. But I would imagine that all the tips that were given to LEO's, along with all the times that LEO's were called because of him, the times he was suspended and expelled from school and the video he created would have been enough to justify him being committed for more than 72 hours. Which would have been enough for LEO's to take his guns away. All of it combined would have been enough. Not any one thing specifically.

Show me where he shouldn't have been allowed to buy the guns he bought? You can't.

Per law he had a legal right to buy a gun until such time as he was proven to not be worthy of having it. And that is what has your goat. That he was originally even able to buy guns to begin with. Which means that your whole argument is designed as to be nothing more than another call for gun control. You are simply trying to argue that there was nothing that the FBI or local LEO's could have done. Which has been proven to be false. And you're trying to frame your argument as such in order to attempt to pave the way for more gun control.

If law enforcement would have tried to detain or arrest this boy, ANY low grade "ambulance chasing" attorney would have had him released in very short order.

Sorry but even a lawyer can't get you out of being evaluated for mental issues. And they certainly can't over rule a mental health professionals opinion. Which a judge would take more stock in than any lawyer.

 

[Kal'Stang]

So...what exactly about his history makes you so certain that he'd be held one way or the other? How closely does his personal history match that of people who have been adjudicated incompetent or involuntarily committed? How much does it differ from those where the finding was not reached or the person not held? How can you know how he would present to the psychiatrists that would interview him?

The bottom line is that we don't know and if anyone is going to opine about the likelihood of him being held, thereby triggering FL gun laws, they should probably have significant experience in the field and be able to explain why X,Y,Z, about his history affected that likelihood.

I knew someone with the same kind of history as Cruz. Right now they're sitting in a mental institution. That's how I know that he would have been committed. Personal experience informs me on this one.

 

[Moderate Right]

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.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...hington-state-school-shooting-plot/340101002/

 

[Mr Person]

There is usually a very high bar for adjudicating someone mentally incompetent or for having psychologists at a mental hospital petition a court to have someone involuntarily hospitalized.

To simply assume that either would have occurred is absurd, and your counter to Vetplus necessarily requires one of the two.

You can't view these things in hindsight. Now we know he was a danger to others, but you can't judge things in hindsight if you're seeking to cast blame. The article you posted on page 1 gives a bare-bones overview of what must be found, but does not give you the set of standards that are applied or examples of cases where someone has been committed or found incompetent.




<quote snip>

And how do you know that if you aren't an expert in the relevant field?

<quote snip>

Again, how can you be so certain?

The article you posted simply lists the ultimate conclusion that must be reached for an adjudication of mental incompetence - "is a danger to himself or others or is unable to manage his own affairs - and does not even state the ultimate conclusion that must be reached for a court to grant a petition for involuntary commitment. You can't just take a phrase from an article and say "yup, I personally think his history would lead to this finding" if you want to have a meaningful debate about it.

It's like when someone takes the bare text of a constitutional amendment, then starts simply pronouncing what is and is not constitutional based on their personal feeling about what the text means. That's not how it works in law and its not now it works here. You can't just assume if you intend to make a valid point.



So...what exactly about his history makes you so certain that he'd be held one way or the other? How closely does his personal history match that of people who have been adjudicated incompetent or involuntarily committed? How much does it differ from those where the finding was not reached or the person not held? How can you know how he would present to the psychiatrists that would interview him?

The bottom line is that we don't know and if anyone is going to opine about the likelihood of him being held, thereby triggering FL gun laws, they should probably have significant experience in the field and be able to explain why X,Y,Z, about his history affected that likelihood.

I knew someone with the same kind of history as Cruz. Right now they're sitting in a mental institution. That's how I know that he would have been committed. Personal experience informs me on this one.

Well, you may be certain that you're right, but that's hardly a convincing argument for anyone else.

Let me be clear: I certainly think the FBI should have worked with local officials and tried to do something, but the bottom line is that nobody can be sure about what would happen one way or another. OP is wrong to say it's wrong to blame the FBI, yadda yadda, but you're in the wrong if you're saying the FBI definitely could have stopped this by working with local authorities on commitment or incompetence proceedings. Neither of us knows that and if someone is going to make a certain declaration, I want that someone to be a psychiatrist with experience in this.



If we're talking personal experience, my very first case (actually in law school in a crim defense clinic) involved a guy who was clearly delusional. He'd be talking about what happened, then suddenly start talking about how he's Jesus and he's here to save all the people, yadda yadda. He was clearly not anchored in this reality. He was reviewed for competence to stand trial and found competent.

I don't know what the standard for being adjudicated incompetent in the state in question is, but I'd imagine it's also a rather high bar.

If you don't want to argue about how specific points regarding his history indicate that he'd clearly be committed, fine, but you can't expect "[I knew a guy like that and now he's institutionalized]" to be particularly compelling. I don't know you or that guy so how am I supposed to gauge the statement?

 

[Paperview]

I knew someone with the same kind of history as Cruz. Right now they're sitting in a mental institution. That's how I know that he would have been committed. Personal experience informs me on this one.

1. Know you don't know. That's impossible.
2. You're anecdotal experience about one person is meaningless.
3. I'm guessing you missed the 2% figure and aligning article about Florida's laws and stats regarding this (or if you did, you ignored it)

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...d-tip-cruz-post1068190208.html#post1068190208

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...d-tip-cruz-post1068190324.html#post1068190324

 

[HowardBThiname]

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.

What? Since when does all law enforcement procedure need to be backed up by statute? You're in over your head on this one -- way over your head. The FBI has admitted they didn't follow protocol, but protocol is not backed by statute.

This thread has become tiresome due the intellectual dishonesty. Have a nice evening.

 

[holbritter]

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.

They did receive such a tip. Maybe just being questioned might have scared Cruz enough? I don't know. Other than questioning and warning him, I don't know what else they could have legally done. He hadn't committed any crimes yet that I've heard.

 

[Helix]

As I have noted previously, the FBI had an official report from their Minneapolis office that Muslims were taking flight training in a suspicious manner and the FBI FAILED to act on that report.......thus failing to stop the 9-11 terrorist attack.

Trump should fire the entire top level of leadership and restructure.

put in your application and do it better.

 

[Helix]

I disagree, the FBI has a designated task force that only deals with this very thing. This kid not only had red flags but he was spray painted red. Local law enforcement did pass on concerning info but were powerless to act further than that.

how many reports were the FBI dealing with at the same time, and how many did they get right?

 

[holbritter]

So, the local police are going to put this kid under 24 hour surveillance for social media threats? Not likely.
Please remember that the significance of his posts are far more serious now than they were when he made them. Then, was when folks were having to evaluate and act upon them.
Once again, no one had yet to supply a legal statute where this boy could have been arrested or otherwise been detained indefinitely.

I think with his threats in addition to being called to his home 39 times in the past, should have been enough to do something. Maybe we need to change that type of law. You make threats and there is reason to believe you are going to harm someone, you get arrested.

We can no longer wait for something to happen in order to act.

 

[holbritter]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...hington-state-school-shooting-plot/340101002/

Well, there you have it. It could have been stopped.

 

[ttwtt78640]

how many reports were the FBI dealing with at the same time, and how many did they get right?

According to this pro-Red Flag Law article they might be right 5% to 10% of the time:

When Duke University researchers looked at the application of Connecticut’s red flag law between 1999 and 2013, they found that police served 762 so-called “risk warrants” during that period and estimated that a gun suicide was prevented for every 10 to 20 seizures.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...9c9830535e5_story.html?utm_term=.f8c66bfcb75c

 

[Paperview]

"Only five states have laws allowing family members, guardians or police to ask judges to temporarily strip gun rights from people who show warning signs of violence. Supporters of the measures, deemed "red flag laws" or gun violence restraining orders, say they can save lives by stopping some shootings and suicides.

Florida, where Cruz is accused of using an AR-15 rifle to kill 17 people at his former high school, does not have such a law. He was able to legally own the semi-automatic rifle even though his mother, classmates and teachers had at times described him as dangerous and threatening.

Red flag legislation was introduced last fall in Florida by Democratic lawmakers, but its fate is uncertain in a state Legislature controlled by Republicans who generally favor expanding gun rights. After Wednesday's shooting at a high school in Parkland, a suburb north of Miami, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said he will work to make sure people with mental illnesses don't have access to guns but offered no specifics."

Florida suspect&apos;s red flags weren&apos;t enough to stop gun buy - Chicago Tribune

 

[Paperview]

I think with his threats in addition to being called to his home 39 times in the past, should have been enough to do something. Maybe we need to change that type of law. You make threats and there is reason to believe you are going to harm someone, you get arrested.

We can no longer wait for something to happen in order to act.

Then lady, you'll need to take on the NRA.

Good luck!

 

[holbritter]

Then lady, you'll need to take on the NRA.

Good luck!

NRA has nothing to do with what I said or suggested.

 

[Paperview]

NRA has nothing to do with what I said or suggested.

If you don't think so, you are extremely naive.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sorry, but you have only shown once again how often you substitute emotion for logic.

For the third time, just answer (without the usual mindless chatter) the following three questions:

Give me the LEGAL statute that would have allowed the FBI to lock him up INDEFINATELY? You can't.

Show me where he would have FAILED a mental competency test even if one had been administered? You can't.

Show me where he shouldn't have been allowed to buy the guns he bought? You can't.

If law enforcement would have tried to detain or arrest this boy, ANY low grade "ambulance chasing" attorney would have had him released in very short order.

Just watch the goalposts move....

 

[holbritter]

If you don't think so, you are extremely naive.

Uhm..I think I know what I meant and what I was thinking when I made that post. And the NRA never crossed my mind. But I'm glad you think you know what I was thinking better than I do myself.

 

[Paperview]

Uhm..I think I know what I meant and what I was thinking when I made that post. And the NRA never crossed my mind. But I'm glad you think you know what I was thinking better than I do myself.

I know what you said: "...Maybe we need to change that type of law. You make threats and there is reason to believe you are going to harm someone, you get arrested.

We can no longer wait for something to happen in order to act."

If you think that would not entail taking on the NRA, then again, you are naive. People have been trying to change laws regarding keeping high powered weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill for some time now, and they always meet up with resistance from the most powerful lobby in the country.

 

[holbritter]

I know what you said: "...Maybe we need to change that type of law. You make threats and there is reason to believe you are going to harm someone, you get arrested.

We can no longer wait for something to happen in order to act."

If you think that would not entail taking on the NRA, then again, you are naive. People have been trying to change laws regarding keeping high powered weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill for some time now, and they always meet up with resistance from the most powerful lobby in the country.

I see where you're putting it together with the NRA. I didn't actually mean it specifically for guns, so I wasn't thinking of them. I don't think they have that much power for criminal law changes. New York is passing a law where if you have any domestic violence issues, you cannot have a gun. They already have the SAFE act where we have to re-certify our CC permits every 5 years.

The states need to step up too. Florida has crappy gun laws.

 

[shrubnose]

Sorry, but you have only shown once again how often you substitute emotion for logic.

For the third time, just answer (without the usual mindless chatter) the following three questions:

Give me the LEGAL statute that would have allowed the FBI to lock him up INDEFINATELY? You can't.

Show me where he would have FAILED a mental competency test even if one had been administered? You can't.

Show me where he shouldn't have been allowed to buy the guns he bought? You can't.

If law enforcement would have tried to detain or arrest this boy, ANY low grade "ambulance chasing" attorney would have had him released in very short order.

If the FBI had warned local law enforcement they could have watched Cruz-this massacre could have been prevented.That's a fact.

Nothing was done because the FBI dropped the ball.

 

[shrubnose]

That would have PREVENTED this tragedy how?

rned


If the FBI had warned local police they could have been watching Cruz

But the FBI did nothing and 17 people are dead!

:doh

Homer Simpson would have done a better job,eh?Mighty sad situation.