Lets say the FBI did take action

[Proud liberal 80]

Forgetting the fact that Trump’s statement about the FBI and the Fla school shooting was

1. Ignorant (as if there are only 10 FBI members and all ten are investigating Russia and nothing else)

2. Shows his lack of sympathy (making things all about himself and forgetting the victims.

But let’s say this shooting never happened because the FBI did take action. Trump and all his Deplorables would be criticizing the FBI saying that they were violating this poor orphan’s 2nd Amendment rights and that they were targeting Trump supporters.

[underpants]

1. They are a bunch of whiny little ...uh...Snowflakes

[markbark]

2. Also -- If the FBI _DID_ take action

LaPierre and all the other ammosexuals would be clutching their pearls and looking for a fainting couch wailing about the "gubmint jack booted thugs coming to take their guns away"

[jberryhill]

3. That's why this is a red herring

The shooter wasn't up to anything illegal.

People go on about this thing as if there were some mechanism to lock up or take guns away from angry white males with guns, who say awful things on social media.

There simply is no such mechanism, and if the government is going to get in the business of taking guns away from angry white males, then that is PRECISELY the sort of thing these gunner types oppose.

There was nothing anyone could or would do which would have had any different result. In fact, law enforcement attention received by these angry white males with guns tends to make them even angrier.

[Demit]

4. We should be saying "Oh so you DO want gun control."

[hfojvt]

5. I am curious as to what sort of action they could have taken

What do some people think they should have done?

Sent an agent to question him?

First, how many such reports do they get? Do they have the resources to question every such lead?
Second, even if they did question him, what then? Is he gonna say something like "well, I was planning an attack for next week..." or is he gonna seem unbalanced and dangerous? Then what? Can they arrest him, or just follow him?

If they arrest him, what is he charged with? 1. Saying crazy stuff? 2. being a potential threat? Neither of those seem like crimes to me.

If they follow him, that seems like a huge resource commitment.

Looking back it is easy to say woulda, coulda, shoulda. I am not sure it is quite so obvious looking forward.

[jberryhill]

6. The most ANY state can do

....is to hold someone for 72 hours for a psych eval if they believe the person is an imminent danger to themselves or others.

A lot of crazy dangerous people can hold their shit together for 72 hours. Even then, if someone is held past that, they get out as soon as they chill out enough to be let go.

But no, you can't just lock people up for owning guns and saying crazy stuff.

[hfojvt]

7. yeah, and just how

do you determine "imminent" danger? At what point could he have been questioned and found to be an imminent danger?

Also, who makes that judgement? Is there a court hearing, or can any citizen just be jailed for 3 days based on a cop's word?

[jberryhill]

8. Shrinks usually, but cops can do it too

All states have variations on the Florida statute, and it is generally used as a verb as in, to "Baker Act" someone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act

The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:

possibly has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act).
is in danger of becoming a harm to self, harm to others, or is self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).

Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.

...

Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria:

Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm.

The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.)

------------------------

[Lee-Lee]

9. A most reasonable action would have been:

First, to look deeper at all his social media posts and gather evidence.

All those social media posts would be enough to get a judge of magistrate to issue a protective order ordering him to not go onto any school property and also not be in possession of any firearms. To be released only after steps are taken including a complete mental health evaluation.

Then they seize firearms until the protective order is released.