July 4 parade shooting suspect slipped past Illinois "red flag" safeguards

[In It to Win It]

Reuters via Yahoo News

HIGHLAND PARK, Ill. (Reuters) - The man charged with killing seven people at a Chicago-area July Fourth parade slipped past the safeguards of an Illinois "red flag" law designed to prevent people deemed to have violent tendencies from getting guns, officials revealed on Tuesday.

The disclosures raised questions about the adequacy of the state's "red flag" laws even as a prosecutor lauded the system as "strong" during a news conference announcing seven first-degree murder charges against the 21-year-old suspect, Robert, E. Crimo III.

Sergeant Chris Covelli of the Lake County Sheriff's Office said earlier in the day that Crimo had legally purchased a total of five guns, including the suspected murder weapon, despite having come to law enforcement's attention twice for behavior suggesting he might harm himself or others.

The first instance was an April 2019 emergency-911 call reporting Crimo had attempted suicide, followed in September of that year by a police visit regarding alleged threats "to kill everyone" that he had directed at family members, Covelli said.

According to Covelli, police responding to the second incident seized a collection of 16 knives, a dagger and a sword from Crimo's home in Highland Park, Illinois, the Chicago suburb where the shooting occurred on Monday. But no arrest was made as authorities at the time lacked probable cause to take him into custody, the sheriff's sergeant said.

"There were no complaints that were signed by any of the victims," Covelli explained.

Later on Tuesday came a separate statement from the Illinois State Police recounting that the agency had received a report from Highland Park Police declaring Crimo a "clear and present danger" after the alleged threats against relatives in September 2019.

At the time, however, Crimo did not possess a state "firearm owners identification (FOID)" card that could be revoked or a pending FOID application to deny. So state police involvement in the matter was closed, the agency said.

State police also said no relative or anyone else was willing "to move forward with a formal complaint" or to provide "information on threats or mental health that would have allowed law enforcement to take additional action."

[Historic NY]

1. When his daddy then signed his gun permit.

[kacekwl]

2. Red flag laws and background checks as they are now

allow too much room for error. Every encounter with law enforcement and every bit of information given should be on a national data base. Whether or not charges were filed. If enough red flag complaint are in your file of course further investigation is needed. And of course waiting periods for weapon purchases need to be much longer.

[thatdemguy]

4. Do you have any idea what you just wrote?

A national data base of everything you every did that got you a talk with a police officer. "hey I was walking down the street with a joint and a cop saw me, he did me a favor and just made me throw it away" turns in to "hey I was walking down the street with a joint and a cop saw me. Now my car insurance has gone up, or my employer wants a drug test" and thats the minor one.

While we are doing your database we should have it include every post you have ever made on the internet. You know that time you joked about you wish someone would do XXXXX to trump. Now we consider you a threat, no plane flights for you.

One thing that too many people here never think about is how an idea or suggestion for something like a law can be used by the pukes. We will not always be in charge, think about how anything you want can be used against you, and they will probably try to.

[kacekwl]

8. There's no reason

your insurance company or your employer should have access to a national law enforcement data base. As for social media sorry but if you don't want someone to see your posts then don't post it. In regards to the parade killer the fact he was suicidal or he threatened to kill his family would be a perfect reason to deny a gun purchase let alone five guns. If they took a look at his social media posting would have been another reason for denying gun purchase. If all we can do is dump money at "mental health problems" how is anyone to know or suspect someone is mentally ill if you don't look at their behavior.

[thatdemguy]

10. Your right there is no reason for access. Until their lobbyist get the law changed

Until Osha says employers should know, or a hack or leak happens. Maybe some company gets a law passed that allows them access for special background checks only and they decide to expand who they sell info to.

I really appreciate the fact that you trust your government 100% no matter who is in control of it. It might be a bit naive thou.

Also I am sure you have never made a post anywhere or even said on the phone something that could be used by someone who does not like you. Because your national database would quickly be used as an excuse to record your phone calls, just incase they need to look at you further in depth. Can we say patriot act.

[sarisataka]

16. No thank you

I think we need to look at red flag laws a see what are common flags that are being missed.

But a national police database on every citizen sounds like a dystopian nightmare.

Every bit of information... care to elaborate?

[Kaleva]

3. So family members could possibly have prevented this mass shooting

had they taken action instead of sweeping it under the rug.

I wonder if they could be sued.

[Caliman73]

11. I don't think that family can be sued.

Maybe if he was a minor, like that other 15 year old kid.

As a family member you are not under any direct obligation to report another family member to the authorities. It is an ethical and moral issue to be sure, but we are talking about placing your son/brother/nephew into legal jeopardy without really knowing what the future may hold.

It is difficult to judge situations in the past based on what we know happened. When Adolf Hitler was born, no one knew that he would one day plunge the world into war and attempt a genocide.

For me personally, if I saw that one of my children or relatives was going through difficulties, I would do everything in my power to make sure that they were receiving appropriate treatment, and that if there were signs of danger, I was doing what I could to mitigate the damage.

I would not expect that my actions or inactions however (unless they were demonstrably responsible for facilitating danger) would put me in legal jeopardy. Again, people should not be responsible for the actions of others, unless their actions very clearly abetted any criminal activity. If you could imagine, that would be a legal nightmare for anyone accused of being a bad parent/relative.

[Kaleva]

12. I'm thinking of a civil suit where the bar is much lower

then it would be in a criminal suit

[Caliman73]

15. Possibly. It would still require evidence of actionable behaviors or lack thereof

It may also open the door to other problems. Why did the family not prevent the young man from joining a gang, which lead to the liquor store robbery? Etc...

I see your point regarding, especially the father who seems to have actively encouraged the antisocial behaviors in Grimo Jr. Still, it is something we want to be careful about pushing.

[crickets]

5. He didn't 'slip past' anything.

Police knew who he was and the potential danger he posed, but Daddy pushed and they relented. Now here we are after yet another mass shooting by someone who never should have gotten his hands on a gun.

[In It to Win It]

6. Truthfully

It seems they couldn't stop him from purchasing one without people reporting him. Nobody went through with any of the complaints that were made. Those complaints trigger the 'red flag' process.

Unless someone is willing to file a report giving law enforcement, or the state, something actionable to go on and follow through with it, the state can't show that the guy was a clear and present danger to the public.

Police can't just "know" something, somebody has to present their findings to a court because thanks to the shittiest court in the land saying that owning a firearm in an individual capacity unconnected to state security or militia service is a constitutional right, the state cannot take away his right to own a firearm without due process of law.

[Caliman73]

13. We need to think about the consequences of our statements and desires.

It is definitely a tragedy and we all want to think about what could and should have been done to prevent this situation from happening. Like the other responder said though, "Police knew..." is not sufficient grounds to interject into someone's civil liberties. We have, as liberals, fought vehemently against police being able to go into someone's home based on their hunch in 4th Amendment cases. Certainly people will argue, "but this is about guns and people dying". Well, police think that when they go into a suspected drug dealer's house, it is about drugs and people dying. There has to be consistency and there has to be due process, as the other person said.

I certainly want to give mental health professionals, families, public health personnel and law enforcement, the tools they need to make communities safe. I don't however, want to leave it up to someone, "knowing" about potential danger, especially knowing about all of the current research where people of color, especially young Black men, being seen as inherent threats by law enforcement. Giving police more power to take away civil liberties would be a bad move given the propensity for racial bias.

There has to be a major effort to educate and reinforce the role of the family and community in mental health issues. Something has to be done about the stigma assigned to emotional and mental health treatment.

Currently, mental health legislation is geared primarily toward the least restrictive interventions, and while that is good for civil liberties, it makes it difficult to make sure that people who need help, get the help they need. You can be floridly psychotic and need intervention, but if you are not presenting as a danger to yourself, others, or having a grave disability preventing you from basic care.

You are right about one thing. He did not "slip" past anything. Our language is sometimes inadequate to explain situations. The laws and policies written to try to prevent potentially dangerous people from acquiring firearms, often requires the voluntary cooperation of people who have other obligations that may pull them away from doing what is best for the community. I am not sure how we address those issues.

[Aristus]

7. I'm willing to bet that the safeguards are far enough apart

that “slipping past” wasn’t necessary. He probably strolled casually past the safeguards without even being seen.

It’s the same sort of set-up that makes the existing gun control laws essentially unenforceable.

[Caliman73]

14. The safeguards require actions from others...

When safeguards require actions from others, especially family, they will often be inadequate to ensure safety. Family dynamics can be very difficult. A lot of shame, secrecy, and a desire to not get people into trouble that leads to inaction. Usually family members that maybe strained, scared, or indifferent.

Police were called out when he expressed suicidal ideation. They confiscated potential means of self harm, which at the time, they felt was adequate to prevent harm. They did not pursue further action, likely because they had several other details to get to, and the family appeared to be able to manage the situation. We don't know how, or if, or what the family and Grimo did to follow up on the underlying problems that lead to the suicidal ideation. The second incident where he was found to be a "clear and present danger" again, there appeared to be insufficient evidence to make an arrest or place Grimo on an involuntary hold, which may have triggered the red flags to prevent him from buying firearms legally.

Again, after that detail, the police leave, very likely to several other calls that need their attention. The family and the individual undergoing the crisis are left to follow up with mental health referrals, which cannot be compulsory, and which entail going to either a private practitioner who can be expensive, or to the County system which can be very time consuming.

Those are the safeguards typically. We do not fund community mental health or public health programs anywhere near the levels that would be needed to have follow up by professionals who might be able to get people into treatment. You literally have to voluntarily go somewhere, and tell someone that you have problems and need to be evaluated for therapy or medications. How many people are honestly going to do that? How many family members have the ability to "compel" their adult or adolescent family members to do that?

[gratuitous]

9. Crepe paper streamer proves ineffective as barrier

A nation reels in shock.

[walkingman]

17. These Red Flag laws will not work and I can give you are perfect example why -

I know a person (for over 40 years) that was charged with assault of a elderly person (his wife) in Harris County, Texas and was convicted and given probation for 4 years - less than 6 months after that he was charged with assault (his grandson) in an adjoining county (Galveston) and just had that dismissed this last month. Harris County was not even aware of the charge, which would have broken his probation.

Our systems in America simply do not work - when evidence comes up that they don't nothing happens to correct the problem. The same situation for business hiring illegals - totally meaningless.

I think this is by design. The political class does not want anyone or anything telling them what they can or cannot do.

America is exceptional - exceptionally stupid.

[lakiasellers]

18. Every time

Every time, every time lately, there is some reason why the person wasn't caught sooner after a fuck ton of evidence, red flags, social media posts, smoke signals.