What options would the FBI have had in reacting to the tip?

a reply to: carewemust

All they had to do was Baker Act him.

a reply to: matafuchs

Emotional Response? The FBI was told twice this kid was a threat. DCF for the state of Florida was told by him he was going to purchase a gun. He was unstable. He showed EVERY flag there would be in a situation like this.

So your response would be to violate his rights?

Funny, how in one thread you cry about the media/Left trying to take away our rights, and in another you advocate for it...both when it comes to firearms.

100% if the FBI had followed up they would have taken away his guns. There was zero question of his danger to the community. The school and local P.D. also could have followed up and had the guns removed.

Failures by everyone involved.

biggest failure was allowing a kid this age to own a semi-automatic in the first place without serious controls.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You can't arrest him (and hold him more than a couple days) without a valid charge. Until the moment he started shooting people he wasn't a criminal. What you're advocating for here is thought crimes.

originally posted by: carewemust
Raid the house. Take the gun. Put him on the "No Buy" list. Lots of evidence would have warranted that.

No buy list based on what? Potential to commit a crime with the gun? That's a very loose standard that would eventually place everyone on a no buy list.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DoubleDNH

This seems to be just the expected emotional response to something such as the shooting.

They don't necessarily know what the FBI should have done, but they know the FBI should have done something. But they forget about individual rights and things like reasonable suspicion/probable cause.

do you think the FBI should have followed up on some of the post made, or the threats made, or his mental illness, and buying several guns after being diagnosed? Or are you just arguing against those you assume to be on the other side?

Also, many of those saying the FBI should have done something are also the same people saying they are corrupted and compromised.

this has to be the stupidest comment I have ever seen. The FBI is not capable to do anything since some members at the top used their positions to politicize investigations? I know of a cop who was a bad cop, so by your logic, nobody can trust any cops. Ignorant.

a reply to: DoubleDNH

Well there are 1st amendment issues involved. A tip can be sent in however one has to look at what was stated and determine if it is a threat or some idiot blowing off steam, an idiot perpetrating a hoax etc etc.

They can interview the person in question however since it is a preliminary investigation if nothing solid comes from it there is not much the FBI could do. They can give local law enforcement a heads up in addition to the school if one was named (no specific school was named in this case in Florida). As for having issues finding out who Cruz was it is not like the FBI can get a warrant to get the guys info. A warrant requires probable cause and given the info thus far I dont see a way to present the info to reach that standard.

As for local law enforcement being sent to this guys house more than 20 times it needs to be put into context. What were the calls, who made the 911 call, who was involved / present during these encounters. Generally speaking an officer can have dispatch add notes to specific residences for officer safety purposes (IE people at a certain address are known to fight with police and more than one officer should be dispatched regardless of call type). If the encounters dont result in charges being filed the encounter falls by the wayside.

Finally as for all the people saying there were signs. People must understand that hindsight is 20/20. His comments / actions that would be concerning may not appear that way to just one person. After this incident people dug into the calls for service, his online comments and tips submitted. They also dug into his discipline problems at his schools.

When taken all together yes, you absolutely see all the warning signs / big red flags. However, initially, you have different, unrelated, people coming across a weird comment here or weird behavior there. When those incidents are viewed as a single incident you dont see the red flags. You dont have people conferring with each other to put it all together.

The picture only comes into focus after the fact. Trying to make an argument that people should have known is extremely unfair to the people who had bits and pieces of the picture.

The only person at fault here is the shooter.

doing anything would have been infinitely better than what they did...

question is, why didn't they do anything?

a reply to: StallionDuck

Why can't they put a block on him? it requires a JUDGE. The FBI doesn't have block gun purchase power.

The FBI doesn't prevent crime.

The FBI are window repairmen. They need work, they throw rocks. They enjoy rocks being thrown at windows.

a reply to: Aazadan

I advocated for an investigation, not an arrest.

Please, quit mischaracterizing what I said. I know what is legal and what is not when it comes to investigation procedures and making arrests.

Let me quote myself: "Nothing I said is the same as you interpreted it."

Best regards...I'm not going to revisit your misinterpreted accusation again.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Investigtions can't do anything unless they lead to an arrest. You cannot arrest someone, or even take legal action against them for a crime you think they're going to commit. They have to actually commit the crime first (or be en route to commit the crime), which means you would need 24/7 surveilance of everyone. Not only is that unpractical but it goes against the concept of freedom... it even violates the 4th amendment.

originally posted by: Aazadan
You cannot arrest someone, or even take legal action against them for a crime you think they're going to commit. They have to actually commit the crime first

This is not entirely accurate. There are laws that make it criminal to to plan something where the end goal is the death of a person or persons. In those cases a person can be arrested for planning it out but not yet carrying it out.

In the case of Florida their assault statutes allows for what is called a "credible threat". Essentially when a person makes a threat against another persons life it is against the law, even if they are not able to carry the threat out. In the case in Florida the suspect met the state law requirement to arrest him for assault by making a credible threat. However in this case law enforcement at both levels of government dropped the ball.