Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
FBI Ignored Specific Warning That Parkland Killer Could Attack School
The FBI admitted today that it didn’t investigate a specific tip that Nikolas Cruz might conduct a school shooting.
On January 5, a person close to the 19-year-old shooter provided information about “Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior and disturbing social-media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.” The FBI ignored the warning.
Their official statement follows:
The FBI knew about Omar Mateen, who later killed 49 people at the Orlando Pulse nightclub. The FBI knew about Syed Farook, who later killed 14 people at a San Bernardino Christmas party. The FBI knew about Nikolas Cruz, who ended up killing 17 people at a Parkland high school.
Scores of Americans are dead, and the only apology we get is “protocols were not followed.”
Utterly appalling.
Published in Law, Policing
Good question. Especially in light of the fact that in the last 17 years our fellow Americans have dropped pockets-full of dimes on guys like Siapov (NYC), the Tsarnaevs (Boston), Mateen (Orlando), Farook (San Bernardino), Holmes (Aurora), Loughner (Tuscon), and now Cruz–with nothing but a lot of dead bodies to show for it. The cynic in me thinks “see something/say something” is another iteration of “public safety kabuki”–much like the airport security charade the TSA makes us endure to justify their jobs.
As one who has studied the truly incredible trail of blatantly dishonest acts which led to the issuance of the October 2016 first FISA warrant the the three renewals thereafter along with all the other sleaze surrounding McCabe and the so-called “FBI Circle of Love”, to see that they missed this and to read Wray’s cringe-inducing remarks makes me sick, and that is putting it very mildly. As several comments have noted in various ways, to say that they have their priorities twisted and upside down is the kindest way possible to put it. I cannot even imagine the grief this news has visited on these families. With that in mind, while I know no one in a civilized society should ever just openly make a statement which could in any way be interpreted as advocating violently taking the law into your own hands, I think it is entirely understandable if some parents and grandparents and other family members of those beautiful children are thinking along those lines right now.
I would be.
Sincerely, Jim
How anyone could have walked into that school with an undisguised AK-47 long gun with no one noticing is absolutely beyond me. This school needs to have to have their security procedure examined and severely altered.
I want a thorough audit of this so-called public access tip line, conducted by the FBI’s IG or an outside agency. How many calls do they get, and how many of those get investigated? How many of those investigations have actually led to criminal prosecutions or psychological intervention (including involuntary commitment)? Are existing laws sufficient to prosecute someone based on the person making credible threats of violence? Yeah, I know that it’s easy to make snarky comments about the FBI being too busy investigating Trump, but there is real evidence here that the FBI is just inept, and a major overhaul is needed. The platitudes offered by Director Wray are not enough. Not nearly enough. The public needs to make that clear.
@marcin :
I agree with the first part, but an not sure about Wray, since he is fairly new. As far as across the country, I would be selective. There are two things I saw go by* that make me say that. The first is that when Mueller was Director, he deliberately brought the leadership of many investigations from the field into the main DC office so he would have more control of them. The second is word that Comey may have been forced to go public the second time about the Hillary emails because of a rising rebellion in the NY field office (that had Weiner’s laptop with its evidence)
A possible side point is that Trump has proposed that instead of building a new FBI headquarters in one of the DC suburbs, it be rebuilt in place, but several thousand employees would be moved out of the area to three separate locations (WV, Alabama and somewhere further west that I forget)
*Unfortunately, I haven’t seen either one of these again and I don’t have a pointer to what I saw.
The ace profiler was too busy texting his girlfriend.
The more I read about the shooter’s interactions with people, the more upset I am with the local officials. The profile of his last few years given in this story should have alerted local officials to the need for an involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility:
Part of the problem was his age, I’m sure. He was older than school age by a year or two, and the school had expelled him. Officially he was in no one’s sights. But the fact that they expelled him and barred him from the premises tells me they knew something was very wrong.
This is the part of the story that is bothering me the most. Why did the school tell him he couldn’t bring a backpack to school? They must have suspected this kid was dangerous:
The school should have been working with the local police, who had their knowledge of the kid and his home situation, given the number of times the sheriff’s office had been called to the student’s home over the years.
All of the men and women at the FBI are not as dedicated as Wray says. If they were we would not have three incidents such as noted without seeing that someone is being held accountable. That would mean, at the very least, that some people involved are no longer employed at the FBI. Are we seeing this?
This is a ready-made talking point that won’t change any minds, but it will light a fire under the base, which is what we need right about now.
It would help to get some of the Ricochetti with badges weighing in, but my impression is that unless there is clear evidence that an individual is an immediate danger to his own or another’s welfare, the police cannot detain him.
IIUC, “danger to another” means specific threats against a specific individual or group of individuals. I’m guessing that if he was never on an involuntary hold in that time, there wasn’t enough cause to bring him in.
This state of affairs is not accidental. An activist ACLU attorney used sincere reformers to virtually do away with the commitment of the mentally ill. Wyatt v. Stickney was a key case:
Another stirring episode of James Comey of the FBI and His Impeccable Integrity
First, Andrew McCarthy
McCarthy characterizes Mueller, who preceded Comey as FBI Director:
Speaking of first principles and clear regulations, Judicial Watch sees Mueller and the FBI differently.
It would be easier to track successes.
The school and school system have a lot of the blame. They apprehended him on school property with bullets in his back pack, and because of a school district policy of not referring disciplinary actions to the police ( stopping the “school to prison pipeline) the local police were unaware.
What business does an expelled former student have being on campus, period ?