According to the article, "In a safety assessment, the report said the level of risk to Cruz was low because he 'has services already in place' and 'resides with his mother, attends school and receives counseling.'”

nt

GOPer-run states, are pretty starved of resources. Cruz was likely one of MANY and at the time likely was seen as less of a problem than others.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Unfortunately, there will always be too many who fall through the cracks in a society that values guns and fetuses more than it values post-birth persons.

Thank you.

what any of those agencies—social services or law enforcement—actually could have done.

It says local and federal authorities have faced questions over why they failed to act. Heavily implying that if they had acted, this tragedy could have been averted. What were the specific actions they were supposed to have taken?

thought he should have an involuntary stay in a hospital for several days, to prevent harm to himself or someone else. And supposedly that MAY have kept him from being able to buy a gun.

but that would have been all they could do. iirc, it was involuntary commitment, which comes next. and they just dont do that if the person says they will refuse meds.
cutting doesnt even guarantee you a spot in the psyche ward.
and that whole "danger to self or others" is so lame. all you have to do is say no, any idiot knows how to avoid that. even if you were just waving a sledge hammer at your mom.

so, yeah, nuthin.

I don't know if it has to be a relative who makes that call, or if an agency can do it...but still, it's only for a few days anyway. And by some students accounts, he had two sides, normal or weird.

I mean, it's a trope of cop shows & thriller movies, how people go to the authorities about a possibly dangerous person and are told there's nothing they can do unless a crime has been committed. The reporters surely are aware of that, it's enshrined in pop culture. Why wouldn't they naturally provide the information of what actions weren't taken, if there really are any, instead of leaving the reader hanging?

I'm really disliking the thrust of these stories. I smell an agenda. It's either about discrediting the FBI or laying the groundwork for expanded police powers. Maybe both. I hate feeling this paranoid.

Could any one of them gotten him committed for a mental health assessment (72-hour hold) after he cut himself? After he threatened to shoot up a school? And could that agency then put him on the no-buy list for guns?

Or does a court need to rule that he cannot possess guns? And which agency petitions the court?

Could his mother have petitioned a court and had her son put on the list because of his documented mental illness? Could the Florida social services have done that? Could the FBI have done that?

There's been NO discussion of what any of these agencies or individuals could have actually done legally to keep this kid from buying a gun.

It's easy to look back and say, "something should have been done about Cruz."
But where does he fit in with the 100,000 people like him in the state? Is he more dangerous? Less dangerous?
I don't fault social services at all. The FBI should have followed protocol, yes. But unless you have a precog working at the local police force, sometimes you just gotta guess.

In the current round-'em-all-up climate we're in, it's a real possibility that we'll end up not with gun control but with more authoritarian people control.

someone violent enough to get the cops called on him over 30 like Cruz should have had some controls put on him.
At some point, dangerous people need to be controlled. the first convictable crime they may commit may be Columbine.

Control the violent and guilty.

they could commit a crime.

I don't know what moral or ethical basis society would have for putting controls on people who look or sound like they might commit a crime. I don't know how you would set the parameters on what the behavior would have to be, or who would be the arbiter for pronouncing that the person has met them. What would the "controls" be? Who would administer them? How long would they last? For a person's entire lifetime?

This is very dangerous territory. You know that whoever had such sweeping power would end up abusing it. Especially, in our capitalist system, if they could make money off of it. We already have for-profit prisons, and judges who have been bribed to funnel young persons to them. Yes, I could see this being the next step, all too well. It's a scary thought.

you do something violent enough that you scare someone into calling the cops, you would explain yourself to a judge. If it happens 3 times, it's considered a felony and you spend some time in jail, and you may never legally touch a weapon ever in your life.
Throw a lamp? Push your mom down? You see the judge. This isn't minority report. It's the lowering of thresholds to where violent behavior is no longer shrugged off, and is now punishable. Enforce everything.

My son would qualify under this. He's austin and 11 years old. A big kid. But he loses his temper over things like "do your homework" or "clean your room." The last time he threw a violent fit, he fought us for 30 minutes. Screaming vile sexist, racist stuff. He kicked his mom in the back. Threatened to stab his sister in her sleep. He ended up staying in a mental health place for a week. I know at some point in the furure, he's going to hurt someone.
I would want him to go to jail before that happens.

Tragic

And Cheeto is using the deaths of children to deflect any investigation into his own traitorous actions. Am I being awful to wish some deranged person had shot him instead?

As said above, all social services have been cut to the bone.

They merely access situations and have few resources to actually force people ... especially those 18 and older ... to make significant changes in behavior.