PDA

View Full Version : U of Col. Guilty Of NegligenceAfter HolmesWarning?



Gayle in MD
08-02-2012, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">James Holmes' Psychiatrist Warned University Of Colorado He Might Be A Threat


The psychiatrist treating James Holmes warned colleagues on a University of Colorado safety committee before the Aurora shooting that her patient might be a threat to others, station KMGH revealed today.

Dr. Lynne Fenton discussed Holmes with several members of the Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team in June, about six weeks before he allegedly killed 12 people and wounded 58 in a screening of "The Dark Knight Rises." The team assesses possible on-campus threats.

Despite Fenton's fears that Holmes might be dangerous, the university didn't take any action after the 24-year-old suddenly dropped out of a Ph.D neuroscience program on June 10, ABC News said.

Holmes quit the University of Colorado on June 7 shortly after failing an oral exam. That same day he purchased an assault rifle.

The university committee reviewing possible threats never contacted the Aurora police, KMGH reported.

On July 20, the day of the shooting, Holmes sent a notebook to Fenton. The contents of the notebook are disputed and his attorneys have argued that it should be kept confidential because of doctor-patient privileges.

Prosecutors charged Holmes on Monday with 142 crimes. The charges include 24 counts of first-degree murder -- one count of murder with deliberation and one count of murder with extreme indifference for each of the slain victims.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The revelation that Fenton suspected Holmes had the potential to harm others was reminiscent of the 2007 attack at Virginia Tech, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. Virginia Tech was faulted for not acting upon warning signs reported by an English professor about Seung-Hui Cho, the student who killed 33 people, including himself, during a 2007 rampage. </span>

</div></div>


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01...26pLid%3D187211 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/james-holmes-psychiatrist-threat_n_1731051.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D187211)


<span style="color: #990000">Apparently the Threat Assessment Team at the University of Colorado failed to take action that could have prevented this tragedy, after being warned about this very sick young man. Reminiscent of the same failure of threat assessment individuals at Va. Tech!

This revelation doesn't seem to back up any conspiracy theories, IMO, unless the conspirators were the Threat Assessment Team at the university.

Such a failure by the University should demand some sort of accountabililty and punishment against The Threat Assessment Team, IMO.

Gross negligence, on their part, that they failed to follow up and check the behavior and actions of this very ill young man, at the very least, which may well have prevented this horrible tragedy entirely, and particularly since it was preceeded by his very bazaar oral exam, according to reports, after which he quit!

They failed completely to protect their students, after serious warnings from his own doctor! Instead, they ignored the warning, giving him six weeks to accululate his assault weapons and amunitions!

Disgusting!



G. </span>

eg8r
08-02-2012, 08:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently the Threat Assessment Team at the University of Colorado failed to take action that could have prevented this tragedy, after being warned about this very sick young man.</div></div>It sucks that this fell through the cracks. I wonder how many "threats" they received that year. 1? 5000? I doubt they will tell us how it happened. What I find is the most important word in your sentence, and I believe you probably wouldn't, is the word "could". Meaning if they did follow up and take action there is still no way of knowing it would have stopped what happened.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-02-2012, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Apparently the Threat Assessment Team at the University of Colorado failed to take action that could have prevented this tragedy, after being warned about this very sick young man.</div></div>It sucks that this fell through the cracks. I wonder how many "threats" they received that year. 1? 5000? I doubt they will tell us how it happened. What I find is the most important word in your sentence, and I believe you probably wouldn't, is the word "could". Meaning if they did follow up and take action there is still no way of knowing it would have stopped what happened.

eg8r </div></div>

I think it is obvious that if they, the Threat Team, had been worthy of their responsibility, and had notified authorities, instead of ignoring the warning of the killers doctor, this tragedy would never have happened.

It isn't that hard to get the FBI to monitor mail and computer activities of a potential mass killer! Surely his purchases would have brought the authorities down on his ass, during the six weeks of his accumulations of assault weapons!

It has worked before, and prevented other similar potential tragedies, BTW!

G.

Soflasnapper
08-02-2012, 09:14 AM
This is interesting information. I didn't realize universities had threat assessment teams. Makes sense, considering VaTech and other history.

Still, I have to wonder what could have been done. I doubt such a report rises to a level of probable cause to even question someone, let alone detain them. Here in Florida we have the Baker Act, to have involuntary 72 hour detainment, and it requires sworn out statements from mental health professionals that the person IS a threat to others or himself (not MAY be a threat). 'May be' would get you absolutely nowhere.

Then there's the whole question of what responsibility they have for non-students, as to threats FROM (former but now) a non-student. It seems to me that once a person is no longer a student there, whatever the responsibility of the school was has to be less, and perhaps, nothing. (Although dropping out or withdrawing has the chance of precipitating violence, of course.)

Maybe had the police been alerted, and they had gotten an interview with him, he might have been spooked off his plan of action, but I don't see that as necessarily true. And he didn't buy any guns until he dropped out, and these purchase records would not likely be available to local law enforcement with no probable cause to get them.

I kinda think that as of his dropping out, the school had no further responsibility, or if they did, it would be for his actions on campus, not in town.

Depends partially on whether they followed their own procedures and protocol, and then, really what may be claimed in a contributory negligence suit by those wounded or the families of the dead, should there be such a suit.

If there really is liability, we will see attorneys swarming. We would probably see such swarming even if there is no real liability, looking to get settlements at the policy limits, even without a strong case.

eg8r
08-02-2012, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it is obvious that if they, the Threat Team, had been worthy of their responsibility, and had notified authorities, instead of ignoring the warning of the killers doctor, this tragedy would never have happened.</div></div>This is only an optimistic guess. I am not saying it is wrong just identifying it for what it is.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It has worked before, and preventing other similar potential tragedies, BTW!</div></div>Sure wished it worked a bit better in the Fast and Furious blunder.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-02-2012, 09:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is interesting information. I didn't realize universities had threat assessment teams. Makes sense, considering VaTech and other history.

Still, I have to wonder what could have been done. I doubt such a report rises to a level of probable cause to even question someone, let alone detain them. Here in Florida we have the Baker Act, to have involuntary 72 hour detainment, and it requires sworn out statements from mental health professionals that the person IS a threat to others or himself (not MAY be a threat). 'May be' would get you absolutely nowhere.

Then there's the whole question of what responsibility they have for non-students, as to threats FROM (former but now) a non-student. It seems to me that once a person is no longer a student there, whatever the responsibility of the school was has to be less, and perhaps, nothing. (Although dropping out or withdrawing has the chance of precipitating violence, of course.)

Maybe had the police been alerted, and they had gotten an interview with him, he might have been spooked off his plan of action, but I don't see that as necessarily true. And he didn't buy any guns until he dropped out, and these purchase records would not likely be available to local law enforcement with no probable cause to get them.

I kinda think that as of his dropping out, the school had no further responsibility, or if they did, it would be for his actions on campus, not in town.

Depends partially on whether they followed their own procedures and protocol, and then, really what may be claimed in a contributory negligence suit by those wounded or the families of the dead, should there be such a suit.

If there really is liability, we will see attorneys swarming. We would probably see such swarming even if there is no real liability, looking to get settlements at the policy limits, even without a strong case.

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The university committee reviewing possible threats never contacted the Aurora police, KMGH reported.

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Still, I have to wonder what could have been done. I doubt such a report rises to a level of probable cause to even question someone, let alone detain th </div></div>

The person who notified the Threat Assessment Team, was his psychiatrist! Not just some teacher, as at Va. Tech.

You can bet there will be law suits, as well there should be, IMO.

Threat assessment is a pretty clear title for what they were supposedly charged to assess.

While the article does not give the actual date of the psychiatrist's warning, one would assume he was still a student at the time of the warning.

Usually, the goal after one of these horrible mass killings is to determine how the perp fell through the cracks in the system. I'd say in this case, we have proof of how that happened.

If the Team had only just notified the police, standard proceedure when a psychiatrist notifies any organization of such a threat, they likely would have already had their eye on this murderer, before he had six weeks to amass his arsenal.

IMO, the Threat Team was grossly negligent, during his tenure on their campus, and some of their own students paid the price albeit, at a later date.

Sandusky didn't rape all of his victims on the campus, either. Yet had Penn State done the right thing, instead of failing to live up to some standards for oversight, many of his victims wouldn't have gone through such a horrible experience.

G.

LWW
08-02-2012, 09:44 AM
This simply verifies that leaving personal defense solely in the hands of the state is a recipe for disaster.

eg8r
08-02-2012, 10:04 AM
This is a horrible situation and for people to just voluntarily start pointing fingers without any real actual thought just makes everything worse. Sure someone needs to answer to what happened but in the end this could just be a lunatic who was going to do whatever he wanted to whether he got a call from the police or not. There is absolutely no way anyone sane person could believe if the University got involved that a different outcome could be gauranteed.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-02-2012, 10:12 AM
Of course there are no guarantees.

The question is whether that team did what their own policies prescribed or not. If it didn't, there is likely a liability.

Often, where there would otherwise be no liability, having a policy that isn't followed creates one.

Even if they did do what they said they should do (followed their own policy), the question becomes what was their true responsibility under law, perhaps beyond that policy?

Basically, people can sue over anything, and get settlement monies, regardless of the true merits of the claims. So we'll have to see the outcome to even know how this shakes out.