Upade:Attorney: son suspected in shooting rampage
 

hunger games assistant director's son

GOLETA, Calif. (AP) ? A lawyer says the family of a man they believe went on a shooting rampage near a Santa Barbara, California, university called police several weeks ago after being alarmed by YouTube videos "regarding suicide and the killing of people."

Attorney Alan Shifman said police conducted an investigation and interviewed the man. Shifman said police did not find a history of guns, but did say the man had trouble making friends.

Shifman is the attorney for Peter Rodger, who was an assistant director on "The Hunger Games" film series. Authorities have not confirmed the identity of the shooter.

Six people were killed Friday night during a shooting near the University of California, Santa Barbara. The suspected gunman was also fatally shot.

upadating article...

Understatement of the year.

There had better be a lot more the Dad had done than simply call the cops and let them evaluate the situation at that time.

Otherwise this is Dad of the year (sarcasm) hiring an attorney to do damage control and distance the family from the guy.

Seems he had aspergers syndrome and was highly functional but that's where his narcissistic attitude came from. He was actually a mentally handicapped but could still function at a very high level with everything but social interaction.

blame it on his meds

That may be the clinical/medical excuse - but I get the feeling he was also a spoiled little rich shit - a monster in the making. He seemed accustomed to getting what he wanted, and simply couldn't handle rejection from women. He deluded himself into thinking he was a "marvelous alpha male" - when in fact he was just a narcissistic misogynist that never felt he had to make the effort to win over the affections of others.

Not to absolve him of taking responsibility for his own heinous actions, but I put a good chunk of the blame on the failure of his parents, too.

I think if you look at his actions and read some of the comments from the reddit posts in which people whom knew him posted. It was obvious he did actually make a effort to better himself in the ways he understood how to do. That meaning he made quite a bit of effort to look good and dress well and even went to the gym ect..

He simply lacked the ability to understand that his own behavior is what was putting people off and had no normal way to cope with that. I'm sure having the problems he had was greatly compounded by his ability likely have what ever he wanted.

It's also a possibility that he actually took relationship building classes as he supposedly had a website telling how he was ripped off and that they were all scams. This was from reddit though and not sure if that's been confirmed. If that is true then yes he did actually put effort into trying to fix himself.

Not trying to make excuses but I don't think the kid was just a psychopath as it appears at first glance.

One thing to consider, this is Socal, Santa Barbara- Ridiculous amounts of money and wealth. His dad being an assistant director might mean a nice living here but I suspect the family is at the lower end of rich, tops.

Nevertheless, with enough to get him a BMW and tuition at UCSB and hollywood connected parents should be enough to get anyone in socal laid by the time they are 22. unless.

Unless they are extremely introverted. If you don't toot your own horn here, you are not going to get noticed by girls. You have to have a lot of money/power/something to offset that in a big way.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is entirely introverted and was probably a decent fellow, but expected girls to notice him for what he thought his qualities were instead of showing them off.

psychobabble! :1orglaugh

http://www.cbbw.net/media/2014/05/ucsb2.jpg

The father's background is primarily making tv commercials. In addition to making tv commercials, I would guess that part of or most of the *family money* probably comes from Magnum Photos (see Peter Rodger's bio above) which was started by Peter Rodger's father, George Rodger, a renowned photojournalist.

Magnum Photos

Real shame he wasn't gay because he could have had LOTS of "friends"!

HE was HOT!

They said too that he was bullied and a year and a half ago he was thrown off of a balcony by some other kids at a party.

He was way fucked in the head and 30 seconds into those videos anyone can see that.

He may have killed more people :(

Police removed 3 bodies from the apartment complex where he was living. It was unknown to the news agency if these 3 were included in the total count of those he killed.

News Story

sheriff brown looks like a cross between sheriff joe and chris farly :1orglaugh

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...9_75079538.jpg

Seriously, all the chicks who think like that just go do porn.

:1orglaugh

So this guy has a long list of mental problems, prior contact with the police, was called out to visit him for a health check because his family was worried about him, and CNN reported earlier today that he had been seeing "multiple mental healthcare providers" yet NO ONE GAVE ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT THAT HE OWNED FIREARMS?

one of the victims fathers blames gun rights and the nra :disgust :Oh crap

Probably no one knew. Even if asked guess what his answer would be?

All the warning signs were there - yet everyone seemed to be walking around with a white cane and blindfold.

Another one that falls through the cracks of a system that's totally broken.

4...3...2...1 before the victim lawsuits begin.

People have to "tip-toe" around gun ownership these days...because if the police decided to take his guns away, you can bet the NRA will create a 2nd Amendment shitstorm over it.

That's a big assumption. How do you know no one gave any consideration to that? How do you know they knew he had guns? When did he get them anyway?

And most importantly, what law or rule is there for taking someone's gun(s) away based on something you consider they should have noticed and determined that's enough to take someone's personal property away?

Police can't just go take people's shit away from them and I'm very glad they have to tip toe around that.

Methinks the truth is somewhere in the middle here. If the kid had any kind of game going on he'd have done quite fine with the ladies, but you need only to look at him to see why he'd have difficulty even finding a willing hooker.

If police know some kid is writing messages contemplating suicide and killing random people, yes I do think it is time for the police to take away that person's guns.

then they will just go silent and kill :2 cents: the kid was rich! this kid could not get a blonde girl in cali???? :Oh crap sluts everywhere

From watching his videos and reading his manifesto, I think this kid wanted more than just any old slut. I think he wanted to actually have a real relationship with the hottest girl at the hottest sorority at UCSB. That's a little more difficult to actually accomplish.

Any time they do a "mental health check" the first thing they should check for is if they own firearms. In this case the firearms were legally purchased and registered. Isn't there a database they can instantly check?

We have laws that take away someone's right to drive if they aren't competent; There must be some kind of law to take away handguns if they become a nutcase.

There is a common thread here with mass shootings and it's mental health issues and no one doing anything about it. 99.9% of gun owners never have an issue, but we need laws on the books to restrict nut jobs from getting / owning firearms. This should be common sense but it seems it's not, and it's fought by the IRA at ever step.

Who gets to decide who's too loony to possess a firearm? What's the litmus test? When did my freedom of speech get usurped by unproven psychobabble testing? What sort of firearms are deemed too risky? A .22 rifle?

You want a slippery slope then you let the psychologists decide what freedoms people have based on the latest pop psych fade on the cover of Psychology Today.

Unfortunately, psychology is not a science. It's science fiction. You can't control a society and take away people's freedoms based on that. It's nonsense.

I'd say the police should decide. If they see a kid who has TWO therapists, one on a DAILY basis, positing chilling rants on youtube about killing random people...yes it is time to take that person's guns away. The police were made aware pf these facts back on APRIL 30. The litmus test? Publicly saying you want to kill random people. That should be enough.

You might have a point there:disgust

Then we have a lot of musicians, artists, poets, novelists, comedians, and regular folk we need to round up and confiscate their personal possessions.

I didn't say police need to round people up.

I am saying if a mental health professional is concerned enough to call the police, and the parents alert the police about videos of their own kid wanting to kill random people, yes it time for the police to confiscate their guns.

The killer was not an entertainer making commercial videos. He had a HISTORY of mental health issues and was seeing a therapist on a DAILY basis.

No, I get it, I just completely disagree. I can't agree with random psychologists getting to decide individual('s) freedoms via the police as control force. I've got a big problem with that! :)

I did not say random psychologists should decide.

I said the POLICE should decide. They should use all the information available to come to that decision. Some of that information may come from psychologists. Some may come from the killer's own youtube videos.

Let's not forget [pop] psychology is based on talk therapy, talk therapy is based on spitting out whatever is on your mind based on feeling safe and sharing with an understanding individual, i.e., it's venting. We all say shit when we vent. I'm going to kill that fucker. Or, I'm so upset I want to kill myself.


It makes no sense to create an environment such that the patient is prodded into saying whatever they want to a random psychologist who can interpret that subjectively and call the police in to take that person's firearms?


That's not really the way to go about this.

that's even worse imo. So random police get to decide based on info they get from random psychologists and youtube clips? I can see this working out well in Albuquerque.

The way to go about it, in this instance, was for the cops to consider all the evidence... such as the chilling videos that the parents alerted them to...such as the killer's mental health history. Putting those two together should have been enough probable cause to search the killer's room and confiscate his weapons.

I am not talking about any isolated incident about a therapist putting words into anyone's mouth. The killer voluntarily produced multiple videos that the police should have taken into consideration...and thus confiscate his guns. Hell I would go further and confiscate any type of weapon in the house, alert all the roommates, and detain that guy for further evaluation...just based on his youtube rantings and history.

If the suspect produced those clips himself where he says he wants to kill himself as well as random people? In that case, yes.

For me, if there were things to take away from others to stop this sort of insanity, then it would be taking away the media being able to sensationalize these stories and glamorize shooters and killers. Remove the media fanfare and the copycats (which this guy is) will go away.

Glamorizing shooters and killers has been around for decades especially in video games. You wouldn't want to ban fist person shooter video games would you?

I was saying in an imaginary scenario where we're going to try and stop what's not really a big deal overall (how many people go beserk every year- 3-4? 5? and how many die- 50?)

then yes, I'd rather see fps games confiscated from shelves (although those games are not the same as the media sensationalizing actual real brutality, which was my point) before I see police raid homes and confiscate people's personal possessions based on pseudo-science.

But the police would not be basing it exclusively on pseudo-science. They would be basing their confiscation powers on other factors as well...like the killer plainly saying he wants to kill himself and other people.

No one is arguing that guns should be confiscated based only on a psychologist's recommendation. There are other factors that should be considered. And in this particular case I think there were enough factors to warrant the police confiscating the killer's guns.

And what does that solve? No problem has been solved the kid is still dangerous. In the case of premeditated murder the kid just finds another gun and because he's obviously crazy continues his plan. Removing a gun just changes the equation it doesn't touch the problem.

It also brings up an interesting legal problem. If you judge someone so crazy you forcefully remove his property/gun then by leaving that person lose to acquire another gun you have knowingly left a legally dangerous person to commit a crime.


.

No one said any law is 100% fool proof. Yes, the killer might have just gotten another gun. Or he might have thought it too troublesome to get another gun. In fact, in his own diary, he said he was glad the police did not search his room or else they would have found his guns and his plans would be all over. Those are his words I am paraphrasing.

So you have judged someone so dangerous you can legally take his property but you allow him lose to acquire another gun?

That's pretty negligent of you.

Who said that the killer should have been allowed lose to legally purchase more guns? Once the police confiscate the original guns, there should be a "no-gun list" for that person especially if he says he wants to kill himself and other people

There no way to prevent every single crime. That is obvious. The point it to make it harder for people to commit crimes. Some of those people will inevitably give up because of difficulty. And some of those people who persists may still be caught before the crime, since he had to go through additional hoops to bypass any laws.

But we all know that's not going to happen.

The media is in the business of making a profit from sensationalizing tragedy. They feed the morbid curiosity of the public to know all the minute details of the story.

We have to explore other options. I don't profess to know the answers. The issues are complex with no simple solutions.

I'm still reading this kid's 140 page manifesto this afternoon - from the aforementioned curiosity factor. Trying to get a handle on what made this kid tick - to understand how the fuse was lit, from a psychology standpoint.

It's pretty messed up - and goes far deeper than the simple Youtube videos.