College Shrink to Campus Cops: Holmes is a “Public Danger”

So campus cops dropped the ball on James Holmes, the failed grad student who shot and killed 12 people and injured 58 others at the Cinemark movie theater in Aurora Colorado. Newly released documents reveal that University of Colorado Denver psychiatrist Lynne Fenton told campus police that Holmes was a public danger suffering from “homicidal thoughts.” She also wrote that Holmes had “threatened and harassed her via email/text messages.” [Click here for links to the source material.] Question: why isn’t anyone in the mainstream media putting the UC cop shop in their figurative crosshairs? We’ll call Doug Abraham, Chief of Police for an official “no comment” later. Meanwhile, why did this suppressed material magically appear after CO’s new gun ban bill? And if I were a family member of one of the murdered or a survivor, I’d have my lawyer all over this. Gun control my ass.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

28 Responses to College Shrink to Campus Cops: Holmes is a “Public Danger”

  1. avatarBill says:

    So, the law to have doctors report dangerous patients to the authorities is pointless then? Oh boy oh boy…..

  2. avatarMothaLova says:

    Interesting that this story emerges just AFTER the state passes a slew of gun control measures…

  3. avatarAnmut says:

    Dan – who needs facts when you have gun control?

  4. Well now that they have a 10-round mag cap it should never happen again, right? I mean that solves this problem, doesn’t it?

  5. avatarPantera Vazquez says:

    Let us all remember-that the culprit here was not the shooter, he was just a student with issues. Truth is none of this would have occurred had he simply had no access to firearms. We all know that there is absolutely no way he could have used anything other than a military assault rifle to cause the mayhem that he did. Let us not dare blame the school as it is not their job to advise the appropriate authorities when a loose cannon is waiting to go boom. Nope, let us just go after gun owners as they are the problem. You know those people that cling to guns and religion, those terrorists in waiting……………………end sarc :)

  6. avatarAharon says:

    “at the Cinemark movie theater”

    EDIT: ‘at the gun-free-zone Cinemark movie theater’

  7. avatarGreg Camp says:

    1. Every one of us–human beings, not only gun owners–is capable of this kind of act. The fact that the vast majority of us don’t do something like this is a testament to the basic goodness in humanity or to our social natures, or what not, but it’s fundamental to who we are that we have choice. If bad things can’t happen, neither can good.

    2. There are plenty of people whose behavior stands out from what psychologists these days call the norm. In days gone by, those people were known as Einstein and Turing and Beethoven and on and on. I’d mention Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, but that might weaken my point. What I’m saying here is that just because a person is odd does not mean that the person will commit some horrific act. In fact, it’s the people who stand out who often create the most good.

    3. It’s high time that the police take threats seriously. There are some knuckleheads who see that they can spew a bunch of loose talk and get no response, so they move to action. I don’t know the specifics of the threats made here, but if this shooter (and I won’t use his name) said the things being reported in the source article, he should have had a visit from law enforcement and probably his day in court. Show people who make threats that there are consequences for doing so, and many of those cowards will wilt.

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      Yea, I agree with most of that. However, personally I think it is best that the government and LEO mind their own business and stick to catching criminals instead of “preventing” criminals. Today we live in a land of cowardice where we allow our cowardice legislators to introduce and pass anything they “feel” and “emotionally” respond to.

      Also, threats can be misinterpreted. Taking a person to court as you say for making a threat is a little stretching it in my opinion. After all we are supposed to have the freedom of speech here, and there is a difference between talking about something and actually doing something.

      Personally I would rather die free (being armed and shooting at a crazy man in a theater) than live enslaved (and in fear because I can’t defend myself or my family).

  8. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    It’s wrong to blow away these loons with your piece, this isn’t something a “civilized ” society does. Now they’re just going to pump poison in his veins if convicted, much much more civilized, Randy

  9. Yet again the “system” failed. So this time let’s do it harder and make it bigger. Right, got it.

    • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

      That’s how it always is with politicians. If the already restrictive system failed, then that could lead to only one conclusion (in their mind): the system was not restrictive enough in the first place! So what do they do? Pass more restrictions, which will accomplish nothing. No tragedy can be prevented this way, this will only put law-abiding citizens at risk of being mugged/carjacked/killed etc. But hey, it is sure makes a good sound bite to demand more “reasonable” gun control.

      • avatarmountocean says:

        New spin on an old fable. If your only tool is a hammer all your problems look like nails. If you’re a lawmaker all your problems need more laws.

        • avatarAnonymous says:

          Someone needs to tell the lawmakers – if you are a pissed off libertarian marksman, then your problems look like targets.

      • avatarRoscoe says:

        One need only look at the CA example to see how that is playing out.

  10. avatarJR LORENCZ says:

    This was actually reported some months ago. It was similar to the case with the Virginia Tech killer, who was also reported as a danger but nothing was done. Those who we pay to protect us, failed again.

  11. avatarPete from Texas says:

    I remember reading about this few a weeks after the shooting. She’s a member or was a member of the school security council, or something to that effect. She notified the campus police that the shooter posed a danger to himself and others but since he was leaving the school, they didn’t act.

  12. avatarDon says:

    So when the negligent law enforcement fails to follow up on the legally mandated alert from a shrink that a psychopath is likely going to commit mass murder, said psychopath will be left to murder with the same sum total of ammo partitioned into magazines differently?

    Awesome job CO politicians! GFY!

  13. avatarDogman says:

    Not sure about the laws in other states, but here the psych has to issue an order of commitment before law enforcement gets involved. That’s unless the patient agrees to voluntary commitment. If that’s the case in this instance, the shrink would be the negligent party, not law enforcement.

  14. avatarAvid Reader says:

    This did come out some months ago, but not in the explicit detail we see now. The media didn’t make a big deal of it at the time as it didn’t fit the narrative. Plus, the U of Colorado political machine was working hard in a massive a$$ covering effort. The detail here wasn’t released until the judge in the case allowed it, over the objections of both the prosecution and the defense.

    Also note that there is a new judge on the case as of Monday.

  15. avatarChas says:

    Wonder if this will change the narrative of the gun hating left?

    Nah.

  16. avatarRoscoe says:

    Given the players and the politics involved, this story shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Just another example of underhanded political maneuvering, posturing and timing.

  17. avataruncommon_sense says:

    “Question: why isn’t anyone in the mainstream media putting the UC cop shop in their figurative crosshairs?”

    Because the UC cop shop is part of the state which elevates them to god status — thus by definition they can do no wrong.

    I have a better question. Our U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits government from granting titles of nobility to anyone. And yet that is exactly what police officers are because there is a separate and much more lenient set of laws for them. Can we nullify all of the “exceptions” for police in the bazillions of firearms laws under the Constitution’s prohibition of titles of nobility?

  18. We told these morons that these guys were batsh*t crazy to begin with, but did they listen? Nooooo. It was better to grab guns than to label someone a fricking homicidal maniac.

    Let’s see if this “new” info affects the current slew of fascist gun control legislation being pushed in America and in certain sates. Like CT. Where I live.

  19. avatarGS650G says:

    Doesn’t matter, CO needs to ban normal people from having guns. Or so goes the thinking.

  20. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    And there’s THIS:

    “Update: Holmes’ psychiatrist, Lynne Fenton, was reprimanded by the Colorado Board of Medical Examiners, in 2005, for prescribing drugs to several patients, including herself, without entering the information in patient records”

    Why can we STILL not get answers RE: WHAT DRUGS was Holmes on? Think it isn’t important? THINK AGAIN.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.