Previous Post
Next Post


“The University of Colorado Denver psychiatrist seeing accused murderer James Eagan Holmes was so alarmed by his behavior that she notified the campus-wide threat-assessment team that she helped create years before,” The Denver Post reports. “Dr. Lynne Fenton, identified in a court document as Holmes’ psychiatrist, in June took her concerns to members of the campus’ Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team, but no further action was taken.” 7News reports that Dr.Fenton contacted the BETA team in “the first 10 days” of June. The team didn’t confer or refer the matter to police as Holmes was already in the process of leaving the University (after failing his doctoral prelims). Yesterday, University Chancellor Don Elliman said Holmes—I mean the University was innocent until proven guilty. “I believe, until it’s been demonstrated otherwise, that our people did what they should have done.”

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I think up need to post more of the story.

    The “Threat Assessment Team” took no action because he had decided to leave the school. So, since they figured he was leaving, the campus was safe — but let him loose to go mess with the rest of population — our job is done here!

    The question remains, did they have legal or ethical means or justification to alert authroities outside of the campus. Here is where we fall down on mental health issues….if he was a threat, how do you legally get this guy help?

    • Actually, yes to both legal and ethical. It’s called the Tarasoff duty to warn. If a pshrink, doctor, or other provider feels that a patient may be a threat to others, they have a legal and ethical duty to violate doctor/patient privilege and warn the authorities and any individuals who have been threatened. I don’t remember all the legal intricacies, but that’s the gist of it. One of the few exceptions to doctor/patien privilege. Maybe a lawyer with knowledge on the subject can chime in.

  2. “…no further action was taken”

    In the best case possible and absent an actual crime, what action could reasonably have been taken?

    Pre-emptively dis-arm an otherwise law-abiding citizen? Kick him out of school? Lock him up for further “evaluation”?

      • Nothing changes under ObamaCare….under Bush provisions where already passed that mental health had to be covered like everything else like if you had to go to the hospital for surgery….meaning you cannot have exclusions. The only thing Obamacare does expand who can get treatment. Put away your tin hat.

        • “The only thing Obamacare does expand who can get treatment.”

          …and who gets the bill…

          There, phicks ti fer ya.

        • “A small price to pay to avoid a massacre.”

          Actually, a pretty obscene, rediculous, retarded price to pay that wouldn’t have prevented anything anyway. But with progressives, nothing matters besides ‘good intentions’.

        • Actually, a pretty obscene, rediculous, retarded price to pay that wouldn’t have prevented anything anyway. But with progressives, nothing matters besides ‘good intentions’.

          Exactly. Murders happen. Tragedies happen. You’re not going to stop them. We don’t need to punish law abiding citizens because they might do something illegal. Whether it’s banning guns or locking someone up who seems off, but hasn’t done anything wrong.

          This “JUST DO SOMETHING” mentality needs to stop. It’s those people who left everyone in that theater defenseless in the first place.

      • I recall a few years ago, the CDC started labeling guns “a public health threat”. Once the government has control of the entire health care system, they can deem almost anything they don’t like as a public health threat and regulate it. Thus using various Articles in the body of the Constitution to obviate Amendments, including the Bill of Rights.

        • I totally agree. They already have proposed taxing salt and sugar for similar reasons. Not only is the “Affordable Health Care Act” obscenely expensive, but a threat to the 2A.

    • Many states have Crises Intervention Teams……where yes, someone can be taken, for 15 days of psych evaluation and still retain all their rights. If after 15 days, the doctors believe that the person can be a threat to themselves or others, then they need to go to court (usually Probate Court) where the person can be detained for further evaluation for up to 120 days (varies by state). It is during that extended stay, that many states could pull your permit or take your weapons.

      In this case, it could have worked if CO has such a system in place and there are legal means and procedures to do so.

      I know from personal experience with a family member in CT

      • Fifteen days? Insert foul language here. If I’m kidnapped and locked away for fifteen days without having actually done anything, I will be a threat after I get out.

        • I can picture 8 to 24 hours, maybe 48 hours, but two weeks is criminal. Most people would lose their jobs or businesses over something like that. And at the end of the two weeks the government could say, “Hm. Turns out your okay. Have a good life. What’s that? Compensation for ruining your career or business? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!”

          Government could use that as a tool to “legally” exact retribution on whistle blowers or other people they don’t like. That has to go along with no knock raids.

    • The University of Colorado spent nearly $800,000 on consultants to “re-brand” the University.

      CU gets new logo in $780,000 rebranding effort
      By Brittany Anas Camera Staff Writer
      Posted: 01/20/2011 07:14:23 PM MST

      The University of Colorado has finished its $780,000 branding project and will be phasing out its hodgepodge of logos, replacing them with a standard CU symbol.

      The branding project that launched in 2008 took longer than officials anticipated, and changes in chancellor leadership at CU’s Boulder and Denver campuses contributed to the delays, said university system spokesman Ken McConnellogue.

      “It’s important for the University of Colorado to be consistent and coordinated with its messages and images,” McConnellogue said. “In a world where people are bombarded by images and messages, we can’t afford to be fragmented and disconnected in how we present ourselves.”

      The branding project was paid for with money from the president’s initiative funds, which is interest earnings on CU’s investments. No tuition, donor or state funds were used to pay for the project, McConnellogue said.

      • ” No tuition, donor or state funds were used to pay for the project, McConnellogue said.”

        What other funds does CU have besides these? Stolen funds?

  3. So let’s get the facts straight:
    (1) The murderer sought help from a psychiatrist before acting out.
    (2) The psychiatrist recognized the threat and reported it.
    (3) The campus threat-assessment team didn’t do anything.
    (4) The public sector did not act to evaluate or help the murderer.
    That sounds about typical.

    The important thing to remember is that this sort of “system” is a key element of keeping the public safe according to gun control advocates. Let’s review the two gun control scenarios. If government “allows” most of the public to be armed, then everyone has to pass psych evaluations and screenings and that will keep us all safe. If government “denies” most of the public to be armed, then psych evaluations and screenings will identify dangerous individuals before they harm anyone which is why citizens wouldn’t need guns.

    Well we just saw once again how “systems” that rely on people fail … and for a multitude of reasons including apathy, incompetency, honest mistakes, and dishonest actions. Thus I am not willing to completely entrust my personal security to such “systems”.

    • Right on brother. I couldn’t have summed it up better myself. Only a fool depends on government for protection. As soon as the shrink notified the threat assessment team they could have alerted police in Aurora and they could have started efforts to get him 72 hour involuntary commitment for a mental evaluation. I’m no lawyer but my understanding is that once you are committed for involuntary psych. evaluation authorities have the discretion to disarm you. Check out this link to an ATF clarification letter posted on the subject at Gun Owners of America –

      One final thought – A while back the NRA was trashing the Veterans Administration for making efforts to disarm veterans who had been under court order regarding third party management of their financial affairs. If the Feds can disarm you because your not competent to manage your 401k or balance a check book why can’t Colorado authorities do so as a result of involuntary psychological evaluation? The likely answer is that they can, but due to bureaucratic indifference/incompetence they didn’t. Face it folks, the powers that be don’t give a rats behind about public safety or they’re just too incompetent to make it happen.

    • I trust my personal security to a system strapped to my right hip that fires a 180 grain JHP at approximately 1000 FPS!

  4. I’ve taught for more than a decade, and I’ve had my share of odd students. None of them has given me any reason to report anything to anyone. My concern here is that we are moving more and more toward an attitude that anyone who doesn’t conform to the dominant narrative must be a danger. Non-conformity is an essential element of a free society.

    • As a person who also works in education I agree, but this is a trained psychiatrist who evaluated a patient who came to HER for help. I think the warning signs were there.

      “Dr. Lynne Fenton, identified in a court document as Holmes’ psychiatrist, in June took her concerns to members of the campus’ Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team, but no further action was taken.”

      I hope the members of that Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team are having trouble sleeping these days.

      If one of my students came to me with mental health issues and/or problems with family, I’d definitely try to get them help without ostracizing them – especially if I feel they’re a danger to themselves or those around them.

  5. Another major institution that violated ethics and responsibility is now trying to hide behind legal technicalities proclaiming its innocence.

  6. …..and so the cycle continues. Another school has prior knowledge of a student who has a potential to be very dangerous and they do nothing. In the meantime, the “Gun, Magazine, and Ammunition” are blamed for the 12 dead and 58 injured. Liberal policies and Political correctness seem to be killing more people these days!

  7. Greg Camp-

    Virginia Tech- 32 dead

    Loughner- Giffords shooter-permanently disabled, 6-7 dead

    Both of these shooters were never “5150’D”, but know to have severe problems. A 72 hour Psychological hold would have stopped them from ever buying a firearm.
    In Loughner’s case the Police were called 9 times to his JC. The school and the Police did nothing. VT kept the information on their shooter secret, they did not even inform his parents.
    Mandated reporters not reporting makes them accessories.

    • I was put on a 72 hour hold after my alcoholic dad lied to doctors, does that mean you think my gun rights should be forfeited?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here