Even if I take that linked story at face value, I see no reason to fault the FBI. The FBI doesn't have any more ability than anyone else to get schizophrenics permanently locked up, except by setting them up in a way that will demonstrate that they will intentionally kill.
Extremist groups regularly take advantage of people like that when recruiting people who will really be willing to commit horrible violent acts. Is it really bad for the FBI to head that off by setting the crazy guy up with a fake bomb, in hopes of getting him permanently locked up before he does something deadly with a real bomb or real guns?
Sure, it would be better if the FBI (and local law enforcement, and families, and concerned friends/neighbors/teachers/employers) could get people like this locked up before they actually do something horrible, but the best the FBI can do is set them up in a way that proves they really are ready and willing to kill people. Family, neighbors, local law enforcement, etc, don't have the authority to do that, so they just have to wait until the crazy person actually kills someone. Why the hell are those parents complaining that the FBI got their dangerously crazy son locked up? He needed to be locked up, and the family's efforts just resulted in a never-ending series of short-term hospitalizations, in between which their son was free to associate with and be brainwashed by any and all kinds of crazies who wanted to recruit expendable people.
"The FBI knew in advance the Pulse Nightclub shooter (Omar Mateen) and were tipped off by the local sheriff. The FBI knew in advance the San Bernardino Terrorists (Tashfeen Malik). The FBI knew in advance the Boston Marathon Bombers (the Tsarnaev brothers) tipped off by Russians. The FBI knew in advance the Garland, Texas, shooters (Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi). The FBI knew in advance of the Parkland High School shooter (Nikolas Cruz). The FBI knew in advance of the Fort Hood shooter (Nidal Hasan); and now the FBI knew in advance of Ahmad al-Aliwi Alissa."
Sure, they knew in advance. So did a lot of other people who had interacted with those crazed killers. But nobody could do anything about them until after they killed.
Think this through. They were trying to take his firearms, because there was no process by which they could take him and put him in a psych hospital for evaluation and, if found necessary, treatment and/or long-term commitment. The problem with what we currently call "red flag laws" is that they focus on taking guns, and leaving the purportedly dangerous crazy person free.
Obviously when the person really is dangerously crazy, it's the person that needs to be separated from free society, not a particular category of inanimate object, which is just one of many categories that a violently inclined crazy person can use to kill or maim. If they'd had a process to take him they could have put him under surveillance and caught him off-guard to take him into custody. Then he'd still be alive, and if (as I have noted) the infernal privacy laws were gutted, he would only be kept in a secure psych facility if that was actually warranted.
Even if I take that linked story at face value, I see no reason to fault the FBI. The FBI doesn't have any more ability than anyone else to get schizophrenics permanently locked up, except by setting them up in a way that will demonstrate that they will intentionally kill.
Extremist groups regularly take advantage of people like that when recruiting people who will really be willing to commit horrible violent acts. Is it really bad for the FBI to head that off by setting the crazy guy up with a fake bomb, in hopes of getting him permanently locked up before he does something deadly with a real bomb or real guns?
Sure, it would be better if the FBI (and local law enforcement, and families, and concerned friends/neighbors/teachers/employers) could get people like this locked up before they actually do something horrible, but the best the FBI can do is set them up in a way that proves they really are ready and willing to kill people. Family, neighbors, local law enforcement, etc, don't have the authority to do that, so they just have to wait until the crazy person actually kills someone. Why the hell are those parents complaining that the FBI got their dangerously crazy son locked up? He needed to be locked up, and the family's efforts just resulted in a never-ending series of short-term hospitalizations, in between which their son was free to associate with and be brainwashed by any and all kinds of crazies who wanted to recruit expendable people.
Maybe you should open your eyes:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2021/03/23/here-we-go-fbi-knew-boulder-colorado-suspect-identity-prior-to-shooting/
"The FBI knew in advance the Pulse Nightclub shooter (Omar Mateen) and were tipped off by the local sheriff. The FBI knew in advance the San Bernardino Terrorists (Tashfeen Malik). The FBI knew in advance the Boston Marathon Bombers (the Tsarnaev brothers) tipped off by Russians. The FBI knew in advance the Garland, Texas, shooters (Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi). The FBI knew in advance of the Parkland High School shooter (Nikolas Cruz). The FBI knew in advance of the Fort Hood shooter (Nidal Hasan); and now the FBI knew in advance of Ahmad al-Aliwi Alissa."
Sure, they knew in advance. So did a lot of other people who had interacted with those crazed killers. But nobody could do anything about them until after they killed.
Keep telling yourself that they don't intervene ahead of time if they want to:
https://thenewamerican.com/law-abiding-gun-owner-killed-during-red-flag-confiscation-raid/
Think this through. They were trying to take his firearms, because there was no process by which they could take him and put him in a psych hospital for evaluation and, if found necessary, treatment and/or long-term commitment. The problem with what we currently call "red flag laws" is that they focus on taking guns, and leaving the purportedly dangerous crazy person free.
Obviously when the person really is dangerously crazy, it's the person that needs to be separated from free society, not a particular category of inanimate object, which is just one of many categories that a violently inclined crazy person can use to kill or maim. If they'd had a process to take him they could have put him under surveillance and caught him off-guard to take him into custody. Then he'd still be alive, and if (as I have noted) the infernal privacy laws were gutted, he would only be kept in a secure psych facility if that was actually warranted.
... oh FUCK YOU...
Fucking simp. This has FBI fingerprints all over it.