Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

UC Santa Barbara in deepest mourning

UC Santa Barbara in deepest mourning

… after slaughter of six students

This year’s Memorial Day weekend was filled with tragedy for Californians — a tragedy that might have been prevent if  parents’ warnings about their mentally ill son had been pursued.

Six University of California Santa Barbara students were killed Friday in a spree murder.  The school has cancelled classes in mourning for the profound loss.

UC Santa Barbara canceled classes for Tuesday as the campus mourned six students killed in a rampage on Friday.

The school, however, said faculty and staff will be on campus to offer support and counseling to students.

The dead students have now been identified as:

  • Veronika Weiss, 19, from Westlake, CA
  • Katherine Breann Cooper, 22, from Chino Hills, CA
  • Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, 20, from Los Osos, CA
  • Cheng Yuan Hong, 20, from San Jose, CA
  • George Chen, 19, from San Jose, CA
  • Weihan Wang, 20, from Fremont, CA

Authorities have  determined that the killer was a troubled off-and-on student at Santa Barbara City College named Elliot Rodger. Rodger shot and killed himself at the end of the shooting spree.

Authorities have identified the killer, who left various video and written manifestos saying that he was seeking to kill sorority women and others at the university as revenge for the way women had rejected him. The killer — who subsequently shot himself — has been identified as a student who enrolled but frequently dropped out of classes at Santa Barbara City College.

Rodger posted a video on YouTube prior to the killings. In it, he outlined what he was going to do and said that the women deserved it for rejecting him. The Los Angeles Times published a transcript of the video. “On the day of retribution, I am going to enter the hottest sorority house at UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up, blond slut I see inside there. All those girls I’ve desired so much. They have all rejected me and looked down on me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance toward them, while they throw themselves at these obnoxious brutes,” the video says. “I take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one, the true alpha male.”

The YouTube video of one of Rodger’s many disturbing dialogs is below.

Given that Roger was a Caucasian male who used a gun and shot women has been used by progressives to underscore their assertions about “angry white men,” “War on Women,” the need for gun control, and American culture in general.  Rodger was even identified as “conservative” on social media sites.

The following item from Sarah Jones in politicsusa.com is a sample of this inaccurate analysis.

So, I know it’s ugly. I know it’s hard to hear. But we are teaching susceptible young men and boys the wrong things about women. These angry men commit horrible acts against women because they feel rejected and feel entitled to a beautiful woman of their own. A desirable object. A trophy. The Stop Violence Against Women lethality assessment finds a relationship between this sense of entitlement and lethality of violence, “Some men who batter believe that their wives or partners belong to them. A batterer who believes he is absolutely entitled to his female partner, her services, her obedience and her loyalty is likely to be life endangering.”

…But instead, as a culture, we will try to take fake solace in the idea that this killer was mentally “disturbed”.

Jones tries to minimize a few key aspects of this slaughter. First, as Rodger’s “Retribution” video clearly shows, mental pathology was a factor in the killings. Furthermore, Rodger’s victims were not all women, as this video featuring the shooting at the IV Deli Mart that claimed the life of Michaels-Martinez demonstrates.

Twitchy.com debunks the rapidly developing myths surrounding this horror, pointing out that the killer stabbed as well as shot victims, that more than half of the victims were male, and that his preferred Youtube channel was quite liberal. In fact, a glance at the day’s headlines show the elite media is stressing the “shooting” aspect this tragedy.

LI #32 UCSB shooting

The mental illness aspect of Rodger’s actions must be stressed, however. Reports indicate that family members were desperately trying to warn police for several weeks, but the investigators failed to view the Youtube video collection.

The parents of Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger had read his chilling manifesto and were frantically trying to stop their son carry out his plan when they heard of the massacre on the radio, it emerged Sunday.

…After Mrs Rodger came across his YouTube videos in April, she called one of his therapists, who then called a Santa Barbara mental health hotline, Astaire said.

A woman on the hotline called police to check on him and six policemen showed up at his house in Isla Vista on April 30.

But, crucially, it has now emerged that they hadn’t seen the videos even though those recordings were what prompted his parents to call authorities.

The warnings were ignored and six wonderful young people are dead. Race, culture, “gun control” or victim gender are immaterial when a mentally-ill narcissist seeks to slaughter the innocents in a sick quest for social media fame.

Candlelight vigils and other memorials have sprung up throughout the Santa Barbara area. Additionally, formal vigils for the victims are now set for campuses across the University of California community, including UCLA, UC San Diego and UC Santa Cruz.

(Featured image from BBC video on the UC Santa Barbara cancellation of classes.)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

No word on why he started his slaughter of white women by stabbing to death his three Asian roommates.

Did they attempt to stop him? Or were their deaths also for ultimately evil and unintelligible ravings of a disturbed individual?

The lack of diligence on he part of law enforcement will be glossed over in favor of calls for more gun control. But they are a prime example of why gun control is both futile and wrongheaded.

    Fabi in reply to ThomasD. | May 27, 2014 at 11:31 pm

    I scanned his manifesto and, if I understood correctly, he hated anyone who had the least bit of success with women, although I don’t remember if the roommates had themselves. I also think he mentioned wanting them dead so that they would not interfere with his continued killings that day.

The little Bastard was a sociopath and it’s likely that nothing would have stopped this attack. Being a maladjusted loner just isn’t enough to get you committed. The videos and the police response are problematic but if the police had to track down every nutter in California who posted “hate” videos on youtube, they’d have to beef up the police forces. In any event, I’m not sure if the videos were even actionable as far as a police search of his apartment.

And meanwhile, in Chicago, 12 people were shot in a 10 hour period and it’s not newsworthy.

    Psychopath. Not a sociopath, the guy was a psychopath.

      snopercod in reply to [email protected]. | May 27, 2014 at 5:13 pm

      How to keep guns out of the hands of Psychopaths is a difficult question, isn’t it? The “therapists” don’t want to turn them in because they would lose business. The parents don’t want to do it either because “He’s our sweet little boy.” What we have here is a real clash between civil rights and public safety. I don’t know what the answer is…

        At least in this case, the parents did try to get help for him.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to snopercod. | May 27, 2014 at 9:02 pm

        “The “therapists” don’t want to turn them in because they would lose business.”

        As one of those “therapists” I’m tempted to invite you kiss my ass, but I won’t take this unfounded insult personally.

        The fact is that the initiation of involuntary commitments is as or more likely to be done by therapists than family members. Business considerations have never been a factor in the 300 involuntary commitments I’ve either initiated or testified on.

        If anything, a clinician might be corrupted by bribes from family NOT to initiate proceedings. I’ve been offered dozens of times.

6 victims – 4 male, 2 female.

And it’s all about his misogyny?

Dude. I don’t think so.

3 victims stabbed, then, later, 3 more victims shot. ( I do not count the killer as a ‘victim’).

How is this just a GUN issue ?

Henry Hawkins | May 27, 2014 at 4:13 pm

Something awful has happened. We must identify that angle or interpretation which best supports our political agenda.

The kid had systemic mental illness of a sort that alienates him from all society, but because of his age it was felt most accutely with his ineptitude with women. Identify 1,000 of such individuals and one of them will go nuts with knife or gun.

The media class conflates Important Socio-Cultural-Political Considerations with plain old psycopathy quite on purpose because you can’t score political points for liberalism with plain old psycopathy.

The mental health and LE crowd are stuck with laws that (for the most part) require ‘imminent danger to self or others’, with the key word being ‘imminent’. Sounds like plenty of folks felt this guy would go off sooner or later, but who could predict it would be May 23, 2014?

The answer is not more gun laws. The answer is a reform of involuntary commitment procedures, requirements, etc.
_________________

Waitng in vain for some news outlet to identify Rodgers as the UCSB ‘knifeman’, followed by a sidebar report on the need to consider new, stricter knife laws.

    “The answer is a reform of involuntary commitment procedures, requirements, etc.”

    No, the answer is not to give the State more power to infringe on our freedoms.

    Just because I have beer in the fridge and a car in the driveway, and so does someone else around here, somewhere, who will drive drunk tonight, that does not mean I should be required to install a breathalyzer interlock on my car.

    Sorry, but the simple fact is, you can not legislate a totally safe world.

    You can not make crazy illegal.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to pjm. | May 27, 2014 at 5:21 pm

      Your straw man is showing.

      May you be blessed by never having a child, sibling, other relative who is in serious need of treatment and whose judgement is so impaired they can no longer determine what is in their own interests. A civilized society does not leave such people to their own devices but it has become almost impossible for those who love the impaired to intervene.

        I have no straw man.

        Yes, there are people that we all wish would get help, or at least get restrained.

        That does not mean that we should all have our sanity judged by the government on a routine or casual basis.

        It MUST be a high hurdle, rigorously subjected to limitations, and control of arbitrary decisions, etc. And biased towards respect for the privacy and rights of the individual at all times.

        I repeat, you can not make crazy illegal. And you can not rule by the exception. And you can not legislate the total safety of society for anyone or everyone.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to pjm. | May 27, 2014 at 8:53 pm

          “Yes, there are people that we all wish would get help, or at least get restrained.
          That does not mean that we should all have our sanity judged by the government on a routine or casual basis.”

          No one has called for this, certainly not me. Commitments are done by psychiatrists both inside and outside of the government and are only approved/disapproved by government judges. It is neither routine nor casual. I have personally participated in over 300 involuntary commitments.

          “It MUST be a high hurdle, rigorously subjected to limitations, and control of arbitrary decisions, etc. And biased towards respect for the privacy and rights of the individual at all times.”

          Well, duh. You make a strong argument against…. against nobody. Who has called for less than this standard? Certainly not me.

          “I repeat, you can not make crazy illegal.”

          Who said one can? Certainly not me. Involuntary commitment is a civil action, not criminal. They are not charged with any crime simply for being mentally incompetent at the time of evaluation, though commission of a crime is often the reason they were taken into custody in the first place. But no one here has called for “making crazy legal.”

          “And you can not rule by the exception.”

          No one has suggested you can, certainly not me.

          “And you can not legislate the total safety of society for anyone or everyone.”

          No one has suggested you can, certainly not me.

          “I have no straw man.”

          Going through your post line by line reveals it is 100% straw man. Perhaps your definition of ‘straw man’ is as bad as your reading comprehension skills and your ignorance about involuntary commitments?

          pjm in reply to pjm. | May 28, 2014 at 9:10 am

          Henry – First you agree with all of my statements, then you promptly call them ‘100 % straw men’.

          Then you throw insults at me for making all the statements you agree with.

          You sound conflicted, and should seek treatment 🙂

          In fact, you sound crazy to me. Perhaps you need some ‘down time’ in a facility ?

          Henry Hawkins in reply to pjm. | May 28, 2014 at 3:05 pm

          You, sir, are an idiot. It comes out when you lose arguments, usually to Rags, but I appreciate the opportuinity to out you.

          pjm in reply to pjm. | May 28, 2014 at 3:10 pm

          And you, buddy (not sir), are an asshole.

    The answer is a reform of involuntary commitment procedures, requirements, etc.
    —————
    Until you realize the libs will flock to join mental health boards and declare any gun owner insane. And they will be persistent in trying to get on the boards until they’re successful.

    Warning signs were missed or ignored all his entitled liberal life. His special snowflake entitlement mentality was off the charts.
    Sitting at a pizza shop in his “special” car and the “hot” model type blonds weren’t flocking to him.
    He says hi to some girl, doesn’t get a response from her and he spends an hour crying about it in a bathroom.
    In therapy since the age of 8 and has learned to manipulate everyone it seems. He lists the examples of getting his way with parents and psychiatrist in that diary or whatever it was.
    And his list goes on and on. Just a real pathetic example of a human being.

      pjm in reply to 4fun. | May 27, 2014 at 6:57 pm

      “Until you realize the libs will flock to join mental health boards and declare any gun owner insane. And they will be persistent in trying to get on the boards until they’re successful.”

      Yep. And the ‘climate change’ assholes will be next in line.

      And the LGBTQ types champing at the bit.

      Not to mention the anti-racists, pro-amnesty, etc types.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to 4fun. | May 27, 2014 at 8:58 pm

      Psychiatrists diagnose, not board members. They’ll need to infiltrate the DSM board too and rewrite the diagnostic & service manual.

      Oh, wait. The DSM board is already 99% liberal – has been for decades – and yet they haven’t used the system to go after guns.

      I understand concerns about liberal infiltrations and revolution from within, but this is sounding a little paranoid.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | May 27, 2014 at 10:29 pm

        Auto-correct: DSM stands for Diagnostic & Statistical Manual, currently at edition #5, as in DSM-5 or DSM-V (for you googlers).

    Valerie in reply to Henry Hawkins. | May 27, 2014 at 7:35 pm

    Agreed. The mechanism should not have anything to do with the executive branch, but should be court-supervised, with family having special standing.

      pjm in reply to Valerie. | May 27, 2014 at 7:54 pm

      At what standard of proof ? Therein lies the rub.

      Right now, I think it’s kind of ‘Is now or is likely to become a danger to self or others’.

      What change do we make to that ? ‘This guy is fucking nuts, even though he’s harmless’ ? Does that merit having your liberty taken away ?

      Define ‘f’ng nuts’, for starters. A definition the government can use to lock you up. And to force you on medication ?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to pjm. | May 27, 2014 at 9:06 pm

        Do you understand that just because you happen to be so ignorant on a subject that you cannot conceive how it can be reformed that it doesn’t mean others are equally ignorant and powerless, right? Right?

        There are orgs that have existed for decades that have reform language and law ready to go, have for many many years. go look them up, learn what they suggest, then comment on how it’s all impossible.

Richard Aubrey | May 27, 2014 at 5:07 pm

Reform involuntary commitment based on who’s judgment? These guys?
http://lumrix.net/medical/psychiatry/rosenhan_experiment.html

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Richard Aubrey. | May 27, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    A 42 year old study long discredited? Hell, why not go the full monty and post a link to Dr. Mengele’s psychiatric studies as an example of what these evil reformers want to do?

UC Santa Barbara always was a “party school”. Lord only knows what they are teaching the kids there these days.

P.S. Anybody remember the Isla Vista Riots of 1970?

Let’s not forget that Rodger was half Asian. I guess that makes him a “white Asian.”

    He had to fill out 3 separate ATF form 4473’s. I wonder how he answered the “Race” question… Asian or White? The media and the left seem to classify people into only two groups when it comes to firearms. Blacks and everyone else (white).

Richard Aubrey | May 27, 2014 at 9:54 pm

Henry Hawkins. My degree was in psychology. The takeaway from that is that they don’t know as much as they want you to think they do.
And we don’t have to go back to Mengele. The USSR used psychiatric mumbo-jumbo to imprison enemies of the state.
And are you absolutely certain that, should you hold views different from that of the reviewing board, you won’t be found a danger to yourself or others?
You know. If you like your IRS 501c4 designation, you can keep your IRS 501c4 designation. Nobody from the government’s going to hassle you about it.
Right?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Richard Aubrey. | May 27, 2014 at 10:33 pm

    You have a degree in psychology, wonderful. Me too, a PhD and 27 years experience. Experts abound.

    If your education and experience tells you that the federal level Obamacare and IRS apples translate comparably into county-level involuntary commitment oranges, well, then absolutely nothing in America could feel safe or legal to you.

Richard Aubrey | May 28, 2014 at 12:05 am

Henry Hawkins. And why should they not translate to local venues?
What about a local venue guarantees that the department of precrime prevention won’t pick up, say, a global warming denier because, obviously, the guy’s head isn’t on straight (coming soon to a diagnostic manual near you, as needed)?
Suppose I go to a school board meeting to protest the suspension of a kid whose poptart scared a teacher? That the local precrime prevention department is local protects me how?
Is schizophrenia still a lifestyle choice? I forget. Is it an odd day or an even day? And what if the local entrail reader gets his dates wrong and I’m exhibiting symptoms on the day it’s not a lifestyle choice?
I recall a behavioral psych prof pounding the lectern and insisting there’s no such thing as a freudian shit…er, slip. Probably a regular event. So do I get to pick the ratrunners or the witchdoctors to judge as to whether I’m likley to commit a crime?
If you think this kind of power in anybody’s hands is a good idea, you probably think you’ll be the one with the power. The rest of us aren’t likely to be so sanguine.

    “Is schizophrenia still a lifestyle choice? I forget. Is it an odd day or an even day?”

    When you’re schizophrenic, it’s always an odd day.

    But you never notice it, and don’t care.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Richard Aubrey. | May 28, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    “What about a local venue guarantees that the department of precrime prevention won’t pick up, say, a global warming denier because, obviously, the guy’s head isn’t on straight (coming soon to a diagnostic manual near you, as needed)?”

    This is paranoid claptrap. You won’t find a more liberal, progressive, socialist bunch than those who board the DSM and the APA and it’s been that way for decades, yet there are no such attempts or plans for your 1984 scenario. Of course any country ought to be diligent against such efforts, but there have been no such efforts.

    “Suppose I go to a school board meeting to protest the suspension of a kid whose poptart scared a teacher? That the local precrime prevention department is local protects me how? Is schizophrenia still a lifestyle choice? I forget. Is it an odd day or an even day? And what if the local entrail reader gets his dates wrong and I’m exhibiting symptoms on the day it’s not a lifestyle choice?”

    More paranoid claptrap. What possible refutation is there of your dystopian sci-fi scenario? Bring it back up when your Precrime Prevention Departments are formed.

    “I recall a behavioral psych prof pounding the lectern and insisting there’s no such thing as a freudian shit…er, slip. Probably a regular event. So do I get to pick the ratrunners or the witchdoctors to judge as to whether I’m likley to commit a crime?”

    Freud was an idiot, refuted a looong time ago. You’re talking nonsense here, conflating crime with mental illness and science fiction.

    “If you think this kind of power in anybody’s hands is a good idea, you probably think you’ll be te [sic] one with the power. The rest of us aren’t likely to be so sanguine.”

    Ah, the ever-present strawman argument. Anyone who has read my posts over the years realizes this is no where near what I could or would think and it certainly isn’t revealed in my above post. They’d also know that no one on this blog is a greater critic of psychiatry and psychology than I am. There is little point in barking at me for beliefs and ‘thinks’ I don’t have and never had.

A husband isn’t entitled to his wife’s loyalty? So they are for cheating, or only by the wife?

BTW, recall that the second greatest serial killed in American History (second only to the K.G., or He Who Must Not Be Named) has motives that were along the same lines.

The Kellog’s company is the greatest cereal killer of all time.

Hundreds of millions of people have died after eating their products. Sometimes 80 years or more later, but still dead now.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend