ABC news: "sources" say Holmes discussed by Threat Assessment Committee at UC

[Black]

PeterB wrote:
I told you all this a week or so ago. The University is currently denying any culpability, but I think once all the facts are out (IF they are ever out), it will turn out that they knew full well that he might pose a danger to himself or others, and did nothing about it.

There is no evidence that the university has any culpability at this point. There is no evidence that there is anything additional that they would have been expected to do, or had cause to do. We don't know the exact reason for the doc and committee's concern.

[Black]

Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=Black]
[quote=Lemon Drop]
When people fall through the cracks, it's good to understand what happened. That's not scapegoating. Learn, move ahead.

What's the takeaway here? Should there be some sort of additional reporting requirement to outside agencies?
I don't think there's a takeaway until the facts are all in. There is a reporting requirement, no reporting to outside authorities was done in this case.

What do you think?
Dunno... "Learn, move ahead" sounded like you were going somewhere specific or as usual had much deeper insight and access to a greater wealth of information than the rest of us poor slobs-- thought you might be willing to educate us.

[Lemon Drop]

Black wrote:

Hope you have a nice day.

[btfc]

"thought you might be willing to educate us"

Bob Marley wrote:
None but ourselves can free our minds

[August West]

Dunno... "Learn, move ahead" sounded like you were going somewhere specific or as usual had much deeper insight and access to a greater wealth of information than the rest of us poor slobs-- thought you might be willing to educate us.

To me, it seems you have been somewhat negative and unwilling to speculate about this situation, and I do respect that opinion, however, to be honest, from the tenor of your posts I felt you had knowledge and experience that would give everyone a learning opportunity, even if there was disagreement.

I don't think it would be harmful if you gave those less knowledgeable the benefit of your considered opinion of the topic.

[Black]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Black]I wonder if he's a certified licensed Threat Assessment Expert? Has he kept his membership in the American Threat Assessment Expert's Association current?

He's pretty well versed in this stuff, I think.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/barry-spodak/17/624/154
Indeed, thanks.

[PeterB]

Black wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
I told you all this a week or so ago. The University is currently denying any culpability, but I think once all the facts are out (IF they are ever out), it will turn out that they knew full well that he might pose a danger to himself or others, and did nothing about it.

There is no evidence that the university has any culpability at this point. There is no evidence that there is anything additional that they would have been expected to do, or had cause to do. We don't know the exact reason for the doc and committee's concern.
Apparently, when he quit, the university decided that they had no responsibility to him or others at that point. Legally, they may be culpable for knowing that he posed a threat, and not reporting it. If not held criminally negligent, they may be held responsible in a civil proceeding.

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/0...7920120802
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/26915?c=...y_response