Isla Vista killer son of Hollywood director

May 24, 2014

suspeted killerThe 22-year-old man responsible for a premeditated mass murder near a Santa Barbara University campus on Friday night is suspected of being the son of Hollywood director Peter Rodger. []

Peter Rodger, who was an assistant director on ‘‘The Hunger Games,’’ has said he believes the killer to be his son.

Shortly before 9:30 p.m., the young man began his murder spree, which would leave seven dead including the shooter and seven others hospitalized. The nine crime scenes include a sorority house.

After shooting or running over his victims, the suspect was discovered dead in his black BMW from a gunshot wound. It is not yet known if his injury was self inflicted or the result of a shootout with police.

In a YouTube video dubbed Elliot Rodger’s Retribution, the young man claims that he will take revenge on sorority girls and others for his lonely sexless life.


The recent murder spree comes 14 years after “The Isla Vista car massacre.”

In 2001, 20-year-old UCSB freshman David Attias, son of Hollywood director Daniel Attias, drove his Saab into a group of pedestrians, killing four on the spot and critically injuring one. A jury found Attias not guilty by reason of insanity.

Elliot Rodger’s family informed police several weeks ago about disturbing videos of murder and suicide the 22-year-old had posted on the internet. Police then interviewed Elliot Rodger and determined he was a polite, kind person who did not have a lot of friends, and who was not a danger.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Let’s not forget the first three victims were stabbed to death. Though LE has not release photos, I suspect it was one of those “Assault Knives” that killed those three. I don’t see anyone crying for a band on knives or even a registration of them.

As keep in mind that many were run down by an automobile, not your typical family car or even an SUV, but one of those two seat sports cars. You know, the ones that are made to kill pedestrians.

Seriously, if your liberals are looking for a new “feel good” legislation, here’s a thought. Elliott’s father made millions of dollars directing a movies (The Hunger Games) that portrayed teenagers killing for sport and entertainment. Most boys look up to their dad and wants to emulate them. Perhaps, Mr Roger was to busy for his son during his formative years and was starving for attention, so he did that which took his fathers attention away from him. He imitated the movie, “The Hunger Games”. Outlaw bad parenting. There that otta solve that problem.

Jeepers, how desperate do you gun advocates have to get when you knowingly mock gun classifications by coming up with “assault knives”?

Yes, people can be killed with knives, pipes, bats, clubs, vases, hammers and on and on, as well as people are killed everyday with automobiles (although, not usually intentionally).

The difference is that each and every other item that you can come up with as a murder weapon was specifically designed to “do” something other than to kill; guns have only one function- put the projectile exactly where you want it to go, and most of the time, targets included, that projectile is engineered to make as big a hole in living tissue as possible, in other words, to kill. Period.

Another mass shooting in S.Carolina.

If it were some other product that killed so often and so indiscriminately, most of you thick-skulled ‘Murkans would be screaming for remedies and justice.

Slow you should specify, that this is not the same kind of mass shooting. What you posted is not believed to be random.

Your approach to win “hearts and minds” leaves much to be desired. No one ever won a debate by bullying. Lighten up

Except the pro-gun advocates don’t have much of either, and most have no trouble threatening.

Haven’t you noticed that singing ‘Kumbaya” doesn’t work very well among the lesser informed …and it doesn’t work at all with troglodytes. ?

Guns don’t kill you very limited individual. I have a number of firearms. None of them have ever killed anyone.

Here is the interesting thing about all the people yelling…………’s the gun.

As mentioned the prior idiot in Santa Barbara that ran people down. The kid here that killed the first three with a……………..knife. The kid in the school a month or two ago running down the halls with the knifes.

Let’s get to the root of the problem in all of this. Not the gun or knife, it is the asshole behind it plain and simple. NUFF SAID!!!


Often, it only takes ONE fruitburger with multi-clip ammo to kill and injure multiples of innocents.

PS … I don’t think you’ve ever been anywhere or done anything.

Actually had to come between a guy pointing a gun at my friend. Scared the shit out of me to be honest. Trust me I have seen some things here and there.

O.k. back to your spouting your platitudes as usual. Do you have any REAL suggestions on how to fix (and SERIOUSLY the guns isn’t it) or do you just like to try and sound superior to others when your not?

Oh and for any fools that want to come along, yes your in the last sentence should have been you’re. Hope this makes the few grammar nazi’s on CCN happy.

Now you are resorting to the use of expletives? Is that supposed to make your comments more believable/credible?

I believe the argument that those like SamLouis puts forward, that of more citizens with CCW’s would lesson the likelihood of crime, especially violent crimes, is the one that will come back to “shoot them in the foot”.


Florida, with about 1.7 million CCW issuances (the largest number in the country) has, according to the 2010 Census, a violent crime rate 101.17% higher than the national violent crime rate and a state property crime rate 65.97% higher than the national property crime rate (California, in comparison, in the same 2010 Census, has a 53.98% higher violent crime rate as compared to the national violent crime rate average and a 5.99% higher property crime rate compared to the national property crime rate average). While Florida, who has issued 1.665 million more CCW permits than California (35,000 issuances in our state), ranks 8th in the country as being one of the most dangerous places to live, California doesn’t even rank in the top 10. So, almost 10% of Florida’s current population of 19+ million having CCW’s isn’t making that state any safer, and probably more dangerous, while California’s .5% of 37 million is a safer place to live, you still hold to your ill-informed opinion?

Considering that out of those states that make up the top 10 most dangerous states to live in, 6 of them have higher rates of CCW issuance then California (Tennessee, So. Carolina, Louisiana, Florida, Maryland and Oklahoma), while all of them have far less populations then California, the logical conclusion would be citizens with CCW’s have no real effect on lessening crime in any real sense and might even contribute to it.

Notice on the list of top 20 Florida comes in at #20. Do you have any links like Sam asked earlier, to back up all the claims you are making????

It’s always fun to throw around wild claims without anything to back them up.

I never made any claims of death by guns, all I said, and got from reliable variable sources, was about crime in general, both violent and property based (non-violent) and if CCW’s have any deterrent effect on crime in general.

The number of CCW’s in each state was obtained form the CCW advocacy sight, The numbers form the 2010 Census should be self explanatory as they come from the 2010 Census. The top 10 numbers come from a number sources; including The Wall Street Journal, The Huffington Post and others (if you want the others do your own homework).

The percentage numbers comes form good old elementary taught mathematics, which means compiling numbers, places and dates, puttin’ pencil-to-paper, and doin’ some good ol’ adding, multiplying and division. Simple enough for those of us who like to have our own opinion and not one owned by others than thrown around like it’s actually yours. And, it’s wildly fun too!

“form” x 3? Sorry! “from” would be the correct spelling! Gotta love those fingers with a mind of their own…

So that is your best argument? Wow sorry I missed that in proof reading. You should read the local paper sometimes. Never claimed to be perfect.

Neither have I (claiming to be perfect). Just a bit more willing to look at the issue from many different sides.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment, exercise that right myself, but the old argument that it’s people who kill people and not guns is just that, old. It’s the combination of the two, and like in simple math, if you remove one of those from the equation it just doesn’t add up. You’ll never remove people and all of their unique idiosyncrasies from the equation, so you limit the availability of the other part of the equation, the guns. How do you do that? In my opinion? By putting realistic, comprehensive and timely gun controls in place that are controlled by one law of the land and not influenced by the likes of the NRA.

I don’t need a “best argument”, I just like to contribute to the conversation, especially about those thing I have an informed opinion about.

As “BeenThereDoneThat” is alluding to, your stats are worthless in this usage.

“The Huffington Post”? Really?

Hey Sam wait till he uses MSNBC next.

While you and SamLuis quote from Fox News?

Actually read more on CNN than watch or read on Fox thanks.

It’s funny I have a friend on the opposite side of the political spectrum and she sounds just like you. She will accuse me of getting all my info from right leaning media. Then we go down the list of what we watch and read. Mine will be split about evenly, while hers is almost all left leaning. Bet you must do the same???

You can imply that my only source of information is from the likes of MSNBC and I can’t imply yours come from the likes of Fox News? Why is that? I’ll tell you why: because the likes of you, and SamLuis, don’t want a conversation on even ground, you need the high ground, the tactical advantage even in a conversation. In gaining that tactical advantage the conversation no longer is about the issue but rather whether the source of the information is or isn’t relevant by judging them as either right or left leaning. Weak, very weak…

Guns kill people at the hands of people. You cannot remove people from that simple fact. You can remove the gun however. Not complicated, just very hard to fathom, for some.

To GBG’s last comment about removing guns? Yea not having guns has stopped despots through time. Stopped Vlad the impaler didn’t it? Point, evil has existed since the beginning of time. Guns or not GBG people bent on destruction will find means. Knife, car, poison, etc. Maybe we should bubble wrap all of society?

I happened to notice that #1. Washington, D.C., home of perhaps the very tightest “gun control” in the entire USA

The nation’s capital is also the capital of gun deaths. There were 24.5 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people in Washington, D.C.

It would figure that a progressive cesspool would be #1 in gun deaths…

Time for you to go back to your arithmetic.

Like I said, and I believe you were alluding to in your prior posts, I was referring to CCW’s affect on crime in an overall view. Nothing more, nothing less. But if CCW’s don’t bring down the lessor violent crimes, or property crimes, how can it be said it has any effect on the more violent one of murder? Or how it will?

Here is an interesting read from a middle of the road source that conveys the point better than I:

I question your stats, citation please. Let’s take a look at Chicago. The city, county, state governments are run by liberals. There are NO guns shop in Chicago. Up until a month ago, Chicago did not even recognize CCW permits. They have one of the highest gun violence rates in the nation. Second only to New Jersey.

Convince me that you know how to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals without taking mine away. No, even if you think you are taking mine away. How? Pass a law. PS: Criminals don’t give a rip about your laws. That’s why they are called criminals.

Any legislation you can pass will only less the ability of people like myself to defend my family.

I (like many) do not live three blocks from the nearest police station.

When seconds count, Law Enforcement is only minutes away.


I have given the sources of my stats in regards to this article within the posts I’ve posted, read them, or not, your choice.

Like I’ve stated many, many, many times, what I am referring to is the effect that CCW’s have on crime in general, nothing more, nothing less.

I could go on and show many more studies that show the assumption that a well armed citizen is not a deterrent to crime, and in many occasions becomes a victim; but I don’t believe that by giving you the source(s) will do any good in even slightly changing your opinion, so why put in the effort?

Let me show you how the gun lobby skews this debate though:

The most often quoted source for guns as a means of self defense is “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (1995). In that publication Kleck and Gertz say guns were used in 1992 to defend against 845,000 burglaries, the same year that the National Crime Victimization Survey says there were fewer than 6 million burglaries. The National Crime Victimization Survey (a very respected source, used by both the right and the left, is known for it’s accuracy) in the same year, 1992, showed that someone was known to be home in just 22 percent of burglaries (1.3 million), and that fewer than half of U.S. households have firearms. So, according to Kleck’s “study” we’re expected to believe that burglary victims in gun-owning households used their guns in self-defense over 100% of the time in 1992?

In a 1998 FBI report on crime in the U.S. the FBI found “… for every instance that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 50 people lost their lives in handgun homicides.”

You need to also keep in mind that any real scientific studies on this issue was pretty much done away with in 1996 when Congress imposed an almost total ban on public funding for studies of guns and public health. Mainly due to a report being compiled by the CDC in response to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine and a 1997 study of the Archives of Internal Medicine that showed that a gun in the home raised the chances someone in a family being killed is almost three times more likely to happen, with the danger to women (who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate or relative) even greater (3.4 times more likely).

The only thing I can say about criminal getting their hands on guns is.. I don’t know, but all the evidence points toward that having your own gum won’t deter them anyway…

Someone sent his entire 145 page written manifesto to KCOY and they have it posted online.

The Daily Mail seems to have the most coverage on this story. The British press out covers the US press time and again on US stories. Jill Abramson was trying to hire a well known British editor for the New York Times right before she was fired. It makes me wonder if the NYT is more interested in controlling the news instead of publishing the news as soon as they get it.

According to this sick little bastards manifesto, he was consumed by violent video games. What was his parents thinking when they purchased these games for their child? If you are not willing to parent your kids do society a favor and buy a gerbil.

Additionally, three of his victims were stabbed to death. If not a knife or a gun he would have found another way to kill. Pathetic POS

His father was to busy directing the movie The Hunger Games. A movie about glorifying teenage killing for sport. Sure hope he is proud of his constitutional right to make such a movie.

Well here we are again faced with a mass killing. Out come the handwringers………….MY GOD WHAT COULD WE HAVE DONE!? Sadly and most likely………..nothing.

Gun control like a lot have stated won’t stop it. The prior guy who killed a lot of people in UCSB used a car. Yea we have all talked about this before. They (killers) can use a car or other means to carry out.

Then there is the typical cop argument. The cops should have done this or that. Like I have said before, cops are reactive not proactive.

Cop: Did he do something? Did he kill someone?

You: No but I think he might.

Cop: Well if he has broke no laws then……………….

That is it in a nutshell. Is it frustrating? Yes but we can’t start arresting people on assumptions plan and simple.

This is life people. It is NEVER easy, it is NOT always fair and sometimes it sucks!! Wish I had a simple answer but the REALITY is, none of us do.

“Wish I had a simple answer but the REALITY is, none of us do”

Well…there ARE answers, and they are fairly simple: Reduce the number of guns and you reduce the number of gun deaths.

Oh yeah, youse all are afraid of an invasion by Nazi’s, or Commies, or illegals, or your own government, or Martians, or … I don’t know…Trappist monks with Uzi’s under their robes !

Meanwhile, you let the kooks in your own crowd dictate the agenda !.

Slow I like many don’t want to have to rely on the police state as the only means of protection. Is it perfect? No. Will it be perfect if you take all the guns? No.

BTW I do not own a gun but support any persons right to do so.