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. [Boston.com]

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.


Loading...
obispan

Enough with the jabbering about guns. The first time I fired a gun was at my public junior high school’s rifle range. First rule of the class; never point a gun at anyone. There were guns in the racks of pick up trucks in my high school parking lot. A guy brought a gun into machine shop class to tap stripped threads and machine a new screw. I could have brought a gun and a s**tload of ammo to school and gone on a rampage AT ANY TIME. Luckily, I was the son of an engineer and a stay at home mom, not some rich Hollywood weirdos.


doggin

How is it in one case a civilian can tell another he wants to kill people and he is arrested for terrorist threats, yet in this case where video was made with threats significant enough the his parents contacted the authorities Elliot walked away. We’ve seen cases where bullies have threatened others on various social media outlets and they are dealt with accordingly, yet Elliot walked away. Regarding gun control I say this. Are drugs illegal,human trafficking,stealing cars,murder by whatever means? are they under control? NO. This list of illegal activity that goes on in America is miles long, yet all of it takes place on a daily basis.Did making these laws curb the individuals who occupy California’s 40+ prisons? NO. If our government went door to door today and collected what they pretended to be all the guns would the streets of Ca be free of guns, No. Our states criminal element, our good friends south of us with their Panga boats will bring them, we will be helpless to defend ourselves from any threats. I’ll say it again during the invasion of Pearl Harbor Japan considered ground troop on the west coast, they did not because Japan knew how many citizens legally possessed firearms and knew what would happen to their troops. There is no truer statement that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.


Slowerfaster

Apples, oranges, and more red herrings.


SamLouis

“…Three 9mm semi-automatic handguns were recovered from the suspect’s vehicle. Two of the guns were Sig-Sauer P226 models, and one was a Glock 34 long-slide. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms assisted the Sheriff’s Office in confirming that all of the weapons were legally purchased from federally licensed firearms dealers and were registered to the suspect. One weapon was purchased in Goleta, one in Oxnard and one in Burbank. All of the weapons were loaded. Rodger had in his possession 34 loaded ten round magazines for the Sig-Sauer pistol and 7 ten round magazines for the Glock pistol. Also recovered were five empty magazines for a Sig-Sauer pistol…”


* No more question about whether the guns were registered or not. They were.


* So much for the efficacy of “gun registration.” A lot of good it does.


* So much for the California law that prohibits magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Like all other gun laws it’s not doing a damned thing except making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens (unless they happen to be law enforcement officers.)


* Soon we’ll hear about bills to limit magazine sizes to 5 rounds, bills making it illegal for anyone to own more than 1 handgun (which would be blatantly illegal), or to own more than 1 magazine (also illegal.) But they’ll push them anyway.


Ref: https://local.nixle.com/alert/5203814/


bobfromsanluis

So the police apparently interviewed the young man and found him to be “polite and a kind person, and not a danger”; I do have to wonder if they had the clarity of mind to ask him if he owned any firearms, and if so, did he have them licensed, did he own any ammo, and if he had had any formal firearms training. Since his parents alerted the police to the disturbing videos he had posted, did the police bother to view those to see if maybe he was being overly “nice” in his interview with them with the intent to hide his ill feelings?


There are two undeniable factors in this mass shooting; the mental instability of the individual, and his access to a firearm; if the police had been more through in their interview with him and found him to “possibly” be a danger and ask to see his weapon to see if it were registered, it would seem possible that this tragedy could have been avoided, delayed or reduced if he had been required to hand over his firearm. Sure, he could always get another one, but if the police knew that he had had a gun, be shown in his videos that he apparently had some “issues”, perhaps a closer watch on him could have changed the outcome of what happened.


But then again, gun rights advocates would probably object to the police even asking him if he possessed a firearm; while it is true that a shooting can only occur if an individual makes that choice to shoot someone, it is also true that only someone with a firearm can kill so many people so quickly, even with a relative low skill level.


I am not advocating for more gun laws or even to make it harder for someone to get a handgun; I am for having all the current laws followed, and for the police to be able to intervene when someone is admitting that they have issues and that they own a firearm. Allow the police to take possession of the firearm of someone who might be having issues, and after it is determined by professional mental health officials that the individual no longer poses any danger, then let the person take back possession of their firearms. How can anyone argue against that approach?


SamLouis

The law enforcement officers spoke to him. They found him to be “polite and a kind person, and not a danger.” Should they have detained him (a 72 hour psychological hold) even though they found him to be “polite and a kind person, and not a danger”? Absolutely not. In any event once they determined that, they had no right (or reason) to ask if he owned any firearms (or other weapons including a vehicle), although they certainly could have ascertained if he did via state records.


You then accuse the law enforcement officers of not being thorough enough when reviewing him which is nothing but rank speculation. You’re inferring they should have found him to “possibly” be a danger and to then question him about any firearms he might own. What utter crap.


How could asking if his pistol was registered in any way “avoided, delayed or reduced” the massacre? He was 22. His pistol would have HAD to be registered for it to be legal — he’s not old enough to have legally purchased an unregistered handgun. Do you think he would have admitted to owning a handgun if he had not legally obtained it? No way.


If we followed your plan my neurotic neighbor could complain about me, the police could then visit, and even if they found me to be sane and not a treat they could still take my firearms because I still might be “having issues?” No! This is neither Nazi Germany nor the former USSR. No thanks.


Slowerfaster

I just KNEW Godwin would come up !


This ain’t Panamint, California either.


Slowerfaster

“If we followed your plan my neurotic neighbor could complain about me…”


Perhaps your ‘neurotic’ neighbor has a perfectly good reason for being so.


Better to be careful, though. They might be packin’, too.


bobfromsanluis

Sam: Your response does not disappoint; Yes, this disturbed young man killed three young men with a knife, yes he ran over or hit several people with his car, but the bulk of those who were killed were done so from a distance with a firearm, period.


Had the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department conducted a through interview with the young man, if they had followed through with communicating with his parents on his apparent issues AND if they had asked him whether or not he owned any weapons, they could have altered the outcome for several people who needlessly died.


When the Sheriff’s Department did interview him, he was very concerned that they were going to discover his motivations and his legally owned weapons cache; he admitted that he was afraid that they were going to take his weapons away in his manifesto he wrote out.


Yes, this incident could have been seriously changed if the S.B. Sheriff’s Department had intervened in a more pro-active manner and discovered how truly damaged this young man was and how he had been planning to go on a killing spree, and the Sheriff’s Department would have been completely justified in confiscating his firearms as he was a “clear and present danger” to society, but the Sheriff’s Department that operates in Isla Vista does not “do” thorough police work; they do just enough to “get by” since they have such a huge student population crowded into such a dense area. Of course, they could do better if they had more resources, but most of the time law enforcement is more about response than it is about prevention.


And if you ever post a video on Youtube rambling on about your desire to kill people, I do hope that either the San Luis County Sheriff’s department or your city police department does interview you and if they determine that you are a danger to society that they do confiscate your weapons. But most likely you are not insane, you do not harbor fantasies about killing large numbers of people even if you do feel quite comfortable fondling your weapons. Several students in Isla Vista would still be alive today if the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department had done a better job and finding out how disturbed this young man was; nothing you or anyone else can or will say can change that fact.


SamLouis

((((((((((Sam: Your response does not disappoint; Yes, this disturbed young man killed three young men with a knife, yes he ran over or hit several people with his car, but the bulk of those who were killed were done so from a distance with a firearm, period.)))))))))))


Your response is most disappointing. The murderer killed 7 people including himself — 3 with a knife, 4 with a gun. The “bulk” were not killed with a gun, “period.”


((((((((((Had the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department conducted a through interview with the young man, if they had followed through with communicating with his parents on his apparent issues AND if they had asked him whether or not he owned any weapons, they could have altered the outcome for several people who needlessly died.)))))))))


20/20 hindsight. In simplest terms it’s clear you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.


((((((((((When the Sheriff’s Department did interview him, he was very concerned that they were going to discover his motivations and his legally owned weapons cache; he admitted that he was afraid that they were going to take his weapons away in his manifesto he wrote out.))))))))))


And?


((((((((((Yes, this incident could have been seriously changed if the S.B. Sheriff’s Department had intervened in a more pro-active manner and discovered how truly damaged this young man was and how he had been planning to go on a killing spree, and the Sheriff’s Department would have been completely justified in confiscating his firearms as he was a “clear and present danger” to society, but the Sheriff’s Department that operates in Isla Vista does not “do” thorough police work; they do just enough to “get by” since they have such a huge student population crowded into such a dense area. Of course, they could do better if they had more resources, but most of the time law enforcement is more about response than it is about prevention.))))))))))


So you say. That might be the case, but I suspect it’s not. The simple fact is you have no idea if the SBSO did a good job or not.


((((((((((And if you ever post a video on Youtube rambling on about your desire to kill people, I do hope that either the San Luis County Sheriff’s department or your city police department does interview you and if they determine that you are a danger to society that they do confiscate your weapons. But most likely you are not insane, you do not harbor fantasies about killing large numbers of people even if you do feel quite comfortable fondling your weapons. Several students in Isla Vista would still be alive today if the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department had done a better job and finding out how disturbed this young man was; nothing you or anyone else can or will say can change that fact.))))))))))


Are you projecting your own sickness above? Perhaps you need to check yourself in for a 5150 hold just to be sure?


bobfromsanluis

My oldest son graduated from UCSB, lived in Isla Vista for his three years he went there. One of the murders happened right outside the door of one of the places he lived. His experience as a law-abiding resident of Isla Vista was that the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department was mostly overwhelmed by what they had to deal with, and if you followed the stories of what was happening in Isla Vista over the past few weeks you would realize that the department had a lot on it’s plate to deal with. Like I stated before, if the department had the resources to truly investigate allegations by family members that a student of theirs was posting outrageous videos on Youtube and the Sheriff’s Department can’t seem to be able to see for themselves how disturbed this young man was and take a preventative action of investigating his ability to make good on threats of retribution, then it is truly sad that all they are going to be doing now is covering for their lack of preventative action. They did not do all they could have, they will now make as many excuses as they feel the need to as to why they did nothing to prevent this tragedy.


But go on believing what you will about how this wasn’t a failure of law enforcement; you most likely believe that this disturbed young man was somehow a liberal loser since his parents are not conservatives.


As for me possibly “projecting”; I do not own a single firearm, I have no feelings of fear of “the other” (that is anyone who is different from me, i.e., religion, ethnicity, color, background, whatever), and have always stood up for what I believe is the right thing to do in stressful or uncomfortable situations which is one reason that I took Aikido for many years- I have trained myself to recognize potentially dangerous situations and be ready to respond, if it is needed. So, to answer your question about checking myself in for a 5150 hold; no, it isn’t remotely possible that I would ever do anything to harm someone, anyone at all. Even if I were ever attacked, I would be able to defend myself in a manner that would not result in great bodily harm to even the attacker.


But I’m sure you will chuckle over my situation while you are cleaning and polishing your various firearms, fawning over them with their superior firepower, and the “safety” you feel in having, holding, and even shooting weapons that are designed for one single purpose, to end the life of a human being. I hope you never have any accidents with those weapons, and mostly I hope you never use one in a momentary fit of rage or anger against another human being.


Good luck.


Perspicacious

Stand by for more gun control in our screwed up state.


SamLouis

You’re probably right — it would be a certainty if the killer had used a semiautomatic rifle instead of a semiautomatic pistol. Americans (even gun-banning Californians) don’t like to be told they cannot own pistols for self protection, so we’ll see. Maybe a reduction in magazine size from 10 to 5 rounds?


Cries for additional gun control will take the focus (once again) away from the very difficult issue of mental health and focus it back onto guns where it will have absolutely no impact on reducing further senseless massacres. I’m sure that losers like Dianne Feinstein have been burning up the lines today trying to find support for a new anti-gun bill.


Thank goodness the gun-banning State Senator Leland Yee is headed to prison (for illegal gun running) and won’t be part of the politicking.


indigo1955

The psychopath has a polished “mask of sanity” (in this case there was the added chill of narcissism also [see video prior to this one that says “Look at me; I am completely gorgeous-who would not want to date me?]) and this mask is entirely undetectable except by the most skilled psychologist during an assessment which almost always utilizes the PCL-R (Hare’s psychopathy assessment).


Unfortunately, the masses know nothing (nor do they care) about antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy or psychopathy. They will instead rant about “gun rights” and “poor police protection”. They do not realize 4% of the population falls into the sociopath category-and again-they do not care to be educated or informed. They are highly reactive to the event with a narrow spectrum that encases ONLY their argument (gun control, government, police, etc,).

The mask of sanity is so good-that the average police officer (and many skilled detectives) miss it entirely. (And guns do not just go off and do mass killings—it takes a sicko behind the gun-otherwise-no one would ever leave a rifle or gun convention alive). How did this young man escape being noticed for so long? He didn’t. Women intuitively knew something was very wrong-and not one would sleep with him.

In research-it is known that women can be blindfolded-smell the perspiration soaked t-shirts of various unknown men…and then the scores will come out that the women just KNEW which pheromones did not “appeal to them”. Which ones didn’t? The men with schizophrenia, stage 4 cancer, alcoholism and (you got it) suspected sociopaths. The ones that did? Men who are more in the “normal” genetic spectrum. Sociopaths have existed for eons. The native Americans used to do this: take them out to the watering hole—and drown them. There is no hope for any psychological rehabilitation. And sociopaths aren’t all killers either….so sometimes it escapes EVERYONE. It is highly likely that the parents were not too surprised when they got the call about what their son did. Instead of ranting….become informed. Start with reading “The Sociopath Next Door”.


Perspicacious

“Police then interviewed Elliot Rodger and determined he was a polite, kind person who did not have a lot of friends, and not a danger.”


And we are to trust police with our protection? Police are great at solving crimes and catching criminals after the fact. Not so good with preventing crime. The only way they prevent crime is arresting perpetrators and locking them up so that those INDIVIDUALS don’t commit more crimes. Read “Dial 911 and Die”. It will wake you up! Police in most states aren’t even bound by their state’s constitution to protect you.


Slowerfaster

If this troubled young man had been required to be a member of a government sanctioned militia in order to have access to a deadly weapon, this tragedy may have been averted.


SamLouis

False.


Criminals/sickos don’t by definition follow laws/requirements.


You are wrong.


Citizen

This is as much a mental illness problem as a gun problem. The son had been putting up videos and the parents notified the Santa Barbara police because of suicide threats and threats to others in general.


Yet, even if the police did make a welfare check on the young man, there was little they could do unless he presented a threat to himself or others (72 hour hold) at the time they interviewed him.


The first mass killer at UCSB mowed people down with his car. This one used a gun and his car to kill. Both were mentally ill, and both were sons of Hollywood directors. David Attius, pleaded insanity and is already out of the mental hospital and in a half way house.


SamLouis

“Mental illness problem?” Absolutely. “Gun problem?” No.


One possible way to have stopped/limited this horrific carnage would have been for a licensed private citizen to return fire and take out Rodger before he could begin/continue to kill.


Perspicacious

So, exactly how would that have stopped this? I can’t tell you in how many ways that is an ignorant, knee jerk, emotional post. I considered not even responding, but I couldn’t help myself. Have any grand ideas on how to implement this “government sanctioned militia”? Does the Second Amendment giving INDIVIDUALS the right to self-defense mean anything to you? You DO know that if only the government were armed that the potential for “legalized” mass murder would increase exponentially? Look at past history.


Slowerfaster

That’s what the Second Amendment originally intended. Not the expunged and fabricated by deletion verison the NRA feeds you.


Read the WHOLE thing. It’s not that hard, really.

It’s the right of the PEOPLE, …not individuals. That’s all of us collectively.

Thus, keeping and bearing arms is a responsibility of the COMMONS. In case you’re wondering …the government of a supposed democratic republic.


Perspicacious

Uh, you are wrong. read what SCOTUS said on the matter. Also, read what the found fathers wrote in their opinions on the matter. Also. EVERY other amendment is accepted as giving INDIVIDUAL rights, but the 2nd is somehow COLLECTIVE rights? You are grasping at straws. get educated on the subject, then come back and talk.


Slowerfaster

I truly dislike trying to argue with illiterates. Check the “Federalist Papers”, particularly John Adams ( 2nd president, one of the ‘founding fathers’ ) considered this.

Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson. James Madison all contributed.


I quote, “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorance believe to be liberty”. Fisher Ames.


SamLouis

Such a hideous and senseless tragedy! Such loss of life! One has to wonder how things would have turned out if more law-abiding and trained Californians were allowed to carry concealed firearms for their own protection and that of their loved ones?


Rodgers’ first shot may well have been his last after being hit by return fire. It may well have saved lives.


Slowerfaster

Who would determine what would constitute other individuals as being ‘law-abiding’ ?

Apparently, Rodgers was ‘law-abiding’ up until he went on this rampage.

What does it mean to be ‘trained’ ? Wouldn’t any such ‘training’ have to be government certified ?


We already have ‘trained’ individuals in the military and law enforcement regarding the use of firearms, and some of them go on shooting sprees too.


SamLouis

“Law abiding” is fairly straightforward. Has the person been convicted of a felony, a violent misdemeanor, dishonorably discharged, are they drug addicts, etc., etc. Legal purchasers of firearms already need to fill-out an ATF Form 4473 and undergo a background check. See for yourself: http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf


Whether or not Rodger was “law abiding” or not has absolutely nothing to do with allowing law-abiding, trained citizens to legally carry concealed firearms for protection. “Law abiding” or not, a sicko like Rodger was going to get his hands on a firearm and keeping law-abiding from owning/carrying them would not change that. Think about that for a moment.


The training and testing that one must already undergoe in California to receive a concealed carry permit is already government “certified.”


Your comment about “trained” military and law enforcement personnel is simply more hyperbole. Please focus on what I actually posted rather than trying to use emotion to derail the discourse.


Slowerfaster

” Your comment about “trained” military and law enforcement personnel is simply more hyperbole. Please focus on what I actually posted rather than trying to use emotion to derail the discourse. ”


Oh, I think my response was rather rational to your strawman remark about his ‘first shot being his last”, for which nobody could ever conclude with 100% certainty.


Gone are the colonial/revolutionary days of single shot muskets and pistols.

Even the “Wild West” had six cylinder revolvers and repeating rifles, and communities policed by the likes of Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson found it necessary to institute gun bans, applying to everyone including ‘law-abiding’ citizens.


But, perhaps I am being emotional from a historical perspective.


SamLouis

Your reply was nothing more than an emotional, anti-gun outburst. All you are trying to do it take the focus off the real problem (a psychotic killer) and place it on the demonetization of firearms. Sorry but no sale.


You’re attempting to do the same thing with your silly muskets/revolvers/repeating rifles comment. Do you honestly believe you can sell such crap?


If you truly want a “historical perspective” consider how firearms were not vilified as the “cause” of violence/killings until fairly recently in the history of this country. Not until politicians desperate to show they were “doing something” began attacking firearms and their law-abiding owners rather than the actual criminals.


GoneBabyGone

SamLuis,


Consider this in your defense of your “…allowing law-abiding, trained citizens to legally carry concealed firearms for protection.”


Since may 2007 CCW permit holders have killed at least 14 law enforcement officers and 622 private citizens, including 27 mass shootings and 39 murder-suicides.


But, in your reasoning a bunch of under-trained concealed firearm bearing citizens engaging live-fire directed at them, more then likely for the very first time, would be better? How so? When you consider that the California CCW Applicant’s training is no more than 24 hours, and can be as little 16, how does that relate to a standard of training to ensure a person can accurately shoot a hand gun? And if they’ve never experienced live-fire directed either at them or around them? WOW! The range, I can tell you from experience, never, ever, translates to real world events in that realm.


That scenario is just scary! I’d rather limit guns to everyone then live with that possibility. Just thinkin’ about it has me ducking behind my desk in writing this… JEEEEEZ!


SamLouis

First, do you have any sources to back-up your claims? I suspect you do not. Your comments are therefore suspect. But I’ll continue.


Of those supposed “14 law enforcement officers and 622 private citizens”, how many were attacking the CCW holders when they were neutralized? Same for the “mass shooters” (defined as 3 or more deaths)?


Any idea how many CCW holders are in the entire US? How do they compared to your supposed numbers? What’s the comparative statistics?


“Under trained?” Just how many hours of range time do you think CA law enforcement officers receive on an ongoing basis? Once you find out (I suspect you’ll be shocked) “does that relate to a standard of training to ensure a person can accurately shoot a hand gun”?


Just how many law enforcement officers in SLO County have “experienced live-fire directed either at them or around them”? 5%? 10%? More? Less than 1%?


Try doing a bit of research before making a fool of yourself next time.


GoneBabyGone

Source: Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence.


That same source, and many, many others (instead of keeping your nose stuck in the NRA backed study groups do some of your own research and find some descending opinions to your obviously skewed view, a broader sense of the issue can only enlighten) go on to say that even when a gun is used in self-defense, which is actually quite rare, that it is no more likely to reduce a person’s chance of being injured during a crime than other forms of protective action.


You actually bolster the argument for more gun control with less access to CCW’s with your admission that even law enforcement officers don’t get sufficient training (range time) or have any significant experience “under fire”. If they, trained law enforcement officers, aren’t getting the necessary training or have any real significant experience “under fire” why add to the mix citizens with even less? I guess more bullets haphazardly flying willy nilly is always better. Now, who’s the fool, really?


Approximately 13,000,000 CCW permits in the U.S. (as of March 2014 – legallyarmed.com).


As far as the rest of you assertions? I’ll get back to you after some digging.


Perspicacious

That is really telling, typical of liberal elitists. EVERYBODY(except themselves) is NOT law-abiding unless they deem it to be the case.


Slowerfaster

“That is really telling, typical of liberal elitists. EVERYBODY(except themselves) is NOT law-abiding unless they deem it to be the case.”


I reason that that is the meandering construct of the CONSERVATIVE elitist.


Thanks !