What if police were warned that James Holmes might be dangerous at some point before he took guns to a Colorado theater and started shooting people? Surely he would have been arrested and many lives would have been saved. Right?
That’s the standard sort of thing we tend to assume, but it appears that police were warned about Holmes ahead of time and did nothing to stop him. Does this mean police are indirectly to blame for the shootings? This article from The Atlantic certainly implies something like that. It says the latest revelation is “bound to elicit even more frustration and anger.” The writer then says “it’d be infuriating” to learn that police had a warning and didn’t act on it.
What kind of world does that writer want to live in?
According to ABC News, a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado was worried about her patient weeks before the shooting occurred. So she talked to a university police officer, but we don’t know what (if anything) the officer did with the warning. What should police have done?

Idiots in Congress haven’t heard of ‘law of unintended consequences’
How many warnings can life give us when something’s gone wrong?
Best ways for man to love woman flow from how he lives every day
You’ve been lied to: Freedom and democracy are different things
‘We’re live with people standing in line. Did we mention we’re live?’
No ebooks for me: Reading is about more than simply absorbing data
Obama channeling Heinlein’s ghost: ‘…we’ve had a run of bad luck’
Barack Obama’s effort to imitate FDR’s ’36 campaign full of danger