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?

Pursuing transcendent meaning is rebellion against modern culture
What kind of savages are we today? ‘Pick ’em out and knock ’em out’
New command from the French state: ‘Thou shalt not say Facebook or Twitter on TV or radio’
Friend’s happy family and career remind me how good life can be
Food addiction means you’re missing something important that you need
FRIDAY FUNNIES
FRIDAY FUNNIES
The Fourth Amendment? Hmmmm. No, we’ve never heard of that one
Getting better at all I do is only way to fight ‘imposter syndrome’