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?

Political attitudes about race prove we’re still living in a tribal world
They can’t get anybody high, but Smarties are latest ‘drug craze’
It’s time to kick the arrogance of ‘American exceptionalism’ to curb
When I’ve done something great, nothing seems impossible to me
When politicians insist the ‘war on drugs’ is working, they’re just following majoritarian incentives
FRIDAY FUNNIES
Experimentation produces beauty that won’t come from slavishly following One True Way
We all know fairy tales aren’t true, but maybe we need such illusions