HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Time line - Santa Barbara...

Fri May 30, 2014, 11:20 AM

Time line - Santa Barbara County Sheriff's office re: the killings in Isla Vista

last week. I work for the County.

Community: New Information on Isla Vista Mass Murder Case
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office is releasing further information regarding the April 30th "check the welfare" call involving deceased mass murder suspect Elliot Rodger. Also being released is a time-line of when the Sheriff’s Office received the so-called "Retribution" video and the 137-page "manifesto." The Sheriff’s Office also wants to clarify information about a reported attempt by Rodger’s family to contact law enforcement the night of the shooting rampage.
April 30, 2014 "Check the Welfare" Call
At approximately 10:17 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2014, the Santa Barbara County Emergency Communications Center received a call from a mental health staff member assigned to answer the Santa Barbara County Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Toll Free Access Line. The staff member requested deputies check the welfare of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who lived at an apartment in the 6500 block of Seville Road in Isla Vista. The staff member said she had been contacted by a person who identified himself as a friend of Elliot Rodger. Based on information from the caller and Elliot Rodger’s mother, the staff member on the Mental Health hot line requested a welfare check on Elliot Rodger.
Four Sheriff’s deputies and a UCSB police officer assigned to the Isla Vista Foot Patrol, along with a dispatcher-in-training, responded to the call. The Isla Vista Foot Patrol is made up of Sheriff’s deputies and UCSB police officers who offer community policing by patrolling the area in groups of two or three, primarily on foot or bicycle, to protect and serve the large student population and other Isla Vista residents and visitors. Typically, in a "check the welfare" call of this nature, only two deputies would respond. In this case, deputies who were not assigned to the call, but who were familiar with Rodger as a victim in a January 2014 petty theft case, also decided to respond.
When Sheriff’s deputies arrived at Rodger’s address, they contacted him outside of his residence. Deputies found Rodger to be shy, timid and polite. When questioned by the deputies about reported disturbing videos he had posted on-line, Rodger told them he was having trouble fitting in socially in Isla Vista and the videos were merely a way of expressing himself. Based upon the information available to them at the time, Sheriff’s deputies concluded that Rodger was not an immediate threat to himself or others, and that they did not have cause to place him on an involuntary mental health hold, or to enter or search his residence. Therefore, they did not view the videos or conduct a weapons check on Rodger.
A Sheriff’s deputy on-scene called Rodger’s mother and briefed her on the situation. He then passed the phone to Rodger so he could speak to his mother directly. During the conversation with his mother, Rodger told her he was fine and that he would call her later. Before leaving, deputies gave Rodger information on several local services he could contact if he needed help, including calling the Sheriff’s Office. Deputies’ contact with Rodger lasted approximately ten minutes.
Based on the information reviewed thus far, the Sheriff’s Office has determined that the deputies who responded handled the call in a professional manner consistent with state law and department policy.
The Timeline for Receipt of the "Manifesto" and "Retribution"Video
The Sheriff’s Office became aware of and received the "Retribution" video and the 137-page "manifesto" approximately one hour after the shooting rampage occurred.
The first gunshots were reported at 9:27 p.m. on May 23rd and approximately eight minutes later the incident was over. During that time, a total of three innocent victims were shot to death, 13 were wounded and the suspect died from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Three additional murder victims were subsequently found in Rodger’s residence.
Rodger uploaded his "Retribution" video on YouTube at 9:17 p.m. At 9:18 p.m., he e-mailed his "manifesto" to several people, including his mother, father and therapist. The therapist saw the e-mail at approximately 10:00 p.m. and contacted the Santa Barbara Police Department at approximately 10:11 p.m. The Santa Barbara Police Department contacted Rodger’s mother to obtain further information. This information was subsequently forwarded to Sheriff’s detectives at approximately 10:26 p.m., at which time they first viewed the "manifesto" and "Retribution" video.
The Current State of the Investigation
This is one of the most complex investigations in the history of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff’s detectives are conducting numerous interviews and processing a huge amount of evidence in the case. Due to the fact that this investigation is ongoing, no further information related to the case will be released at this time. The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office is conducting a complete death investigation on all six victims and the suspect. The Coroner’s Office will not be releasing any further information, including autopsy reports and toxicology results related to the death investigations, until they are complete.

4 replies, 1221 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Time line - Santa Barbara County Sheriff's office re: the killings in Isla Vista (Original post)
upaloopa May 2014 OP
YarnAddict May 2014 #1
Lee-Lee May 2014 #2
YarnAddict May 2014 #3
Lee-Lee May 2014 #4

Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Fri May 30, 2014, 12:12 PM

1. The police don't need a warrant


to enter and search a residence during a welfare check? That's surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to YarnAddict (Reply #1)

Fri May 30, 2014, 12:21 PM

2. It's one of those situations where it depends


If their contact with him gave no indication he needed further help or posed a danger, they would need permission to enter or search.

If they had reason to believe he was in danger or a danger to others they could enter to arrest/detain/make contact to ensure safety and anything incidental to that, but no more.

If you do so and you suspect that there is something illegal inside or going on, best policy is to just do the bare minimum to secure the person, get out and go get a warrant. That way your giving max protection of privacy and not nearly as likely to have the search challenged in court.

I suspect he knew just what he was doing by meeting them outside and playing nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #2)

Fri May 30, 2014, 12:27 PM

3. Sounds like it is up to the perceptions of the officers


I wonder if there had been more specific details about the video transmitted to the officers, if they would have felt more compelled to investigate.

They will probably second guess that decision for the rest of their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to YarnAddict (Reply #3)

Fri May 30, 2014, 12:29 PM

4. Perceptions, based upon what you can defend in court


Hunches may make you want to do more, but the law still limits. "I thought he was up to no good" won't fly, you had better be able to articulate a much better reason for pushing things past an interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread