In a perfect world, one might think that this admission should have popped up when the authorities were doing the background investigation for his FOID, but apparently it didn't. In reality, he should not have been issued an FOID and should not have been allowed to possess firearms.
That's certainly clear, NOW. But back then??? not so much, it would seem.
There is a general standard (often ignored) that when evaluating someone's actions, or lack of action, one should take into account what they knew at the time.
Along with this, one should also consider the various legal standards, and the fact that unless those are met, legal action is not to be taken. And, that taking legal actions without clearly meeting the established standards can be cause for legal action against those people who made the decision to take "unwarranted" legal action.
Our problem there is that A) the very human tendency to CYA, and B) the established legal standards are not always how things SHOULD be judged, but are the way things MUST be judged.
Numerous times we can see where a mass killer was evaluated by either police, or mental health professionals, BEFORE they became a mass killer, and the threat they posed was deemed insufficient to justify legal actions.
People lie. People hide things. and sometimes, people even change....
Our system is poorly set up to deal with people who are clever enough hide their true inner thoughts, and also predisposed to give people the benefit of the doubt, when there is no evidence that meets the legal setpoints for action.
Admitting to the cops that you're depressed and using illegal drugs during their investigation is not sworn testimony, its not a conviction. SO, generally speaking, its not legal proof of anything other than the fact that the guy said it.
In this situation, the 19yr old was not charged with anything, was not ordered into mental health treatment, so the legal trigger for denial of his rights was not tripped. In hindsight, yes, that was clearly a mistake, but in light of what they knew (and decided) at the time? Tough call, I think.
So, we have an incident involving threats of harm in 2019, the authorities decided it wasn't enough to take action. THEN, 3 months later, he applies for an FOID, and I'm sure everything about the 2019 incident was still in the system. AGAIN, not enough to invoke a denial. A few months short of TWO YEARS after that, he goes on a murder spree....
Aside from the scum that pulled the trigger WHO is responsible?? Should anyone else be???
Did he, maybe, clean up his act, stop the drugs, and was an ok guy, for a while, then backslid to his earlier behavior?
OR, did he never change, and just got better at hiding his real intentions??
I don't know, I don't know that anyone can know, other than him, and about that, so far, he ain't talking....
Is there any of us who, at some point in our lives has never said something we didn't actually mean?? No one I know of...
The system is made to allow for that, and relies on human judgement to determine if there is a credible threat. Sometimes mistakes are made. This case was a bad one.
But what is the alternative?? do we go to the extreme of locking up everyone who has ever yelled "kill the quarterback!" at a football game??? Is the kid who chews his poptart into the shape of a pistol a potential mass killer?
sure, those are ridiculous examples, but remember, that if we go too far one way, its very difficult to come back. IF it is even possible, at all.
Just my thought on the matter.