Pima Community College Was On Alert About Jared Loughner One Week Before Giffords Shooting

TUCSON, Ariz. — The Arizona college that Jared Loughner attended was on alert and concerned he would return to the Tucson campus a week before a Jan. 8 shooting spree that killed six and wounded 13, including a congresswoman, according to e-mail messages.

The Arizona Republic, under the state's public records law, obtained a series of e-mails from December showing Pima Community College police planned to distribute Loughner's picture to staff members and instruct night officers to watch for the former student.

"I will have a photo of Jared copied and given to the swing shift crew and have them conduct more frequent checks of the Northwest Campus," wrote Manny Amado, college police commander, in a Dec. 28 e-mail, the Republic reported.

Loughner was forced out of the college three months earlier after school officials said he was acting bizarre in class.

College police Sgt. Dan Simmons sent an e-mail to other Pima officials on Dec. 23 saying one of his officers "happened to find" YouTube videos posted by Loughner.

The Republic reported that Simmons described the postings as "more drivel from Jared Loughner," adding, "Doubt there is anything to do about it."

In e-mails on Dec. 28, officers discussed the video Loughner had filmed on campus.

Pima Community College officials refused to discuss the e-mails Monday when contacted by the Republic and referred questions to the Gordley Design Group, a private Tucson marketing firm hired by the college. Cindy Klinge, vice president for Gordley, did not respond to calls or an e-mail from The Republic.

Loughner began attending classes at Pima Community College in 2005, the school said in a previous release.

He "had five contacts with PCC police for classroom and library disruptions," the statement said.

Loughner is charged in federal court with attempting to kill U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and two of her staffers. He is expected to face additional federal and state charges, including multiple counts of murder.

Giffords is undergoing rehabilitation in Houston.

___

Information from: The Arizona Republic, http://www.azcentral.com

Comments

[moutonnoir]

04:58 AM on 02/21/2011

I wonder if a single one of these people comming out of the woodwork with documentation that they were concerned about this guy before the attack even tried to talk to him like a human and try to defuse a bit of his anger...

[trailofthedead]

11:03 PM on 03/07/2011

Talk to him? Oh yeah, I'm sure that would've worked.

[ProgressivesLoveAmerica]

02:49 PM on 02/17/2011

A walking thorazine commercial.

Unfortunately, with all the warning signs, it's difficult for me to envision anything that could have possibly been done to prevent the tragedy this very disturbed man is responsible for. Sure, he had been acting very strange & saying weird things, but it's hard to make the leap -or the prediction- that he was going to act out violently.

[HawaiiSteve]

01:46 PM on 02/17/2011

So a public institution ( Pima Community College ) was concerned enough about this guy's mental health to considering having its police department issue warnings to its staff, yet he walks into a gun store in the same city and legally purchases a weapon designed to kill people! Tell me again how our gun laws are protecting us? It's time for a constitutional convention to rewrite the Second Amendment so it includes responsibility as a basic component of gun sales and ownership.

[Catherine Lynch Monks]

06:45 PM on 02/16/2011

While I appreciate the fact that people are entitled to privacy I for one think 'making serious threats and acting out in class in a way that freaks people out' ought to be the exception to the rule. Were my children enrolled in his classes I'd have a serious issue with the college . As it is the fact that the college held back the information they did and did NOT inform the court (which they are entitled to do in Arizona)makes me feel that a large chunk of responsibility needs to be laid on their doorstep.

[lainey]

06:23 PM on 02/16/2011

I am certain that we can do a better job in treating mental illness and anger issues in this country. Surely people should be allowed to have emotions and opinions that differ, but this troubled person had more rights than those that are now deceased or recovering. I have seen this far too often in my jobs and as a foster parent. Institutions and systems are too often concerned about the abuser than they are about victims. Again, I don't think that we should evaluate and proclaim all is ill (this can be abuse too), but when someone, like the accused here shows a pattern of behavior, institutions and systems need to step in to help others and the person themselves. We are far too dismissive of diagnosed mental illness and the implications for those living around them. People given the authority to protect need to do a better job. We can't afford any "wait and sees" any longer.

[haystakt]

05:04 PM on 02/16/2011

I'll say it again.

The fine print to the Second Amendment is a body count.

What will the gun owners of America do to help rectify this. We cannot afford to keep squaring off. Both gun owners and non-gun owners have got to come up with a way to honor the dead, dying, paralyzed, jailed and injured, not to mention their traumatized and profoundly affected families, to move together as one nation, not two, to make what progress can be agreed upon that somehow alters significantly my statement above.

Gun owners, what are you willing to do besides stash yourselves behind the blindly defensive argument of the Second Amendment to prevent innocent deaths?

Non-gun owners, what are you willing to do to reach out to gun owners and establish a path of mutual understanding and respectful gun control as would help to prevent innocent deaths?

If we continue to face off with words and words alone, there will be no change, and whomsoever from either side is happy with that is lending themselves to those innocent deaths and defying what progress could prevent them.

[hang319]

03:32 PM on 02/16/2011

Good. Too bad it didn't happen to more of 'em.

[hang319]

03:34 PM on 02/16/2011

Oh gosh -- this comment was not meant for this article. Sorry.

[samm2202]

04:56 PM on 02/16/2011

I saw that comment and for a minute there was speechless! I wish they had a delete option at times!

[haystakt]

04:56 PM on 02/16/2011

good catch.

[jsgaetano]

01:31 PM on 02/16/2011

Guess we once again get a good look at how conservatives defend Americans.

[Progressive Dem]

12:55 PM on 02/16/2011

Another Timothy McVae. What is with the Mid-West and Southern States that they produce people like this? Funny how the Repubs are so worried about the local American Muslim population and Sharia Law mean while people like this demented kid are allowed to purchuse semi auto's with 30 round magizene clips at age 18 (laughs). Got to love America.

[Jim bob]

06:13 PM on 02/16/2011

They're all being manipulated. They really don't have anything they can call beliefs, but they "cling to their religion and their guns" mainly because they've been told what to do by the puppetmasters. I'm promoting this documentary today that helps explain (not that you don't already know, but it's a great documentary)--

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

[trailofthedead]

11:07 PM on 03/07/2011

You sound like a robot. Everything that just came out of your mouth was borrowed and not one thought was your own. Good day.

[Concerned Citizen in CA]

12:10 PM on 02/16/2011

@ls1z28chris :
Pre-emptive response since your comment replying to my previous post: has not yet been posted and I don't have time to wait.
Calling someone's opinion "infentile" simply because you disagree with it is sad. If you must resort to using insulting terms to bolster your argument, you have already lost. I have seen several of your posts where you have used insulting language rather than defending your point of view with a solid argument. Most of us on the left were stating points of view based on conjecture, or the wish for a more civil tone to discourse. If you cannot be more civil in your response, you are part of the problem that taken to an extreme, leads to Loughner-like behavior. Learn manners and treat people with respect.

[ls1z28chris]

02:11 PM on 02/16/2011

You appear to have me confused with someone else. I cannot find any use of "infentile" or "infantile" in any of my comments, especially those made within the comments section of this story.

In this story you've posted a total of two comments. The one two which I am replying, and another where you say Loughner should be considered to have been inspired by right wing rhetoric until he is proven not to have been. Your words: "And you know that he was NOT inspired by right wing pundits how? ...And you know that he was NOT inspired by right wing pundits how?"

I can reply to that now if you'd like. That mode of thinking, if you can call it that, has no basis in logic or reason. If you are going to assert that Loughner had a connection to the right, you are going to have to provide positive evidence for that assertion. You cannot make a statement, without evidence, then proclaim that the other side need then prove you wrong. You have misplaced the burden of proof. It still lies squarely on your shoulders.

[ls1z28chris]

02:33 PM on 02/16/2011

I tried to correct my obvious error of using "two" when I should have used "to," but something tells me this one with the error will remain but the second one without the error will not make it through.

[Jim bob]

06:17 PM on 02/16/2011

Common tactic, though. Throw out some blather and demand that people prove you wrong. I think that is Beck University logic 101, required course. Then he sends 'em here to try it out. I do seriously hope that really incredibly tortured example of "reason" and/or rhetoric is not more widespread than a simple propagandist's trick.

[sleepytoad]

11:13 AM on 02/16/2011

Although I can see how it could be abused, I wish there were more ways to get people with these afflictions help even without their consent.

[SirReal1]

12:07 PM on 02/16/2011

Finally, a voice of reasonable dissatisfaction. I wish there were better support for identifying and treating these individuals also, but you raise a very VALID concern; the system could be abused.

[ls1z28chris]

11:11 AM on 02/16/2011

From the PCC Police website: "The Pima College Department of Public Safety (DPS) is a bona fide criminal justice agency and has its authority granted by the District Board of Governors and Arizona Revised Statutes. All DPS officers are certified by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZPOST) and have received a minimum 585 hours basic peace officer training approved by AZPOST. DPS police officers are armed and have full peace officer authority and powers of arrest."

Since they have the same legal status as any other police department in Arizona, someone must ask the question of how a competent law enforcement agency would have handled Loughner. When you have someone who is clearly a threat to himself and others, and you are a law enforcement agency, I think it is your duty to do what you can to have that person committed. Instead, PCC Police passed the buck. They kicked out of school someone they knew to be unstable and a threat to himself and others. Had PCC Police followed through and had Loughner evaluated, and he was adjudicated as a mental defective, then he would have been prohibited from legally purchasing firearms.

All of you who are calling for new gun control laws need to keep that in mind. You can write laws until your clerks get blue in the face, but none of it is relevant unless competent law enforcement agencies, you know, enforce the law.

[SirReal1]

12:43 PM on 02/16/2011

Good information on the PCC Police. Given the level of training and authority, that certainly does raise more questions than answers.

I think you're a bit off base on the question of gun laws though. The only proposal I've heard that really relates to this tragedy, is that the ban on "large capacity magazines" be reinstated. Putting this ban back into effect, perhaps even going further than the previous ban did by eliminating the loopholes and making an effort to get them "off the market" as a whole. These magazines have no other "legitimate" purpose than to allow someone (often of poor marksmanship skill) to fire several rounds without having to take the time to change out the magazine. These magazines are not used extensively by Law Enforcement nor the Military. They are not in large demand by "sport shooters" or most hunters (who may carry a sidearm for personal protection while in the wild), and they are not of much use in most "property protection" or personal protection scenarios. The ONLY people who would find such an item "desirable", are those who wish to effect the largest spread of lead in the least amount of time. There is only one scenario where I can imagine that being of concern; premeditated assault.

If we were to "outlaw" possession of these magazines, it would remove the incentive for the manufacturers to produce them.

That would be effective legislation.

[ls1z28chris]

01:38 PM on 02/16/2011

In the days after the Tucson shooting, there were a lot of people on HP calling for a ban on semi-automatic weapons. There were even more making unspecified calls for more legislation, specifically legislation intended to prevent people like Loughner from being able to legally purchase a firearm.

The purpose of my post is to note that, in that regard, the laws are already in place. Had PCC DPS done their due diligence, this might not have happened. First of all, if Loughner had been adjudicated as a mental defective he would not have been permitted to legally purchase a firearm. Second of all, and most importantly, he would have had his mental illness treated. He would have been institutionalized and medicated. This is the most important point, in my opinion, because if his illness was being managed properly he probably would not have sought to illegally purchase a firearm as his violent impulses would have been managed through medication and other mental health services.

[Scott Hermann]

01:45 PM on 02/16/2011

"These magazines have no other "legitimat­e" purpose than to allow someone (often of poor marksmansh­ip skill) to fire several rounds without having to take the time to change out the magazine."

Many people including myself use large capacity magazines for 3 gun and other competitions. Such a ban is unlikely to be found constitutional anyway.

Heller established the 'common usage' test. The government would be hard pressed to prove that a high capacity magazine ban wasn't arbitrary. It would also be hard to prove that such magazines weren't already in common use. And in actuality, its already in court in DC. Decisions in DC tend to settle the matter nationwide rather quickly.

[Scott Hermann]

10:03 AM on 02/16/2011

I teach at a private university. Often I am asked to sit in on disciplinary boards for students up for expulsion. When we have a student who is deemed dangerous, we require they see a staff psychologist. If said student is considered potentially violent, he is expelled and we file a restraining order to make it very clear he is unwelcome near or on campus. Our parents expect us to go the extra mile.

Restraining orders are easy to obtain. Simple paperwork and 5 minutes before a judge. They prevent people from legally purchasing firearms during background checks. I do not know if this is standard practice elsewhere, but I'm still waiting for a reporter to ask the school why they stopped with expulsion when they were concerned he would return to campus?

If you were a parent of a student at this junior college, would you not expect the administration to follow through? Since the Pima Community College police planned to distribute Loughner's picture to staff members and instruct night officers to watch for the former student they both thought him a danger to other students and didn't want him on campus. So why didn't they follow through and file a restraining order?

[samm2202]

10:35 AM on 02/16/2011

Scott you make the point we argue in our class everyday! I go to PCC and a lot of teh staff tells us repeatedly they did all they could, I know for a fact that's not true. While i don't believe that anything except being locked up would have prevented Laughner from committing this act, i question the teachers and the Dean actions before hand. Why were we the students not warned if he presented what they believe to be a considerable threat to our safety? And why when any Adult can petition courts in AZ for mental evaluation, did no one even try! Also you should know the Campus that Laughner went to is but 50 feet from the closest police station, if campus police are so ill trained and unprepared to deal with these situations then they should have handed the case over completely to the real police! It seems the school is releasing a a lot more information that it did not do so before, about how much greater of a threat they believed Laughner to be then what they initially told everyone, even the authorities.

[Scott Hermann]

11:45 AM on 02/16/2011

Seeing as how you are a student on campus, you are in a perfect position to promote changing whatever the policy is on your campus (with perhaps national attention). A student petition to the administration to add this layer of protection for everyone could become standard practice nationwide without being a political landmine.

You should think about starting a petition that simply asks the administration (who find a student dangerous enough to expel) follow through with the simple legal avenue already available to them. IMO - It would be a far easier approach then some of the others that have been considered.

[Catherine Lynch Monks]

06:48 PM on 02/16/2011

Sadly most campus police are a half notch above rent a cops.

[echomac]

10:38 AM on 02/16/2011

It appears to me that, in the view of gun rights activists, restraining orders, when applied, are an arbitrary infringement upon personal freedom, and when not applied, they become evidence that it's everybody's fault but the gun's.

[Scott Hermann]

11:29 AM on 02/16/2011

Loughner would have been well within his rights to show up in court and argue his case about why he needed access to the campus he has been expelled from. I'm not sure how that would've gone for him, but he could certainly argue it.

IMO - Any such argument would be fairly easy to counter by school administrator and/or campus police testimony verifying the danger. Add in testimony from a school psychologist (good CYA if it could be obtained), and Loughner really wouldn't have more than his own testimony.

You're right though, restraining orders are not a perfect fix. They are just a piece of paper to establish a legal trail for further action. But it is data that is directly submitted into the background system without delay. Far easier then adjudicating someone for mental illness. At least obtaining a new gun from an FFL would have been prevented.

[Scott Hermann]

01:50 PM on 02/16/2011

You're right in some respects. Restrainin­g orders are generally arbitrary and commonly applied during divorce proceedings without merit. That can be problematic. They are not a perfect fix in all instances.

In a school's case, its just a piece of paper to establish a legal trail for further action. Loughner would have been well within his rights to show up in court and argue his case about why he needed access to the campus (after expulsion). I'm not sure how that would've gone for him, but he could certainly argue it.

Note: Restraining order data is directly submitted into the background system without delay. Far easier then adjudicati­ng someone for mental illness. At least obtaining a new gun from an FFL would have been prevented.

[TexianLife]

09:55 AM on 02/16/2011

Jared Loughner has the face of any Teabagger/Birther. LMAO

[samm2202]

10:24 AM on 02/16/2011

Oh but within 30 minutes of his name being released the TP in Tucson was already saying don't blame us he's not ours!!!

[ABraut]

04:54 PM on 02/16/2011

Are there a lot of flag burning atheists in your imaginary Tea Party?

[Angie Cordeiro]

09:46 AM on 02/16/2011

Whose going to interview this guy?

I'd do it if he just pleaded guilty and asked to be put down; lawyers step back.