The Highland Park shooting highlights the FBI’s limitations in classifying disruptive content online
WASHINGTON – In the 48 hours since the shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, that left seven people dead, a disturbing portrait has emerged of the man now charged with multiple crimes first degree murder.
People who know Robert “Bobby” E. Crimo III, 21, have noticed plenty of red flags about his social media presence. However, existing material is likely protected by the First Amendment, and it is difficult to find an existing criminal statute that applies to disturbing but non-specific content, experts and former law enforcement officials said.
Chris Covelli, a spokesman for the Lake County Major Crimes Task Force, said Tuesday that Crimo attempted suicide in April 2019 and was later reported by family members, making threats. “killed” in September 2019. He said that in that September incident, police removed more than a dozen knives from Crimo’s home and notified state police, but took no further action because there was no clear cause for criminal charges.
No criminal record would have prevented Crimo from purchasing a gun, and he obtained his weapon legally. Just months after the September 2019 incident, the Chicago Sun-Times reported, Crimo’s father sponsored his son’s December 2019 Illinois gun license, which required a parent or guardian to Guardian must co-sign for those under 21 years of age. Crimo passed four separate background checks state police said, one in June 2020, two in July 2020 and one in September 2021, according to the Sun-Times.
Illinois is one of 13 states where the point of contact for licensed firearms dealers conducting buyer background checks under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the state agency, not the FBI. So, unlike the 2015 church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, the FBI would not have been guilty of a clerical error in a system that a federal judge described as “hopelessly stuck in 1995.” ” allowed the purported gunman to make a purchase that should have been made. has been stopped. And unlike the 2018 school massacre in Parkland, Florida, there is no indication so far that someone’s call to the FBI was not followed up or referred to the appropriate authorities.
Even with his disturbing social media presence, there is no indication that Crimo should have been on the FBI’s radar.
The FBI, compared to the nation as a whole, is a small organization with about 13,000 agents, and local law enforcement officials have more contact with the public. Without evidence of a specific criminal plan or prior criminal convictions, former FBI officials are uneasy that there was something the bureau could have done or should have done to stop it. Disruptive individuals carry out attacks.
“I don’t know of any authority to arrest someone for being weird or having a weapon,” a former FBI official told NBC News. “The bottom line is you have the right to be weird and armed.”
The former official said that preventing a shooting like the one in Highland Park would not only be difficult but “impossible” for the office, adding that it is “strangely crazy” to think that The FBI has all the necessary manpower. review any disturbing online posts.
“How do you want them to do it? You can’t sit on TikTok all day and watch crazy videos. They have other things to do,” the former official said.
Former FBI official Peter Strzok called it a “pretty difficult problem.”
“There are more documents than what federal law enforcement officials, state and local law enforcement officials have been able to do,” he said on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” Tuesday. consider that”. He noted that even if they had the manpower, this type of invasive Government investigation into online activity would be inconsistent with the First Amendment.
“All this discussion is about treating the symptoms,” Strzok said. “No one should be surprised and no one should think that it would be difficult to do something that this suspect did. We have made it easier to buy firearms in the United States than to go to your local animal shelter and adopt a pet.”
He concurs that preventing disturbed individuals from obtaining weapons is one of the best points of intervention, but there is typically no applicable charge for pinning a disturbed individual that would prevent that person from purchasing future weapons.
Law enforcement may speak to family members, urging them to get the person’s mental health treatment or remove guns from the home. They can document. But if there is no crime, the police cannot be blamed for not making an arrest, the official said.
