By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The FBI was actively investigating social media accounts linked to the Evergreen High School shooter two months prior to the shooting, after receiving a tip from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The investigation was opened due to the shooter’s online activity, which included discussions of mass shootings and threats. Despite continued efforts, the FBI was unable to identify the user behind these accounts until the day of the shooting. The ADL’s report revealed the shooter had been exposed to white supremacist content and violent imagery online, which potentially contributed to his radicalization. The investigation into the shooter’s motives and any potential charges related to the shooting is still ongoing.
Read the original article here
FBI investigated Evergreen High School shooter’s social media in July, which, to put it mildly, isn’t exactly a headline that inspires confidence. The fact that the FBI was already looking into this 16-year-old boy’s online presence, two months before he shot his classmates and then himself, throws a harsh light on the entire situation. It makes you wonder, what exactly was the nature of this investigation? What were they looking for? And, perhaps most importantly, why wasn’t it enough to prevent this tragedy?
The FBI’s involvement isn’t some kind of abstract concept here; it’s about a real person, a young man who was, at the very least, on their radar. The question becomes, how high was he on that radar? Were the warning signs clear enough to warrant more decisive action? The details of the shooter’s online activity, as reported, were alarming. The evidence points to an active presence on a forum showcasing violent content, mixed with white supremacist and antisemitic ideologies. This isn’t just someone casually browsing the internet; this is a pattern of behavior that screams danger.
The fact that the ADL’s Center on Extremism report mentioned other shooters, also linked to the same online platform, further highlights the potential missed opportunities. The report said, “Shooter’s alarming online activity linked to violence, white supremacy.” If these online connections were known to authorities, why weren’t more preventative measures taken? This raises serious questions about the effectiveness of current threat assessment protocols, and whether enough resources are being dedicated to this increasingly pressing issue.
The narrative of this is further complicated by the political environment. Comments like “He was a maga. The maga FBI encourages right-wing violence” highlight the deep distrust many feel towards certain institutions. Whether or not these accusations are accurate, this incident occurred during a time of intense political division, and it seems to be affecting how people process the information. It’s easy to see how the narrative can become politicized, but at its core, it’s about the failure of law enforcement to prevent a tragedy.
It’s essential to consider the technical challenges involved in these investigations. As one person pointed out, “Minority Report them?” The internet is vast, and identifying potential threats is a complex task. Also, as another comment rightly points out, “Potential mass shooter” behavior on the internet is very common; subsequent actual mass shootings are very rare. There is no reliable tool to differentiate the former from the latter beforehand consistently and reliably. It’s a challenge to distinguish genuine threats from online posturing or the venting of frustration.
However, the difficulty of the task doesn’t excuse inaction. There were some comments that suggested the FBI’s actions were influenced by politics, but I don’t think that completely explains this case. The fundamental problem is that the FBI had intelligence about a potential threat, yet somehow, the shooting still happened. This points to a need for better coordination, improved assessment tools, and a willingness to act on potential warnings. This is not to mention, that the idea of “red flag” laws is not fully embraced, as one comment makes clear: “Red Flag laws don’t work when the kids can’t own a firearm to begin with. You would essentially take away someone else’s guns for something someone else intends to do, which is a terrible legal precedent”.
Several comments highlight the role of parents and the need for a more proactive approach. It’s hard to argue with the logic that “Parents should be liable for their kids.” It stands to reason that parents should be responsible for their children’s safety. The fact is that as legal guardians, they have a responsibility to act and prevent violence if they are made aware of a potential problem, as one comment asserts: “When the authorities bring this matter to the parents and they do not restrict access, the parents can be held criminally responsible for the actions of the child.”
Regardless of what the FBI did, or didn’t do, the ultimate question remains: could this tragedy have been prevented? The answer seems likely to be yes, at least potentially. The shooter’s online activity was troubling enough to warrant investigation, which implies there was sufficient reason to consider him a potential threat. The fact that the shooting occurred despite the FBI’s awareness of the situation is a serious indictment. A lot of people will be left wondering, what was really done?