Agreed. But many times well-meaning people have brought police into situations and the person who has mental issues has been hurt or killed–often in questionable circumstances.

I agree that our laws should allow for less coercive interventions. But they don’t. It is a difficult problem–dealing with disturbed people in a free society.

“I have no problem with the government taking reports of radicalism and using the information to conduct surveillance of those radicals ”

Sorry, the FBI is too busy bullying harmless dupes into participating in terror plots and/or equipping evil but incompetent morons so they can attempt acts to terror.

Of course, based on the level of competence being shown by own current administrative state, unless the terrorist had the misfortune of being the party-in-power’s political opposition, it is quite likely that neither Liberty nor Safety would result, regardless of how deserving (or not) the people might be.

I have no problem with the government taking reports of radicalism and using the information to conduct surveillance of those radicals — provided it doesn’t cross the line and commit entrapment, or take away rights such as gun rights from people who haven’t been convicted of anything. But any such surveillance operation needs to itself be monitored lest it lead to persecution.

A small number of murders by crazy people may in fact be preferable to the pervasive oppression government would produce if government becomes close enough to omniscient to prevent those murders.

How is that circle to be squared? How do we help people like Holmes, Cho etc. without taking away freedoms or giving power that, sure as the sun rises in the East, will be abused. And “if you see something say something” has led to appalling abuses by actors like a DCFS and has contributed generally to statism that erodes our freedoms.

Let’s make an OJ analogy–he killed two people. (No one seriously doubts that.) He was acquitted–that means he walks–would we have said gee, we can just lock him up or subject him to certain restrictions–in other words take away his rights? No one seriously thinks the answer was yes. Or what about Drew Peterson? Everyone know he was a sick bastard and a wife-killer–but they couldn’t prove it–what would someone have proposed to do to him?

I am not suggesting that the only thing we can do is throw up our hands, but there are some fundamental limitations on what a free society can do about people before they act. Sex offenders, of course, are no one’s cup of tea. But look at the civil litigation in Minnesota with respect to the involuntary commitment of sex offenders–does anyone think that Minnesota’s actions are consonant with the principles of a free society?