Taken alone, the article does explain why Hodgson likely wasn’t taken seriously by authorities:
Hodgson, who was unaware of those comments until contacted by AP, acknowledged in a series of interviews that he struggles with post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol addiction but said he wasn’t drinking that night and was awake because he works nights and was waiting for his boss to call.
Hodgson also acknowledges that he faces two criminal charges, one alleging he assaulted a woman he was dating in 2022 and another alleging that he violated his bail conditions by possessing alcohol last month. He’s also in hot water for wrecking a military vehicle last summer, he said.
HOWEVER- all of the other warnings about Card should have been enough for them to take Hodgson seriously.
The article does seem to suggest Hodgson only warned his military superior and not the police, but the cops had plenty of warning about Card.
In the videos, officials downplayed Hodgson’s warning, suggesting he might have been drunk when he texted at 2:04 a.m. Speaking to police at the training center, Army Reserve Capt. Jeremy Reamer describes Hodgson as “not the most credible of our soldiers” and later tells Sagadahoc Sheriff Sgt. Aaron Skolfield his message should be taken “with a grain of salt.”
It was his Army Reserve Capt. that told authorities not to take him or his warning seriously.
I think we’re at a place where any and all warnings and allegations regarding possible gun violence have to be investigated, regardless of the source, the same way that sexual misconduct allegations requires an investigation in many corporations. There is no “judgement call”. The allegation comes in and you investigate regardless of whether you think it is bullshit or not.
The pro-gun community have taken the stance “I’d rather other people died than I temporarily lost access to my guns”, so despite your suggestion being completely reasonable, they’ll fight it with all they’ve got.
What the hell do they say to summon a “swatting” on someone if they can’t even respond to “This trained guy with a gun says he’s on his way to go shoot a bunch of random people”??
Active hostages. They call and pretend to be in the middle of a mental crisis. Basically drop the “I have my girlfriend hostage, I have a gun, and I’m going to kill both of us unless cops get here ASAP” type stuff. So the cops don’t have time to knock on the door and quietly ask to speak with you. They go in guns blazing and shoot anyone who doesn’t look like a potential girlfriend, (or maybe they do shoot someone who looks like a girlfriend, because cops are trigger happy.)
Sounds like the same level of severity, but I guess the call coming from the alleged shooter (in the first person) is a sort of admission that adds significance to the call in their eyes…
The article does seem to suggest Hodgson only warned his military superior
It makes me wonder if to the superior, it sounded like general lockerroom talk.
I know a lot of shitty people think it’s edgy or funny to talk about shooting/killing. And others dismiss it because “ah who hasn’t want to shoot up a whole town?” Then they actually do it and yikes
“Not the most credible” implies he had a tendecy to dishonesty. There may be a measure of “the boy who cried wolf.” Maybe they made a decision on where to best use finite resources, something they do every day. When they’re right, it doesn’t make the news.
I don’t know whether it’s that in this case, or straight-up malfeasance. But I don’t think it’s absurd to take into account a person’s history of being unreliable when deciding whether or not to SWAT someone.
Taken alone, the article does explain why Hodgson likely wasn’t taken seriously by authorities:
HOWEVER- all of the other warnings about Card should have been enough for them to take Hodgson seriously.
The article does seem to suggest Hodgson only warned his military superior and not the police, but the cops had plenty of warning about Card.
missing this:
It was his Army Reserve Capt. that told authorities not to take him or his warning seriously.
I think we’re at a place where any and all warnings and allegations regarding possible gun violence have to be investigated, regardless of the source, the same way that sexual misconduct allegations requires an investigation in many corporations. There is no “judgement call”. The allegation comes in and you investigate regardless of whether you think it is bullshit or not.
The pro-gun community have taken the stance “I’d rather other people died than I temporarily lost access to my guns”, so despite your suggestion being completely reasonable, they’ll fight it with all they’ve got.
What the hell do they say to summon a “swatting” on someone if they can’t even respond to “This trained guy with a gun says he’s on his way to go shoot a bunch of random people”??
Active hostages. They call and pretend to be in the middle of a mental crisis. Basically drop the “I have my girlfriend hostage, I have a gun, and I’m going to kill both of us unless cops get here ASAP” type stuff. So the cops don’t have time to knock on the door and quietly ask to speak with you. They go in guns blazing and shoot anyone who doesn’t look like a potential girlfriend, (or maybe they do shoot someone who looks like a girlfriend, because cops are trigger happy.)
Sounds like the same level of severity, but I guess the call coming from the alleged shooter (in the first person) is a sort of admission that adds significance to the call in their eyes…
“He has a bomb”? Jokes aside, it’s a good point.
It makes me wonder if to the superior, it sounded like general lockerroom talk.
I know a lot of shitty people think it’s edgy or funny to talk about shooting/killing. And others dismiss it because “ah who hasn’t want to shoot up a whole town?” Then they actually do it and yikes
Why does bad behavior mean the person should be ignored?
Unless you are just pointing out that people with legal issues tend to be ignored, which is definitely true.
The latter.
“Not the most credible” implies he had a tendecy to dishonesty. There may be a measure of “the boy who cried wolf.” Maybe they made a decision on where to best use finite resources, something they do every day. When they’re right, it doesn’t make the news.
I don’t know whether it’s that in this case, or straight-up malfeasance. But I don’t think it’s absurd to take into account a person’s history of being unreliable when deciding whether or not to SWAT someone.
yea everyone knows people who vape or drink cant even spell crayon /s