Thread #1 was live tweeted during the breaking news phase, please treat it as such:
Thread #2 covers the aftermath.
>Aghdam's deteriorating mental state could have been picked up on by family or others, and proper action taken. (A big if)
>If Aghdam's mental issues were apparent before she become the registered owner of the handgun AND authorities were willing & able to prevent lawful purchase.
Recent GOP led legislation improves the chances of this happening, as do other Trump admin law & policy changes.
>If MVPD had carried out due diligence when they located her at 1.40am asleep in her car on the day of the shooting.
Their current claim is that the father's info about risk was not specific enough. Dubious.
They didn't run a check to see if she was allowed to own a gun.
>If YouTube as an extremely high profile company, known to have caused political unrest, and employing 1,700 people at this site, had arranged adequate basic workplace security.
Youtube's utter lack of effective security measures is a disgrace. Staff who settle for it are foolish.
The solutions are individual (don't work for careless employers) and societal (law/policy).
>On 4/2 Aghdam was reported missing from 3/31
>Early on 4/3 Aghdam was located by Mountain View PD & "removed from the state missing persons system."
>Police recovered from the scene of the shooting a Smith & Wesson 9mm semi-auto handgun registered to the suspect
>Suspect had visited a shooting range the day before
>She had parked her car behind a neighboring business
>She accessed the scene on via a parking garage.
>[Police earlier said they were called at 12.46pm, & arrived at 12.48]
>The building's fire alarm was activated at 12.48
>The critically injured victim was transported from the lobby to the hospital 12 minutes later at 1.04pm.
>Asked about the father's claim risk info was given to MVPD. Responded that he had no info about that at this time.
>Asked if he thinks shooting was terrorist related. Repeated that they know she was upset with YouTube & they're still investigating.
>Asked about the many open campuses for high tech companies in the area and is that an issue for Police. Responded that Police support the hardening of targets in general but... that has to be balanced with other things. [He's right in that he can't force a company to do it]
>Asked if all the victims were employees. Responded "I don't know that."
He seemed surprised that he didn't know this. YT should have given Police that info already. My guess is YT didn't want to be available at this presser. Guilty conscience/ massaging the narrative.
>Asked if the incident took place solely in the courtyard, ie not also inside the building. Response: Yes.
[Eyewitness accounts & the location of the critically injured male suggest he was taken through the building to the lobby, which makes sense.]
>Despite the Chief already saying he would not disclose which of the local ranges had reported her visit, a reporter asks if it was the Jackson Arms. He declines to answer.
Identifying witnesses is a great way to disincentivize witnesses to come forward in future.
IMO we don't need any further info from SBPD atm. MVPD is another story, though.
Chief: Evidence... suggests that she... was not super proficient
MSM: What evidence would suggest something like that
Chief: Just the [location of]... the casings... it didn't seem like she...
MSM: You mean they were scattered in some way
Chief: Yeah pretty much
>Asked how they know she visited a gun range. Response: After we released info to the public, we got calls about it.
IMO, this range operator was heroic, volunteering the info despite the anti-gun environment they live in, to try to get the case solved & save lives.