Whatever the psychological issues he had, I suspect they were coupled with the so frequent movie plot of &quot;I&#x27;m right and the stupid FBI doesn&#x27;t believe me&quot;. So many movies portray this image of the clueless law enforcement agencies and the guy who, although has never heard of intelligence analysis and is mentally unstable, somehow ends up being right and everyone else ends up appologizing to him, becomes a hero, and the President honors him.<p>It sounds absurd but it&#x27;s exactly what&#x27;s happened here, down to the attitude of the FBI agents. Some people watch a James Bond movie and start acting like him, some even apply for a job in the intelligence domain (of course I suspect their names are diligently saved and they&#x27;re prohibited from ever working in such an unforgiving field).<p>What irritates me isn&#x27;t that an outsider took it upon himself to right a wrong by taking as a hobby something people do for a living and many die while doing so... what irritates me is that: Of course this would happen, what would one expect? The problem is how was this allowed to happen. No fail-safe mechanisms to make it impossible to go directly from selling Toyotas to jail.<p>So many red flags that should have triggered each a different action:<p>He wasn&#x27;t aware of his own condition and his own delusion. He was mentally unstable, unknowingly incompetent in what he pursued which made him a fanatic in a way, armed, threatening tone (&quot;Any attempt to arrest me will be treated as a hostile act&quot;? It&#x27;s a miracle he&#x27;s still alive), and had a seemingly lousy lawyer who was confused about what his job was (to get his client out, not to diagnose his mental health).<p>With all that, add the fact he wasted agents&#x27; time and interfered with their jobs (every moment they spent on him, there was real work not being done; lives were at stake. Not only that but the worst he could do is add a parameter, a degree of freedom, to something already hard to do).<p>The question still is: why was this allowed to go this far? Why didn&#x27;t the family seek help (the guy &#x27;quit his job&#x27; because of his online activities). Whatever the psychological issues he had, I suspect they were coupled with the so frequent movie plot of &quot;I&#x27;m right and the stupid FBI doesn&#x27;t believe me&quot;. So many movies portray this image of the clueless law enforcement agencies and the guy who, although has never heard of intelligence analysis and is mentally unstable, somehow ends up being right and everyone else ends up appologizing to him, becomes a hero, and the President honors him.<p>It sounds absurd but it&#x27;s exactly what&#x27;s happened here, down to the attitude of the FBI agents. Some people watch a James Bond movie and start acting like him, some even apply for a job in the intelligence domain (of course I suspect their names are diligently saved and they&#x27;re prohibited from ever working in such an unforgiving field).<p>What irritates me isn&#x27;t that an outsider took it upon himself to right a wrong by taking as a hobby something people do for a living and many die while doing so... what irritates me is that: Of course this would happen, what would one expect? The problem is how was this allowed to happen. No fail-safe mechanisms to make it impossible to go directly from selling Toyotas to jail.<p>So many red flags that should have triggered each a different action:<p>He wasn&#x27;t aware of his own condition and his own delusion. He was mentally unstable, unknowingly incompetent in what he pursued which made him a fanatic in a way, armed, threatening tone (&quot;Any attempt to arrest me will be treated as a hostile act&quot;? It&#x27;s a miracle he&#x27;s still alive), and had a seemingly lousy lawyer who was confused about what his job was (to get his client out, not to diagnose his mental health).<p>With all that, add the fact he wasted agents&#x27; time and interfered with their jobs (every moment they spent on him, there was real work not being done; lives were at stake. Not only that but the worst he could do is add a parameter, a degree of freedom, to something already hard to do).<p>The question still is: why was this allowed to go this far? Why didn&#x27;t the family seek help (the guy &#x27;quit his job&#x27; because of his online activities). Prevent instead of mitigate.