They say they conducted firearms background checks that came back negative. Other news reports say that she had used a legally purchased gun in the attack. If the weapon is legal and purchased in California, why was the firearms check negative?

I believe they checked to see if she was prohibited from having a weapon not the systems that’s says she owned a weapon.

Check (resident of Rengstorff Park) is correct.

Firearm ownership is not prohibited by law except to certain individuals (e.g., convicted felons).

When the subject was interviewed by the Mountain View Police Department she was still a law abiding citizen and exhibited no behavior that indicated that she was a threat to herself or others. She passed all the tests that cops can give in these situations without risk of treading into the sticky territory of unlawful detention, racial profiling, etc.

The police cannot protect the public from every unforeseen possibility.

The perpetrator was a sad, misguided soul. There are many on this planet and most of them don't end up doing this type of action. Impossible to know which ones will do this and which ones won't. We can't read minds.

Anyhow, my condolences to victims of the YouTube tragedy, their families, colleagues and other loved ones.

Interesting the MVPD was cruising a private property parking lot doing license checks. With all the problems we have at the Crossings, which is private property, we have been begging them to do the same but the excuse we always get from Bosel is that it would be better handled by the HOA board because MVPD doesn't enforce parking laws on private property. Yeah right. And the lady comes out shooting.

The questions then raised are, 1) did some one actually make a complaint or was MVPD actively patrolling the private property held by a mega corporation in spite of what Bosel has claimed in the past MVPD doesn't do?; 2) why is MVPD doing license checks in a private property parking lot but not doing anything about RV dwellers on public streets?; 3) Why does Bosel even bother to continue with his dance regarding what MVPD does or doesn't do when its clear they do what the hec they like and then twist a story after the fact.

Let's face it. MVPD can harass you whenever they want for whatever they want and it seldom has anything to do with public safety. This woman should not have been allowed to camp out in her car on private property once MVPD came upon her. They should have gotten her to leave. If that had prompted an altercation at least is would have been closer to a fairer fight.

Um, the vast open parking lots of shopping centers like San Antonio -- generally deserted late at night, so that an unusual parked vehicle stands out -- are in no way comparable to a dense residential complex like The Crossings. Regardless of what "Cat in the Hat" (way after the fact and with little apparent grasp of police procedures or constraints) now asserts that MVPD "should have" done, it's clear that MVPD followed standard, cautious, respectful protocol, and found no basis to interfere further at the time. That is abundantly clear from the recordings and transcripts MVPD has released, and it was further explained in earlier comments above by "Reader."

Case closed.

@Common Sense

Their is no point for MVPD to be patrolling open private property parking lots at night as long as there is no enforcement of public streets upon which people park cars and RVs and sleep in them. Do they patrol all private parking lots at night?

MVPD should not be interfering, as you say, unless they are called. Private property is private property. That has been their excuse for years when dealing with the Crossings. They stay away unless called and refuse to do enforcement actions.

You also fail to explain why MVPD is checking license plates on private parking lots. Why aren't they doing it on public streets and enforcing 72 hour parking limits of RVs? The record has already shown the illegal activity stemming from RVs parked on public streets.

The problem with Bosel and his troopers is they are constantly shifting their "standard, cautious, respectful protocol" to explain away problems more than anything else.

Case still open.