Skip to content

Jared Loughner was Mobbed Weeks before Tucson Shooting

Link to evidence from New York Times archive on Loughner’s Pima Community College file showed intense mobbing against him months before his shooting rampage:

The New York Times ran a story about Jared Lougner on January 12, 2011 titled: ‘Creepy’, ‘Very Hostile’: A College Recorded Its Fears. An addendum to that story was archived by the Times consisting of Pima Community College’s release of 51 pages of public safety reports and documents related to Jared L. Loughner, the former student charged with the mass shooting in Tucson. However, as the 51 pages of documents linked above make clear, Loughner was never violent prior to the Tucson shootings, nor did he ever threaten violence. The scale and scope of activities by Pima’s threat assessment system was essentially a harrowing witch hunt that likely was the proximate cause of the Tucson shootings.

Here is a breakdown of the documents found in the above link:

Page 1 begins with a series of “suspicious person/activity” reports. The initial report, dated 2/5/10, stated that Loughner was disruptive, and was “creepy” having a “dark personality”. Additionally, it was noted that a fellow student speculated in an email that Loughner might have possessed a concealed knife. In the third report, on page 5, an instructor alleges that she felt intimidated by Loughner’s hostile response to receiving a “B” on his paper. This incident likely triggered the mobbing. Again, Loughner was never violent, nor did he ever threaten violence, prior to the Tucson shootings of January 8, 2011. On Page 12 there is a memo written by another instructor. When questioned by Loughner on whether she was a cop, the instructor replied “no”, but retorted that one could be brought in if they failed to maintain a “happy medium”. The essence of her memo, sent to 6 of her co-workers, was that Jared “has extreme views and frequently meanders from the point”. Pages 16-28 of Loughner’s file, are simply the printout of an internet search he made related to a heavy metal concert he apparently planned to attend. Page 29 is a memo, dated 9/23/10, and created because Loughner became disruptive when receiving half credit on a late assignment. Loughner argued that his first amendment rights were being violated. Campus police were brought in, and a “mental health concern” was noted (note that it took all these cops and academics 7 months to figure that one out!). Page 34 is a college police report of 4 officers involved in delivering a notice of suspension to Loughner on 9/29/10. 2 campus cops went to his residence and 2 remained in the area as “back up”. Again, Loughner was never violent, nor did he threaten violence, before the Tucson shootings of January 8, 2011. Page 41 is a report, also dated 9/29/10, by Dr. Aubrey Conover. On its face, the report is the only document that analyzes Loughner’s problems with any objectivity and constructive design. Page 43 is an evidence sheet, in support of a Grand Jury investigation of Loughner, dated 9/29/10, and referencing a Yotube video rant Loughner made that was critical of the school. Page 44 is a Grand Jury Subpoena, dated “9/30/10”, in which the aforementioned Youtube video and printout of an internet search of a heavy metal concert event are the only evidence of an alleged felony crime. The Grand Jury failed to indict Loughner on such specious evidence. The untold story here seems to be that of Pima College’s grossly negligent mishandling of the case that was likely the proximate cause of Loughner’s rampage some 3 months later.

According to Pima County Sheriff’s records Loughner and his family had been long-term targets of community-based harassment:


There is a largely unreported and widespread use of threat assessment teams. These teams begin by profiling children as young as preschool age. Threat assessment involves intrusive surveillance ,and, reporting by the relevant community, including by non-professionals such as fellow students or workers. This is a dangerous business that can actually drive people to violent behavior even though it purportedly seeks to prevent violence:

The widespread system and practice of Threat Assessment Teams goes unreported by MSM, and, given its hidden danger, coupled with a lack of public awareness, the Threat Assessment System is a danger to the American public that far surpasses the danger of terrorism.

  1. don permalink

    James Holmes was also subject to a threat assesment. Gee, is this a coincidence? Also I believe the Virginia tech shooter was also under a threat assesment. Hmmmmm

    • Read Joe Newbury’s horror story about being mobbed by some of the same Literature professor’s as Cho, and you know VA Tech is hiding documents related to the “Care Team” assessment of Cho:
      I received records from the University of Colorado on Holmes when I made a CORA request in September; A few days later most of these records were put on their web site. I believe that they are hiding records as well. I believe that all three cases had military/intelligence involvement, i.e., “many of these cases are engineered” as actor/deputy sheriff Steven Seagal told RT.

  2. Thanks for your advocacy work.

    I would say 9 out of 10 domestic violence events involving multiple victims, regardless of the weapon used, are the conceptions of psychological torture by way of bullying, slander, rejection or isolation.

    As a “subject” of state-sponsored terroristic stalking, let me say this:

  3. Fantastic work, really grateful for your amazing, stellar and isolating work. thanks from Toronto, Canada.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: