anomalies.

Your post here (http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=14254239) expresses confidence in the BYU vetting process; you then refer to West's problems in the singular ("a really dumb mistake"). Based on this post, it appears that you only feel that Charles is culpable for one incident - probably the publicized encounter with the escort.

Later on in the thread (http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=14254321) you critique some on CB for "mak[ing] assumptions about a person based on a single incident." You suggest that if there was a pattern of negative behavior, West would have "gotten caught a long time ago." Once again, you refer to the events (escort, shooting) in the singular.

At that time, you:
1) Didn't think that Charles had a longstanding character flaw
2) Felt that he was culpable for only one incident (probably the escort fiasco)
3) Assumed that West does not have a history of delinquent or perverse behavior because BYU's vetting process did not uncover these character flaws

You attempted to validate these assumptions, while generally criticizing CB members that viewed both the escort situation and the recent shooting as evidence of a serious, ongoing pattern of moral deficiency.

Is it likely that West was caught the first time he had marijuana in his possession? I submit that it is not.
Is it likely that West's escort fiasco occurred the first time he attempted to use an escort service? I submit that it is not.
Is it likely that West's shooter had no motive, and shot West inadvertently? I submit that it is not (especially when considering West's recent charge of marijuana possession).

Even before this police report was posted, there was plenty of evidence to suggest that West might have a ongoing problem. Your attempts to minimize (and singularize) his issues appear particularly foolish, especially in light of this report.