# Mass Murder And Mental Illness



## MJS (Jul 31, 2012)

Thought this was interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/mass-murder-a...interplay-of-stigma--culture-and-disease.html



> With recent revelations that alleged movie theater shooter James Holmes had been seeing a psychiatrist prior to carrying out the July 20 massacre in Aurora, Colo., questions about the link between violence and mental illness have risen once again into the media spotlight: What are the root causes of seemingly random violence? Does mental illness provoke it, or predispose people to harm others?
> 
> Advocates for the mentally ill are faced with a deep dilemma each time extreme and deadly crimes are perpetrated by those with a mental illness. Obviously, such acts are not sane or normal; it beggars common sense to suggest that a person who is thinking straight would choose to kill or wound dozens of strangers. And yet most mentally ill people  even those with conditions that have been linked to violence, such as addictions and schizophrenia  are no threat to anyone other than themselves.



IMO, I'd say it would play a part, depending of course, on the seriousness of the illness.  Has it been determined to what extent the CO. shooters illness is?  Also, touching on something that Bill M. said in another gun thread, in which him and I were talking about the 2nd Amendment, and whether or not people should own certain types of weapons....while I do see his point and agree, should someone with a mental illness be allowed to own weapons?


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 31, 2012)

If the shooter's mental state has been determined, it hasn't been released yet.  Most of it is speculation based upon the short snipits of the suspect being in court.  

I think the line drawn on owning weapons and being mentally ill is if you are a danger to yourself and/or others.  If there are very reliable means to determine that, I am not so sure.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 31, 2012)

The question begs: should the mentally ill be legally allowed to purchase, possess or have access to guns.  Most "sane" people say no.  But then, how does a civilized and modern society make that a reality?

For sure, no one should be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights, unless convicted felons or insane.  In other words, the 2A is already regulated.  It's now a matter how efficiently and effectively we regulate.  

I don't know of a non-invasive way in which we monitor the mentally ill, but we have to do a better job of being able to keep them away from guns, knives, ammo and the like.  A top security database to which only psychiatrists can submit (but not access), and only DHS can access but only for purposes of declining a gun sale at the local level?  I really don't know.  Ether way you slice it, there is a loss of privacy.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 31, 2012)

The simple reality is that all murderers are insane. Sane people don't kill without damn good reason. That doesn't mean they're not responsible for their actions, of course.

Holmes' mental status is a tricky question. It probably CANNOT be determined. His side will say he's too crazy to be prosecuted, and produce experts to support this claim. The prosecution will say he's totally sane, and produce experts to support this claim. 

As far as gun control goes, I'd like to see you (generic you) define "mental illness" as you'd apply it to gun ownership. Are you going to prohibit anyone who has ever been depressed from buying a gun? Or only those who are actively suicidal/homicidal? Or are you expecting psychologists to predict which currently safe and functional people will become dangerous? Perhaps we could prohibit anyone without a PhD in criminal psychology from selling guns or ammunition, and make an extensive psychological evaluation mandatory before each purchase.

Good luck with that...


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 31, 2012)

And then again, Holmes won't be the last.  There will seemingly be another "tipping point", followed by another and another after that.  

We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people.  If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons.  I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.  

But we have to do something beyond the status quo.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people.  If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons.  I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.
> 
> But we have to do something beyond the status quo.



See... I get the intention behind this, and while I agree that the mentally unstable shouldn't have access to weapons, here's the problem with regulation:  If you regulate guns and make them harder for you or I to obtain, in order to help protect society from the unstable who might get their hands on them... all you have done is taken them from you or I.

The real, brass tacks truth is that If I were suddenly declared Unstable tonite, and they came and took my guns and my Special Permit to buy them that I need to have here in Illinois, AND blacklisted me on the background check...

I'd still have guns tomorrow.  Not only that, but if I had trouble accessing them and wanted to wipe out a theater or mall or whatever full of patrons, I'd just go to Home Depot, or heck, even the corner Gas-Station mini mart, and get what I need to build a bomb. 

It's sensible to do background checks.  It's sensible to make it illegal for a whackadoo to own a gun... but trying to regulate the weapons themselves is, IMO, futile at best.   If nothing else, past precedent proves this... look at all the crime and the mass killings that continued despite the AWB durring Clinton/Bush.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> The question begs: should the mentally ill be legally allowed to purchase, possess or have access to guns. Most "sane" people say no. But then, how does a civilized and modern society make that a reality?
> 
> For sure, no one should be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights, unless convicted felons or insane. In other words, the 2A is already regulated. It's now a matter how efficiently and effectively we regulate.
> 
> *I don't know of a non-invasive way in which we monitor the mentally ill, but we have to do a better job of being able to keep them away from guns, knives, ammo and the like.* A top security database to which only psychiatrists can submit (but not access), and only DHS can access but only for purposes of declining a gun sale at the local level? I really don't know. Ether way you slice it, there is a loss of privacy.



Why does there have to be a non-invasive way for them but not for 'us?'



Wo Fat said:


> And then again, Holmes won't be the last. There will seemingly be another "tipping point", followed by another and another after that.
> 
> *We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people.* If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons. I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.
> 
> But we have to do something beyond the status quo.



If I am not the problem, why do I have to be the one made uncomfortable? Why not those "unstable people?"



Cryozombie said:


> See... *I get the intention behind this, and while I agree that the mentally unstable shouldn't have access to weapons, here's the problem with regulation: If you regulate guns and make them harder for you or I to obtain, in order to help protect society from the unstable who might get their hands on them... all you have done is taken them from you or I.
> 
> *The real, brass tacks truth is that If I were suddenly declared Unstable tonite, and they came and took my guns and my Special Permit to buy them that I need to have here in Illinois, AND blacklisted me on the background check...
> 
> ...



We may be able to come up with a compromise of sorts. In line with my comments above, I think most of the regulation needs to be on the unstable, insane, loonies, whatever you choose to call them. We used to do that until the lawyers went to bat for them. Now we have people wandering the streets who are deficient in taking care of themselves. Some of them become a danger to others since they will commit crimes in their attempts to take care of themselves.

Mind you, some of the past state run mental hospitals were not resorts for the inmates, and the doctors there, wishing to do well or not, weren't given a lot of resources. That would have to be improved. But we would then get a lot of dangerous people off the streets. We would have to try and be sure people weren't just conveniently forgotten there as often happened in the past. Also, that they are treated humanely and treated by best practices for their condition.

Nothing easy about the above, but I think we should really try to find a solution along those lines. Why should those of us who claim, and hopefully demonstrate 'normalness,' be the ones inconvenienced? Why should those in need of help, not get it, even if they don't realize they need it. Again, slippery slopes, but I think that is something that can be done correctly if we think about it and involve the correct people in writing laws.


----------



## granfire (Aug 1, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Why does there have to be a non-invasive way for them but not for 'us?'
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am pretty sure that most 'unstable' people do not consider themselves a problem either....until much later, after the fog has cleared and the victims are counted.


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2012)

Ooh...Ooh, I know the answer to this one.  Whenever anyone goes to get counseling,  psychological or psychiatric, or with a family counselor or social worker, the Doctor, or social worker should be required to submit the names of the patients to a national data base.  This data base of course is not to be abused, and used solely for the purpose of tracking those people who may become a threat in the future.  Then, you cross reference this national data base of people with mental problems ( a government term, not mine, I'm sure) with the desired national firearms registry of gun owners and background checks.  Then, when a name pops up on both the possible crazy person list and the "I want a gun," list, the federal government can send agents to the medical practice or counselors office and get detailed information on the medical condition of the crazy person trying to get a gun to commit mass murder.  The whole, "Doctor, patient," confidentiality could be simply suspended by law so that the federal government can have easier access to the records of dangerous, crazy people trying to get guns.  Oh...you say, what if Little Timmy is just having trouble with math and the school guidance counselor is helping his parents deal with his low grades?  Well, where there is smoke there is fire, or the potential of little Timmy being a crazy mass murderer so it is a good idea for the feds to ask him some "hard" questions about why he may potentially want a gun and kill a lot of people...Is that the correct answer?


----------



## harlan (Aug 1, 2012)

1.How about heading off the fireworks by simply continueing health care coverage, complete coverage, to young adults until 25?

There is a known trajectory for the development/onset of schizophrenia. The biggest problem - not identifying and treating it before the person is overwhelmed by delusions.

2. Empower parents and schools to have individuals evaluated/treated against their will.

Just exactly how many mass murders is it going to take for our society to realize that while it's 'not a crime' to be crazy, it IS criminal neglect on the part of institutions to not to respond to warning signals.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Ooh...Ooh, I know the answer to this one. Whenever anyone goes to get counseling, psychological or psychiatric, or with a family counselor or social worker, the Doctor, or social worker should be required to submit the names of the patients to a national data base. This data base of course is not to be abused, and used solely for the purpose of tracking those people who may become a threat in the future. Then, you cross reference this national data base of people with mental problems ( a government term, not mine, I'm sure) with the desired national firearms registry of gun owners and background checks. Then, when a name pops up on both the possible crazy person list and the "I want a gun," list, the federal government can send agents to the medical practice or counselors office and get detailed information on the medical condition of the crazy person trying to get a gun to commit mass murder. The whole, "Doctor, patient," confidentiality could be simply suspended by law so that the federal government can have easier access to the records of dangerous, crazy people trying to get guns. Oh...you say, what if Little Timmy is just having trouble with math and the school guidance counselor is helping his parents deal with his low grades? Well, where there is smoke there is fire, or the potential of little Timmy being a crazy mass murderer so it is a good idea for the feds to ask him some "hard" questions about why he may potentially want a gun and kill a lot of people...Is that the correct answer?



*No.*

I was, for a big chunk of my career, required to have an _annual_ psychological evaluation, along with a more in depth one every five years with my security clearance requalification. 

Every time-*every time*-I was U.S. government certified "sane," and "stable."

I can say-being retired from that kind of work: I *am not* "sane." I *am not* "stable."

I don't even know what those words mean. Maybe I'm "stable," but I'm certainly *not* "sane." Though, of course, you'd be hard-pressed to prove it without some serious revelations on my part-I like white wine with smoked duck, and that's about as "insane" as I'll ever be-on the record. :lol:

It's easy-especially for the more intelligent of us-to fake "sanity." It's relatively easy to know what the "right anwers" are for the battery of questions they throw at individuals to determine their "sanity."  I answered those questions honestly, back in 1982, when I hired on at Indian Point #3-and answered them honestly-rather than with "the best answer"-for the first time in my life, and was subjected to a psychological evaluation to detemine if I was worthy and capable of performing my job as a nuclear power plant operator. I learned my lesson, and never answered the damn questionairre honestly again-I gave the "best answer" for each question, and maintained consitency, and I've been certified "sane" for 30 odd years now.

And I'm not. I'm *really,* f%^&#ing not. As the son of two psychiatric professionals, and the subject of several medical studies, I clearly am not, by anyon'e dfinition of the word, "sane."

I'm nuttier than a wagon load of pralines. :lfao:

Of course, I know-like any sociopath-right from wrong, and understand the consequences of my actions-therefore, *I do not act.*

Most of the time.

I have no inclination, though, for "mass murder." Not because murder is unattractive for me-far from it. But because I recognize that my actions have consequences, and the consequences of an action such as Mr. Holmes's in Aurora don't have a good prospective outcome. In this respect, I'm maybe a little less crazy than he is.

But just a little: in the end, I don't listen to the voices in my head, (most of the time) because I know better-though, occasionally, we're in complete agreement.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Ooh...Ooh, I know the answer to this one.  Whenever anyone goes to get counseling,  psychological or psychiatric, or with a family counselor or social worker, the Doctor, or social worker should be required to submit the names of the patients to a national data base.  This data base of course is not to be abused, and used solely for the purpose of tracking those people who may become a threat in the future.  Then, you cross reference this national data base of people with mental problems ( a government term, not mine, I'm sure) with the desired national firearms registry of gun owners and background checks.  Then, when a name pops up on both the possible crazy person list and the "I want a gun," list, the federal government can send agents to the medical practice or counselors office and get detailed information on the medical condition of the crazy person trying to get a gun to commit mass murder.  The whole, "Doctor, patient," confidentiality could be simply suspended by law so that the federal government can have easier access to the records of dangerous, crazy people trying to get guns.  Oh...you say, what if Little Timmy is just having trouble with math and the school guidance counselor is helping his parents deal with his low grades?  Well, where there is smoke there is fire, or the potential of little Timmy being a crazy mass murderer so it is a good idea for the feds to ask him some "hard" questions about why he may potentially want a gun and kill a lot of people...Is that the correct answer?



Sounds a lot like the No Fly List.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2012)

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/california-professor-described

Read this. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2012)

IMO..."sanity" is a bell curve situation. Its not a "you are sane or you are not" situation, its an average of acceptable behavior. YMMV. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Razor (Aug 1, 2012)

elder999 said:


> *No.*
> 
> I can say-being retired from that kind of work: I *am not* "sane." I *am not* "stable."



I thought this post by Elder hit the nail on the head with regard to discussing limiting those with mental disorders. Even the scientific community have not agreed on what "sane" and "insane" are and who fits in to which category. Certainly just having a mental illness does not classify somebody as one or the other. I don't think there is any meaningful discrimination that can be made yet for mental disorder, as it is extremely difficult to classify and we're not even close yet.


----------



## Steve (Aug 1, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> We may be able to come up with a compromise of sorts. In line with my comments above, I think most of the regulation needs to be on the unstable, insane, loonies, whatever you choose to call them. We used to do that until the lawyers went to bat for them. Now we have people wandering the streets who are deficient in taking care of themselves. Some of them become a danger to others since they will commit crimes in their attempts to take care of themselves.
> 
> Mind you, some of the past state run mental hospitals were not resorts for the inmates, and the doctors there, wishing to do well or not, weren't given a lot of resources. That would have to be improved. But we would then get a lot of dangerous people off the streets. We would have to try and be sure people weren't just conveniently forgotten there as often happened in the past. Also, that they are treated humanely and treated by best practices for their condition.
> 
> Nothing easy about the above, but I think we should really try to find a solution along those lines. Why should those of us who claim, and hopefully demonstrate 'normalness,' be the ones inconvenienced? Why should those in need of help, not get it, even if they don't realize they need it. Again, slippery slopes, but I think that is something that can be done correctly if we think about it and involve the correct people in writing laws.


Historically, a lot of these changes are rooted in many of the sweeping reforms that occurred under Reagan in the 80s.  Funding cuts, legal reforms and changes to the definition of disability allowing drug addicts and alcoholics to receive "disability" benefits led to a reduction in the number of people committed in mental health facilities, funding cuts to the facilities that remained, a flood of homelessness as mentally ill individuals were summarily dumped on the streets and subsequently "funded" through welfare, causing a sharp spike in the number of people receiving State and Federal needs based assistance.  

In order to address the issue, we're going to have to start dealing with mental illness for what it is: illness.  If someone has cancer, we would all expect that person to get help, to potentially struggle, to experience set backs and if needed, to get help through charitable foundations.  People who have a mental illness, particularly something like bipolar disorder or depression, are typically not seen as being legitimately ill.  They should buck up, get over it, stop malingering and get on with it.  

The struggle, as has already been noted, is one of personal liberties.  Involuntarily committing someone who has yet to commit a crime is serious business.  Arbitrarily deciding that someone who hasn't yet done something illegal should be detained indefinitely because they _could _is a big deal.  

No easy answers on this one, but I'm enjoying the conversation.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2012)

granfire said:


> I am pretty sure that most 'unstable' people do not consider themselves a problem either....until much later, after the fog has cleared and the victims are counted.



Is that the solution you propose?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Steve said:


> Historically, a lot of these changes are rooted in many of the sweeping reforms that occurred under Reagan in the 80s. Funding cuts, legal reforms and changes to the definition of disability allowing drug addicts and alcoholics to receive "disability" benefits led to a reduction in the number of people committed in mental health facilities, funding cuts to the facilities that remained, a flood of homelessness as mentally ill individuals were summarily dumped on the streets and subsequently "funded" through welfare, causing a sharp spike in the number of people receiving State and Federal needs based assistance.
> 
> *In order to address the issue, we're going to have to start dealing with mental illness for what it is: illness. If someone has cancer, we would all expect that person to get help, to potentially struggle, to experience set backs and if needed, to get help through charitable foundations. People who have a mental illness, particularly something like bipolar disorder or depression, are typically not seen as being legitimately ill. They should buck up, get over it, stop malingering and get on with it.
> 
> ...



I agree mental illness is just that, an illness. But I don't think it can be compared to cancer or other non-mental illnesses. We generally presume the cancer patient can make a well reasoned choice to get medical help or not. That choice is often given to prostate cancer patients who can reasonably be expected to die from other causes before dying of prostate cancer. I don't know that what you say about people with mental illness being expected to just buck up and get on with it. I haven't found that to be a prevalent attitude in my circles. Especially bipolar and depression. Some can be helped with treatments that allow them to function pretty normally. But again, we generally presume a person with a mental illness has a diminished capacity to make rational decisions.

I don't think people should be committed simply because they might commit a crime. That would be all of us. But we can commit a person who not only does not have the mental capacity to make rational decisions, but in fact has demonstrated, or who has an illness that has been demonstrated, to cause dangerously irrational decisions, that are dangerous to the patient or those with whom the patient may come into contact with.

And I agree it is fraught with chances for abuse. They must be guarded against by law, and punished severly if violations found to be committed. 

Still, we have no problem with committing criminals to prison to protect society, why should it be different with persons who have dangerous mental illnesses?

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  There are no easy answers, but I think it is worthy of discussion.  We do need a solution.  I just don't agree with the idea that I need to be inconvenienced rather than seeking a solution that tackles or treats the problem.  Guns aren't the problem.  Dangerously mentaly ill persons are.


----------



## granfire (Aug 1, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Is that the solution you propose?



I did not think I suggested a solution. 

I did not know I supposed to come up with one.

I actually do have a solution: Nobody owns guns. Then at least you can't shoot people when you flip your lid.

but that is not a popular idea now, is it. 

Also, can you make it mandatory that people seeking treatment will be reported?
Looks nice on paper, right?
but here is the thing: we all have our dark thoughts now and then. How we express them I suppose depends on our surroundings. Can we freely tell somebody that we are having dark moments likely nothing much will come off it. 
If we have to fear repercussions, will we even share our thoughts? And I am not talking about me, myself and I either....

And, to close the circle, maybe we need to fill in some of the gaping holes in our health care system. For one make programs for mental health more accessable, and last, when it is more accessable you can find the really dangerous people before they run amok. 

And of course you will always have the 'normal' person who wakes up one morning with the urge to kill....


----------



## Steve (Aug 1, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I agree mental illness is just that, an illness.  But I don't think it can be compared to cancer or other non-mental illnesses.  We generally presume the cancer patient can make a well reasoned choice to get medical help or not.


The point I was driving at is when people have a mental illness, because we can't see it, we presume that it's pseudo-science or what have you.  This goes for people who have mental illness.  Because our country ALSO has a tendency to treat symptoms, a person with a mental illness will take medication that helps, feel better and pronounce themselves cured, stop taking their medication and end the cycle with an inevitable psychotic break that lands them in a hospital for a few days (at least) until they can get their meds stabilized.  



> That choice is often given to prostate cancer patients who can reasonably be expected to die from other causes before dying of prostate cancer.  I don't know that what you say about people with mental illness being expected to just buck up and get on with it.  I haven't found that to be a prevalent attitude in my circles.  Especially bipolar and depression.  Some can be helped with treatments that allow them to function pretty normally.  But again, we generally presume a person with a mental illness has a diminished capacity to make rational decisions.
> 
> I don't think people should be committed simply because they might commit a crime.  That would be all of us.  But we can commit a person who not only does not have the mental capacity to make rational decisions, but in fact has demonstrated, or who has an illness that has been demonstrated, to cause dangerously irrational decisions, that are dangerous to the patient or those with whom the patient may come into contact with.
> 
> ...


Committing people with a dangerous mental illness to prison?  Because they have committed no crimes.  Again, the quandary here is that our country, at least in principle, espouses personal liberty as a default position.  I shouldn't go to prison because I _might_ break a law.  I go to prison because I broke a law and was convicted in a court of law.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2012)

granfire said:


> I did not think I suggested a solution.
> 
> *I agree.
> *
> ...



How normal is it for 'normal' persons to wake up with the urge to kill?  Or are you talking about a caprecious fantasy the person knows they will never carry out, and is simply using to assuage their anger?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Steve said:


> The point I was driving at is when people have a mental illness, because we can't see it, we presume that it's pseudo-science or what have you. This goes for people who have mental illness. Because our country ALSO has a tendency to treat symptoms, a person with a mental illness will take medication that helps, feel better and pronounce themselves cured, stop taking their medication and end the cycle with an inevitable psychotic break that lands them in a hospital for a few days (at least) until they can get their meds stabilized.
> 
> Committing people with a dangerous mental illness to prison? Because they have committed no crimes. Again, the quandary here is that our country, at least in principle, espouses personal liberty as a default position. I shouldn't go to prison because I _might_ break a law. I go to prison because I broke a law and was convicted in a court of law.



First paragraph:  Some mental illnesses are hard to detect for lay people.  Some are even difficult for mental health professionals to diagnose.  I have seen people whose actions told me they were suffering from some mental illness, even if I didn't know a name for it or a cure for it.   I have heard that some people receiving medication for mental illnesses do stop taking their medication.  If that makes them dangerous, then clearly something needs to be done.  So we have to decide on a course of action.  Also, if it has been decided that only counselling therapy will help, should we ensure they get it, even if that means they must be confined to a hospital?

Second paragraph:  Sorry, I should have worded that better.  I didn't mean we should commit mentally ill people to jail.  I meant to a hospital that treats those who are mentally ill, and that they in fact get any treatment that will help them, or at least make them better able to cope with daily life, whether in or out of the hospital.  And again agreed; it is something that must be done with great care so as not to incorrectly put a person in a mental hospital, refuse to give them the best treatment, or keep them past a time when they are able to re-enter society without being a danger to society.


----------



## harlan (Aug 1, 2012)

I think people are forgetting that there are plenty of signs prior to these extreme events. Mental illnesses make take months, even years, to advance. But our society is constructed in such a way that the mentally ill fall between the cracks. No individual, no community, and no institution seems willing to admit that we ARE our brother's keeper. When another person passes us, and we know there is something wrong, we just let it slide.

'Not our problem.' In the case of Mr. Holmes, he isn't a student anymore? Guess the college has no responsiblity to find out where he is after he withdraws.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 2, 2012)

harlan said:


> I think people are forgetting that there are plenty of signs prior to these extreme events. Mental illnesses make take months, even years, to advance. But our society is constructed in such a way that the mentally ill fall between the cracks. No individual, no community, and no institution seems willing to admit that we ARE our brother's keeper. When another person passes us, and we know there is something wrong, we just let it slide.
> 
> 'Not our problem.' In the case of Mr. Holmes, he isn't a student anymore? Guess the college has no responsiblity to find out where he is after he withdraws.




*Psychiatrist warned university about accused Colorado gunman: report*



> DENVER (Reuters) - A psychiatrist who treated the former graduate student accused of killing 12 people in a shooting rampage at a movie theater in Colorado warned her university about him more than a month before the massacre, a published report said on Wednesday.
> Dr Lynne Fenton notified a so-called threat-assessment team at the University of Colorado, Denver, in early June that she was alarmed by the behavior of James Holmes, but no further action was taken, the Denver Post reported, citing an anonymous source. Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.



Ya see, the problem is that you can run around in the opposite sex's clothes, or dye your hair any color, or be homeless, or claim you're a reptiloid from the planet Xanthu, or that you had tea with Jesus just this morning, or that your dog  does algebra and designs yachts, and as long as your behavior doesn't represent potential harm to yourself or others, you're "sane"-or, at least sane enough that the law can't really do anything about it-no one can except for you.

On the other hand, you can present as a normal, quiet guy who keeps to himself-or is affable. Who keeps his yard up-or doesn't. Who goes to work every day and does a good job-or is a lousy employee, or unemployed. Just a regular guy-and the universe between your ears can be a place that is 100% nuckin' futz, down the road and around the corner where the busses don't go anymore......ya never know. :lfao:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2012)

Most of the time there are plenty of signs...there just are not many mechanisims to deal with them. 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 2, 2012)

As a society, we actually have made a decision as to how we will treat those who are mentally ill/emotionally troubled/insane/whateva:  we lock them up in state prisons all across the country, and we let the warehousing and recidivism run its rather predictable course.  Per capita, these people come primarily from the inner cities although not exclusively.  The rest are primarily from rural areas that we have equally forsaken.  

By jamming these people directly through the criminal system and locking them up for as long as we can, without regard to their mental condition, we ensure that they are not eligible for lawful gun ownership and we convince ourselves that they are perpetual criminals not requiring (or being deserving) of psychiatric care and treatment.

Ironically, it's these people who are least likely to commit the next massacre of innocents.  But we'll have to wait until the next massacre to confirm.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> As a society, we actually have made a decision as to how we will treat those who are mentally ill/emotionally troubled/insane/whateva: we lock them up in state prisons all across the country, and we let the warehousing and recidivism run its rather predictable course. Per capita, these people come primarily from the inner cities although not exclusively. The rest are primarily from rural areas that we have equally forsaken.
> 
> By jamming these people directly through the criminal system and locking them up for as long as we can, without regard to their mental condition, we ensure that they are not eligible for lawful gun ownership and we convince ourselves that they are perpetual criminals not requiring (or being deserving) of psychiatric care and treatment.
> 
> Ironically, it's these people who are least likely to commit the next massacre of innocents. But we'll have to wait until the next massacre to confirm.



If there is the slightest chance that a defense counsel can make a claim of innocence by reason of insanity, they will do so.  The reason being if they are successful, their client cannot be convicted of the crime.  They will be sent to a hospital until such time as the state mechanism says they agree with the medical profession that the person is no longer criminally insane, and therefore no longer a danger to society.  

So I personally disagree society has made a conscious decision to take mentally ill persons and stash them away in jails.  Can you argue that some, or even many, who are in prisons are mentally ill?  Not without a pretty broad definition of mental illness.  But even if we assume that is true, what is the solution?  Should we not then force them into treatment?  Who wants to wait until the next massacre without a solution?


----------



## harlan (Aug 2, 2012)

No. There is a decision to NEGLECT the mentally ill until they become an identifiable/quantifiable problem.


----------



## MJS (Aug 2, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> The simple reality is that all murderers are insane. Sane people don't kill without damn good reason. That doesn't mean they're not responsible for their actions, of course.
> 
> Holmes' mental status is a tricky question. It probably CANNOT be determined. His side will say he's too crazy to be prosecuted, and produce experts to support this claim. The prosecution will say he's totally sane, and produce experts to support this claim.
> 
> ...



I heard something on the news this morning about his mental state.  I wish I could recall or find a link somewhere as to what they said.  Anyways, perhaps, to answer your question, which is a very good one BTW, I think we should define what mental illness is.  Of course, I'm sure there're varying degrees of it, but for the sake of discussion, I'll use the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

So IMHO, I'd say that anyone who would fit in any of the categories listed, then no, those people should not own a gun.  Actually, now that I think about it, the news report said that the docs that were seeing this nutjob, knew he was a nut, yet did or said nothing.  Why not?  I mean, common sense should dictate that if you knew that someone was planning something or had severe issues, that you'd say something to prevent a tragedy.  

And I'm sure if some of the families of the victims are sueing for not having the emergency exits alarmed, I'm sure they'll be filing suits against the docs.


----------



## MJS (Aug 2, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> And then again, Holmes won't be the last.  There will seemingly be another "tipping point", followed by another and another after that.
> 
> We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people.  If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons.  I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.
> 
> But we have to do something beyond the status quo.



Agreed!!!  Its just like anything.  People are so lax about things, but then go into panic mode when something bad happens, then they run around like a chicken with its head cut off, finding ways to address the problem.  9-11 is a good example. Terrorism isn't something that just popped up out of nowhere...its been going on for a looooong time.  Yet all it took was a bunch of terrorists to crash some planes into buildings, and what happened.....The War On Terror.  All you gotta do is just watch....something happenes, and the next day you have armed cops in all the airports, bus stations, train stations, etc.  Sadly, you're right..it takes a tragedy for the wake up call to happen.


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> If there is the slightest chance that a defense counsel can make a claim of innocence by reason of insanity, they will do so.  The reason being if they are successful, their client cannot be convicted of the crime.  They will be sent to a hospital until such time as the state mechanism says they agree with the medical profession that the person is no longer criminally insane, and therefore no longer a danger to society.
> 
> So I personally disagree society has made a conscious decision to take mentally ill persons and stash them away in jails.*  Can you argue that some, or even many, who are in prisons are mentally ill?  *Not without a pretty broad definition of mental illness.  But even if we assume that is true, what is the solution?  Should we not then force them into treatment?  Who wants to wait until the next massacre without a solution?



Just watch any of the 'locked up' shows.
They always have a section of prison with inmates that could go off at any given time, it takes 5 or more jailers to move them from one cell to another, they are moved to exercise yards like circus lions from their cages to the arena in caged pathways....there is no way in hell they are all there upstairs! And no, those people would be better served in a mental hospital under medication to even out those mood swings and anger issues, for the sake of their safety and their surroundings. 


@ MJS: I don't think though you can't define mental illness past not fitting the norm of averages. you start with the odd little habit and end up with head banging madness...

And last but not least, as pgsmith has pointed out, the mechanisms to deal with those oddities and abnormalities are not in place. Other countries have a lot better system in place, and money is a huge part of it. The hospitals are there, but the funding isn't and many insurance programs don't cover it (or you incure a penalty in the long run) 
I think it is telling that the US has unproportional (IMHO) incidences of this nature compared to much of the rest of the world. 

it is a combination of having guns readily available to you as well as a gross misunderstanding and lack of care about the human mind.

And seriously, society in the US is chock full of contradictions that are in itself close to split personality disorder...the expectations projected on the individual are in many cases impossible to fulfill.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 2, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> If there is the slightest chance that a defense counsel can make a claim of innocence by reason of insanity, they will do so.  The reason being if they are successful, their client cannot be convicted of the crime.  They will be sent to a hospital until such time as the state mechanism says they agree with the medical profession that the person is no longer criminally insane, and therefore no longer a danger to society.
> 
> So I personally disagree society has made a conscious decision to take mentally ill persons and stash them away in jails.  Can you argue that some, or even many, who are in prisons are mentally ill?  Not without a pretty broad definition of mental illness.  But even if we assume that is true, what is the solution?  Should we not then force them into treatment?  Who wants to wait until the next massacre without a solution?



All you have to do is visit a state prison for a length of time to see and know that many, if not most of the violent inmates are mentally ill/unstable/troubled/infirm--whatever term one wants to use.  Society says that we're being "soft on crime" should we (i.e., juries, judges, prosecutors) see violent offenders as in need of psychiatric help.  So instead, we convict them; lock them away with the same types of people; tag them with a very public criminal record (including their known pathologies); and make dang sure that they are never ever allowed to legally own a gun.  

A gun control byproduct that many seem to be just fine with.


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> All you have to do is visit a state prison for a length of time to see and know that many, if not most of the violent inmates are mentally ill/unstable/troubled/infirm--whatever term one wants to use.  Society says that we're being "soft on crime" should we (i.e., juries, judges, prosecutors) see violent offenders as in need of psychiatric help.  So instead, we convict them; lock them away with the same types of people; tag them with a very public criminal record (including their known pathologies); and make dang sure that they are never ever allowed to legally own a gun.
> 
> A gun control byproduct that many seem to be just fine with.



considering that some of these guys should not be allowed to handle a butter knife or a fork, that is fine with me, but the wrong way to go about it.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

harlan said:


> No. There is a decision to NEGLECT the mentally ill until they become an identifiable/quantifiable problem.


Which is typically after they've been allowed to commit a crime and can then be officially dealt with as criminals.


----------



## harlan (Aug 2, 2012)

Exactly. The only currently identifiable way to deal with the mentally ill is to criminalize them. Can't force treatment prior to a crime, although some areas are canny enough to use whatever laws are available under the aegis of 'self-harm' is possible. But here is Massachusetts, that translates to a one-3 day hospital stay, no real diagnosis, and no enforcible way to follow up.



Steve said:


> Which is typically after they've been allowed to commit a crime and can then be officially dealt with as criminals.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> Just watch any of the 'locked up' shows.
> They always have a section of prison with inmates that could go off at any given time, it takes 5 or more jailers to move them from one cell to another, they are moved to exercise yards like circus lions from their cages to the arena in caged pathways....there is no way in hell they are all there upstairs! And no, those people would be better served in a mental hospital under medication to even out those mood swings and anger issues, for the sake of their safety and their surroundings.



I don't know the percentages, and that is what would be needed to your comment to have real validity. And many if not all penitentaries have psychologists on staff or on contract to visit on a regular basis. Would the fact they are incarcerated be sufficient to provide a solution against their becoming mass killers?




granfire said:


> @ MJS: I don't think though you can't define mental illness past not fitting the norm of averages. you start with the odd little habit and end up with head banging madness...
> 
> And last but not least, as pgsmith has pointed out, the mechanisms to deal with those oddities and abnormalities are not in place. *Other countries have a lot better system in place, *and money is a huge part of it. The hospitals are there, but the funding isn't and many insurance programs don't cover it (or you incure a penalty in the long run)
> *I think it is telling that the US has unproportional (IMHO) incidences of this nature compared to much of the rest of the world.*



Other countries may well have better systems. Can you tell us some of the countries that do better and how they do it that might work for us?

I am not so sure we have more incidences. I think we don't pay attention to enough world news to know about all the others. I have heard about incidences through other countries news that never made the news here in the USA. At least that I was exposed to.



granfire said:


> it is a combination of having guns readily available to you as well as a gross misunderstanding and lack of care about the human mind.



If it is, and you take away guns, will mentally ill people not use knives, machetes, or explosive vests?



granfire said:


> And seriously, society in the US is chock full of contradictions that are in itself close to split personality disorder...the expectations projected on the individual are in many cases impossible to fulfill.



I don't experience that myself, or I don't understand what you are referring to. Could you give some examples please?


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

harlan said:


> Exactly. The only currently identifiable way to deal with the mentally ill is to criminalize them. Can't force treatment prior to a crime, although some areas are canny enough to use whatever laws are available under the aegis of 'self-harm' is possible. But here is Massachusetts, that translates to a one-3 day hospital stay, no real diagnosis, and no enforcible way to follow up.


I agree.  In three days, though, they can often stabilize the meds.  But no one can make someone take a pill.

I hope it's clear that I, for one, don't see any easy answers.  As I said before, the dillemma is that our country is grounded in the idea that people have rights and individual liberty is valued.  So, in the same way that we can't force a person who has cancer to seek treatment (at all, much less to involuntarily detain him or her in a hospital throughout the course of treatment), it becomes a question of ethics when we consider forcing a mentally ill person into treatment involuntarily, particularly when they are lucid.

I do believe we can do better, but it has to start, IMO, by removing the stigma that is associated with someone seeking treatment for their mental illness.  There should be no shame involved, and we have to remove that barrier.  Doing just that will help.

From there, it's a matter of drawing the lines and coming up with some means to safeguard as much as possible a person's individual liberties while also protecting society while that person undergoes treatment.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> If it is, and you take away guns, will mentally ill people not use knives, machetes, or explosive vests?


I think you're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but this in particular is a point that I've heard before and I think it's a specious question.  The root of it seems to be, if someone wants to kill people, they will kill people.  Sure.  I get that.  

But, how easy we make it and how much damage can be done is something we have some control over.   Had Holmes been armed with a machete, I don't think that he would have been able to kill 13 and wound another 50 or so.  Even a knife in one hand and a machete in the other, he would have had trouble getting to 70 people.  Even Conan the Barbarian, armed with a giant, two handed sword would have had trouble doing that.    

AND, if his access to guns was restricted such that he had to resort to blades of some kind, it strengthens the position of gun advocates in that a (presumably sane), lawful gun owner would have a clear upper hand.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> ...
> 
> I do believe we can do better, but it has to start, IMO, by removing the stigma that is associated with someone seeking treatment for their mental illness. There should be no shame involved, and we have to remove that barrier. Doing just that will help.
> 
> From there, it's a matter of drawing the lines and coming up with some means to safeguard as much as possible a person's individual liberties while also protecting society while that person undergoes treatment.



OK, that's a start for sure.  But you can't legislate that, so we have to find some way to change attitudes.  As good an idea as I think that is, I also think that would take longer than we can afford in trying to fix the problem.  Do you have an idea how we might speed that up?


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't know the percentages, and that is what would be needed to your comment to have real validity. And many if not all penitentaries have psychologists on staff or on contract to visit on a regular basis. Would the fact they are incarcerated be sufficient to provide a solution against their becoming mass killers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



aight, look around. Pull up the news of people gone postal. The majorities of all cases are in the US. Can you deny that?

The part of the system that you don't see: It's called health care. It starts with the financial coverage <GASP, I know> that is much better in nearly all industrial nations than the US. 
As to getting it to work for you...ok, I admit, my evidence is anecdotal, stories from people who have grievances when they can't get the help needed for their family members. Plus some methods in the US are still archaic. I am not going to bore you with details, but straight jackets are not in the arsenal in other countries....

You wanted evidence that mentally unstable people are warehoused in jails, I pointed you at one of many TV shows that clearly show it. Clear enough for the layman to see it. Numbers? Ask your department of correction for them. But I am not sure if they even have them. They might have psychologists on staff, but a psychiatrist is needed. And yes, though both start with psy, it's a huge difference. 


As to the society and it's shortfalls...I suppose you have to step outside of it to see it....


Lets start with the legal age of certain things: If it is alright for a 13 year old child to be handles like an adult in front of a judge, it in turn ought to be quiet alright to give this 'adult' a beer and a smoke. Does that illustrate it enough for you>

The American man has to be tough and masculine, lest he be judged 'gay' but we also have really no outlets for them anymore. I am guessing that is one reason the shoot'em up games are so popular, a guy can do the stuff they seem to be biologically wired for. Values we still embrace, but can't condone in a social context. (not even going into the disconnect of playing adrenalin inducing games while our behinds are parked on the couch...)

Oh, and men are more likely to snap or have mental 'abnormalities' than women...


As to the weapons at hand....I am sure you can kill 12 people with a machete, but can you do so, injure 58 others all in a couple of minutes, without breaking a sweat?

And to have an explosive vest, you have to have explosives....and those are regulated or ought to be, even more than guns...and guess what, they want to regulate purchases of fertilizer....


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> I think you're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but this in particular is a point that I've heard before and I think it's a specious question. The root of it seems to be, if someone wants to kill people, they will kill people. Sure. I get that.
> 
> But, how easy we make it and how much damage can be done is something we have some control over. Had Holmes been armed with a machete, I don't think that he would have been able to kill 13 and wound another 50 or so. Even a knife in one hand and a machete in the other, he would have had trouble getting to 70 people. Even Conan the Barbarian, armed with a giant, two handed sword would have had trouble doing that.
> 
> AND, if his access to guns was restricted such that he had to resort to blades of some kind, it strengthens the position of gun advocates in that a (presumably sane), lawful gun owner would have a clear upper hand.



Fair point.  I didn't notice you mention explosive devices though.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> OK, that's a start for sure.  But you can't legislate that, so we have to find some way to change attitudes.  As good an idea as I think that is, I also think that would take longer than we can afford in trying to fix the problem.  Do you have an idea how we might speed that up?


Nope.  Honestly, it's about education, and this is where as a country we would need to do several things.  No one easy fix.  Some ways to increase awareness and shape public understanding are PSAs, working through the schools, and probably most effectively, using social media, the internet and television to increase awareness and understanding of mental illness, to encourage an open dialogue about the issues of mental illness, crime and homelessness, and being introducing people (particularly our younger generations) to examples of people who are battling mental illness while defying the common, negative stereotypes that surround the issue.

As for speeding things up... this is a problem 30 years in the making.  Longer if you consider that we've never really addressed the issues at hand.  So, having refused to deal with it for so long, I can't imagine it will be a quick fix.  Look at how long it took for us to overcome the stigmas surrounding AIDS.  Or, honestly, the level of prejudice and negative stereotyping we're dealing with, we're really looking at shaping public opinion on the scale of what the gay/lesbian community has battled since before the 70s and the days of the Stonewall Inn in New York.  

IMO, looking for a quick fix would be a huge mistake and would likely do more harm than good.  It would be looking for an easy solution to a very complicated problem.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Fair point.  I didn't notice you mention explosive devices though.


Yeah, didn't address that one for a couple of reasons.  First, unlike the typical mass murder, shooting spree perpetrated by someone who is mentally ill, it doesn't take a crazy person to blow people up.   We see sane people doing that all the time.

Second, it's just not something that happens in our country with the frequency of a shooting spree.  

Also, we have safeguards in place that catch most crazy people trying to use explosives before it happens.  Ready made explosives are rigidly regulated, and home brew explosives are often identified during their purchase.  Most recipes are well known and easily tracked, while the more exotic recipes need specialized expertise not commonly available to the average person.  

A machete, however, can be purchased at the local Big 5 without raising any suspicion whatsoever.


----------



## harlan (Aug 2, 2012)

Media campaign.



oftheherd1 said:


> OK, that's a start for sure. But you can't legislate that, so we have to find some way to change attitudes. As good an idea as I think that is, I also think that would take longer than we can afford in trying to fix the problem. Do you have an idea how we might speed that up?


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 2, 2012)

I think oftheherd1 and Steve make great points:  there is no quick fix.  But the first thing that we as a society have to do is change our attitude toward the issue of mental wellness (or whatever one wants to call it).  

We have an idea of who belongs in prison, and who is in need of help.  By our actions and inactions, we seem to prefer prison and warehousing.  However, the Klebolds & Harris'es and the James Holmes'es and the Seung-hui Cho's seemed to be otherwise convinced that their places were in a free society.


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> I think oftheherd1 and Steve make great points:  there is no quick fix.  But the first thing that we as a society have to do is change our attitude toward the issue of mental wellness (or whatever one wants to call it).
> 
> We have an idea of who belongs in prison, and who is in need of help.  By our actions and inactions, we seem to prefer prison and warehousing.  However, the Klebolds & Harris'es and the James Holmes'es and the Seung-hui Cho's seemed to be otherwise convinced that their places were in a free society.



not sure if they thought their place was in free society, but they certainly knew they did not fit in well.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> aight, look around. Pull up the news of people gone postal. The majorities of all cases are in the US. Can you deny that?



No, I cannot from personal knowledge or research, but this might be of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers where it seems that the US does not have most of the incidents (still more than I or anyone would wish of course).



granfire said:


> The part of the system that you don't see: It's called health care. It starts with the financial coverage <GASP, I know> that is much better in nearly all industrial nations than the US.



That has been debated a lot here on MT and elsewhere. I have not seen that defended well. I understand a lot of that depends on what a person wants to see, including me. But for every anecdote I hear about how good other countries socialized medicine is, I hear at least one other anecdote about long waits to see a doctor, long waits for surgical procedures, or difficulty in getting drugs.



granfire said:


> As to getting it to work for you...ok, I admit, my evidence is anecdotal, stories from people who have grievances when they can't get the help needed for their family members. Plus some methods in the US are still archaic. I am not going to bore you with details, but straight jackets are not in the arsenal in other countries....



I don't quite make the connection of those two sentences, but I haven't seen a straight jacket in years. Maybe you travel in different circles than I do. I think you will find drugs are the normal method of subduing people so they can't hurt others or themselves. If someone works where straight jackets are still used, please chime in.



granfire said:


> You wanted evidence that mentally unstable people are warehoused in jails, I pointed you at one of many TV shows that clearly show it. Clear enough for the layman to see it. Numbers? Ask your department of correction for them. But I am not sure if they even have them. They might have psychologists on staff, but a psychiatrist is needed. And yes, though both start with psy, it's a huge difference.



I don't consider that type of TV show an authority on the subject. If you wish to, so be it. However, I think you willl find they are skewed by such things as producer influence for sensationalism, the number of inmates who are willing to give permission to be photographed, and percentage of such people in the given institution reported on.

I am aware of the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists. And while I am out of my area of expertise, I think they both have a role to play. Each seems to have help to provide out of prison settings, I don't know why it would be different in one.




granfire said:


> As to the society and it's shortfalls...I suppose you have to step outside of it to see it....
> 
> 
> Lets start with the legal age of certain things: If it is alright for a 13 year old child to be handles like an adult in front of a judge, it in turn ought to be quiet alright to give this 'adult' a beer and a smoke. Does that illustrate it enough for you>
> ...



Children do mature at different rates. I am not aware we have a good method to quantify that yet. I don't hear of many 13 yo children being charged as adults. You do hear it so for 16 yo, and once in a while 15 yo. And that usually only for very heinous crimes. And at those ages, they should know the such crimes are bad. But I think the number is statistically low. 

As to beer and cigarettes, perhaps so in the home. The parent gets to decide such things. But do you mean to equate mass killing with beer and cigarette consumption by juveniles?

As to the American man, I am not an expert, but do claim some first hand knowledge. You may be right that some play those games for those reasons of frustration. Others [EDIT] show their masculinity by promoting [/EDIT] a relationship with their wives and family, take up hobbies other that computer games, study martial arts, and some join the military.

So I don't think all American men are electronically emasculated yet. Although considering how much I have been posting here on MT the last few days, I may have to re-evaluate that. ;-)



granfire said:


> As to the weapons at hand....I am sure you can kill 12 people with a machete, but can you do so, injure 58 others all in a couple of minutes, without breaking a sweat?
> 
> And to have an explosive vest, you have to have explosives....and those are regulated or ought to be, even more than guns...and guess what, they want to regulate purchases of fertilizer....



I thought I saw you comment in Sukerkin's thread on chemistry sets. If you read all the posts, especially Elder's you must realize it wouldn't be as hard as you want to get me to believe (that's not meant to be anything agains Elder, just to illustrate how easy it can be. He was not alone in experimenting with things like that). Also, just get a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook or the like, and you will be amazed how we can live better chemically through household products.

Regulation of fertilizer has been in the works for a long time.


----------



## brownie710 (Aug 2, 2012)

As a mental health counselor I would have to say the term "mentally ill" is far to broad to use when talking about restrictions. Would I want a person who had been mugged/raped/ assaulted who is suffering from PTSD (which technically is an anxiety disorder and therefore a mental illness) to be disallowed from owning a firearm, no. Would I want someone who has anti-social personality disorder and lacks the ability to empathize with others, is highly manipulative and can have a strong sense of entitlement and a pattern of violation of rights of others, yes. Unfortunately since this is often associated with a pattern of deceit and many with this disorder tend to be highly intelligent it is difficult to screen for such folks until after they commit some sort of terrible act. A study done several years ago showed that 2/3 of prisoners in a cross section in US prisons doing long terms for violent crimes met the diagnostic criteria for APD. 
The root of the argument, in my opinion, is how to restrict those who will do others harm with a firearm access to them. Unfortunately many of these folks will not obtain them legally.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

I don't know if anyone posted this info. yet, but there was an attempt to deal with this guy...

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...er-gunman-was-referred-threat-assessment-team



> The University of Colorado Denver psychiatrist seeing accused murderer James Eagan Holmes was so alarmed by his behavior that she notified the campus-wide threat-assessment team that she helped create years before, a source told The Denver Post.
> Dr. Lynne Fenton, identified in a court document as Holmes' psychiatrist, in June took her concerns to members of the campus' Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team, but no further action was taken, a source with knowledge of the process told The Post.
> University officials could not confirm or deny the report, citing the federal health privacy law and a judge's gag order in the case against Holmes.
> The information was first reportedlate Wednesday by Denver's KMGH-TV, 7News. The station, citing unnamed sources, reported that CU-Denver officials did not contact Aurora police before the July 20 massacre at the Century Aurora 16 theater that killed 12 people and injured 58 others. There was no mention in the report of whether CU-Denver police were notified.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> Yeah, didn't address that one for a couple of reasons. First, unlike the typical mass murder, shooting spree perpetrated by someone who is mentally ill, it doesn't take a crazy person to blow people up. We see sane people doing that all the time.
> 
> Second, it's just not something that happens in our country with the frequency of a shooting spree.
> 
> ...



Some good points.  But there are still dangerous chemicals that can cause mass death, that aren't well tracked.  And whatever there is, such as fertilizer, if it is used quickly enough, the tracking may well be too late.  As to gun availability, that would be one of the solutions I think should be looked at.  keeping guns from mentally ill people (explosives as well of course).

However, that we see sane people blow up other people all the time.  I see a mention above about defining mental illness.  Maybe we also need one for sane.  I presume you are talking about suicide bombings?  If so, I just can't equate.  If you are talking about military killing enemy, I have a little trouble equating that as well.

Have I misunderstood your meaning?


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 2, 2012)

granfire said:


> And to have an explosive vest, you have to have explosives....and those are regulated or ought to be, even more than guns...and guess what, they want to regulate purchases of fertilizer....



The thing is and I have made this point in numerous threads... while explosives are regulated, it is super easy to get components to make your own, and all the info on how is available online..   If you think about it... you can get everything you need to blow up a car at a Toys R Us.  TOYS R US.  And you can't really stop this, I mean, what are we gonna do regulate the crap out of Aluminum Foil and Plastic Coke Bottles?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 2, 2012)

brownie710 said:


> As a mental health counselor I would have to say the term "mentally ill" is far to broad to use when talking about restrictions. Would I want a person who had been mugged/raped/ assaulted who is suffering from PTSD (which technically is an anxiety disorder and therefore a mental illness) to be disallowed from owning a firearm, no. Would I want someone who has anti-social personality disorder and lacks the ability to empathize with others, is highly manipulative and can have a strong sense of entitlement and a pattern of violation of rights of others, yes. Unfortunately since this is often associated with a pattern of deceit and many with this disorder tend to be highly intelligent it is difficult to screen for such folks until after they commit some sort of terrible act. A study done several years ago showed that 2/3 of prisoners in a cross section in US prisons doing long terms for violent crimes met the diagnostic criteria for APD.
> *The root of the argument, in my opinion, is how to restrict those who will do others harm with a firearm access to them. *Unfortunately many of these folks will not obtain them legally.



I agree, except I don't want the way to restrict their access to be restricting my access as well.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 2, 2012)

And Steve, I get your point about the stuff being traceable and identifiable, but at the same time it's not, depending what you try and do.  As to the idea that it doesn't happen much, I agree, but its MY PERSONAL BELIEF that is because firearms are available.  I believe if they were not we would see more of these kinds of mass killings in their place.  Bear in mind It's just MY belief, and I could be wrong.


----------



## brownie710 (Aug 2, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I agree, except I don't want the way to restrict their access to be restricting my access as well.



I agree with you as well oftheherd1! thanks


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 2, 2012)

brownie710 said:


> As a mental health counselor I would have to say the term "mentally ill" is far to broad to use when talking about restrictions. Would I want a person who had been mugged/raped/ assaulted who is suffering from PTSD (which technically is an anxiety disorder and therefore a mental illness) to be disallowed from owning a firearm, no. Would I want someone who has anti-social personality disorder and lacks the ability to empathize with others, is highly manipulative and can have a strong sense of entitlement and a pattern of violation of rights of others, yes. Unfortunately since this is often associated with a pattern of deceit and many with this disorder tend to be highly intelligent it is difficult to screen for such folks until after they commit some sort of terrible act. *A study done several years ago showed that 2/3 of prisoners in a cross section in US prisons doing long terms for violent crimes met the diagnostic criteria for APD. *
> The root of the argument, in my opinion, is how to restrict those who will do others harm with a firearm access to them. Unfortunately many of these folks will not obtain them legally.



To be sure, a study that was done on people already imprisoned.  My point being, that there is a root cause for society's willingness to criminalize those with anti-social disorders and then study them after-the-fact, while being wholly indifferent to others with anxiety/depressive/other disorders who should similarly be precluded from gun ownership. 

I just don't know for certain what that root cause is.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

Killers are going to kill, and no matter what you ban or how you try to prevent it, it will always happen...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46



> BEIJING (AP) -- A teenager killed eight people with a knife and wounded five more in northeast China after falling out with his girlfriend, state media said Thursday.
> The teen killed two of her family members and six more people before fleeing, the state-run Legal Daily newspaper said. It reported he was caught but did not describe the circumstances.
> The official Xinhua News Agency said the attack took place Wednesday night in Liaoning province. Media said the 17-year-old suspect is from Fushun city and his surname is Li. The attack happened in Yongling town.
> Police in Xinbin county, which oversees the town, declined to comment.
> Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.



And not one "assault" rifle was used.  Hmmm...


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Killers are going to kill, and no matter what you ban or how you try to prevent it, it will always happen...
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46
> 
> ...





but think of the damage he could have done with less handy work and more fire power....

On the upside, there will be a pair of kidneys available soon...


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Killers are going to kill, and no matter what you ban or how you try to prevent it, it will always happen...
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46
> 
> ...


Intentionally muddying the waters with irrelevant, inflammatory posts is trolling, Bill.  What does your personal agenda regarding assault weapons have to do with the conversation at hand?   No one has said that banning assault weapons would help (or hurt), or even suggested banning guns.  We're talking about mental illness, detection of dangerously ill people at the earliest possible moment, and discussing how we can help reduce the number of these attacks that occur.  It's a complicated discussion that has, thus far, been pretty darned positive in spite of the diverse opinions being expressed. Please don't spoil that by reducing the discourse to something as derivative as "Why you no love guns?" or "Why you no ban guns?"


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

Hmmmm...from the original post in this thread steve...



> IMO, I'd say it would play a part, depending of course, on the seriousness of the illness. Has it been determined to what extent the CO. shooters illness is? Also, touching on something that Bill M. said in another gun thread, in which him and I were talking about the 2nd Amendment, and whether or not people should own certain types of weapons....while I do see his point and agree, should someone with a mental illness be allowed to own weapons?



And the very next post...




> I think the line drawn on owning weapons and being mentally ill is if you are a danger to yourself and/or others. If there are very reliable means to determine that, I am not so sure.



Hmmm...and the very next post...



> The question begs: should the mentally ill be legally allowed to purchase, possess or have access to guns. Most "sane" people say no. But then, how does a civilized and modern society make that a reality?
> 
> For sure, no one should be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights, unless convicted felons or insane. In other words, the 2A is already regulated. It's now a matter how efficiently and effectively we regulate.
> 
> I don't know of a non-invasive way in which we monitor the mentally ill, but we have to do a better job of being able to keep them away from guns, knives, ammo and the like. A top security database to which only psychiatrists can submit (but not access), and only DHS can access but only for purposes of declining a gun sale at the local level? I really don't know. Ether way you slice it, there is a loss of privacy.



And from post #5...



> We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people. If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons. I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.



And post #6...



> See... I get the intention behind this, and while I agree that the mentally unstable shouldn't have access to weapons, here's the problem with regulation: If you regulate guns and make them harder for you or I to obtain, in order to help protect society from the unstable who might get their hands on them... all you have done is taken them from you or I.
> 
> The real, brass tacks truth is that If I were suddenly declared Unstable tonite, and they came and took my guns and my Special Permit to buy them that I need to have here in Illinois, AND blacklisted me on the background check...
> 
> ...



And post #18...




> Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are no easy answers, but I think it is worthy of discussion. We do need a solution. I just don't agree with the idea that I need to be inconvenienced rather than seeking a solution that tackles or treats the problem. Guns aren't the problem. Dangerously mentaly ill persons are.


So thanks for your input, but try some other thread, thanks...

People sure like to throw that "troll" term around don't they...perhaps you should read earlier threads and then comment on other people's posts...

In case my name doesn't show up, the latest bad rep. came from me, steve.  I hate it when people don't put their names to their bad reps, so there you go.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmmm...from the original post in this thread steve...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know about "people" but I try only to use it where the actions meet the definition, in my opinion.  And surely you won't deny that you're intentionally trying to stir the pot.  Would you?  

I don't read every thread on the board, and don't believe I've ever alleged to.  I do know that the level of discussion in this thread has been extremely interesting.  It's been long on thoughtfulness and short on rancor.  I'd love to see it kept that way.  Once again, if it is your intent to reduce the discussion to its simplest, most polarizing level, I can't stop you.  But I'll call it out as I see it.  Maybe if I sum up the next few posts for you, we can skip the drama and stick to the subject of mental illness and its relation to the 2nd amendment (if any).

Here goes.  My summary of your posts:  Guns good.  Rar!
And the inevitable response by someone:  No!  Guns bad!


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

Hmmm...you said...in post #38...


> I think you're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but this in particular is a point that I've heard before and I think it's a specious question. The root of it seems to be, if someone wants to kill people, they will kill people. Sure. I get that.
> 
> But, how easy we make it and how much damage can be done is something we have some control over. Had Holmes been armed with a machete, I don't think that he would have been able to kill 13 and wound another 50 or so. Even a knife in one hand and a machete in the other, he would have had trouble getting to 70 people. Even Conan the Barbarian, armed with a giant, two handed sword would have had trouble doing that.
> 
> AND, if his access to guns was restricted such that he had to resort to blades of some kind, it strengthens the position of gun advocates in that a (presumably sane), lawful gun owner would have a clear upper hand.​



I actually posted from an article...(which you didn't quote in your attack)



> BEIJING (AP) -- A teenager killed eight people with a knife and wounded five more in northeast China after falling out with his girlfriend, state media said Thursday.
> The teen killed two of her family members and six more people before fleeing, the state-run Legal Daily newspaper said. It reported he was caught but did not describe the circumstances.
> The official Xinhua News Agency said the attack took place Wednesday night in Liaoning province. Media said the 17-year-old suspect is from Fushun city and his surname is Li. The attack happened in Yongling town.
> Police in Xinbin county, which oversees the town, declined to comment.
> Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.



And then I ended it with a throw away line...hardly making the argument you accuse me of...could even say it was the along the same area you were posting about...Sooo...are you a troll?

Actually, you should probably read your own posts before you comment on the posts of other people...


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm sorry if I have made you feel attacked.  Would you please stop stirring the pot?  It appears to be intentional, and i understand that this might be fun for you, but it could be viewed as trolling.  You can just say no, if you intend to continue.  That's your call.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

Wow, the non-apology first, and then the implied "would you stop stirring the pot," when my post was little different than yours.  Nice.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> Intentionally muddying the waters with irrelevant, inflammatory posts is trolling, Bill. What does your personal agenda regarding assault weapons have to do with the conversation at hand? No one has said that banning assault weapons would help (or hurt), or even suggested banning guns. We're talking about mental illness, detection of dangerously ill people at the earliest possible moment, and discussing how we can help reduce the number of these attacks that occur.



I have to agree with billi-*sob!*- lfao: ) he wasn't "muddying the waters," he was making the very real point that any controls on access to firearms in terms of "mental health," aren't going to keep crazies from killing lots of people if they want to. It dovetails quite neatly with what I've been trying to say: I have no adverse mental health history, and I own lots of guns-I've *always* owned lots of guns, and, while I'll never perpetrate a mass murder, I tend to think that if those who are insisting on increased screening and control for mental health knew one iota of what goes on between my ears on most *good* days, they'd be appalled at my arsenal, as well as my concealed carry permit-especially since they'd really have no idea how well controlled most of my impulses and tendencies actually are. 

As for this:




Cryozombie said:


> The thing is and I have made this point in numerous threads... while explosives are regulated, it is super easy to get components to make your own, and all the info on how is available online.. If you think about it... you can get everything you need to blow up a car at a Toys R Us. TOYS R US. And you can't really stop this, I mean, what are we gonna do regulate the crap out of Aluminum Foil and Plastic Coke Bottles?




Part of what I did for the five years after I left the lab (2005-2010) was educate law enforcement, military and medical personnel on recognizing certain things in terms of improvised WMDs. You'd be surprised what a visit to Home Depot can conjure, if you're brave enough. With things like shellac and pesticides, someone can fashion some pretty serious contact nerve agents, and you can buy large enough quantities at Home Depot _without_ attracting undue attention from law enforcement or anyone else. Never mind explosives.Now, some may have thougth it was rhetoiric of some sort when I said this:



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> *No.*
> 
> I was, for a big chunk of my career, required to have an _annual_ psychological evaluation, along with a more in depth one every five years with my security clearance requalification.
> 
> ...



Maybe it runs in my family-I won't get into details, but I have some sociopathic _tendencies_, bordering on psycopathic. While I don't really lack empathy, it's pretty easy for me to shut it off. As a kid, I never killed or tortured pets, but I was a regular murderer-and devourer-of rabbits and squirrels. While it did develop my woodcraft and hunting skills-I have to admit, I really like killing things-including livestock: as November approaches, I look forward not just to hunting, but slaughtering, and not just because it fills our freezer. I also, shamefully, did cause more than a few animals to suffer unduly, experimenting with torture. I found it quite thrilling for a while, but eventually recognized-intellectually-that such behavior was not profitable, and so I abandoned it. That doesn't mean that the impulse or desire isn't present, just that I ignore it, much like, I imagine, an alcoholic-or perhaps more like a dieter with certain foods, or someone with food allergies. In any case, no torture for me-sadly.

I won't even get into fetishes.:lfao:

I was also subjected, as I said, to regular psychiatric examinations, as well as an annual polygraph to maintain my clearance, and ability to have access to and handle Special Nuclear Material, as a condition of my employment at the lab. For nearly a decade, I took the polygraph, and passed-*lying my *** off about certain things.*

And that's nothing-really. I took a class to beat the polygraph in anticipation of it becoming part of my life. 


THis "gentleman" routinely killed people for more than 17 years, with a 9 year hiatus. All the while, he posed as a normal suburban family man. He had a family. He was a Cub Scout leader. He was president of his church's congregation.Before he was apprehended, he was married for nearly 34 years-a marriage that ended in divorce. While his wife may have noted some things about him, she was completely surprised by his secret life, as were his church congregation, his former scouts, their parents, and his coworkers-except, perhaps, those who had contact with him when he worked as a dogcatcher. Rader's an extreme case, when it comes to serial killers being concealed, but there were lots, and lots, and LOTS, of people who knew him who weren't convinced of Ted Bundy's guilt, because he seemed like such a nice, *normal*, guy.

Point is,"sanity" is easy to fake-easier for some than others, perhaps, but easy enough. I have a good friend whose brother is profoundly schizophrenic, but knows just how to behave in court, or in the presence of law enforcement,and keep from being institutionalized or medicated. In the case of the Aurora shooter, once he decided to perpetrate this act, he'd have made concerted efforts to conceal it. As for this:




billcihak said:


> I don't know if anyone posted this info. yet, but there was an attempt to deal with this guy...
> 
> http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...er-gunman-was-referred-threat-assessment-team



Well, I did, billi:



elder999 said:


> *Psychiatrist warned university about accused Colorado gunman: report*
> 
> 
> Ya see, the problem is that you can run around in the opposite sex's clothes, or dye your hair any color, or be homeless, or claim you're a reptiloid from the planet Xanthu, or that you had tea with Jesus just this morning, or that your dog does algebra and designs yachts, and as long as your behavior doesn't represent potential harm to yourself or others, you're "sane"-or, at least sane enough that the law can't really do anything about it-no one can except for you.





Beyond that, though, it's worth pointing out that Holmes had already withdrawn from Uni when the concerns came to light, and there wasn't much they thought they could do about him, and there wasn't enough to contact the cops-who would have probably investigated, but it would have been easy enough for an intelligent fellow like him to conceal his intent from the police.

*Sanity is relative, and easy for some to fake.*


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

I wasn't trying to criticize the university psychiatrist or the system, I wasn't sure that anyone else had posted it.  I also do not read all the posts on all the threads so miss a lot of what may be posted on some subjects, the one on the martin shooting has 1500 posts doesn't it.  It just shows that even with knowledge of a threat that this guy represented as Elder points out, it is still hard for the system to actually do anything about it.  Sometimes sure, but the system is made up of a lot of people, and there are too often too many links to make to catch someone like this before they really come out and do something horrible, and that is for the people who have entered the system, let alone the chinese knife wielder.  Of course, we don't know a lot about that guy and wether he was in any treatment in China.


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Wow, the non-apology first, and then the implied "would you stop stirring the pot," when my post was little different than yours.  Nice.



I am truly sorry if I made you feel attacked.  That's a sincere apology.  My intention wasn't to attack you, and I'm sorry if you felt that way.  

And I didn't imply anything.  I actually asked you outright to please stop stirring the pot.  

Edit:  it's cool.  When elder and billcihak agree, I must be in the wrong.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

Apology accepted.  Based on the similarity of our posts, I wasn't stirring the pot, but responding to the actual thread.  Just as you did with your post in response to another poster...

For review...


> .you said...in post #38...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not stirring the pot by any stretch...you just don't like what I post, most times.

I just caught your edit.  I have scheduled several Doctor appointments, I fainted at Elder's last post...:angel:


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2012)

granfire said:


> @ MJS: I don't think though you can't define mental illness past not fitting the norm of averages. you start with the odd little habit and end up with head banging madness...
> 
> And last but not least, as pgsmith has pointed out, the mechanisms to deal with those oddities and abnormalities are not in place. Other countries have a lot better system in place, and money is a huge part of it. The hospitals are there, but the funding isn't and many insurance programs don't cover it (or you incure a penalty in the long run)
> I think it is telling that the US has unproportional (IMHO) incidences of this nature compared to much of the rest of the world.
> ...



You're probably right.  Like I said, I'm not a doc, but I'm sure there're varying degrees of illness.  Interestingly enough, in todays paper, I'm reading an article about this guy and the Doc who was evaluating him, told the campus Behavioral Eval. and Threat Assessment Team of her concerns, yet nothing was done.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 3, 2012)

MJS said:


> You're probably right. Like I said, I'm not a doc, but I'm sure there're varying degrees of illness. Interestingly enough, in todays paper, I'm reading an article about this guy and the Doc who was evaluating him, told the campus Behavioral Eval. and Threat Assessment Team of her concerns, yet nothing was done.



I have been wondering myself if it was ignored or just caught in bureaucratic glue.  It is surprising how much colleges and universities will try and keep from the public.  They are after all, businesses first.  Bad or possibly bad publicity is to be avoided.  They might have decided to let him leave quietly.  

Of course, his leaving might have been due to her notification.


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I have been wondering myself if it was ignored or just caught in bureaucratic glue.  It is surprising how much colleges and universities will try and keep from the public.  They are after all, businesses first.  Bad or possibly bad publicity is to be avoided.  They might have decided to let him leave quietly.
> 
> Of course, his leaving might have been due to her notification.



True.  IMO, her not saying anything is akin to a cop seeing 3 armed people run into a bank, and he just keeps driving by.  I'd think that as a doc, there would be a duty to act, notify, do something, if they came across something out of the norm.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 3, 2012)

MJS said:


> True. IMO, her not saying anything is akin to a cop seeing 3 armed people run into a bank, and he just keeps driving by. I'd think that as a doc, there would be a duty to act, notify, do something, if they came across something out of the norm.



That is usually controlled by the various States.  I don't know all the exceptions of all the states, but usually a doctor can disclose confidential information if the patient has threatened to harm theirself or others.  Of course, a doctor might find theirself in a situation where they fear the likelyhood of violent future actions, based on experience, or patient demonstrated lack of control, without a specific threat.  I don't know what the law is there, but it is possible, that would still be protected without a specific threat.  Perhaps some in the mental health field can let us know what is law in their jurisdiction.

But it does impact possible future solutions to the question.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2012)

Had an interesting call last night at work.  A man walked into the movies and into the Madagascar 3 showing full of kids and parents.  He 1st sat in the front row and started to yell at the screen.  He then turned and started to yell at the people in the seats.  He walked out and everyone thought it was over.  Approx 5 min later he walked back in walked to the front of the room and made a gun shape with his hand and started to "shoot" at the people in the room.  Now whats interesting about this guy is just 4 days ago I personally took him to the hospital after he was standing on the side of the road "shootng" cars with his hands.  When I talked to him he was 100% grade A prime crazy.  He made a fake sword and tried to chop off my head.  Said he was the ruler of the universe and wanted to kill 50 children by Sept 5th.  When I asked his why Sept 5th he said thats the day the world will end unless he can kill the kids to save the world.  He was held for 2 days in the mental ward and then released.  Hes again in the mental ward and I guess he will be there a few more days then released.  The problem is its extreamly hard to keep people for more then 72 hours.  They normally put them on meds they gain better control of themselves and are released and told to stay on the meds which they dont and they go nuts again.
I lost a friend of mine to another frequent guy in and out of the hospital for crazy behavior.  It finally ended when he killed two police officers and was sent to jail.  He was later killed in jail.  He was just released from the hospital the morning he shot the two officers


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Had an interesting call last night at work.  A man walked into the movies and into the Madagascar 3 showing full of kids and parents.  He 1st sat in the front row and started to yell at the screen.  He then turned and started to yell at the people in the seats.  He walked out and everyone thought it was over.  Approx 5 min later he walked back in walked to the front of the room and made a gun shape with his hand and started to "shoot" at the people in the room.  Now whats interesting about this guy is just 4 days ago I personally took him to the hospital after he was standing on the side of the road "shootng" cars with his hands.  When I talked to him he was 100% grade A prime crazy.  He made a fake sword and tried to chop off my head.  Said he was the ruler of the universe and wanted to kill 50 children by Sept 5th.  When I asked his why Sept 5th he said thats the day the world will end unless he can kill the kids to save the world.  He was held for 2 days in the mental ward and then released.  Hes again in the mental ward and I guess he will be there a few more days then released.  The problem is its extreamly hard to keep people for more then 72 hours.  They normally put them on meds they gain better control of themselves and are released and told to stay on the meds which they dont and they go nuts again.
> I lost a friend of mine to another frequent guy in and out of the hospital for crazy behavior.  It finally ended when he killed two police officers and was sent to jail.  He was later killed in jail.  He was just released from the hospital the morning he shot the two officers



Awesome....  
I hope you guys got the 50 body bags on hand when he walks out of the hospital again....
You have not one, but already two examples of why the system fails us. 
I don't think there is a reason to assume he won't safe the world by September 5th....


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2012)

That sort of thing is more common than you want to know....he's right its a revolving door till it becomes a criminal matter.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2012)

Tgace said:


> That sort of thing is more common than you want to know....he's right its a revolving door till it becomes a criminal matter.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



But they better hope nobody gets hear hear that he was talking about it 2 month prior...

Oh, and nobody in  a significant position will pay for it either...Ballen and his crew will take the hit...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2012)

granfire said:


> ...Ballen and his crew will take the hit...



More then you know the guy that killed my friend and a second officer was just released that morning.  The docs said he had homicidal thoughts but they believed he would not act on them.  Deputy Schwenz and Ofc Nickerson paid with there lives


----------



## Tgace (Aug 3, 2012)

There have been times I sent someone to the mental health ward on papers only to deal with them a second time before my shift ended....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> More then you know the guy that killed my friend and a second officer was just released that morning.  The docs said he had homicidal thoughts but they believed he would not act on them.  Deputy Schwenz and Ofc Nickerson paid with there lives



Breaks my heart because it was so avoidable.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Had an interesting call last night at work.  A man walked into the movies and into the Madagascar 3 showing full of kids and parents.  He 1st sat in the front row and started to yell at the screen.  He then turned and started to yell at the people in the seats.  He walked out and everyone thought it was over.  Approx 5 min later he walked back in walked to the front of the room and made a gun shape with his hand and started to "shoot" at the people in the room.  Now whats interesting about this guy is just 4 days ago I personally took him to the hospital after he was standing on the side of the road "shootng" cars with his hands.  When I talked to him he was 100% grade A prime crazy.  He made a fake sword and tried to chop off my head.  Said he was the ruler of the universe and wanted to kill 50 children by Sept 5th.  When I asked his why Sept 5th he said thats the day the world will end unless he can kill the kids to save the world.  He was held for 2 days in the mental ward and then released.  Hes again in the mental ward and I guess he will be there a few more days then released.  The problem is its extreamly hard to keep people for more then 72 hours.  They normally put them on meds they gain better control of themselves and are released and told to stay on the meds which they dont and they go nuts again.
> I lost a friend of mine to another frequent guy in and out of the hospital for crazy behavior.  It finally ended when he killed two police officers and was sent to jail.  He was later killed in jail.  He was just released from the hospital the morning he shot the two officers



Yup, this is the same thing the cops deal with where I work.  They transport them to the ER for an eval., and then depending on the situation, the crisis team is called to further eval.  9 times out of 10, like you said, the guy is held for a certain time, then released, then the process repeats.  

My question is:  When does the guy actually get any real help, or perhaps long term help?  IMO, with the revolving door setting we have, it seems like that never happens.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 4, 2012)

MJS said:


> Yup, this is the same thing the cops deal with where I work.  They transport them to the ER for an eval., and then depending on the situation, the crisis team is called to further eval.  9 times out of 10, like you said, the guy is held for a certain time, then released, then the process repeats.



I recall a very specific situation that occurred at a major metropolitan PD where I was taking 911 calls and doing radio dispatch.  We got a disturbance call at an apartment.  Upon contact with the party who was creating the disturbance, the responding officers immediately thought a crime had been committed.  The party was a middle-aged male, wearing a woman's nighty, smeared from head to toe with blood and excrement.  His apartment was knee-deep in trash, and he claimed he had killed his mother (and was wearing her nightie).  We rolled a bunch of officers and they had to go through his apartment, literally shoveling trash up off the floor to try to find a body.

Turned out his mother had died recently of natural causes, he had lived with her all his life and had mental issues as well as a drug and alcohol problem (these things often go hand-in-hand).  No crime had been committed except the noise disturbance.  The blood and excrement was due to the man giving himself violent enemas with chocolate bars (no, I am not kidding).

Based on the damage he had done to himself, the officers decided to have him transported to the local hospital, where they got him stitched up and asked for a 72 hour psych hold.  This was on a Saturday.

On Sunday morning, I took a call from one of his neighbors that he was raising cane again.  We rolled a pair of officers out and he didn't answer his door.  Got the landlord to let them in and found the guy unconscious on the floor, core zero.  We rolled EMT and fire and they transported him, but he was DOA.  Drug overdose was the official cause.

Why was he back in his apartment a day later, after he had been on a 72 hour hold?  Because he was evaluated and found not to be a danger to himself or others.  Clearly not correct, but I don't know how he comported himself in the hospital or what they did to make this determination.  I just know the results.



> My question is:  When does the guy actually get any real help, or perhaps long term help?  IMO, with the revolving door setting we have, it seems like that never happens.



I think there are a lot of reasons.  Not least of which is that the severely mentally ill often do not think they are mentally ill, and will refuse any treatment and fight any involuntary confinement.  They will not take meds, they won't go to therapy.  And there is no legal means to compel them until and unless they cross certain thresholds.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 6, 2012)

granfire said:


> Awesome....
> I hope you guys got the 50 body bags on hand when he walks out of the hospital again....
> *You have not one, but already two examples of why the system fails us.
> *I don't think there is a reason to assume he won't safe the world by September 5th....



And so it goes.  No solution to the crazies out there.  I wish there was an easy solution.  There seems to be no way to keep people on their medications other than being admitted to a mental illness hospital.



granfire said:


> But they better hope nobody gets hear hear that he was talking about it 2 month prior...
> 
> Oh, and nobody in a significant position will pay for it either...Ballen and his crew will take the hit...



And the movie goers.

Mind you I hate it when I hear of police or security guards being killed.  Most do the work out of a sense of wishing to help people.  They have to temper possible survival responses with compassion for those who may be doing something stupid but without lethal intent.  Never easy, often fatal for one side or the other.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...
> 
> I think there are a lot of reasons. Not least of which is that the severely mentally ill often do not think they are mentally ill, and will refuse any treatment and fight any involuntary confinement. They will not take meds, they won't go to therapy. And there is no legal means to compel them until and unless they cross certain thresholds.



Quite so.  That I think is where we need to work for a solution.


----------



## MJS (Aug 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I recall a very specific situation that occurred at a major metropolitan PD where I was taking 911 calls and doing radio dispatch.  We got a disturbance call at an apartment.  Upon contact with the party who was creating the disturbance, the responding officers immediately thought a crime had been committed.  The party was a middle-aged male, wearing a woman's nighty, smeared from head to toe with blood and excrement.  His apartment was knee-deep in trash, and he claimed he had killed his mother (and was wearing her nightie).  We rolled a bunch of officers and they had to go through his apartment, literally shoveling trash up off the floor to try to find a body.
> 
> Turned out his mother had died recently of natural causes, he had lived with her all his life and had mental issues as well as a drug and alcohol problem (these things often go hand-in-hand).  No crime had been committed except the noise disturbance.  The blood and excrement was due to the man giving himself violent enemas with chocolate bars (no, I am not kidding).
> 
> ...





oftheherd1 said:


> Quite so.  That I think is where we need to work for a solution.



Wow, this guy sounds rather interesting, to say the least.  But, I agree with oftheheard1.  IMHO, this is an example of someone who has severe issues, doesn't sound like someone who's capable of living alone, and has the potential to be dangerous to himself and others.  Yet somehow, he falls through the cracks in the system.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 6, 2012)

MJS said:


> Wow, this guy sounds rather interesting, to say the least. But, I agree with oftheheard1. IMHO, this is an example of someone who has severe issues, doesn't sound like someone who's capable of living alone, and has the potential to be dangerous to himself and others. Yet somehow, he falls through the cracks in the system.



We cannot lock someone up because they have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous. They have to BE ACTIVELY dangerous. If we're going to lock people up for their potentials, then this place is going to be very quiet.


----------



## MJS (Aug 6, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> We cannot lock someone up because they have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous. They have to BE ACTIVELY dangerous. If we're going to lock people up for their potentials, then this place is going to be very quiet.



True, however, to me, this guy sounds dangerous.  Perhaps, instead of the 72hr. (or less) hold in the ER, send this guy to an actual mental facility. where he just may get the help he needs.


----------



## granfire (Aug 6, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> We cannot lock someone up because they have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous. They have to BE ACTIVELY dangerous. If we're going to lock people up for their potentials, then this place is going to be very quiet.



there is potential and there is POTENTIAL...

we all have the potential to go nuts. For a few days every month I know I would, given the circumstance....

but you have somebody on hand violating himself...that's off the charts!

You have somebody telling cops and presumably doctors that he HAS to kill people to safe the world...that is *POTENTIAL!!!!* 

However, there is the problem: you have somebody who is clearly not right and in dire need of at least a cooling off period. yet he was let go long before his time was up. 

it's a complete system breakdown. 
Like the Colorado shooting. people mention the doctor informed campus officials. but what is a school supposed to do? Put him in detention? 

There has to be a change in the mindset that people who obviously need help and are not in the frame of mind to decide what is right or wrong at times may need to be hospitalized against their will at times. But maybe medicine has to make some more developments in the mental health department. or rather the collective mindset has to change. 
but I think we are still very much in the last century in this aspect. After all, you are nuts, you have a pre-existing condition....and health insurance can and does run out....

I am sure it's so much nicer to live with all your demons uncensored, to feel the terror of your actions in those moments when the demons are silent for once....

And no, jail is really not the place for them.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 6, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> We cannot lock someone up because they have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous. They have to BE ACTIVELY dangerous. If we're going to lock people up for their potentials, then this place is going to be very quiet.



If it were up to me to evaluate who is dangerous to themselves or others, I am sure I would be wrong too much of the time. But isn't that what Psychologists and Psychiatrists are supposed to be able to do? 

And aren't we talking about the potential to take dangerous actions because they don't have the ability to discern right from wrong, not because they don't care? The legally sane criminal does't get a pass because he knew right and wrong but didn't care.

The policeman who because of the circumstances, may be dangerous to a criminal of course doesn't need to be sent to a mental hospital simply because of that. A martial artist who _might _be dangerous to some attacker some day doesn't need hospitalization if he has been taught when it is proper to use his skills.

But if a doctor acting without duress decides a person needs to be kept for a longer time for evaluation or treatment, either because of how they present themselves any given time, or because of a verifiable histor, would surely decide to do so. How could the do otherwise. And duress is sort of a loaded word, but still I think valid. It can come by being over ruled by a superior, losing bonus money, or missing promotions. No good doctor would want to deny a patient the treatment they need. But if one learns to cut corners, and goes a little beyond the bounds, who will walk into court and say they are criminally liable; another doctor who may have walked in his shoes?

That may be another thing that needs addressing.

Anyway, I don't think that is what you meant, but your wording almost made it seem that way.


----------



## MJS (Aug 7, 2012)

http://gma.yahoo.com/james-holmes-p...eks-movie-005231424--abc-news-topstories.html



> The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.
> 
> Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so.


----------

