# Ban knives, save lives...where was the "assault" rifle in these killings



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

Hmmmm...you can ban "assault" rifles all day long, and killers are still going to kill...

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.


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2012)

You're 110% correct.  Its just like I've said in other topics, in which people try to ban certain things, ie: fattening food from kids, fact is, the kids will still get it.  However, if someone is aware that someone is a nut or has the potential to be a nut, why not try to get this person some help?  Now, granted, the help thats available may not always be the best.  I mean, we call the Crisis tems all the time for the 'regulars' that we deal with in the city, yet I have to wonder whether or not they're actually doing anything.  I say that, because more times than not, we're calling the team for the same person on a very regular basis.  So, it begs the question....are they really helping the person, is the person beyond help?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

MJS said:


> You're 110% correct.  Its just like I've said in other topics, in which people try to ban certain things, ie: fattening food from kids, fact is, the kids will still get it.  However, if someone is aware that someone is a nut or has the potential to be a nut, why not try to get this person some help?  Now, granted, the help thats available may not always be the best.  I mean, we call the Crisis tems all the time for the 'regulars' that we deal with in the city, yet I have to wonder whether or not they're actually doing anything.  I say that, because more times than not, we're calling the team for the same person on a very regular basis.  So, it begs the question....are they really helping the person, is the person beyond help?



I think it is clear that we fail as a society at identifying those who have serious mental issues that could reasonably cause a person to pose a threat to themselves or others.

On the other hand, I do not think it is something that can be easily diagnosed or recognized in many cases.  People who have mental problems are not generally dangerous, sometimes even those who seem like they might be.

And we also have the complicating issue in the USA of the right to be free.  Unless a person has done something illegal, it's not against the law to be insane, and involuntary commitment is something of a double-edged sword.  The courts are reticent to do it without clear and convincing evidence that is sometimes just not present that a person is a real threat to others.  In general, I'm glad it's not that easy to just toss people into loony bins; the Soviet Union proved that this can easily become a convenient way of warehousing one's enemies.

It's not easy, there are no easy answers.  And in the end, although it is deeply unsatisfying to say so, I suspect we're pretty much as far down the road of dropping nets on people for being dangerous lunatics as we want to be as a society.  That does mean that sometimes undetected loonies do horrible things.  Wish I had a better answer.

But let's be honest.  As much as the medical and scientific understanding of mental health issues has advanced, it's still not even as accurate as the weatherman.  Now imagine that every time the weatherman says it is going to rain and it doesn't, some innocent person gets locked up in a mental institution.  That's about what you'd have.  Lots of bad diagnosis leading to people having their freedom stripped from them for the crime of having mental health problems and NOT being a danger to others.  Yeah, you'd get the dangerous ones too, but at what cost?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 3, 2012)

MJS said:


> You're 110% correct. Its just like I've said in other topics, in which people try to ban certain things, ie: fattening food from kids, fact is, the kids will still get it. However, if someone is aware that someone is a nut or has the potential to be a nut, why not try to get this person some help? Now, granted, the help thats available may not always be the best. I mean, we call the Crisis tems all the time for the 'regulars' that we deal with in the city, yet I have to wonder whether or not they're actually doing anything. I say that, because more times than not, we're calling the team for the same person on a very regular basis. So, it begs the question....are they really helping the person, is the person beyond help?



Good point.  It would seem that they are only sticking their finger in the dam so to speak.  And I think those places that go a little above and beyond, stop at that for many reasons.


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think it is clear that we fail as a society at identifying those who have serious mental issues that could reasonably cause a person to pose a threat to themselves or others.



True, however, I'd imagine there's records on file of those that have issues, that are currently working with some sort of team of doctors.



> On the other hand, I do not think it is something that can be easily diagnosed or recognized in many cases.  People who have mental problems are not generally dangerous, sometimes even those who seem like they might be.



True, there are varying degrees.  Apparently the CO shooter was showing some sort of sign that was recognized, yet that person failed to act.



> And we also have the complicating issue in the USA of the right to be free.  Unless a person has done something illegal, it's not against the law to be insane, and involuntary commitment is something of a double-edged sword.  The courts are reticent to do it without clear and convincing evidence that is sometimes just not present that a person is a real threat to others.  In general, I'm glad it's not that easy to just toss people into loony bins; the Soviet Union proved that this can easily become a convenient way of warehousing one's enemies.



Out of curiosity, did the CO shooter do anything prior to the theater incident? I do see your point Bill, however, if in fact someone hasn't committed any crimes, yet is showing signs of being violent, etc, then IMO, that should be reason enough, the right to be free aside.  Then again, many of the regulars that the cops deal with where I work, have all done something, be it an actual crime, being out of control, talking about hurting themselves, actual attempts on their own life, etc.  



> It's not easy, there are no easy answers.  And in the end, although it is deeply unsatisfying to say so, I suspect we're pretty much as far down the road of dropping nets on people for being dangerous lunatics as we want to be as a society.  That does mean that sometimes undetected loonies do horrible things.  Wish I had a better answer.
> 
> But let's be honest.  As much as the medical and scientific understanding of mental health issues has advanced, it's still not even as accurate as the weatherman.  Now imagine that every time the weatherman says it is going to rain and it doesn't, some innocent person gets locked up in a mental institution.  That's about what you'd have.  Lots of bad diagnosis leading to people having their freedom stripped from them for the crime of having mental health problems and NOT being a danger to others.  Yeah, you'd get the dangerous ones too, but at what cost?



Sad but true.  I think that this issue is just like all of the other issues, such as the war on drugs and the war on terror.  Some gains are made, but the problem as a whole, is just too big to really make an impact.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 3, 2012)

MJS said:


> You're 110% correct.  Its just like I've said in other topics, in which people try to ban certain things, ie: fattening food from kids, fact is, the kids will still get it.  However, if someone is aware that someone is a nut or has the potential to be a nut, why not try to get this person some help?  Now, granted, the help thats available may not always be the best.  I mean, we call the Crisis tems all the time for the 'regulars' that we deal with in the city, yet I have to wonder whether or not they're actually doing anything.  I say that, because more times than not, we're calling the team for the same person on a very regular basis.  So, it begs the question....are they really helping the person, is the person beyond help?



Well said.  It seems that we, as as society, have been in a decades-long rut of criminalizing people who otherwise needed psychiatric help.  We seem to have lost our way.  We either expect people to pay $80 an hour for the help they may need or we wait for their anti-social behavior to manifest ... and then the solution is easy:  we lock 'em up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

MJS said:


> True, however, I'd imagine there's records on file of those that have issues, that are currently working with some sort of team of doctors.



There is a right to privacy for certain things in the US.  With regard to lawyer-client, patient-doctor, and discussions with clergy under the seal of confession, such conversations are privileged and are not reported to central authorities or law enforcement.  They're not logged in a database somewhere for others to access to determine who is and who is not a threat to society.  And would we want to live in such a society if such was the case?

With regard to those who have mental health issues, there are guidelines that mental health professionals are expected to adhere to - but much of this left to the discretion of the doctor, and just like car mechanics, what one thinks of as a problem, another might not.  There is no universal and generic guide to 'this is dangerous and must be reported' and 'this is not dangerous'.



> True, there are varying degrees.  Apparently the CO shooter was showing some sort of sign that was recognized, yet that person failed to act.



I don't think we have all the information yet, but from what I've read, it appears he was under treatment.  And, he sufficiently alarmed the person treating him that she sent a request to her peers, per university policy, requesting a round-table discussion to decide what should be done.  Prior to that happening, the alleged shooter left school.  Once no longer a student, the person treating him had no authority to do anything at all.  Whether or not that person should have reported him to the civil authorities is unknown.  What the authorities could have done about it is unknown.  I do not know.  I also do not think we're likely to come up with an 'aha!' and see clearly what needs to be done to stop these kinds of issues in the future.  I just don't think it's that easy.



> Out of curiosity, did the CO shooter do anything prior to the theater incident? I do see your point Bill, however, if in fact someone hasn't committed any crimes, yet is showing signs of being violent, etc, then IMO, that should be reason enough, the right to be free aside.  Then again, many of the regulars that the cops deal with where I work, have all done something, be it an actual crime, being out of control, talking about hurting themselves, actual attempts on their own life, etc.



From what I've read, he sent a detailed letter describing exactly what he planned to do to his therapist, but the package sat unopened in the university mail system until after the shooting.  Until then, I do not know.



> Sad but true.  I think that this issue is just like all of the other issues, such as the war on drugs and the war on terror.  Some gains are made, but the problem as a whole, is just too big to really make an impact.



If we could know with any kind of certainty who is likely to become violent, we could protect society much better than we currently do.  But I do not think it is possible to know much more than we already do about who is likely to represent a threat to us.  And if we move very far into the realm of "Well, he MIGHT be dangerous, better do something now," we begin locking people up for crimes they would never have committed.  Not really the America I want to live in.

We will never be safe as long as we are free.  I will not willingly trade freedom for safety.  That's an unfortunate fact of life, and I wish it wasn't such a brutal reality, but I think it is.  We can juggle around the parameters, but in the end, more safety nearly always means less freedom.  How much freedom do we trade away?


----------



## mxav (Aug 3, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmmm...you can ban "assault" rifles all day long, and killers are still going to kill...
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46



and ban hammers and screwdrivers and pens all at the same time, you still don't an automatic weapon to hunt. A softball sized hole from a shotgun is fine. What is your obsession with automatics, other than fear mongering?


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a right to privacy for certain things in the US.  With regard to lawyer-client, patient-doctor, and discussions with clergy under the seal of confession, such conversations are privileged and are not reported to central authorities or law enforcement.  They're not logged in a database somewhere for others to access to determine who is and who is not a threat to society.  And would we want to live in such a society if such was the case?



Under normal circumstances, I could agree with that.  However, knowing that someone is a ticking time bomb, and not saying anything because of some ******** privacy policy....sorry, I disagree with that.  



> With regard to those who have mental health issues, there are guidelines that mental health professionals are expected to adhere to - but much of this left to the discretion of the doctor, and just like car mechanics, what one thinks of as a problem, another might not.  There is no universal and generic guide to 'this is dangerous and must be reported' and 'this is not dangerous'.



True.  





> I don't think we have all the information yet, but from what I've read, it appears he was under treatment.  And, he sufficiently alarmed the person treating him that she sent a request to her peers, per university policy, requesting a round-table discussion to decide what should be done.  Prior to that happening, the alleged shooter left school.  Once no longer a student, the person treating him had no authority to do anything at all.  Whether or not that person should have reported him to the civil authorities is unknown.  What the authorities could have done about it is unknown.  I do not know.  I also do not think we're likely to come up with an 'aha!' and see clearly what needs to be done to stop these kinds of issues in the future.  I just don't think it's that easy.



True.  I guess I was just thinking that it'd make sense, whether the guy left school or not, to notify someone, if they felt he was that much of a threat.  Wishful thinking on my part I suppose. 





> From what I've read, he sent a detailed letter describing exactly what he planned to do to his therapist, but the package sat unopened in the university mail system until after the shooting.  Until then, I do not know.



Same here.





> If we could know with any kind of certainty who is likely to become violent, we could protect society much better than we currently do.  But I do not think it is possible to know much more than we already do about who is likely to represent a threat to us.  And if we move very far into the realm of "Well, he MIGHT be dangerous, better do something now," we begin locking people up for crimes they would never have committed.  Not really the America I want to live in.
> 
> We will never be safe as long as we are free.  I will not willingly trade freedom for safety.  That's an unfortunate fact of life, and I wish it wasn't such a brutal reality, but I think it is.  We can juggle around the parameters, but in the end, more safety nearly always means less freedom.  How much freedom do we trade away?



Which is why I've came to accept that the world we live in is ****ed up and will continue to be ****ed up.


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2012)

Does anyone know of a study that looks at violent crimes and criminals who were under treatment at the time they committed that crime?  How about mass murderers and wether they were under treatment at the time?  I would be interesting to know how often these guys are actually seeking help before they cross the line.  It would also give perspective on how bad the problem really is.  It would also be interesting to know what kind of violent crimes people in treatment actually commit.  Are they more likely to hurt family (probably), do they tend to harm more than one person at a time?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

MJS said:


> Under normal circumstances, I could agree with that.  However, knowing that someone is a ticking time bomb, and not saying anything because of some ******** privacy policy....sorry, I disagree with that.



All I'm saying is that I do not know how a mental health professional knows that a given person is a 'ticking time bomb' and I do not know what the authorities can do about such a person even if it is reported to them, so long as he or she has not committed a crime (yet).  I get that it's bad.  I just don't see a simple solution, and I don't think that doctors and police are intentionally ignoring problems.  I think everyone is doing the best they can to respect both privacy/liberty requirements and public safety needs.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Does anyone know of a study that looks at violent crimes and criminals who were under treatment at the time they committed that crime?  How about mass murderers and wether they were under treatment at the time?  I would be interesting to know how often these guys are actually seeking help before they cross the line.  It would also give perspective on how bad the problem really is.  It would also be interesting to know what kind of violent crimes people in treatment actually commit.  Are they more likely to hurt family (probably), do they tend to harm more than one person at a time?



I do not know of any, but I also do not know how such information would be gained, other than by the criminal in question volunteering it.  There is no database of people who see a doctor or therapist for mental or emotional health issues.  In some states, therapists don't even have to be licensed.  And you have the gamut of therapy from psychology to psychiatry, and all of it is based on theory that no one claims is extremely effective at identifying who might or might not be dangerous now or in the future.

I've got a personal stake in this.  I am involved in a family matter with a family member who makes all sorts of threats to certain people, but denies having made them when contacted by law enforcement or mental health officials.  He can turn it on and off at will.  Despite the fact that certain people do feel he is a danger to himself and others, what is it you think the police should be able to do to him?  It's frustrating; no one wants a tragedy, but if he could just be involuntarily locked up because some family member said he made a threat, how much would that be abused?  NO easy answers.  Sorry.


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All I'm saying is that I do not know how a mental health professional knows that a given person is a 'ticking time bomb' and I do not know what the authorities can do about such a person even if it is reported to them, so long as he or she has not committed a crime (yet).  I get that it's bad.  I just don't see a simple solution, and I don't think that doctors and police are intentionally ignoring problems.  I think everyone is doing the best they can to respect both privacy/liberty requirements and public safety needs.



Well, like I said Bill, I'm not a mental health doctor, but all I'm saying is, one would assume or expect (yeah, I know, I may be wishing for the stars here..lol) that someone in that capacity would know any signs.  Was this guy showing any signs?  I got that impression from articles that I've read, but perhaps I was misunderstanding them.  

What can be done if a crime hasn't been committed yet?  See, this is just like everything else that happens in the world.  We as a society get lax on certain things, then when something bad does happen, we all run around like crazy people, trying to 'fix' the problem, so it doesn't happen again.  

And likewise, I don't see a solution either.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

MJS said:


> Well, like I said Bill, I'm not a mental health doctor, but all I'm saying is, one would assume or expect (yeah, I know, I may be wishing for the stars here..lol) that someone in that capacity would know any signs.  Was this guy showing any signs?  I got that impression from articles that I've read, but perhaps I was misunderstanding them.
> 
> What can be done if a crime hasn't been committed yet?  See, this is just like everything else that happens in the world.  We as a society get lax on certain things, then when something bad does happen, we all run around like crazy people, trying to 'fix' the problem, so it doesn't happen again.
> 
> And likewise, I don't see a solution either.



Here's one that self-identified yesterday:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/specialpr...tid=450&articleid=20120802_11_A1_CUTLIN588297



> Alleged threat on U.S. Rep. John Sullivan lands man in jail
> By AMANDA BLAND World Staff Writer
> Published: 8/2/2012  2:21 AM
> Last Modified: 8/2/2012  7:28 AM
> ...



This is a pretty clear case of a person whose mental issues make themselves clear.  He broke the law by issuing a threat, and it wasn't a case of hearsay, he went to the police to utter his threat.

But suppose he had said it to a therapist or an attorney or a priest under the seal of confession?  All have a requirement to report such things if certain conditions are met, but it still comes to them deciding for themselves what constitutes a credible threat and what doesn't.  And let's say he had said it to a therapist and the therapist in turn reports it to the police.  They go to the guy's house and interviews him, and he is nice as pie and says he never said that.  Now what?

In any case, I'm glad they caught this nutbar.  But he had to go and commit a crime (threatening to kill someone) in the presence of the police before they could act.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

Here's another champion from yesterday.  Man, is it a full moon or what?

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/0...reatening-cursing-at-movie-patrons-78397.html




> Kyle Tanner arrested, accused of threatening, cursing at movie patrons
> August 2, 2012 - 11:38 am
> 
> A man who began shouting, cursing and simulating the firing of a gun inside an Annapolis movie theater on Wednesday was arrested and faces multiple charges, Anne Arundel County Police officials say.
> ...


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a right to privacy for certain things in the US.  With regard to lawyer-client, patient-doctor, and discussions with clergy under the seal of confession, such conversations are privileged and are not reported to central authorities or law enforcement.  They're not logged in a database somewhere for others to access to determine who is and who is not a threat to society.  And would we want to live in such a society if such was the case?
> 
> With regard to those who have mental health issues, there are guidelines that mental health professionals are expected to adhere to - but much of this left to the discretion of the doctor, and just like car mechanics, what one thinks of as a problem, another might not.  There is no universal and generic guide to 'this is dangerous and must be reported' and 'this is not dangerous'.
> 
> ...



Everything you say is true, Bill.  That said--and I have no idea where you stand on this--what about applying similar provisions of the Patriot Act?  I'm somewhat aware of the intrusive provisions of the Act, and would agree with many who are opposed.  At the same time, it's intent to protect against the kind of terrorism that a James Holmes would carry out.  

Thoughts on that?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Everything you say is true, Bill.  That said--and I have no idea where you stand on this--what about applying similar provisions of the Patriot Act?  I'm somewhat aware of the intrusive provisions of the Act, and would agree with many who are opposed.  At the same time, it's intent to protect against the kind of terrorism that a James Holmes would carry out.
> 
> Thoughts on that?



In the struggle between a safer society and a more free society, I tend to come down on the side of freedom.  I am not a fan of the Patriot Act and many of its provisions.  I am not a fan of living in a world where everyone has a bunker mentality.  That's not freedom to me.  As difficult as it is to accept that more freedom means more risk, I still prefer freedom.  I understand that society must protect itself, but I think we're already straining the boundaries of a fair tradeoff between the one and the other.  I'd rather we took a step or two back.  Nothing drastic, just less intrusion.  We'll get by somehow without the government listening to every phone call or knowing what books you read.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the struggle between a safer society and a more free society, I tend to come down on the side of freedom.  I am not a fan of the Patriot Act and many of its provisions.  I am not a fan of living in a world where everyone has a bunker mentality.  That's not freedom to me.  As difficult as it is to accept that more freedom means more risk, I still prefer freedom.  I understand that society must protect itself, but I think we're already straining the boundaries of a fair tradeoff between the one and the other.  I'd rather we took a step or two back.  Nothing drastic, just less intrusion.  We'll get by somehow without the government listening to every phone call or knowing what books you read.



But you are not really free when you have to look over your shoulder all the time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

granfire said:


> But you are not really free when you have to look over your shoulder all the time.



What is the alternative?  No amount of security can provide guaranteed safety.  And at a certain point, there is no longer even the shadow of freedom remaining.

Nor is any society 100% free.  Any rules, any laws, require people to give up some amount of personal freedom.  Everything is a compromise.  But in societies we see to regard as free (US, UK, much of the Western world), the compromise tends to swing towards more personal freedom and less state-supplied security.

And not to be bombastic, but there are plenty of countries where one can go and have more authoritarian state control over liberty and less danger - one could always choose to go and live there.  I would not want to live in such a country, but that's just me.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What is the alternative?  No amount of security can provide guaranteed safety.  And at a certain point, there is no longer even the shadow of freedom remaining.
> 
> Nor is any society 100% free.  Any rules, any laws, require people to give up some amount of personal freedom.  Everything is a compromise.  But in societies we see to regard as free (US, UK, much of the Western world), the compromise tends to swing towards more personal freedom and less state-supplied security.
> 
> And not to be bombastic, but there are plenty of countries where one can go and have more authoritarian state control over liberty and less danger - one could always choose to go and live there.  I would not want to live in such a country, but that's just me.




It's the mind set that preceeds control.
'With more discipline comes more freedom' 
A somewhat confusing statement, I heard many years ago a dancer utter as he prepared himself for one of the leading roles in a major musical production. 
Sadly, in general, as a whole, the US is pretty undisciplined. If it feels good, do it, screw the neighbor. 
That is part of the entitlement to let your dogs roam whenever you please, to ignore common sense like texting while driving.

Certainly some 'freedoms' get curtailed. But they always have, when it benefits the society.In many places using a hand held device becomes illegal these days, because too many people abuse the possibility. 

Owning gun might still be a right, but in most places it is no longer a necessity. (after having heard in the news about a 16 year old accidentally shooting a younger sibling...really, we need more guns, right?) 
But leaving guns out in the hands of some individuals is very detrimental to society. I mean, seriously, there are plenty of people out there who should not own a water pistol!

However, trusting in my good fortune, I am not even arguing that - for now.

The problem is that even when a problem arises it is not properly addressed until the excrement hist the air movement apperatus. 

People who are nucking futs should not be roaming the streets, not with a assault rifle, not even with a butter knife!

When I was in middle school, a student teacher went nuts and killed a girl our age with a hammer. The guy worked at our school, the girls were gaga over him....BAM. he smashed the skull of a young girl in (it was in a different town, but still) my class mates who had him were devastated.
Now, this guy didn't go to jail. because he was as it turned out, gaga. Last i heard over 10 years ago or so, he was in a forensic mental ward, he is likely still there, until he is too infirm to harm anybody. That was in the 80s when guns were not as easy available in Germany as they are now with all the open boarders til the far reaches of Sibiria....


However... the hospital - the mental hospital - also had a ward for juveniles that had behavioral abnormalities. 
Not sure what all the ranges were, from self mutilation to anger issues i am sure. 

It is actually less a problem of keeping guns out of their hands as it is to get the help to them they need. And that does not seem to happen.

As I pointed out, people who can blow up into a murderous rampage are not best served in a jail. A secure hospital and medication under supervision of a specialized doctor work so much better. And it's safer for all involved....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

granfire said:


> As I pointed out, people who can blow up into a murderous rampage are not best served in a jail. A secure hospital and medication under supervision of a specialized doctor work so much better. And it's safer for all involved....



And as I've pointed out, if anyone can find a reliable way to identify which ones are going to go wonky before they do so, let us all know.  Because I can't think of a way.  All I keep hearing is 'well, there must be some way of identifying...'  Well, there isn't.  I mean, if there is, let's hear it.  I'd be all for it.  Long time ago, there was a pseudo-science called phrenology that claimed to be able to identify criminal types based on the lumps and bumps and general shape of their skulls; seriously.  We know that's bunk now...but we don't have anything better to replace it with.  It is possible to identify the really crazy ones in some cases...but in many cases, it just isn't possible.  So instead of continuing to say 'lock up the crazy ones', tell us how to identify them.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And as I've pointed out, if anyone can find a reliable way to identify which ones are going to go wonky before they do so, let us all know.  Because I can't think of a way.  All I keep hearing is 'well, there must be some way of identifying...'  Well, there isn't.  I mean, if there is, let's hear it.  I'd be all for it.  Long time ago, there was a pseudo-science called phrenology that claimed to be able to identify criminal types based on the lumps and bumps and general shape of their skulls; seriously.  We know that's bunk now...but we don't have anything better to replace it with.  It is possible to identify the really crazy ones in some cases...but in many cases, it just isn't possible.  So instead of continuing to say 'lock up the crazy ones', tell us how to identify them.



To the extent that our country has the highest incarceration rate in the world, it would seem that the opportunity to study people's violent and anti-social behavior is quite high.  I can't be sure if it's government or if it's people themselves, but you've got to work pretty doggone hard to be the "free-est" country while being the country with the highest incarceration rate.  Why not work just a little bit harder and learn how to reduce the incarceration rate through studying the very people who probably shouldn't be in prison in the first place?

Just a thought (simplistic as it may be).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 3, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> To the extent that our country has the highest incarceration rate in the world, it would seem that the opportunity to study people's violent and anti-social behavior is quite high.  I can't be sure if it's government or if it's people themselves, but you've got to work pretty doggone hard to be the "free-est" country while being the country with the highest incarceration rate.  Why not work just a little bit harder and learn how to reduce the incarceration rate through studying the very people who probably shouldn't be in prison in the first place?
> 
> Just a thought (simplistic as it may be).



I have no idea how to tie that to anything concrete.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 3, 2012)

Me neither, to be honest.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> To the extent that our country has the highest incarceration rate in the world, it would seem that the opportunity to study people's violent and anti-social behavior is quite high.  I can't be sure if it's government or if it's people themselves, but you've got to work pretty doggone hard to be the "free-est" country while being the country with the highest incarceration rate.  Why not work just a little bit harder and learn how to reduce the incarceration rate through studying the very people who probably shouldn't be in prison in the first place?
> 
> Just a thought (simplistic as it may be).



Maybe we have the highest rate of incarceration because we have a ton of criminals.  Even small towns have murders rapes robbery.  We also have some of the top lawenforcemnt technology and training in the world which means we are better able to catch criminals. Just a thought


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And as I've pointed out, if anyone can find a reliable way to identify which ones are going to go wonky before they do so, let us all know.  Because I can't think of a way.  All I keep hearing is 'well, there must be some way of identifying...'  Well, there isn't.  I mean, if there is, let's hear it.  I'd be all for it.  Long time ago, there was a pseudo-science called phrenology that claimed to be able to identify criminal types based on the lumps and bumps and general shape of their skulls; seriously.  We know that's bunk now...but we don't have anything better to replace it with.  It is possible to identify the really crazy ones in some cases...but in many cases, it just isn't possible.  So instead of continuing to say 'lock up the crazy ones', tell us how to identify them.



Look in the othr thread, ballen telling the story of one of his regulars killing two cops, the day they let him out of the hospital.

Most of the time the signs are there. Somebody not completely self absorbed sees things. 
two or more puzzle pieces make a picture. I am not talking about pseudo science. I am talking about the real thing. The cut feeling friends and family or co-workers have, making somebody see a professional. 

You have seasoned mental workers look at a person and they can pretty accurately assess somebody. In a very short time. Now, I would like to know the qualification of the doctor who let ballen's guy go....while I am waiting for his recent nut-job customer to 'safe the world' by killing 50 children....

No, you can't catch them all, not all before they act. But you can sift out a lot of the loonies. 
I mean, there is no harm done having one crazy loon flash people at the main train station demanding a certain ethnic population with larg endowments (one of my mom's customers...shocking travelers one fine morning...) a wee bit of a different story having individuals with strong aversions against certain groups...or delusions and voices in their heads. 

The line from using psychiatry as political weapon to keeping society relatively safe from disturbed people is not that fine. Not at all! 

But it seems by looking from the outside in, in the US those people fall off the abyss. Then they make up the statistics of jail fatalities, because even rapists and murderers don't want a thing to do with the crazies.

I don't think it helps to have the current trend continue to act like 'it's all in the head' and ignore that some people just can't function in society. 
Nice idea to not hide them away in a sanatorium, but trying to force them go main stream?


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Maybe we have the highest rate of incarceration because we have a ton of criminals.  Even small towns have murders rapes robbery.  We also have some of the top lawenforcemnt technology and training in the world which means we are better able to catch criminals. Just a thought



Well we're better able to catch _somebody_.  If our law enforcement tech and training are as top notch as you say, them I'm assuming that they are better able to distinguish between the criminal the mentally ill.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Well we're better able to catch _somebody_.  If our law enforcement tech and training are as top notch as you say, them I'm assuming that they are better able to distinguish between the criminal the mentally ill.



I totally agree with that.  I've seen many mentally ill  people arrested for crimes because there's no real system for keeping mentally I'll people locked up until they commit a crime.  But when you bring up keeping people locked up for mental health issues you go down a very muddy road I'm not sure people want to go down.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 3, 2012)

To add to that I've taken many people to the hospital instead of jail for crimes and not charged them for them to only be released a few hours days or weeks later.  The very 1st time I was shot at was by an elderly WW2 vet that thought we were German solders attacking him.  Clearly he was mentally Ill.  He was walking into a school with a gun on his "patrol" thinking he was in the war.  He shot and me and 2 other officers.  Got him finally detained and transported to hospital he was released 3 weeks later.  He ended up dying a few weeks later but people like that no matter how sad the story is should not be allowed back into public.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> To add to that I've taken many people to the hospital instead of jail for crimes and not charged them for them to only be released a few hours days or weeks later.  The very 1st time I was shot at was by an elderly WW2 vet that thought we were German solders attacking him.  Clearly he was mentally Ill.  He was walking into a school with a gun on his "patrol" thinking he was in the war.  He shot and me and 2 other officers.  Got him finally detained and transported to hospital he was released 3 weeks later.  He ended up dying a few weeks later but people like that no matter how sad the story is should not be allowed back into public.



A prime indicator that the cheese has slipped off the cracker. 

And prime example for somebody who needs to be hospitalized, rather than thrown in jail....


man, the system need fixin....
but OH EM GEE, their civil rights are violated....


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 4, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> To add to that I've taken many people to the hospital instead of jail for crimes and not charged them for them to only be released a few hours days or weeks later.  The very 1st time I was shot at was by an elderly WW2 vet that thought we were German solders attacking him.  Clearly he was mentally Ill.  He was walking into a school with a gun on his "patrol" thinking he was in the war.  He shot and me and 2 other officers.  Got him finally detained and transported to hospital he was released 3 weeks later.  He ended up dying a few weeks later but people like that no matter how sad the story is should not be allowed back into public.



And there it is.  Law enforcement (and teachers for that matter) are usually the first form of public contact with the mentally unsound.  And you often make critical judgments about who might need to go to jail, and who might need a stay in the psych ward.  Personally, I don't think that should be your burden (but we might as well pay you better if it is).

I agree that we need to be careful about being too quick to tag people as mentally unsound, when they might be criminals.  At the same time, we have to be extremely careful about determining that people are just "criminals" when they might be mentally unsound.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2012)

Part of the issue become once they have committed the crime there is usually a victim involved that demands justice and they don't care if they are mentally ill.  Another issue is all the people that try to claim mental illness as a criminal defense when they and their lawyers know its not true but its a good defense.  It makes the public in general think like the boy who cried wolf and they are less willing to accept real claims of mental illness.  Another factor is we know as law enforcement if I take this guy to the hospital he will be out tomorrow or even later today and I'll be dealing with him again.  If I charge him with a crime he will be in the detention center for a while I won't see him again and the court system can order him to health evaluation and treatment.  So sometime is better for the person in my eyes to be arrested and forced into treatment.
Another issue that I think hurts law enforcement specifically and I know has lead to deaths is we tend to look at our frequent flyers as harmless crazy people.  We let our guards down because its just "Joe" he's nuts but he won't hurt you.  Then you meet Joe on a really bad day for him and he takes your life.  That's what happened to my friend.  I don't want to second guess or Monday morning quarterback him but he went to the guys house for loud music complaint.  Talk to the guys mom who lived in the trailer across the street she said her sons not acting right again they walked over.  Knocked on door.  Mr Zito warned them he would kill them if they mess with him.  Knowing oh its crazy old Mr Zito he talks a lot of crap but he's just crazy they open the screen door to talk to him he pull out a shotgun and shot my friend in the face.  Then shot his back up in the back as he ran for cover.  I teach this case at the police academy along with a section on suicide by cop or officer assisted suicide.  I try to remind officers and I think people in general need to remember these people the truly mentally unstable in a normal state or slightly less agitated state may be harmless but you don't know what state they are in don't ever let your guard down because its just "Joe" he's just a nut he won't hurt anyone.  "Joe" might not want to or even know he's doing it but crazy old "Joe" can kill you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 4, 2012)

I've done a lot of research and case study on law enforcement interaction with mentally ill I teach a few blocks of instruction on it at the police academy.  I've read hundreds of cases just like my friends case.  Its a topic I'm passionate about.  Not only loosing a friend but I was also used by a mentally unstable man for police assisted suicide.  I could go on for hours about the research and techniques to better deal with and handle mentally I'll people.  Not just law enforcemt either should be aware of this.  That crazy harmless homeless guy by your office or the crazy man in the store yelling at the bananas they can hurt you.
I learned more about the move theater incident we had the other day here about the guy that wanted to kill 50 kids to save the world.  He was in there 10 min cussing yelling and throwing things and nobody called the police because he was just being crazy the witnesses and employees said.  They thought he would just go away.  It wasn't until he started shorting people with his finger that they got upset.


----------



## granfire (Aug 4, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Part of the issue become once they have committed the crime there is usually a victim involved that demands justice and they don't care if they are mentally ill.  Another issue is all the people that try to claim mental illness as a criminal defense when they and their lawyers know its not true but its a good defense.  It makes the public in general think like the boy who cried wolf and they are less willing to accept real claims of mental illness.  Another factor is we know as law enforcement if I take this guy to the hospital he will be out tomorrow or even later today and I'll be dealing with him again.  If I charge him with a crime he will be in the detention center for a while I won't see him again and the court system can order him to health evaluation and treatment.  So sometime is better for the person in my eyes to be arrested and forced into treatment.
> Another issue that I think hurts law enforcement specifically and I know has lead to deaths is we tend to look at our frequent flyers as harmless crazy people.  We let our guards down because its just "Joe" he's nuts but he won't hurt you.  Then you meet Joe on a really bad day for him and he takes your life.  That's what happened to my friend.  I don't want to second guess or Monday morning quarterback him but he went to the guys house for loud music complaint.  Talk to the guys mom who lived in the trailer across the street she said her sons not acting right again they walked over.  Knocked on door.  Mr Zito warned them he would kill them if they mess with him.  Knowing oh its crazy old Mr Zito he talks a lot of crap but he's just crazy they open the screen door to talk to him he pull out a shotgun and shot my friend in the face.  Then shot his back up in the back as he ran for cover.  I teach this case at the police academy along with a section on suicide by cop or officer assisted suicide.  I try to remind officers and I think people in general need to remember these people the truly mentally unstable in a normal state or slightly less agitated state may be harmless but you don't know what state they are in don't ever let your guard down because its just "Joe" he's just a nut he won't hurt anyone.  "Joe" might not want to or even know he's doing it but crazy old "Joe" can kill you.





Not to mention crazy joe might not recognize his buddy officer ballen....or the voices tell him he is dealing with the devil...


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 4, 2012)

First off, I just want to thank Ballen and his fellow officers for the things they have to wade in every day that the rest of us do not want to have to deal with :sensei rei:.  I know it's not my country so what he does does not directly affect me but I can still feel grateful that there are those that do that job wherever they are in the world.

My question is why it is that these 'crazy' people are not being taken care of by a more appropriate means of management than the police force?  A close family member is a manic depressive paranoid schizophrenic (collect the set and win a free sticker album ) and I have had to deal with some very unpleasant circumstances because of that condition.  But none of those circumstances necessitated calling the police - that is what the specialist doctors and nurses of the National Health Service are for.  Is there no similar provision for care and treatment in the USA?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 4, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> My question is why it is that these 'crazy' people are not being taken care of by a more appropriate means of management than the police force?  A close family member is a manic depressive paranoid schizophrenic (collect the set and win a free sticker album ) and I have had to deal with some very unpleasant circumstances because of that condition.  But none of those circumstances necessitated calling the police - that is what the specialist doctors and nurses of the National Health Service are for.  Is there no similar provision for care and treatment in the USA?



To put it bluntly, no.  A person who is mentally unwell cannot be compelled to undergo treatment, cannot be forced to take prescribed medication, and certainly cannot be involuntarily committed except under some very specific circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment#United_States



> In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights in O'Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the U.S.[21] In the U.S. the specifics of the relevant statutes vary from state to state.[22]
> This was the case in a famous United States Supreme Court decision in 1975, O'Connor v. Donaldson, when Kenneth Donaldson, a patient committed to Florida State Hospital, sued the hospital and staff for confining him for 15 years against his will. The decision means that it is unconstitutional to commit for treatment a person who is not imminently a danger to himself or others and is capable to a minimal degree of surviving on his own.[23]
> An example of involuntary commitment procedures is the Baker Act used in Florida. Under this law, a person may be committed only if they present a danger to themselves or others. A police officer, doctor, nurse or licensed mental health professional may initiate an involuntary examination that lasts for up to 72 hours. Within this time, two psychiatrists may ask a judge to extend the commitment and order involuntary treatment. The Baker Act also requires that all commitment orders be reviewed every six months in addition to ensuring certain rights to the committed including the right to contact outsiders. Also, a person under an involuntary commitment order has a right to counsel and a right to have the state provide a public defender if they cannot afford a lawyer. While the Florida law allows police to initiate the examination, it is the recommendations of two psychiatrists that guide the decisions of the court.



And you must also understand that both conservatives and liberals tend to work to weaken involuntary commitment laws.  Both sides tend to see the civil rights issues and conservatives additionally see a huge added burden to the tax rolls.  It was during the Reagan Administration that many mental facilities were shut down and patients basically turned loose to fend for themselves.  However, the same liberals who hated Reagan for shutting the hospitals down also complained bitterly that there were people locked up involuntarily without having committed a crime as well, so it was a Catch-22.

It is common after a high-profile crime like this for people to call for stricter control of the mentally ill.  Unfortunately, it's probably not possible.  First, because the mentally-ill can be hard to identify, second, because in the US, they must be clearly a threat to themselves or others (as seen by a court, not just a cop on a beat or a relative), and third, because the services to do such things are not in place due to budget and a variety of other issues.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 4, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> First off, I just want to thank Ballen and his fellow officers for the things they have to wade in every day that the rest of us do not want to have to deal with :sensei rei:.  I know it's not my country so what he does does not directly affect me but I can still feel grateful that there are those that do that job wherever they are in the world.
> 
> My question is why it is that these 'crazy' people are not being taken care of by a more appropriate means of management than the police force?  A close family member is a manic depressive paranoid schizophrenic (collect the set and win a free sticker album ) and I have had to deal with some very unpleasant circumstances because of that condition.  But none of those circumstances necessitated calling the police - that is what the specialist doctors and nurses of the National Health Service are for.  Is there no similar provision for care and treatment in the USA?



Former president Ronald Reagan signed law with respect to the treatment of mental illness.  Essentially, the policy at the time did away with much of the involuntary institutionalizing of mentally ill people.  While this satisfied special interest groups, it did little of nothing to address the mentally ill or their needs.  The legacy of that policy has survived to this day.  It's not that Reagan was hateful or fearful of the mentally ill.  He and the coalition of politicians and special interests were simply indifferent.

What remains is essentially a "system" where people either (a) cough up $85 an hour for a therapist as well as a monthly pharmaceutical bills, or (b) we expect law enforcement to "help" -- often with either weapons drawn or somebody in handcuffs.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2012)

In my state we have some county and state mental health agencies that do track, meet with and sometimes call us to assist in committing the mentally ill. To be fair to them I don't really know how good of a job they do. But I see many people who are not under their supervision....I don't really know what it takes to be placed in their system either.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 4, 2012)

As someone who has dealt with the consequences and behaviours of someone who is severely mentally ill since I was eleven years old, I am appalled to hear what Bill outlined above.  With no pun intended at all that is a crazy way to deal with the problem.  It takes time to get help when things go wrong over here but, you will get help once the appropriate steps have been taken to show that you are not getting someone put away in a mental institution who does not belong in one.

Well it's your country and you vote for the laws you want I suppose.  

Just never let me hear anyone on these pages bitching about something that a mentally ill person did to someone else (or themselves) when the system in place is set up to 'protect' an individuals rights until they actually harm someone else or themselves :shakes head in disbelief:.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 4, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Well it's your country and you vote for the laws you want I suppose.



It's not always just that.  In the cases outlined, the Supreme Court ruled that involuntary confinement under other than the circumstances listed was unconstitutional.  So one could vote for any sort of laws that contravened that; they'd be struck down.

But consider this.  Let's say you come here to visit.  You go to a local bar with some friends and things get out of hand, and you eventually come into contact with the local police.  They arrest you but furthermore, they believe there is something about your behavior that leads them to believe you might just be a dangerous lunatic as well.

So they put you on a 72-hour psych hold and you get locked up until evaluated by psychiatrists.  Now, as we all know, you're absolutely sane.  But let's just say that the shrinks don't care for your test results and due to that, they convince a judge to keep you locked up somewhat longer.  You're outraged, of course, but what can you do?

Eventually, they decide they've fixed you enough to let you out on your own, but they give you prescriptions for various drugs and make appointments for you with therapists who will supposedly make you better.

Since you know that you're not insane, but clearly someone is doing something very very wrong, do you take the drugs, go to the counselling, or do you say to hell with that and get out of that town as fast as you can?

Right you are, time to beat feet for the border.

Now consider that crazy people do not believe they are crazy.

And that's how they react.  As an innocent man would.

So they don't take the drugs, and they don't go to the appointments.

And unless they have demonstrated that they're dangerous to themselves or others, they're left to their own devices.

If we're going to give people the authority to lock people up for being nuts and compel them to take medication and see therapists, we might want to be certain that we don't get any false positives.  Or is it OK to lock up a few sane men just so we get the truly crazy ones off the street?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 4, 2012)

A well written response there, Bill.  

I had just logged back in to apologise for my rather too strong words earlier and admit that it was none of my business how another country dealt with such things.  It's a subject that, as is clear to see, is very 'real' to me and one of those where it is difficult to keep my responses as civil and objective as I should :bows:.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 4, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> A well written response there, Bill.
> 
> I had just logged back in to apologise for my rather too strong words earlier and admit that it was none of my business how another country dealt with such things.  It's a subject that, as is clear to see, is very 'real' to me and one of those where it is difficult to keep my responses as civil and objective as I should :bows:.



I absolutely understand where you're coming from.  To steal a line from Arsenic and Old Lace, insanity doesn't run in my family, it practically gallops.


----------

