Mass Murder And Mental Illness

[oftheherd1]

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.

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]

...

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.