Arizona Congresswoman, shot in the head

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

JUSTICE Scalia (along with a majority of the Supremes) doesn't seem to have a problem with limiting certain rights. I think the opinion of SCOTUS carries more weight than your "the sky will fall" opinion, even if you are a lawyer.

What Justice Scalia thinks doesn't control, Kallend. Unless, of course, he is in the majority. I've always said that Scalia isn't always right, much like Brennan wasn't always wrong.

Quote

I think the opinion of SCOTUS carries more weight than your "the sky will fall" opinion, even if you are a lawyer.

No shit. I do agree that what the SCOTUS states is the law IS the law, until it is changed. Which is why I actually identified the SCOTUS case for Jeanne that ssaid we cannot just hold the mentally ill and why so much of the stuff you are discussing and insinuating (you rarely propose an actual solution. Instead you say things like there should be screening but just don't discuss how to go about doing it) is moot and Unconstitutional.

My problem is trying to find out a way to do what we are discussin that doesn't impinge on liberties. There is an irreconcilable tension between order and freedom. An orderly society is not free. A free society is not orderly.

Freedoms bring with them risks. An orderly society comes with certain costs. This is where personal preferences come in. The Bill of Rights, in particular, contain freedoms that are dignitary in nature, such as the Fourth Amendment. I, for one, neither own nor possess a firearm. An unwarranted search and seizure of my residence would reveal no criminal activity, illicit substances, obscene materials or firearms. On the other hand, if the police came knocking and asked to come inside to search for contraband, I'd ask for a warrant. If they had none, I would say, "No. You may not enter." If they said, "We suspect you of having some mental deficiency and we'd like to take you in for evaluation" I would respond, "Do you have a warrant?" If not I'd say, "Well, then, no thank you."

And to do so would be my right. It turns out that this right has been given by the Fourth Amendment and has been interpreted by the SCOTUS as existing.

Thus, registering people with a history of mental illness impinges on the right of privacy as identified by the SCOTUS (though not stated in the Constitution). Luckily, In California, I have the Constitutional right to privacy - stated right there in Article I.

So if someone turns up mental health records on me, I'm going to have some serious problems with that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

[Reply] Lawrocket wants to protect them.

You're goddamned right I do. Believe it or not, I think the First, Second, Fourth, fifth, Sixth Amendments (all of them, actually) apply to those who would be considered "loonies" and those with a psychiatric diagnosis.

Here's an idea, Jeanne - how about instead of a governmental operation to weed out the dangerous and send them to stalags as possible threats, how about teaching people to identify when to call the hospital instead of the police? Wouldn't that help to keep people out of jail AND get them treatment? Perhaps the solution is not "social programs" but actually getting people to understand that mental illness is a medical problem.

My problem - again - is not with treating anybody's medical problem. My problem is that you suggest that sick people be treated like criminals, only without even the benefit of a trial. Might as well put them in jail if they are so dangerous, rigfht? At least we know that they won't victimize anyone in prison, and instead they'll be victimized there.

SO then you might as well just say you want EVERYONE to have the weapons.. since you dont give a damn about who gets them. You are not willing to identify and TREAT ( you keep missing that part) the potential whack a doodle doos at an age when it might do some good.
All you can wring out of your nind is Stalags????

DUUUUDE get a grip

I think its far better to spend a few millions on our OWN people for once in just a small trickle into a few social programs you so fervently hate so much as a member of the conservatives who want to keep every red cent they make except for the trillions transferred to the military industiral complex enabling the killing other people half a world away. How about we identify and treat some of those who are killing far more than any external threat in a normal year.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Doing a more effective check for mental illness does not constitute a gun ban.

Doing a more effective check for mental illness does not constitute a ban on voting. So are you willing to turn over your health records and see a state sponsored shrink before casting a ballot in 2012?

Quote

Quote

I'm not going to bother quoting myself, but I'm going to ask AGAIN.

What change do you suggest that would prevent this from happening? What should we do to keep guns out of the hands of loonies? Do you have any specific ideas to improve the current system?
Snip

What is your better idea?

1. AGAIN: Get deniers like you, Mike and Marc to admit that there is a problem.

2. Engage experts in constitutional law, criminology and psychiatry to address the problem.

1. There are three problems to address in this thread. One is the violent crime problem. Another is a poor system for identifying and caring for mentally ill. The third is people who prefer expediency to protection of liberty.
2. OK, so you don't have any ideas or suggestions of your own. Thanks. Feel free to continue sniping at other from the margins. (of course that means you are in fact marginalized)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Amazon 7]

Quote

+1 to just about every one of lawrocket's posts in this thread.

Our system is based on the ideal that it is better for ten guilty men to go free rahter than have one innoccent imprisoned.* Yep, we have the worst court system in the world, except for all the others.

And let's not forget, cars kill more folks than guns year in and year out.

Hit and Run "to be famous"
...run these kids over
chappaquiddick
woman runs down mother and daughter
etc, etc, etc.

We've got to keep these weapons away from loonies and druggies! Goodness! Oh no, they're already licensed insured and regulated by government bureacrasy. What can we do?!? [/sarcasm]


* - yeah I know it doesn't always work that way, but that's the premise.

So basically can you PLEASE quit pretending that you want to keep weapons out of the hands of the groups of people as you CLAIM you do...

[Amazon 7]

Quote

What is your better idea?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. AGAIN: Get deniers like you, Mike and Marc to admit that there is a problem.

2. Engage experts in constitutional law, criminology and psychiatry to address the problem

Oh heaven forbid anyone actually follow a GOOD IDEA.

I have been suggesting that for a couple days now...

This thread has pointed out the disturbing fact that it is far more important for the daily death toll of 34 Americans be sanctified by doing nothing and as what again passes as yet another of the rather mundane and devoid of reality that passes as conservative ideas.. maintain the status quo at all costs.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Engage experts in constitutional law, criminology and psychiatry to address the problem.

I hate to break it to you, but every gun control law since before 1968 has done this. And yet, we still have lots of killings. So what has to be done is to get rid of the Constitutional law experts who tell them what laws can't do. Then they'll pass a law and let it be in effect for a while until it gets challenged.

The Gun COntrol Act of 1968 made sales to anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution illegal. The NICS picks up these records and reports them to users.

So, how would this have picked up Loughner? He had never been committed nor adjudicated as mentally ill. So any check would have come up clean, right? Even private sales wouldn't have picked up on it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

SO then you might as well just say you want EVERYONE to have the weapons.. since you dont give a damn about who gets them.

When did I say that? I neither said nor wrote it. Ever notice that you never disagree with what i write but instead come up with scenarios that you wish I had supported (but won't). However, when I discuss protecting rights of people, and yes, even the mentally ill, prisoners and people rotting in Gitmo, it doesn't mean I like them or think they should be handed nukes. Yep, just because I support things lik edue process means in your mind that I support government handouts of guns to all. Smell what you're shoveling.

Quote

I think its far better to spend a few millions on our OWN people for once in just a small trickle into a few social programs you so fervently hate so much as a member of the conservatives who want to keep every red cent they make except for the trillions transferred to the military industiral complex enabling the killing other people half a world away. How about we identify and treat some of those who are killing far more than any external threat in a normal year.

Got any social programs in mind that would have prevented this? I mean, aside from the ones that are so blatantly unconstitutional and despotic that Stalin himself would have appreciated your thinking.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

Jean, what good idea? That is what they do every time they talk about a new gun law, or updating old ones. If that's what you want to happen, then you should be happy with the laws in place. If you're not happy with current laws, then, for the love of all that's holy, suggest a a better idea.

So far kallend hasn't suggested a single idea that has a chance to prevent Tucson II. The only idea he has mentioned to improve things is requiring background checks for private sales. While I'm willing to discuss this idea, it has no bearing on what happened already. Loughner bought his pistol from an FFL.

Quote

maintain the status quo at all costs.

If you actually have an idea other than the status quo, please share. We've been asking for twenty pages.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

SO then you might as well just say you want EVERYONE to have the weapons.. since you dont give a damn about who gets them.

When did I say that? I neither said nor wrote it. Ever notice that you never disagree with what i write but instead come up with scenarios that you wish I had supported (but won't). However, when I discuss protecting rights of people, and yes, even the mentally ill, prisoners and people rotting in Gitmo, it doesn't mean I like them or think they should be handed nukes. Yep, just because I support things lik edue process means in your mind that I support government handouts of guns to all. Smell what you're shoveling.

Quote

I think its far better to spend a few millions on our OWN people for once in just a small trickle into a few social programs you so fervently hate so much as a member of the conservatives who want to keep every red cent they make except for the trillions transferred to the military industiral complex enabling the killing other people half a world away. How about we identify and treat some of those who are killing far more than any external threat in a normal year.

Got any social programs in mind that would have prevented this? I mean, aside from the ones that are so blatantly unconstitutional and despotic that Stalin himself would have appreciated your thinking.

So there were outdated programs... the conservative solution????

GET RID OF THEM ALL ... yup thats the ticket. Throw em all out on the street to pull themselves up by their bootstraps...

How about fix the programs.. OH THATS RIGHT no social programs needed
( Well except for the 1 TRILLION dollar programs for the DOD yearly)

[DFWAJG 4]

All of them have a history leading up to the incident that makes them infamous.

Not always. I have seen plenty of individuals in the prison system who have had no history of violence, become ill quickly and commit a serious crime. This includes a former 19 year old patient who decompensated rapidly, was generally under the radar, and killed his dad after dinner, and another youth, when I was in residency, who decided to set himself on fire to kill himself (I was the only one who picked up that he was psychotic, everyone else thought he was just depressed, but depressed people don't set themselves on fire, psychotic ones do, usually), frightened himself once he was on fire, ran into the apartment building, unfortunately setting the building on fire, killing two, but surviving himself, waiting to be released from the hospital to custody on adult murder charges. Very sad.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

2. OK, so you don't have any ideas or suggestions of your own.

She had suggestions of her own. They consisted of confiscating weapons and/or other personal property of people who cannot prove that they are neither mentally ill or violent or will not become mentally ill or violent. If they can prove it they'll get their shit back, but all the prosecutor would have to say is, "prove you won't get Alzheimer's" or "prove you won't get senile dementia" or "prove nobody will shoot you in the head."

Jeanne - let's say Giffords suffers some mental deficit. Would you suggest that all guns be kept away from her?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Jean, what good idea? That is what they do every time they talk about a new gun law, or updating old ones. If that's what you want to happen, then you should be happy with the laws in place. If you're not happy with current laws, then, for the love of all that's holy, suggest a a better idea.

So far kallend hasn't suggested a single idea that has a chance to prevent Tucson II. The only idea he has mentioned to improve things is requiring background checks for private sales. While I'm willing to discuss this idea, it has no bearing on what happened already. Loughner bought his pistol from an FFL.

Quote

maintain the status quo at all costs.

If you actually have an idea other than the status quo, please share. We've been asking for twenty pages.

Post #505

I dentify those who need help early and TREAT them. Personally I dont think whackadoodles deserve to have weapons.

I know that pisses off the lawyers who see that as a threat to their revenue stream ... god forbid the shrinks should get all that money instead of the lawyers after some jackwagon shoots 20 or more people.

It was fairly obvious Jared needed some help ... YEARS ago. Its too bad for all thsoe unarmed victims that DOD did not protect them with all that largese they have gotten for the last 50 years.

34 Americans a day.... tick tock tick tock times 365 Days a year.... tick tock tick tock times how many years till America decided that it is actually going to identify those who are supposed to be on the NICS. How many of those 34 a day are killed by the mentally defective that should never have been allowed to excercise those rights that the SCOTUS already said they should be denied.

Do nothing ... status quo ... its the conservative way...

[Amazon 7]

Quote

All of them have a history leading up to the incident that makes them infamous.

Not always. I have seen plenty of individuals in the prison system who have had no history of violence, become ill quickly and commit a serious crime. This includes a former 19 year old patient who decompensated rapidly, was generally under the radar, and killed his dad after dinner, and another youth, when I was in residency, who decided to set himself on fire to kill himself (I was the only one who picked up that he was psychotic, everyone else thought he was just depressed, but depressed people don't set themselves on fire, psychotic ones do, usually), frightened himself once he was on fire, ran into the apartment building, unfortunately setting the building on fire, killing two, but surviving himself, waiting to be released from the hospital to custody on adult murder charges. Very sad.

Its ok.. there is nothing we can do.. as we are being told.

So lets keep the status quo ... that is the ticket for going forward

[DFWAJG 4]

How about we identify and treat some of those who are killing far more than any external threat in a normal year.

Actually, the mentally ill commit very few crimes, and very few serious crimes. Usually, they get caught for minor things like eating food in the grocery store because they are hungry, and not paying for it. Most crimes are committed by very bad people. But sometimes, very ill people will commit very serious crimes. You are more likely to kill someone if you are depressed, than if you have schizophrenia. Should we lock up everyone who is on Prozac? Frankly, I am uncomfortable, as a psychiatrist, to force people into treatment, unless, they meet one of three criteria:danger to self, danger to others, or gravely disabled. And even when there are patients who suffer from the latter, I still want permission from the judge to proceed with treatment.

Years ago, I personally had a severe depressive episode while in residency. I took a FMLA leave, rested, sought out treatment, and was ready to return to residency, better than ever. When I informed my program director I was ready to return, I was laiden with a list of do's and don'ts I would have to follow, told who I was to see for therapy, who I was and wasn't to see for medication, told to sign over complete disclosure with the therapist, among other very illegal crap that my program director was trying to pull. I told her to stick her program up her ass and I was going else where. It was the first time someone tried to force treatment on me, completely illegally. I am able to emphasize with my patients who wish to refrain from treatment. And although I know that I can help them with their suffering, it is still their choice of whether or not to receive treatment. I Have to respect that.

I just viewed two of the shooters videos on youtube, and I have seen his mug shot. Is he mentally ill? Even without having evaluated him myself, preliminarily, I can say that I would suspect that he has bipolar disorder and has been in a manic episode. Would treatment and early identification of his illness possibly saved others lives? Yes, it is possible. However, given the two videos I saw, he did not make any threats to harm anyone. Going by just those two videos, I would have not been able to justify forced treatment on him. However, if there had been a note of some kind, or had his rants spoke of intended violent acts or such, I would absolutely have taken the opportunity to have him treated. Unfortunately, the treatment can only be while he is in the hospital, as once discharged, there is nothing to keep these individuals well. Therein lies a huge problem. It is not unusual to have a revolving door of both prisons and state hospital systems, because there are no outpatient programs to help these people maintain themselves. Hence, the reason why the CDCR has become the new state hospital replacement over the past 20+ years.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Actually, the mentally ill commit very few crimes, and very few serious crimes

The links I posted above do NOT bear that out.

What was that death toll again for Whitman(14), Loghner(6), Cho(33), Sherrill(14), Wong(14), McLenden(10) and on and on and on.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Actually, the mentally ill commit very few crimes, and very few serious crimes.

This statement led me to do a bit of searching, and I found the following - does this track with what you see?

Link

Quote

Illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are not the reason why violent crimes are committed by mental health patients, a study showed today.

An exhaustive study which tracked more than 8,000 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and another 3,700 identified as having bipolar disorder over three decades in Sweden found that the abuse of illegal drugs and alcohol caused mentally ill people to perpetrate crimes of murder, manslaughter and sexual violence.

Dr Seena Fazel, a clinical senior lecturer in forensic psychiatry and consultant forensic psychiatrist at the University of Oxford, said: "The relationship between violent crime and serious mental illness can be explained by alcohol and substance abuse. If you take away the substance abuse, the contribution of the illness itself is minimal."

And this (link)
***BACKGROUND: Tragic and high profile killings by people with mental illness have been used to suggest that the community care model for mental health services has failed. AIMS: To consider whether such homicides have become more frequent as psychiatric services have changed. METHOD: Data were extracted from Home Office-generated criminal statistics for England and Wales between 1957 and 1995 and subjected to trends analysis. RESULTS: There was little fluctuation in numbers of people with a mental illness committing criminal homicide over the 38 years studied, and a 3% annual decline in their contribution to the official statistics. CONCLUSIONS: There are many reasons for improving the resources and quality of care for people with a mental disorder, but there is no evidence that it is anything but stigmatising to claim that their living in the community is a dangerous experiment that should be reversed. There appears to be some case for specially focused improvement of services for people with a personality disorder and/or substance misuse.

[DFWAJG 4]

Quote

I know that pisses off the lawyers who see that as a threat to their revenue stream ... god forbid the shrinks should get all that money instead of the lawyers after some jackwagon shoots 20 or more people.

Amazon,
If simply by your rants that I have observed over time, here, would cause me any concern of a "jackwagon" who would shoot em up at the dz, I would have to dispatch the paddy wagon to your door, hold you down, and give you a good dose of Haldol decanoate. Between your angst for others who you disagree, your piss poor knowledge of anything about mental health (keep in mind, I am licensed in 4 states, and have worked at three state forensic institutions, one state hospital and 7 prisons, treating the worst of the worst, that no one else wants to treat) and your rants and ramblings, I suspect that there are a few screws that can be tightened in your own brain. This, however, does not, thankfully, for you, give me justification to lock you up, take away your guns, knives, plastic sporks, and nail clippers, and start forcing you into treatment. You have as much right to be as nutty as you are as the rest of us. Even as a psychiatrist, I can no more predict who will blow than you can. Forcing treatment in a blanket fashion because someone "may blow" is not appropriate. Although, if someday, on dz.com, it's announced that Amazon took out a few jumpers at the dz, it wouldn't surprise me.

[popsjumper 2]

Finally!

Somebody with some level-headed knowledge and expertise!

Thanks be to you!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Gravitymaster 0]

+1

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Actually, the mentally ill commit very few crimes, and very few serious crimes.

This statement led me to do a bit of searching, and I found the following - does this track with what you see?

Link

Quote

Illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are not the reason why violent crimes are committed by mental health patients, a study showed today.

An exhaustive study which tracked more than 8,000 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and another 3,700 identified as having bipolar disorder over three decades in Sweden found that the abuse of illegal drugs and alcohol caused mentally ill people to perpetrate crimes of murder, manslaughter and sexual violence.

Dr Seena Fazel, a clinical senior lecturer in forensic psychiatry and consultant forensic psychiatrist at the University of Oxford, said: "The relationship between violent crime and serious mental illness can be explained by alcohol and substance abuse. If you take away the substance abuse, the contribution of the illness itself is minimal."

And this (link)
***BACKGROUND: Tragic and high profile killings by people with mental illness have been used to suggest that the community care model for mental health services has failed. AIMS: To consider whether such homicides have become more frequent as psychiatric services have changed. METHOD: Data were extracted from Home Office-generated criminal statistics for England and Wales between 1957 and 1995 and subjected to trends analysis. RESULTS: There was little fluctuation in numbers of people with a mental illness committing criminal homicide over the 38 years studied, and a 3% annual decline in their contribution to the official statistics. CONCLUSIONS: There are many reasons for improving the resources and quality of care for people with a mental disorder, but there is no evidence that it is anything but stigmatising to claim that their living in the community is a dangerous experiment that should be reversed. There appears to be some case for specially focused improvement of services for people with a personality disorder and/or substance misuse.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I know that pisses off the lawyers who see that as a threat to their revenue stream ... god forbid the shrinks should get all that money instead of the lawyers after some jackwagon shoots 20 or more people.

Amazon,
If simply by your rants that I have observed over time, here, would cause me any concern of a "jackwagon" who would shoot em up at the dz, I would have to dispatch the paddy wagon to your door, hold you down, and give you a good dose of Haldol decanoate. Between your angst for others who you disagree, your piss poor knowledge of anything about mental health (keep in mind, I am licensed in 4 states, and have worked at three state forensic institutions, one state hospital and 7 prisons, treating the worst of the worst, that no one else wants to treat) and your rants and ramblings, I suspect that there are a few screws that can be tightened in your own brain. This, however, does not, thankfully, for you, give me justification to lock you up, take away your guns, knives, plastic sporks, and nail clippers, and start forcing you into treatment. You have as much right to be as nutty as you are as the rest of us. Even as a psychiatrist, I can no more predict who will blow than you can. Forcing treatment in a blanket fashion because someone "may blow" is not appropriate. Although, if someday, on dz.com, it's announced that Amazon took out a few jumpers at the dz, it wouldn't surprise me.

Wow... just Wow

You know.. if I said anything like that to you I would be banned permanently.. Heal thyself doc.

[popsjumper 2]

A two-word nastygram and then a pm lock-out?
I don't get it.

Because I appreciate somebody with some practical knowledge posting? There was no intent to hammer on you from me.

OK, then. So be it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Amazon 7]

Quote

A two-word nastygram and then a pm lock-out?
I don't get it.

Because I appreciate somebody with some practical knowledge posting? There was no intent to hammer on you from me.

OK, then. So be it.

Quote

Finally!

Somebody with some level-headed knowledge and expertise!

Thanks be to you

That post????... as the next post to that vile stinking pile of garbage....passed off as a "professional" opinion

yeah...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That post????... as the next post to that vile stinking pile of garbage....

Are you adding a few gallons to your own "infinite bucket of whine?"

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4035136#4035136

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

A two-word nastygram and then a pm lock-out?
I don't get it.

I got one too. It seems the post hit a homerun and someone is "Butt Sore" as I think I've heard it described. What a fucking child.