If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Psychiatrist of the Colorado shooter warned his university about his murderous fantasies weeks before the shooting. University's response: "oh well we don't need to do anything cuz he's dropping out anyway"   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 251
    More: Asinine, Colorado, Columbine High School, gag orders, magic, psychiatrists  
•       •       •

10930 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Aug 2012 at 10:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-02 10:50:57 AM
wasn't the dude building incendiary weapons and booby trapping his apartment?
why is everyone so convinced that having the cops poke around never could have led to long term detention and possible prevention?
 
2012-08-02 10:51:20 AM

way south: HotWingConspiracy: Yeah they should have told the cops!....who would have said he hasn't done anything wrong and all of his weapons were legally purchased.

Its illegal to buy pr keep a firearm if you're entirely off your rocker. If the Doc suspected he was a threat, she probably should have notified the authorities of the homicidal maniac in their midst.

She knew he needed to be flagged in the system.


Yes, so how does this work?

A doctor calls the cops and says that she knows a crazy person, and they show up and take his guns?

He gets no say? No challenge? What about second 'mendments and such?
 
2012-08-02 10:51:55 AM

WienerButt: That sucks but what can they really do?? I mean its kind of like that asshole that shot the lobster salesman. Cops were called on him before and they couldn't just arrest him for being a lunatic asshole. Just told kids to stay away from his lawn.
I'm not saying I agree with the inaction but really what is the protocol here short of possibly baker acting this kid?


They can't do anything. It's just like a restraining order--it's a nice piece of paper, it says that someone was Concerned, but as far as actually stopping anyone who would like to harm someone else, it does nothing.

I have a crazy ex. He was going to kill me and our son. I was warned (like I didn't know that anyway.) You know what I was told? "He's very unstable. How about you move out of town before something even worse happens?" This was from a clinical psychologist who was seeing both of us, since i was sure that after seeing how crazy this guy was, some mental health person would step in and "help" us. Suurreeeee.

Friend of mine was going through a divorce with a man who openly promised to kill her and all the kids. She had a cop friend who kind of kept an eye on her to make sure that the guy didn't come around. At the same time, he ended up in the hospital and needed surgery. for some reason this freaked him out so badly that he became psychotic, and the hospital shrinks were called in. Due to Tarasoff, she got a courtesy call from another cop who told her, "We had a call from the hospital where your ex is right now. The doctor said to tell you that he's homicidal, blames you for everything, and to be careful." That was it.

If you're neurotic, have compulsive disorders, feel bad, man, or have a personal tragedy, go see a therapist. If your ex or some crazy person is after you, go get a gun.
 
2012-08-02 10:52:20 AM

Banned on the Run: ChipNASA:
OK so serious question....

Next time I go out with the wife for sushi, do you think I'd cause a commotion .....stay with me here.....(visualize this) .. If I stand up and then unzip and then pull out my wang and slap it on the table and grab a *huge* pinch of nice creamy wasabi....and while stroking my manhood to make the insertion easier....take my meat missile and then start stuffing great gobs of green spicy condiment in my stretched open pee hole..... Maybe if I brought an industrial Q-Tip to facilitate insertion.....much like loading black powder and shot in to a cannon and then ramming it home.

do you think I'd cause a commotion??

Interesting you post that in this thread, 'cuz I'm feeling a duty to inform the authorities right now


Are you afraid I'll shoot someone's eye out??
www.jasonanthonys.com
 
2012-08-02 10:52:25 AM
Wait.

How crazy is too crazy to have guns?

I have OCD... does that make me mentally unfit to go to the range?
 
2012-08-02 10:55:22 AM

MycroftHolmes: way south: HotWingConspiracy: Yeah they should have told the cops!....who would have said he hasn't done anything wrong and all of his weapons were legally purchased.

Its illegal to buy pr keep a firearm if you're entirely off your rocker. If the Doc suspected he was a threat, she probably should have notified the authorities of the homicidal maniac in their midst.

She knew he needed to be flagged in the system.

OK, so he should be convicted and his rights restricted based on a judgement call? You do understand that psychiatry is far from an exact science. Are you really advocating that we 'flag' someone and restrict their rights based on the decisions of entirely fallible human beings?

I bet the same people who whine that he should have been flagged and charged with futurecrime are the same people who whine about police acting overzealously and without justification


Flagging someone and restricting their rights based on a judgement call is pretty much how it works in the mental health field. Sure there are standard threat assessments, but it ultimately comes down to the judgement of the clinician. Luckily, most mental health professionals are careful about who they involuntarily commit, it's not an easy decision to take someone's freedom away even if it's for a 24 stay in a psych hospital for more evaluation. Which is why, they let someone go who ends up doing bad things more often than they put an entirely harmless person in a hospital. You never hear stories of, I was entirely sane and lucid but they held me against my will for a week in a hospital.

Also on college campuses, potential problem students get flagged all the time. Where I worked there is an entire committee that deals with problem students. If they are showing up on one radar on campus, it usually means they're causing problems all over the place. Usually oversight committees are there to determine how to best handle/accommodate these students whether that is mandating they get professional help or kicking them out of the university.
 
2012-08-02 10:55:29 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: Can your psychiatrist really do this? Doesn't it goes against their oath?


Yes your psychiatrist can really do this. In fact has to do this. And that's why it's newsworthy that the University didn't do anything. The shrink did the right thing by reporting a dangerous individual, and the University did nothing.

Shrinks can do this if they have credible evidence that their patient is imminently dangerous to themselves or others.

I don't know about the law in that state, but here's California law:

Three of these exceptions to confidentiality concern harm to self or others:

• Where there is a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or elder adult physical abuse;
• Where there is a reasonable suspicion that you may present a danger of violence to others;
• Where there is a reasonable suspicion that you are likely to harm yourself unless protective measures are taken.
 
2012-08-02 10:55:33 AM

Dynascape: Wait.

How crazy is too crazy to have guns?

I have OCD... does that make me mentally unfit to go to the range?


the crazy range?
 
2012-08-02 10:55:36 AM

cassanovascotian: I am utterly astounded by the kind of dialogue that is surrounding this incident.

1) The university is the problem, blame them
2) Costumes are the problem -don't let anyone wear costumes in movie theatres
3) Society is the problem... or something

And everyone is so cowed by the NRA lobby that it's completely unthinkable to suggest that maybe the second amendment is a farking retarded piece of outdated legislation that needs to be done away with, and that maybe it's not such a good idea for demonstrably mentally ill people with homicidal ideation to have a right to carry AR-15's.

but don't mind me... please, go back to talking about how costumes are the real problem.


And spoons should be banned because they make people fat. You were on a roll into you got into the whole casually shredding our constitution. You rail on blaming everyone but the shooter - blame university: bad. Blame costumes: bad. Blame society: bad. But then you go and lay blame on the gun instead of the person using the gun. You're doing the same thing you're ranting against.
 
2012-08-02 10:55:57 AM

ShadowLAnCeR: It wasn't the university's responsibility to keep watching the nut job after he dropped out.


The university didn't have to watch him, but it should have advised law enforcement. The school had a legal obligation to do so, just like Penn State. The school also established policy and a threat-assessment team, which neglected to do its job.

Oh yeah, there is civil liability here. Maybe criminal. This is going to cost the school big time, and it should.
 
2012-08-02 10:56:13 AM
In the wake of these kinds of events, there always seems to have been warnings that could and should have been acted upon.

But by all means, keep telling yourself it's the guns' fault.
 
2012-08-02 10:57:16 AM

Dynascape: Wait.

How crazy is too crazy to have guns?

I have OCD... does that make me mentally unfit to go to the range?

Not necessarily, so long as you take appropriate safety precautions. Check that the chamber is clear exactly 7 times. If you overshoot and check 8 times, you have to unload, dismantle and clean the weapon, then try again.
 
2012-08-02 10:58:06 AM

GoldSpider: But by all means, keep telling yourself it's the guns' fault.


It's actually the access to guns.
 
2012-08-02 10:58:07 AM

Loreweaver: They can divulge the information if they have evidence their patient may be a danger to himself or the public.


Define "may be".

You may be outraged at something next week and harm someone.

We don't know the specifics of what the psychiatrist found disturbing. Maybe he only displayed certain characteristics which are common among murderers.

Maybe he said he understood how the Virginia Tech shooter felt.

I don't think either of those are specific enough to be actionable.
 
2012-08-02 10:58:18 AM
" This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting, and this is for fun."



24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-02 11:00:18 AM
Mr. Samir Naga... Naga... Naga... Not gonna work here anymore, anyway

www.intomobile.com
 
2012-08-02 11:00:39 AM

bluefelix: If a patient is abusing someone or is threatening to hurt someone the psychiatrist/psychologist is legally required to notify the authorities.


Citation? From what ABC news said, it's a state by state basis. Some are required to report threatening remarks, others are not. Do you know for sure what it is in Colorado?
 
2012-08-02 11:00:43 AM
A psychiatrist once told me that statistically 50% of the population has a diagnosable mental disorder whether they seek treatment for it or not. That seems a little high to me, but if I think about everyone I know who takes Paxil or the like just to make it through their crappy day at a job they can't afford to leave... well... it does seem like a lot of people have trouble. Do we count people who take Xanax to fly? Being afraid to fly but not to drive is irrational, after all.

TLDR: How would we determine who is too mentally ill to own a gun? If they have ever spent time in a psych ward? Been Baker Acted? Just been diagnosed with an irrational fear of spiders...?
 
2012-08-02 11:00:44 AM

cryinoutloud: If you're neurotic, have compulsive disorders, feel bad, man, or have a personal tragedy, go see a therapist. If your ex or some crazy person is after you, go get a gun.


This this this. Lurves me my six shooter.
 
2012-08-02 11:01:55 AM

Dynascape: Wait.

How crazy is too crazy to have guns?

I have OCD... does that make me mentally unfit to go to the range?


That would be hilarious!!! Can I tag along?
 
2012-08-02 11:02:41 AM

Mateorocks: Hindsight is 20/20.


This.

Also, do we really want to set the precedent that all institutions MUST act as our handlers if they have any suspicions even if we leave their realm??!?!?! I think not.
 
2012-08-02 11:03:34 AM

bluefelix: A psychiatrist once told me that statistically 50% of the population has a diagnosable mental disorder whether they seek treatment for it or not. That seems a little high to me, but if I think about everyone I know who takes Paxil or the like just to make it through their crappy day at a job they can't afford to leave... well... it does seem like a lot of people have trouble. Do we count people who take Xanax to fly? Being afraid to fly but not to drive is irrational, after all.

TLDR: How would we determine who is too mentally ill to own a gun? If they have ever spent time in a psych ward? Been Baker Acted? Just been diagnosed with an irrational fear of spiders...?


you make all guns illegal. then only the TRUE mentally insane will own them
 
2012-08-02 11:03:56 AM

relcec: zyrian: In Russia you can't get a driver's license if you had mental issues. Here you can get a firearm without a psych eval. Banning "assault weapons" is stupid. Doing more than a cursory background check is not.

// Gun owner. CCW holder. Former Russain.

why do I seriously doubt the russian federation has a a mental health database linked to their national dmv? and why the f*ck couldn't you get a license if you had a mental health issues anyway? I find your entire post incredible.


They don't have a linked DB, of course, at least they didn't 10 years ago when I was getting my DL there. The DMV did require a certified letter from a psych ward stating that I was not a customer there. Psych facilities did have a centralized DB of sorts, plus it took them 3 weeks to generated that letter due to "research".

The fact that a good portion of US population can't function without daily dose of Xanax - that's incredible, not the requirement to be sane if you want to drive a 3000lb device at 70mph.
 
2012-08-02 11:04:16 AM
farking hell, if someone's so messed up that their psychiatrist feels the need to report them to authorities, it's time to pay attention.

Threats of violence against others are exactly like suicide threats -- if you tell someone and they stop you, everyone assumes you were only doing it for the attention and writes the report off as an overreaction[1]. If you tell someone and they don't stop you, somebody ends up dead.

This is why such threats should always be taken seriously[2]: because if they are serious, you save one or more lives. If they're not serious, you make so much trouble for them that they'll think very, very hard before they do that again. (And if there's enough news coverage, maybe so will the next ten drama queens.)

When I heard this guy was studying neuroscience, my first thought was that he'd known for a long time that something was wrong with him, and he was trying to figure it out. He was seeing a psychiatrist. He told his doctor about his violent fantasies before he acted on them. He knew what he was capable of, and he wanted someone to stop him. (This does not in any way excuse his actions, but those of you who think he should have just stopped himself don't understand the first thing about mental illness and should STFU.)

The authorities were the weak link here. I'm not saying they were responsible for what happened; this kind of tragedy is rarely anyone's "fault", and assigning blame solves nothing. I am saying that they were negligent in not taking the report seriously. I'm not a fan of America's lawsuit-happy culture, and no amount of money can bring back a lost loved one, but if I were facing six- or seven-figure medical bills because of an attack like this, you bet your ass I'd be suing for damages. If lawsuits are what it takes to make law enforcement agencies take this kind of thing seriously, so be it.

[1] Which really farking sucks, by the way. If you're feeling suicidal, do not, under any circumstances, call the friend who made you promise to call them if you felt that way. You will probably lose that friend and end up worse off than you were before. Call a crisis hotline, or your therapist, or 911. Call your friend from the hospital, or not at all. Trust me on this, I learned it the hard way. No matter how much trouble it makes for you, it's better than losing your best friend when you're least equipped to cope with it, and carrying the pain of that incalculable loss with you for the rest of your life isn't going to make things any easier.

[2] By "taking threats seriously" I do not mean putting up with whiny BS or letting people drag you into their personal drama. I mean reporting it to the authorities immediately, exactly the way this guy's psychiatrist did.
 
2012-08-02 11:06:24 AM
For those of you that are talking about how college campuses have no business being responsible for student behavior think of it like this: the reality of the modern post secondary education is that they are usually the first setting where the problem behaviors manifest. A lot of mental health problems start teens/early 20s (if you make it to 30 without a major mental health problem, you're probably good). We send these kids away from everyone else they know, to live in a tiny room usually away from home for the first time in their lives, into a high stress environment. If you've got an underlying issue or disorder, if that doesn't push if over the top nothing will. I'm not saying, it's the college's fault by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying more and more colleges are starting to be the front lines battlegrounds with these kind of issues, and I don't think they were ready for it. Most major universities have understaffed counseling centers so a lot of students get turned away or referred to outside agencies but few students have the resources to take advantage of an outside source. When problems happen, lots of administrators and red tape comes into play that often circumvents the counselors themselves. There is no good answer for it, just a lot of people working hard to do what they can.

/passionate about this stuff
 
2012-08-02 11:06:49 AM

GoldSpider: In the wake of these kinds of events, there always seems to have been warnings that could and should have been acted upon.


Meh. There's at least dozens, probably hundreds, and maybe thousands of people that could snap at any moment in every state in the union on any given day. I suppose you plan on drastically increasing community and county mental health care budgets and facilities? You can bring the whole goddam family to beg and plead for an in-patient spot and get denied because they have no beds. So it's all well and good to think we can just be more vigilant and keep this from happening again but it's a pipe dream.
 
2012-08-02 11:08:19 AM

OnlyM3: It's not "hindsight" when you are told of the event before it occurs.


So you know with complete certainty that he told her "I'm going to go into this theater on this date and shoot the place up"?

And let's say that he really did tell her that and the cops show up and the guys says, "yeah, I told her that. I was just trying to yank her chain to see what her reaction would be." Then what? Let's say they decide they better take the careful approach and go search this guy's place. They find a bunch of legal weapons. Then what?
 
2012-08-02 11:09:20 AM

fortheloveofgod: bluefelix: If a patient is abusing someone or is threatening to hurt someone the psychiatrist/psychologist is legally required to notify the authorities.

Citation? From what ABC news said, it's a state by state basis. Some are required to report threatening remarks, others are not. Do you know for sure what it is in Colorado?


No, I don't know the law in Colorado. I'm talking about Florida. Someone outlined some conditions above in California that are true in Florida too (suspected child abuse, elder abuse, threatening to harm himself or others). I imagine there must be some kind of procedure in place for mental health professionals when a patient strongly threatens to cross a dangerous line, though.
 
2012-08-02 11:10:23 AM

HotWingConspiracy: way south: HotWingConspiracy: Yeah they should have told the cops!....who would have said he hasn't done anything wrong and all of his weapons were legally purchased.

Its illegal to buy pr keep a firearm if you're entirely off your rocker. If the Doc suspected he was a threat, she probably should have notified the authorities of the homicidal maniac in their midst.

She knew he needed to be flagged in the system.

Yes, so how does this work?

A doctor calls the cops and says that she knows a crazy person, and they show up and take his guns?

He gets no say? No challenge? What about second 'mendments and such?


He gets the same legal recourse as parents whose kids are taken by Child Protective Services.

And fark your 2nd Amendment when a nutter in treatment alarms a therapist who's heard all kinds of freaky things. Therapists have powerful incentives to be very conservative about reporting patients to law enforcement. If a drug dog's bark amounts to probable cause for a search and seizure, a psychiatrist's word is good enough too.
 
2012-08-02 11:10:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: It's actually the access to guns.


Which is as demonstrably impossible to control as illegal immigration.
 
2012-08-02 11:10:39 AM

zyrian: relcec: zyrian: In Russia you can't get a driver's license if you had mental issues. Here you can get a firearm without a psych eval. Banning "assault weapons" is stupid. Doing more than a cursory background check is not.

// Gun owner. CCW holder. Former Russain.

why do I seriously doubt the russian federation has a a mental health database linked to their national dmv? and why the f*ck couldn't you get a license if you had a mental health issues anyway? I find your entire post incredible.

They don't have a linked DB, of course, at least they didn't 10 years ago when I was getting my DL there. The DMV did require a certified letter from a psych ward stating that I was not a customer there. Psych facilities did have a centralized DB of sorts, plus it took them 3 weeks to generated that letter due to "research".

The fact that a good portion of US population can't function without daily dose of Xanax - that's incredible, not the requirement to be sane if you want to drive a 3000lb device at 70mph.


Zyrian: I have no doubt that what you say about the Russian DMV is true. But 10 years ago? Try 15, man.
 
2012-08-02 11:11:16 AM

gglibertine: farking hell, if someone's so messed up that their psychiatrist feels the need to report them to authorities, it's time to pay attention.

Threats of violence against others are exactly like suicide threats -- if you tell someone and they stop you, everyone assumes you were only doing it for the attention and writes the report off as an overreaction[1]. If you tell someone and they don't stop you, somebody ends up dead.

This is why such threats should always be taken seriously[2]: because if they are serious, you save one or more lives. If they're not serious, you make so much trouble for them that they'll think very, very hard before they do that again. (And if there's enough news coverage, maybe so will the next ten drama queens.)

When I heard this guy was studying neuroscience, my first thought was that he'd known for a long time that something was wrong with him, and he was trying to figure it out. He was seeing a psychiatrist. He told his doctor about his violent fantasies before he acted on them. He knew what he was capable of, and he wanted someone to stop him. (This does not in any way excuse his actions, but those of you who think he should have just stopped himself don't understand the first thing about mental illness and should STFU.)

The authorities were the weak link here. I'm not saying they were responsible for what happened; this kind of tragedy is rarely anyone's "fault", and assigning blame solves nothing. I am saying that they were negligent in not taking the report seriously. I'm not a fan of America's lawsuit-happy culture, and no amount of money can bring back a lost loved one, but if I were facing six- or seven-figure medical bills because of an attack like this, you bet your ass I'd be suing for damages. If lawsuits are what it takes to make law enforcement agencies take this kind of thing seriously, so be it.

[1] Which really farking sucks, by the way. If you're feeling suicidal, do not, under any circumstances, call the friend who made ...


fc02.deviantart.net

/two soon??
 
2012-08-02 11:12:36 AM
This is the same sort of discussion people had after the Virginia Tech shooting. It's so weird, we have so many mass shootings to draw upon for examples, but anyway. There's only so much that people can do to prevent things like this. Crazy will always find a way. Always.
 
2012-08-02 11:14:13 AM

fortheloveofgod: OnlyM3: It's not "hindsight" when you are told of the event before it occurs.

So you know with complete certainty that he told her "I'm going to go into this theater on this date and shoot the place up"?

And let's say that he really did tell her that and the cops show up and the guys says, "yeah, I told her that. I was just trying to yank her chain to see what her reaction would be." Then what? Let's say they decide they better take the careful approach and go search this guy's place. They find a bunch of legal weapons. Then what?


He could be hospitalized involuntarily for a duration of time. The professional considered him a sufficient enough danger to violate therapist/patient confidentiality under the "duty to warn" clause (arguably the only ethical violation of patient/doctor confidentiality, but even within psychiatric and psychological circles it is hotly contested that even THAT is ethical), and he possessed the means to be able to carry out whatever threats he made in therapy.
 
2012-08-02 11:14:33 AM
www.funkaspuck.com
 
2012-08-02 11:17:27 AM

starsrift: By the psychiatrist's own assessment to not call law enforcement themselves, the university had no additional burden of duty to do so. By telling the university, but NOT law enforcement, the psychiatrist was in fact signalling that in her opinion, the risk was not critically serious and did not warrant police intervention.

Scapegoating the university is a dumbfark move, though I suppose in a suit you might be able to squeeze them for some cash if they settle or have an incompetent lawyer. They could try and sue the psychiatrist, for.. incompetence? Malpractice? But good luck.

All of it is wharrrgarbling and wanting to blame someone other than Sideshow Bob, or just get cash.


So Penn State shouldn't face any sanctions, since it takes no special training to recognize when a kid is getting raped in a shower, and only Paterno's estate and other direct witnesses should pay any penalties, right?
 
2012-08-02 11:17:45 AM

Kit Fister: rugby-n-beers: HotWingConspiracy: Yeah they should have told the cops!....who would have said he hasn't done anything wrong and all of his weapons were legally purchased.

Actually, no, in Colorado mentally ill people are barred from buying or owning firearms.

This. Also, at worst, couldn't the councilor recommended the guy get psychologically evaluated?


he tried, but was rebuffed by the university.
 
2012-08-02 11:17:51 AM

CapeFearCadaver: Dynascape: Wait.

How crazy is too crazy to have guns?

I have OCD... does that make me mentally unfit to go to the range?

That would be hilarious!!! Can I tag along?


You wouldnt know I have serious OCD by the way I act, but Im definitely medicated for it.

But I also love shooting. There has to be some kind of balance here. Im no harm to other people. Its not like Im going to shoot exactly 15 people or some bizarre shiat.
 
2012-08-02 11:18:13 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: Can your psychiatrist really do this? Doesn't it goes against their oath?


If you make threats against a specific person, then the psychiatrist is legally obligated under the Tarasoff precedent to inform the authorities. If the person behaves in a way, or makes statements that lead the doctor to believe the patient poses a credible danger to himself or others, then you can involuntarily commit the patient for observation, usually for something like 48hrs, during which time 2 other doctors will evaluate her and then determine whether or not the patient's current mental state merits prolonged stay.
 
2012-08-02 11:18:34 AM

bluefelix: drjekel_mrhyde: Can your psychiatrist really do this? Doesn't it goes against their oath?

My understanding is that mental health professionals are not sworn to a legally protected oath like lawyers. If a patient is abusing someone or is threatening to hurt someone the psychiatrist/psychologist is legally required to notify the authorities. It's a felony to not inform. My guess is that the shooter didn't make solid threats in his sessions.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the psychologist involved. She was probably concerned, but there wasn't enough evidence to put legal action into motion. Remember, people can be sued for these things. Maybe the shooter just said something like, "Sometimes I think it would be great if other people suffered like me" or something really vague like that. Nothing that would rise to the level of worst mass shooting in U.S. history. As a few people have already said, hindsight is 20/20, right?


Not even close.
 
2012-08-02 11:19:21 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: You do realize that in most states the mentally ill ARE barred from purchasing or owning firearms right?


Are the legal and medical definitions of "mentally ill" the same?

How long does the gun ban last? If someone suffered from it as a child and seems fine as an adult, do they not get to have a gun?

What about depression? A substance abuse problem?

And is the opinion of one psychiatrist enough too enter them into a no-gun-database? Or is simply seeking counseling enough to put them in there in the first place?
 
2012-08-02 11:21:07 AM
So a gag order is issued to allow authorities to cover their asses. Awesome.
 
2012-08-02 11:21:55 AM

vpb: cassanovascotian: I am utterly astounded by the kind of dialogue that is surrounding this incident.

1) The university is the problem, blame them
2) Costumes are the problem -don't let anyone wear costumes in movie theatres
3) Society is the problem... or something

And everyone is so cowed by the NRA lobby that it's completely unthinkable to suggest that maybe the second amendment is a farking retarded piece of outdated legislation that needs to be done away with, and that maybe it's not such a good idea for demonstrably mentally ill people with homicidal ideation to have a right to carry AR-15's.

but don't mind me... please, go back to talking about how costumes are the real problem.

The NRA has a lot of money behind it, and money counts more than votes. The 2nd amendment would be fine if people would read the first part.


The literal interpretation of the Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is broken down for you here:

1. "A well regulated militia"

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This regulation defines militia.

2. "being necessary to the security of a free State"


In order to keep the State (in this instance, the 'state' being the country as a whole, using the classical definition of state = country) free and secure.

(Aside: These two sentence fragments are what an English student would call a descriptive modifier, and are there to give reasoning for the second part of the sentence, and therefore should not be considered limiting factors)

3. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"


People have the right to keep arms. Not a specific class of arms, but arms. As the word is capitalized, it does not mean the appendages attached to the torso, but a class of tools designated as Arms.

4. "shall not be infringed."

Dictionary.com link to the word infringe. Cannot encroach or violate the right to bear arms. Period.

Now... tell me, why is this so hard to understand?
 
2012-08-02 11:23:23 AM

Happy Hours: DoBeDoBeDo: You do realize that in most states the mentally ill ARE barred from purchasing or owning firearms right?

Are the legal and medical definitions of "mentally ill" the same?

How long does the gun ban last? If someone suffered from it as a child and seems fine as an adult, do they not get to have a gun?

What about depression? A substance abuse problem?

And is the opinion of one psychiatrist enough too enter them into a no-gun-database? Or is simply seeking counseling enough to put them in there in the first place?


I don't know about gun databases, but getting diagnosed with a mental illness used to be enough to exclude you from being able to get health insurance. That has all changed with the Affordable Care Act, but if say you were a teenager who had a one time psychotic break due to a life event (being gang raped for example), but you were wrongly diagnosed with schizophrenia (or purposely wrongly diagnosed so the psych hospital can get more insurance money), you could be denied coverage by private insurers for the rest of your life. Parents who run little Johnny into his pediatrician to get some "mood enhancers" never really take that into consideration.
 
2012-08-02 11:23:31 AM
I'll wait to make up my mind on this matter until after it's on Law & Order.
 
2012-08-02 11:23:33 AM
Since there's a gag order on just about everyone connected with this case, let's let speculation and "anonymous unnamed sources" run with it.

fark YOU ALL. we really don't need/want to hear it.

/to be fair though, UCHSC is holey holey holey, so good luck finding that 'leak'
 
2012-08-02 11:23:55 AM

McDougal: bluefelix: drjekel_mrhyde: Can your psychiatrist really do this? Doesn't it goes against their oath?

My understanding is that mental health professionals are not sworn to a legally protected oath like lawyers. If a patient is abusing someone or is threatening to hurt someone the psychiatrist/psychologist is legally required to notify the authorities. It's a felony to not inform. My guess is that the shooter didn't make solid threats in his sessions.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the psychologist involved. She was probably concerned, but there wasn't enough evidence to put legal action into motion. Remember, people can be sued for these things. Maybe the shooter just said something like, "Sometimes I think it would be great if other people suffered like me" or something really vague like that. Nothing that would rise to the level of worst mass shooting in U.S. history. As a few people have already said, hindsight is 20/20, right?

Not even close.


Worst one this year, though. Although admittedly, the year is only slightly over half over, so there's still time for another shooting incident that could eclipse this one. And then we start the whole cycle over again: "this is not the time to discuss gun control" "well, why not" "let the families grieve" "hey, here's evidence that this could have been averted if..." "lawsuit lawsuit lawsuit" "the shooter's classmates from 2nd grade always thought he was strange, what do 2nd graders know that office co-workers don't, news at 11" "let's talk about gun control" "they're trying to take my guns" "we need to fix the way this country views mental health" "oh man, if i had been there and i had my gun, situation would have been perfectly safe" "atrocities happen because God let's them happen because gay marriage and women's rights". And the media and the politicians and the public only get worse the day after the shooting.
 
2012-08-02 11:24:12 AM
I'm confused. How is a therapist's duty to protect discharged by referring the matter to the university instead of telling the police? If the threat assessment team was part of the clinical services offered to students, it shouldn't matter if the client was dropping out of the university. If the threat assessment was part of student conduct regulation, then the therapist should have told the police about the threat to public safety. Hall monitors and disciplinary committees are neither police nor mental health professionals. How is the university responsible for policing their students beyond keeping the campus reasonably safe and orderly? Can someone explain how the university became the middle man here?
 
2012-08-02 11:25:25 AM
Think there's gonna be some serious guilt going on.
One of the hardest things to deal with is "If I'd only _____________" syndrome.
Also known as 'kicking oneself after the fact' and "Hindsight, how does it work?".

Especially if the thing that you could have done was right in front of your face and you chose not to.
 
2012-08-02 11:27:07 AM

Dynascape: But I also love shooting. There has to be some kind of balance here. Im no harm to other people. Its not like Im going to shoot exactly 15 people or some bizarre shiat.


And only in the right knee between the tibia and patella...
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report