Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

10933 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
 
2012-08-02 10:02:19 AM  
Hindsight is 20/20.
 
2012-08-02 10:02:22 AM  
It's CYA time!
 
2012-08-02 10:02:57 AM  
they should have created a massive dick and f*cked him with it. that would have ended this whole tragedy
 
2012-08-02 10:03:00 AM  
Lawsuits against University in 4. . 3. . 2. . .
 
2012-08-02 10:04:03 AM  
Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...
 
2012-08-02 10:04:55 AM  
Someone without shame needs to dress as Captain Hindsight for the backgrounds in CNN's coverage. Give them something worthwhile on the screen. Like a Where's Waldo while non-interesting trivia is repeated.
 
2012-08-02 10:05:36 AM  
ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com

static.thehollywoodgossip.com

celebritywonder.ugo.com

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....
 
2012-08-02 10:06:39 AM  
We need to just divide the country in half. This half is "the government," and the other half are "the citizens." "The government" half is above the law. A person from "the government" is paired off with a "citizen." The government person watches the citizen 24/7.

Then things like that shooting could never, ever happen.... if a person from "the government" shoots a place up, they are above the law and it isn't newsworthy.

Bigger government... is there anything it can't fix?
 
2012-08-02 10:06:46 AM  
Clearly the best way to have this shooter entered into our mental health system would have been to ban high capacity magazines.
 
2012-08-02 10:07:09 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-02 10:07:21 AM  

ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 450x654]

[static.thehollywoodgossip.com image 470x705]

[celebritywonder.ugo.com image 449x600]

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....


I was with you until Rosie.

So what if they didn't do anything? What exactly were they supposed to do?
 
2012-08-02 10:07:41 AM  

Mateorocks: Hindsight is 20/20.


This.

FTA:
she was alarmed by the behavior of James Eagan Holmes

Doesn't sound like she had anything solid about a specific crime.
 
2012-08-02 10:08:06 AM  

ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:


/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....


what do you mean by "plant" ?
 
2012-08-02 10:08:41 AM  

steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...


Patient Doctor priviledge, I doubt it.
 
2012-08-02 10:08:43 AM  

steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...


One of our local universities had a psych prof who shot and killed a student and then himself. It turns out the the Uni had lots of warnings about this guy, even before they hired him. I don't remember the exact diagnosis, but I think it included the term "crazier than a shiat-house rat".

The university has reached a settlement with the family of the slain student.
 
2012-08-02 10:08:45 AM  
Can your psychiatrist really do this? Doesn't it goes against their oath?
 
2012-08-02 10:08:45 AM  
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?
 
2012-08-02 10:08:53 AM  

ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 450x654]

[static.thehollywoodgossip.com image 470x705]

[celebritywonder.ugo.com image 449x600]

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....


As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?
 
2012-08-02 10:08:56 AM  
I don't actually see how the university is at fault, then again I can't really follow this article as its not "written," but more like random things thrown onto a webpage.
 
2012-08-02 10:10:04 AM  

Mugato: I was with you until Rosie.


You don't fark a face....
or is it her voice??
They invented duct tape for a reason.

/moar for me.....White Men Can Jump...with my BONER
 
2012-08-02 10:10:13 AM  
Universities that fail to act on vague rumours of serious criminal activity should have the death penalty applied to their athletics program.
 
2012-08-02 10:10:26 AM  

Gough: steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...

One of our local universities had a psych prof who shot and killed a student and then himself. It turns out the the Uni had lots of warnings about this guy, even before they hired him. I don't remember the exact diagnosis, but I think it included the term "crazier than a shiat-house rat".

The university has reached a settlement with the family of the slain student.


He probably had high anxiety. Should have asked Professor Littleoldman about his credentials.
 
2012-08-02 10:10:58 AM  

steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...


Out of curiosity, what could or should they have done? From little that was written in the article, it did not sound like her concerns were concrete enough to be actionable. And her concerns were voiced a month before the shooting. Should the police have started tailing him indefinitely because of a vague concern? Should we now have a registry of all people who have ever expressed violent fantasies to their therapist, and have these individuals tracked?

People wonder how this world got so messed up, with lawsuits everywhere and personal responsibility dead. You don't have to look any further than responses like the one above.
 
2012-08-02 10:11:09 AM  
Paternowned!
 
2012-08-02 10:11:15 AM  

GORDON: We need to just divide the country in half. This half is "the government," and the other half are "the citizens." "The government" half is above the law. A person from "the government" is paired off with a "citizen." The government person watches the citizen 24/7.

Then things like that shooting could never, ever happen.... if a person from "the government" shoots a place up, they are above the law and it isn't newsworthy.

Bigger government... is there anything it can't fix?


media.comicvine.com
 
2012-08-02 10:11:21 AM  

Smoking GNU: ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 450x654]

[static.thehollywoodgossip.com image 470x705]

[celebritywonder.ugo.com image 449x600]

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?


You just made my urethra cringe.....
 
2012-08-02 10:11:59 AM  
I worked at a college counseling center for awhile and I'm surprised they didn't have a plan in place for this sort of thing. Usually the standard procedure is if a client threatens someone else, if there are clear intended victim/victims, and the client has means to carry it out then a threat assessment should have been triggered. Usually using university or local cops they kid would get hauled in for a threat assessment usually involving 2 mental health professionals. If he is deemed to be a threat they can then put him in an inpatient facility. This kind of thing happens on campuses more than you realize and most of the time it's nothing. There was a real push after Virginia Tech and the Gabby Giffords shooting to have clear protocols in place. If they dropped the ball on this one and didn't at least do an assessment, they better brace for the impending lawsuits.
 
2012-08-02 10:12:33 AM  

GORDON: We need to just divide the country in half. This half is "the government," and the other half are "the citizens." "The government" half is above the law. A person from "the government" is paired off with a "citizen." The government person watches the citizen 24/7.

Then things like that shooting could never, ever happen.... if a person from "the government" shoots a place up, they are above the law and it isn't newsworthy.

Bigger government... is there anything it can't fix?


Congratulations. It's early yet, but I do believe we can crown you the winner of "Stupidest Response in Thread".
 
2012-08-02 10:13:06 AM  

ChipNASA: You just made my urethra cringe.....



Aaaaaand my work here is done.
 
2012-08-02 10:13:29 AM  

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


if there is a clear threat to self or others and the client has the means to carry it out most mental health professionals are ethically obligated to report it.
 
2012-08-02 10:13:31 AM  
This is also like those stories of people having a crazy ex and the most they can do is get a restraining order. Then the ex kills them and the outrage is, 'why wasn't more done?!?!'....what the hell CAN you do?
 
2012-08-02 10:14:02 AM  

ChipNASA: Smoking GNU: ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 450x654]

[static.thehollywoodgossip.com image 470x705]

[celebritywonder.ugo.com image 449x600]

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?

You just made my urethra cringe.....


images.zap2it.com
 
2012-08-02 10:14:16 AM  

steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...


Of course they can be sued. I could be sued for not using my psychic powers to prevent an earthquake. They might even lose the suit. Doesn't mean that they _should_ be sued, but sure they can be.

/No, I don't have psychic powers.
 
2012-08-02 10:14:26 AM  

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


Psychiatrists are legally obligated to report it if a patient threatens himself or others.
 
2012-08-02 10:15:41 AM  
Done in one
 
2012-08-02 10:15:58 AM  
It wasn't the university's responsibility to keep watching the nut job after he dropped out.
 
2012-08-02 10:16:52 AM  
well, it's a good thing the shooting didn't happen at the university or they might be in trouble. The Psychiatrist has an equal responsibility to get law enforcement involved if there is a direct threat or any indication someone could be harmed.
 
2012-08-02 10:17:03 AM  
To be fair he didn't shoot up the school. So they've go that going for them,. Which is nice...
 
2012-08-02 10:17:25 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-02 10:18:28 AM  

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


They can divulge the information if they have evidence their patient may be a danger to himself or the public.
 
2012-08-02 10:18:49 AM  
Wonder how long it'll take people before they realize things like this are completely unpreventable. Blame all the people you want, have all the hindsight in the world, it will not stop this from happening. Unless of course we go with the whole throw out civil liberties angle and just start rounding up everyone we think might go nuts. Which would be everyone.
 
2012-08-02 10:19:25 AM  

draypresct: steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...


As someone who has made that decision, it's not an easy one to make. Taking someone's freedom away by having the cops take them to a psychiatric hospital or letting them go with the possibility they pulled the wool over your eyes and end up hurting someone is often a judgement call of epic proportions. Most of the time you don't sleep at night no matter which way you go with it. And yes they can be sued but more likely the college will be sued. The mental health professional can also be dragged in front of their licensing board to have their career basically ended.
 
2012-08-02 10:19:56 AM  

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.


But holding public office is A-OK!
 
2012-08-02 10:20:03 AM  
what could they have done?

well if there were threats to other people involved in his fantasies, the cops could have paid him a visit

at which point they would have either found his cache of weapons or found him to be crazy.

duh.
 
2012-08-02 10:20:20 AM  

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?
 
2012-08-02 10:21:27 AM  
Expel all of the football players, remove their scholarships and fire the head coach. This university has to be PUNISHED.
 
2012-08-02 10:21:34 AM  

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

Psychiatrists are legally obligated to report it if a patient threatens himself or others.


Interestingly, the only profession where there isn't an obligation to report as least some of the time is the priesthood. The shiat they must hear that they keep inside would be terrible life to live. That is more of a burden than I could handle and I've heard some pretty awful things as a counselor
 
2012-08-02 10:21:47 AM  
Aren't Human Resources committees grand?

/HR is exists to protect the company, not you
//HR failed at U Colorado
///psychs have a legal duty to report in such instances, so the psych did right
 
2012-08-02 10:21:48 AM  
And another thing, is there really such a thing as bad publicity?

Go CU Denver! Go mascot-less campus!
 
2012-08-02 10:22:16 AM  

mrEdude: what could they have done?

well if there were threats to other people involved in his fantasies, the cops could have paid him a visit

at which point they would have either found his cache of weapons or found him to be crazy.

duh.


and, done what with the weapons? If he had not yet committed a crime, just visiting him and finding him to own weapons would mean jack shiat...
 
2012-08-02 10:22:59 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-02 10:23:07 AM  

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.


How does that shake out? A doctor can just declare you ill and the cops show up for your guns?
 
2012-08-02 10:25:21 AM  

ChipNASA: You just made my urethra cringe.....


Future fark handle or band name. You decide.
 
2012-08-02 10:26:20 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: ChipNASA: Smoking GNU: ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 450x654]

[static.thehollywoodgossip.com image 470x705]

[celebritywonder.ugo.com image 449x600]

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?

You just made my urethra cringe.....

[images.zap2it.com image 360x270]



I'm sure there's a fetish for penile wasabi
 
2012-08-02 10:28:08 AM  
Sorry but since when is it the business of the university to go after suspected nutters?

If she was concerend she should have contacted the police.
 
2012-08-02 10:29:03 AM  
I see a lot of folks suing the university now...
 
2012-08-02 10:29:04 AM  
So at what point short of "Oh, I'm gonna git mahself a shotgun, an shoot all the whiteys I see..." do we stop people?
 
2012-08-02 10:30:07 AM  

ChipNASA: Jon iz teh kewl: ChipNASA: Smoking GNU: ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 450x654]

[static.thehollywoodgossip.com image 470x705]

[celebritywonder.ugo.com image 449x600]

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?

You just made my urethra cringe.....

[images.zap2it.com image 360x270]


I'm sure there's a fetish for penile wasabi


i'm sure nobody here knows what your talking about. nor do you. good day sir
 
2012-08-02 10:30:10 AM  

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?
 
2012-08-02 10:30:13 AM  

WienerButt: This is also like those stories of people having a crazy ex and the most they can do is get a restraining order. Then the ex kills them and the outrage is, 'why wasn't more done?!?!'....what the hell CAN you do?


Isn't the answer obvious? Anyone who has seen 'Minority Report' knows the solution is to put Tom Cruise in charge of our law enforcement system. Not sure why Fartbongo hasn't already taken care of this.

/It's sure to work out well, espeically for Katie Holmes
 
2012-08-02 10:30:18 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: Interestingly, the only profession where there isn't an obligation to report as least some of the time is the priesthood. The shiat they must hear that they keep inside would be terrible life to live. That is more of a burden than I could handle and I've heard some pretty awful things as a counselor


I thought priests had the same obligations as therapists with regards to notification. Huh. That's interesting.
 
2012-08-02 10:30:35 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: draypresct: steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...

As someone who has made that decision, it's not an easy one to make. Taking someone's freedom away by having the cops take them to a psychiatric hospital or letting them go with the possibility they pulled the wool over your eyes and end up hurting someone is often a judgement call of epic proportions. Most of the time you don't sleep at night no matter which way you go with it. And yes they can be sued but more likely the college will be sued. The mental health professional can also be dragged in front of their licensing board to have their career basically ended.


unlikely in this particular case, if the psychiatrist HAD acted to have the person committed. Various newspapers reported that the packet of info he sent her (which apparently she didn't look at till after the shooting) contained detailed drawings of his plans. The psychiatrist had a duty to protect the public from this person, and was obligated to do so under the so-called Tarasoff ruling from the US Supreme Court. From wiki:

"Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual."

I'd argue by just warning the university officials (who did nothing), the psychiatrist did not carry out her obligations according to Tarasoff. She should have also alerted police and taken steps to have him committed.
 
2012-08-02 10:31:34 AM  
Will the public and news media crucify the psychiatrist for not doing more? Because, you know, Paterno told higher-ups about Sandusky, and those higher-ups did nothing, and Paterno was blamed for not doing more. This psychiatrist reported to higher-ups that Holmes was a dangerous lunatic, and those higher-ups did nothing, so of course she should also be blamed for not doing more. She could have gone to the police herself, right? And now a bunch of people are dead and injured. I think murder should trump sexual abuse.
 
2012-08-02 10:32:23 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.


If it wasn't guns, it would've probably been household chemicals turned into a bomb.

Do you want to remove our right to household chemicals?
 
2012-08-02 10:32:58 AM  

mister aj: Universities that fail to act on vague rumours of serious criminal activity should have the death penalty applied to their athletics program.


Holmes hadn't done anything.
Sandusky was caught raping a child.

Holmes was a loner.
Sandusky was allowed to rape children
because his presence was comforting
to Paterno and PSU football (Good luck charm? the kids
were virgin sacrifices? who knows).
 
2012-08-02 10:33:26 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-02 10:33:37 AM  

WienerButt: This is also like those stories of people having a crazy ex and the most they can do is get a restraining order. Then the ex kills them and the outrage is, 'why wasn't more done?!?!'....what the hell CAN you do?


Yep. The only thing it really does is geared towards after the fact. At least they know WHO killed the woman in her home with 74 stab wounds...

But, it's also nice that if you do see them, or they come by and you have time that you've got that piece of paper and the cops will come to you a whole hell of a lot quicker. And, if you've got a gun and need to use it, there's absolute proof of a necessary death.
 
2012-08-02 10:33:38 AM  
I blame Reagan.
 
2012-08-02 10:34:16 AM  

cassanovascotian: 2) Costumes are the problem -don't let anyone wear costumes in movie theatres


I support this just because it would crush so many losers' lives.

/the exception, as always, is for bizarrely hot nerd chicks that dress up in sexy costumes
 
2012-08-02 10:34:38 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: mister aj: Universities that fail to act on vague rumours of serious criminal activity should have the death penalty applied to their athletics program.

Holmes hadn't done anything.
Sandusky was caught raping a child.

Holmes was a loner.
Sandusky was allowed to rape children
because his presence was comforting
to Paterno and PSU football (Good luck charm? the kids
were virgin sacrifices? who knows).


what if we build an automatic rape machine, then we won't need a live person to do the raping
 
2012-08-02 10:35:09 AM  
They weren't wrong, really. Their job is to protect the university community, not the world at large. Who could they have told that would have done something? If they told the police, not much the police would likely have done.
 
2012-08-02 10:35:36 AM  

gadian: I thought priests had the same obligations as therapists with regards to notification. Huh. That's interesting.


One of my brothers had a minister snitch on him after he confessed to a crime. Of course, he was totally guilty and deserved the time he spent in prison so no outrage here.
 
2012-08-02 10:35:44 AM  
The NCAA should punish Colorado by stripping its football team of fourteen seasons worth of victories.
 
2012-08-02 10:36:09 AM  
Any idea where this guy rates compared to the general [grad] student population? My recollections are that schools draw plenty of weirdos, and that plenty of those that can't handle life try to hide there. Until he made legally specific threats, I doubt he managed to break the 3rd percentile of creepiness. How many weirdos do you have to lock up/kick out to stop this?

Followup: Psychology/Neuroscience/pretty much everything schools in Colorado fall to dismal levels as sychiatric screenings keep most students out.
 
2012-08-02 10:36:39 AM  

SirHolo: Aren't Human Resources committees grand?

/HR is exists to protect the company, not you
//HR failed at U Colorado
///psychs have a legal duty to report in such instances, so the psych did right


Odd, HR pretty much pulled out all the stops every time I needed them here.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-02 10:36:54 AM  

mrEdude: what could they have done?

well if there were threats to other people involved in his fantasies, the cops could have paid him a visit

at which point they would have either found his cache of weapons or found him to be crazy.

duh.


Of course, the weapons weren't illegal, and about 25% of the population is crazy, but who knows.
 
2012-08-02 10:37:39 AM  

ChipNASA: Jon iz teh kewl: ChipNASA: Smoking GNU: ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 450x654]

[static.thehollywoodgossip.com image 470x705]

[celebritywonder.ugo.com image 449x600]

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?

You just made my urethra cringe.....

[images.zap2it.com image 360x270]


I'm sure there's a fetish for penile wasabi


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??
 
2012-08-02 10:38:03 AM  

Andulamb: The NCAA should punish Colorado by stripping its football team of fourteen seasons worth of victories.


Sadly, as mathematically impossible as it seems, that might actually improve their record.
 
2012-08-02 10:39:25 AM  
had98c

Wonder how long it'll take people before they realize things like this are completely unpreventable.

In many cases, you might be correct, but in this (Theater shooting) case, and several others (Columbine) where people were warned or any sane person could see there was a threat, yes, it was 100% preventable.

Blame all the people you want, have all the hindsight in the world
It's not "hindsight" when you are told of the event before it occurs.
 
2012-08-02 10:39:38 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: mister aj: Universities that fail to act on vague rumours of serious criminal activity should have the death penalty applied to their athletics program.

Holmes hadn't done anything.
Sandusky was caught raping a child.

Holmes was a loner.
Sandusky was allowed to rape children
because his presence was comforting
to Paterno and PSU football (Good luck charm? the kids
were virgin sacrifices? who knows).


was this shiat supposed to be a haiku, or do you need accompanying bongos or something?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-08-02 10:39:46 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.


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.
 
2012-08-02 10:40:34 AM  

ChipNASA: ChipNASA: Jon iz teh kewl: ChipNASA: Smoking GNU: ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 450x654]

[static.thehollywoodgossip.com image 470x705]

[celebritywonder.ugo.com image 449x600]

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?

You just made my urethra cringe.....

[images.zap2it.com image 360x270]


I'm sure there's a fetish for penile wasabi

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??


try raising a child in this economy. "daddy was i conseived by monkey wasabi sex?"
 
2012-08-02 10:40:48 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-02 10:41:17 AM  

sprawl15: Clearly the best way to have this shooter entered into our mental health system would have been to ban high capacity magazines.


This.
 
2012-08-02 10:41:25 AM  

ChipNASA: do you think I'd cause a commotion??


They're Japanese, I'm sure they've already made a porn with the same plot. Now, the American customers...
 
2012-08-02 10:42:17 AM  
came to see all the apologists show up.

left satisfied.
 
2012-08-02 10:42:56 AM  
If only the university had dragged his arse to university-court, found him guilty of pre-crime, and thrown him in university-jail; then this tragedy would have been avoided.
 
2012-08-02 10:43:02 AM  
So we go from hiding the rape of a few kids to a school covering up for the psycho planning to murder a bunch of people. I think we need to Arthur Andersen the school. At the very least their neuroscience program should get the death penalty... a year for each person in that theater.
 
2012-08-02 10:43:07 AM  

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.
 
2012-08-02 10:43:42 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.


The 2nd amendment may be outdated. Kentucky might be horribly misguided on their gun laws. But that's what the future is going to look like; technology isn't going to give society any choice. With the increasing affordability and capability of rapid prototyping machines (which may eventually become ubiquitious) the ability of the state to control firearms will end. Someone has already printed out the lower reciever of a firearm and successfully fired it. They reported that there was virtually no wear and tear on the printed part after ~150 rounds. 3D printers turn firearms into data, no machine shop necessary.

Moreover, given that he apparently made servicable incendiary devices, the fact that he chose firearms, and wasn't particularly proficient in their use may well have saved many lives. Outside of catching him early and institutionalizing him, this may well have been the next best available outcome. Something which, I suspect, is worth keeping in mind as some of us prepare for a battle the RIAA, MPAA, porn producers, video game publishers, and others are already spending billions to fight to a draw.
 
2012-08-02 10:44:31 AM  
Well, that lawsuit against the university suddenly doesn't seem so frivolous. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? What would be the standard protocol if one of your students had violent thoughts? Have him see a psychiatrist. Well, he was already doing that. Given that he had not actually acted on any of those thoughts, what else could the university do? Involuntarily commit him for thoughts of violence? Every now and then someone had done something to cause me to visualize them dying a slow and agonizing death. Should I be involuntarily commited? Is the university responsible for the actions of students that are commited off campus? If a UCLA student murders a hooker in Vegas, can the relatives of the deceased sue UCLA for not doing something about it? What about ex-students? Why didn't Harvard catch the fact Ted Kaczynski was insane?

Outside of having them see a mental health professional, which apparently was done for Holmes, and Cho before him, I really don't see what more the scools could have done given these guys never had acted on those violent thoughts.
 
2012-08-02 10:44:43 AM  
In all seriousness, it must be said that the formatting of this article is appalling...

Headline
Video
NBC ad
Video caption
Byline
Five paragraphs of the article, wrapped around an ad on the right
Video
NBC ad
Video caption
Two paragraphs of the article
Link to a poll
Slideshow
One paragraph of the article, wrapped around a link to NBC's Facebook page on the left
The rest of the article, with a link to a related article, and wrapped around an ad on the right

The reader's eye certainly gets a workout.
 
2012-08-02 10:45:45 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.


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
 
2012-08-02 10:45:58 AM  
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.
 
2012-08-02 10:46:04 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.


You do realize that in most states the mentally ill ARE barred from purchasing or owning firearms right? That's one of the things the background checks are done for. The question is more how do we fix the reporting structures so that (like in the case of the VA Tech Shooter) the information actually gets put in the database, and determine where the line is drawn between mentally ill that will kill someone and mentally ill that just needs Paxil.
 
2012-08-02 10:47:06 AM  

Barnacles!: ModernPrimitive01: draypresct: steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...

As someone who has made that decision, it's not an easy one to make. Taking someone's freedom away by having the cops take them to a psychiatric hospital or letting them go with the possibility they pulled the wool over your eyes and end up hurting someone is often a judgement call of epic proportions. Most of the time you don't sleep at night no matter which way you go with it. And yes they can be sued but more likely the college will be sued. The mental health professional can also be dragged in front of their licensing board to have their career basically ended.

unlikely in this particular case, if the psychiatrist HAD acted to have the person committed. Various newspapers reported that the packet of info he sent her (which apparently she didn't look at till after the shooting) contained detailed drawings of his plans. The psychiatrist had a duty to protect the public from this person, and was obligated to do so under the so-called Tarasoff ruling from the US Supreme Court. From wiki:

"Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual."

I'd argue by just warning the university officials (who did nothing), the p ...


The Tarasoff case involved very specific intended victims. It's really a grey area. If the packet said "I'm going to this movie theater" then she could warned theater management, told the police etc. but if she really only read the packet afterward then that's a mute point. She had enough of a hunch to warn the university beforehand but it really depends on what information she had beforehand. The case against her will depend on what she put in her case notes, unless she video tapes her sessions. Otherwise, it's just a he said she said. The thing to remember about Tarasoff is that duty to protect doesn't mean becoming a cop yourself. You pass on the information, your duty to warn is discharged.

Here is a real life example that happens all the time with the duty to protect doctrine: An underage client comes in and says they are being molested at home. You call child protective services, they do a home visit. For various reasons (not good ones) if there is no visible physical abuse done to the child, they usually close the case without doing anything. Your client comes back to you and says, I'm still being molested at home; as long as you re report it, your duty to warn is discharged. Duty to protect doesn't mean you can investigate yourself or go vigilante and bust in and take the kid. Duty to warn means you tell someone hopefully the potential victims, but in a mass murder spree you can't really do that.
So even if the people you tell do nothing, you've still fulfilled your ethical obligation. Morally, it's shiatty that she didn't follow up, but ethically she is probably covered.
 
2012-08-02 10:47:26 AM  

Silverstaff: Lawsuits against University in 4. . 3. . 2. . .


They need to ensure she is a licensed psychiatrist too.
 
2012-08-02 10:47:56 AM  
I'm very liberal but people who are using this case to push new gun laws are an embarrassment. Passing laws because of crazy people is like requiring all walls be padded.
 
2012-08-02 10:48:16 AM  

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
 
2012-08-02 10:50:21 AM  

MycroftHolmes: steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...

Out of curiosity, what could or should they have done? From little that was written in the article, it did not sound like her concerns were concrete enough to be actionable. And her concerns were voiced a month before the shooting. Should the police have started tailing him indefinitely because of a vague concern? Should we now have a registry of all people who have ever expressed violent fantasies to their therapist, and have these individuals tracked?


Well, how else are we going to get nuts into treatment before they kill people?

Fenton was "alarmed" by Sideshow Bob's behavior. Shrinks hear a lot of shocking things; I doubt Fenton was alarmed for no specific reason. The reason(s) would be in her report to this "threat assessment" group that decided to kick the can down the road.

At the least, a "welfare check" at Sideshow Bob's apartment would have turned up his arsenal. And yeah, when your shrink is alarmed your guns and incendiary chemicals should be confiscated.
 
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...
 
2012-08-02 11:27:10 AM  

GORDON: We need to just divide the country in half. This half is "the government," and the other half are "the citizens." "The government" half is above the law. A person from "the government" is paired off with a "citizen." The government person watches the citizen 24/7.

Then things like that shooting could never, ever happen.... if a person from "the government" shoots a place up, they are above the law and it isn't newsworthy.

Bigger government... is there anything it can't fix?


In a thread filled with idiocy yours stands out as possible the stupidest thing typed by anyone except the roomfull of monkeys trying to re-create Shakespeare. This kid was under psychiatric care. The psychiatrist, as she was required to by law, reported to a University -run "threat assessment committee" (more or less specifically set up to try to prevent another Va Tech massacre) that he'd made threats and was in her professional opinion, a danger to himself or others.

Their response was essentially "meh" since he was dropping out, and they never thought, "hey we should Aurora PD a heads up that maybe they should keep an eye on this guy"
 
2012-08-02 11:28:10 AM  

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


Right, and it wasn't the university's responsibility to pair him with an advisor who'd look out for him. It wasn't his department's responsibility to see that he devoted his career hopes to the field and help him deal when he learns late in the game that it was an unwise choice, that he isn't really cut out for it or isn't welcome in the cut-throat field of science. And it sure wasn't his high school's or family's responsibility to help him find his passion, even if it happens to be "menial" - nothing makes them happier than sending their cute little output to major universities to study multisyllabic majors.

/two MS degrees
//hope it made somebody happy
///should have been a trucker
 
2012-08-02 11:28:11 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?


I would like there to be a way for this shiat to show up on gun background checks.

The Virginia tech shooter was involuntarily hospitalized for mental health issues... how the hell is he able to buy a gun!!!!
 
2012-08-02 11:28:26 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.


Virginia Tech had more dead, but the theater had more wounded in addition to the dead. We are excluding the Civil War, right? :p
 
2012-08-02 11:28:32 AM  

sprawl15: Clearly the best way to have this shooter entered into our mental health system would have been to ban high capacity magazines.


Tell you what buddy, how about we let the government track ammo and large mag sales but let you have as many SAWs, MP5s, P-90s, whatever your particular fancy as you want.

Oh what, that's compromose SOSHULIZM

On topic: I'm curious just what this university could have done, other than call the cops, who really could not do much unless they had actual evidence etc. Maybe they could have started monitoring him, but I doubt LE has resources to do that, and that does invite harassment lawsuits from non-crazy people. Even if the university had acted, this still might have happened.
 
2012-08-02 11:29:05 AM  

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.


Yes, that is the standard police response to discovering a person has a small arsenal of weapons and has made threats to use them. You've hit is exactly on the head.
 
2012-08-02 11:29:15 AM  

ChipNASA:
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??


Oh gawd I did. I really did.

/help
 
2012-08-02 11:30:04 AM  
"Twenty-one Questions You Will Not Hear Asked About the Dark Knight Movie Massacre," by Kazi Kearse, a therapist from New York: Link
 
2012-08-02 11:30:53 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: 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.


Someone from the government called. They were alarmed by some of your posts. Fark your 1st and 4th Amendment rights, they are going to come and seize your computer equipment, search your house for anything illegal without a warrant, and censor everything you say from now on. You are not allowed to protest this action either.

See how that works?

Rights are rights for a reason. They are protected by the highest law in our land for a reason. There are very specific and narrow circumstances that they can be taken away, and even then it is very hard to do so. (Theoretically anyway) You can't just infringe upon rights without a clear, credible threat. He wasn't committed, wasn't diagnosed with a serious mental disorder. He still had gun rights. This was tragic, yes, but sometimes people snap, and all the hindsight in the world will not prevent things like this from happening.
 
2012-08-02 11:31:09 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Tell you what buddy, how about we let the government track ammo and large mag sales but let you have as many SAWs, MP5s, P-90s, whatever your particular fancy as you want.

Oh what, that's compromose SOSHULIZM


wut
 
2012-08-02 11:31:10 AM  

MycroftHolmes: Are you really advocating that we 'flag' someone and restrict their rights based on the decisions of entirely fallible human beings?


She was worried enough to flag him for the University to watch, but not enough to concern the general community?
No I'm not saying you arrest the man or take his stuff without question. But if someone is that far gone then they should probably be committed or given a closer look. Especially when they lock themselves away for a month to make bombs.

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


So you believe that a spontaneous and unwarranted restriction on the right to access, keep, and bear arms is both unreasonable and illegal even if it might be argued that it is in the temporary interest of public safety.
I get exactly what you're saying and I can respect that, man.
 
2012-08-02 11:31:30 AM  

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


In most states if a mental health or medical professional becomes convinced that, in their professional judgment, their patient is a danger to themselves or someone else, they are REQUIRED, by law, to report that to the person threatened or the local authorities.
 
2012-08-02 11:32:00 AM  

ChipNASA: Jon iz teh kewl: ChipNASA: Smoking GNU: ChipNASA: ATTENTION FARK:

I am giving notice that I plant to shoot the following in the face:

yada yada

/and by shoot in the face....i mean with my penis.....and baby batter as ammunition.....

As opposed to shooting her with your penis and using wasabi as the ammo?

You just made my urethra cringe.....

I'm sure there's a fetish for penile wasabi


This might be the exception to rule 34.

/Rule 34
//Wasabi exception!
 
2012-08-02 11:33:07 AM  

sprawl15: Crotchrocket Slim: Tell you what buddy, how about we let the government track ammo and large mag sales but let you have as many SAWs, MP5s, P-90s, whatever your particular fancy as you want.

Oh what, that's compromose SOSHULIZM

wut


You started the off topic gun nuttery.
 
2012-08-02 11:34:03 AM  

PsiChi: "Twenty-one Questions You Will Not Hear Asked About the Dark Knight Movie Massacre," by Kazi Kearse, a therapist from New York: Link


What... what is this? I didn't get past #1, mind control. That guy is nuts. And he didn't even had the courtesy to put his rant into a TLDR format. :/
 
2012-08-02 11:34:10 AM  

PsiChi: "Twenty-one Questions You Will Not Hear Asked About the Dark Knight Movie Massacre," by Kazi Kearse, a therapist from New York: Link


#22. "Other than that, how was the movie?"
 
2012-08-02 11:37:07 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: You started the off topic gun nuttery.


"We should try to get crazy people help before they become violent, as that would be better for society than mitigating the violence that erupts when you ignore them."
"OMSFGH YOU GUN NUT HAV A P90 LOL OMG COMPROMISE"
 
2012-08-02 11:38:25 AM  

PsiChi: "Twenty-one Questions You Will Not Hear Asked About the Dark Knight Movie Massacre," by Kazi Kearse, a therapist from New York: Link


First thing that came to mind:
i12.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-02 11:38:37 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?


Way to cherry pick my post, if you read to the end I said the problems lie more with how to effectively report mentally ill people AND to determine just what exactly would get you on the exlusion list. The Laws however are already on the books.
 
2012-08-02 11:43:58 AM  

Trivia Jockey: They weren't wrong, really. Their job is to protect the university community, not the world at large. Who could they have told that would have done something? If they told the police, not much the police would likely have done.


If that's true, Joe Paterno would like his statue back.
 
2012-08-02 11:44:47 AM  

Aunt Crabby: 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?


By establishing a threat-assessment procedure and then deliberately deciding not to use it.
 
2012-08-02 11:45:15 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?


Uh, wrong. The Penn State issue is a completely different set of liabilities and responsibilities. I'm a little concerned that you think the two are somehow comparable.
 
2012-08-02 11:47:41 AM  

starsrift: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Uh, wrong. The Penn State issue is a completely different set of liabilities and responsibilities. I'm a little concerned that you think the two are somehow comparable.


I'll never understand why you people think saying "nuh uh it's different!" is a good response.
 
2012-08-02 11:50:32 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.


I notice you didn't blame the criminal.
 
2012-08-02 11:51:00 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: starsrift: BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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?

Uh, wrong. The Penn State issue is a completely different set of liabilities and responsibilities. I'm a little concerned that you think the two are somehow comparable.

I'll never understand why you people think saying "nuh uh it's different!" is a good response.


Someone already outlined the differences above. He even used a weird Haiku format.

Basically, Sandusky was caught raping a child. The shooter hadn't done anything wrong. We're discussing what could have been done, if anything, to prevent the crime the shooter hadn't committed yet. See the difference?
 
2012-08-02 11:51:27 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'll never understand why you people think saying "nuh uh it's different!" is a good response.


It's different because there are laws requiring institutions to report child sex abuse. There are no such laws that obligate reporting from the university in this case (though perhaps there should).

So yeah, it's different.
 
2012-08-02 11:52:27 AM  

sprawl15: Crotchrocket Slim: You started the off topic gun nuttery.

"We should try to get crazy people help before they become violent, as that would be better for society than mitigating the violence that erupts when you ignore them."

"OMSFGH YOU GUN NUT HAV A P90 LOL OMG COMPROMISE"


So I read more into your initial comment than you intended, but you're an adult and you should have known mentioning something controversial like the large mag ban would only distract from anything else you were saying. Snark is a biatchy mistress, especially on a two second post like your original.
 
2012-08-02 11:53:20 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: 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?

Way to cherry pick my post, if you read to the end I said the problems lie more with how to effectively report mentally ill people AND to determine just what exactly would get you on the exlusion list. The Laws however are already on the books.


I wasn't arguing that you were wrong or that it's a bad idea. See the very first thing I asked. "Mentally ill" is a somewhat vague concept to a layperson. The medical community has their definition, lawyers probably have a different one for each state and another one at a federal level.

We see this problem all the time when people bring up the insanity defense. Holmes was clearly insane (at least from a layperson's point of view), but it's doubtful that he would meet the criteria for being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
 
2012-08-02 11:53:58 AM  

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

It's actually the access to guns.


It's actually the desire to commit murder.
 
2012-08-02 11:56:04 AM  
Besides, if it were legal to track purchases of large amounts of ammo AND the police have a report from the psychologist, they have a lot more to act on than just a report from a psychologist.

Notice I'm not supporting anything that violates the 2nd Amendment, but still gives law enforcement more tools to do their job in a manner that won't affect responsible citizens.
 
2012-08-02 11:56:53 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: So I read more into your initial comment than you intended, but you're an adult and you should have known mentioning something controversial like the large mag ban would only distract from anything else you were saying.


The point is that the large mag ban itself is a distraction. The fundamental issues that create the violence in the first place are where society should be looking. Once we have that under control, we could start worrying about things that have an absolutely minimal impact on the crimes committed. I'd rather he not kill anyone than have to reload while killing people.
 
2012-08-02 11:58:15 AM  

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

We see this problem all the time when people bring up the insanity defense. Holmes was clearly insane (at least from a layperson's point of view), but it's doubtful that he would meet the criteria for being found not guilty by reason of insanity.



That's a good point. He was obviously mentally ill, but what has to happen for him to prove he was insane the whole time he planned this?
 
2012-08-02 12:01:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: starsrift: Uh, wrong. The Penn State issue is a completely different set of liabilities and responsibilities. I'm a little concerned that you think the two are somehow comparable.

I'll never understand why you people think saying "nuh uh it's different!" is a good response.


Well, there are some obvious differences. Like at Penn State, the perp committed a crime and the school is responsible for the child while they are there. Officials of the school knew what was going on The victim was a minor, which carries a set of special legal circumstances.
Sideshow Bob did not commit a crime on university grounds, and the university is NOT responsible for his behaviour while he is attending - just like a workplace. Like your workplace. There was no victim, obviously, because there was no crime.

So, that's just for starters...
/ and what the fark you mean, "you people"!?
 
2012-08-02 12:02:12 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Besides, if it were legal to track purchases of large amounts of ammo AND the police have a report from the psychologist, they have a lot more to act on than just a report from a psychologist.


Yes, because a crazy person with an amount of ammo under an arbitrary value running free is much less dangerous than someone with slightly more ammo.
 
2012-08-02 12:05:43 PM  

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.


This. Maybe the cops or psychiatrist could have Baker Acted him, but probably not if he wasn't acting unhinged at that moment.
 
2012-08-02 12:06:06 PM  

PsiChi: "Twenty-one Questions You Will Not Hear Asked About the Dark Knight Movie Massacre," by Kazi Kearse, a therapist from New York: Link


There were only four questions in that list.
 
2012-08-02 12:10:17 PM  

Andulamb: Will the public and news media crucify the psychiatrist for not doing more? Because, you know, Paterno told higher-ups about Sandusky, and those higher-ups did nothing, and Paterno was blamed for not doing more. This psychiatrist reported to higher-ups that Holmes was a dangerous lunatic, and those higher-ups did nothing, so of course she should also be blamed for not doing more. She could have gone to the police herself, right? And now a bunch of people are dead and injured. I think murder should trump sexual abuse.


Not the same. Paterno knew of a crime that had happened, the psychiatrist did not.
 
2012-08-02 12:18:20 PM  
Yay! Let's ruin more lives with the blame game! Lawyers to the rescue!
 
2012-08-02 12:20:10 PM  

mister aj: Expel all of the football players, remove their scholarships and fire the head coach. This university has to be PUNISHED.


Demonstrate to me that this happened because football, and I'll agree with you. As it stands, this seems to have happened because we don't do precrime arrests: a risk that I, personally, find acceptable.
 
2012-08-02 12:23:32 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Aunt Crabby: Can someone explain how the university became the middle man here?

By establishing a threat-assessment procedure and then deliberately deciding not to use it.


How is the university threat assessment process on campus extended to the duty to police all of their students in every situation? I haven't read their policies, but I would guess the threat assessment is limited to threats to the university and not the public at large. Protecting the word in general is beyond the scope of their authority. Since there was no illegal act on campus there was nothing for the university to report. It is the therapist who had a legal duty to protect, so she should have told the police and not just the university. I think the duty still lies with the therapist unless threat assessment was part of a clinical service.
 
2012-08-02 12:27:10 PM  
Fark me............isn't this what exit interviews are for? Finish up the details when someone leaves to either help them move along in a career or serve as a warning to others?

Jesus, so much to be said about not following policy or protocols.
 
2012-08-02 12:28:16 PM  

Happy Hours: 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.


True, but i would expect that if she went to her department heads about, there was more to it than a few unusual and/or morbid comments. It's their job to figure what makes a patient tick, so if we can't trust their judgement in a case like this, who can we trust to recognize the warning signs?
 
2012-08-02 12:28:57 PM  

PsiChi: "Twenty-one Questions You Will Not Hear Asked About the Dark Knight Movie Massacre," by Kazi Kearse, a therapist from New York: Link


Wow.

{jakie_chan_wtf_am_i_reading.jpg}
 
2012-08-02 12:35:21 PM  

Andulamb: Will the public and news media crucify the psychiatrist for not doing more? Because, you know, Paterno told higher-ups about Sandusky, and those higher-ups did nothing, and Paterno was blamed for not doing more. This psychiatrist reported to higher-ups that Holmes was a dangerous lunatic, and those higher-ups did nothing, so of course she should also be blamed for not doing more. She could have gone to the police herself, right? And now a bunch of people are dead and injured. I think murder should trump sexual abuse.


Note that the difference here is that Paterno knew the guy had raped kids. This guy hadn't done anything illegal yet - just intended to. Had the guy come in and said, "I was the guy who shot up the theater," Paterno would have given him a ticket to the next showing.
 
2012-08-02 12:37:11 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: sprawl15: Crotchrocket Slim: You started the off topic gun nuttery.

"We should try to get crazy people help before they become violent, as that would be better for society than mitigating the violence that erupts when you ignore them."
"OMSFGH YOU GUN NUT HAV A P90 LOL OMG COMPROMISE"

So I read more into your initial comment than you intended, but you're an adult and you should have known mentioning something controversial like the large mag ban would only distract from anything else you were saying. Snark is a biatchy mistress, especially on a two second post like your original.


Are you saying you're not an adult who can put aside tangential points and not put words into someone's mouth? Because it seems really disingenuous to find fault with the way someone else said something when you admit you were the one reading something else into it.
 
2012-08-02 12:40:50 PM  

WienerButt: This is also like those stories of people having a crazy ex and the most they can do is get a restraining order. Then the ex kills them and the outrage is, 'why wasn't more done?!?!'....what the hell CAN you do?


Pass more laws, you chowderhead.
 
2012-08-02 12:42:59 PM  

Aunt Crabby: BarkingUnicorn: Aunt Crabby: Can someone explain how the university became the middle man here?

By establishing a threat-assessment procedure and then deliberately deciding not to use it.

How is the university threat assessment process on campus extended to the duty to police all of their students in every situation? I haven't read their policies, but I would guess the threat assessment is limited to threats to the university and not the public at large. Protecting the word in general is beyond the scope of their authority. Since there was no illegal act on campus there was nothing for the university to report. It is the therapist who had a legal duty to protect, so she should have told the police and not just the university. I think the duty still lies with the therapist unless threat assessment was part of a clinical service.


The school has a duty to do what it says it's going to do: assemble the threat-assessment team and assess the threat.

Colorado law required Fenton to report to law enforcement "a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific third party." I assume whatever "alarmed" Fenton did not meet that standard.

I also believe that standard is too high.
 
2012-08-02 12:52:33 PM  

Blowmonkey: 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.


The school that Jared Lee attended basically booted his crazy ass out for multiple disruptions and incidents. Sideshow Bob might not have alluded to any specific plans, but was obviously not playing with a full deck.

I really want to know the circumstances of his withdrawl. Dropping out or a leave of absence is normal for an undergrad, but a PHD student would raise some eyebrows. Guess the Ass Covering Assestment Team figured the problem solved itself.
 
2012-08-02 12:54:42 PM  
It's rather frustrating that none of the reporting on this seems to think it's relevant to state exactly what Colorado law says about exceptions to confidentiality and duty to protect. From C.R.S § 13-21-117:

A physician, social worker, psychiatric nurse, psychologist, or other mental health professional and a mental health hospital, community mental health center or clinic, institution, or their staff shall not be liable for damages in any civil action for failure to warn or protect any person against a mental health patient's violent behavior, and any such person shall not be held civilly liable for failure to predict such violent behavior, except where the patient has communicated to the mental health care provider a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons. When there is a duty to warn and protect under the circumstances specified above, the duty shall be discharged by the mental health care provider making reasonable and timely efforts to notify any person or persons specifically threatened, as well as notifying an appropriate law enforcement agency or by taking other appropriate action including, but not limited to, hospitalizing the patient..

So, duty to protect kicks in when there's a 1) serious threat of 2) imminent harm to 3) a specific identifiable person or group of people. The Colorado case Fredericks v. Jonsson, 609 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010) interprets this to mean that "the mental health provider has a duty to warn only when the patient himself predicts his violent behavior (by communicating-that is, expressing-his threat to the mental health provider)." In other words "my client's a possibly dangerous whackjob and I think he might hurt people" isn't enough.

We don't know exactly what the psychiatrist knew, so we can't know whether her concerns rose to that level. Yes, she warned the university's threat team (it would be interesting to know whether that team is structured in such a way that no potential breaches of confidentiality occur at that step - for example, if the members of the team are other mental health professionals who would already have access to charts under the terms of agreements signed by clients when they begin counselling) But that doesn't mean she had enough for duty to protect to kick in. Possibly the psychiatrist and/or university dropped the ball, but it's also possible that they reviewed what they knew in light of the law and concluded that this wasn't one of the narrow circumstances where confidentiality could or must be breached.

In hindsight it's easy to say she should have warned people. But the flip side is that if psychiatrists are too quick to report people who talk about less clear threats - general fantasies of violence without a specific plan, for example - it can deter people with such fantasies from talking about them with a professional and getting the help they need before they get to the point where they make concrete decisions to put plans in place.
 
2012-08-02 01:06:13 PM  

tgambitg: vpb:
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.


so by citing this section of the USC, what you're saying here is, if you're over 45 and not in the organized militia (national guard, naval militia), you have no constitutional right to own a gun?
 
2012-08-02 01:09:06 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Aunt Crabby: BarkingUnicorn: Aunt Crabby: Can someone explain how the university became the middle man here?

By establishing a threat-assessment procedure and then deliberately deciding not to use it.

How is the university threat assessment process on campus extended to the duty to police all of their students in every situation? I haven't read their policies, but I would guess the threat assessment is limited to threats to the university and not the public at large. Protecting the word in general is beyond the scope of their authority. Since there was no illegal act on campus there was nothing for the university to report. It is the therapist who had a legal duty to protect, so she should have told the police and not just the university. I think the duty still lies with the therapist unless threat assessment was part of a clinical service.

The school has a duty to do what it says it's going to do: assemble the threat-assessment team and assess the threat.

Colorado law required Fenton to report to law enforcement "a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific third party." I assume whatever "alarmed" Fenton did not meet that standard.

I also believe that standard is too high.


If he didn't meet the standard for telling the police (something which was not clear to me from the article), how could she break confidentiality by telling the university? If it is serious enough to break patient confidentiality, then it is serious enough to tell the police. As I understand it, the standard is the same.


I looked up the threat assessment team ("BETA") on the university web site. Link It states the purpose of the team is to "provide resources and information to faculty, staff or student community members who are confronted with individuals who may be threatening, disruptive, or otherwise problematic. The Team provides guidance and consultation and may make referrals to appropriate campus or community resources." They make no promise of assessing all potential threats nor to police students or reporting to the police. They state, "The BETA is not an administrative, treatment, or disciplinary body. The Team's purpose is to provide support, information and referrals to those dealing with threatening or disruptive situations." If a student drops out, he is not going to be disrupting class, and I doubt a referral to more campus resources would have helped him.

It's bad policy to punish universities for trying to provide resources and help keep campuses safe simply because they may chose to focus on cases involving people who will be staying at the university. If police can pick and choose which leads to follow, a team made up of various academics and assorted interested parties can choose when to gather more information for potential referrals to campus resources and when it does not concern the university. If he had actually threatened a someone associated with the university, they may have acted differently (at least that's what I gather from their web site).
 
2012-08-02 01:15:41 PM  

angrycrank: In hindsight it's easy to say she should have warned people. But the flip side is that if psychiatrists are too quick to report people who talk about less clear threats - general fantasies of violence without a specific plan, for example - it can deter people with such fantasies from talking about them with a professional and getting the help they need before they get to the point where they make concrete decisions to put plans in place.


This is true. However, I don't see how she could break confidentiality to tell the university if she didn't meet the standard you explained (thank you for that). Honestly, I am not out for her blood, but if anyone had a duty it was her, and not the university.
 
2012-08-02 01:24:11 PM  

ricochet4: tgambitg: vpb:
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.

so by citing this section of the USC, what you're saying here is, if you're over 45 and not in the organized militia (national guard, naval militia), you have no constitutional right to own a gun?


Keep reading the rest, being in the Militia is not a requirement for owning a gun. Nowhere in the amendment does it say that being in a militia is required. It's what's considered a descriptive modifier, not a constraint.
 
2012-08-02 01:34:53 PM  

Aunt Crabby: angrycrank: In hindsight it's easy to say she should have warned people. But the flip side is that if psychiatrists are too quick to report people who talk about less clear threats - general fantasies of violence without a specific plan, for example - it can deter people with such fantasies from talking about them with a professional and getting the help they need before they get to the point where they make concrete decisions to put plans in place.

This is true. However, I don't see how she could break confidentiality to tell the university if she didn't meet the standard you explained (thank you for that). Honestly, I am not out for her blood, but if anyone had a duty it was her, and not the university.


I'm not sure that the therapist or the university believed that the student met the legal standard of harm to others, and as I read the information you posted about the university's BETA team, I don't think they would have necessarily found a threat either. It depends on information we don't have. The info in your post about the BETA program reads, "...confronted with individuals who may be threatening, disruptive, or otherwise problematic." That's really broad. "Problematic" or "disruptive situations" could mean anything, really. For instance, maybe he was distraught over his inability to perform the work in the PhD program. What direction would his life go in if he couldn't hack it? Maybe the therapist wanted a little backup to help her guide him out of a tough spot. We simply don't know what he said. Maybe it was threatening, maybe it wasn't. But it doesn't seem that the BETA team is simply a group of professionals that weigh whether or not to go to the police. It sounds like they can be called for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with legal concerns.

I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about the nature of the therapist's concerns when it goes to trial.
 
2012-08-02 01:48:27 PM  

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

We see this problem all the time when people bring up the insanity defense. Holmes was clearly insane (at least from a layperson's point of view), but it's doubtful that he would meet the criteria for being found not guilty by reason of insanity.


That's a good point. He was obviously mentally ill, but what has to happen for him to prove he was insane the whole time he planned this?


There is no chance for that. AFAIK the litmus test for insanity is you couldn't determine right from wrong at the time. I'm thinking if you booby trap your apartment and set your radio to go off so people would come to check on it thus blowing up all the evidence.......you KNEW right from wrong. Doesn't mean you aren't loony as hell just that you knew you were about to do something bad and wanted to cover your tracks.
 
2012-08-02 02:01:32 PM  

LL316: HotWingConspiracy: GoldSpider: But by all means, keep telling yourself it's the guns' fault.

It's actually the access to guns.

It's actually the desire to commit murder.


If your claim is accurate, then why did murder never occur until firearms were available to civilians?
 
2012-08-02 02:12:15 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: You do realize that in most states the mentally ill ARE barred from purchasing or owning firearms right? That's one of the things the background checks are done for. The question is more how do we fix the reporting structures so that (like in the case of the VA Tech Shooter) the information actually gets put in the database, and determine where the line is drawn between mentally ill that will kill someone and mentally ill that just needs Paxil.


Shouldn't be a difference ... if you have psychological problems, no gun for you. The armed forced of this country exclude people exceedingly well. Just take the military's view on pysch diagnoses and apply it to the general public.
 
2012-08-02 02:25:14 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: There is no chance for that. AFAIK the litmus test for insanity is you couldn't determine right from wrong at the time. I'm thinking if you booby trap your apartment and set your radio to go off so people would come to check on it thus blowing up all the evidence.......you KNEW right from wrong. Doesn't mean you aren't loony as hell just that you knew you were about to do something bad and wanted to cover your tracks.


I've always thought that argument is a bit of a cop-out. Even if you think Bob down the street is a space lizard who has come to Earth to corrupt humanity's precious bodily fluids, that does not preclude thinking that the local police don't know that or are in on it and will come after you if you interfere with his devious plans.
 
2012-08-02 02:32:01 PM  
Our university admin said they are not allowed to disclose that information. HIPPA or something like that. Regardless of the circumstances and public safety they are not required...or maybe not permitted to divulge the mental health status of a student. Yes. We're concerned about this...
 
2012-08-02 02:36:14 PM  
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
-- George Bernard Shaw

This quotation is one of my touchstones. GBS said a number of very wise and clever things (and a few ludicrous things).

In my work, communication is very important and constantly failing for all the reasons which communications can fail:

1. Not my job. Yes, yes it is your job. Your idea of your job is faulty, but it includes going the extra distance to ensure that things work. People get into bad habits, such as gradually losing track of things, including what is and isn't in their job description.

2. Somebody else's problem now. If the problem is bad enough, it is never somebody else's problem. You should be on top of it even when your official duty is done.

3. It sits on somebody's desk. We expect too much of other people (honesty, competence, sanity, hard work, etc.) but unless we follow up effectively to confirm that communication has occurred, the information that needs to pass fails to pass. Communication, like common sense, is not all that common, and for the same reasons: laziness, stupidity, haste, lack of communication and random chance, such as somebody being out of the office, forgetting to check their emails every 2.1 seconds all day long, etc.

4. What are the odds? If something seems remote and unlikely, it is just ignored. This is the Black Swan phenomenon in a trivial form. People think because things are normal, that they will remain normal. But in reality, you are not dealing with normalcy in either the mathematical or the practical sense: the very rare but disastrous event must be prepared for, or else, when it happens, you are one of the 80% of people who can't cope or the 15-20% of people who actively make things worse. Only a small percentage, somewhere between 5% and 0% of people, can cope with a Black Swan because they have planned, practiced and prepared.

These and other problems explain most failures to communicate and thus most failures of the system. People are lazy, stupid and ignorant above and beyond our normal perceptions. They seem to be competent because they tell us they are competent and within normal ranges of expectations, get the job done, but in reality, most people are clueless outside of their always shrinking comfort zone of habit and careful instructions about what to do in normal situations.

This is why training is so worthless: 1) you don't pay attention; 2) you forget immediately, even as you learn; and 3), the worst of them all, you learn only how to do things right. You don't learn how things can go wrong and what to do when they do go wrong, inevitably, about the next day after taking the course.

I have gone through Hell because of my own failure to communicate or other people's failure to communicate, so I know these lessons well. Doesn't help to make it any easier, but at least you know what everything went to Hades in a hand cart.
 
2012-08-02 02:36:32 PM  

bluefelix: Aunt Crabby: angrycrank: In hindsight it's easy to say she should have warned people. But the flip side is that if psychiatrists are too quick to report people who talk about less clear threats - general fantasies of violence without a specific plan, for example - it can deter people with such fantasies from talking about them with a professional and getting the help they need before they get to the point where they make concrete decisions to put plans in place.

This is true. However, I don't see how she could break confidentiality to tell the university if she didn't meet the standard you explained (thank you for that). Honestly, I am not out for her blood, but if anyone had a duty it was her, and not the university.

I'm not sure that the therapist or the university believed that the student met the legal standard of harm to others, and as I read the information you posted about the university's BETA team, I don't think they would have necessarily found a threat either. It depends on information we don't have. The info in your post about the BETA program reads, "...confronted with individuals who may be threatening, disruptive, or otherwise problematic." That's really broad. "Problematic" or "disruptive situations" could mean anything, really. For instance, maybe he was distraught over his inability to perform the work in the PhD program. What direction would his life go in if he couldn't hack it? Maybe the therapist wanted a little backup to help her guide him out of a tough spot. We simply don't know what he said. Maybe it was threatening, maybe it wasn't. But it doesn't seem that the BETA team is simply a group of professionals that weigh whether or not to go to the police. It sounds like they can be called for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with legal concerns.

I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about the nature of the therapist's concerns when it goes to trial.


EXACTLY. The standards for reporting to the BETA team appear to be far less narrow than those that apply to duty to protect. And it's not clear at all what specifically she said and to whom, plus there's a good chance that the agreements signed by students who are users of the counselling service allow for limited disclosure to the BETA team under very specific circumstances. She may not have said anything to them that would constitute a breach of confidentiality. But all this is speculation - I'd wait to find out more details before we either string up OR exonerate the psychiatrist or the university.
 
2012-08-02 02:38:49 PM  

bluefelix: Aunt Crabby: angrycrank: I

I'm not sure that the therapist or the university believed that the student met the legal standard of harm to others, and as I read the information you posted about the university's BETA team, I don't think they would have necessarily found a threat either. It depends on information we don't have. The info in your post about the BETA program reads, "...confronted with individuals who may be threatening, disruptive, or otherwise problematic." That's really broad. "Problematic" or "disruptive situations" could mean anything, really. For instance, maybe he was distraught over his inability to perform the work in the PhD program. What direction would his life go in if he couldn't hack it? Maybe the therapist wanted a little backup to help her guide him out of a tough spot. We simply don't know what he said. Maybe it was threatening, maybe it wasn't. But it doesn't seem that the BETA team is simply a group of professionals that weigh whether or not to go to the police. It sounds like they can be called for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with legal concerns.

I'm sure we'll learn a lot more about the nature of the therapist's concerns when it goes to trial.



At this point, I think I am more concerned about the confidentiality issue. If the therapist didn't think the situation met the legal standard for reporting it, then confidentiality should have prevented her from going to BETA. I don't see how she could have justified giving his name and details to BETA if the situation didn't meet the standard for duty to protect. If she didn't have a duty to protect, and no one sues her for breaching confidentiality, then I doubt we'll ever know more about what happened in therapy.

If a therapist wants back up, he or she should go to the professional treatment team where they work or other professionals associated with their practice. Failing that, he or she should contact another more experienced mental health professional or professional mentor for advice (without breaking confidentiality). I suppose BETA could have referred the therapist to other resources if she felt threatened, but I would hope she knew about those resources already. It really doesn't sound like the kind of situation BETA describes on its webpage, so I wonder why she risked breaking confidentiality to report him to them.

I agree that BETA looks like a sort of multidisciplinary university support committee and its mission does not involve policing. It sounds to me like they gather information and sometimes make referrals to campus resources. He was already in therapy. If they had investigated, what further referrals would they make? Peer mentoring? The next exciting Writing Center seminar?
 
2012-08-02 02:47:02 PM  

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??


It's little known here that in Japan, that's actually a ceremony meant to bring great honor to the chef. The Japanese don't have the same body issues as we do here, so no one there is surprised to see a diner's wang. Although fellow restaurant patrons might gasp, you can be assured that all the Japanese staff will smile knowingly and bow. The chef may shed a tear of gratitude.
 
2012-08-02 02:51:41 PM  

Aunt Crabby: It's bad policy to punish universities for trying to provide resources and help keep campuses safe simply because they may chose to focus on cases involving people who will be staying at the university.


it's moronic policy to suggest that their duty to warn the greater community is discharged as long as the threat is no longer enrolled in the program. you are creating really stupid incentives at that point.
 
2012-08-02 02:53:47 PM  

seadoo2006: DoBeDoBeDo: You do realize that in most states the mentally ill ARE barred from purchasing or owning firearms right? That's one of the things the background checks are done for. The question is more how do we fix the reporting structures so that (like in the case of the VA Tech Shooter) the information actually gets put in the database, and determine where the line is drawn between mentally ill that will kill someone and mentally ill that just needs Paxil.

Shouldn't be a difference ... if you have psychological problems, no gun for you. The armed forced of this country exclude people exceedingly well. Just take the military's view on pysch diagnoses and apply it to the general public.


My past use of Ritalin is not a compelling state interest to curtail my rights as protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 
2012-08-02 02:55:28 PM  

Nem Wan: I'm very liberal but people who are using this case to push new gun laws are an embarrassment. Passing laws because of crazy people is like requiring all walls be padded.


Or is it like having bollards along dangerous curves? We all have a lot of laws specifically addressing the treatment of crazy people. What medications to give them, where they can live, when they have to be examined by psychiatrists, when they have to be released by the mental hospital unless they voluntarily check themselves in, etc. We lock some of them up and throw away the key, and force many of them out onto the street without proper follow-up to ensure they can live, let alone take their medication regularly.

Preventing crazy people or people at high risk of offending in a violent way is no different from putting up a snow fence when winter comes. It's a pain in the ass for the type of people who like to strike out across country on skies or snowshoes or snowmobiles (all legitimate sporting activities and fairly healthy, except for the snowmobiles) but there because it is more important to keep the roads passable than the cow pastures passable for sportsmen.

The liberal John Stuart Mill argued that your right to swing your fist ends at my face, and that smokers and non-smokers can not be equally free in a closed railway compartment--the rights of one will have to give way to the other. The conservative Thomas Hobbes argued that you give up your rights to Leviathan (a corporate entity, called Society or the State) in exchange for protection for those rights which remain and for protection generally.

In short, a policed society, as opposed to anarchy of the right or left wing variety (or a more centrists libertarian anarchy) restricts some of your rights for the sake of other rights which are deemed more important.

You have a right to health care, then you don't have a right to choose your medicine or doctor based solely on ability to pay. Money rationing or some other form of rationing is necesssary because the supply of expensive treatments and medicines is not infinite and the cost is not small.

If you have an absolute, unlimited right to weapons regardless of form, purpose, quantity, quality, expense, power, etc., then you have no right to be safe, because everybody else can out-gun you, always, even if you are a ridiculous hoarder of weapons and ammo.

The US system is absurd, but more or less works. The Feds, the States, local communities, well-meaning busibodies, non-government organizations, lawyers, doctors and manufacturers all lobby constantly, at tremendous expense, but a sort of equilibrium is maintained which means the USA is neither the best nor the worst gun-owning nation in the world. Proportionate to your population and arms supply, you're doing OK, perhaps even well, but proportionate to your population and what other countries with stricter controls do, you are doing fairly badly, third world badly. And you're the only one. All the other wealthy and liberal democratic nations have lower gun death rates and fewer accidents. Most have fewer suicides and certainly fewer gun-based suicides.

You have a choice between many different policies but you choose neither the best nor the worst because powers are divided and the parts of the system work against each other constantly.
 
2012-08-02 03:01:35 PM  

relcec: Aunt Crabby: It's bad policy to punish universities for trying to provide resources and help keep campuses safe simply because they may chose to focus on cases involving people who will be staying at the university.

it's moronic policy to suggest that their duty to warn the greater community is discharged as long as the threat is no longer enrolled in the program. you are creating really stupid incentives at that point.


What makes you think the university had a duty to warn in this case? If anyone had a duty to protect (which is a bit more than warn) it was the therapist. The university does not have a generally duty to assess all students for potential threats to the world at large, even if they set up a support committee that may gather information and make referrals to campus programs. Some vague "report" of a student to such a committee does not trigger a duty to investigate, assess, warn or protect. If you set a precedent that offing services to the university community makes the university responsible for all student conduct everywhere for all time, then universities will simply stop such services.
 
2012-08-02 03:11:54 PM  

Aunt Crabby: relcec: Aunt Crabby: It's bad policy to punish universities for trying to provide resources and help keep campuses safe simply because they may chose to focus on cases involving people who will be staying at the university.

it's moronic policy to suggest that their duty to warn the greater community is discharged as long as the threat is no longer enrolled in the program. you are creating really stupid incentives at that point.

What makes you think the university had a duty to warn in this case? If anyone had a duty to protect (which is a bit more than warn) it was the therapist.
The university does not have a generally duty to assess all students for potential threats to the world at large, even if they set up a support committee that may gather information and make referrals to campus programs. Some vague "report" of a student to such a committee does not trigger a duty to investigate, assess, warn or protect. If you set a precedent that offing services to the university community makes the university responsible for all student conduct everywhere for all time, then universities will simply stop such services.


a little something called respondeat superior.
the university is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed during the ordinary scope of employment and so if the likely victims were reasonably identifiable then the torts of the therapist will be imputed to the university as long as the therapist cannot be said to have been an independent contractor (which appears doubtful).
 
2012-08-02 03:13:22 PM  
and the idea that it would be good policy to let organizations off the hook as long as they first ensured the potential threat was no longer allowed back on campus is absolutely absurd.
 
2012-08-02 03:16:47 PM  
you could argue the victims were not identifiable, even though wee don;t have enough facts really.

but you just look like you are willing to sink to any depth to protect your cherished governmental organization when you argue that universities have no duty at all to the greater community they participate in.
 
2012-08-02 03:18:49 PM  

PsiChi: "Twenty-one Questions You Will Not Hear Asked About the Dark Knight Movie Massacre," by Kazi Kearse, a therapist from New York: Link


That post actually removed information from my brain as I read it. That has to be about the dumbest thing I've seen in months. If anyone deserves a psychiatric screening, it's the guy who typed that screed.
 
2012-08-02 03:23:06 PM  

angrycrank: there's a good chance that the agreements signed by students who are users of the counselling service allow for limited disclosure to the BETA team under very specific circumstances. She may not have said anything to them that would constitute a breach of confidentiality


There is a lot of speculation, however I would be extremely surprised if mental health services made all students sign a waiver of confidentiality, especially to give information to a general university committee that does nothing more than investigate man maybe make referrals to campus services. At most, there may be something that allows information to go to an insurance company for billing purposes. I realize standards vary depending on the state, but ethical therapist do not even mention who their clients may be.

I agree that we are missing information. As I said, I'm not out to get the therapist, but I do find it odd that she could "report" him if there was no duty to protect triggered. As a general practice, I would think students receiving mental health services have confidentiality unless a legal exception such as duty to protect applies.
 
2012-08-02 03:42:37 PM  
So... let me just get this straight:

Someone was given information about an individual committing a heinous crime
This person notified authorities about said individual's plans.
The authorities did nothing, and the heinous crime was allowed to continue.

And yet the masses aren't calling for this person who notified authorities to be drawn and quartered...

Funny how it's so much worse when the name "Joe Paterno" is involved, isn't it? At least nobody was killed by Sandusky.

/It's because of JoePa that I could go to college, so fark off, haters.
//Paternoville still has a population of at least 1.
 
2012-08-02 03:46:04 PM  

mister aj: Universities that fail to act on vague rumours of serious criminal activity should have the death penalty applied to their athletics program.


Cry Pedo, cry.
 
2012-08-02 03:50:04 PM  

relcec: Aunt Crabby: relcec: Aunt Crabby: It's bad policy to punish universities for trying to provide resources and help keep campuses safe simply because they may chose to focus on cases involving people who will be staying at the university.

it's moronic policy to suggest that their duty to warn the greater community is discharged as long as the threat is no longer enrolled in the program. you are creating really stupid incentives at that point.

What makes you think the university had a duty to warn in this case? If anyone had a duty to protect (which is a bit more than warn) it was the therapist. The university does not have a generally duty to assess all students for potential threats to the world at large, even if they set up a support committee that may gather information and make referrals to campus programs. Some vague "report" of a student to such a committee does not trigger a duty to investigate, assess, warn or protect. If you set a precedent that offing services to the university community makes the university responsible for all student conduct everywhere for all time, then universities will simply stop such services.

a little something called respondeat superior.
the university is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed during the ordinary scope of employment and so if the likely victims were reasonably identifiable then the torts of the therapist will be imputed to the university as long as the therapist cannot be said to have been an independent contractor (which appears doubtful).


So you are saying the university has a duty because it employs the therapist and you believe a duty to protect was triggered by the situation? That would have nothing to do with the actions or inaction of BETA, which we have already established is a limited interdisciplinary university committee that does not involve mental health services or policing activities. By your argument, the duty would exist only if the the therapist had a duty to protect and you established that the university was her employer within the meaning of that doctrine and that she was acting (or not acting) with the scope of her duties instead of violating her employer's policy and breaking the law with regards to a duty to protect situation.
 
2012-08-02 03:54:16 PM  

Aunt Crabby: angrycrank: there's a good chance that the agreements signed by students who are users of the counselling service allow for limited disclosure to the BETA team under very specific circumstances. She may not have said anything to them that would constitute a breach of confidentiality

There is a lot of speculation, however I would be extremely surprised if mental health services made all students sign a waiver of confidentiality, especially to give information to a general university committee that does nothing more than investigate man maybe make referrals to campus services. At most, there may be something that allows information to go to an insurance company for billing purposes. I realize standards vary depending on the state, but ethical therapist do not even mention who their clients may be.

I agree that we are missing information. As I said, I'm not out to get the therapist, but I do find it odd that she could "report" him if there was no duty to protect triggered. As a general practice, I would think students receiving mental health services have confidentiality unless a legal exception such as duty to protect applies.


Yeah, too much speculation at this point. Since the BETA team does seem to include more than just clinical staff, there's probably no general waiver that allows disclosure of information to it. However, there are still myriad ways it could be permissible to disclose certain information to the committee without it rising to duty to warn requirements -including the possibility that the psychiatrist had Holmes' permission to go to the committee in an attempt to find resources to help him. When I supervised a university residence, we had students who would a) disclose their special needs to us, and b) give their counselors permission to tell specific people specific things in order to help us best support the student. We would similarly seek students' permission to disclose information to resources that might be helpful.
 
2012-08-02 04:00:30 PM  
It's interesting how people are suddenly mentioning their own DSM-IVR diagnoses. Why yes, according to that shrink you went to and that diagnosis, you are mentally ill. Depression, alcoholism, ADD, OCD, Borderline Personalities, Histrionic Personalities - these are all "mental diagnoses."

Now, how does the law handle this in real life? In real life, people who apply to get guns do not usually write on the application "Oh and I have a mental disorder." There's no crossover (yet) between that diagnosis (which no doubt your insurance company - or state health department - has in their files).

Will it have to be an Axis I diagnosis to get you disqualified from buying guns? Who knows? Will we ever make this connection between mental health and gun purchasing work out in a bureaucratic manner? Who knows?

At present, if you already own guns in states with laws prohibiting the mentally ill from buying guns, you're fine. Unless you are on probation for a crime and one of the terms of your probation is that you can't own guns, you can keep the guns you already own.

That's how it was explained to me at the Police Academy, anyway.
 
2012-08-02 04:03:51 PM  

angrycrank: I agree that we are missing information. As I said, I'm not out to get the therapist, but I do find it odd that she could "report" him if there was no duty to protect triggered. As a general practice, I would think students receiving mental health services have confidentiality unless a legal exception such as duty to protect applies.


Perhaps he frightened her directly, such as smashing something in her office or yellng at her. In that case it would appropriate to report it to her boss but not the police, as long as she didn't have any specific information that he was planning to harm her in the future.
 
2012-08-02 04:08:29 PM  

relcec: you could argue the victims were not identifiable, even though wee don;t have enough facts really.

but you just look like you are willing to sink to any depth to protect your cherished governmental organization when you argue that universities have no duty at all to the greater community they participate in.


In the US, we have no general legal duty to the community or others. This goes for universities and companies as well as individuals. As long as I am not breaking a law, I could see you drowning and refuse to throw you a life preserver or cal 911. Morally, it would be a shiatty thing to do, but there is no legal obligation. Legal duties arise from specific types or relationships and legal obligations.

To put it another way, it isn't the university's job to asses the mental health of its students or to protect the general community. It is the job of mental health professionals to assess clients' risk of harm to self or others, and the job of the police to protect the community. Frankly, I don't want universities to overreach their authority. They should stick to being universities.

BTW not all universities are government organizations. I think the police should police (under strict limits); universities should focus on research and education, and the duty to protect headache falls on mental health professionals.
 
2012-08-02 04:09:55 PM  
I've watched many 5150 proceedings (or been part of them - and no, not as the patient).

5150 is the California process by which someone gets reported to the police and can be placed on an involuntary hold for observation, due to being a danger to oneself or others, or unfit to care for oneself.

The psychiatrists I've seen need more than a thread - or a plan to threaten someone. What they need is the sort of thing that Holmes sent to his shrink - PLUS they need the patient to say that they actually have acquired the means to do the harm they intend. So, Holmes sent his plan to shoot people (and booby trap his apartment) to the shrink. The shrink should then ask Holmes if he has guns, ammo and bomb making materials. If the answer was yes, then she/he should have slapped a hold on him.

He did everything, from his side, to get himself put on a hold. He's practically a textbook example of someone who could be placed on involuntary hold (and perhaps on an extended hold after a hearing). The only thing he did wrong is trust the mail system.
 
2012-08-02 04:12:53 PM  

Aunt Crabby: BarkingUnicorn: Aunt Crabby: Can someone explain how the university became the middle man here?

By establishing a threat-assessment procedure and then deliberately deciding not to use it.

How is the university threat assessment process on campus extended to the duty to police all of their students in every situation? I haven't read their policies, but I would guess the threat assessment is limited to threats to the university and not the public at large. Protecting the word in general is beyond the scope of their authority. Since there was no illegal act on campus there was nothing for the university to report. It is the therapist who had a legal duty to protect, so she should have told the police and not just the university. I think the duty still lies with the therapist unless threat assessment was part of a clinical service.


I think the problem is the whole "told campus authorities" is the problem. By law it's what she should have done but as we've seen before universities can't handle it.

Anything beyond Academia should go straight to the local authorities. Campus admins should not be investigating claims of rape, sex abuse, violent crimes, threats, etc. The admins seem to only want to ignore or bury these issues so local authorities have to step in.

Timmy caught plagiarizing? - school can handle that
Timmy accused of rape? - cops
 
2012-08-02 04:16:52 PM  
The Psychiatrist had a larger duty. Although she reported it to the school. She should have had him hospitalized. Since he was a threat to PEOPLE. She could have done that. So she does actually have some responsibility for what occurred. Under her job description. She is suppose to keep crazy from killing itself or others. Her failure to do so is a huge problem.
 
2012-08-02 04:17:45 PM  

buckler: PsiChi: "Twenty-one Questions You Will Not Hear Asked About the Dark Knight Movie Massacre," by Kazi Kearse, a therapist from New York: Link

That post actually removed information from my brain as I read it. That has to be about the dumbest thing I've seen in months. If anyone deserves a psychiatric screening, it's the guy who typed that screed.


Would you have expected intelligent commentary in an editorial referenced by a birther?
 
2012-08-02 04:20:00 PM  
I have no problem with temporarily infringing on someone's second amendment rights if their psychiatrist thinks or even really gets a whiff that the person is dangerous. Take the guns until the person can be evaluated by a committee - gives a chance for rebuttal and explaination, keep the guns if the person won't cooperate, give the guns back if the person is deemed not a threat. This short period may be all a person needs to cool off before doing something they'll regret or may enable police to stop (well, at the very very least delay) a spontaneous attack.
 
2012-08-02 04:24:15 PM  

angrycrank: However, there are still myriad ways it could be permissible to disclose certain information to the committee without it rising to duty to warn requirements -including the possibility that the psychiatrist had Holmes' permission to go to the committee in an attempt to find resources to help him. When I supervised a university residence, we had students who would a) disclose their special needs to us, and b) give their counselors permission to tell specific people specific things in order to help us best support the student. We would similarly seek students' permission to disclose information to resources that might be helpful.


I'll but that for now. In my limited university experience, student only disclose to get accommodations or services, but you never know. Maybe he gave permission to see if they would stop him. Who knows? Personally I wouldn't give permission to be investigated as a threat to the university, but then again, I wouldn't shoot people either.
 
2012-08-02 04:33:43 PM  

Atypical Person Reading Fark: I've watched many 5150 proceedings (or been part of them - and no, not as the patient).

5150 is the California process by which someone gets reported to the police and can be placed on an involuntary hold for observation, due to being a danger to oneself or others, or unfit to care for oneself.

The psychiatrists I've seen need more than a thread - or a plan to threaten someone. What they need is the sort of thing that Holmes sent to his shrink - PLUS they need the patient to say that they actually have acquired the means to do the harm they intend. So, Holmes sent his plan to shoot people (and booby trap his apartment) to the shrink. The shrink should then ask Holmes if he has guns, ammo and bomb making materials. If the answer was yes, then she/he should have slapped a hold on him.

He did everything, from his side, to get himself put on a hold. He's practically a textbook example of someone who could be placed on involuntary hold (and perhaps on an extended hold after a hearing). The only thing he did wrong is trust the mail system.


You mean besides going to the movies that night, right?
 
2012-08-02 04:57:54 PM  

LL316: I notice you didn't blame the criminal.


Very observant of you. Wanna know why? did you notice the part where I said

"...demonstrably mentally ill people with homicidal ideation... "

of which there are always going to be in society -the people that put guns in their hands make it possible for them to do what they do.

Bottom line: a bunch of people are dead and many more are maimed for life -personally, I kinda like to talk about who might be able to do something to prevent this from happening again. We can't stop people from being crazy, but we can stop people from putting guns all over the place, so to me that seems like a pretty good place to start.

-But by all means, if you feel it's more important to reassert blame on someone who's obviously too crazy to be held responsible for their actions, then who am I to think that you're a total douche-bag?
 
2012-08-02 05:13:31 PM  

Aunt Crabby: relcec: you could argue the victims were not identifiable, even though wee don;t have enough facts really.

but you just look like you are willing to sink to any depth to protect your cherished governmental organization when you argue that universities have no duty at all to the greater community they participate in.

In the US, we have no general legal duty to the community or others.
This goes for universities and companies as well as individuals. As long as I am not breaking a law, I could see you drowning and refuse to throw you a life preserver or cal 911. Morally, it would be a shiatty thing to do, but there is no legal obligation. Legal duties arise from specific types or relationships and legal obligations.



there is a legal duty for mental health professionals to notify (if not protect) reasonably identifiable potential victims of their clients in almost every jurisdiction. that's what we are talking about. I have no idea why you are bringing in good samaritain laws. it's completely unnecessary to go that far looking for a cause of action.
you can argue that the therapist, and therefore his/her employer, didn't have enough information to identify a threat or potential victims.
even though we have no idea what he/she did or didn't know so it is speculation, that is at least reasonable argument that has the potential to fit the facts at some point.

but you aren't doing that.
you appear to be trying to argue that liability can ever even potentially attach through a tarasoff duty and agency principles.
that's ridiculous, and it isn't the law.
 
2012-08-02 05:25:31 PM  

Dynascape: Wait.

How crazy is too crazy to have guns?

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


If one of your rituals involves pointing the gun at your temple and saying "click" several times before firing down the range then perhaps so.
 
2012-08-02 06:01:00 PM  
People have the wrong ideas about mental illness.

I'd be willing to bet that for most people, its caused by outside influence/socialization and not physical problems. There may be physical symptoms but that doesn't necessarily mean the root cause of it is physical.

Most mental illness develops in people's 20's for a reason. For a lot of people, that's when they realize how truly shiatty the world is. When you're a child, your parents and those around you show you a Disney'fied version of the world. Then when you're in college you live for the moment and just think the future will turn out ok. At a certain point it all hits you, for certain people certain issues affect them. Its all about how you rationalize it and cope with it. Those who can't develop "mental illness".

The shooter? From what I've read, he'd lost his job, his g/f, and he either found out he wasn't intelligent enough to continue in his program of study or he really realized how shiatty the next decade would be just trying to setup his career. Factor in him moving far away from home for his doctorate and not having friends to talk to about his problems. Perfect storm of insanity.
 
2012-08-02 06:23:36 PM  

Tinton: People have the wrong ideas about mental illness.

I'd be willing to bet that for most people, its caused by outside influence/socialization and not physical problems. There may be physical symptoms but that doesn't necessarily mean the root cause of it is physical.

Most mental illness develops in people's 20's for a reason. For a lot of people, that's when they realize how truly shiatty the world is. When you're a child, your parents and those around you show you a Disney'fied version of the world. Then when you're in college you live for the moment and just think the future will turn out ok. At a certain point it all hits you, for certain people certain issues affect them. Its all about how you rationalize it and cope with it. Those who can't develop "mental illness".

The shooter? From what I've read, he'd lost his job, his g/f, and he either found out he wasn't intelligent enough to continue in his program of study or he really realized how shiatty the next decade would be just trying to setup his career. Factor in him moving far away from home for his doctorate and not having friends to talk to about his problems. Perfect storm of insanity.


You're adorable--NO
There is going through something---and needing therapy (Psychologist) then there is always had issues need Psychiatry. Psychiatry is particularly for medication. Once a person is medicated it could go all kinds of ways and needs to be observed. He was being observed-she warned the school. Did nothing else. THAT is a problem. Especially because for a psychiatrist to warn someone ya gotta be really talking shiat. Since they do not do talk therapy.
So now you get it.. Psychiatry is beyond "he was just having a hard time"
 
2012-08-02 06:36:46 PM  

GORDON: We need to just divide the country in half. This half is "the government," and the other half are "the citizens." "The government" half is above the law. A person from "the government" is paired off with a "citizen." The government person watches the citizen 24/7.

Then things like that shooting could never, ever happen.... if a person from "the government" shoots a place up, they are above the law and it isn't newsworthy.

Bigger government... is there anything it can't fix?


It can't fix weak, puerile satire, I'll give you that.
 
2012-08-02 06:38:39 PM  

McDougal: Atypical Person Reading Fark: I've watched many 5150 proceedings (or been part of them - and no, not as the patient).

5150 is the California process by which someone gets reported to the police and can be placed on an involuntary hold for observation, due to being a danger to oneself or others, or unfit to care for oneself.

The psychiatrists I've seen need more than a thread - or a plan to threaten someone. What they need is the sort of thing that Holmes sent to his shrink - PLUS they need the patient to say that they actually have acquired the means to do the harm they intend. So, Holmes sent his plan to shoot people (and booby trap his apartment) to the shrink. The shrink should then ask Holmes if he has guns, ammo and bomb making materials. If the answer was yes, then she/he should have slapped a hold on him.

He did everything, from his side, to get himself put on a hold. He's practically a textbook example of someone who could be placed on involuntary hold (and perhaps on an extended hold after a hearing). The only thing he did wrong is trust the mail system.

You mean besides going to the movies that night, right?


Yes, exactly. -_-
 
2012-08-02 06:40:35 PM  

relcec: there is a legal duty for mental health professionals to notify (if not protect) reasonably identifiable potential victims of their clients in almost every jurisdiction. that's what we are talking about. I have no idea why you are bringing in good samaritain laws. it's completely unnecessary to go that far looking for a cause of action.
you can argue that the therapist, and therefore his/her employer, didn't have enough information to identify a threat or potential victims.
even though we have no idea what he/she did or didn't know so it is speculation, that is at least reasonable argument that has the potential to fit the facts at some point.

but you aren't doing that.
you appear to be trying to argue that liability can ever even potentially attach through a tarasoff duty and agency principles.
that's ridiculous, and it isn't the law.


No. I am saying that (1) If this was a duty to warn situation, the therapist should have told the police, and not BETA, an internal university committee which had nothing to do with mental health services or campus security and (2) the existence of a mixed committee that may gather facts and make referrals for campus services does not create a duty for the university when that committee is not a part of mental health services, university discipline or any police unit.

Universities do not have a general duty to assess all their students for potential risks and protect the public. Agency for the therapist's potentially wrongful actions does not attach unless the university was her employer, the criteria for duty to protect were met and the therapist was acting within the scope of her employment when she did not tell the police. The actions or inaction of BETA had nothing to do with it nor does the fact that he was dropping out.

The BETA committee was not part of his therapy or mental health services. They simply take information about potentially disruptive or threatening students and may provide referrals to campus services. If the therapist had a duty to protect, then it would not matter if he was dropping out. However, an interdisciplinary university committee that may provide referrals to campus services has no obligation to gather information about someone who will not be a student or on campus. Again, this is a completely separate issue from whatever duty the therapist may or may not have had. BETA is not a part of the mental health services team.

I am not even certain that you are correct about agency in this case. If the therapist did have a duty to protect and she failed to do so, she may not have been acting within the scope of her employment, assuming the employer made it clear what her legal obligations were and that she must follow them. Assuming the university and the mental health clinic had policies about the duty to protect and provided training and instruction so employees would follow the correct procedures, if she chooses to act illegally or ignore the law it is arguably not within the scope of her employment. Again, it comes down to the fact that if anyone had a duty to protect, it was the therapist.

Universities do not have a general duty to protect the public from any potential problems caused by one of their students. If the university has any liability, it would attach through the therapist's failure to protect and not because one of its internal interdisciplinary committees chose not to assess this soon to be former student for potential referral to campus services. Ultimate responsibility for such choices rest with mental health professionals and not university committees.
 
2012-08-02 08:02:09 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: MycroftHolmes: steklo: Well, that explains a lot. I would hate to be those people who made that decision. Several lives could've been spared or not injured.

I wonder how they sleep at night?

Also wonder if they can be sued...

Out of curiosity, what could or should they have done? From little that was written in the article, it did not sound like her concerns were concrete enough to be actionable. And her concerns were voiced a month before the shooting. Should the police have started tailing him indefinitely because of a vague concern? Should we now have a registry of all people who have ever expressed violent fantasies to their therapist, and have these individuals tracked?

Well, how else are we going to get nuts into treatment before they kill people?

Fenton was "alarmed" by Sideshow Bob's behavior. Shrinks hear a lot of shocking things; I doubt Fenton was alarmed for no specific reason. The reason(s) would be in her report to this "threat assessment" group that decided to kick the can down the road.

At the least, a "welfare check" at Sideshow Bob's apartment would have turned up his arsenal. And yeah, when your shrink is alarmed your guns and incendiary chemicals should be confiscated.


Oh for fark's sakes, he isn't sideshow bob. He murdered people.
 
2012-08-02 08:14:44 PM  

Andulamb: Will the public and news media crucify the psychiatrist for not doing more? Because, you know, Paterno told higher-ups about Sandusky, and those higher-ups did nothing, and Paterno was blamed for not doing more. This psychiatrist reported to higher-ups that Holmes was a dangerous lunatic, and those higher-ups did nothing, so of course she should also be blamed for not doing more. She could have gone to the police herself, right? And now a bunch of people are dead and injured. I think murder should trump sexual abuse.


The difference is that in the Sandusky case, the crime(s) had already occurred.
 
2012-08-02 09:03:52 PM  
So, don't your psychatrists have a form they fill out when they deal with a suicidal or possible public harming patient that goes to the police so they can't get a firearms licence?

I know we have them here.
 
2012-08-02 09:06:55 PM  
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.

You're right. Nothing at all illegal about making death threats. Why don't you try it in your little town and get back to us on how it all works out for you.
 
2012-08-02 10:44:23 PM  

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


I breaking an oath can save lives then it should be broken.
 
2012-08-02 11:50:17 PM  
Kit Fister

Smartest
Funniest 2012-08-02 10:22:16 AM

mrEdude: what could they have done?

well if there were threats to other people involved in his fantasies, the cops could have paid him a visit

at which point they would have either found his cache of weapons or found him to be crazy.

duh.

and, done what with the weapons? If he had not yet committed a crime, just visiting him and finding him to own weapons would mean jack shia



threats plus weapons equals jack shiat?

You must be retarded or unaware of your country's laws.
 
2012-08-03 04:17:43 PM  
The therapist should have tricked Sideshow Bob into saying he was going to kill the President. Then, they could have done something.
 
Displayed 251 of 251 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report