Evan Thomas
Inactive
Well said.zukiphile said:
The Language of Mental Illness in Gun Debates
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
scrubcedar
New member
I've dealt with mental Health professionals a long time. The suggestion about two of them agreeing was not made lightly or in ignorance.
These are the same folks that wanted the current dangerous conditions. To get two of them to agree to commit someone against their will would be spectacularly difficult. Only the most obvious and dangerous people would have this happen.
Understand my point of view here, I've known and worked with dozens Mental health Professionals over the years. I've also seen far more of the damage that mentally ill people can do up close and personal.
You're blowing this off as if I don't know what I'm talking about.
Read my prior posts about my background before you decide that.
I have probably been involved the treatment of hundreds of patients with a psych diagnosis.
I have watched the mental health system nearly kill my daughter at least twice.
Do you have equal knowledge and insight?
The laws to enforce this, or something similar,in some places are still on the books they are just hogtied by the system.
They have gone through the process to determine constitutionality, and passed.
There are very good reasons for their being on the books in the first place.
These are the same folks that wanted the current dangerous conditions. To get two of them to agree to commit someone against their will would be spectacularly difficult. Only the most obvious and dangerous people would have this happen.
Understand my point of view here, I've known and worked with dozens Mental health Professionals over the years. I've also seen far more of the damage that mentally ill people can do up close and personal.
You're blowing this off as if I don't know what I'm talking about.
Read my prior posts about my background before you decide that.
I have probably been involved the treatment of hundreds of patients with a psych diagnosis.
I have watched the mental health system nearly kill my daughter at least twice.
Do you have equal knowledge and insight?
The laws to enforce this, or something similar,in some places are still on the books they are just hogtied by the system.
They have gone through the process to determine constitutionality, and passed.
There are very good reasons for their being on the books in the first place.
Alabama Shooter
New member
They are not given exams because they are given weapons. They are given exams because they are given power, authority and huge amounts of responsibility. If these things are abused the organization could found liable. Carrying the weapon is merely a tool to help them carry out duties.
Purely an aside but not everywhere does mental health evaluations.
The idea that current law allows doctors to indefinitely abridge a person's rights and incarcerate an individual until the person is determined to not be a danger is inaccurate.
I respect the evidentiary role docs play in probate proceedings, but docs themselves are not competent to adjudicate a person's legal rights.
I respect the evidentiary role docs play in probate proceedings, but docs themselves are not competent to adjudicate a person's legal rights.
MLeakes post(s)...
I agree with MLeakes last statement but here's the thing.
There are dangerous, highly unstable people who should NOT have easy access to weapons or ammunition. What changes or policy issues could make the general public safer is what gun owners or 2A supporters should discuss.
I'd heard that Jerrod Lautner, the young man who shot Rep Giffords in the head in AZ wanted to enlist in the US Army but was declined due to MENTAL issues. If he was so unstable he couldn't enlist wouldn't that be a "red-flag"?
I also heard the guy in the CO movie theater event(2012) was interviewed by a university faculty member who denied his admission & sent emails out warning other campus admin offices of the young man's behavior. That could be a red flag.
ClydeFrog
I agree with MLeakes last statement but here's the thing.
There are dangerous, highly unstable people who should NOT have easy access to weapons or ammunition. What changes or policy issues could make the general public safer is what gun owners or 2A supporters should discuss.
I'd heard that Jerrod Lautner, the young man who shot Rep Giffords in the head in AZ wanted to enlist in the US Army but was declined due to MENTAL issues. If he was so unstable he couldn't enlist wouldn't that be a "red-flag"?
I also heard the guy in the CO movie theater event(2012) was interviewed by a university faculty member who denied his admission & sent emails out warning other campus admin offices of the young man's behavior. That could be a red flag.
ClydeFrog
Similar things were said about Cho, at Virginia Tech, or Hassan at Fort Hood.
I have no problem with disqualifying people who are threats. When people in positions of responsibility encounter specific behaviors that indicate a person poses a danger, there should be reporting requirements, and there should be repercussions for failure to report.
(Note that Penn State is facing $60M in fines plus years of NCAA sanctions for failure to report the possibility that they had a sexual predator, yet as far as I know no faculty nor staff were ever held accountable for failing to follow up concerns about Cho.)
I have a problem with requiring prospective buyers to pass a mental health screen.
There is a substantial difference between those two things.
(Edit: While I support reporting requirements, I still think we need a well-defined adjudication process, with checks and balances.)
I have no problem with disqualifying people who are threats. When people in positions of responsibility encounter specific behaviors that indicate a person poses a danger, there should be reporting requirements, and there should be repercussions for failure to report.
(Note that Penn State is facing $60M in fines plus years of NCAA sanctions for failure to report the possibility that they had a sexual predator, yet as far as I know no faculty nor staff were ever held accountable for failing to follow up concerns about Cho.)
I have a problem with requiring prospective buyers to pass a mental health screen.
There is a substantial difference between those two things.
(Edit: While I support reporting requirements, I still think we need a well-defined adjudication process, with checks and balances.)
Last edited:
Emphasis added. Is a "dangerous, highly unstable" person rendered safe once denied firearms? Should such a person be free at all, with access to bats, knives, cars, gasoline and the means to make poisons and explosives?
What does a "red flag" mean? If the US Army doesn't want you because you have to touch your nose and turn around three times each time someone says "sir", do you immediately forfeit your constitutionally guaranteed liberties?
This country has courts and thousands of dedicated judges who put thought and experience toward weighing peoples' rights and interests correctly, and appointing appropriate guardians and conservators. I find the urge to bypass judicial protections unwise.
Last edited:
scrubcedar
New member
We're not talking about locking people away with no recourse. We are talking about making it practical to commit dangerous people first, before they kill people, then going through the process while everyone, including the mentally ill person is safe.
I'll go ahead and do a little digging, see if I can cite examples of the laws on the books as we speak. They are there because we were looking at the exact wording when my daughter got bad at one point.
The objection that removed their teeth was that it somehow was locking them up without due process.
The problem is the pendulum has swung too far the other way and we are here.
When it comes right down to it my right to live trumps his right to freedom.
I'll go ahead and do a little digging, see if I can cite examples of the laws on the books as we speak. They are there because we were looking at the exact wording when my daughter got bad at one point.
The objection that removed their teeth was that it somehow was locking them up without due process.
The problem is the pendulum has swung too far the other way and we are here.
When it comes right down to it my right to live trumps his right to freedom.
scrubcedar
New member
Here is the Conneticut Law concerning involuntary commital http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0848.htm
This is the summary;SUMMARY
The law permits the involuntary commitment of people with psychiatric disabilities who are either dangerous to themselves or others or gravely disabled. A gravely disabled person is someone who may suffer serious harm because he fails to provide for his basic human needs and refuses to accept necessary hospitalization.
Anyone may begin the commitment process by filing with the probate court an application alleging that someone has psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or others or gravely disabled. Two court-selected physicians examine the person to be committed and a hearing is scheduled 10 days later. The court must order commitment if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person meets the commitment requirements. The commitment is for the duration of the psychiatric disabilities or until the patient is discharged in due course of law.
A person may be committed on an emergency basis without a prior hearing, however, if a clinical social worker or advanced practice registered nurse with certain training, physician, or psychologist signs an emergency certificate stating that he has psychiatric disabilities, is dangerous or gravely disabled, and in need of immediate care and treatment.
A police officer may take a person with psychiatric disabilities into custody and deliver him to a general hospital on a court warrant or reasonable belief that the person meets the criteria for emergency commitment.
Hospitals must annually advise all committed patients of their right to a hearing on whether they can be released. Additionally, a court-appointed psychiatrist must examine each patient annually. A full hearing is required at least every two years. Patients may also apply for release at any time and receive a full hearing on the application.
Remarkably similar to what I proposed Isn't it?
This is the summary;SUMMARY
The law permits the involuntary commitment of people with psychiatric disabilities who are either dangerous to themselves or others or gravely disabled. A gravely disabled person is someone who may suffer serious harm because he fails to provide for his basic human needs and refuses to accept necessary hospitalization.
Anyone may begin the commitment process by filing with the probate court an application alleging that someone has psychiatric disabilities and is dangerous to himself or others or gravely disabled. Two court-selected physicians examine the person to be committed and a hearing is scheduled 10 days later. The court must order commitment if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person meets the commitment requirements. The commitment is for the duration of the psychiatric disabilities or until the patient is discharged in due course of law.
A person may be committed on an emergency basis without a prior hearing, however, if a clinical social worker or advanced practice registered nurse with certain training, physician, or psychologist signs an emergency certificate stating that he has psychiatric disabilities, is dangerous or gravely disabled, and in need of immediate care and treatment.
A police officer may take a person with psychiatric disabilities into custody and deliver him to a general hospital on a court warrant or reasonable belief that the person meets the criteria for emergency commitment.
Hospitals must annually advise all committed patients of their right to a hearing on whether they can be released. Additionally, a court-appointed psychiatrist must examine each patient annually. A full hearing is required at least every two years. Patients may also apply for release at any time and receive a full hearing on the application.
Remarkably similar to what I proposed Isn't it?
Last edited:
scrubcedar
New member
Here is a more complete list. http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/studies/state-standards-involuntary-treatment.html
Note the Language at the top. 1.Having a law, does not mean a state makes use of it. Very few states make use of involuntary outpatient commitment (Asssited Outpatient Treatment, AOT) laws.
2.When inpatient commitment is used, most states still rely on the "dangerousness" standard, and rarely use the other standards they have available to them. Further "dangerous" is often interpreted very narrowly to mean "imminently" dangerous.
3.No state law includes all the provisions in the model law on this site, and therefore all states can improve their law.
4.All states could improve care and save money wby making greater use of the options they already have available to them.
Note the Language at the top. 1.Having a law, does not mean a state makes use of it. Very few states make use of involuntary outpatient commitment (Asssited Outpatient Treatment, AOT) laws.
2.When inpatient commitment is used, most states still rely on the "dangerousness" standard, and rarely use the other standards they have available to them. Further "dangerous" is often interpreted very narrowly to mean "imminently" dangerous.
3.No state law includes all the provisions in the model law on this site, and therefore all states can improve their law.
4.All states could improve care and save money wby making greater use of the options they already have available to them.
Scrubcedar said:
You are proposing locking people up without due process. Recourse to the same doc who may have decided you need incarceration isn't a reasonable protection of a person's civil rights.
Scrubcedar said:
I believe that involves a false choice. A very brief hold is all that is necessary to get a matter before a judge.
Scrubcedar said:
I regret that your child was touched by illness, especially one that sounds so severe.
Have you ever discussed fire safety with a fireman? They have bunches of rules about which they are adamant. In some ways they have an exaggerated sense of risk because they typically see things when they've gone bad. The same can be said about attorneys for some matters. Direct experience can rob a person of a sense of scale and perspective.
I will not pretend to know what you endured; my love for my children is nutty and unmeasured. I would not trust that level of passion to correctly shape public policy.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Right again, Zukiphile.
However, the problem with this whole line of discussion is the underlying assumption that everyone who "goes postal" (to use a somewhat antiquated term) is a priori mentally ill, and that all we need to do is identify "those people" and render them harmless. Not so. Rage at injustice, whether real or perceived, is a natural, human thing, and a useful one. Violence as an outlet for that rage is also human. We all, like it or not, have the capacity for both. We all have the capacity to do evil by choosing to direct that rage and violence at the innocent.
It's human (and a behavior seen in other animals, as well) to use those who are relatively defenseless as targets for that rage and violence. We all know the famous old example: man gets yelled at by his boss... comes home and yells at his wife... who yells at the kid... who kicks the dog. (My dog sometimes claws at and humps her blankie after I tell her not to do something.
)
None of this adds up to mental illness, just to being human. This means that we can't, in fact, always predict who's going to "snap" and commit mayhem.
By scapegoating the mentally ill, are we sure we're not engaging in another form of this behavior? Better we should use the energy from whatever rage we have, either at the people who do kill innocents, or at those who would deny us our rights, more constructively; for example, we could look at the objective social conditions that lead to that level of rage in the first place: social isolation, bullying, and the powerlessness felt by those who lose jobs and homes to economic conditions over which they have no influence whatever... just to name a few. (And, yes, it may well be that some mentally ill people are more likely to react violently to these things -- but they are often reacting to something in their lives.)
However, the problem with this whole line of discussion is the underlying assumption that everyone who "goes postal" (to use a somewhat antiquated term) is a priori mentally ill, and that all we need to do is identify "those people" and render them harmless. Not so. Rage at injustice, whether real or perceived, is a natural, human thing, and a useful one. Violence as an outlet for that rage is also human. We all, like it or not, have the capacity for both. We all have the capacity to do evil by choosing to direct that rage and violence at the innocent.
It's human (and a behavior seen in other animals, as well) to use those who are relatively defenseless as targets for that rage and violence. We all know the famous old example: man gets yelled at by his boss... comes home and yells at his wife... who yells at the kid... who kicks the dog. (My dog sometimes claws at and humps her blankie after I tell her not to do something.
)None of this adds up to mental illness, just to being human. This means that we can't, in fact, always predict who's going to "snap" and commit mayhem.
By scapegoating the mentally ill, are we sure we're not engaging in another form of this behavior? Better we should use the energy from whatever rage we have, either at the people who do kill innocents, or at those who would deny us our rights, more constructively; for example, we could look at the objective social conditions that lead to that level of rage in the first place: social isolation, bullying, and the powerlessness felt by those who lose jobs and homes to economic conditions over which they have no influence whatever... just to name a few. (And, yes, it may well be that some mentally ill people are more likely to react violently to these things -- but they are often reacting to something in their lives.)
scrubcedar
New member
Zukiphile I appreciate the kindness, let me say that first.
How do you address that the laws so closely resemble my proposals?
When you fix your car you ask a mechanic, when you're worried about fires, ask a fireman, when you're worried about the mental health system ask some one who's been on both sides of it.
How do you address that the laws so closely resemble my proposals?
When you fix your car you ask a mechanic, when you're worried about fires, ask a fireman, when you're worried about the mental health system ask some one who's been on both sides of it.
Scrubcedar said:
I don't think anyone who has children thinks the experience is less than transformative.
I bought an item from a kitchen table FFL a few years ago. He was a muni PO and was watching his three small and perfect boys. he hadn't met me before. As I filled out the 4473, he noted how much he loved his kids and how he wouldn't even think about the jail time he would do from killing anyone who hurt his kids.
I wasn't shocked at the veiled threat: I thought "That's a good father".
We all gave the world a hostage when we had our first child.
Scrubcedar said:
I hope I addressed that sufficiently at 7:14 above.
scrubcedar said:
Absolutely. And when I am worried about preserving peoples' legal rights and weighing their interests, I ask people who handle those matters, not doctors.
Last edited:
scrubcedar
New member
Sorry I posted before I saw your reply. Remove the bolding and read the entire passage.
A person may be committed on an emergency basis without a prior hearing, however, if a clinical social worker or advanced practice registered nurse with certain training, physician, or psychologist signs an emergency certificate stating that he has psychiatric disabilities, is dangerous or gravely disabled, and in need of immediate care and treatment.
A police officer may take a person with psychiatric disabilities into custody and deliver him to a general hospital on a court warrant or reasonable belief that the person meets the criteria for emergency commitment.
Hospitals must annually advise all committed patients of their right to a hearing on whether they can be released. Additionally, a court-appointed psychiatrist must examine each patient annually. A full hearing is required at least every two years. Patients may also apply for release at any time and receive a full hearing on the application.
Even a social worker, or Nurse Practitioner can have them committed just by signing a form.
The Policeman only needs a "reasonable belief that the person meets the criteria"
Within 10 days they have to be examined by 2 physicians.
What I proposed was similar down to the number examining them.
The mental health system does not follow it's own rules, trust me.
Sandy hook, Aurora, Loughtner, etc., would have been locked up under these rules, erasing the death toll.
A person may be committed on an emergency basis without a prior hearing, however, if a clinical social worker or advanced practice registered nurse with certain training, physician, or psychologist signs an emergency certificate stating that he has psychiatric disabilities, is dangerous or gravely disabled, and in need of immediate care and treatment.
A police officer may take a person with psychiatric disabilities into custody and deliver him to a general hospital on a court warrant or reasonable belief that the person meets the criteria for emergency commitment.
Hospitals must annually advise all committed patients of their right to a hearing on whether they can be released. Additionally, a court-appointed psychiatrist must examine each patient annually. A full hearing is required at least every two years. Patients may also apply for release at any time and receive a full hearing on the application.
Even a social worker, or Nurse Practitioner can have them committed just by signing a form.
The Policeman only needs a "reasonable belief that the person meets the criteria"
Within 10 days they have to be examined by 2 physicians.
What I proposed was similar down to the number examining them.
The mental health system does not follow it's own rules, trust me.
Sandy hook, Aurora, Loughtner, etc., would have been locked up under these rules, erasing the death toll.
Scrubcedar said:
I read the entire passage, and reviewed the law in your link. Those social worker, NP and doc certificates all result in release in no more than 72 hours.
That provides the time to get an urgent matter before a court. Such a determination is ultimately judicial.
The CT code requires the two court appointed docs to personally examine the putative ward within 10 days of the hearing on the application. If the person refuses examination, the court can authorise apprehension for that purpose. In other words, while the application is pending, the person isn't locked up.
That is in the link, but not the summary.
Last edited: