Republicans - cut it out!

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters
>who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had
>guns kept from them.

>The only way to do that is to violate their rights.

Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first.

We can thank St. Ronald Reagan for putting the insane back on the streets of America.

No. The Supreme Court put the nutters on the streets. Reagan happened to be the one in office when it was done.

in 1975, the SCOTUS decided O’Connor v. Donaldson, UNANIMOUSLY holding: "A finding of 'mental illness' alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement… In short, a state cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends."

Note: Donaldson was locked away for 15 years because he was accused of being mentally ill. Just kept away from society because society didn’t need a weirdo out there.

In 1979, the SCOTUS held that the burden of proof to commit someone is on the government by "clear and convincing evidence." That changed stuff.

Reagan was a champion of the RIGHTS of the mentally ill. See Lanterman-Petris-Short.

"Blame Reagan" is the easy way. It's the same thing as saying, "Obama opened the doors to Super PAC Funding!" No, the SCOTUS did. Obama has no choice. Neither did Reagan. He did what he was required to do - release mentally ill people from custody.

I don't care who gets the credit, I'm just glad somebody did it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I don't care who gets the credit, I'm just glad somebody did it.

Amen.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

>Unfortunately, you have been bringing up repeated incidents of nutters
>who don't have any criminal background and that they should have had
>guns kept from them.

>The only way to do that is to violate their rights.

Untrue, as you know. Someone who is insane can legally have rights removed (right to drive, right to own a gun, right to manage their own affairs.) They need not kill someone first.

Yes. But not until they've had due process. As I said, they had to be adjudicated that way.

Kallend has posted many times about nutters blowing people away. Check out the crazy dude in Arizona - he never even had a traffic ticket. But he was weird, right? His was a case that did not fall through the cracks. There was no crack.

Meanwhile, a fella gets pinched a couple of months ago for Facebook postings. An abuse that many applauded.

No-one expects to be 100% effective. But being even 25% effective is better than being 0% effective.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No-one expects to be 100% effective. But being even 25% effective is better than being 0% effective.

How would you even measure this? You've jailed people because you think they might do something. But there's going to be a large number of false positives, but since you've removed them before they might have acted, you can't measure that either.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

No-one expects to be 100% effective. But being even 25% effective is better than being 0% effective.

How would you even measure this? You've jailed people because you think they might do something. But there's going to be a large number of false positives, but since you've removed them before they might have acted, you can't measure that either.

Who wrote anything about jailing them? Certainly not me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No-one expects to be 100% effective. But being even 25% effective is better than being 0% effective.

How would you even measure this? You've jailed people because you think they might do something. But there's going to be a large number of false positives, but since you've removed them before they might have acted, you can't measure that either.

Who wrote anything about jailing them? Certainly not me.

sticking them in a mental hospital against their will ~= jailing. Merely disarming them is still a violation of their rights, even if eventually you do get a finding of mental incompetence.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Both Parties are necessary. We have an adversarial system of government. The pendulum swings both ways. How many different ways do you want me to say it?

Great example -- thanks.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No-one expects to be 100% effective. But being even 25% effective is better than being 0% effective.

If it means that rights are abused, I would find it to be worse, not better.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

No-one expects to be 100% effective. But being even 25% effective is better than being 0% effective.

If it means that rights are abused, I would find it to be worse, not better.

So you don't think Gabrielle Gifford had a right not to be shot by a loonie?

You don't think the Aurora "Dark Knight" victims had rights?

I seem to recall something in the founding document of the USA about inalienable rights.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So you don't think Gabrielle Gifford had a right not to be shot by a loonie?

You don't think the Aurora "Dark Knight" victims had rights?

I seem to recall something in the founding document of the USA about inalienable rights.

They did have rights. And those who violate and intrude upon the rights of others should be punished for it.

And so should the government. You are advocating thought police and the wholesale sweeping up of potential threats.

Read this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=422&invol=563

"A finding of "mental illness" alone cannot justify a State's locking a person up against his will and keeping him indefinitely in simple custodial confinement."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Yes. But not until they've had due process.

Agreed that due process must be followed in the long term. In the short term, police should (and do) have the right to arrest someone who they think is a threat to themselves or others, and hospitals have a right to hold them for evaluation before such a hearing occurs. This is a removal of their rights, but has a history of being constitutionally acceptable. (as is arresting and imprisoning someone _before_ trial.)

And that part of the process is the part that could stand some improvement.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Yes. But not until they've had due process.

Agreed that due process must be followed in the long term. In the short term, police should (and do) have the right to arrest someone who they think is a threat to themselves or others, and hospitals have a right to hold them for evaluation before such a hearing occurs. This is a removal of their rights, but has a history of being constitutionally acceptable. (as is arresting and imprisoning someone _before_ trial.)

And that part of the process is the part that could stand some improvement.

Improvement in which direction? Requiring more cause or less cause before jailing that person?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

>Yes. But not until they've had due process.

Agreed that due process must be followed in the long term. In the short term, police should (and do) have the right to arrest someone who they think is a threat to themselves or others, and hospitals have a right to hold them for evaluation before such a hearing occurs. This is a removal of their rights, but has a history of being constitutionally acceptable. (as is arresting and imprisoning someone _before_ trial.)

And that part of the process is the part that could stand some improvement.

Yes. Here in Wisconsin we have a "72 hour hold."
Pretty much any cop can take someone into an emergency room and have them held in a locked ward "for their own protection."
Most of these are legit, but I know a couple guys who had their "soon to be ex-wife" report them as suicidal to the cops and end up in the hospial while the woman cleans out the house and bank accounts.

It is a mostly good system, but it has potential for abuse.

I'd really hate to see any setup where someone can be put away for any real length of time, or even had any of their rights (including the 2nd) removed.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No-one expects to be 100% effective. But being even 25% effective is better than being 0% effective.

If it means that rights are abused, I would find it to be worse, not better.

So you don't think Gabrielle Gifford had a right not to be shot by a loonie?
You don't think the Aurora "Dark Knight" victims had rights?
I seem to recall something in the founding document of the USA about inalienable rights.

her right not to get shot doesn't outweigh the right of ~300M Americans to move about near her, or to own firearms. You want to guarantee her safety - you have to deport everyone else. It goes without saying that this isn't an option. You're proposing that we eliminate 25% of the possible threat through proactive removal, but can't identify criteria that would even pass a simple backtest on previous incidents.

[kallend 2,182]

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BIGUN 1,506]

Back on track about doing something...

In the Senate:
You surrender; Dianne Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Bob Menendez and Maria Cantwell
And I'll surrender; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Orrin Hatch AND Scott Brown.

In the House:
You give up 6 of the 12 California seats and I'll surrender 1 Oklahoma Seat.

And, I'll throw in Mitt Romney for your illegal alien card.

Fair enough?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

yep. But that doesn't allow for prior restraint either. Holmes has to state that he's about to swing his fist before you can take action against him. You want to prevent unpredictable actions from occurring, but can't figure out how to identify them with any level of accuracy.

[billvon 3,132]

>Requiring more cause or less cause before jailing that person?

I'd say we need a better way to identify people who are a threat to themselves or others _before_ they commit that murder. Once we do that we already have a system in place to evaluate them and decide on their competence.

Note that we're already close here; in the Holmes case the system almost worked. (His psychiatrist went to the police before his killing spree.) We just have to make sure we plug the holes that allow cases like his to remain unevaluated.

[matthewcline 0]

If only she had been clearer, it appears she was only "concerned" and not alarmed, then maybe he would have been intercepted prior to the killings.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Requiring more cause or less cause before jailing that person?

I'd say we need a better way to identify people who are a threat to themselves or others _before_ they commit that murder. Once we do that we already have a system in place to evaluate them and decide on their competence.

What a novel idea - develop the better way to ID killers without violating everyone's rights

There's no other discussion until this happens.

Excellent - you actually put the horse before the cart instead of Kallend's posts to just kill the horse and lock up everyone in the cart when they've done nothing wrong

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

>Requiring more cause or less cause before jailing that person?

I'd say we need a better way to identify people who are a threat to themselves or others _before_ they commit that murder. Once we do that we already have a system in place to evaluate them and decide on their competence.

What a novel idea - develop the better way to ID killers without violating everyone's rights

There's no other discussion until this happens.

Excellent - you actually put the horse before the cart instead of Kallend's posts to just kill the horse and lock up everyone in the cart when they've done nothing wrong

I think promoting better awareness to help people understand when someone they care about is in trouble would be a good place to start. All too often we hear "I knew he was having a rough time, but I never thought something like this would happen". Not a perfect solution, but at least a start in the right direction. Perhaps taught in a health class in school and/or public service announcements. I'm sure there are other ways to help educate the public on what to look for, but it needs to start with the recognition of a problem. perferably by those closest to the person in trouble.