0
OHCHUTE

Should background checks include identifying the mentally ill

Recommended Posts

Don't get me started, Jerry. The IRS has a forced entry capability. Extreme and a waste of money in my eyes.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

I hope you know that all it takes to lock someone up is another someone claiming the person is suicidal. I've been involved in one. There is no real due process. It's a bit scary.



My wife has often commented about how easy it is to give a 5150 and is shocked at how many people would seek to make it far easier for her and others of her profession to unilaterally destroy people's lives. People have no idea how easy it is.

She doesn't want that power. Most people don't. It's the ones that do want that power, though, that worry her a lot.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

I hope you know that all it takes to lock someone up is another someone claiming the person is suicidal. I've been involved in one. There is no real due process. It's a bit scary.



My wife has often commented about how easy it is to give a 5150 and is shocked at how many people would seek to make it far easier for her and others of her profession to unilaterally destroy people's lives. People have no idea how easy it is.



And I suppose loonies with guns don't LITERALLY destroy peoples' lives?

Get real, counselor!
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

I hope you know that all it takes to lock someone up is another someone claiming the person is suicidal. I've been involved in one. There is no real due process. It's a bit scary.



My wife has often commented about how easy it is to give a 5150 and is shocked at how many people would seek to make it far easier for her and others of her profession to unilaterally destroy people's lives. People have no idea how easy it is.



And I suppose loonies with guns don't LITERALLY destroy peoples' lives?

Get real, counselor!



Do you have any idea how easy it is to have someone declared "Looney" professor?

For example, someone could fail one of your classes. Being angry at you, they could call in a "potential suicide" on you. As long as the story was convincing, the cops would show up and take you in to the hospital for a 72 hour hold. And there's NOTHING you could do or say to stop it.

And now you are a "Looney." Would the FAA be notified?
Would they yank your medical because you are now a "Looney"? (I really don't know if they would or not)

If they did yank your medical, how much trouble would you have to go to to get it reinstated?
How much expense?
How much time would it take?

I'm not trying to allow loonies to run around with guns (or airplanes).

But I really don't like how easy it is to classify someone as "Looney" and to strip them of a wide variety of rights.
"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are advocating is preemptive fucking.

Nine years ago, you posted this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=910347#910347

Where you were concerned bout people being put away due to misconduct who were innocent of what they were alleged to have done. Meanwhile, I suppose that in today's world, it is understandable that those people may have literally destroyed others' lives, so in the balance of things the public interest was superior to theirs.

It's not me who has changed. It is you. You used to be stand up about justice. Why have you changed? Or, do you simply think that suspected criminals should have greater rights than the suspected looneys?

"Do unto others before they do unto you." What a fine philosophy there.:S



My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Should we remove firearms from anyone who has been on a psych hold?

In some cases, yes. You can be deprived of your freedom (locked up) for some amount of time for an accusation of ANY crime, not just being suicidal.

Guy goes on psych hold. Before he's released there's a quick hearing (equivalent of an arraignment) to see if he is potentially a threat to himself or others. Just a judge and a doctor in most cases. If he's not a threat (i.e. it was just someone else making an unsupported claim) then no issue. If he is a threat then police are notified and his weapons confiscated if he has them.

He can then go to a competency trial (with a lawyer if he wants it, his own doctors etc) and get his guns back or lose them permanently - or at least until a successful appeal.

Not really any different from being arrested on suspicion of anything. You're in jail for a short time until the arraignment, then (often) a longer time until the trial, although generally your right to travel is restricted. You can get out temporarily under certain conditions (bail, meeting bail conditions etc.) A full trial determines your guilt or innocence, and whether you will remain in prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

On the whole I'd rather be denied a gun than be shot dead by one.



Very few (except for the suicidal want to be shot dead), but there are millions and millions (it is impossible to know the real number) of people in the 20th Century who were denied the right to have a gun and then were proceeded to be shot dead by those in government who had the guns. And this all happened after the 2nd Amendment was well intrenched into the US Constitution. Oh and history does have a way of repeating itself. B|


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

>So is there a SWAT raid on the home of everyone put on a 72 hr evaluation hold?

Why do you need a SWAT team? They don't send a SWAT team when they repossess someone's car.



they send swat teams up here even when there's just allegations of guns and threats...

here's just one local example and it's not the one I was looking for

http://www.orilliapacket.com/2010/11/01/farmer-suing-cops-after-his-family-was-allegedly-taken-down-during-raid
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So then as a UMD student living in a house with a man who I know has guns and is acting nutty, I'll keep my Glock near my pillow without him knowing about it and be ready to kill the man should he threaten me with violence. How could I even defend myself perhaps if ambushed. This guy actually gave his roomates a chance to get out by setting fires.

OR: the two might have just gone down to the police department or university officials and call for an intervention to remove the guns. How could live there not knowing when you might be shot or not, plus these students have rent pay and they're studying, so moving out is not a option.
The one guy did move out so I don't know what his story was.
What do you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


Not really any different from being arrested on suspicion of anything.



Except for the fact that the person has not been accused or convicted of a crime. Has not been given the right to a trial by jury, etc.

You are proposing trying people not for any crime but on the basis that they may be a danger. Why does this not frighten you?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

On the whole I'd rather be denied a gun than be shot dead by one.



And on the whole I'd rather a person be imprisoned instead of on the streets to possibly do me harm. Turns out, though, that taking people's freedom as a prophylactic measure has a nasty history. Back in the 40's, there were plenty of people who would rather not worry about the Japs getting them.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

>So is there a SWAT raid on the home of everyone put on a 72 hr evaluation hold?

Why do you need a SWAT team? They don't send a SWAT team when they repossess someone's car.



they send swat teams up here even when there's just allegations of guns and threats...
-------------------------------------------------------

Police arrived at 7:15 a.m. (kind of a leisurely response to the 5:30 a.m. initial 911 call).



Yep..when you need the police they are just minutes...I mean HOURS away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

On the whole I'd rather be denied a gun than be shot dead by one.



And on the whole I'd rather a person be imprisoned instead of on the streets to possibly do me harm. Turns out, though, that taking people's freedom as a prophylactic measure has a nasty history. Back in the 40's, there were plenty of people who would rather not worry about the Japs getting them.

Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Typhoid Mary? Should it ever be permissible to subject a person to involuntary quarantine just because they are a known carrier of a disease that is frequently fatal, they refuse treatment, and insist on working in a job that ensures that lots of unsuspecting people will be exposed?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's an interesting question. What we see is a person who is an immediate threat to the public. We do it nowadays when a person has tuberculosis, diptheria, etc. If a person is traveling between states or from abroad, the CDC may quarantine that person. States also have the authority to detain and quarantine those with TB until they are clear of AFB in sputum.

But here's the thing: the person is no longer considered to be a danger. So, that person is released and has not lost any rights in the future as a result of it.

A corollary could be put out there: should people with HIV be detained and quarantined? They've done it in Cuba. Detaining and quarantining HIV positive people due to the risk they may spread it to others.

This is pretty much exactly what people are proposing. A person with a mental illness be detained and kept in permanent custody/quarantine because even in the absence of present symptoms of mental illness/depression/etc/ it just might recur.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

> Should we remove firearms from anyone who has been on a psych hold?

In some cases, yes. You can be deprived of your freedom (locked up) for some amount of time for an accusation of ANY crime, not just being suicidal.

Guy goes on psych hold. Before he's released there's a quick hearing (equivalent of an arraignment) to see if he is potentially a threat to himself or others. Just a judge and a doctor in most cases. If he's not a threat (i.e. it was just someone else making an unsupported claim) then no issue. If he is a threat then police are notified and his weapons confiscated if he has them.

He can then go to a competency trial (with a lawyer if he wants it, his own doctors etc) and get his guns back or lose them permanently - or at least until a successful appeal.

Not really any different from being arrested on suspicion of anything. You're in jail for a short time until the arraignment, then (often) a longer time until the trial, although generally your right to travel is restricted. You can get out temporarily under certain conditions (bail, meeting bail conditions etc.) A full trial determines your guilt or innocence, and whether you will remain in prison.



Bill, ANYONE can claim you told them you were suicidal and you can get locked up. Are you really suggesting that someone should have to go to court to prove they are competent to get their weapons back? Why would they be taken in the first place? If you are locked up on a 72hr hold, why would the police go to your residence and confiscate your property without a warrant? Do you have any idea what you are recommending? When you first started down this path, I thought you had just woken up and needed some coffee. It appears you really meant it. That's a bit frightening.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

But here's the thing: the person is no longer considered to be a danger. So, that person is released and has not lost any rights in the future as a result of it.

So, is the problem (at least to some extent) the one-size-fits-all inflexibility of the system? Is it that once you have been deemed to be "mentally ill", the consequences are life-long? I certainly would agree that this is a big problem. Would it help if there was some mechanism available for a short-term "emergency hold" that could be placed by a judge, acting on the recommendation of a trained mental health specialist, and after that short term (say, a month) if no action is taken to extend the hold it disappears and no record is kept? I can easily imagine circumstances where one might want to keep a person away from access to guns due to a transient event that will likely resolve given a few days or weeks, such as when a person is extremely despondent over the death of a spouse or child. There seems to be no good reason why that should haunt someone for the rest of their life. Why is it that the legal system seems to be incapable of such nuance? Personally I'd like to see a more nuanced approach in other directions as well. For example, I see no reason why someone who is convicted of a non-violent felony should be denied the right to vote, and their 2nd amendment rights, for life. If they stay out of trouble for a reasonable period of time after they have served their sentence, say 5 years as an example, restoration of such rights should be automatic (in my opinion anyway).

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

Is it that once you have been deemed to be "mentally ill", the consequences are life-long?



That’s what’s being proposed.

  Quote

Would it help if there was some mechanism available for a short-term "emergency hold" that could be placed by a judge, acting on the recommendation of a trained mental health specialist, and after that short term (say, a month) if no action is taken to extend the hold it disappears and no record is kept?



Tough to do that. A judicial determination is a public record.

  Quote

I can easily imagine circumstances where one might want to keep a person away from access to guns due to a transient event that will likely resolve given a few days or weeks, such as when a person is extremely despondent over the death of a spouse or child. There seems to be no good reason why that should haunt someone for the rest of their life. Why is it that the legal system seems to be incapable of such nuance?



It is capable of it. It’s actually the rule. The problem is that there are people (including the president) who are seeking background checks that include mental health records. That such records are private is what the President has called an “unnecessary legal obstacle.”

A background check would reveal it. It’s the very reason why the discussion of opening up private mental health records is being proposed.


  Quote

Personally I'd like to see a more nuanced approach in other directions as well. For example, I see no reason why someone who is convicted of a non-violent felony should be denied the right to vote, and their 2nd amendment rights, for life.



I agree.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


You wouldn't believe what they are doing here now. Busting elementary school kids for pointing fingers as if they're shooting someone and busting kids also for shooting the bubble gun, some toy. Now if they can bust an elementary school kid, can't they bust someone who is acting totally out of it.
What's the solution: kill the guy before he kills you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


what about the right of millions of gun owners to enjoy access to their perfectly legal ar-15's?
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote


So your enjoyment is more important that the lives of the 22 kids in Newtown. Nice priorities you have.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 7-year-old Detroit girl is expected to recover after her father shot her in the stomach , Fox 2 News Detroit reports.
“She’s had a few surgeries, but she’s pulling through,” said Amera’s mother Kelly Jones. “She can’t talk yet, or open her eyes, but she can hear you. She can nod her; squeeze your hand.”
Part of her arm and elbow was shattered during the shooting. The child also suffers from a debilitating muscle condition.
Ferdarius Shine, 28, is suspected in the shootings of his grandmother, aunt and daughter, Amera Jones. He checked himself into a hospital for a psych evaluation soon after he allegedly shot his three family members.
Shine reportedly has a history of mental illness. It is not clear when he will be charged for the shootings. Cops found a gun at the scene on Friday evening when the shooting took place. Shine has a permit to carry, but it is unclear when he got it.


See anything wrong with this picture, Counselor?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0