News Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 6 YTBN Shot, Killed In Tuscon AZ

[nismaratwork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army_issued_arms"

Wiki is in agreement with what I know 2nd hand about the Swiss, that is, if they come to your house and you do not have a gun you go to jail.

A [Swiss] militiaman with his service weapon slung over his shoulder:

On the other side of the argument there is Mexico, with extremely tight gun control laws http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122803644.html" .

True, but they're doing with our guns, and so we can use their drugs... their homicide rate is HUUUUUGE... and would be if they were armed with machetes; it's a WAR down there... no other way to put it. 31K DEAD? Hoooly crap. I don't think a state that's falling apart, and using weapons from our neck of the woods is the best example.

I'd add, until the cartel of former Mexican military (a comment of their military, not a military in general), who began by... keeping their SKILLS. With those skills, getting a gun is just the easy part, and now we have... Los Zetas... arguably the people who turned country-wide gang violence, into a country-wide gang WAR.

I suspect that there is equally complex contexts in a given society for why they do or don't shoot each other with guns. I asked before I left for the evening, and nobody answered, but I will again: Guns aren't the issue: Why do Americans kill each other with them so damned much? Obviously 1 gun doesn't = 1 murder or spree, it's the people, and the society. Well... if the guns aren't the problem, and gun owners of legal standing aren't the problem, and our overall crime rate is down...


What. Is. The. Problem? Why do we do this... lack of training? Culture? I have NO IDEA, just personal beliefs about fear, drugs, mental illness, and the presence not just of guns as a tool or tool for a sport, but CULTURE. You'll find people who call the Japanese samurai barbarians for their belief that their sword and soul were forged in one, but they practically lose bowel control if you talk about limiting how many rounds, or what type, or just BETTER TRAINING and an attitude that it's a LAST resort.

 

[nismaratwork]

someone must be getting tired of this thread. already derailing it into a gun control debate as a prelude to lock.

Loughner developed a picture of himself in a pink or red (reports, so who knows) G-string, his gun covering his "region"... and nothing else.

I'm GUESSING that was the reference... that or suddenly DA regressed from debates about QM interpretations to jokes about Dan's undies... for the hell of it.

HOWEVER...

...Damn this has gone off the rails, and it's just been 12 hours or so.

Hey there... people shot and dead... there's a world of places we can have this debate, and while some speculation into the world of how this happened, the answer at its root is clear:

This guy was nuts, and had a weapon. If he'd snagged a shotgun, or a really sharp sword (internet purchase these days! holy moly) people would still be dead, somewhere, at some time.

 

[arildno]

A point I don't think has been discussed so far is the following:

Granted that Jared was insane, does it follow that he was criminally insane?

That is, had he lost his capacity for distinguishing between right and wrong in the legal sense?

After all, many persons might have delusions, but still know that they aren't allowed to harm people. Most insane are more of a risk to themselves than to others.

Personally, I think that in the legal sense, Jared must be considered sane.

When he posts an internet message saying "Please don't be mad at me", that is pretty good evidence that he knew that what he was about to do would be reprehensible in the eyes of others. Yet that didn't stop him.

That is quite different from the lunatic who becomes convinced his landlady is a vampire, sucking his blood every night, and in an act of what he regards as desperate self-defense, kills her.Jared wanted to prove he was a man, who would crush the mind-controlling bastards, along with a few unimportant robots (like little Christina Green).

I don't think he ought to get away with a plea for insanity.

 

[nismaratwork]

A point I don't think has been discussed so far is the following:

Granted that Jared was insane, does it follow that he was criminally insane?

It seems very clear that as sure as anyone can be given this distanced situation, yes.

That is, had he lost his capacity for distinguishing between right and wrong in the legal sense?

It seems not, and even if he did that last post of his on facebook asking his friends not to blame him is DAMNING; he knew that he was about to do a bad thing. Legally, he's cooked.

After all, many persons might have delusions, but still know that they aren't allowed to harm people. Most insane are more of a risk to themselves than to others.

It's good to hear you say that, and it's true. Really, it's people with persecutorial delusions: the belief that OTHERS are attacking them, controlling them, etc... in various ways... who are one of a rare group of those most would call "nuts" who can lash out. They're afraid, ALL THE TIME... as anyone would be if they lost touch with reality, but that just makes them more of a threat if undiagnosed, and untreated.

The tragedy is, legally insane or not: DAYS... just DAYS of anti psychotic therapy could have brought him to his senses enough to ask for help... or at least give him the chance. Remember, in this country we pretty much lock up those who are criminals AND mentally ill; which does no favors to anyone, including correctional officers, and the general public (when those people, now crazy AND having been in prison) get out.

Personally, I think that in the legal sense, Jared must be considered sane.

When he posts an internet message saying "Please don't be mad at me", that is pretty good evidence that he knew that what he was about to do would be reprehensible in the eyes of others. Yet that didn't stop him.

Obviously I already agree, but if he hadn't killed anyone... let's pretend for a moment that he got close to Giffords, and was tackled before he ever got a shot off. Without the shootings... would this even be an issue? He'd never function in a prison GP, so it's death row, a mental health section if they have it, or administrative segregation (23 hours a day in a SMALL cell).

Don't be mad at me, I'm about to do a terrible thing.
Don't be mad at me, I have no choice.

Legally, they can inscribe either on his tombstone, but outside of the law that is no smoking gun. Psychotic doesn't mean: I am 100% of every moment, completely and utterly alone in my head... when that happens, you get catatonic psychosis.

That is quite different from the lunatic who becomes convinced his landlady is a vampire, sucking his blood every night, and in an act of what he regards as desperate self-defense, kills her.

It's less flashy, and because people with a psychotic disorder USUALLY don't believe their landlady is a vampire; they tend to become fixated on their own loss of ability to think, and express themselves. This leads to a very typical "THEY are controlling my mind!" delusion; it's the best they can reason from inside a mind that isn't working anymore. Remember also, that he's relatively young, and psychotic disorders often have a progression...

Anyway, he thought he was being watched... stalked by his best friend (with intent to kill him), and more. Beyond that, "vampire-landlady" is less a "DIFFERENT" kind of psychotic, than it is what you'd expect from someone who's much older and has been out of touch with reality far longer. I would add that you see that kind of thing a lot more in people who use amphetamines, or people in an extended and untreated manic phase.

Jared wanted to prove he was a man, who would crush the mind-controlling bastards, along with a few unimportant robots (like little Christina Green).

I don't think he ought to get away with a plea for insanity.

He won't, and I don't know about ought. As for proving, I think he did what virtually every psychotic person does if they lash out: they attack what they see as the root, or a representative of their delusions of being watched, hunted, controlled, etc.

If you TRULY believed that others were controlling your mind and FORCING thoughts on you, changing the world around you in terrifying ways... well... some people get angry... others curl up, some try to kill themselves, and others ask for help.

We're seeing the very endpoint of Loughner's undiagnosed and untreated life... and because of what he did, it doesn't matter in this country: he may avoid death if he completely breaks down to everyone's satisfaction, but otherwise he doesn't have a prayer. The last person anyone wants to hear from at times like this, in or out of court, seems to be the people who say: 'How do you blame crazy? Blaming a disease is like blaming Sarah Palin; it feels good, feels right, but it's not.'

If only most people with this kind of problem DID babble about landlady vampires... life would be a LOT easier.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh... to clarify the G-String issue, here's the CNN article, and a very good interview.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/15/arizona.shooting.images/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[nismaratwork]

"This is a psychiatric failure, it's not a political failure; it's a failure of our ability to provide basic care for people who have 'brain diseases- that are seriously mentally. If these people had kidney diseases we wouldn't stand for it, but they don't understand the brain well enough and we have completely failed them." (Dr. E Fuller Torrey on CNN regarding the Loughner incident, in an hour dedicated to Schizophrenia.)

 

[arildno]

"This is a psychiatric failure, it's not a political failure; it's a failure of our ability to provide basic care for people who have 'brain diseases- that are seriously mentally. If these people had kidney diseases we wouldn't stand for it, but they don't understand the brain well enough and we have completely failed them." (Dr. E Fuller Torrey on CNN regarding the Loughner incident, in an hour dedicated to Schizophrenia.)

The problem is that people with a kidney disease approach their doctor on their own account.
People with mental illnesses (and it is right to regard such diseases as at least equally severe) very rarely do.

And that leaves us with the option of involuntary hospitalization.

Should we incarcerate 10 "false positives" in order to avoid a "false negative" like Loughner?

It is so difficult to find the right balance here..

 

[nismaratwork]

The problem is that people with a kidney disease approach their doctor on their own account.
People with mental illnesses (and it is right to regard such diseases as at least equally severe) very rarely do.

And that leaves us with the option of involuntary hospitalization.

Should we incarcerate 10 "false positives" in order to avoid a "false negative" like Loughner?

It is so difficult to find the right balance here..

It's very hard... hell, it's hard enough with kidney disease!

 

[Vanadium 50]

And that leaves us with the option of involuntary hospitalization.

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

 

[Evo]

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

Yep.

 

[arildno]

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

Precisely.
This is the result of the juridical and institutional changes in psychiatry, not just in the US, but most of the Western World since the 1960s.

Prior to that, "he looks creepy", "he is so odd" WERE considered sufficient reasons to lock up eccentrics.

Predictably, "she is an immoral wh*re" or "he is a depraved homosexual" were sufficient reasons as well, in some cases...

I am not saying that we should reverse the sound shift made back in the 60s, but it has left us with a greater number of misfits making trouble for themselves and others that we really haven't been able to find a rational, properly ethical way to deal with.

 

[edward]

Typically the disturbed person who is the closest to the edge will be the first one to act out in a violent way.

The Arizona district eight congressional election was one of the most disgusting I have ever seen.

And yes there were overtones of violence that came from the Tea Party candidate. We saw a lot of trash depicted by the link below.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...elp-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php

To a great extent that and the national vitriol juggling among radio and TV shock jocks led a lot of locals to jump to the conclusion that there was more than just aiming at a political upset in those crosshairs.

Yesterday one of the shooting victims was arrested for threatening the local Tea Party leader in Tucson. The threat came during a taping of a town hall meeting that was shown on NBC this morning.

It was probably a bit too soon to have such opposing points of view in the same room.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/01/tea_party_threat_arrest.html?imw=Y&f=most-emailed-24h5

The man , a long time Giffords supporter has been remanded for a non voluntary psychological evaluation.

 

[DanP]

I am not saying that we should reverse the sound shift made back in the 60s, but it has left us with a greater number of misfits making trouble for themselves and others that we really haven't been able to find a rational, properly ethical way to deal with.

It's the price we pay for freedom. And it's well worth the price.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Arizona district eight congressional election was one of the most disgusting I have ever seen.

And yes there were overtones of violence that came from the Tea Party candidate. We saw a lot of trash depicted by the link below.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...elp-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php

To a great extent that and the national vitriol juggling among radio and TV shock jocks led a lot of locals to jump to the conclusion that there was more than just aiming at a political upset in those crosshairs.

WHAT THE F**K!

http://proarizona.blogspot.com/2011/01/flashback-gifford-opponents-had-m16.html]Back[/PLAIN] in June 2010, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's (D-AZ) Republican opponent Jesse Kelly had an event at which voters could shoot an assault rifle with the candidate, promoted as thus:

Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly

Are they all totally nuts down there?? What is this?

...

Many thanks for this info edward.

This seems like the hottest stuff you can access on the net right now. It’s impossible to get there, EVEN with Google cache?

Here is a link that worked better for me:
http://proarizona.blogspot.com/2011/01/flashback-gifford-opponents-had-m16.html


(... be prepared that someone might call you "moron" or worse for bringing up this topic, don’t engage in 'wrangling', it’s no use... says one that started the "Pink War"...?? )

 

[DevilsAvocado]

edward, is this the trigger happy political "genius"?

 

[Proton Soup]

edward, is this the trigger happy political "genius"?

what, suddenly "patriotism" is dead? heck, we love war heros. the more they've killed, the more we want them in office.

this is a guy running on a war hero platform. the message is he kills "terrorists" and keeps us all safe. he won't back down in the face of a bunch of liberal peace activists. what more could you want?

i guess the message you're looking for is about toning our political rhetoric down. but this is who we are as a people.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... the message is he kills "terrorists" and keeps us all safe.

Bright analyzing, but I think you’ve might have missed a 'minor' factor; Gabrielle Giffords is member of the United States House of Representatives, not a terrorist:

 

[Proton Soup]

Bright analyzing, but I think you’ve might have missed a 'minor' factor; Gabrielle Giffords is member of the United States House of Representatives, not a terrorist:

yeah, so? were they using pics of her as a target, or was it just another fun day of shooting guns?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

yeah, so? were they using pics of her as a target, or was it just another fun day of shooting guns?

I think you are on a much too advanced level of rhetoric. I’ll give up.

 

[WhoWee]

yeah, so? were they using pics of her as a target, or was it just another fun day of shooting guns?

If he's somehow responsible - a civil suit will surely sort it out.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/09/05/kelly-places-crosshairs-squarely-rep-giffords"

 

[russ_watters]

Here's an interesting twist: while people have been discussing whether political rhetoric from the right could have caused this shooting, the discussion seems to have convinced a shooting victim to become like the shooter!

An Arizona shooting victim accused of threatening a local leader of the conservative tea party movement at a televised town hall meeting also yelled at those in attendance, at one point calling them all "whores," authorities said Sunday.
James Eric Fuller, 63, was arrested on disorderly conduct and threat charges and taken for a psychiatric exam after he a took picture of Trent Humphries, the co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party, and yelled "you're dead,"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-15-arizona-arrest_N.htm

I suppose though if political rhetoric from the right is to blame for the shooting, it is also to blame for any retaliation?

Twisted, twisted, twisted.

 

[edward]

Kelly dropped out of his freshman year at college. He was a Libertarian from Montana but managed to get to Arizona as the Tea Party candidate for the district eight congressional seat.
He had served in the military 3 years.

Kelly's Republican opponents in the primary were much more qualified than he was.



Giffords was a state legislator before becoming a US representative. She has a masters degree and had won a Fulbright scholarship. She is married to an astronaut whose twin brother is currently on the International Space Station.

As a state legislator Giffords worked with republican Mayor Bob Walkup to get funding for the level one trauma center for the University of Arizona Medical Center.

That trauma center is where Giffords was treated.

 

[edward]

Here's an interesting twist: while people have been discussing whether political rhetoric from the right could have caused this shooting, the discussion seems to have convinced a shooting victim to become like the shooter! http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-15-arizona-arrest_N.htm

I suppose though if political rhetoric from the right is to blame for the shooting, it is also to blame for any retaliation?

Twisted, twisted, twisted.

I mention that above in post 662. There is a lot of anger here. The man had worked on Gifford's campaign and had complained about the thinly veiled violence at the time.

BTW the shooting victim used a camera.

Yet I agree it is twisted twisted twisted.

 

[lisab]

what, suddenly "patriotism" is dead? heck, we love war heros. the more they've killed, the more we want them in office.

this is a guy running on a war hero platform. the message is he kills "terrorists" and keeps us all safe. he won't back down in the face of a bunch of liberal peace activists. what more could you want?

i guess the message you're looking for is about toning our political rhetoric down. but this is who we are as a people.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...not so fast there declaring who "we" are. I require my representatives to have *a lot* more qualifications than "war hero" and "terrorist killer". Those skills are great on the battlefield, but I have no evidence they translate into an making a person an effective representative.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/09/05/kelly-places-crosshairs-squarely-rep-giffords"

i guess Bill Hess has some explaining to do?

Here's an interesting twist: while people have been discussing whether political rhetoric from the right could have caused this shooting, the discussion seems to have convinced a shooting victim to become like the shooter! http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-15-arizona-arrest_N.htm

I suppose though if political rhetoric from the right is to blame for the shooting, it is also to blame for any retaliation?

Twisted, twisted, twisted.

i saw that. i think they showed him a great kindness by sending him in for a psych eval.

 

[mheslep]

A point I don't think has been discussed so far is the following:

Granted that Jared was insane, does it follow that he was criminally insane?...

Good question for his prosecution, but not a necessary one to have prevented his access to a firearm. If anyone of the several public institutions that crossed paths with Jared had simply taken the steps to tag him as simply mentally unstable, he likely would never have gained access to a legal firearm. It seems to me that issue, the one of identifying and taking some action against (or for) at least the easily identifiable mentally ill, is far and away more important than the tone of the political debate, gun politics, or even criminal punishment.

 

[mheslep]

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

Precisely.
This is the result of the juridical and institutional changes in psychiatry, not just in the US, but most of the Western World since the 1960s.

Prior to that, "he looks creepy", "he is so odd" WERE considered sufficient reasons to lock up eccentrics.

...

Here are the typical legal guidelines for either involuntary commitment or a declaration of incapacity, driven I suppose by O'Connor v. Donaldson:

The person must be mentally ill and, as a result of his mental illness, he must be GRAVELY DISABLED OR PRESENT A LIKELIHOOD OF SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS.

Gravely disabled means that the person cannot take care of his own basic needs, like food and shelter, and this inability puts him in danger of serious harm. A person is also considered gravely disabled if he will suffer severe and abnormal mental, emotional or physical distress if not treated, and this distress is associated with significant impairment of judgement, reason or behavior causing him/her to be able to function much less independently.

Under this law, a person presents a likelihood of causing serious harm if: (1) he poses a substantial risk of physically harming himself as shown by his behavior causing, attempting to threatening harm to himself OR (2) he poses a substantial risk of harm to others shown by recent behavior and is likely in the near future to physically hurt someone else or cause substantial property damage, OR (3) he shows a current intent to carry out plans of serious harm to himself. (Alaska Court System 1989, p. 2; emphases in original. A complete copy of this pamphlet is contained in Appendix A.

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/research/1990/9615brady/96151men.pdf

I guess that the reported behaviors of Jared could have met the current standard.

 

[mheslep]

Kelly dropped out of his freshman year at college. He was a Libertarian from Montana but managed to get to Arizona as the Tea Party candidate for the district eight congressional seat. ...

It is a fact that Kelly was the Republican candidate, duly registered with Az electoral people, etc. Who say's he was the Tea Party candidate? I know that at least one national level Tea Party group like FreedomWorks specifically declined to endorse him. Former Governor Palin, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/" .

 

[edward]

It is a fact that Kelly was the Republican candidate, duly registered with Az electoral people, etc. Who say's he was the Tea Party candidate? I know that at least one national level Tea Party group like FreedomWorks specifically declined to endorse him. Former Governor Palin, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/" .

Actually Palin endorsed Kelly at first ( it is on his face book page) His face book page also led to a Fox news video that they both were on. There is also a list of Tea Party meetings where Kelley appeared at here in the Tucson area.

Then he made some outrageous statements about Palin that showed up on YouTube. Then those Youtube video's were pulled by the poster.??

http://www.therightscoop.com/trifecta-sarah-palin-allen-west-and-jesse-kelly

This is long, Kelly is at about the half way point.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

It's sad beyond words too, because most aren't Loughners... most people just hurt themselves, suffer, die young and out of touch with reality. It's a lifelong battle, and we don't have the social or mental health support system. Yes, some people won't take medication, or other help and sometimes because adverse effects (such as tardive dyskinesia

mheslep: You're right in principle; in practice unless a doctor can prove IMMINENT threat of harm... no luck. If we put people away for being unable to care for themselves, a large portion of our homeless population would dry up, and it would be a LOT easier to pick out the "pro-panhandlers". Vanadium is right... unless Loughner basically told a cop or a doctor that he was going to hurt another, or himself...

It's wrong, it's stupid, it's so frustrating it makes me nearly cry, but Vanadium is still right: this country makes those who are mentally ill the burden of a family, even if there IS no family, or that family is also ill. I wonder how people think any of that has a happy ending?

 

[nismaratwork]

i guess Bill Hess has some explaining to do?



i saw that. i think they showed him a great kindness by sending him in for a psych eval.

Kindness, and the simple fact that no prosecutor would TOUCH that. A week after a mass shooting?... I'm fairly sure the fellow is on his way to PTSD, along with plenty of other witnesses who don't get enough help.

Trauma: the gift that keeps on giving as long as we have a "bootstrap" attitude. If a soldier had been involved in that, would anyone be shocked that they blew up a week later, ESPECIALLY if they were unarmed and helpless at the time?

Do we REALLY think it's a good twist that people are conflating the nearly hysterical rhetoric of a survivor of a shooting, and the shooter. The fact that people on the right and left want to blame external forces is just another way of saying, "we have no responsibility for ignoring problems like Loughner, and when this story goes away, we'll go back to that." Better and easier to live believing he's a one-off copy... right?

 

[edward]

It is a fact that Kelly was the Republican candidate, duly registered with Az electoral people, etc. Who say's he was the Tea Party candidate? I know that at least one national level Tea Party group like FreedomWorks specifically declined to endorse him. Former Governor Palin, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/palin_tracker/" .

This is a direct cut and paste from kelly's Facebook page.

Giffords facing major upset?

www.azcentral.com

Giffords facing major upset?, US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is in a dead heat with Tea Party-backed Republican Jesse Kelly and faces a major upset, .12 News political insider Chris Herstam says on this weekend's "Sunday Square Off." Herstam also details Karl Rove's role in...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesse-Kelly/359472301041

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a direct cut and paste from kelly's Facebook page.



http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesse-Kelly/359472301041

Ewwww... OK. That is a really REALLY crass way to cash in on your service. McCain is subtler about 5 years as a POW.

I don't think this had anything to do with a shooting however; people (yes DA, you too, sorry!) are ascribing an ability to reason that I don't think is evident in Loughner. Psychotic people are best echoes of what is CLOSEST to them, emotionally, mentally, and in terms of fixation. I see no major "gun-rights" or political motivation here... he was worried about mind control, stalkers, murder plots... it would be AMAZING if he were directly inspired by something as abstract and complex as political discourse.

Remember... it IS complex if you have a psychotic disorder; a disorder of THOUGHT, as opposed to say, a personality disorder.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep: You're right in principle; in practice unless a doctor can prove IMMINENT threat of harm... no luck. If we put people away for being unable to care for themselves, a large portion of our homeless population would dry up, and it would be a LOT easier to pick out the "pro-panhandlers". Vanadium is right... unless Loughner basically told a cop or a doctor that he was going to hurt another, or himself...

Where are you getting this from? Using the phrase "in practice" implies first hand knowledge of many such instances. Is that the case? There's no mention of "imminent" in the legal standard I referenced. Nor does it say a doctor must witness first hand a threat. The standard is "poses a substantial risk of harm", the word "substantial" implying a subjective judgement call by a professional.

 

[nismaratwork]

Where are you getting this from? Using the phrase "in practice" implies first hand knowledge of many such instances. Is that the case? There's no mention of "imminent" in the legal standard I referenced. Nor does it say a doctor must witness first hand a threat. The standard is "poses a substantial risk of harm", the word "substantial" implying a subjective judgement call by a professional.

I don't expect to convince you; there are others on this site you'll trust who will tell you the same thing, I'm sure. Feel free not to take my word for it; as for firsthand experience, yes, it's the case, although I'm not psychotic nor do I have any relatives with a psychotic disorder.

Each state has variations on a theme, but you would be AMAZED at just how blatantly someone needs to be ill to be held. For better or worse, this country has powerful laws protecting privacy and the right to be free, and really, it's a common nightmare for many that they could be derailed from society and placed "away" as ill without due process. Instead of improving our system, we gutted it, and in it s place we use the penal system as a means of control.

Here's an example for the state of Massachusetts

http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/mills.aspx

APA's Position: APA submitted another brief in support of the plaintiffs to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The brief argued that: (1) the law of Massachusetts guarantees a right of personal autonomy and freedom from unauthorized bodily intrusions, a right offended by the involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs to (a) a person competent to make treatment decisions for himself, and (b) an incompetent person who would choose not to be medicated with such drugs if he were competent; (2) the civil commitment decision in Massachusetts is not equivalent to a judicial determination of incompetence to make treatment decisions, and that the civil commitment decision is different from a determination that the Commonwealth may forcibly medicate an involuntarily committed person with psychotropic drugs; (3) a person competent to make treatment decisions should have an absolute right to refuse such medications, and (4) the question of competency can be made only by a court, not by hospital personnel, except (a) where a patient presents an imminent threat of physical harm to himself or others or (b) where the patient's mental condition would suddenly and irreversibly deteriorate without administration of the drugs. In that case, they may be administered on an interim basis until a court could make a determination of incompetence and a substituted judgment decision.

That is GOSPEL for any psychiatrist practicing in MA, and you'll find something like it in most or all states (not 100% on all 50).

Read some of those, and tell me how we can reconcile THAT level of freedom, which I believe in... with the need to provide care? The only sane solution is to provide a higher standard of care; a proper standard of care. Properly treated and maintained mental illness is NOT generally a threat to anyone, including the sufferer. Group homes for those with no family left or able to care for them, and ones that aren't Texas fight-clubs so understaffed as to be a joke... are needed. Other solutions are also needed, and have been outlined in paper after study after paper...

Nobody seems to care until its them, their loved one, or a tragedy occurs.

Oh, and yes, it's a subjective call, but do some research into how narrow the guidelines are to MAKE that call. Compare with actual rates of psychotic disorders in the population and despair.

edit: In practice, "4b" is just not done, but you can walk through Boston, or NYC, or SF, etc... and know that. You see, "4b" is in direct conflict with "3". You're probably thinking I'm an idiot saying that... after all you've doubtless seen people on the street who CAN'T make decisions about their medication. Fair enough, but what do you think happens when that medication begins to work?... 3. Refusal... often refusal. Antipsychotic drugs don't cure anything, they diminish symptoms and can do their own long-term damage... nasty damage too. Plenty of people can't stand the adverse effects; drooling, tardive dyskinesia, drowsiness, stop... and then pretty soon they're back in place where they can't seek help again, or won't. Often, and this is a problem with Bipolar disorders as well, illegal drug use practically goes hand in hand with some many untreated psychiatric disorders. If the choice we're giving them is an unbearable non-life with medications, or a familiar life on drugs... too many choose drugs and the streets.

edit2: Note: in cases where 4b is an issue, you're talking about such a crisis that it's simply not required; a court would do the work anyway.

 

[nismaratwork]

This... isn't bad. It's not good, but it's not bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disordered_thought

This may help clarify some of what I mean by "form" and not "content" what Loughner rote, and said, as being a terrible and obvious warning of a psychotic disorder.

The bolding is mine

Thought is revealed through speech. Thus, observation of patterns of thought naturally involves close observation of the speech of the individual being considered. Although it is normal to exhibit some of the following during times of extreme stress (e.g. a cataclysmic event or the middle of a war) it is the degree, frequency, and the resulting functional impairment that leads to the conclusion that the person being observed has a thought disorder.

Blocking - Interruption of train of speech before completion. e.g. "Am I early?", "No, you're just about on-" This is commonly seen when a joke is being told and the speaker forgets the punchline. At an extreme degree, after blocking occurs, the speaker does not recall the topic he or she was discussing. True blocking is a common sign of schizophrenia.

Circumstantiality - Speech that is highly detailed and very delayed at reaching its goal. Speaking about many concepts related to the point of the conversation before eventually returning to the point and concluding the thought. Excessive long-windedness. e.g. "What is your name?" "Well, sometimes when people ask me that I have to think about whether or not I will answer because some people think it's an odd name even though I don't really because my mom gave it to me and I think my dad helped but it's as good a name as any in my opinion, I think it's a little weird to have the same name as two of my other names, but the fact that I like it, is a good thing... but yeah, it's Tom."

Clanging - Sounds, rather than meaningful relationships, appear to govern words or topics. Excessive rhyming. e.g. "I'm not trying to make noise. I'm trying to make sense. If you can't make sense out of nonsense, well, have fun." "I heard the bell. Well, hell, I heard the bell."

Derailment (also Loose Association and Knight's Move thinking) - Ideas slip off the topic's track on to another which is obliquely related or unrelated. e.g. "The next day when I'd be going out you know, I took control, like uh, I put bleach on my hair in California."

Distractible speech - During mid speech, the subject is changed in response to a stimulus. e.g. "Then I left San Francisco and moved to... where did you get that tie?"

Echolalia - Echoing of one's or other people's speech that may only be committed once, or may be continuous in repetition. This may involve repeating only the last few words or last word of the examiner's sentences. This can be a symptom of Tourette's Syndrome. e.g. "What would you like for dinner?", "That's a good question. That's a good question. That's a good question. That's a good question."

Evasive Interaction - Attempts to annunciate ideas and/or feelings about another individual comes out as evasive or in a diluted form, e.g.: "I... er ah... you are uh... I think you have... uh-- acceptable erm... uh... hair."

Flight of Ideas - A sequence of loose associations or extreme tangentiality where the speaker goes quickly from one idea to another seemingly unrelated idea. To the listener, the ideas seem unrelated and do not seem to repeat. Often pressured speech is also present. e.g. "I own five cigars. I've been to Havana. She rose out of the water, in a bikini."

Illogicality - Conclusions are reached that do not follow logically (non-sequiturs or faulty inferences). e.g. "Do you think this will fit in the box?" draws a reply like "Well duh; it's brown isn't it?"

Incoherence (word salad) - Speech that is unintelligible because, though the individual words are real words, the manner in which they are strung together results in incoherent gibberish, e.g. the question "Why do people comb their hair?" elicits a response like "Because it makes a twirl in life, my box is broken help me blue elephant. Isn't lettuce brave? I like electrons. Hello, beautiful."[citation needed]

Loss of goal - Failure to show a train of thought to a natural conclusion. e.g. "Why does my computer keep crashing?", "Well, you live in a stucco house, so the pair of scissors needs to be in another drawer."

Neologisms - New word formations. These may also involve elisions of two words that are similar in meaning or in sound. e.g. "I got so angry I picked up a dish and threw it at the geshinker."

Perseveration - Persistent repetition of words or ideas. e.g. "It's great to be here in Nevada, Nevada, Nevada, Nevada, Nevada." This may also involve repeatedly giving the same answer to different questions. e.g. "Is your name Mary?" "Yes." "Are you in the hospital?" "Yes." "Are you a table?" "Yes."

Phonemic paraphasia - Mispronunciation; syllables out of sequence. e.g. "I slipped on the lice and broke my arm."

Pressure of speech - An increase in the amount of spontaneous speech compared to what is considered customary. This may also include an increase in the rate of speech. Alternatively it may be difficult to interrupt the speaker; the speaker may continue speaking even when a direct question is asked.

Self-reference - Patient repeatedly and inappropriately refers back to self. e.g. "What's the time?", "It's 7 o'clock. That's my problem."

Semantic paraphasia - Substitution of inappropriate word. e.g. "I slipped on the coat, on the ice I mean, and broke my book."

Stilted speech - Speech excessively stilted and formal. e.g. "The attorney comported himself indecorously."

Tangentiality - Replying to questions in an oblique, tangential or irrelevant manner. e.g.:
Q: "What city are you from?"
A: "Well, that's a hard question. I'm from Iowa. I really don't know where my relatives came from, so I don't know if I'm Irish or French."

Word approximations - Old words used in a new and unconventional way. e.g. "His boss was a seeover."

This is sad, because it illustrated how a person suffering this way is constantly struggling to maintain some touch with reality, but even his or her ability to reason is breaking.

edit: related topics if anyone is interested: Schizophasia, Cognitive Slippage, etc.

In addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorganized_schizophrenia

Tell me this isn't the history of this young man almost verbatim, as told by friends, and teachers. Bolding is mine.

This type is characterized by prominent disorganized behavior and speech (see formal thought disorder) including schizophasia, and flat or inappropriate emotion and affect. The criteria for the catatonic subtype of schizophrenia must not have been met as well. This type of schizophrenia is also known as hebephrenia, and is named after the Greek goddess of youth, Hebe, in reference to the typical age of onset in puberty[3].

Unlike the paranoid subtype of schizophrenia, delusions and hallucinations are not the most prominent feature[4][5], although fragmentary delusions and hallucinations may be present.
A person with disorganized schizophrenia may also experience behavioral disorganization which may impair his/her ability to carry out activities of daily living such as showering or eating.[6]

The emotional responses of people diagnosed with this subtype can often seem strange or inappropriate to the situation. Inappropriate facial responses may be common and behavior is sometimes described as 'silly', such as inappropriate laughter. Complete lack of expressed emotion is sometimes seen, as is an apparent indifference, anhedonia (the lack of pleasure), and avolition (a lack of motivation). Some of these features are also present in other types of schizophrenia, but they are most prominent in Disorganized Schizophrenia.

This form of schizophrenia is typically associated with early onset (often between the ages of 15 and 25 years) and is thought to have a poor prognosis because of the rapid development of 'negative' symptoms and decline in social functioning.[7]

Use of electroconvulsive therapy has been proposed.[8]

 

[arildno]

Good question for his prosecution, but not a necessary one to have prevented his access to a firearm. If anyone of the several public institutions that crossed paths with Jared had simply taken the steps to tag him as simply mentally unstable, he likely would never have gained access to a legal firearm. It seems to me that issue, the one of identifying and taking some action against (or for) at least the easily identifiable mentally ill, is far and away more important than the tone of the political debate, gun politics, or even criminal punishment.

This is a highly important point.

However, it requires that the barrier for designating someone as "mentally unstable" must be lowered from that today (for example that school authorities has the power to designate, even though an in-depth, costly professional psychiatric evaluation has not been performed), and that this information in some "unabusable" way is transmitted to licensed salesmen of guns and firearms.

After all, is it correct that a greengrocer is given information that "somebody" has put the label of "mentally unstable" on one of the applicants for a job?

 

[WhoWee]

This is a direct cut and paste from kelly's Facebook page.



http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jesse-Kelly/359472301041

Again, I'm sure any civil suits against the candidate and the Tea Party officials will sort this out? I'm still not sure what this has to do with the shooting - his facebook posts from October were focused on the economy and Giffords support of failed policy.

Btw - your link to azcentral.com has a story posted about stimulus waste - apparently a sample of stimulus loans indicated about 1/3 were incorrect - about $4 Billion made to persons ineligible to receive the assistance. Perhaps this was one of the failed policies he was referring to in his post?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

edward, thank you so very much for the information. You live there, you have firsthand information, and you know what is going on. This is much better than any news channel, thanks man.

Kelly dropped out of his freshman year at college. He was a Libertarian from Montana but managed to get to Arizona as the Tea Party candidate for the district eight congressional seat.
He had served in the military 3 years.

Kelly's Republican opponents in the primary were much more qualified than he was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUilvsCHNZM

It looks like there must be much better alternatives. I’m not sure about the language... Kelly is what you call a "Borderline" confusion...?

Giffords was a state legislator before becoming a US representative. She has a masters degree and had won a Fulbright scholarship. She is married to an astronaut whose twin brother is currently on the International Space Station.

As a state legislator Giffords worked with republican Mayor Bob Walkup to get funding for the level one trauma center for the University of Arizona Medical Center.

That trauma center is where Giffords was treated.

This is a tragedy ... I don’t know what to say ... I’m normally not a 'weeping sensitive', but when I see Gabrielle Giffords talking at "Congress on Your Corner" ... it’s tough ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv6Vw_M3tZ0

 

[DevilsAvocado]

emphasis mine

Here's an interesting twist: while people have been discussing whether political rhetoric from the right could have caused this shooting, the discussion seems to have convinced a shooting victim to become like the shooter!

BTW the shooting victim used a camera.

Oh man, talk about scathing words. Touché!

 

[WhoWee]

edward, thank you so very much for the information. You live there, you have firsthand information, and you know what is going on. This is much better than any news channel, thanks man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUilvsCHNZM

It looks like there must be much better alternatives. I’m not sure about the language... Kelly is what you call a "Borderline" confusion...?




This is a tragedy ... I don’t know what to say ... I’m normally not a 'weeping sensitive', but when I see Gabrielle Giffords talking at "Congress on Your Corner" ... it’s tough ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv6Vw_M3tZ0

What does any of this have to do with the shooting of Rep. Giffords? What is the connection? Did the shooter belong to the group? Was the shooter a campaign worker for Kelly? Was there correspondence between the shooter and Kelly? Is Kelly a suspect? What is your point?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

 

[WhoWee]

This is a re-post. Do you have a point - what are you trying to say?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...not so fast there declaring who "we" are. I require my representatives to have *a lot* more qualifications than "war hero" and "terrorist killer". Those skills are great on the battlefield, but I have no evidence they translate into an making a person an effective representative.

Thanks a lot for those words lisab. It looks like intelligent women are the only one who understands the problem (Mama Grizzlies don’t count):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOp8TdNJvm8

 

[WhoWee]

Thanks a lot for those words lisab. It looks like intelligent women are the only one who understands the problem (Mama Grizzlies don’t count):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOp8TdNJvm8

You can't be serious?

If she was run over by a car and Kelly had invited people to drive a stock car - would you post his ad? If not, why not - Rep. Gifford wasn't shot with an M-16 and the shooter had no contact with Kelly.
As for Palin - she copied a (Democratic group) map that targeted Republican candidates - didn't she?

 

[nismaratwork]

DA: I really respect your passion, but this man is probably psychotic: nobody CAUSED this if that's the case, including Loughner really. Either way, I don't see how this return to blaming politics can lead to anything other than another layer of cynicism once its used.

Lets focus on the issues:

We have such a pathetic mental health service nationwide, that people like Loughner slips under the radar.

The USA has issues with guns... the proposed solutions vary, but the problem is there; we kill each other with guns disproportionately often.

Politics and Media (Glenn Beck, Kieth Olberman for examples) are so hysterical and based on such fear-mongering and the manufacturing of paranoia, that again... Loughner's rants no longer stand out.

None of that changes 6 dead people, a woman who's progress is measured in, "breathing on her own" (note the lack of news about her talking...); the result shouldn't be a political debate.

 

[nismaratwork]

It looks like the stone throwing and name calling just began??

Do you know how many times people have, intentionally or not, come close to scuttling this thread? I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet.

 

[turbo]

As for Palin - she copied a (Democratic group) map that targeted Republican candidates - didn't she?

No she didn't. The Democratic leadership council color-coded states by popular vote, including putting archery targets over states that the GOP had taken by single-digits. They were pointing out to their membership and donors where gains could be made with extra investment in money and manpower.

Unlike Palin, they didn't put cross-hairs on candidates' districts, nor name anybody. The "both sides do it" argument is pretty thin. This thread is about Giffords' shooting and her (hopefully!) recovery, but I couldn't let that comment stand without pointing out the obvious qualitative differences between the graphics.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

 

[Al68]

No she didn't. The Democratic leadership council color-coded states by popular vote, including putting archery targets over states that the GOP had taken by single-digits.

Archery targets instead of cross-hairs, huh? Does that mean they were advocating the use of bows and arrows?

Isn't it about time for the silliness to end?