School Shooting Prevention(incl discussion of mental health)

[Heffay]

So what do you propose? Dude shoots someone, this situation aside... What do you do at that point?

Get him medical help, put him in a high security mental facility, and recognize that he's also a victim. Stop calling him nuts, crazy, wacko, and loony, and start having empathy for him as well.

I dunno...seems like something Jesus would do, so maybe it's a bit radical. Not old testamenty enough for people here.

[Holland&Holland]

So what do you propose? Dude shoots someone, this situation aside... What do you do at that point?

Get him medical help, put him in a high security mental facility, and recognize that he's also a victim. Stop calling him nuts, crazy, wacko, and loony, and start having empathy for him as well.

I dunno...seems like something Jesus would do, so maybe it's a bit radical. Not old testamenty enough for people here.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not what happens now? If the guy is found insane and the shooter is still alive?

[Heffay]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not what happens now? If the guy is found insane and the shooter is still alive?

Partially, but we're missing an important part of getting these people to look for help before it becomes an issue.

viewtopic.php?f=60&t=36892

[Holland&Holland]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not what happens now? If the guy is found insane and the shooter is still alive?

Partially, but we're missing an important part of getting these people to look for help before it becomes an issue.

viewtopic.php?f=60&t=36892

How do we do that? If one is mentaly ill one is likely not aware that they are. What do we change in order to address this?

[farmerj]

How do we do that? If one is mentaly ill one is likely not aware that they are. What do we change in order to address this?

Pretty good chance that if it's to THIS level,

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fe ... n-to-snap/

The person needs to be watched a LOT closer if not confined or taken into protective custody.

[Holland&Holland]

How do we do that? If one is mentaly ill one is likely not aware that they are. What do we change in order to address this?

Pretty good chance that if it's to THIS level,

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fe ... n-to-snap/

The person needs to be watched a LOT closer if not confined or taken into protective custody.

I get that, but then why didn't YOU do that? I suspect your answer is that you did not know him or where not in th area, so now your answer is SOMEONE should have. Once again, you did not know him, you were not there. Easy to be a Monday morning quarter back and state what should have happened.

[farmerj]

did you READ and COMPREHEND what the article said?

His mom WAS in the process of doing just that. It was a case already IN the system that was painfully dragging out the process.

[Holland&Holland]

did you READ and COMPREHEND what the article said?

His mom WAS in the process of doing just that. It was a case already IN the system that was painfully dragging out the process.

Yes I did. However I think you are missing the point, the question is what should be changed? To state the process is just too cumbersome does not in and of itself identify they change just the problem.

[Heffay]

The reason it's not handled better is the stigma associated with it, like I linked to earlier. People don't want to talk about it, and deny it exists.

[farmerj]

Due process means that there will be SEVERAL hearings. Some of them several months apart from each other. 6-9 months even at times.

When it's shown that a person is seriously a danger to self or others enough that there is justification for commitment, taking 18 months to commit them is no longer an option.

[Paul]

Heffay,

You and I tend to agree on many topics, and I'm with you on this mental health issue.... My only question/point is that it could be argued that ANYONE who commits murder is mentally unstable (ill)... Doesn't this change how we deal with every homicide then... Including the gang bangers. Just a thought.

[Heffay]

Heffay,

You and I tend to agree on many topics, and I'm with you on this mental health issue.... My only question/point is that it could be argued that ANYONE who commits murder is mentally unstable (ill)... Doesn't this change how we deal with every homicide then... Including the gang bangers. Just a thought.

Ah, the old "crimes of passion" argument. Temporary insanity. Still a valid defense in some Latin American countries.

That's not mental illness. But yes, mental illness screening should probably be part of any investigation in a murder case. A gang banger who murders someone during a drug crime may or may not be mentally ill. Would probably help to dig around in their brain for a bit.

I'm talking about a complete change in how society deals with these people. Support for the family members, financially from the gov and socially from their neighbors instead of whispered innuendos. Treat mentally ill like we treat cancer patients. Even *before* they do anything wrong. Open discussions, teaching kids about it, etc. Telling people who continue to throw around the term nut-job and wackos that they aren't doing any favors, like people who spout of racist comments and holocaust deniers. When we start treating the mentally ill like they are part of society than apart from it, the barriers to seek help will drop and the number of incidents like we've seen will also decrease.

[Paul]

Right... But just because someone kills multiple people (in general) they are mentally ill... Kill one person and you're just an *******...?

Again, I don't disagree with the thought that more station needs to be spent on mental health issues, but it seems to simplify the situation too much.

[Holland&Holland]

Due process means that there will be SEVERAL hearings. Some of them several months apart from each other. 6-9 months even at times.

When it's shown that a person is seriously a danger to self or others enough that there is justification for commitment, taking 18 months to commit them is no longer an option.

But if you are the person being committed should there not be some due process? I agree the time is excessive much of that has to do with resources though.

[Heffay]

Right... But just because someone kills multiple people (in general) they are mentally ill... Kill one person and you're just an *******...?

Again, I don't disagree with the thought that more station needs to be spent on mental health issues, but it seems to simplify the situation too much.

Simplification is a good point. I have to to some degree, but the number of people you kill (whether zero or a hundred) is not tied to your mental state. However, if you kill more than zero, mental illness screening should probably be done. And if as a society we treat it properly (like cancer), it'll start happening before anyone gets killed.