quote:While we waited for the doctor to evaluate him, my father did what mental health professionals refer to as double-bookkeeping. He remembered most of what transpired earlier in the day but still believed he was in the hospital to have his pacemaker checked. Even as we laughed together, I knew what would come: the psychiatrist would ask him about his behavior, and my father would deny all the paranoia, delusions and violence. He would curse and yell and try to walk out of the room. When the police officer stopped him, he would become enraged. And when I confirmed for the doctor that he had indeed done these things, and that we, his family, were asking that he be hospitalized, he would stop calling me String Bean. He would stop speaking to me at all.
quote:According to Fuller’s group, there was one public psychiatric bed for every 300 Americans in 1955; by 2012, that number was one for every 7,000. That’s less than a third of what is needed, the organization asserts. The recession has made matters worse: since late 2008, more than $1.5 billion has been cut from state mental health budgets across the country. In the past two years alone, 12 state hospitals with a total of nearly 4,000 beds have either closed or are in danger of closing.
Already patients in crisis can spend several days in an emergency room waiting for a psychiatric bed to become available. In New Jersey, it can take as long as five days; in Vermont — where, as Bloomberg News recently reported, there are virtually no state psychiatric beds left — severely mentally ill patients have been handcuffed to emergency-room beds. For lack of other options, many patients who clearly meet the imminent-danger standard are released. “The lack of resources has triggered a devolution of the standard,” says Robert Davison, executive director of the Mental Health Association of Essex County, a nonprofit group that connects patients to services in northern New Jersey. “Twenty years ago, ‘imminent danger’ meant what most people think it means. But now there’s this systemic push to divert people away from inpatient care, no matter how sick they are, because we know there’s no place to send them.”
When I asked Davison for specific examples, he rattled several off the top of his head. A man who was convinced that aliens were on the roof and that bugs were coming out of the walls and who would not sit on furniture but only lie on the floor was not committable. Neither was the man who refused medication and mutilated his own testicles. Nor the woman who wouldn’t eat because she believed the C.I.A. was trying to poison her.
quote:In the week that followed his release, my father wandered. He hopped a bus to North Carolina to visit his brother. He came back to New Jersey and spent a few nights at a hotel near my parents’ apartment. Eventually he made his way back to the emergency room complaining of chest pains. His heart was fine, but a doctor noticed that he was “scattered” and “delusional” and referred him to PESS. Before they could transfer him to the locked unit, he fled the building with an IV sticking out of his arm. When the police found him and brought him back, he threatened to “blow up the hospital like the World Trade Center.” This unlikely threat landed him back in the same psychiatric facility that released him just seven days earlier.
The absurdity of the situation wore on us. How was anyone with a diagnosed mental illness supposed to recover through a revolving door of emergency rooms, short-term psych wards and jail?
In reporting this article, I found scores of families trapped in the same fractured system, crawling through whatever loopholes they could find in an effort to prevent what seemed like certain tragedy. They described programs that were underfinanced and overcrowded, not to mention involuntary commitment laws that were only haphazardly enforced. Most of them seemed as lost as we were.
quote:The sounds of chaos bounce off the dim yellow walls. Everywhere there are prisoners wearing orange, red and khaki jumpsuits. An officer barks out orders as a thin woman tries to sleep on a hard bench in a holding cell. This is a harsh scene of daily life inside what has become the state’s largest de facto mental institution: the Cook County Jail.
quote:“A lot of people view calling the police as the only way to get loved ones any kind of treatment, because when the police come they have to do something,” said Laura Usher, the national Crisis Intervention Team coordinator for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. “But unfortunately that doesn’t necessarily always lead to appropriate treatment.”
“States across the country are cutting their mental health budgets, and people who are serviced by state mental health programs are the poorest, and they’re unable to get services any other way,” she added. “The community mental health system is broken.”
In Illinois, where mental health services were cut by $35 million this year — a $90 million cut was proposed — the state’s police departments are “essentially a 24-hour free service,” said Chief Robert T. Finney of the Champaign Police Department.
“We’re the people who get taxed with dealing with these people,” said Chief Finney, who is also vice president of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. “Even if you arrest them and they’re released from your jail within hours, they’re back on your street doing the same thing.”
In Oklahoma, calls to the police involving mental illness have increased by 50 percent in the past year, said Stacey Puckett, executive director of the Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police. The state has cut about $17 million in mental health financing this year.
Ms. Puckett said officers were “traveling from one end of the state to the other and are out of their departments for 6, 8, 10 hours at a time.”
“It’s the bed shortage,” she said. “We just do not have enough beds for the numbers.”
The short of it is the De-institutionalization Crisis Part II, and the process by which we make a system worse and ultimately more expensive for everyone overall by starving a vital system to death to 'save money.'
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But, see, Samp, Mitt Romney is a *job creator.* which is why he pays 14% in taxes. Because he *creates jobs*.
Now, you might say that what actually happens is that his wealth generates greater wealth, and for every additional dollar he earns at an ever diminishing tax rate, and an ever increasing rate of return on his investment, he costs the system an ever increasing amount that cannot be recouped from his income, so that due to the decreasing government revenues, efficient institutions with higher cash-outlay have to be cut in favor of more expensive and less effective alternatives that are nevertheless preserved due to their actual, concrete necessity, despite their complete inadequacy at doing jobs they weren't designed to do, costing the infrastructure in cash, as well as in wasted work, lost knowledge, and crumbled infrastructure, and further weakening the public confidence in public institutions that were weakened by this effect.
But the thing is, see, he's a *job creator*. He creates *jobs*. And we all know that an economy where everyone has a job is a good economy. Just think of the early 19th century. There were so many jobs available, that children could get them too. A lot of them died, sure, but they died *working*.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, but where did Mitt Romney come into this?
(I only read samp's post, not the links provided. Do the links lead to articles referencing Romney?)
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: The absurdity of the situation wore on us. How was anyone with a diagnosed mental illness supposed to recover through a revolving door of emergency rooms, short-term psych wards and jail?
Being a Security guard in a hospital, and spending 90% of my time either in the emergency room or on the psych ward, I can say that I agree completely with the above statement.
This whole issue that samp has brought up is an incredibly frustrating and indelibly real issue that is getting measurably worse by the day.
On many days, the number of psychiatric patients in the emergency department rivals or exceeds the number of medical patients.
It has gotten so bad that the hospital I work at has begun construction on the ER to add a locked psychiatric patient area specifically to try to accommodate the overwhelming number of patients with chief complaints of psych illness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, but where did Mitt Romney come into this?
(I only read samp's post, not the links provided. Do the links lead to articles referencing Romney?)
nareally. I could also say that this issue is also as incumbent on the negligence of state governments (florida, texas, and new mexico have descended into outright, inexcusable neglect of the mentally ill, among others) but I guess you could fit romney et al into it, or for that matter anyone — anyone at ALL — who you can associate with Norquist's tax pledge.
But that's the more directly political part of it. I am sure there are plenty who want to jump straight out of the woodwork and say things like "you're just finger pointing!" or "something something your side does it too!" or whatever.
I am mainly wanting to look at it at a system analysis level — neglecting this system has immediate consequences. Cutting money from systems to care for the mentally ill and their families results in more cost to the system, alongside the humanitarian and security concerns of outright neglect of an extremely vulnerable population of people who can be helped by a working system, but are not, because, among other things, it's a frequent target for "cost saving," especially on the state level. An easy target that seems disposable, especially due to its lack of any politically sacrosanct or expedient status, like defense budgets or agricultural subsidies or stadiums or god knows what other things I could name here to make us look really, really bad.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: I'm really not trying to be inflammatory here, but where did Mitt Romney come into this?
(I only read samp's post, not the links provided. Do the links lead to articles referencing Romney?)
Just riffing. Romney is a republican, republicans favor supply side economics, and the attendant dissolution of professional, efficient government in favor of incompetent, innefficient government. Thus.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would like to bring this back to the fore and reignite commentary on the appalling state of mental health care in the U.S.
Why?
Because somebody just shot up a theater I was about to go to last night and I am going to bet, pretty sincerely, that by the end of the week we're going to know that he's similar to the guy who shot Sen. Giffords — a person descending into mental illness and eventually becoming a severe threat to the public, who in any other modern nation would have most likely at some point been kept from reaching this point, one way or the other, because there would have been a mental health system to intervene.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also, no assault weapons for him to have access to.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Go all the way back to elementary school. Why are we spending money to integrate students with extremely low IQs and mental impairments into the general education curriculum and college prep tracks? These are the kids that are going to grow up in emergency rooms, psych wards, and jails without picking up skills they could actually use to participate in society.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't understand what IQ has to do with it. Mental illness is an issue which impacts people on both sides of the IQ average.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Go all the way back to elementary school. Why are we spending money to integrate students with extremely low IQs and mental impairments into the general education curriculum and college prep tracks? These are the kids that are going to grow up in emergency rooms, psych wards, and jails without picking up skills they could actually use to participate in society.
What? I mean. . . What? I don't even know how to begin to respond to this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You could start with "students with extremely low IQ's and mental impairments are not on college prep tracks, not in the general education curriculum anywhere, and don't typically grow up in emergency rooms, psych wards, and jails, so none of what you said makes sense and I don't see how it's at all related to a discussion about mental illness"
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I suppose that depends on how low of an IQ he's talking, but there are certainly some flaws with his premise.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Mental illnesses are (at least sometimes and with some success) treatable. Low IQ and "mental impairment" (which I'm assuming means retardation) are not.
People with treated mental illnesses don't usually go around shooting up theaters. People with untreated ones sadly do, sometimes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One of the biggest flaws is that the warning signs of things like mass glory-seeking murderers of what I suspect is this sort, many of them may very well have what Stephan describes in common. I don't know.
What I *do* know is that warning signs which manifest months and years before such people 'snap' that don't *also* include enormous populations of people are numerous. Meaning it's not helpful to say, "Well mass insane murderers are a problem, so we need to deal with our problems integrating ex-ed kids back in grade school." It is, no pun intended, a nutty thing to suggest.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I'm on track to graduate with a Masters of Science in Clinical Mental Health Counseling in 2014.
I've taken three classes so far: a theories class, a techniques class (that mostly involved practicing various communication methods on classmates), and a statistics class. On the first day in two of those classes, the professor sat us down and told us (each class of about 15 students, most different from class to class) that if we're going into this expecting to help people, really and truly help people, not to get our hopes too high. The system WILL be working against us. Insurance companies don't want to pay for sessions for people who need it the most, and thus we'll be limited to extremely restricted time frames- usually 10 sessions a YEAR or less. Simply put, that just plain isn't enough time for most people who are dealing with serious issues.
I was fortunate growing up. I dealt with mental illness all throughout high school and undergrad, but as my father was retired military, Tricare was willing to pay for my treatments, no matter how long they went on. They left it up to the discretion of the care provider to determine when things like therapy and medications could be ceased safely. If they hadn't, if I'd been forced to a ten-week treatment program (or less, in some cases), I would not be a functioning adult currently.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Go all the way back to elementary school. Why are we spending money to integrate students with extremely low IQs and mental impairments into the general education curriculum and college prep tracks? These are the kids that are going to grow up in emergency rooms, psych wards, and jails without picking up skills they could actually use to participate in society.
What, exactly, do you suggest we do with these children?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: The system WILL be working against us. Insurance companies don't want to pay for sessions for people who need it the most, and thus we'll be limited to extremely restricted time frames- usually 10 sessions a YEAR or less. Simply put, that just plain isn't enough time for most people who are dealing with serious issues.
I'm majoring in Psychology right now myself, and this has been stressed to my classes to a degree as well.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
As the individual whose shooting spree prompted this thread was pursuing his PHD in neuroscience, I'm not sure that talking about those with abnormally low IQ is relevant to the discussion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The thread came well before the shooting, and indeed the guy might turn out to not really be an example of neglected mental illness. Even still, though, the conflation between mental illness and 'extremely low IQ' and what we should or should not do with the severely mentally impaired is unhelpful.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Sorry, I meant the thread bump.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
People with lower IQ or mild learning disabilities in the classroom are one thing, kids with severe mental illnesses are another.
I have taught in a classroom with a kid who was taking so many anti-psychotic drugs he was barely conscious. He had multiple diagnoses and had been hospitalized multiple times. He was considered a danger to himself, and potentially to others. Yet, because of inclusion policies, he was not in a small group setting with a lower teacher-student ratio where he could receive some attention and have a more flexible schedule. No, he was in a large class where over 50% of the kids had some sort of disability and many also had behavior problems. Even though I had an inclusion teacher, the two of us could not give each child the attention he/she needed. Had this student been in a small, isolated class for emotionally disturbed kids and taught by a behavior specialist then he would have gotten much more of what he needed. But that was not considred the "least restrictive environment."
So, I can agree that it does start in elementary school (or at least in middle and high school). We are not recognizing that mentally ill teens and children do need special treatment and would be better served in a smaller setting with specialists who can attend to their unique needs. I am not equipped or trained to teach a kid with a diagnosis of bipolar, depression, and schizophrenia. I am not medically trained to deal with an extraordinarily medicated child taking anti-psychotics. I am not able to teach a class of 32 while also keeping a close enough eye on a kid to ensure he is not sneaking razor blades into the room to cut himself.
We should be less afraid of offending some sensibility that all kids should be included, and more afraid that this policy is causing some kids to be in situations that are not suitable for them, and is in fact dangerous to them or others.
Not saying inclusion special education caused the Colorado incident or any other, just pointing out that lack of services for mentally ill citizens also extends to the school system.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I am not able to teach a class of 32 while also keeping a close enough eye on a kid to ensure he is not sneaking razor blades into the room to cut himself.
Wheee!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: People with lower IQ or mild learning disabilities in the classroom are one thing, kids with severe mental illnesses are another.
I have taught in a classroom with a kid who was taking so many anti-psychotic drugs he was barely conscious. He had multiple diagnoses and had been hospitalized multiple times. He was considered a danger to himself, and potentially to others. Yet, because of inclusion policies, he was not in a small group setting with a lower teacher-student ratio where he could receive some attention and have a more flexible schedule. No, he was in a large class where over 50% of the kids had some sort of disability and many also had behavior problems. Even though I had an inclusion teacher, the two of us could not give each child the attention he/she needed. Had this student been in a small, isolated class for emotionally disturbed kids and taught by a behavior specialist then he would have gotten much more of what he needed. But that was not considred the "least restrictive environment."
So, I can agree that it does start in elementary school (or at least in middle and high school). We are not recognizing that mentally ill teens and children do need special treatment and would be better served in a smaller setting with specialists who can attend to their unique needs. I am not equipped or trained to teach a kid with a diagnosis of bipolar, depression, and schizophrenia. I am not medically trained to deal with an extraordinarily medicated child taking anti-psychotics. I am not able to teach a class of 32 while also keeping a close enough eye on a kid to ensure he is not sneaking razor blades into the room to cut himself.
We should be less afraid of offending some sensibility that all kids should be included, and more afraid that this policy is causing some kids to be in situations that are not suitable for them, and is in fact dangerous to them or others.
Not saying inclusion special education caused the Colorado incident or any other, just pointing out that lack of services for mentally ill citizens also extends to the school system.
The problem is the false positives, or the kids who are borderline, but once put into the non-mainstream classes, can't get out.
Not saying there is any easy answer, but there were some good reasons mainstreaming became popular at one point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:MOVIE MASSACRE suspect James Holmes remained unapologetic and irrational Saturday in a Colorado jail where his life was at risk from inmates bent on revenge. Holmes, held under suicide watch in solitary confinement, remained in his murderous “Joker” persona after arriving at the Arapahoe Detention Center, a jailhouse worker told the Daily News. “Let’s just say he hasn’t shown any remorse,” the employee said. “He thinks he’s acting in a movie.” The man accused in the midnight theater massacre was still acting bizarrely a day after his rampage at a screening of “The Dark Night Rises” — the last film in the Batman trilogy. “He was spitting at the door and spitting at the guards,” one released inmate told The News outside the jail. “He’s spitting at everything. Dude was acting crazy.”
The only remaining question is if there were warning signs that could have been acted upon.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:MOVIE MASSACRE suspect James Holmes remained unapologetic and irrational Saturday in a Colorado jail where his life was at risk from inmates bent on revenge. Holmes, held under suicide watch in solitary confinement, remained in his murderous “Joker” persona after arriving at the Arapahoe Detention Center, a jailhouse worker told the Daily News. “Let’s just say he hasn’t shown any remorse,” the employee said. “He thinks he’s acting in a movie.” The man accused in the midnight theater massacre was still acting bizarrely a day after his rampage at a screening of “The Dark Night Rises” — the last film in the Batman trilogy. “He was spitting at the door and spitting at the guards,” one released inmate told The News outside the jail. “He’s spitting at everything. Dude was acting crazy.”
The only remaining question is if there were warning signs that could have been acted upon.
I'm sure the school will argue there was no way they could have known.
His roommates/dormmates will probably say they called about his behavior several times, but nobody took them seriously.
At least, that seems to be the usual pattern in these things.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
I agree. I think it would be almost impossible to miss such an imbalance in a person that they would fixate on a fictional character to the point that they adopt its homicidal tendencies. Especially because he had roommates living in close quarters with him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would be more surprised if he really did give off no warning signs than I was when I first heard about the shooting itself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: I agree. I think it would be almost impossible to miss such an imbalance in a person that they would fixate on a fictional character to the point that they adopt its homicidal tendencies. Especially because he had roommates living in close quarters with him.
It's looks like he lived in a complex but by himself, as evidenced by the extensive booby traps setup in the apartment.
There's already comments from students who were in class with him. It doesn't seem like the exact things you'd expect. He was quiet, and didn't volunteer much information without prodding, but it doesn't look like he was bad at being in social circumstances, or that he has a history of mental imbalance.
Will just have to keep waiting for information to come in.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes was a patient of a University of Colorado psychiatrist before last week's attack at a movie theater that killed 12 people and wounded scores, according to a court document filed Friday by his public-defense lawyers.
The disclosure was in a request by Holmes for authorities to immediately hand over a package he sent to Dr. Lynne Fenton at the university's Anschutz Medical Campus.
According to Holmes' request, the package seized by authorities under a July 23 search warrant was a protected communication.
"The materials contained in that package include communications from Mr. Holmes to Dr. Fenton that Mr. Holmes asserts are privileged," said the document filed by public defenders representing Holmes. "Mr. Holmes was a psychiatric patient of Dr. Fenton, and his communications with her are protected."
No details yet on the extent of his interaction with the psychiatrist, or whether he'd be diagnosed with anything or not. I'm curious: is it correct to assume that the material would not be protected under doctor/patient privilege if he'd just picked her name from the school directory?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:he psychiatrist treating accused Aurora theater gunman James Holmes was so concerned about his behavior that she notified other members of the University of Colorado Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment, or BETA, team that he could potentially be a danger to others, sources with knowledge of the investigation told CALL7 Investigators.
Those concerns surfaced in early June -- almost six weeks before the shooting, sources told CALL7 Investigator John Ferrugia.
Sources say Dr. Lynne Fenton, who treated Holmes this spring, contacted several members of the BETA team in separate conversations. According to the university website, the BETA team consists of "key" staff members from various CU departments who have specific expertise in dealing with assessing potential threats on campus. And, sources say, officials at the University of Colorado never contacted Aurora police with Fenton’s concerns before the July 20 killings.
ABC News learned Fenton was a key member in setting up BETA in 2010, and she is currently one of the contacts for anyone who has concerns about an on-campus threat. A University of Colorado spokeswoman acknowledged that Fenton is one of several trained CU contacts who can convene the team in consultation with the chairman.
“Fenton made initial phone calls about engaging the BETA team” in “the first 10 days” of June but it “never came together” because in the period Fenton was having conversations with team members, James Holmes began the process of dropping out of school, a source said.
In a news conference last week, CU Anschutz Medical Campus Graduate School Dean Barry Shur said Holmes dropped out of the CU Ph.D Neuroscience program on June 10th. "My understanding he has not been back on campus where the program is since that time," he said last week.
Holmes lost his access to secure areas of the school June 12, according to the CU spokeswoman.
Sources said when Holmes withdrew, the BETA team “had no control over him."
common story, see signs, can't do anything about them institutionally, etc.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I wonder if they alerted the police? Because they should have if they didn't.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: the university's Anschutz Medical Campus. : is it correct to assume that the material would not be protected under doctor/patient privilege if he'd just picked her name from the school directory?
Likely correct, yes. The privilege is limited to communications in the context of treatment. That, afaik, requires the consent and knowledge of both parties. So, for instance, you can't mail incriminating documents to a lawyer you picked out of the phone book and have that be privileged, as they haven't consented to represent you, and are thus not bound by any duty to maintain your privacy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: That's very unfortunate timing. I'm not sure the school could do anything once he left.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: That's very unfortunate timing. I'm not sure the school could do anything once he left.
Even as a mandatory reporter her hands were likely institutionally tied and it could have taken months before detainment and psychological assessment could have been requested.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So now some white guy just shot up a sikh temple and killed at least six people. Are we gonna go three for three?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So now some white guy just shot up a sikh temple and killed at least six people. Are we gonna go three for three?
Who said he was white and who said there was just one shooter? The first claims of multiple shooters was erroneous but we didn't know that at first. Are you just speculating again?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Statistically speaking? Likely it was a white male. *shrug* And I think Samprimary was just joking around about 'us' white folks going three for three.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Who said he was white and who said there was just one shooter? The first claims of multiple shooters was erroneous but we didn't know that at first. Are you just speculating again?
Of all the times you've said something "are you just speculating again?" how many of those instances has it been a decent assumption by you? I think I'm running a no-hitter on you. Check the news. Backdate it if you want.
quote:And I think Samprimary was just joking around about 'us' white folks going three for three.
I am not talking about race. I'm talking about the issue of mental illness in these killing sprees. I'm asking if we are going to go three for three on the shooter being someone that would not have engaged in a mass shooting were we to have had a functioning system.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So now some white guy just shot up a sikh temple and killed at least six people. Are we gonna go three for three?
Who said he was white and who said there was just one shooter? The first claims of multiple shooters was erroneous but we didn't know that at first. Are you just speculating again?
The police described the shooter as "a Caucasian man in his late 30s or early 40s who lived in this area of Wisconsin." They also said they believe there was only one shooter, who they killed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So now some white guy just shot up a sikh temple and killed at least six people. Are we gonna go three for three?
Who said he was white and who said there was just one shooter? The first claims of multiple shooters was erroneous but we didn't know that at first. Are you just speculating again?
The police described the shooter as "a Caucasian man in his late 30s or early 40s who lived in this area of Wisconsin." They also said they believe there was only one shooter, who they killed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
More info, not just white, but white supremacist:
quote:The suspected gunman who killed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin before he was shot to death by police was identified Monday as a 40-year-old Army veteran and former leader of a white supremacist metal band.
quote:Mr. Page was a “frustrated neo-Nazi” who led a racist white supremacist band, the Southern Poverty Law Center said Monday. Mr. Page told a white supremacist website in an interview in 2010 that he had been part of the white-power music scene since 2000 when he left his native Colorado and started the band, End Apathy, in 2005, the non-profit civil rights organization said.
quote:Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards said the FBI was leading the investigation because the shootings are being treated as domestic terrorism, or an attack that originated inside the U.S.
Difficult to know yet, but hopefully this doesn't suggest the beginning of a trend.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm ...
quote:On August 6th, a mosque in Joplin, Missouri, was burned to the ground. On August 11th, shots were fired at a mosque in Chicago and on the same day in Ontario, CA, pig legs were thrown in the driveway of a home where Muslims gather to worship until a mosque is built there. On August 12th, vandals shot paintballs at an Oklahoma City mosque. And just on August 13th, an Islamic school was hit an acid-filled bottle in Lombard, Illinois. It is possible that there are more incidents of vandalism and violence conducted against people of Islamic or Sikh belief but this is what I know so far.
Not sure what the "normal" rate of violence/harassment against minority religions in the US is (isn't that a disturbing thought), but it does seem excessive at first glance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There was another shooting spree that killed a few people including an officer near texas a&m university.
Are we going to go four for four? Is it going to be another example I get to use for this thread?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not sure what the "normal" rate of violence/harassment against minority religions in the US is (isn't that a disturbing thought), but it does seem excessive at first glance.
I wonder if we're still a Christian nation when this happens?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I'm sure the speculation on this one will be much more reserved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So much in common with these other shootings, of course. A multitude of weapons, victims, fatalities...wait a second...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It has a lack of gun control in common with these other shootings. I think that's what capaxinfiniti is pointing at.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm sure you're right. That must surely have been what he was getting at.
There's also of course the surprise factor, since when one thinks of violence involving LGBT issues, it's not often the folks at FRC that get shot or dragged from a truck or lychned or denied marriage rights or adoption or...well, maybe he wasn't getting at that with the cheap partisan attempt to draw an equivalence where none exists.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I was referring to speculation about the mental health of the shooter, motive, type of weapon, location of purchase, etc. Things that have been, in recent cases, speculated upon by certain people before the dead bodies are even cold. I didn't claim any sort of equivalance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well you brought it up in the context of a series of mass shootings and murders, and suggested that this time speculation will be lessened. You didn't have to make a plainly spoken claim of equivalence, it was implicit. If you didn't intend to, that's another matter, but your words did. There was also, I think you would have to agree, your usual political slant on things-a clear commentary on being quick to judge and such. We've all got 'em, and you plainly did here, man.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I was referring to speculation about the mental health of the shooter, motive, type of weapon, location of purchase, etc.
Then tell us why you think speculation on this case will be much more reserved, capax.
Spell it out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm totally on pins and needles to hear about how that doesn't involve a political statement about liberals and conservatives.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Of course it was a statement about liberals and conservatives. If the roles in this shooting were reversed, Hatrack would be exploding with commentary about Christian's inciting violence and hate, lax gun laws, and all the usual rhetorical points.
Whats more, looking around the internet, there's nothing about the shooting on the front page of the online NY Times, The Atlantic, MSNBC, Gawker, Mother Jones, The Nation or TNR. The Huffington Post has a little on it a few scrolls down but the "reporting" and comments have the predictable liberal bias. It's clear liberals don't want to talk about it. When the issue of it possibly being a *hate crime is mentioned, you get liberals responding along the lines of, "Uh, wait now. Uh, those Christians.. shooter.. mental illness.. provoked.. etc, etc.."
If this shooting had been apolitical (with regard to gay marriage/religion) it would be getting more attention. But because the shooting has a less-than-appealing political bent for liberals, it gets swept under the rug.
*hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, sex, or gender identity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems like whenever a conservative hears a story in the news they dislike, or that has coverage they disapprove of, they forget entirely about Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, and talk radio. Such frequent willful bouts of amnesia.
Anyway,
quote:Of course it was a statement about liberals and conservatives.
Yes, that was the point in the first place. You looked to one event and implied 'liberals are speculating', and then at another and said 'they aren't speculating', and then as though we'll suffer the same sort of amnesia you do say 'I'm not making a statement of equivalence'.
It's right there in the comparison. Liberals are jumping to all sorts of conclusions about the one thing, but keeping quiet and waiting on another thing. If you weren't suggesting equivalence, why exactly compare apples to those strangely red-skinned oranges?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Whats more, looking around the internet, there's nothing about the shooting on the front page of the online NY Times, The Atlantic, MSNBC, Gawker, Mother Jones, The Nation or TNR. The Huffington Post has a little on it a few scrolls down but the "reporting" and comments have the predictable liberal bias. It's clear liberals don't want to talk about it.
The Atlantic Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm trying to figure out why a failed shooting would be front-page news on any of those outlets. Maybe if someone tried and failed to kill the president...
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Whats more, looking around the internet, there's nothing about the shooting on the front page of the online NY Times, The Atlantic, MSNBC, Gawker, Mother Jones, The Nation or TNR. The Huffington Post has a little on it a few scrolls down but the "reporting" and comments have the predictable liberal bias. It's clear liberals don't want to talk about it.
Front or home page. The news source equivalent of the "landing page."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ok, just to be clear here: you're criticizing the media and liberals for not speculating and giving publicity to a single shooting that didn't kill anyone as they do to mass murders that kill handfuls or dozens, using multiple weapons with total casualties ranking up past multiple score.
Yeah, that pretty much encapsulated conservative whining about the media.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Whats more, looking around the internet, there's nothing about the shooting on the front page of the online NY Times, The Atlantic, MSNBC, Gawker, Mother Jones, The Nation or TNR. The Huffington Post has a little on it a few scrolls down but the "reporting" and comments have the predictable liberal bias. It's clear liberals don't want to talk about it.
Front or home page. The news source equivalent of the "landing page."
For major news outlets, there isn't one "front page" that everyone sees on any given day. The online New York Times "front page" changes from minute to minute and varies depending on where you are physically accessing the internet and numerous other factors. Just because it wasn't on your nytimes front page when you happened to access it, does not mean it wasn't on my nytimes front page when I happened to access it.
The bottom line is that everyone of those news sources covered the story very quickly after it happened. Most of them have more than one story on the shooting. Your claim that "liberal news outlets don't want to talk about it" is patently false. They are talking about.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ok, just to be clear here: you're criticizing the media and liberals for not speculating and giving publicity to a single shooting that didn't kill anyone as they do to mass murders that kill handfuls or dozens, using multiple weapons with total casualties ranking up past multiple score.
Yeah, that pretty much encapsulated conservative whining about the media.
You're ignoring all the underlying issues simply because the inept shooter didn't succeed in killing anyone. You're illustrating my point. Assuming a "no harm done" kind of attitude doesn't allow the appropriate dialogue to take place. This is a hate crime and possibly domestic terrorism. If you don't think this is a big issue, you're welcome to share your reasons for thinking so.
The Rabbit: I didn't say they didn't cover the story. They would have to be devoid of journalistic scruples to not even mention the shooting. When I say they're not talking about I'm referring to the lack of continuing reports, opinion, commentary, story connections, the exhaustive background digging the media so loves to engage in.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You're ignoring all the underlying issues simply because the inept shooter didn't succeed in killing anyone. You're illustrating my point. Assuming a "no harm done" kind of attitude doesn't allow the appropriate dialogue to take place. This is a hate crime and possibly domestic terrorism. If you don't think this is a big issue, you're welcome to share your reasons for thinking so.
Careful checking reveals I haven't said or suggested this was or wasn't a hate crime, though it looks quite likely. Further careful checking reveals you never raised the question of one being a hate crime and the other not, making this a clear movement of the goal posts.
What I and others have been getting at, and have demonstrated several times now, is that multiple shootings with multiple deaths and large numbers of injuries tend to be met with more sensationalism and speculation than single shootings with no deaths even if they spring from the same sort of motive.
If you want to change the discussion to whether and which one is a hate crime and the other isn't, that's fine. We can talk about that, but it's not what you said originally, which was transparently partisan and absurd, and not what people objected to.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:You're ignoring all the underlying issues simply because the inept shooter didn't succeed in killing anyone. You're illustrating my point. Assuming a "no harm done" kind of attitude doesn't allow the appropriate dialogue to take place. This is a hate crime and possibly domestic terrorism. If you don't think this is a big issue, you're welcome to share your reasons for thinking so.
Careful checking reveals I haven't said or suggested this was or wasn't a hate crime, though it looks quite likely. Further careful checking reveals you never raised the question of one being a hate crime and the other not, making this a clear movement of the goal posts.
What I and others have been getting at, and have demonstrated several times now, is that multiple shootings with multiple deaths and large numbers of injuries tend to be met with more sensationalism and speculation than single shootings with no deaths even if they spring from the same sort of motive.
If you want to change the discussion to whether and which one is a hate crime and the other isn't, that's fine. We can talk about that, but it's not what you said originally, which was transparently partisan and absurd, and not what people objected to.
Expounding and presenting further arguments is "movement of the goal posts" according to you? From your first post you started telling me what my position was then you get huffy when my opinion of the issue proves to be more complex then you wish it to be. No, I don't think I'll be continuing a discussion with you. We're not even talking to the same points.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's fine, since 'Expounding and presenting further arguments' isn't what you actually did. First you denied implying an equivalence, which you clearly did and have had pointed out, with even a 'is this what you meant?' tacked on. Then you admitted it was a political issue that was bad form on the part of liberals for not treating one issue like the other, without ever actually copping to the claimed equivalence. Then you ignored multiple people explaining how the media coverage doesn't actually indicate what you suggested it does, and only THEN did the topic shift to hate crimes.
So I suppose my question would have to be 'how can we be talking to the same points, when you keep changing them?'
-------
Now, as to what you (have started to) are talking about: yeah, seems likely to be a hate crime to me, and if things pan out with respect to motive and execution as they seem likely to do, domestic terrorism would not be inappropriate to use as a description. It may indeed grow to be a more serious and pressing problem than it is now, but-and I say this without yet knowing what sort of, if any, ideological or material support he received in this from others or other groups-but for right now, if it is (as I'll bet it is) a hate crime and domestic terrorism, it's far too soon to label it as serious a problem as hate crimes against Muslims (or people bigoted Americans think are Muslims), or for that matter hate crimes against gays.
Would you have used the word 'domestic terrorism' to describe the lynching of any number of homosexuals in the past decade, for example? And bear in mind there are far, far fewer homosexuals in the United States than there are socially conservative Christians, and that that gets more true the further back you go.
So no, now that you've started talking about this new topic instead of claiming there is an equivalence (there isn't) or that media coverage is minimal and biased (it isn't), this is a serious problem and we need to keep a lid on violence against anti-gay Christians and Chrisian groups, which the FRC certainly is. In fact I'd go so far to say, human nature being what it is, as the shoe gets onto the other foot and groups such as the FRC become marginalized in the eyes of society as theyve worked so hard to keep homosexuals, it will become more urgent to keep a close eye on attacks against them.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I'm done with the convo so don't feel obligated to continue. You get the last word.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well there's nothing quite like posting (again) to say you're done posting:) Certainly not an indirect effort at the last word of your own or anything.
Personally, is count myself lucky to get an actual response to the half dozen or so direct, relevant criticisms myself and at least two others have made in response to your claims. But it certainly doesn't seem likely.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I think capaxinfiniti deserves a lot more sympathy.
It's a tough place to be in when you have to look through roughly 31 firearm homicides a day and you finally see out of the corner of your eye, a near homicide that fits your political needs. Then you go to all the media outlets, looking for some balance to all those murders that make liberals look good and *nobody is hyping it up.* You even curse http://www.foxnews.com/ when they don't even hype it up on their front page. They must be in on it too.
Life doesn't get much harder than this and he has my full sympathy for surviving it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This is exactly as ridiculous as it looks. Nevermind that this is a non-homicide situation that actually got well more attention than most fatal aggressive homicides get nationally (Yes! Even with the Liberal Media Capax tasks himself with snapshotting poorly) — it's crap that wasn't even snapshotted to 'prove how much liberals don't want to talk about it' until a day later when
oh, nevermind, some part of capax's brain figured out he was pinned to the wall on this one so he departed
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
cool everybody, a new shooting, wow nothing changed who expected that.
a mom talks about raising a kid who probably has oppositional defiant disorder and a host of explosive, violent issues which put the entire family at risk. After several police and medical interventions (one in which police and paramedics have to wrestle the child onto a gurney) the child is taken to an ER, because there are literally no beds left for mental health patients. He's kept there for three days. She realizes that the child is a danger to herself and her other children (they have a safety protocol where they run to the car and lock the doors) and that she will not be stronger than him for long. When she asks for help, she's told that her only option is to press charges.
"he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”
I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people."
I disagree with her direct comparison between her son and other individuals like holmes, loughner, and cho — her kid and whatever we can piece together about the mental state of shooters are too tenuous to directly link and say "i'm raising a school shooter!" but she is at least personally relating a story about how the entire system is unconscionably broken and turned inexorably into another structure of oppression which probably exacerbates potential and as of yet not sufficiently studied underlying issues with aggrieved privilege, gun culture, broken masculinity, etc. that feed into a culture of violence that results in seemingly worse and worse shooting issues, every year, in a country that obviously has the resources to deal with it, but doesn't, because we're beholden to all sorts of backwards views. Backwards views which include but are not limited to wholly unscientific and discredited views on mental health, psychological realities and points of interventional necessity, and the systematic defunding and neglect of our medical systems.
I'm just thinking now of a kid we had in my class at school. I say he was in my class, and lived in my town growing up, and we all knew this, but I think he actually managed to be at school with us for a day, once. They sent him on the first day of I think 3rd grade. He was carried out by the principle, and left school in the back of a police cruiser. I don't remember the details of the incident, but I sometimes wonder what became of him. I think in those days, while we maybe didn't have as common a vocabulary for these behavioral problems, there were options for the parents. At least I hope there were some.
The idea that a woman has to charge her son with a crime to get him some form of mental health attention is ludicrous. This is where we are now?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yes, or worse. There's just no beds, no availability. They're just left to be dealt with by the police or the families.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm just bringing this one back up for 2013 for the latest in our grisly festival of these affairs.
The short and sweet version: the navy yard shooter is the product of failed mental health services and support in america. Sound oddly familiar?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Alexis had been arrested in recent years for firing guns at a car, through a noisy neighbor's floor and into a friend's wall; drank heavily; heard voices in his head; and suffered from what acquaintances referred to as paranoia, post-traumatic stress disorder and anger-management issues.
A month before he went on the rampage, Alexis complained to police in Rhode Island that people were talking to him through the walls and ceilings of his hotel rooms and sending microwave vibrations into his body to deprive him of sleep, according to The Associated Press. Police notified the Navy of the incident, but it's unclear what was done with that report.
quote:Six weeks ago, Aaron Alexis told people someone had threatened him at an airport in Virginia. A few days later, in Rhode Island, he heard voices. He thought people were speaking to him through "the walls, floor and ceiling" of the Navy base there, where he was working.
In his hotel room, the voices used "some sort of microwave machine" to send vibrations through the ceiling and into his body, a police report shows him saying. He could not sleep.
Alexis frequently moved as part of his contract work at military installations from New England to North Carolina; he arrived in Washington on Aug. 25. He switched hotels several times until Sept. 7, when he finally settled into the Residence Inn — a mile from his new workplace at the historic Washington Navy Yard on the capital's waterfront.
On Saturday he visited a gun shop in the Virginia suburbs. He practiced firing a rifle, then purchased a Remington 870 shotgun and 24 shells.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think this is another example of the piss poor way the VA takes care of our veterans, and an example of how horrible mental health care is as well.
Do you know if the police are still looking for two other suspects? The way Alexis is described, it is hard to believe he acted with others. Knowing his mental state would indicate he acted alone.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No. He was the only shooter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wish they'd stop making such a media spectacle of these things. Every time they do, mental health and gun control advocates actually seem to LOSE ground.
It also might dissuade some who seek a perverse form of glory and fame.
Posted by Ricky (Member # 13057) on :
I just want to say one thing that its a wonderful thread and all posts are informative. I like the information that you shared about mental health. Boot Camp Marketing