#1 By: pesco, September 25th, 2013 15:04
#2 By: bradbelltv, September 25th, 2013 16:08
Perhaps not surprisingly, the belief that your thoughts and actions are being recorded by a menacing, unseen power is no longer classified as a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia.
#3 By: Listener43, September 25th, 2013 16:17
According to an FBI spokesperson, Alexis was under the "delusional belief that he was being controlled or influenced by electro-magnetic waves."
#4 By: AnonKopimi, September 25th, 2013 16:18
There is blood on the hands of the Veterans Administration.
They ignored a mentally-disabled man with a decade of mental illness and a history of outbursts involving gun violence.
The probability is that these horrific and very-preventable incidents will unfortunately not stop with Alexis. There are millions of underserved and ignored Veterans denied care, denied benefits that they deserve and have earned, and are completely swept aside by a nation that only recognizes our service with EMPTY SLOGANS and magnetic car stickers.
Our so-called representatives are unable to enact responsible gun laws. We could have predicted that they would fail us.
What only we disabled Vets know is that the V.A. very probably will fail again to spot and stop the next unconscionable tragedy that will look very much like this one, and DOES NOT have to happen.
The V.A. operates on one very shrewd economic principle:
Coffins are cheaper than benefits or "care."
#5 By: Jeffrey Bell, September 25th, 2013 16:29
His actions were certainly influenced by electromagnetc waves in the petahertz range.
#6 By: Preston, September 25th, 2013 17:02
The key difference is that these days a typical paranoid schizophrenic can have all their beliefs confirmed by listening to Alex Jones and reading right wing web sites by various "militias" and the Sovereign Citizens.
And the message being aimed at these mentally ill people is that they need guns, lots and lots and lots of guns to protect themselves from the black helicopters.
#7 By: He who must not be named, September 25th, 2013 17:07
It's just sad, really. Both for the people he attacked, their surviving families, for the guy himself, and for the untold thousands of people who struggle with schizophrenia without ever being a danger to others.
#8 By: Preston, September 25th, 2013 17:10
Not to mention the people that suffer employment discrimination for NOT being mentally ill in a way that mirrors their boss' narcissism or bipolar disorder or just good old fashioned "daddy issues."
#9 By: He who must not be named, September 25th, 2013 17:22
yeah, I think I can tell you that the discrimination goes predominantly against the mentally ill, at least from what I've seen.
#10 By: Tom, September 25th, 2013 17:54
I'm just curious, what would a "good" or even "acceptable" program for mentally ill people look like? For the most part many privacy laws prevent councilors from flagging dangerous people, there's not a system to treat these people, and there's no system for treating dangerous people without a lot of consent involved.
#11 By: IMB, September 25th, 2013 18:39
Weren't there some issues identified with him when he was discharged from the military?
Perhaps at least in the case of service people some monitoring and counseling after the fact would be helpful. They are subjected to psychological training to conform and to be able to kill, to prepare for battle. Maybe a deprogramming would help after the fact. I realize that not all mass killers are military, but in this particular case and some others, the government should be responsible.
#12 By: Preston, September 25th, 2013 18:49
I wonder what percentage of the people who were shot were mentally ill? Because from where I sit it looks like they were the ones that got the short end of the stick.
#13 By: AnonKopimi, September 25th, 2013 20:25
He had been seen by the V.A. in Maryland, who basically abandoned him and ignored what they already knew: he was a veteran disconnected from reality, with a history of violent behavior involving guns, going back a DECADE.
They washed their hands of him the very day he snapped and killed a dozen people.
#14 By: Preston, September 26th, 2013 00:12
I was going to blame HAARP, but that's high frequency and his beef was low frequency waves.
#15 By: Clayton Coffman, September 26th, 2013 00:26
When are they going to release that video of the Tsarnaev brother putting the backpack bomb next to the trashcan?
#16 By: Michael Smith, September 26th, 2013 05:07
Some of us are influenced largely by neutrinos.
#17 By: IMB, September 26th, 2013 07:05
Since no one else posted it, here is the obligatory:
"What's the frequency, Kenneth?".
#18 By: TheMetalPedant, September 26th, 2013 12:16
Privacy laws only apply to non-dangerous behaviors/diagnoses/treatments. The laws vary slightly from state to state (in the U.S.), but generally doctors can involuntarily commit someone who threaten to do harm to themselves or others. It's a subjective measure, but it's the best anyone can do without being inside someone else's head or predicting the future.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean by "flagging," but I for one am pretty glad that doctors of any medical specialty are prohibited from publicly branding us for medical conditions.
#19 By: Tom, September 26th, 2013 15:57
Involuntary commitment is a timeout that has nothing to do with treatment. It's largely just a way to shift liability away from those who ordered the commitment, and after the 48-72 hours consent is required.
"Publicly branding" is quite melodramatic.Also, doctors can "publicly brand" people for medical conditions - and sometimes are legally required to. That's how quarantines work, or how children with multiple physical injuries get social workers sent to talk to them or visit their home.
#20 By: Falcor the Don't Push Your Luckdragon, September 26th, 2013 16:39
A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so. Manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by their products if the product causes an injury to a consumer and the manufacturer fails to supply adequate warnings about the risks of using the product (such as side effects from pharmacy pre...
next page →