DC Tom Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Who else? Honestly? Apparently DC_Tom thinks we should we send the county highway department? Actually, Arizona law requires someone to petition mental health services, at which point they do an initial screening and, if they deem it warranted, can petition the court for an evaluation, either in-patient or outpatient. At that point, if the court, DA, and original petitioner deem it appropriate, the person can then be evaluated by a state hospital and held for no more than 72 hours. If the hospital evaluation deems it necessary, the hospital can then petition for a long-term commitment. There should be some sort of law that at least requires a mandatory psych evaluation, and/or a 24 hour hold at a hospital. FOR WHAT????? Getting suspended from community college? Shut the !@#$ up already. You not only have no idea what you're talking about, you haven't even done the necessary homework to be able to talk about it. Go learn something about the subject and then come back to us.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Actually, Arizona law requires someone to petition mental health services, at which point they do an initial screening and, if they deem it warranted, can petition the court for an evaluation, either in-patient or outpatient. At that point, if the court, DA, and original petitioner deem it appropriate, the person can then be evaluated by a state hospital and held for no more than 72 hours. If the hospital evaluation deems it necessary, the hospital can then petition for a long-term commitment. FOR WHAT????? Getting suspended from community college? Shut the !@#$ up already. You not only have no idea what you're talking about, you haven't even done the necessary homework to be able to talk about it. Go learn something about the subject and then come back to us. As I have stated multiple times, there was a slew of things, all indicative of the same pattern. So, you googled the law, read it, and returned here an expert? Please. Or did you change your Ph.D. from Physics to Psychology in the last 45 minutes? Ok Mr. Scientist: Occam's razor! What's more likely: that the sheriff truly believes that "political discourse" caused this guy to start shooting people, or, the sheriff knew he had give this kid a pass multiple times because his mom worked for the county, and lamely tried to deflect attention from that. Jesus, you can't be that naive. Why the F else would this sheriff immediately come out with the political crap? If he's that irrational, then that's the reason he needs to go.
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 As I have stated multiple times, there was a slew of things, all indicative of the same pattern. So, you googled the law, read it, and returned here an expert? Please. Or did you change your Ph.D. from Physics to Psychology in the last 45 minutes? Ok Mr. Scientist: Occam's razor! What's more likely: that the sheriff truly believes that "political discourse" caused this guy to start shooting people, or, the sheriff knew he had give this kid a pass multiple times because his mom worked for the county, and lamely tried to deflect attention from that. Jesus, you can't be that naive. Why the F else would this sheriff immediately come out with the political crap? If he's that irrational, then that's the reason he needs to go. No, I've actually been involved with civil commitments, and have some practical experience with such things. AZ's law is one of the easiest under which you can get someone committed...and it's still damned hard. And it's sure as **** not "the sherrif does it", not unless there's an ACTUAL CRIMINAL ACT involved. I don't give a **** what you THINK; I know the law, and I know you don't. It is not easy to have someone committed - you have to be able to demonstrate that they're either non-functional, or an imminent threat to themselves or others, AND demonstrate it multiple times, AND get a court order. The standard is just a little tougher than "getting kicked out of Pima Community College."
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 No, I've actually been involved with civil commitments, and have some practical experience with such things. Oh boy.... Perhaps not the best thing to say on a message board know for its scurrilous, but funny, personal attacks. I will leave the cheap shots to others. Where is TheDean anyway? AZ's law is one of the easiest under which you can get someone committed...and it's still damned hard. And it's sure as **** not "the sherrif does it", not unless there's an ACTUAL CRIMINAL ACT involved. I don't give a **** what you THINK; I know the law, and I know you don't. It is not easy to have someone committed - you have to be able to demonstrate that they're either non-functional, or an imminent threat to themselves or others, AND demonstrate it multiple times, AND get a court order. The standard is just a little tougher than "getting kicked out of Pima Community College." Yes, Tom, we understand that you know the law(again, I will leave the jokes to others)....and that you can take one thing that I said, ignore all the rest, and pretend that's the only piece of evidence we have. Again, I ask: what is the most likely reason for the sheriff's comments? Is the sheriff nuts too, or, did he try to cover his ass?
DC Tom Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Oh boy.... Perhaps not the best thing to say on a message board know for its scurrilous, but funny, personal attacks. I will leave the cheap shots to others. Where is TheDean anyway? Everyone here knows I'm bipolar. I've discussed civil commitments with my shrink, so I know something about the evaluation. My sister's also an attorney; I've discussed it with here, so I know something about the law. Most people also know that about ten years ago my uncle killed himself - he was involuntarily committed beforehand (fat lot of good that did), so I have direct experience with how difficult it actually is, and what the burden of proof is. Most people DON'T know that I've been involved with three or four other cases beyond that (though anyone here with half a brain can guess at one or two of them). I do actually know what I'm talking about... Yes, Tom, we understand that you know the law(again, I will leave the jokes to others)....and that you can take one thing that I said, ignore all the rest, and pretend that's the only piece of evidence we have. ...and I do know that nothing we've heard so far about Loughner is even remotely grounds for even petitioning for an involuntary commitment. It might get him a screening, and possibly a suggestion for a voluntary outpatient evaluation (based on the fact that Loughner was, in fact, an incoherent loon). But to even imply that a sherrif can have someone committed to a mental health institute on the basis of incoherence is a conneresque level of unrealism. Though if you could, it would certainly solve the homeless problem. Again, I ask: what is the most likely reason for the sheriff's comments? Is the sheriff nuts too, or, did he try to cover his ass? Which comments? Blaming the right? I'm going to go with: he's an idiot. He certainly has no reason to cover his ass...there was nothing he could legally do, and in fact anything he DID do would have been a significant civil rights violation.
Dan Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) You are right to say that we can't "know" for sure about anything. Yet. I would like to see an investigation by the Arizona state police. But, really? That's for the people that live there to decide. I defer to them. Again, I think that's for each local community to decide. I sure as hell don't want some massive Federal bureaucracy to decide. You take one look at CMS, and that's all you need to know. (Medicare and Medicaid should be disbanded and that power given to each county, for example...and oh hell yeah, I can back that up) I don't want Congress to have anything to do with local law enforcement issues that don't cross state lines. How does somebody in DC know better what to do about local crazy guy than local sheriff guy? (or local Alzheimer's patient than local county health official?) I find it interesting, and telling, that your proposed "solution" immediately involved the Federal government....... Actually, I was thinking about congress on the state level. I guess you could argue that, that's still too broad and it should be county level laws. I'd imagine there's pros and cons to both. Edited January 16, 2011 by Dan
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Everyone here knows I'm bipolar. I've discussed civil commitments with my shrink, so I know something about the evaluation. My sister's also an attorney; I've discussed it with here, so I know something about the law. Most people also know that about ten years ago my uncle killed himself - he was involuntarily committed beforehand (fat lot of good that did), so I have direct experience with how difficult it actually is, and what the burden of proof is. Most people DON'T know that I've been involved with three or four other cases beyond that (though anyone here with half a brain can guess at one or two of them). I do actually know what I'm talking about... I didn't know any of this, and I've been here a while. I did take those 4 months off due to a difficult project... ...in any event, that's why I refused to joke about it, because I have a close friend who is bipolar, and has struggled. ...and I do know that nothing we've heard so far about Loughner is even remotely grounds for even petitioning for an involuntary commitment. It might get him a screening, and possibly a suggestion for a voluntary outpatient evaluation (based on the fact that Loughner was, in fact, an incoherent loon). But to even imply that a sherrif can have someone committed to a mental health institute on the basis of incoherence is a conneresque level of unrealism. Though if you could, it would certainly solve the homeless problem. I have no problem with broadening the issue to include the homeless, provided local problems are handled locally. I never implied that the sheriff can personally commit someone all by himself. I did say that of the people who work for any county, public safety is the sheriff's purview. If anything, person, dog, butterfly, exhibits a pattern of behavior that presents a risk to public safety, I don't see why its a stretch to assume the sheriff should do something about it. That's where I think the sketchyness comes in: I sincerely doubt that the terms "screening" or "voluntary outpatient evaluation" NEVER crossed this sheriff's mind in relation to Loughner. How could they not? Of course he knew who Loughner was, how could he not? And, "Mom worked for the County" makes this look bad, really bad. Unless the sheriff truly is an idiot, as you say, he had to know how bad all of this would look. Again, I ask: since when has seriously, violently, mentally disturbed been a status to which anyone has a right? That's news to me if that is so.
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 In all honesty... For a long time a lot of the really crazy dangerous folks were committed... When did they start releasing/not locking them up... Deinstitutionalizing them? Sure it goes hand-in-hand with the ACLU and the growing conservative court... Starting with an executive branch in the 1980's that didn't want to pay. The true hardcore conservatives love the rise of conservative/republican nihilism.
....lybob Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Mental Health care is expensive and with state revenues in decline I expect a lot of states are cutting services. With sales tax revenues decimated by the recession, the governor’s office has instructed state agencies to slash their budgets by 10 percent in 2012 and 2013.In a state that already serves only 32 percent of its mentally ill population, the Texas Department of State Health Services plans to reduce its budget for mental health and substance-abuse intervention services by nearly $140 million, cutting beds at packed state psychiatric hospitals and slashing scarce services in communities. With the reductions, about 1,400 fewer patients would be treated in state hospitals. About 11,400 fewer adults and 2,600 fewer children would receive mental health services in their communities. And nearly 7,000 would lose crisis services: care delivered in the midst of a mental health emergency. Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Big-cuts-looming-for-mental-health-care-645996.php#ixzz1BAeuUWS2 link another example WASHINGTON -- In the past year, Pima County, Ariz., where Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others were shot Saturday, has seen more than 45 percent of its mental health services recipients forced off the public rolls, a service advocate told The Huffington Post. The deep cuts in treatment were protested strongly at the time, with opponents warning that they would result in a spike in suicide attempts, public disturbances, hospitalizations and brushes with the police. But according to Clarke Romans, executive director for southern Arizona's branch of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the state government ignored requests for relief, citing the need to implement strict budget controls. link Edited January 16, 2011 by ....lybob
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Mental Health care is expensive and with state revenues in decline I expect a lot of states are cutting services. link another example link The problem is: liberal politicians treat government agencies as jobs programs and wealth redistribution centers, instead of focusing on the job the agency is supposed to do. Which causes the next problem: conservative politicians get frustrated and rightly convince the people sweep them into power, and then they wrongly proceed to throw the baby, bathwater, tub, and half the bathroom, out the window. Which causes the next problem: all hell breaks lose and the liberal politicians demagogue the whole issue, instead of rightly promising to stop the jobs program thing and focus on results. Which causes the next problem: if the demagoguing works, and the liberals get power, it's right back to all jobs program/wealth redistribution and 0 results/accountability. if the demagoguing fails, and conservatives keep power, eventually the problem is ignored, but doesn't go away... ...and then we end up with what we have in Arizona. Once again, I have no problem with most liberal motives, it's their methods that suck. Likewise, I have no problem with most conservative motives, it's their methods that suck as well.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 16, 2011 Posted January 16, 2011 Actually, I was thinking about congress on the state level. I guess you could argue that, that's still too broad and it should be county level laws. I'd imagine there's pros and cons to both. I've never heard of "congress on the state level". When somebody says, and capitalizes, Congress, I think Federal. Nope. There are no real cons to letting counties deal with county problems. Example: The belief that Medicare needs to be Federal is based on a pack of lies, or at the very least, misconceptions. Want to destroy Medicare fraud permanently? Move it to the county, done. It comes down to: how much care/money are we willing to spend, to take care of a member of our county who needs help? It's a simple decision, that only becomes more complicated, and more expensive, as you force up to the state and Federal level. New York counties were facing being bankrupted by Medicaid 2-5 years before the recession hit. Why? Because of Federal and state unfunded mandates. As I always say: competition is the key. Let counties decide for themselves what they are willing to pay. And let the chips fall. Some counties can require a certain amount of residence time, to keep people from jumping when they get old, etc. In all cases, let them do whatever they want.
Nanker Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 I know. Why doesn't Congress pass a law that makes it a crime to shoot a member of Congress? That should stop this from happening again. Good thing he didn't drive an SUV into the crowd. They'd pass a law against owning an SUV.
Rob's House Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 I know. Why doesn't Congress pass a law that makes it a crime to shoot a member of Congress? That should stop this from happening again. Good thing he didn't drive an SUV into the crowd. They'd pass a law against owning an SUV. That would have put the media in a tight spot. They'd have to decide whether to blame the SUV, or the marxist (who they'd call a teabagger) driving it.
Heels20X6 Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 That would have put the media in a tight spot. They'd have to decide whether to blame the SUV, or the marxist (who they'd call a teabagger) driving it. What if the SUV was made by Toyota?
Nanker Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 That would have put the media in a tight spot. They'd have to decide whether to blame the SUV, or the marxist (who they'd call a teabagger) driving it. What if the SUV was made by Toyota? Then GM shares would go up in value. The government owns GM though so I guess that would be a good thing.
Recommended Posts