Inactive Elliot Rodger - The Supreme Gentleman

[Cwckifan]

I don't know what it takes to get a psychologist to report somebody, but I do believe there is a certain disconnect between the mental health industry and the NICS instant background check system. It's possible that many therapists are afraid to report somebody for fear of losing their job or a client, but on the other hand, some people who are legitimately nuts may know how to hide/mask/camouflage their intentions. All you really have to do is not commit a felony (or misdemeanor domestic assault, if I remember correctly) and things will generally go smooth if you want to go the "buy new" route. As long as you don't commit crimes and keep your mouth shut about your plans, seriously, no one's going to be the wiser until it's too late. Of course, this would not have prevented him from buying used from a private individual, or even stealing from someone he knew. And good point bringing up knives as well, this is the part the media is practically ignoring.

Mr. Coffee Tosser certainly had far worse problems than simple autism, and people did pick up hints that he was off, so I'm chalking this one up to a lack of communication between the therapist(s) and the proper authorities. Besides, even if a motion was made to commit him involuntarily, it is very difficult to do so due to patients' rights, and the burden of proof is rather heavy on that. He needs to be proven a danger to himself and others beyond a certain level of doubt, and even then, if he completes treatment or doesn't show any signs of being insane or whatever when being kept in the mental ward, he can get papers to prove he's clean and then go on anyway.

This. Really, he was a friendless and desperately lonely misanthropic virginal narcissist who had a victim complex and a desire to prove something to a world that he felt had wronged him. How many millions of non-violent folks does this easily describe? Should we really go back to the olden days of locking up folks because they seem a touch 'off'?

 

[Some JERK]

So all\most folks who've been prescribed psychotropic medications shoot people? That certainly does seem to go against the old canard that 'mentally ill folks are more likely to be victims than victimizers'.

Well the problem was that his family was worried that he was going to do exactly what he did, but their hands were tied beyond calling the police, who couldn't find anything to haul him in over. If the laws were more reasonable, you could actually use a youtube video or an email of someone saying "hey, i'm probably going to kill some people pretty soon." as grounds to have their weapons confiscated and send them into involuntary treatment. As it stands now, unless they're so unhinged that they can't deny everything to the cops, then you almost have to wait for them to actually start shooting at people before anything will get done.

As with anything else, it's a money issue. It costs $$$ to haul someone up to the top floor of a hospital for 72 hours. The state doesn't really want to do it any more than it absolutely has to. Sure, if you show up in the ER with a bunch of self-inflicted wounds, you're gonna take a 3-day, shoelace-free vacation, but other than that...

 

[Some JERK]

This. Really, he was a friendless and desperately lonely misanthropic virginal narcissist who had a victim complex and a desire to prove something to a world that he felt had wronged him. How many millions of non-violent folks does this easily describe? Should we really go back to the olden days of locking up folks because they seem a touch 'off'?

a good point. and to be perfectly fair, even though this kind of thing is getting more and more play in the media these days, it's still an extremely rare occurrence. There have always been crazy people who do this sort of thing. There always will be. But it's not exactly like they're crawling out of the woodwork.

 

[Cwckifan]

Well the problem was that his family was worried that he was going to do exactly what he did, but their hands were tied beyond calling the police, who couldn't find anything to haul him in over. If the laws were more reasonable, you could actually use a youtube video or an email of someone saying "hey, i'm probably going to kill some people pretty soon." as grounds to have their weapons confiscated and send them into involuntary treatment. As it stands now, unless they're so unhinged that they can't deny everything to the cops, then you almost have to wait for them to actually start shooting at people before anything will get done.

As with anything else, it's a money issue. It costs $$$ to haul someone up to the top floor of a hospital for 72 hours. The state doesn't really want to do it any more than it absolutely has to. Sure, if you show up in the ER with a bunch of self-inflicted wounds, you're gonna take a 3-day, shoelace-free vacation, but other than that...

Even so, what about that poor kid who spent several months in prison for jokingly saying that he was going to kill kindergarteners after losing a videogame? Surely that must count for something

 

[Pikimon]

So all\most folks who've been prescribed psychotropic medications shoot people? That certainly does seem to go against the old canard that 'mentally ill folks are more likely to be victims than victimizers'.

No, but I really doubt that people who have trouble discerning reality should have access to firearms.

 

[Cwckifan]

No, but I really doubt that people who have trouble discerning reality should have access to firearms.

Damn near all of life is based on judgment, so that's a lot to ask

 

[Ti-99/4A]

Well the problem was that his family was worried that he was going to do exactly what he did, but their hands were tied beyond calling the police, who couldn't find anything to haul him in over. If the laws were more reasonable, you could actually use a youtube video or an email of someone saying "hey, i'm probably going to kill some people pretty soon." as grounds to have their weapons confiscated and send them into involuntary treatment. As it stands now, unless they're so unhinged that they can't deny everything to the cops, then you almost have to wait for them to actually start shooting at people before anything will get done.

As with anything else, it's a money issue. It costs $$$ to haul someone up to the top floor of a hospital for 72 hours. The state doesn't really want to do it any more than it absolutely has to. Sure, if you show up in the ER with a bunch of self-inflicted wounds, you're gonna take a 3-day, shoelace-free vacation, but other than that...

It costs $$$ and there has to be a bed available. Last time I had an episode, I spent 18 hours in the ER while the nurses called every nut house in Oregon and southern Washington until one was freed up in Portland and I had a two hour ride in the back of the sheriffs car in handcuffs to get there.

 

[Some JERK]

Even so, what about that poor kid who spent several months in prison for jokingly saying that he was going to kill kindergarteners after losing a videogame? Surely that must count for something

You can find extremes in any situation, and I don't know enough about that case to really say if it was a complete overreaction or not, but I'd much rather feel guilt over a kid wrongly spending a few months in the can than the guilt over some six year olds being blown away because a threat wasn't taken seriously.

 

[Cwckifan]

You can find extremes in any situation, and I don't know enough about that case to really say if it was a complete overreaction or not, but I'd much rather feel guilt over a kid wrongly spending a few months in the can than the guilt over some six year olds being blown away because a threat wasn't taken seriously.

It wasn't just 'time in the can', as he was sexually and physically assaulted while there. No amount of 'prevention' is worth ruining the life of an innocent person, period

 

[Duke Nukem]

This. Really, he was a friendless and desperately lonely misanthropic virginal narcissist who had a victim complex and a desire to prove something to a world that he felt had wronged him. How many millions of non-violent folks does this easily describe? Should we really go back to the olden days of locking up folks because they seem a touch 'off'?

If we did, we'd probably have to build a shitload of new prisons, or whatever institution/facility those deemed mentally ill are kept in. There's already nearly 10 million Americans locked up, this could easily double that number and put unprecedented strain on states already strapped for funds. Of course, simply finding rooms to hold them all would be even more of a bitch than it is already.

He was a great deal of several different messes, and I certainly don't think the fact that his parents just gave him whatever he wanted without actually teaching him any respect, manners, or right from wrong did anything to help. And not having been taught to deal with adversity or inability to get something he wants in a constructive manner, the idea of being denied a wish was probably completely foreign in his mind.

Simply getting the message across that he was not the center of the universe would have probably helped, but then again, some things are so broken it's a fool's errand to bother in the first place.

 

[Some JERK]

It wasn't just 'time in the can', as he was sexually and physically assaulted while there. No amount of 'prevention' is worth ruining the life of an innocent person, period

you know there's never going to be a perfect system, right? You have to weigh the bad against the good and somehow find a reasonable compromise. Yeah that sucks that it happened. And like I said, I don't know enough about it to really argue whether or not it was an overreaction, or whether that kid was a dumbshit for his actions. All I can say is that It's not an all or nothing, "haul everyone in or haul no one in", proposition. What I'm saying is that California's laws regarding involuntary treatment are severely lacking in every way, and really need to be re-evaluated.

 

[Cwckifan]

you know there's never going to be a perfect system, right? You have to weigh the bad against the good and somehow find a reasonable compromise. Yeah that sucks that it happened. And like I said, I don't know enough about it to really argue whether or not it was an overreaction, or whether that kid was a dumbshit for his actions. All I can say is that It's not an all or nothing, "haul everyone in or haul no one in", proposition. What I'm saying is that California's laws regarding involuntary treatment are severely lacking in every way, and really need to be re-evaluated.

Would you be saying that if 'overhauls' led to you or a loved one getting locked away 'for the good of everyone'? If anything, this shows precisely why community involvement is more important than ever in such scenarios. Really, the only ethical way to protect the innocent is to make sure that everyone is aware of the actions of their neighbors. States can only ever do 'all-or-nothing' solutions after getting large enough, and they easily cause more harm than good

 

[Duke Nukem]

It wasn't just 'time in the can', as he was sexually and physically assaulted while there. No amount of 'prevention' is worth ruining the life of an innocent person, period

Sir William Blackstone, an English judge from the 18th century, said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." This was also quoted by Ben Franklin with 100 guilty persons. The idea was adopted as a part of American common law, which persists to this day. I believe the same rule should apply to mental health for the same reasons.

Guilt without proof can never lead to anything good.

 

[Some JERK]

Would you be saying that if 'overhauls' led to you or a loved one getting locked away 'for the good of everyone'? If anything, this shows precisely why community involvement is more important than ever in such scenarios. Really, the only ethical way to protect the innocent is to make sure that everyone is aware of the actions of their neighbors. States can only ever do 'all-or-nothing' solutions after getting large enough, and they easily cause more harm than good

I'm not saying that people should just be locked up for offhanded statements made in frustration, I'm saying that in this case, this guy had a long history of mental issues, and the people who have known this kid his entire life were concerned enough about him to consider his behavior a credible threat. And they were right. Of course it would have to be on a case by case basis, but there need to be more reasonable procedures in place to evaluate those cases.

I don't believe that because there's a risk of someone being wrongly committed, that the answer is to just do nothing.

Guilt without proof can never lead to anything good.

Which is why "proof" of potentially dangerous mental issues needs to be more clearly defined in the state of California.

 

[Cwckifan]

I'm not saying that people should just be locked up for offhanded statements made in frustration, I'm saying that in this case, this guy had a long history of mental issues, and the people who have known this kid his entire life were concerned enough about him to consider his behavior a credible threat. And they were right. Of course it would have to be on a case by case basis, but there need to be more reasonable procedures in place to evaluate those cases.

No issues that were terribly unique, however, hence the issues.

I don't believe that because there's a risk of someone being wrongly committed, that the answer is to just do nothing.

Which is why "proof" of potentially dangerous mental issues needs to be more clearly defined in the state of California.

I agree, hence why community involvement is a better than state management. Those close to you are probably better judges of character than overworked bureaucrats going off of internet activity and secondhand accounts

 

[Duke Nukem]

Which is why "proof" of potentially dangerous mental issues needs to be more clearly defined in the state of California.

In times like this, everyone's bucking for the lightning bolt that will probably never come. A whole lot of knee jerking and "we don't want to be next!" kind of shit goes on every time someone flips their lid like this. Without any clear definitions or solid proof that the individual in question is a froot loop, it all turns into one giant witch hunt.

 

[Protoman]

Saying a system needs improvement is not tantamount to saying that innocents need to be imprisoned. I think that there's a really weird false dichotomy here. The choices aren't "imprison the innocent" or "have no system at all." it's "keep the system that's not working and is clearly flawed" vs. "try to find a system that isn't complete and utter garbage." As an actual fucking Californian I can tell you that our mental health institutions suck monster cock, and that people IN the institutions would benefit just as much as society at large from a revamping of the current system.

The current system also locks up innocents, btw. Just saying. Making improvements such as those JERK is proposing would cut back on how many innocents are locked up as well as how many people who need mental rehabilitation receive it.

 

[Cwckifan]

Saying a system needs improvement is not tantamount to saying that innocents need to be imprisoned. I think that there's a really weird false dichotomy here. The choices aren't "imprison the innocent" or "have no system at all." it's "keep the system that's not working and is clearly flawed" vs. "try to find a system that isn't complete and utter garbage." As an actual fucking Californian I can tell you that our mental health institutions suck monster cock, and that people IN the institutions would benefit just as much as society at large from a revamping of the current system.

The current system also locks up innocents, btw. Just saying. Making improvements such as those JERK is proposing would cut back on how many innocents are locked up as well as how many people who need mental rehabilitation receive it.

So long as this proposed 'new system' is dependent upon the exact judgment as folks who designed the old ones, problems won't improve, they'll just shift. What good is demanding 'more proof' that one is indeed about to do something terrible, when that just increases the amount of potential lunatics the state has to look after? Tradeoffs are as tradeoffs do, after all

 

[Protoman]

That's not the case. The current rules on who does and doesn't get locked up are ass-backwards. And your entire system of reasoning is insanely flawed. "Don't do anything because the system we have now is bad and the same people are just going to make it bad again."

Don't want the new rules made by the same folks? Good, then change how the law is put in place, put the vote up as a proposition (California's own system of direct democracy), change who writes it, the government can make a new committee or you (assuming you're Californian) can elect new state senators. Sitting back and letting California's current system continue shitting all over itself isn't going to help anyone. The federal government is out of our reach and has no chance of being changed by us plebs, but the state governments can still be influenced.

 

[Cwckifan]

That's not the case. The current rules on who does and doesn't get locked up are ass-backwards. And your entire system of reasoning is insanely flawed. "Don't do anything because the system we have now is bad and the same people are just going to make it bad again."

Don't want the new rules made by the same folks? Good, then change how the law is put in place, put the vote up as a proposition (California's own system of direct democracy), change who writes it, the government can make a new committee or you (assuming you're Californian) can elect new state senators. Sitting back and letting California's current system continue shitting all over itself isn't going to help anyone. The federal government is out of our reach and has no chance of being changed by us plebs, but the state governments can still be influenced.

Any democratic system is only as good as the words of the elected, and it's more than a little naïve to believe that those are more than promises written on the wind. Really, seeing as how 'doing something' invariably means more rules and restrictions (especially in states like California), it won't be long before you end up with more bullshit, and absolutely no meaningful change. Any grieving animal is not going to be rational, and the last thing that's needed is a whole bunch of them screaming that a system that's only barely holding itself together needs to do more