Psychiatrist Called Threat Team About Aurora Shooting Suspect James Holmes

[NETim]

http://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-called-threat-team-aurora-shooting-suspect-james-215740780--abc-news-topstories.html

I want to do what we can to keep weapons out of the hands of the "nutjobs." But the question is, who defines "nutjob?" Can fair, objective standards be put in place?

Kinda reminds me of USSC Justice Stewart's famous quote on porn:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. -- Concurring, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).

And the closing line of the article:

But experts said today that Holmes' departure should have been a red alert.

"You know, I think that's the signal that you should intensify your efforts, not walk away," said Barry Spodak, a threat assessment expert. "Under those circumstances, most well-trained threat assessment teams would have gone into action."

What exactly does the phrase "gone into action" mean?

[ford.304]

Exactly. What would you do? Search his apartment? Take him into custody? On the say-so of a school therapist who was supposed to be helping him? *That'll* be a good way to encourage people to go see professional help.

I don't want to see everyone with a valium prescription denied their human rights.

But I just don't know... some people need to be locked up, but I have a really hard time picking those people based on the opinions of any human, no matter how expert.

[JodyH]

If a licensed psychiatrist is willing to swear out an affidavit that an individual is displaying signs of imminent violent behavior, that should be grounds for an involuntary 24-48 hour detention and evaluation by multiple mental health experts.
If the evaluation shows the initial assessment was correct, the adjudication process should be automatically initiated.
These violent mentally ill people keep getting recycled through the criminal system (or just allowed in public with no supervision) rather than the mental health system because mental health advocates gutted our involuntary committal process in the '80's.

[MikeyC]

Police, Firemen, EMT's etc in most places have the ability to either place an individual in custody, or have them placed into custody, on the basis that they're a threat to themselves or the community despite the fact that the standard for behavior is a broad as "not acting right". Why the hell can't a psychiatrist have a similar authority? Is there some sort of Duty to Act there, and of not shouldn't there be?

[phil_in_cs]

Wasn't the Tuscon shooter known by his university to be a threat but they didn't tell the local police?

[MDS]

My wife and I disagree about this. She's a recovering social worker of sorts, and thinks there should be a formal, centralized way to identify the nut jobs and keep guns out of their hands. I argue that:

Identifying nut jobs objectively is hard to do with low false positives (few or no non-nut-jobs getting classified as such) and low false negatives (few nut-jobs not getting classified as such)
We already sort of have a system in place (whenever someone qualified thinks someone else is an imminent threat, they can notify the cops or etc.) It's far from perfect but any centralized solution has to be shown to work better than the de-centralized sort-of system in place
Any centralized solution would require a substantial government entity, with all the incompetence and loss of freedom that implies, so it would have to be more than just marginally better
Take the resource you would have spent on a centralized way to prevent nut-job-induced violence, use it to de-centralize the mitigation (i.e., proactive civilian population that takes responsibility for their own security.) This would help with all kinds of violence, not just the nut-job kind, and have a net positive impact on freedom.


She still thinks there must be a way, but she can't answer any of these points and is coming around slowly...

[NETim]

Wasn't the Tuscon shooter known by his university to be a threat but they didn't tell the local police?

I'm fairly certain the VT shooter was known to have problems but fear of lawsuits stopped school admin from action on it. I've read reports where this is a problem nationwide. School administrators live in fear of litigation and as a result, are hesitant to act.

[LOKNLOD]

My wife and I disagree about this. She's a recovering social worker of sorts, and thinks there should be a formal, centralized way to identify the nut jobs and keep guns out of their hands. I argue that:

Identifying nut jobs objectively is hard to do with low false positives (few or no non-nut-jobs getting classified as such) and low false negatives (few nut-jobs not getting classified as such)
We already sort of have a system in place (whenever someone qualified thinks someone else is an imminent threat, they can notify the cops or etc.) It's far from perfect but any centralized solution has to be shown to work better than the de-centralized sort-of system in place
Any centralized solution would require a substantial government entity, with all the incompetence and loss of freedom that implies, so it would have to be more than just marginally better
Take the resource you would have spent on a centralized way to prevent nut-job-induced violence, use it to de-centralize the mitigation (i.e., proactive civilian population that takes responsibility for their own security.) This would help with all kinds of violence, not just the nut-job kind, and have a net positive impact on freedom.


She still thinks there must be a way, but she can't answer any of these points and is coming around slowly...

I agree with you. It sounds like a good thing to have in place, until you start considering the bureaucratic nightmare it can become, as well as the very easy path it could create to restrict someone's rights with a much more difficult path to vindication.

Let's be honest, any of us on this forum could probably be accused of something based on our browser history if the wrong person wanted to judge us by it (say, an overzealous IT person at work?). Weapons training, ammo shopping, lots of news articles about shooting incidents... to the Sarah Bradys of the world, we appear little different from Holmes.

[JodyH]

we appear little different from Holmes.
Not to the intellectually honest, and that is who should be making the psychiatric determinations.

Initial assessment of violent mental instability via sworn affidavit by licensed Psychiatrist.
24 hour detainment and investigation by a panel of licensed psychiatrists, the "accused" is allowed counsel and independent psychiatrist defense.
If still determined to be a danger then it goes to a judge, again with a defense "team".
Appeals process should also be in place.

Proper checks and balances need to be in place as well.
Any abuse of the system/process should incur civil and criminal penalties.

[ford.304]

Ah, but how to pick the intellectually honest, that's the rub. This is the same profession that produced "forgotten" memories of child abuse, uncovered only under hypnosis. It's hard enough getting intellectually honest judges.

[Byron]

JodyH,

That all sounds good in theory, but what current government agencies do we have that are able to operate at such a level of efficiency and due diligence when it comes to objective issues of judgment, much less subjective ones.

Take our legal system; millions of pages of state and federal laws of what a citizen can and cannot do; cases that should be decided based on facts; a highly codified system of regulations, checks, balances, and protocols.

How does it work out in real life?

Now take an area rife with controversy, even internally among experts; a centralized document that is equally controversial (the DSM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers)); and a profession that lacks much of the transparency found in other fields (statistics, metrics, etc).

And we expect that it can operate any better?

A lot of conservatives and gun-owners love to bemoan the "thought police" in America, but use the term figuratively. The inevitable end to what you are describing is a literal establishment of thought police.

Just as our legal system, I would far prefer a mental health system that errs on the side of false negatives than false positives. I don't think that giving the government more control over citizens will be much more fruitful than it is in most other areas where we give them control over our lives.

Anyway, what are the stats? Is there any indication of a huge trend of mentally ill people going on killing sprees? Clearly there is far more of a trend of "ordinary" murders. So why spend untold amounts of money creating new agencies and protocols that will have dubious results? All it takes is one nutjob to slip through the cracks for there to be another mass murder. And then instead of people acknowledging that the new system just wasn't a realistic measure to prevent all of these incidents, they will say that the system needs more power (similar to what you are saying now).

Don't get me wrong: I think that mental health problems aren't dealt with thoroughly enough in this nation, but I don't think that involuntary commitment is an area that needs beefing up.

[Gary1911A1]

If a licensed psychiatrist is willing to swear out an affidavit that an individual is displaying signs of imminent violent behavior, that should be grounds for an involuntary 24-48 hour detention and evaluation by multiple mental health experts.
If the evaluation shows the initial assessment was correct, the adjudication process should be automatically initiated.
These violent mentally ill people keep getting recycled through the criminal system (or just allowed in public with no supervision) rather than the mental health system because mental health advocates gutted our involuntary committal process in the '80's.

As someone who used to work in a MH State Hospital I think you are 100% right!