Shooting incidents in the news.

[Trooper224]

All three of my children, one girl and two boys, always new I had their back, but they also knew who was in charge. I may have had their back but I'd also have their ass when they screwed the pooch. From the day they were born they knew there was a food chain in the house with them on the bottom. Now, they're all productive adults, with two of them married and raising kids of their own. No one has a criminal record or an addiction and they all call regularly for advice. Now we're friends and it's pretty nice.

[cclaxton]

Engaging in armchair psychoanalysis and generalizing the blame into an indictment of modern parenting is useless and a distraction. Every situation is unique, and every perpetrator is unique in his/her emotional/mental disease/syndrome. A proper analysis should be based entirely on the facts and on solid analysis of the person'a particular mental/emotional/physical issues, the impact of environment/upbringing, specific social factors and the specific incidents in his life that led to his violent outburst. The biological drive for sex is a powerful force, (or for control of a sexual partner) and results in many crimes across many social and cultural and economic classes. We know that this drive reaches its' peak between 16-24 years both psychologically and hormonally. Only after a thorough scientifically based method can we start to draw conclusions as to the particulars that contributed to his/her violent outburst. And then comparing those contributors to other perpetrators can possibly lead to a social dysfunction such as parenting styles.

The question that many mental health professionals keep asking is why didn't the police/authorities put together all the pieces so that a high risk flag would be raised justifying a search of his home and a full mental/emotional health evaluation under due process. It is unfortunate that governments don't fund mental health systems at the state level and don't train police officers adequately and don't provide funding for mental health professionals to evaluate individuals when there are indicators. A trained professional should have been brought into the situation when they were called to the Rodgers home by his parents and should have been able to put together all the pieces resulting in reasonable cause.

Mental health professionals do base their analysis on real science and pattern recognition and through interviewing to reach a diagnosis and an assessment of risk to self and others. Like any medical science it is not perfect and mistakes are made and misdiagnosis occurs, so there are no guarantees. But, it is likely in this case they pattern would have been identified by a mental health professional or properly trained LEO and they may have been able to prevent this horrible violence.

As long as these assessments and analysis are done with judicial review, there should be no reason for concern that people will have their rights unjustly infringed.
Cody

[BaiHu]

One, I did commend the parents for at least getting some help. Two, I think the generalization of recent parenting skills is quite accurate. Three, you make good points, but suck the fun out of the Internet

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[SeriousStudent]

All three of my children, one girl and two boys, always new I had their back, but they also knew who was in charge. I may have had their back but I'd also have their ass when they screwed the pooch. From the day they were born they knew there was a food chain in the house with them on the bottom. Now, they're all productive adults, with two of them married and raising kids of their own. No one has a criminal record or an addiction and they all call regularly for advice. Now we're friends and it's pretty nice.

I agree with this so very much. My children are now in their 20's, and we are now friends. It feels pretty nice to have your son call you and say "Dad, do you mind if I pick your brain?" He does not want money, he genuinely wants advice. Then listens and he acts on it.

When they were children, they were young skulls full of mush. Beloved and adorable skulls, but mush-filled nonetheless.

[RevolverRob]

Cody,

I applaud your eloquent break-down of the need to analyze the data carefully and produce a careful study before acting. And I largely agree with you.

I do not think, however, that the proposed changes to the system are yet able to be adequately reviewed in a judicial sense. The bottom line is the field of psychiatry/psychology is still mixed between a relativistic id-ego type understanding of the mind and one more based in on hard neurobiological data. It will be 15-20 years before we see truly adequate studies of psychology viewed as hard science. This is because it will be 10-15 years before psychological studies are accepted as hard science by the scientific community, which means we are 15-20 years before adequate funding is established to allow hardcore psychological research that is science based. Not to suggest that research isn't occurring, it is. But it is still largely not accepted by the scientific community and thus could not survive during expert testimony during judicial review....Nor would I, personally, want it to.

The trouble is, we are very, very, very, bad about properly utilizing and understanding data in this country. Even if we do have hard psychological science data, it will still not be properly used by politicians, funding will remain inadequate, and these situations will continue to happen. Unfortunately, to change this requires a radical shift in the entire system itself.

-Rob

[Tamara]

Looking around the internet, I can't help but observe that the very same people that are screaming for better mental health screening and more proactive response from law enforcement today are the ones that were cutting checks to the ACLU to prevent stigmatization and loss of freedom because of ableist mental health discrimination last week.

Make up your kittening mind, ya buncha kittening hypocrites. Do you want the Department of Precrime dragging people off or not?

A truly free society is going to have some inherent safety issues. (Conversely, people get shanked in prisons all the time.)

[Trooper224]

Engaging in armchair psychoanalysis and generalizing the blame into an indictment of modern parenting is useless and a distraction.

Here's a radical idea: why don't you climb down off your high horse. The internet consists largely of armchair analysis, that's largely the point. If it is in fact useless and a distraction we can all find other uses for our time. Not to mention the fact that you've made a lengthy post engaging in the same behavior you're criticizing. In untrained LEO circles we dumb schmucks call that hypocritical.

The question that many mental health professionals keep asking is why didn't the police/authorities put together all the pieces so that a high risk flag would be raised justifying a search of his home and a full mental/emotional health evaluation under due process.

Which professionals are those? Most of them can't seem to agree on how the subject should be approached. Have you ever worked as an LEO and tried to get a subject committed or even held for an evaluation? Ever tried to get a warrant to search a mentally unstable subjects home or property? Ever entered the home of a subject like Rogers under issues of probable cause, then been the subject of a lawsuit by the ACLU because you violated Mr. Nutburgers civil rights? I suspect the answer to those questions would be no.

Example: recently two of our Troopers dealt with a mentally disturbed subject who had been reported as standing on the shoulder of a busy interstate screaming at passing traffic. When the initial Trooper responded, the subject jumped onto the Troopers vehicle and began jumping up and down on the trunk screaming threats and obscenities. This resulted in two Troopers and our Captain attempting to gain control of the subject, with all of them being bodily thrown out into the traffic lanes of a busy interstate. The decision of your mental health professionals? The subject couldn't be held because he didn't pose an apparent danger to himself or others, in their "professional" opinion. He was booked into the county jail but was allowed to be released on his own recognisance since your professionals had determined he wasn't a threat. On the surface this incident was far more clear cut than the Rogers case would seem to be, minus the Monday morning quarterbacking of course. Yet even then, the system wouldn't allow that individual to even be held for evaluation.

[cclaxton]

Armchair internet analysis perpetuates myths and misunderstandings and distracts us from focusing on the policy issues that have to be considered. Our fundamental personal rights and freedoms will result in abuse by disturbed or criminal individuals, and I agree we will pay that price. And, solving mental health issues here in the US is VERY difficult process, requires many years and complex policies. But we ought to consider legislative and policy solutions that preserve our freedoms while enabling families and law enforcement to get people the help they need...whether there is a threat to public safety or not. I found this website helpful in educating myself and reading what solutions are being proposed.

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/index.html

Cody

[JAD]

I couldn't disagree more with the idea that focusing on parenting is a distraction. The decay of the family, which is interwoven with the secularization of society, is specifically at the root of issues like this.

[cclaxton]

Cody,

I applaud your eloquent break-down of the need to analyze the data carefully and produce a careful study before acting. And I largely agree with you.

I do not think, however, that the proposed changes to the system are yet able to be adequately reviewed in a judicial sense. The bottom line is the field of psychiatry/psychology is still mixed between a relativistic id-ego type understanding of the mind and one more based in on hard neurobiological data. It will be 15-20 years before we see truly adequate studies of psychology viewed as hard science. This is because it will be 10-15 years before psychological studies are accepted as hard science by the scientific community, which means we are 15-20 years before adequate funding is established to allow hardcore psychological research that is science based. Not to suggest that research isn't occurring, it is. But it is still largely not accepted by the scientific community and thus could not survive during expert testimony during judicial review....Nor would I, personally, want it to.

The trouble is, we are very, very, very, bad about properly utilizing and understanding data in this country. Even if we do have hard psychological science data, it will still not be properly used by politicians, funding will remain inadequate, and these situations will continue to happen. Unfortunately, to change this requires a radical shift in the entire system itself.
-Rob

Rob, I agree that it is a complex and long road, but a lot of good science and analysis has already been done. Therapists know, for instance, that a history of being seriously abused as a child, combined with other stresses in a person's life, raises a red flag. Also, a lot of good science and analysis and conclusions have been done on post traumatic stress disorders and combat fatigue. I am starting to warm up to the idea of mental health courts where judges can specialize in assessing these complex mental health situations, working more closely with families, working within the privacy concerns of HIPPA, and appointing attorneys that have experience in the mental health arena.

There is no way we are ever going to guarantee safety in a free society...it comes with the territory. But as a moral society I think we have an obligation to help the mentally/emotionally ill, and if we can preserve the public safety in the process, all for the better. Law enforcement is going to be involve as first responders, and their education and training should be a part of the total solution as well.
Cody