Folks shot and Killed at a Midnight Screening of Batman in Denver


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

We give the state the power to kill people convicted of murder, yet we hesitate to say "Maybe this guy shouldn't have a gun if a trained professional therapist thinks it is a bad idea, until he is able to get clearance from another trained professional."

I can be locked up pending a trial for a crime based on the opinion of a police officer, but if I appear to be a person at high risk to misuse firearms according to a certified and trained professional, they can't say perhaps this person should be restricted from purchasing a gun?

Given the system already exists to verify someone can purchase a gun based on criminal history, how difficult would it be to add an additional variable to the database?

And you are just plain wrong about the authority. If you appear to be mentally ill to the point you are a danger to yourself or other, the police will take you to a psychiatric ward until such time as you are no longer deemed a threat.

No charges needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
We give the state the power to kill people convicted of murder, yet we hesitate to say "Maybe this guy shouldn't have a gun if a trained professional therapist thinks it is a bad idea, until he is able to get clearance from another trained professional."

Yes. Because we did not elect trained professional therapists. Our elected leaders did not appoint trained professional therapists. Trained professional therapists are not the fourth branch of government. Trained professional therapists do not supersede the constitution.

Quote:
I can be locked up pending a trial for a crime based on the opinion of a police officer

Opinion which must be based in facts. The detention has to be temporary until a bail hearing is set, and you are appointed an attorney if you can't afford one.

And please note that the police officer CANNOT lock you up because he thinks you're going to commit a crime. Determining the past is far, FAR easier than determining the future.

Quote:
but if I appear to be a person at high risk to misuse firearms according to a certified and trained professional, they can't say perhaps this person should be restricted from purchasing a gun?

Unless they perfect crystal balls, no.

Quote:
Given the system already exists to verify someone can purchase a gun based on criminal history, how difficult would it be to add an additional variable to the database?

Quite, since medical records are private, and any kind of database about who's got what condition would end that privacy. There's also the legal issue of, again, deciding who does and who does not get to own a firearm.

Quote:

And you are just plain wrong about the authority. If you appear to be mentally ill to the point you are a danger to yourself or other, the police will take you to a psychiatric ward until such time as you are no longer deemed a threat.

No charges needed.

The state has an incredibly high burden of proof to meet for that to happen: its harder than most criminal cases. You get an attorney, the same as you would at a criminal trial, and the burden of proof rests squarely with the state. A judge needs to sign off on it lasting more than 72 hours.

There is so far nothing I'm aware of to indicate that that the guy who shot up the theater would have set off any kind of articulable reason to be turned down for trying to buy a gun.


Shadowborn wrote:
Another thing to consider is the "shy, quiet" individual may also be the one repressing their emotions. Hence the reason they eventually snap.

Or (s)he might just be an introvert, with a rich emotional life that just isn't shared with everybody.

As a geeky and intellectual introvert, suffering from (extremely non-violent) mental health issues (although I probably won't fit the physical profile) I'm a bit concerned with the effort to paint/profile such individuals as the ones most likely to commit some kind of violent crime when they finally "snap."


So if you can be held until such point that you are no longer considered a threat, then why would we need the additional power to remove rights from people that are not considered threats (and thus not already in custody)?

Liberty's Edge

Actually, we don't elect juries, and many judges are appointed.

Therapists are certified, and actually the ones who determine if you can be released from care for all intents and purposes.

There is a huge difference between being held in custody and being unable to make a purchase of a fire arm.

We deem felons rehabilitated on release, but we don't allow them to purchase firearms, even if the crime was unrelated.

We allow psychiatrists to prescribe medications that would otherwise be narcotic controlled dangerous substances if taken without a prescription.

You are drawing the line at "If they don't need to be detained, they should be allowed access to a firearm?"

Because I'm telling you, given our health care system and the expense of psychotropic medications, that isn't a stance taken by anyone I've ever met who has actual field experience with mental health clients.

Liberty's Edge

@Bignorsewolf - The saying "You could indict a ham sandwich" is damn close to true in my experience. Particularly a black or latino ham sandwich. Don't fool yourself about the "high burden of proof".

As someone who gets writs signed regularly, it ain't a hard thing to do.

The police can take you to a hospital if you are acting in a manner they believe makes you a risk to yourself and those around you. I've never met a judge who wouldn't sign the extension request if anyone with at least an LCSW indicated it was needed (which is the standard minimum for a person doing evaluations in most hospitals in my experience).

While I feel confident red flags were out there due to the lack of surprise from the family, we need only look to Virginia Tech (and others that didn't get the press...) to realize some people who have serious mental health conditions need not to be allowed to legally purchase or possess fire arms.


GentleGiant wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Another thing to consider is the "shy, quiet" individual may also be the one repressing their emotions. Hence the reason they eventually snap.

Or (s)he might just be an introvert, with a rich emotional life that just isn't shared with everybody.

As a geeky and intellectual introvert, suffering from (extremely non-violent) mental health issues (although I probably won't fit the physical profile) I'm a bit concerned with the effort to paint/profile such individuals as the ones most likely to commit some kind of violent crime when they finally "snap."

Nowhere did I say they were "most likely" to snap. I'm pretty sure the word "may" implies a possible scenario, not the most probable one. I'm not making any effort to profile anyone.


Shadowborn wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Another thing to consider is the "shy, quiet" individual may also be the one repressing their emotions. Hence the reason they eventually snap.

Or (s)he might just be an introvert, with a rich emotional life that just isn't shared with everybody.

As a geeky and intellectual introvert, suffering from (extremely non-violent) mental health issues (although I probably won't fit the physical profile) I'm a bit concerned with the effort to paint/profile such individuals as the ones most likely to commit some kind of violent crime when they finally "snap."
Nowhere did I say they were "most likely" to snap. I'm pretty sure the word "may" implies a possible scenario, not the most probable one. I'm not making any effort to profile anyone.

But if we're just talking "may" or "possible" scenarios, then there's no need to bring up specifics, since it's "possible" for all types of people to snap.

By specifying certain characteristics you're (general you) singling out individuals or profiling if you will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Actually, we don't elect juries

We ARE the jury. That's us in there.

Quote:
and many judges are appointed.

Did i say they were not? You have a habit of 'correcting' people for things they did not say. Being appointed by our elected officials was specifically a reference to the judiciary.

Quote:
Therapists are certified, and actually the ones who determine if you can be released from care for all intents and purposes.

No, that would be the judge. The entire staff of Bellevue could testify that I'm off my rocker. If the judge doesn't think I'm a danger to others I go free after 72 hours.

Quote:
There is a huge difference between being held in custody and being unable to make a purchase of a fire arm.

Legally there is not. It is a revocation of rights by the state and as such it has to go through the same due process that every citizen is entitled to. You cannot hand unilateral power to make decisions about the mentally unstable AND the ability to determine who the mentally unstable are to the same person or group of people.

Quote:
We deem felons rehabilitated on release, but we don't allow them to purchase firearms, even if the crime was unrelated.

They did something to become felons in the first place. They had a trial that determined their guilt, the revocation of their rights is something that continues after they get out of jail, like parole.

Quote:
We allow psychiatrists to prescribe medications that would otherwise be narcotic controlled dangerous substances if taken without a prescription.

Because they're medical doctors. You can get a script for cocaine under the right circumstances.

Quote:
You are drawing the line at "If they don't need to be detained, they should be allowed access to a firearm?"

At the moment, yes. To change that I would have to see a system that

Preserved privacy
Preserved due process
Kept the effective execution of our laws within the legal system
Could not be turned into a backdoor firearms ban

Quote:
Because I'm telling you, given our health care system and the expense of psychotropic medications, that isn't a stance taken by anyone I've ever met who has actual field experience with mental health clients.

I really do understand their position, and their desire to do the right thing. I think its a good idea. I also think its an idea that could, and is even likely, to go very very badly. Its the oft overlooked dichotomy between chaotic (freedom) and good.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We're diving into a political argument folks. Let's all take a deep breath.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As just a heads up to anyone who wants to be considerate of the feelings of people who suffer from a mental illness you might want to stop talking about mental illness and violence and instability like the two are connected at the hip.

To perhaps add a little bit of perspective: speaking in that way sounds pretty much like the equivalent of talking about homosexuality and child rape like they are directly related. Yes, some individuals have both traits and within that individual’s circumstances they can be closely related but the core concepts involved don’t actually have anything to do with one another and speaking as if they do can come off as extremely offensive.

I know noone is doing it on purpose but speaking as though mentally ill people are dangerous and need to watched really is sounding like a “don’t let the gays near your kids.” argument, if you are trying to be considerate maybe add a “demonstrably violent” tag to your mental illness label in the future, as that is really the more important part.


One thing has struck me as "peculiar" since it was mentioned the first time through the news.
The behaviour of the guy after the shooting.
In many of these cases the guy is usually shot in a fight with the police afterwards (not necessarily fatally) or he commits suicide.
None of that happened, instead he was apprehended in/at his car at the scene without any struggle at all.
Now, that can indicate a couple of things.
1) The police arrived at the scene very quickly (which they did) and he didn't have time to do anything else. However, there was only one officer at his location, who then called for backup (evidenced by the released communication). So, in a firefight, he would seem to have the upper hand with only one cop present.
2) He was remorseful for what he had just done and was caught "unprepared" quickly after, sitting in or standing next to his car.
3) He had absolutely no intentions of dying over this, because he wants to be alive for the aftermath and the infamy it entails.

2 or 3 also both seem possible, although for two very different reasons, given his freely given information about his booby trapped apartment.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

ciretose wrote:
Given the system already exists to verify someone can purchase a gun based on criminal history, how difficult would it be to add an additional variable to the database?

Now, I'm not the most libertarian person around here, but.

ciretose, can you seriously not see any problem with a national registry of mentally ill people? I see what you're arguing for, but I can't see any good reason to have registries of medical diagnoses in the hands of people who aren't medical professionals. People who have pled incapacity at trial, okay. But there is a lot of harm that can come of adding medical diagnoses to what amounts to a background check.

shifty wrote:
hey why don't we give the really depressed guy a loaded gun, a hot bath, a bottle of bourbon, and a Tom Waits album. Nothing bad will happen...

hey why don't we give the really depressed unemployed guy's potential employer access to his psych history. Nothing bad will happen...

Right now, medical records are only given to people in confidence, or when that confidentiality is specifically waived. Gun shop owners are not those people, and if you make that system publicly available, even conditionally, then you're opening up a huge can of worms.


A Man In Black wrote:
hey why don't we give the really depressed unemployed guy's potential employer access to his psych history. Nothing bad will happen...

And....where is anyone saying that is the plan?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Shifty wrote:
And....where is anyone saying that is the plan?
Quote:
Right now, medical records are only given to people in confidence, or when that confidentiality is specifically waived. Gun shop owners are not those people, and if you make that system publicly available, even conditionally, then you're opening up a huge can of worms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

when I worked in a mental hospital we had a term, f-ed in the head file, there were people with mental illnesses that we could create a treatment plan for, help, medicate, etc.

Then there were people who's level of mental illness was off the charts, trying to diagnoss each of their particular problems (drug addicted, schitzoid effective disorder, ADHD, Borderline personality disorder, organic drug induced diphasia, toxic paranoia syndrome, etc. etc.) were all but impossible. for them... they were f-ed in the head file patients, or dont even bother trying, drug em up and pass em along.

about three weeks ago here we had a 6'3 guy who stabbed the boyfriend of his grandmother 16 times with a large knife.

It turned out the police had come on two seperate incidents to the family of this guy. Once he broke into his cousin's house quietly in the middle of the night, naked, standing in their bedroom next to their bed while they were asleep, with a matchette. police said if the family did not file charges there was nothing they could do because there is no temporary mental health facility in our county. so they let him go.

second incident the guy grabbed the girlfriend of a relitive, and attempted to drag her by the ankle into the kitchen to "show her something" again, they were told if the family did not file charges they could do nothing and let him go.

now he's finally killed somebody and has charges... but jeezzz what is wrong with our laws when we have so many warning signs, and the law can do nothing? I really dont have a problem with rounding up all the f-ed in the head file patients and putting them somewhere long term, I dont suscribe to the escape fantasy scenarios that had all the long term care facilities shut down under Regan, and all the patients sent to the streets. that was not good for them, or society.

oh by the way, I knew this guy's family and had hung out with him at a burger joint once, and at a court appearance once... I would have never guessed he had the problems that were reported.

Liberty's Edge

Mental illness and instability are connected.

That is why it is called mental illness.

Not all diagnosis mean someone is dangerous, but some do.

Like some people in this world are more criminogenic than others, some people suffer from mental illness and some people are dangerous when not properly treated and/or medicated.

And those people shouldn't have guns in the same way we have all agreed that former felons should not have guns.

If a licensed therapist says you should not have a gun, in all likelihood you should not have a gun.

If you want a judge to sign off on that because you think that will make a difference, as someone who works in the legal system, I can tell you that won't be hard to do. Every judge I have ever worked with would sign off on that in a heartbeat without even reading the attached memo.

Let's not let the history of eugenics remove common sense from the equation, and let's not have the right to own a firearm have a greater standard of privilege than avoiding physical detention.

If you want to elongate the process so that therapists can restrict gun access pending the approval of a judge in the way police (and probation officers in many states including mine...) can order someone detained pending a hearing, fine.

That elongates the process and the cost, but fine.

But it is ridiculous that a trained and license therapist working with a client can contact law enforcement and say "This person needs to be detained for psychiatric evaluation" but can't say "This person shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm."


But in my state, all it takes to be a licensed therapist is an Associate's Degree in Social Work. I don't think that person should be the one screening people for getting their guns taken away.

And like I said before, West Virginia at least has psychiatric history as part of the background check to purchase a gun. I don't know about other states.

And for the record, I am shy, introverted, bookish, nerdy, and keep to myself. I have an anxiety disorder. I fit the profile of a Spree Killer. And I don't have a problem with saying that because I know that not all of us who fit the profile will become one.

Creating a profile of a killer does not in any way say that all the people who fit said profile are killers/going to become killers. A majority of spree/serial killers I've read about are quiet/bookish types. It doesn't say that all quiet/bookish people are killers. But I think it does say something about not speaking up about what is bothering you. If you are shy, and something is bothering you, you are more likely not to tell people and to not get help. Therefore, the shy person is more likely to let said bother eat him/her up until it's too much to handle and the person eventually snaps.

Nowhere did I say that all of us nerd will kill.

Liberty's Edge

Pending review, an LCSW can have you held and committed for evaluation.

Removal of ability to purchase firearms pending further evaluation seems a lesser power.


LCSW? I don't know what acronym...

I do agree with psych doctors being about to recommend to the state if they think their patient is too violent/unstable for guns, I don't want that doctor being able to take the guns away on his/her own.

Liberty's Edge

The issue is some states do and some don't, and so there isn't a national database. Both Loughner and the VT shooter were documented with serious mental health conditions, the VT shooter labeled as dangerous not "just" by a therapist, but by an actual judge.

Neither should have been able to buy guns. Both had a long, documented history of serious mental illness. Not minor depression or anxiety, but serious, dangerous, mental health issues requiring medication and observation. Both were able to purchase firearm, legally.

We will see if the same pattern holds with Mr. Holmes.

Liberty's Edge

Nepherti wrote:

LCSW? I don't know what acronym...

I do agree with psych doctors being about to recommend to the state if they think their patient is too violent/unstable for guns, I don't want that doctor being able to take the guns away on his/her own.

Licensed Clinical Social Worker.

And for the record, actual clinicians know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than Judges. Legal wisdom isn't better than medical knowledge.

And most Judges understand this, which is why any sign off from them would be pretty much a given.


GentleGiant wrote:

One thing has struck me as "peculiar" since it was mentioned the first time through the news.

The behaviour of the guy after the shooting.
In many of these cases the guy is usually shot in a fight with the police afterwards (not necessarily fatally) or he commits suicide.
None of that happened, instead he was apprehended in/at his car at the scene without any struggle at all.
Now, that can indicate a couple of things.
1) The police arrived at the scene very quickly (which they did) and he didn't have time to do anything else. However, there was only one officer at his location, who then called for backup (evidenced by the released communication). So, in a firefight, he would seem to have the upper hand with only one cop present.
2) He was remorseful for what he had just done and was caught "unprepared" quickly after, sitting in or standing next to his car.
3) He had absolutely no intentions of dying over this, because he wants to be alive for the aftermath and the infamy it entails.

2 or 3 also both seem possible, although for two very different reasons, given his freely given information about his booby trapped apartment.

I wondered about that also, but I think it is safe to assume that he wasn't thinking clearly at that point. It's conceivable that he planned to kill himself but didn't (couldn't) go through with it. I imagine that you can't really say whether you are willing to blow your brains out until you are at the point of doing it.

Liberty's Edge

He also had full body armor and the theater was full of tear gas.

Likely Police Arrived, couldn't determine who was who, were occupied trying to save lives and he walked out the back to his car when he was out of ammo and was caught there.


@jocundthejolly and Gentle Giant: He could also have realized what he was up against. There is a certain amount of fear when staring down the barrel of a gun for the first time, and he probably had never felt that before. He quite possibly forgot how armored he was. He could also have been shocked that the police got there as quickly as they did.

Basically, the police got their surprise round.


ciretose wrote:

Mental illness and instability are connected.

That is why it is called mental illness.

Not all diagnosis mean someone is dangerous, but some do.

Mental illness does not automatically entail instability (unless you take a very broad and non-useful definition of instability, which would also include very dubious and downright silly occurrences even "normal" people do). I'm shocked someone who supposedly work with mental illness (although not in a treatment capacity) makes this correlation so easily. Do you perhaps think you're tainted by the people you encounter in your job and can't speak for people with mental health problems in general?

Also, please cite the basis diagnoses which automatically label someone as dangerous. This is such an individual process that I'm curious which ones you'll try to label as equaling dangerous.


Nepherti wrote:

@jocundthejolly and Gentle Giant: He could also have realized what he was up against. There is a certain amount of fear when staring down the barrel of a gun for the first time, and he probably had never felt that before. He quite possibly forgot how armored he was. He could also have been shocked that the police got there as quickly as they did.

Basically, the police got their surprise round.

Yes, I would roll this into my 1st point above.


Nepherti wrote:

Creating a profile of a killer does not in any way say that all the people who fit said profile are killers/going to become killers. A majority of spree/serial killers I've read about are quiet/bookish types. It doesn't say that all quiet/bookish people are killers. But I think it does say something about not speaking up about what is bothering you. If you are shy, and something is bothering you, you are more likely not to tell people and to not get help. Therefore, the shy person is more likely to let said bother eat him/her up until it's too much to handle and the person eventually snaps.

Nowhere did I say that all of us nerd will kill.

I think the difference here, and I think it has been mentioned in the thread before, is that the same guy or gal would just be noticed sooner if (s)he was an extrovert instead and had a much more noticeable violent behaviour. Thus it seems like most spree killers are the silent brooding type, simply because the extrovert would-be spree killers are stopped beforehand.

On the other hand, people who are potentially much more dangerous, if we have to profile someone, are instead celebrated and given high status (see sociopaths in boardrooms, in the military and in "violent" sports).


I see what you're getting at, GentleGiant. It's just that because the extroverted/less intelligent type of killer is usually stopped before it gets to the point of something like what happened the other night, he doesn't technically qualify as a Spree Killer, at least in those cases in which he is stopped before it gets to the point of the Spree Killing.

Just like when you look at the technical definition of Serial Killer. This is what the FBI defines as a Serial Killer:
Three or more separate events in three or more separate locations with an emotional cooling-off period between homicides.--FBI Crime Classification Manual (1992)

There are a lot of killers who meet that definition, I will consult my research to produce names if you like, had they not been caught after their 1st or 2nd homicide. Thus, they are not technically a Serial Killer.

Spree Killers differ from Serial killers by one key part of the definition: Multiple Homicides with no emotional cool-off period.--The Serial Killer Files by Harold Schechter

The fact that the Potential Spree Killer is outgoing enough to commit his crimes before getting to the point of someone like the perpetrator of this crime makes him not technically a Spree Killer.

EDIT: I don't want to p*off anyone here, it's just that the study of serial/spree killers is a hobby of mine, and I can get a little in depth when talking about it./rantingly strange apology...

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Shifty wrote:
I am still lost, you have quoted something that suggests opening up the medical records to gun shop owners is a bad idea, which it is; there is also no mention of opening these records up to ANY employer anywhere, so I have to ask again:

Because you can't make a nonconfidential record system and expect people who have an interest in that system to not get access to it. If you make a record system any gunshop can access, then employers are going to get access to it, too.

ciretose wrote:
Neither should have been able to buy guns. Both had a long, documented history of serious mental illness. Not minor depression or anxiety, but serious, dangerous, mental health issues requiring medication and observation. Both were able to purchase firearm, legally.

Okay. What sort of mental illness will make you ineligible to purchase guns? How will you distribute this information? What promises of confidentiality are there? You keep going on about how these two specific people should not have been able to buy guns, but you're not proposing how you'd implement that without breaking down medical confidentiality. I'm not eager to have a mental illness register turn into the next do-not-fly list, nor do I want mental illness to be the new version credit checks before you're hired.

How are you going to stop mentally ill people from buying weapons without telling people who don't have a duty of confidentiality that the buyer is mentally ill?


Of course, if you killed a dozen people with your car, even accidentally and through no fault of your own, they'd probably take away your license.

In order to own a car you have to get a license, which requires testing for renewal in some states, pay insurance and have your car inspected every year or two. Does it strike anyone else as odd that a form of transportation is more regulated than a fire arm in this day and age?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"We were going to take away your rights, because you were displaying paranoia towards the government trying to get you, but at that point your beliefs would have been justified and thus you wouldn't have been paranoid. So they we can't take your rights away, but then since we weren't taking your rights away, your paranoia was not justified so ..."

151 to 200 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Folks shot and Killed at a Midnight Screening of Batman in Denver All Messageboards