BREAKING NEWS - 2 OFFICERS SHOT OUTSIDE PENTAGON

[muldrake]

From this description, the patrolman had no choice but to do what he did -- despite a mother's plea. Now the son is dead, two police officers are injured, and the shooter's family grieves.

The fact that it was a mother's plea has no more legal relevance than if it were a stranger's plea. Whether or not the law goes too far to avoid trampling on liberty interests and, instead, allows too many people who are actually a threat to themselves and others to suffer harm, it is an objective standard.

Like it or not, if you involuntarily institutionalize someone, you have marked them for life as a "loony," and they will have to deal with that stigma for life. Under the prior regime, your parents, even when you were an adult, could maliciously have you committed to a mental institution, subject you against your will to electroshock and even lobotomy. The abuses were extreme, and the current regime has curtailed them.

Hard to know what to do.

It's a complicated issue. Locking up people against their will, indefinitely, and subjecting them against their will to medical treatments they don't want, with minimal legal process, is just not a great idea. However, the issue is complicated by the stigmatic injury of labeling someone "insane," a classification that can make it virtually impossible to get insurance in the future, as a "pre-existing condition," can make it virtually impossible to get a job, and leave you a second-class citizen for life.

As much as we may lament that some people who obviously should be committed are not, what about those who should not be committed, but who will be locked up, when they shouldn't be, and stigmatized for life, if we make it very easy to lock people up against their will just by someone asking that it be done?

Not every complaint alleging that someone is "insane" and should be locked up is well-motivated. Malicious parents and relatives and even strangers make such calls when they are actually the crazy ones, to harass people, and to trash their reputation as part of concerted defamation schemes. In fact, there are even sociopaths who simply randomly call the cops, claim someone is holed up in their home and waving around a gun, just for fun or revenge. This practice is increasingly widespread, and is known as "swatting."

This country already has more incarcerated people than any other nation in the world. Adding a whole new avenue for locking people up without due process is a terrible idea.

What they should do is apply the existing standards in a more balanced way, doing more of an investigation to determine if the factors already laid out in existing law are met, act to reduce the stigma of mental illness so that having been hospitalized at some point for mental illness is not a permanent scarlet letter, and work to prevent mental illness from spiraling out of control in the first place.

The problem is not existing law, but police not doing adequate investigations. The factual issue is whether someone presents a threat to self or others. The actual practice, though, is that if police approach someone and ask them a few questions, and they're able to maintain a pretense of rationality for a couple minutes, the "investigation" is over.

[TollandRCR]

...What they should do is apply the existing standards in a more balanced way, doing more of an investigation to determine if the factors already laid out in existing law are met, act to reduce the stigma of mental illness so that having been hospitalized at some point for mental illness is not a permanent scarlet letter, and work to prevent mental illness from spiraling out of control in the first place.

Agreed. Any hope of that happening? Any hope of involving experts, not just police, in making those investigations? The ability to engage in rational conversations is not diagnostic of anything.

[kate520]

Somewhere between "Lock 'em up, easy" and "Do Nothing", is a sane, humane answer but it requires a rational and willing populace to put it in place. I'm afraid we aren't there yet.

[muldrake]

Agreed. Any hope of that happening? Any hope of involving experts, not just police, in making those investigations? The ability to engage in rational conversations is not diagnostic of anything.

Perhaps if they had a special police officer, or a sub-department, with psychological training and some diagnostic ability, they could do a somewhat better job. The problem is that even psychiatrists can be fooled by a good acting job, and you can't justifiably lock someone up just because someone (whose motives you don't know) says they're crazy, but when you don't have any objective evidence whatsoever supporting their claim.

[TollandRCR]

Agreed. Any hope of that happening? Any hope of involving experts, not just police, in making those investigations? The ability to engage in rational conversations is not diagnostic of anything.

Perhaps if they had a special police officer, or a sub-department, with psychological training and some diagnostic ability, they could do a somewhat better job. The problem is that even psychiatrists can be fooled by a good acting job, and you can't justifiably lock someone up just because someone (whose motives you don't know) says they're crazy, but when you don't have any objective evidence whatsoever supporting their claim.

There is an article in Psychology Today (not the most reliable source of information about the science of psychology) that makes your earlier point about stigmatization as well as my point.

Bedell had been under treatment for years for bipolar disorder. He had been in and out of mental hospitals at least three or four times. He had been taking medications for his disorder but had begun self-medicating with marijuana --- making things worse, according to his psychiatrist. He had had previous encounters with police, including at least one arrest. He had recently had a fight with his brother. If this information had been available to that patrol officer, Bedell would indeed have been "stigmatized" as mentally ill and would have been more likely to have been taken in for evaluation. His personal, clinical, and hospital history would have been taken to be predictive of his future behavior.

Would that have been a violation of Bedell's rights? Does a person have a right to be protected from themselves, even if they pose no immediate threat of violence to themselves? People who knew Bedell described him as "a brilliant and seemingly gentle computer whiz, yet so withdrawn, that people in this rural community where his parents and grandparents are civic leaders, knew little about him - until he opened fire at the Pentagon this week. Reports are now painting a picture of a man who sank deeply into mental illness and anti-government rants..."

The man who lost the most was Bedell. Maybe your suggestion of a specially-trained corps of police officers would have made a difference for him. Maybe the police ought to be able and willing to call upon professional assistance (e.g., a psychiatric social worker assigned to the PD) in making such evaluations. Maybe the police ought to be able, perhaps with the consent of a judge, to consult a person's psychiatric records or to contact a person's psychiatrist. Protecting the privacy of that past and those records came at a great cost to Bedell.

Psychology Today concludes:

Whether a person is mentally ill or not, one does not just "snap." There is generally a progression of behaviors down a pathway toward violence and those behaviors often become noticeable as a person moves down that path. As parents, teachers, friends, family, co-workers, and law enforcers, we should learn how to recognize those behavioral warning signs and communicate our concerns to people who might be able to help. Unfortunately, it can be extremely difficult to get help for someone with mental illness that doesn't accept the help, as was the case with Bedell.

Efforts should be made to de-stigmatize mental illness and the myths about mental illness and violence, while encouraging attempts to seek assistance and treatment.

It is absolutely true that the mental health care system was abused for centuries by physicians, families, judges, and simply mean people. It is also true that for most of those centuries, there was not much more that could be done than to keep people incarcerated, with no clear criteria for release.

It is also true that the system for mental health care was dismantled with the eager help of psychiatrists when powerful medications became available. They were assuming that lawmakers would keep their word to establish a community-based system of mental health care. It seems to me that we have created a perfect storm for the mentally ill: what they had is gone, they have rights that they lacked before, and there is for many nothing in place of what was discarded. In fact, we as a society have discarded them, often to live on the streets and to suffer in isolation.

I suspect that if we have yet another assassination of a high-profile political figure and if that assassination is done by a person with a history of mental illness, the society will then rethink its laws and practices -- too late yet again.

[muldrake]

It is also true that the system for mental health care was dismantled with the eager help of psychiatrists when powerful medications became available.

I don't remember that being when it started. It started during Ronny Raygun's mis-administration of the country, when he could get rid of a bunch of red ink by having the institutionalized thrown out into the streets. These were not cases of people who could have then begun taking care of themselves, but people who were suffering from clear, established, and severe mental illness, and would never be capable of surviving on their own.

So, he got his budgets to look slightly better, so that he could spend more on "Star Wars" swindles, by dumping an army of homeless mentally ill people onto the streets of cities, a catastrophe we see the effects of to this day. These are not people who were responding well to treatment because of new drugs, many of which do, in fact, allow previously untreatable people to live more normal lives, or even return to full functioning.

They were assuming that lawmakers would keep their word to establish a community-based system of mental health care. It seems to me that we have created a perfect storm for the mentally ill: what they had is gone, they have rights that they lacked before, and there is for many nothing in place of what was discarded. In fact, we as a society have discarded them, often to live on the streets and to suffer in isolation.

This applies more to the homeless mentally ill who have no hope. Sadly, Bedell is a case of someone who slipped through the cracks. He appears to have been able to support himself reasonably well at times, although he had been previously institutionalized repeatedly. The problem with someone like this is he probably would have been intelligent enough to fake out the psychiatric staff even if he'd been taken in for evaluation, and would have soon been out on the street again. He had never, it seems, previously committed a violent crime.

[Estiveo]

Sadly, Bedell is a case of someone who slipped through the cracks. He appears to have been able to support himself reasonably well at times, although he had been previously institutionalized repeatedly. The problem with someone like this is he probably would have been intelligent enough to fake out the psychiatric staff even if he'd been taken in for evaluation, and would have soon been out on the street again. He had never, it seems, previously committed a violent crime.

His few criminal issues all seem to be related to Marijuana use. His parents did describe him as "addicted" to marijuana. That sounds very much like self-medicating to me. As you said, he was an obviously intelligent, but deeply troubled young man and, for a while, anyway, the pot helped him numb it out. Is this an argument for medicinal marijuana? Prolly not, although I DO advocate legalization. As has been stated above, there are huge problems with how we treat, or don't treat, the mentally ill in this country. I know I'm not the only PJer to have some issues (debilitating OCD here, pretty well controlled now thanks) I have no solution, but not discussing it doesn't help. And that said, I really appreciate the sensitivity displayed on this thread.

[TollandRCR]

It is also true that the system for mental health care was dismantled with the eager help of psychiatrists when powerful medications became available.

I don't remember that being when it started. It started during Ronny Raygun's mis-administration of the country, when he could get rid of a bunch of red ink by having the institutionalized thrown out into the streets. These were not cases of people who could have then begun taking care of themselves, but people who were suffering from clear, established, and severe mental illness, and would never be capable of surviving on their own.

Reagan had a major hand in shutting down what still existed of a system of mental health hospitals and in preventing the opening of the promised community mental health centers. However, the movement to shut down the hospitals had begun twenty years earlier and with the best of intentions. It was not initially a means to save money; it was intended as a means to improve the lives of the mentally ill. Electronic Journal of Sociology, "Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill:
Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy" by Alexandar R Thomas

The fight over involuntary commitment during the 1980s was in some ways separate from the Reagan agenda. But it was fortuitous since it coincided with the administration's desire to dismantle the liberal era reforms. However to understand why groups made commitment an issue in the 1980s, we have to take a step back and look at reforms that occurred during the 1960s.

During the early 1960s a series of initiatives designed to reform the mental health system were passed. At issue was the system of state run hospitals for the mentally ill, which were increasingly perceived as inhumane and, with the help of new medical [prescript]ions, rather unnecessary for large portions of the patient population. In 1961, the Joint Commission on Mental Illness released Action for Mental Health, calling for the integration of the mentally ill into the general public with the aid of Community Mental Health Centers. In 1963, the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers [Act] instituted the centers, but due to the financial drain of the Vietnam War during the 1960s and the financial crisis of the 1970s, the program was not fully funded. The result was the release of patients into an environment lacking the Community Mental Health Centers to adequately treat them (Becker and Schulberg, 1976; DeLeonardis and Mauri, 1992; Hollingsworth, 1994; Rachlin, 1974; Rachlin et al, 1975; Saathoff et al, 1992; Shwed, 1978, 1980; Talbott, 1992; Worley and Lowery, 1988;).

By the start of the Carter administration in 1977, involuntary commitment had been restricted to those who were deemed as potentially dangerous to themselves or, perhaps more significantly, those around them. Typically, the commitment had to be sponsored by a family member and/or ordered by the court. A result of this policy was that the mentally ill patient who refused treatment typically did not receive any at all. If the patient had lost contact with family members, she or he would not be committed unless found to be a threat by the court. Often, those arrested ended up in jail rather than in treatment if they had not been found to be a threat but had committed a crime (Abramson, 1972; Conrad and Schneider, 1980). One result was a high degree of stress and frustration experienced by the relatives of the patient. Throughout the 1970s, family members organized with the purpose of correcting a policy that they perceived was wrong.

They have yet to succeed in correcting the policy that they perceived was wrong.

Perhaps what is most interesting about the change in policies of involuntary commitment is the coalition that helped bring it about: a combination of "law and order" conservatives, economic conservatives, and liberal groups that sought reform in the provision of mental health services. But the policy shift had hardly anything at all to do with the mentally ill or the practitioners who treated them. It was designed to lower taxes and shift responsibility away from the federal government. Ironically then, the need for reform perceived by those involved and concerned with the mentally ill (practitioners and families) was co-opted by the interests of capital.

Alexandar R. Thomas is a sociologist, so "the interests of capital" had to come in somewhere.

[bob]

That sounds very much like self-medicating to me.

IIRC, a doctor said he was self medicating with marijuana, which was actually worsening his mental-health issues.

[Estiveo]

That sounds very much like self-medicating to me.

IIRC, a doctor said he was self medicating with marijuana, which was actually worsening his mental-health issues.

Which makes sense, because Pot can't cure, it can only mask...and eventually there's not enough pot in the world, then the unmasking begins. My personal opinion is that the pot didn't worsen the condition so much as using pot to avoid treatment allowed the condition to progress...but the FSM Knows my only qualifacation to opine is the huge amount of pot I smoked in my wasted youth. NPI. That said, this event is tragic no matter how we slice it.

[Tink]

Malkin put up a post the day after the shooting that was his supposed voter registration.

Question for the Cali lawyers. Isn't voter registration info confidential?

[TollandRCR]

Malkin put up a post the day after the shooting that was his supposed voter registration.

Question for the Cali lawyers. Isn't voter registration info confidential?

CA may well be different somehow, but in many states two things are public information:
1) Voter registration, including party for which registered.
2) The fact of having voted in an election, listed by name.

The strongest proponents of provision (1) are the political parties themselves, which use them for mailings and other contacts.

It was from the public nature of (2) that we learned that Orly has not voted, ever. Political scientists use (2) in follow-up surveys. The total number of people reporting that they voted always exceeds the number of people who actually voted, and the follow-up survey permits some level of identification of what kinds of people these are who lie (or mis-remember) about having voted. Ordinarily, in the aggregate more people report having voted for the winning candidate than actually did so, but a voter's vote is not public information and no means exists to figure out who is not telling the truth.

[Tink]

Here in Ohio, you can access your voter registration info, but it only shows your name and address and the locatio of the polling place at which I vote. I would think that information such as date of birth would fall under privacy laws.

[TollandRCR]

Here in Ohio, you can access your voter registration info, but it only shows your name and address and the locatio of the polling place at which I vote. I would think that information such as date of birth would fall under privacy laws.

I don't think that date of birth is available through voter registration records. It is, however, available in multiple databases managed by the private sector. Even WhitePages.com provides an estimate of an age range, presumably to help you figure out which of the hits is the person you are seeking.

[joshaus]

Here in Ohio, you can access your voter registration info, but it only shows your name and address and the locatio of the polling place at which I vote. I would think that information such as date of birth would fall under privacy laws.

I don't think that date of birth is available through voter registration records. It is, however, available in multiple databases managed by the private sector. Even WhitePages.com provides an estimate of an age range, presumably to help you figure out which of the hits is the person you are seeking.

An you can always hire Scotland yard's finest, Neil Sankey, to discover the multiple Social Security numbers you've fraudulently used over your life too.

[muldrake]

Here in Ohio, you can access your voter registration info, but it only shows your name and address and the locatio of the polling place at which I vote. I would think that information such as date of birth would fall under privacy laws.

I don't think that date of birth is available through voter registration records. It is, however, available in multiple databases managed by the private sector. Even WhitePages.com provides an estimate of an age range, presumably to help you figure out which of the hits is the person you are seeking.

Approximate date of birth is available. Even though it's completely public record, I've zapped personally identifying information other than the name and birth date. I can't find any records that any Taitz is registered to vote in California. What do we actually have?

I also can't find Arnold. I assume it is necessary to be a registered voter to be governor. What am I missing? Is there a checkbox you can pick so that only the parties can get your information?

Registrant Information
Name: SCHWARZENEGGER, AARON M
Residential Address: XXXXXXXXXXX
CAIRO, NY 12413-3214
GREENE COUNTY
Mailing Address: XXXXXXXX
SAN DIEGO, CA 92135-7054
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX
Date of Birth: 10/1985
Gender: Male

Voter Information
Registration Date: 8/30/2004
Last Vote Date: 11/4/2008
Party Affiliation: REPUBLICAN
Active Status: ACTIVE
Status: ABSENTEE
Town: 024
District: 004
Precinct 1: 008
State House District: 127
State Senate District: 051
U.S. House District: 020
General Election 2008: VOTED
General Election 2007: VOTED
General Election 2004: VOTED

[TollandRCR]

From this description, the patrolman had no choice but to do what he did -- despite a mother's plea. Now the son is dead, two police officers are injured, and the shooter's family grieves.

The fact that it was a mother's plea has no more legal relevance than if it were a stranger's plea. Whether or not the law goes too far to avoid trampling on liberty interests and, instead, allows too many people who are actually a threat to themselves and others to suffer harm, it is an objective standard.

I've thought a lot about the sentence highlighted in red above, because I think it poses the issue very directly.

In my view, the question ought to be whether a mother's plea has medical relevance. It would probably take considerable searching to find a medical professional for whom it would not have relevance, particularly if that mother tells the professional of her son's hospitalizations, psychiatrist, and medications. Of course, that professional ought to be wary of any mother; some of them are downright mean, while others are themselves mentally ill. However, a medical professional would not stop with the mother. A psychiatrist, psychologist, psychiatric social worker, or psychiatric nurse would gather more evidence. They would actually ask questions of others, and those questions could have helped Mr. Bedell. (If they could do so under HIPAA, a law that arguably is doing more to protect insurance companies than to protect people.)

The patrolman was put into a position that was grossly unfair to him because he had no training for it. He had already seen bizarre behavior (Bedell leaning on his knees to sit, his declining incoming phone calls {from his mother}, and his general disorientation. I agree that alone should not be enough to hospitalize a person for even a day. But if the patrolman had turned the job over to someone who knew what he or she was doing, it would not take a day's hospitalization to determine whether there were grounds for seeking a judge's order.

In my priorities, legal rights are not always pre-eminent. The law cannot and does not solve most of our problems; it is not a problem-solving device. It is a means to punish and a means to adjudicate liability and equity. There are also human rights, not encapsulated into law. One of our human rights is the right to health care, including mental health care.

Mr. Bedell had a right to medical assistance. That right was denied to him.

As I said earlier, I don't think there is any number of murder-suicides that will cause the police, legislatures, Congress, and judges to rethink how they handle these cases. We seem to be perfectly willing to let Dallas, Austin, Virginia Tech, Columbine, University of Texas, and other bloody encounters occur without doing much to try to fix the underlying problems. It will take a case that will outrage the public that has a chance of bringing about change. And it is very likely that part of that outrage will be directed at the next patrolman who is asked to do a job that he or she does not know how to do.