wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 796
Livestream link: President Obama to speak at Newtown vigil.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/livenow?id=8922466
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/livenow?id=8922466
As for the link about Doomsday Prepping not being MSM....how about NBC network affiliate WHDH? The video is at the link I provided.....The following is the transcript - the video with her sister from WHDH is online - again, at this link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/wow_waiting_for_the_apocalypse.php
WHDH 7 in New Hampshire, the local NBC affiliate, interviewed Lanzas former sister-in-law, Marsha
Last time we visited with her in person we talked about prepping and you know, are you ready for what can happen down the line when the economy collapses, said the gunmans aunt, Marsha Lanza.
The reporter asked, Survivalist kind of thing?
Yea, said Marsha Lanza.
Nancys guns were supposed to be for self defense. Marsha Lanza called her nephew a special needs child. So far, no motive has been released.
Just pray for peace, said Marsha Lanza. Do I think gun laws need to be changed? No. Its the person that does the killing, not the gun.
In your opinion, who should be confined? At what point do we make that call? Just an honest question.
That is true in theory but very hard to implement in practice. Who determines who is dangerous enough to be confined involuntarily? And how do we determine when a person who has been confined is no longer a threat? (We can't really even do that effectively with criminals who are not mentally ill.) What if a person has been treated effectively? Can they be released?
The old system of mental hospitals had many abuses, but the current system does, too. The current abuses are mostly those of neglect, but they also put the public at risk because it is so hard to confine someone who has not already committed a crime. But if we make it easier, we risk confining people who do not need to be confined, without due process.
And if she was? Does that make her dangerous or crazy.
BTW, isn't Marsha her ex sister-in-law?
And if she was? Does that make her dangerous or crazy.
If anyone would like to light a virtual candle during the upcoming memorial service or at any other time, I have opened a group room at gratefulness.org, a very large site used by persons world-wide.
The group names can contain up to four letters/numbers, so I chose a combination/order (CTSH) that has not yet been used: CT for Connecticut and SH for Sandy Hook.
The candle stays lit for 48 hours and you can light more than one candle at a time.
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=ctsh
IMO; stockpiling weapons because of 12/21/2012 does make you "off". You're planning on fighting off....Who? What? It's ridiculous.
And if she was? Does that make her dangerous or crazy.
BTW, isn't Marsha her ex sister-in-law?
Yes, there was definitely someone cuffed and on the ground at the school. One of the boys interviewed mentioned seeing him in handcuffs as they left for the fire department. I've wondered what that was about myself.
Wherever do you get the idea that confining someone because of psychiatric issues is a conflict of their rights of due process? Most states do have some form of a Baker's Act. The problem isn't in short-term, it is the long term that requires addressing.
Because something is "hard to do in practice" doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all. As far as I know, there is not now a system of public mental hospitals that provide long-term resources to the families with the mentally ill living in their household.
I work in a maximum security prison for young men convicted of adult crimes such as murder. Some prisoners I have yet to meet because they are segregated from other prisoners because of safety issues either for themselves or others. The most violent prisoners in seg. are not the ones in for murder. That said, they ALL have access to mental health practioners on a daily or hourly basis if need be. I have no doubt if some of them had enjoyed access to such resources earlier in their lives, they would never commit such crimes.
JMO
A member theorized yesterday that he was probably someone in the wrong place at the wrong time and then released after it was determined he was not involved in the attack. This makes the most sense to me as we haven't heard anything mentioned about him since Friday.
My gf tried to take her son into ER a dozen times or more when her son was suicidal. Every single time they would get there the doctor would say- are you going to kill yourself or are you contemplating suicide? He would say "no" and that was the end of it.
Often nothing can be done until it is too late or they have done something illegal. I can only speak for CA- but it is very difficult to get someone committed involuntarily. If they are not doing anything actively that is a danger to others- then the thought police cannot do anything at all.
Involuntary commitment is a slippery slope.
As you say, the men you worked with were already incarcerated- presumably because they did something wrong. Prior to that- unless they actively seek it out or agree to be hospitalized it is nearly impossible to get done on a hunch or a fear- even if founded.
I truly don't know what the answer is because I would not want someone to be able to commit me on the word of another person only. KWIM?