OR - Emilio Hoffman, 14, killed in Troutdale high school shooting, 10 June 2014

[CARIIS]

School shootings since Sandy Hook map
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5797306/map-school-shooting-sandy-hook

Good find - worse than imagined!

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

That is the imminent danger piece for admission. The only thing that "goes out the door" is the ability (for a very short time usually 72 hours) not to leave. If after 72 hours that individual wants DC they can leave unless it is taken to a court.

Being admitted involuntarily does not breach confidentiality or privileged communication. By that I mean no one "posts" releases etc. that Joe Smith was involuntarily omitted for evaluation of imminent danger.

Confidentiality, even in those instances is not breached.

If my hospitalization could be reported to a firearms database per Illinois law, then there has to be something we can do to make that possible for anyone who has been a threat to themselves or others. Inpatient or outpatient.

Somehow, someway, we have to consider the greater good for society. What we're doing now just isn't working.

 

[blue22]

That is the imminent danger piece for admission. The only thing that "goes out the door" is the ability (for a very short time usually 72 hours) not to leave. If after 72 hours that individual wants DC they can leave unless it is taken to a court.

Being admitted involuntarily does not breach confidentiality or privileged communication. By that I mean no one "posts" releases etc. that Joe Smith was involuntarily omitted for evaluation of imminent danger.

Confidentiality, even in those instances is not breached.

I believe that mental health professionals have the right to contact authorities, if they feel a patient is a danger to society.

If a mental health professional believes a patient is disturbed and dangerous they should be able to flag that, so it shows up when trying to purchase a gun. I'm not talking about every person who takes an antidepressant. I'm talking the most severely disturbed and dangerous in the population...which is a small number of people.

At some point, the safety of the majority is going to have to take precedence over the privacy rights of the small percentage of very dangerous.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

That is the imminent danger piece for admission. The only thing that "goes out the door" is the ability (for a very short time usually 72 hours) not to leave. If after 72 hours that individual wants DC they can leave unless it is taken to a court.

Being admitted involuntarily does not breach confidentiality or privileged communication. By that I mean no one "posts" releases etc. that Joe Smith was involuntarily omitted for evaluation of imminent danger.

Confidentiality, even in those instances is not breached.

My hospitalization was completely voluntary. The in-take worker even said I didn't have to sign the form. However, my admission would still be reported to the state and I would be ineligible to purchase anything firearm related.

It's being done already. With or without permission of sufferers of mental illness.

 

[txsvicki]

Just curious what the difference is besides they way you carry it?

Regular backpacks are big. I'm not really sure, because I think a handgun would fit. The small non bulky ones have the strings so they can be carried on the back like a backpack.

 

[CARIIS]

Please see my post above this reply. Confidentiality in IL goes out the door when a person is admitted for psychiatric care and is deemed a threat to themselves or others. I have a hard time believing the same laws can't be enacted even if a mentally ill person isn't admitted. It's being done here if you're inpatient... why can't it be done as outpatient as well?

That being said -- we don't know if this was related to mental illness. How do we get to the ones who are receiving no treatment at all? It's all just a great big mess.

You are correct! But, who are they reporting it too? How many have been invol committed? Gun shows nothing. We ignore black market. Most ill are not dangerous. If you look at a lot of them recently - mentally ill but not committed- not enough beds.

So the notion that a national database would help with this is unrealistic in doing anything meaningful. Lord the thought of 50 states and the federal got getting their act together to make a uniform deal is overwhelmingly unrealistic.
. Found a link - it is so nuts - how would a national data base be made - every state has different laws . It would take decades


Just look at this mess: http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

SO, where are we?

 

[CARIIS]

Regular backpacks are big. I'm not really sure, because I think a handgun would fit. The small non bulky ones have the strings so they can be carried on the back like a backpack.

I have truly learned today the importance of backpacks to this generation. What about transparent only!

 

[Spice]

I believe that mental health professionals have the right to contact authorities, if they feel a patient is a danger to society.

If a mental health professional believes a patient is disturbed and dangerous they should be able to flag that, so it shows up when trying to purchase a gun. I'm not talking about every person who takes an antidepressant. I'm talking the most severely disturbed and dangerous in the population...which is a small number of people.

At some point, the safety of the majority is going to have to take precedence over the privacy rights of the small percentage of very dangerous.

They are . It's called a Tarasoff Warning or "Duty To Warn'. But it is used sparingly and only if absolutely deemed necessary by the professional making the assessment. Client Confidentiality is taken very seriously. You can lose your license if it is done haphazardly.

They do have a "Duty To Warn" potential victims of imminent danger. It wasn't always this way. Duty To Warn came out of a dangerous client that murdered someone and the therapist did not warn as there were no parameters at the time to of when and how a mandated reporter (Social Worker or Psychologist Clinician) could break confidentiality. Duty To Warn became law in the 70's.

Someone asked who they "report it too". The answer is the Clinician has to call the police and the potential victim.

http://psychology.about.com/od/dindex/g/def_dutytowarn.htm

 

[CARIIS]

My hospitalization was completely voluntary. The in-take worker even said I didn't have to sign the form. However, my admission would still be reported to the state and I would be ineligible to purchase anything firearm related.

It's being done already. With or without permission of sufferers of mental illness.

I retired in 05 - has it all changed since then? Look at link below re the mess! It just isnt going to do anything meaningful. Has 4 dui stopped the fifth one- there has to be a doable ( I am sorry - maybe I am desperate - I really like no back packs I am sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


S O M E T H I N G by day after tomm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[blue22]

They are . It's called a Tarasoff Warning or "Duty To Warn'. But it is used sparingly and only if absolutely deemed necessary by the professional making the assessment. Client Confidentiality is taken very seriously. You can lose your license if it is done haphazardly.

They do have a "Duty To Warn" potential victims of imminent danger. It wasn't always this way. Duty To Warn came out of a dangerous client that murdered someone and the therapist did not warn as there were no parameters at the time to of when and how a mandated reporter (Social Worker or Psychologist Clinician) could break confidentiality. Duty To Warn became law in the 70's.


http://psychology.about.com/od/dindex/g/def_dutytowarn.htm

And the duty to warn was so effective in the Aurora shooting. :banghead:

I think if a psychiatrist is warning police about danger, that person should be flagged and unable to legally purchase a gun. To me, it's that simple.

 

[Spice]

And the duty to warn was so effective in the Aurora shooting. :banghead:

I think if a psychiatrist is warning police about danger, that person should be flagged and unable to legally purchase a gun. To me, it's that simple.

Was there a Tarasoff Warning by a Mental Health Professional before the Aurora Shooting? I didn't realize that. Geez!!! (That exasperation is not directed at you, it's directed at the situation).

 

[LaLaw2000]

This is so, so very sad. These young people were probably so excited about summer vacation.

I heard that school's graduation was scheduled for tomorrow evening. It will certainly be a somber one now.

My heart is just breaking for these kids.

lease:

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

I retired in 05 - has it all changed since then? Look at link below re the mess! It just isnt going to do anything meaningful. Has 4 dui stopped the fifth one- there has to be a doable ( I am sorry - maybe I am desperate - I really like no back packs I am sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


S O M E T H I N G by day after tomm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No apologies, CARIIS! We're all feeling desperate. I don't know what the answer is. I still like the backpack idea. I only know there are laws out there that can prevent the mentally ill from purchasing fire arms.

Chicago has a ban on firearms -- and we've had the highest murder rate for years. We know all too well how many times the law doesn't achieve what we hope it would.

ETA: I was admitted to the hospital in May of 2006 just as a point of reference.

 

[blue22]

No apologies, CARIIS! We're all feeling desperate. I don't know what the answer is. I still like the backpack idea. I only know there are laws out there that can prevent the mentally ill from purchasing fire arms.

Chicago has a ban on firearms -- and we've had the highest murder rate for years. We know all too well how many times the law doesn't achieve what we hope it would.

What's the point of strict gun laws, when you can drive a little ways and buy a gun under lighter gun laws? I think Chicago highlights the need for federal laws. Chicago, California...they prove states can't singularly fight this as a state.

 

[SilkySifaka]

The biggest problem is that mental health treatment is simply not available to a large proportion of society. Unless you have wealthy family in the States (or that can afford mental health insurance) it is almost impossible to get good in depth and long term treatment. Especially if you aren't an imminent danger which you essentially have to be holding the gun or standing on the railing of the bridge before they hold you. Most dangerous people aren't stupid, they won't admit to wanting to kill people until they are long past the time they needed to start getting treatment.

For the ones who do ask for help though there simply isn't the support. If you are schizophrenic for example, you often don't have a lifestyle that allows you to pay for treatment and stay in it (i won't even mention the difficulty of staying on meds if not an inpatient)

Mental health should be covered from the get go by the community, states and federal government. If we made it a norm then the stigma would go away too. I would like to see standard evaluations of teens at 15 and 18 to see if any issues are surfacing they need help dealing with as these are ages that it often comes out in.

I also agree the guns have to be stopped. I wish gun control wasn't such a hot button issue, in Canada we have strict gun control but everyone who hunts or farmers have a shotgun, so it isn't as if we stop ownership. There isn't even a registry for those (there used to be but it has been ended) Except for pistols and autojmatic weapons. We have Toronto or Vancouver that are the size of Chicago and only a handful of homicides compared to the hundreds there.

 

[blue22]

Was there a Tarasoff Warning by a Mental Health Professional before the Aurora Shooting? I didn't realize that. Geez!!! (That exasperation is not directed at you, it's directed at the situation).

Apologies, I should have been more clear. I don't know if that specific measure was taken, but she did notify authorities of his behavior weeks before the shooting. Isn't that the only way she could legally do that, as his mental health physician? I don't know. Either way, whatever she did was not effective...obviously.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

What's the point of strict gun laws, when you can drive a little ways and buy a gun under lighter gun laws? I think Chicago highlights the need for federal laws. Chicago, California...they prove states can't singularly fight this as a state.

I agree, municipality attempting to control guns has been a huge failure. We have databases for sex offenders. Why not for this issue? Surely, there are more sex offenders than mentally ill dangerous people?

Or maybe, they can be state run which then link to one another? I dunno, we have so much technology these days. I can't believe it's an impossibility.

 

[Spice]

An assistant principal told students to go into lockdown mode.
"At the end he said: 'This is not a drill,'" Infante told CNN.

Officials believe they know who the gunman was, but they are "not confident enough" to reveal details yet, Troutdale Police Chief Scott Anderson told reporters midday Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/oregon-high-school-shooting/

Is it me or does anyone else get annoyed with the press jumping on these children for a quote directly in the aftermath of these shootings? I remember them interviewing elementary school children 10 minutes after Sandy Hook and I was so repulsed by it.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/justice/oregon-high-school-shooting/

Is it me or does anyone else get annoyed with the press jumping on these children for a quote directly in the aftermath of these shootings? I remember them interviewing elementary school children 10 minutes after Sandy Hook and I was so repulsed by it.

I'm so with you. I turned off the live stream when they started interviewing the kids. Give them and their families some privacy.

 

[Spice]

Apologies, I should have been more clear. I don't know if that specific measure was taken, but she did notify authorities of his behavior weeks before the shooting. Isn't that the only way she could legally do that, as his mental health physician? I don't know. Either way, whatever she did was not effective...obviously.

No apologies! I didn't know that she had notified anyone of his behavior, or stated that he was a "danger" prior to the shooting. If she notified to warn then yes, she used a Tarasoff Warning/Duty To Warn. Its the only way she is allowed to legally break confidentiality to anyone including authorities. Tarasoff is intended to protect potential victims from harm and mental health professionals from prosecution for breaking confidentiality.

If she called with a general, "I'm concerned about this client, he may need to be hospitalized" but went no further and gave no detail or information regarding his identity than she wasn't using duty to warn. There is a big difference.

I would be interested to know what happened after she warned Law Enforcement and what the trail of communication was after that and up to the shootings. I'll google around and see.