CARIIS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 25,470
- Reaction score
- 10,696
Good find - worse than imagined!School shootings since Sandy Hook map
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5797306/map-school-shooting-sandy-hook
Good find - worse than imagined!School shootings since Sandy Hook map
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5797306/map-school-shooting-sandy-hook
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.
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.
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.
Just curious what the difference is besides they way you carry it?
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.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.![]()
I have truly learned today the importance of backpacks to this generation. What about transparent only!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 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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.