Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:04 PM May 2014

Those who stigmatize mental illness are harming my family, they can all fuck off.

Many people on this site have family who is mentally ill, or they may even be mentally ill themselves. They are good people who just want to live a decent life without facing stigma because of their disability.

I have a brother with schizophrenia and when I see people on what is supposed to be a progressive website suggest we should lock up mentally ill people who have committed no crime I see it as a direct attack on my family. I am not going to sugarcoat what I think of the people who are suggesting we lock up people based on their disability, they are bigots and each and every one of them can fuck off.

People can tell me I need to calm down, but when my family is under attack I am not going to calm down, I am pissed and I have damn good reason to be pissed. I am sick to death of the idea that a bigot's opinion should be respected and that we should debate them on the issues rather than just telling them to fuck off. I will debate people who have differences of opinion on a number of issues, but I am not going to pretend that locking up mentally ill people like my brother who have committed no crime is an opinion that deserves even an ounce of respect. If you take the position that someone should be able to order my brother locked away based on nothing more than his disability then I feel no shame in calling you a bigot and telling you to fuck off, someone who would harm my family like that does not deserve my respect.

Rodger Elliott was just one person among millions that have mental health problems, let's not pretend that it would only be people like him that would be locked away if the people who are advocating locking away the mentally ill got their way. When you lock away huge numbers of people who have committed no crime you may prevent a shooting somewhere, but you will also have taken away the freedom of many other people who have committed no crime other than to have a disability.

I do need to take a moment to acknowledge one group of people that does deserve respect, and that is the people who are making honest efforts to improve the lives of the mentally ill. When a person sees a tragedy involving mental illness and becomes motivated to work to improve mental health services without scapegoating anyone they deserve thanks from all of us.

Those who do scapegoat the mentally ill and produce more stigma against people like my brother however, well I am not going to apologize for telling them to fuck off. Stigmatizing the mentally ill harms my family a hell of a lot more than my telling a bigot to fuck off harms that bigot. If people decide to hide my posts while letting bigotry against people like my brother stand then so be it, I am sick of seeing bigotry against the mentally ill and I am not going to feel like I need to sugarcoat my language to avoid offending the people who are attacking my family.

104 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Those who stigmatize mental illness are harming my family, they can all fuck off. (Original Post) Bjorn Against May 2014 OP
I'm sorry your family suffers from mental illness JJChambers May 2014 #1
You need to stop with your bigoted attacks on the mentally ill. Now. Bjorn Against May 2014 #3
There's nothing wrong with locking up someone who is a danger to himself and others JJChambers May 2014 #4
there's a lot wrong with how that's been implemented everywhere it's been cali May 2014 #7
It says a lot about you that you would ask me to step back from an issue that effects my family Bjorn Against May 2014 #10
What in the hell makes you think that liberalhistorian May 2014 #23
Involuntary commitment to the state hospital JJChambers May 2014 #26
no difference iamthebandfanman May 2014 #33
Someone who has been involuntarily committed is flagged and cannot buy a gun JJChambers May 2014 #44
I'd be more concerned with people with a history of domestic abuse having a gun. Neoma May 2014 #60
They can buy them privately, am I correct? nt No Vested Interest May 2014 #75
Not legally Lee-Lee May 2014 #82
OK, that's even more liberalhistorian May 2014 #46
I 'finally' crashed and I happened to do it in VA. greiner3 May 2014 #65
Take their rights away when they have done nothing wrong. phil89 May 2014 #92
The great majority of the mentally ill aren't particularly dangerous. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #64
No one said this person's family member was a danger to anyone Leme May 2014 #99
No, he needs to take a step back because... JJChambers May 2014 #103
I consider it a greater attack Leme May 2014 #104
and YOU don't have a frickin' clue what you are talking about. none. zip. zilch. zero. cali May 2014 #5
be careful what you wish for Skittles May 2014 #6
If homicidal ideation is grounds for involuntary committed, then a significant amount of our society TexasTowelie May 2014 #14
This is one of the best posts in this thread. murielm99 May 2014 #18
And it's very frightening how many liberalhistorian May 2014 #28
HI and SI are grounds for commitment rustydog May 2014 #86
I don't know the specific details in Texas, but I believe there are similar requirements. TexasTowelie May 2014 #90
Why are you bringing Rodger Elliot into this ? Leme May 2014 #96
The OP started this based on his other posts in the Elliot threads JJChambers May 2014 #97
I stayed away from the santa Barbara threads, the Elliot threads Leme May 2014 #100
One may wonder your own reaction should you be committed (rightly or wrongly) involuntarily. LanternWaste May 2014 #98
K&R, and the Greatest Page for you. n/t CaliforniaPeggy May 2014 #2
k&r Starry Messenger May 2014 #8
I think we should have a way to distinguish mentally ill people like your brother pnwmom May 2014 #9
That part about him accumulating an arsenal is where the problem should have been dealt with Bjorn Against May 2014 #12
If Elliot Rodger had been involuntarily committed he would have been barred from purchasing a gun JJChambers May 2014 #15
I am done with your bigotry. Bjorn Against May 2014 #19
What do you suggest to protect society? JJChambers May 2014 #24
Yes, look at all the mentally ill who are liberalhistorian May 2014 #30
I think you're doing two things JJChambers May 2014 #34
I wasn't talking about state liberalhistorian May 2014 #43
They're more like to end up in prisons if they don't get treatment from hospitals and pnwmom May 2014 #80
I'd rather lock you up for being a poster who clearly has hearing problems. Neoma May 2014 #63
I feel your pain. bravenak May 2014 #72
Do you object to 3 day involuntary commitments for people whose family and/or doctors pnwmom May 2014 #32
I should hope not JJChambers May 2014 #36
There needs to be a mechanism other than "involuntarily commitment". Half-Century Man May 2014 #39
"One which would suspend access to firearms pending further assessment" AngryDem001 May 2014 #61
It would reduce the numbers available, particularly of assault weapons. The fact that pnwmom May 2014 #81
The Navy Yard shooter is a bad example Lee-Lee May 2014 #84
Any limits are only as good as what the government knows about a person in order to judge Lee-Lee May 2014 #83
You have no business even suggesting my family may be "shielding" my brother Bjorn Against May 2014 #85
Sorry, reality can be harsh Lee-Lee May 2014 #87
I am not sure about this shielding. Having dealt with the mentally ill, up to and through the courts freshwest May 2014 #95
Assuming his brother is dangerous merely due to mental illness is bigotry. Period. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #94
We don't. Period. cali May 2014 #25
we should have a way. we dont. the science is not there yet. mopinko May 2014 #57
How about common sense? When family members and doctors agree pnwmom May 2014 #79
common sense is no replacement for science. mopinko May 2014 #88
I'm sorry you feel hurt but I don't feel that way ecstatic May 2014 #11
What science am I ignoring? Bjorn Against May 2014 #13
you're speaking in generalities, while others are being very specific ecstatic May 2014 #20
well Leme May 2014 #102
There is a vast difference between a 3 day involuntary commitment, based on evidence pnwmom May 2014 #35
Your post should not have been hidden. bravenak May 2014 #16
are you saying what Ronald Reagan did was "For the best"? VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #21
No. bravenak May 2014 #40
We lock them away in prison.... VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #42
I didn't know that. bravenak May 2014 #47
It didn't use to be this way....AND families had better options...you didn't JUST have to decide VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #50
Here you go.... VanillaRhapsody May 2014 #52
Thank you. bravenak May 2014 #55
I hate him even more now. bravenak May 2014 #70
K&R. TexasTowelie May 2014 #17
Thanks, you are a good person and you do not deserve to face stigma. Bjorn Against May 2014 #22
I'd just like to send you this cali May 2014 #27
I don't have an answer, but for years we locked up the mentally ill, and... TreasonousBastard May 2014 #29
Locked out of your own earlier OP, so you're giving it another go? 1000words May 2014 #31
Attacking the mentally ill is attacking my family Bjorn Against May 2014 #37
Each day on DU, there are some pretty nasty things said about Republicans in general. 1000words May 2014 #51
A cyber-fit? Bjorn Against May 2014 #53
Rounding up and imprisoning is exactly what we used to do. JoeyT May 2014 #68
This is true 1000words May 2014 #71
sorry, but mopinko May 2014 #56
Pardon? 1000words May 2014 #59
yeah, no, you are. mopinko May 2014 #62
I didn't have the opportunity to engage Bjorn in the other thread. 1000words May 2014 #66
"let's not pretend that it would only be people like him that would be locked away". THANK you for uppityperson May 2014 #38
How can your family be under attack by people on message boards on the internet? treestar May 2014 #41
The problem goes far beyond this message board Bjorn Against May 2014 #45
I also remember meeting that one fundy who read the bible literally... LanternWaste May 2014 #101
Bro dogknob May 2014 #48
The extreme paranoia and auditory hallucinations ... 1000words May 2014 #54
Mental illness and hyper-machismo certainly aren't mutually exclusive, though. Just saying. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #69
Of course not. dogknob May 2014 #73
As I've said before, it seems to have been a "perfect storm" of malign influences. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #74
I live in Bro Central: San Clemente, CA dogknob May 2014 #76
San Clemente? My sympathies... nomorenomore08 May 2014 #77
It's a long story, but living in Calibama has its perks. dogknob May 2014 #78
agreed. I skimmed through a large part of his manifesto... magical thyme May 2014 #91
people, even here, have a very hard time mopinko May 2014 #89
It is just another manifestation of "fear of the other" Half-Century Man May 2014 #49
my best to you and your family. mopinko May 2014 #58
K&R DeSwiss May 2014 #67
I'm mentally ill too Prophet 451 May 2014 #93
 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
1. I'm sorry your family suffers from mental illness
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:10 PM
May 2014

But people exhibiting homicidal ideation like Rodger Elliot NEED to be involuntarily committed. Your behavior on this topic suggests that it is deeply personal to you and I am going to be gentle because of that.

You need to stop with the personal attacks on DUers. Now.

 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
4. There's nothing wrong with locking up someone who is a danger to himself and others
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:15 PM
May 2014

In a secure facility we can insure that person gets treatment. Suggesting so isn't bigoted. You need to take a step back from this topic.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
7. there's a lot wrong with how that's been implemented everywhere it's been
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:16 PM
May 2014

done in this country.

Learn some history. Or not.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
10. It says a lot about you that you would ask me to step back from an issue that effects my family
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:21 PM
May 2014

And none of what it says is good, if anyone needs to step back it is you.

liberalhistorian

(20,804 posts)
23. What in the hell makes you think that
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:43 PM
May 2014

someone will actually get "treatment" in a "secure facility"? Do you not realize the large percentage of mentally ill individuals who are incarcerated in prisons, being criminalized and receiving NO TREATMENT WHATSOEVER and it is only getting worse with budget cuts and lack of prioritizing of such treatment? Do you not realize that there is a shortage of, and lack of access to, desperately needed mental health treatment even for those who are not jailed and that this is a severe problem? Do you not realize that this problem is "dealt with" by stigmatizing and locking people up where they, again and listen carefully here, receive NO TREATMENT because there's both no money for it and no desire to spend money on it?

Do you not realize that such attitudes, including as yours, only serve to further stigmatize both those with mental illnesses and those who are "different" (like aspies, etc.), which causes a further criminalizing crackdown on them, which only exacerbates the problem? You seriously, honestly believe that people locked up in "secure" facilities actually get the treatment they need? Really? What color is the sky on your planet?

iamthebandfanman

(8,127 posts)
33. no difference
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:49 PM
May 2014

for some mentally ill people.

ever seen a guy scale a 12 foot high wooden fence with no visible ledges or foot holds??
i have at an institution.


im not sure why you keep shrugging off the fact that if he hadn't had access to the guns he had access too, loss of life may have been less?
school attacks involving knives versus guns sure seems to show that...

i would agree he probably needed increased supervision from someone , but locking someone away and throwing away the key isn't the answer for someone with an illness they never asked for or decided to have. that's just cruel. if you cant see that , no one cant make ya. just agree to disagree and move on ?

Neoma

(10,039 posts)
60. I'd be more concerned with people with a history of domestic abuse having a gun.
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:00 AM
May 2014

Rather than people with problems who show no violence whatsoever.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
82. Not legally
Mon May 26, 2014, 05:13 AM
May 2014

And in the case of this shooter, not at all in CA since CA doesn't allow any private sales.

Sale to a prohibited person is a felony, possession by a prohibited person is a felony.

Biggest problem is a private sellers isn't allowed to use the background check system.

liberalhistorian

(20,804 posts)
46. OK, that's even more
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:10 PM
May 2014

"magical thinking"! First of all, most states have very few "state hospitals" anymore, and some don't have any at all. And the few that do exist are overcrowded, understaffed and undertreated and that's not changing anytime soon because there's no money and no will for it. And take a look at some of the conditions inside these "hospitals". Minnesota's hospital in St. Peter comes immediately to mind, it's had problems in that regard for years, and that was only when it became publicly known. God knows what was happening before that.

And let's not go down that slippery slope, please. We all know that once the ball gets rolling, it won't be just the people you're thinking of who'll be locked up. And once they're locked up, the key is generally thrown away, as is their life.

 

greiner3

(5,214 posts)
65. I 'finally' crashed and I happened to do it in VA.
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:20 AM
May 2014

My shrink says I was lucky I did not go any further into the abyss as to be in a VA (Virginia so as to disdinquish it from the vets' thingy).

He had worked in one and said the conditions were deplorable.

Also, my father DID work in a VA (Vets thingy this time) and lost all of his real caring in the decade of Reagan and his closing of all of the state hospitals much less underfunding his particular VA hospital as it is one of the VA's mental hospitals.

 

phil89

(1,043 posts)
92. Take their rights away when they have done nothing wrong.
Mon May 26, 2014, 02:28 PM
May 2014

Yeah, we've tried that in this country, it's inhumane and paranoid and another dark chapter in our potential for mindless, fear based responses to problems.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
64. The great majority of the mentally ill aren't particularly dangerous.
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:13 AM
May 2014

Which is why your posts on the subject come across as careless and, frankly, callous.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
99. No one said this person's family member was a danger to anyone
Tue May 27, 2014, 12:47 PM
May 2014

suggesting he need take a step back implies his family member is dangerous... just ain't so any more than you are dangerous probably.

 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
103. No, he needs to take a step back because...
Tue May 27, 2014, 01:19 PM
May 2014

He was exhibiting some unfortunate verbal outbursts directed at several posters here. He began typing profanities and personal attacks in several threads because he was so upset by suggestions that Elliot should have been committed, which apparently be took as an attack on his brother (who suffers from mental illness, apparently) and his family.


This poster had several inappropriate outbursts.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
104. I consider it a greater attack
Tue May 27, 2014, 08:34 PM
May 2014

if someone suggests a non violent family member be committed as was done here

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
5. and YOU don't have a frickin' clue what you are talking about. none. zip. zilch. zero.
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:16 PM
May 2014

you are embarrassing yourself.

TexasTowelie

(110,140 posts)
14. If homicidal ideation is grounds for involuntary committed, then a significant amount of our society
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:30 PM
May 2014

would be in mental institutions and psychiatric hospitals. Those thoughts occur to almost everyone that has ever lost a job, had a lover betray them, been beaten or abused. Fortunately, most people are able to think rationally and use self-control so that they never do anything as heinous as the young man.

However, there is a significant difference between having those thoughts or divulging them in a manifesto as an outlet to vent versus taking actions against others. If people had the threat of involuntary incarceration hanging over them at all times, then it is doubtful that anyone would risk seeking psychiatric counseling to confront those thoughts. What you are proposing--having a thought police--is Orwellian.

liberalhistorian

(20,804 posts)
28. And it's very frightening how many
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:45 PM
May 2014

people, even otherwise intelligent, reasonable ones, believe what the poster we both responded to believes. Truly frightening. Especially as the mother of a now-grown aspie son who's always been under a cloud of "suspicion", and treated rudely and badly, because of it. But social treatment of those who are ill or considered "different", and how that affects them and often makes things worse, is almost never taken into consideration.

rustydog

(9,186 posts)
86. HI and SI are grounds for commitment
Mon May 26, 2014, 09:40 AM
May 2014

At least in Washington state it is. It is not as simple as wanting to kill or off yourself, but Suicidal and Homicidal ideations are grounds for EVALUATION by an ER physician, social worker or CDMHP (County Designated Mental Health Professional) from there, if CDMHP believe you need to be committed, you can be placed on a 72-hour hold by the CDMHP. Once called by the ER, The CDMHP must evaluate you before 6 hours passes or the ER must set you free. If committed, by law, you must go before a judge before the 72 hour period expires. The Judge and order you held for longer periods.

TexasTowelie

(110,140 posts)
90. I don't know the specific details in Texas, but I believe there are similar requirements.
Mon May 26, 2014, 10:24 AM
May 2014

People make statements in stressful situations with no intention of following through with those statements; therefore, evaluation and commitment could be necessary in order to protect both the individual and the community at large. I certainly believe that someone who writes and releases a long manifesto or starts recording themselves and places the video on YouTube is much more serious about carrying out HI or SI actions versus someone who makes a flippant remark or vents privately.

However, my post was responding to the OP above who essentially wanted to lock up and throw away the key for anyone that suggested either HI or SI. I hope that provides some clarification.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
96. Why are you bringing Rodger Elliot into this ?
Tue May 27, 2014, 12:41 PM
May 2014

The OP says nothing about Rodger and this family member being alike, except both have a mental condition. Not same tendencies. Is there some sort of connection? No. Only in your mind.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
100. I stayed away from the santa Barbara threads, the Elliot threads
Tue May 27, 2014, 12:53 PM
May 2014

I am going by what I see here. I see no indication his family member is of any danger to anyone.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
98. One may wonder your own reaction should you be committed (rightly or wrongly) involuntarily.
Tue May 27, 2014, 12:46 PM
May 2014

One may wonder your own reaction should you be committed (rightly or wrongly) involuntarily.

pnwmom

(108,858 posts)
9. I think we should have a way to distinguish mentally ill people like your brother
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:19 PM
May 2014

from mentally ill people like Rodgers.

His family said he was showing "extreme paranoia" and hearing voices, and refusing to cooperate in his therapy and refusing to take his meds. At the same time, he was producing these threatening youtube videos and accumulating an arsenal. His family was so worried they called the police about him.

I think that in circumstances like this, when the family and doctors are concerned enough that the family called the police, there should be a way to have a 3 day involuntary commitment for observation.

Would you object to a ban on people with severe mental illnesses purchasing assault weapons?

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
12. That part about him accumulating an arsenal is where the problem should have been dealt with
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:24 PM
May 2014

There are a lot of people who are not competent to own guns, many of those people are not mentally ill. We need stricter limits on who can own guns.

 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
15. If Elliot Rodger had been involuntarily committed he would have been barred from purchasing a gun
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:31 PM
May 2014

It is precisely because it is so difficult to commit someone who obviously needs it, that he was able to legally purchase a gun in the first place. Let us not forget in addition to the 6 he murdered with a gun, be also murdered 3 with a blade.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
19. I am done with your bigotry.
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:41 PM
May 2014

If you are going to continue to advocate locking people up based on their disability you don 't deserve any further response. Your idea is bigoted and I am not going to pretend that bigoted ideas deserve debate.

 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
24. What do you suggest to protect society?
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:43 PM
May 2014

We should simply put our heads in the sand and ignore homicidal mentally ill persons?

liberalhistorian

(20,804 posts)
30. Yes, look at all the mentally ill who are
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:48 PM
May 2014

currently imprisoned in those "secure facilities" that you're so enamored of (where, again, they receive NO TREATMENT). And just look at how "safe" we are. Yes, indeed. And I still really, really want to know what color the sky is on the planet you're on.

 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
34. I think you're doing two things
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:49 PM
May 2014

You're overestimating the number of mental patients currently committed to state hospitals and underestimating the treatment they receive.

liberalhistorian

(20,804 posts)
43. I wasn't talking about state
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:03 PM
May 2014

hospitals, I was talking about prisons. It's estimated that more than sixty percent of American prisoners are mentally ill. And they rarely, if ever, receive the treatment they need in prisons. And I am in a professional position to know these things.

pnwmom

(108,858 posts)
80. They're more like to end up in prisons if they don't get treatment from hospitals and
Mon May 26, 2014, 03:27 AM
May 2014

other psychiatric facilities.

Why couldn't this young man have been committed for 3 days of observation, based on testimony from his parents and doctors, along with those videos?

He was able to convince the police in a few minutes that he was sane, but he might not have been able to hold his act together for three days, under psychiatric care.

Neoma

(10,039 posts)
63. I'd rather lock you up for being a poster who clearly has hearing problems.
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:10 AM
May 2014

In one ear, out the other. Since you're so fixated on sending someone like me to a hospital for being diagnosed with something, I'd like to think locking you up would protect myself from the vilification you spew.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
72. I feel your pain.
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:50 AM
May 2014

I feel like he wants to lock me up too.

The supposed sane locking up the mentally ill just for..... I am not quite sure what crime i should be locked up for.
It's like watching Minority Report.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)
Precrime in case you never watched it. Locking people up for a crime that they are going to commit in the future by using precogs wired up in a pool to psychically determine who is going to commit a crime. I'm going to look through my dvd's and watch it again.

pnwmom

(108,858 posts)
32. Do you object to 3 day involuntary commitments for people whose family and/or doctors
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:48 PM
May 2014

have reported serious issues like Rodgers had, including the threatening videos? Because without that, there wouldn't be a way of discovering an arsenal.

 

JJChambers

(1,115 posts)
36. I should hope not
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:50 PM
May 2014

The involuntary commitment is what triggers a flag on a background check for a weapon purchase.

Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)
39. There needs to be a mechanism other than "involuntarily commitment".
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:55 PM
May 2014

A "further assessment" provision that can be invoked by law enforcement, family, or councilors. One without incarceration. One which would suspend access to firearms pending further assessment. A federally set lowest base with room for individual states to improve as they see fit.
The Navy yard shooter might have been stopped this way. A report came out he had a "strange" encounter with police around his public disturbance about being followed (or stalked). If he had a temporary hold on his ability got acquire firearms, he might had gotten the help he needed instead if going on a rampage.

The criteria for that is now open to discussion.
My adult daughter has a seizure disorder, her ability to have a motor vehicle license is dependant on her being seizure free for 10 months. Perhaps something similar here.


AngryDem001

(684 posts)
61. "One which would suspend access to firearms pending further assessment"
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:01 AM
May 2014

This only covers buying guns legally. A person could steal a firearm from a family member or even go buy one off the street.

pnwmom

(108,858 posts)
81. It would reduce the numbers available, particularly of assault weapons. The fact that
Mon May 26, 2014, 03:29 AM
May 2014

something isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
84. The Navy Yard shooter is a bad example
Mon May 26, 2014, 05:28 AM
May 2014

He had multiple violent crimes that went unprosecuted- had they been, that event would have never happened.

Time will tell if there was as a similar history here, where the patents shielded this guy from prosecution on violent attacks. But I bet it was the case, 1% parents can buy a lot of police and prosecutorial discretion in places like that.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
83. Any limits are only as good as what the government knows about a person in order to judge
Mon May 26, 2014, 05:25 AM
May 2014

And as I have said the very worst offenders in keeping those who are a danger to society off the lists and away from the systems are family, especially parents, who don't want their son/brother/parent stigmatized or labeled.

So they avoid contact with the systems, avoid having them legally adjudicated mentally ill, avoid involuntary commitment, and avoid calling the police when they commit crimes because they want to avoid any of the above.

I have seen it many, many times. They let it get to the breaking point, thinking they are doing the right thing for their family members but it almost always ends up going bad for them and for society.

People who stigmatize the mentally ill and discourage seeking treatment are a problem.

Attitudes like your failing to admit that many mentally ill people do pose a problem and danger to society in many cases are equally just as much a problem. And if your family has been shielding your brother from the system in any way, not allowing authorities a full and accurate picture of his mental state, you are part of the problem even if your intent it well meaning.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
85. You have no business even suggesting my family may be "shielding" my brother
Mon May 26, 2014, 09:27 AM
May 2014

I don't care if you put an "if" in your statement, you have no business even implying that my family is shielding my brother. My brother is not dangerous at all and I am disgusted to see a bigot like you suggest that my family is part of the problem. Don't think I will apologize for calling you a bigot either, you know nothing about my brother aside from his illness and based on that alone you suggest my family may be shielding him from authorities and suggest we are part of the problem.

I am disgusted that DU is willing to allow people like you to attack my family, and make no mistake about it you did attack my family directly and your "if" statement does not change that.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
87. Sorry, reality can be harsh
Mon May 26, 2014, 09:42 AM
May 2014

And I will read into just how defensive you are and see that I certainly struck a nerve.

Your experience shades your view. Mine does mine, when I was a deputy I saw all too often exactly as I described, to include almost getting stabbed on one occasion by a mentally ill son who had attacked his parents many times previous and they never reported. Then when they did call they didn't report that he had a knife and was attacking them only that he was "out of control", intentionally not stating how bad it was because they didn't want a big response- so I went in alone to a call that had I known the truth I would have had prompt backup, and was confronted with a 200+ pound 6" 19 year old with a knife in a psychotic break instead of the "kid out of control they needed help settling down" they called in about.

So yeah, I have seen the ugly side of it- many times.

People with some mental diagnosis are more likely to harm others and be violent. This is a fact. This is reality. You need to deal with it. Pointing that out doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me a realist.

This does include schizophrenia, and once again that is a fact. Pointing out a scientific fact doesn't make me a bigot, but denying it means you are not facing reality.



Quite often families of these people shield them instead of getting proper help and care for them, thinking they can handle it all as a family to avoid thier loved one getting "labeled" or "put in the system". This happens, a lot, and I won't apologize for pointing it out, and once again pointing this reality out doesn't make me a bigot.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
95. I am not sure about this shielding. Having dealt with the mentally ill, up to and through the courts
Tue May 27, 2014, 12:30 AM
May 2014
in cases where the family was begging for social services, and could only get them when the police came, your experience may be colored by not looking at the social safety net failures.

And many people, and it depends on the culture of the area, have accepted that they will not only NOT get any help, but seen as outcasts, and hurt by their neighbors or employers or shunned by others and deprived of all they had.

So they keep it a secret. This has been going on as long as people have locked their family members in their house and never let them out, and these horror stories are still going on..

You may not have seen what I have. I've seen the hatred and despair and isolation and bad results, including the abuse and the deaths. I have seen the workings of mental health courts with people being adjudicated to involuntary commitment, with orders of least restrictive environment, and flat out denial of services by states who don't fund these. The prison and jails have many of the victims of this. The police have become the first resort when if there had been prevention, they would not be called. This breakdown is national.

People do feel the stigma, but love does not allow them to give up. You may have run into families who were not informed of their choices, impoverished, or were offered none. Now, you have taken that failure personally, just as the person you are arguing with has, if you wish to look at it that way. He feels just as aggrieved and also threatened as you did that day, in his own way.

The language or term you describe being used in your case was that which some medical and social services use. Yes, it is a euphemism that hides the many sins created from the lack of funding. People are getting dumbed down in terms of psychiatric care, state legislatures want these people to stay out of sight and out of mind, even if the results are deadly, but mostly, out of their budget.

One of the most insane battles I have ever been in was how doing such things as caring for the mentally ill or disabled was done, supposedly on the cheap by a private corporation. The state agency charged with handling the folks thought they were getting a good deal, instead of the more traditional and costly route, or so they claimed. When confronted by many people about the cost to police, ambulance rides, emergency rooms, mental health court, injuries to self and others, property damage and involuntary commitments which were not happening in the more traditional milieu, one finally broke. The total costs were not less, he explained, but it looked better on 'their' books they gave the legislature. So the cost of defunding the safety net was just spread about, but it was all state money in the end.

I think your energy should be directed at the misuse of law enforcement and support traditional mental health care, and if you have it, community outreach programs where trained staff come to deal with this before it gets to the point the police are called. When police are called to deal with a social service issue, it's a failure that must be honestly and vigorously addressed.

I bet the family thought LEOs know exactly how bad it is. They may not have been trying to deceive you. I once had a misconception that LEOs are trained and dispatchers will tell police what is going on. They don't know and they don't take the time to find out, as they are stretched to the limits.

I learned after repeated contacts with them in crisis occasions, in my talks with LEOs, they tell me they are not trained for this. They treat these individuals as criminals as the hammer sees every issue as a nail. They are specialized. It may not work with those who may be challenged, unable to communicate their intentions due to mental disability or other cognitive defects.

LEOs are trained to deal with fairly competent folk. Community policing can take measures to refer people to social service agencies - if there are any. If not, we're all out of luck.

The police have been used improperly, IMO, for a long time due to the failure to fund and support social safety nets. They don't know if the call is going to get them killed, and unless they are into community policing and the person in question is well known, or has a person taking care of them that they recognize as a professional staff or caregiver, who is alert and physically able to protect the person from their own actions, the LEO won't recognize what is going on and simply make the situation worse.

I don't fault the police that I have worked with, who when apprised of the total picture, often went out of their way to make things right. They all, in every case that I worked with the affected individuals, when given the severity of the disability of the person they were called on, were furious at what was going on but felt helpless.

They all said they were NOT trained to recognize the problems, could not tell the difference between a person on drugs, drunk, having a mental or physical reaction, a legal drug crisis, or intending to kill them.

Certainly, dealing with a person having a psychotic break can be dangerous, if the person believes that someone is trying to hurt them and they will fight like hell. Who wouldn't?

But we are looking at impaired judgment with no observable signs. People that have not witnessed it as I have, don't understand what is possible. I've seen a powerful, but disabled young man going after people that were visible only to him. This went on for days, I just came in on the third day before all hell broke before I was able to get in touch again.

Everyone who tried to talk him down or reason with him ended up in the hospital. Others I've known have sent their caregivers out on disability. They did not remember anything when they got stabilized. Their caregivers all forgave them. Mind you, this was in a more controlled milieu than a family or private home care. I could tell you the stories of some these folks, who were physically, sexually and every other way abused, until they nearly died before enough hell was raised to get help.

They are not the origin of what they are today and will be for the rest of their lives. But they are humans, and were hurt by others. What was done to them was a crime, profoundly evil and unjust. They should get good care. Some do recover and get more independence as time goes on after years of good care in the right milieu. That needs money and committed people.

I'm not sure when you were informed things were as bad as they were at the home. It's easy enough to see the problem if you know the person very well, see the cues that precede events in some cases, in others not. LEOs won't have personal knowledge, and all of these folks are so very different, there is no stereotypical person to respond to in the way that LEOs are taught in school.

They just don't fit what some I know who are cops look for. They are taught some things, but they can NOT know the individual they are looking at, as the disabled of this kind are unique.

I know many dozens of these people on a first name basis and their staff. They are unique and it takes time to learn them and their ways, years. A lot of time that an LEO who is called out to deal with a disturbance does not have.

So I disagree with some of what you have said, but agree that some people are dangerous. But it could have been prevented, and most likely, not by the family you met. These really are the exception in terms of mental handicap and illness. They are a minority of a minority of a minority, a group that few people know at all. Really, people don't want to know.

I am glad you survived the encounter and that things did not escalate any more. The kind of people that are trained to deal with this year in and out, have back up to keep the disabled person and those around them safe and have a lot of training on this. But LEOs, unfortunately, only see the most extreme of anything. They do not see the good days, they only see the very worst days.

So you both have a point, but I do not agree that you struck a nerve with the DUer you are arguing with, as you seemed to imply that he was dishonest.

It can be a cruel and brutal world out there. LEOs see the worst. I've seen some of the worst, and I'm not an LEO, just a concerned citizen involved with this.

Peace Out.


nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
94. Assuming his brother is dangerous merely due to mental illness is bigotry. Period.
Mon May 26, 2014, 06:32 PM
May 2014

The mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of violent crimes than to commit them.

mopinko

(69,466 posts)
57. we should have a way. we dont. the science is not there yet.
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:49 PM
May 2014

so all we really have to go on is bullshit.

pnwmom

(108,858 posts)
79. How about common sense? When family members and doctors agree
Mon May 26, 2014, 03:24 AM
May 2014

that the person appears to be psychotic, and is refusing treatment, and is posting threatening videos, why can't the law give a judge a right to make that decision?

I think the pendulum has swung too far in one direction.

mopinko

(69,466 posts)
88. common sense is no replacement for science.
Mon May 26, 2014, 09:46 AM
May 2014

and there is damn little science being applied to those who hate their moms. srsly. shrinks hit that part and stop looking. even when serious brain defects are plain for the trained eye to see.

ecstatic

(32,390 posts)
11. I'm sorry you feel hurt but I don't feel that way
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:22 PM
May 2014

I've suffered from severe depression in the past, but I'm not viewing the discussion as offensive. If I began to act erratic or something, and my family and friends were very concerned, I'd want them to be able to intervene somehow, especially if doing so might prevent a tragedy. There's scientific research that details warning signs etc., and we can't ignore or reject science.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
13. What science am I ignoring?
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:30 PM
May 2014

Find me a scientific study that shows that locking people away the moment they show "warning signs" would be effective and would not harm innocent people. You can't pretend that science backs locking away the mentally ill because science says no such thing.

ecstatic

(32,390 posts)
20. you're speaking in generalities, while others are being very specific
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:41 PM
May 2014

In the case of the Santa Barbara gunman, there was a lot of evidence of his impending meltdown on his YouTube channel etc. His famiy knew him better than anyone and they called the police on him a couple times.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
102. well
Tue May 27, 2014, 01:12 PM
May 2014

it seems some here take a specific..link it to a specific..then link to a specific, then link again over and over
-
mental illness -> Rodger -> mental illness-> family member -> Rodger ( or however the linkages went)
-
I see no link between this man's family member and violence... I se presumed violence.. which he calls bigotry.

seems like bigotry of sorts to me, or misinformation.

pnwmom

(108,858 posts)
35. There is a vast difference between a 3 day involuntary commitment, based on evidence
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:50 PM
May 2014

from the people who know a person the best, who are concerned the person may harm himself or others, and locking people up indefinitely just because they are mentally ill.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
16. Your post should not have been hidden.
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:36 PM
May 2014

We lock too many people away in this country and it just makes things worse. I feel like some are trying to find a scapegoat. An easy powerless scapegoat.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
40. No.
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:56 PM
May 2014

I am saying we lock too many people up in this country. And that his post should not have been hidden. And that we scapegoat people all the time to distract from the fact that guns are a big part of the problem.

Everytime we have a mass shooting we see the nra start blaming the mental illness or video games or anything but the easy access to guns for the death total. We ignore the fact that most gun death aren't mass shootings and the perpetrators are perfectly sane.

He should not have had access to a gun. If he were my kid he would not have had the money to buy one. He also would have been on the bus since working was beneath him. Guns should be hard to get. Treatment should be easy to get and stigma free. It's the opposite in this country and that is a big problem.


I don't remember Reagan very well, i was born in 81. I hated him so much i just can't get into reading about him, my brain wont let me.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
42. We lock them away in prison....
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:02 PM
May 2014

Reagan closed all the halfway houses that the mentally ill lived in.....which created a big chunk of our homeless problem. Reagan used subterfuge to end care for the mentally ill to take tax money away from the cost of their care....thus forcing many onto the streets...and it has remained that way until now. Many many many mentally ill are being housed now in prisons....part and parcel because of Ronald Reagan!

Before Reagan major cities had many many of these facilities....some were completely locked inside of homes with high fences because they were considered more dangerous to themselves and others. While others were allowed to freely roam around the neighborhoods....they were called to meals by bells ringing...but otherwise they just stayed in neighboring parks during the day...

Still others had jobs but lived in halfway houses because they needed to prove they were ready to reenter society....or they just needed to have their meds monitored...etc.

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
47. I didn't know that.
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:11 PM
May 2014

We keep them in assisted living facilities in my city, but we do not have near enough spaces for everyone. We need more funding. I know people who commit petty theft in an obvious way at the end of fall in order to spend the winter in jail. They spend the summer in tents in the parks and go to mental health. We really need to start taking care of ourselves and our people better.

I did know they were in prisons now i just hadn't put two and two together as to why. I should have guessed.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
50. It didn't use to be this way....AND families had better options...you didn't JUST have to decide
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:20 PM
May 2014

if you could afford an Assisted Living facility if the loved one is not a critical danger to themselves or others. There were many state funded halfway houses. Some were not so great of course....it just needed more resources not to be eliminated altogether. But Reagan seized onto the opportunity when an outrage or two happened regarding care.....which as we know with modern day nursing homes and foster home systems...oversight is critically important.

TexasTowelie

(110,140 posts)
17. K&R.
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:36 PM
May 2014

I have manic depression, but that does not mean that I would do anything similar to the young man. As you stated in your OP, I want to live a life of serenity and be able to contribute to society. Material possessions mean very little to me. The only things that I want from life are to be reunited with my pet cat and receive some understanding and consideration from those around me--like I've tried to understand and be considerate to them.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
27. I'd just like to send you this
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:45 PM
May 2014


You deserve consideration and understanding. I wish I could I wave a wand.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
29. I don't have an answer, but for years we locked up the mentally ill, and...
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:46 PM
May 2014

those who we thought were mentally ill. Or might be. We tried to define and segregate the "criminally insane" but the truth is we aren't that good at identifying them aside from some of the most extreme cases.

It didn't work, of course. Nor did dumping a large portion of them on the street with inadequate followup care.

We do a lot of "fad" medicine here. Part of it is the potential financial reward if a cure or treatment is found for some disease, but another part is some group pushing for a cure for its favorite disease.

Mental health is not the sort of thing that can be dealt with a profitable pill or surgical procedure. It's treatment is often long and arduous and there are too few loud voices calling for better treatment.

 

1000words

(7,051 posts)
31. Locked out of your own earlier OP, so you're giving it another go?
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:48 PM
May 2014

No one is attacking you or your family. Calm down.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
37. Attacking the mentally ill is attacking my family
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:52 PM
May 2014

Don't tell me to calm down, this issue effects my family and I have every right to be upset when people are suggesting things that could harm my family.

 

1000words

(7,051 posts)
51. Each day on DU, there are some pretty nasty things said about Republicans in general.
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:22 PM
May 2014

Shall I pitch a cyber-fit over the "attacks" on my father, who is a Republican?

No one is going to round up and imprison the mentally ill, Bjorn. I promise.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
53. A cyber-fit?
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:28 PM
May 2014

You don't even know how badly it hurts to have people on this site who I thought I respected dismissing my concerns about my family as a cyber fit. I hope you feel good about yourself.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
68. Rounding up and imprisoning is exactly what we used to do.
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:37 AM
May 2014

And what some are advocating for being done again. Now I admit, I probably slept through some of my history classes, but I don't recall us ever having rounded Republicans up and locking them away against their will for the rest of their lives, so there's not exactly a historical precedent there.

Few groups is history have had as bad a time of it as mentally ill people. Virtually every group of "Round up lesser people and kill them" in history has included the mentally ill in that group.

 

1000words

(7,051 posts)
71. This is true
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:47 AM
May 2014

The example I presented wasn't meant to be a comparison, more than it was to illustrate the same personalization of "harm" being done by the words of anonymous posters on a political web forum. Furthermore, I see one individual presenting the idea of imprisonment and it isn't exactly being well-received.

mopinko

(69,466 posts)
56. sorry, but
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:47 PM
May 2014

wtf is wrong with you? you get locked out of a thread, chase him down, and the best you can come up with is- you are wrong, calm down.
jeeeeebus. what a jerk.

 

1000words

(7,051 posts)
66. I didn't have the opportunity to engage Bjorn in the other thread.
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:23 AM
May 2014

On account of, you know, being locked out of the thread for repeatedly telling folks, "fuck you."

We've gone full circle, btw.

uppityperson

(115,671 posts)
38. "let's not pretend that it would only be people like him that would be locked away". THANK you for
Sun May 25, 2014, 10:53 PM
May 2014

that paragraph as it clearly explains the problem.

Bjorn Against

(12,041 posts)
45. The problem goes far beyond this message board
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:06 PM
May 2014

My family has had to deal with bigotry from those who stigmatize the mentally ill for the past three decades, I view all bigotry against the mentally ill as an attack on my family whether it happens on this board or elsewhere.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
101. I also remember meeting that one fundy who read the bible literally...
Tue May 27, 2014, 12:54 PM
May 2014

I also remember meeting that one fundy who read the bible literally, and made no exemption for allegory, metaphor, poetry or even visceral reaction by the author. I dismissed him as dogmatic and simplistic... for good reason.

Although I imagine he too, would rationalize a distinction without a difference.

dogknob

(2,431 posts)
48. Bro
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:16 PM
May 2014

Rodger Elliott was not mentally ill.

He was a Bro with Bro values, Bro cynical worldview, and Bro attitudes toward women.

A fucking garden-variety, pathetic Bro.

When a Bro realizes that the world is outgrowing his Bro bullshit and leaving him behind, he seeks ways to display his puny Bro power over the people who he feels should be his inferiors, but are to blame for his inability to be a billionaire or get laid.

That's why Bros have to take other people with them when they realize the jig is up.

After they and their victims are gone, other Bros start babbling about mental illness because there's no way they are like that loser.

Until they lose.

 

1000words

(7,051 posts)
54. The extreme paranoia and auditory hallucinations ...
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:32 PM
May 2014

All part of being a "Bro."

Cool story, knob.

dogknob

(2,431 posts)
73. Of course not.
Mon May 26, 2014, 12:58 AM
May 2014

I will amend my statement and say that I strongly suspect that this particular Bro is not mentally ill, but got fed up with not receiving his birthright privileges.

The definition of Manhood is evolving. Generally speaking, women are making better choices and a lot of Bros are getting left behind.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
74. As I've said before, it seems to have been a "perfect storm" of malign influences.
Mon May 26, 2014, 01:01 AM
May 2014

"The definition of Manhood is evolving. Generally speaking, women are making better choices and a lot of Bros are getting left behind."

I would certainly hope so.

dogknob

(2,431 posts)
76. I live in Bro Central: San Clemente, CA
Mon May 26, 2014, 01:33 AM
May 2014

My congressman is Darrell Issa, an elite Bro. The longer California remains solid Blue, the more likely it becomes that something awful is going to go off here.

My girlfriend went to high school with Nicole Brown here. She recently divorced a man who worked everything in the Bro playbook to try and squash her into the pavement. During her divorce she was contacted by Nicole's sister, who offered a great deal of advice on how important it is to not become complacent.

That Bro did not "win." His "case" against my girlfriend pretty much got laughed out of court and everything was settled fairly, which to a Bro means he lost. Big time.

We are seriously discussing moving far away.

dogknob

(2,431 posts)
78. It's a long story, but living in Calibama has its perks.
Mon May 26, 2014, 01:36 AM
May 2014

I can pretty much figure out within 10 minutes if a person is worth paying attention to.

 

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)
91. agreed. I skimmed through a large part of his manifesto...
Mon May 26, 2014, 01:35 PM
May 2014

Basically, from day 1 mommy catered to his each and every whim. Daddy was absent much of the time. He was raised by mommy, nannies and the only person who ever said no to him, his step-mommy. And he learned that if he threw a tantrum and pitched a fit, stepmommy's "no" would be overturned.

And then he started being bullied by various classmates for being "different," which was vile and should have been stopped in its tracks.

And then he started hearing "no" from the hot blonds who weren't interested in his dick. And hearing the word "no" from girls, who he'd been raised to believe would cater to his every whim, put him over the edge.

He never had to work for anything. He learned he wasn't all that great shakes after all. He couldn't handle not being the center of the universe. EOS, imo.

mopinko

(69,466 posts)
89. people, even here, have a very hard time
Mon May 26, 2014, 09:51 AM
May 2014

groking just exactly what it means to have a bent brain. you are seeing the world through your, presumably well functioning brain. clearly, he did not have a well functioning brain.
every part of who you are is broken when your brain is broken.
things become outsized, perspective is lost, and you spin out of control.

call it mental illness, call it neurological illness, call it a brain rash.
it is really time that we got a whole lot better at recognizing the malfunctioning noggins running around.

Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)
49. It is just another manifestation of "fear of the other"
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:18 PM
May 2014

Different skin tone, different gender, different accent, different language, different system to thinking, different ways of learning, and different expectation from life all cause us to step back (mentally at the very least) and reassess our situation of the moment. It is much more constructive to use the differences of the moment to benefit both parties, than to maintain the gap or use it to suppress the other.


For those of us criticizing Rodger Elliott's solution to the "others" in his life (in this individual case, rightfully so). When we use this tragedy to make our own call for involuntary commitment, restricted public exposure, restricted public acceptance, and out right stigmatization; are we making our version of the video selfie manifesto just before our extreme over reaction?

mopinko

(69,466 posts)
58. my best to you and your family.
Sun May 25, 2014, 11:55 PM
May 2014

we are in such infancy on these things, and srsly, we could pretty much set the reset on the whole psyche end of it, and be a bazillion miles ahead.
freud et al were a great leap in human understanding, but they were about 1% true understanding and the rest human bias.
as technology and understanding zoom forward, my daughter gets dx'd as axis one, with a bitch for a mom, when really, she has serious bilateral temporal lobe epilepsy.
but, hey, that bitch mom, it must be that.

i feel ya. i feel ya.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
93. I'm mentally ill too
Mon May 26, 2014, 03:00 PM
May 2014

I suffer from MDD, GAD, "visions" and voices. Mental healthcare in both our nations is a mess.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Those who stigmatize ment...