Minneapolis gunman was mentally sick: Family

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Gulf Today

Minneapolis gunman was mentally sick: Family
September 30, 2012

MINNEAPOLIS: The man who killed five people and himself after being fired by a Minneapolis company suffered from mental illness, his family said on Friday.

Andrew Engeldinger’s family released a statement expressing sympathy for the families of those he killed and wounded in Thursday’s shooting spree at Accent Signage Systems.

The family said he had struggled with mental illness. “This is not an excuse for his actions, but sadly, may be a partial explanation,” the family said.

Police investigators said they found another gun and 10,000 rounds of ammunition at Engeldinger’s house.

The dead included Reuven Rahamim, 61, Accent’s owner; Keith Basinski, 50, of Spring Lake Park, Minn., a UPS driver who made a delivery there late Thursday afternoon; and three Accent employees, Rami Cooks, 62, of Minnetonka, Jacob Beneke, 34, of Maple Grove, and Ronald Edberg, 58, of Brooklyn Centre.




Read more: http://gulftoday.ae/portal/53282ec4-e8f7-4ce5-be77-c6aba98067b2.aspx

[Loudly]

1. But naturally his access to a gun and ammo could not be infringed.

That's a very important pretend right.

[ck4829]

2. But any guarantee of access to healthcare that could have treated this man is, wait for it...

SOCIALIST!!!!1!

[Atypical Liberal]

6. Says who?

Most people, including the NRA, are completely for infringing the rights of mentally ill people from owning firearms.

If you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution through the due process of law, then you lose your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I think most people support that.

[4th law of robotics]

17. Generally rights can't be taken away without a trial

we're moving away from that arcane practice with the DHS and Patriot Act but we still have a few instances where rights are held sacrosanct.

Don't worry, we'll clear those up in a little bit.

And it'll be awesome because anyone who says it isn't will be dead.

[aikoaiko]

86. You'll be happy to hear that if he had been adjudicated mentally ill for commitment...

...he would have been denied his real real to keep and bear arms.

But go ahead and pretend that there isn't a mechanism for addressing the mentally ill and gun possession.

[mzteris]

3. aren't they all? n/t

[slackmaster]

10. Yes, all mass murderers are mentally ill

There is no question about that.

[mzteris]

15. If mental illness weren't stimatized,

if we had better mental health programs - then a lot of these could be avoided, I think.

Education & treatment are the keys.

People & their families wouldn't "ashamed to ask for help" when they began to think there was a problem. Of course, educating the public in recognizing the symptoms would be a good first step. Maybe medical doctors could conduct a rudimentary screening for symptoms whenever seeing a patient.

[glacierbay]

4. So his family knew he had mental problems

did they also know he had firearms, and if so, why didn't they report it?
This country needs better funding and access to mental health services, maybe this shooting wouldn't have happened.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. There is little that "reporting" can do.

The man was evidently fit enough to hold down a job.

In order to lose your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms you must be either adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, through due process of law.

Unless he was considered a threat to himself or others, there is little that can be done.

[glacierbay]

20. Oh I know that

however, the parents could have reported it to a mental health service and maybe got the ball rolling. Unless that first step is taken, then nothing will get done.

[dflprincess]

25. According to the Minneapolis paper

about two years ago his family tried to get something done but he was not considered a threat to himself or others so a committment could not be forced. After that it sounded like he cut off ties with his family.

[slackmaster]

31. It's extremely difficult to get a person adjudicated as mentally incompetent, even with Alzheimer's

[Marrah_G]

42. There isn't much anyone can do about it unless he is hospitalized

Getting someone who is sick to accept help is an uphill battle that many do not win.

[slackmaster]

43. I know from experience - Even when you get them hospitalized involuntarily, they still...

...have the right to try to talk their way out, and only under extreme circumstances can a person be forced to take medication.

My friend who imploded last year and attempted suicide on December 5 was taken in by the police under Section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code - You may have heard that number if you were ever a fan of Dragnet, Adam-12, or any other California-based police TV shows of the past.

Section 5150 allows for a person to be involuntarily committed for up to 72 hours for evaluation. After that, subsequent code sections take effect. I called the police that night. They showed up with a psychiatric nurse and an unmarked car, and took my friend away.

My friend managed to talk her way out of the county mental hospital on her 10th day of confinement. She was able to persuade a Superior Court judge that she had agreed to a workable treatment plan. Her psychiatrist and the social worker assigned to her case did not agree, but she figured out the right words to say to the judge through brute force intellect, and trial and error.

She didn't take her medication. She never made use of dedicated crisis intervention resources that were available using the cell phone the county provided at no charge. She didn't show up for an initial appointment with a psychiatrist who specialized in treating Borderline Personality Disorder. Seven weeks later she was dead.

[oldsarge54]

5. And of course

He was a member in good standing of the local well regulated milita. Ask any second amendment apologist, because we all know everyone is part of the militia.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. On militias.

First of all, the militias that existed in the founders' day no longer exist.

Second of all, when those state militias were federalized in 1903, in point of fact there was an unorganized militia also created that includes all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not in the organized militia.

Third of all, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right regardless of membership in any organization, such as a militia.

[slackmaster]

12. The state militias still exist. Residents are still subject to conscription in an emergency.

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia--and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

123. Whenever the Governor deems it necessary, he or she may order
an enrollment to be made by officers designated by the Governor, of
all persons liable to service in the militia. The enrollment shall
include any information that the Governor may require. Three copies
thereof shall be made: one copy shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the county in which the enrollment is made, and two copies
in the office of the Adjutant General....

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Yes, but the state militias as the founders envisioned them do not.

The founders envisioned a decentralized military system parsed out under the control of the states, so as to prevent a concentration of military power under the federal government.

That system is gone.

[slackmaster]

22. No, the unorganized components of the state militias organize themseleves as needed

If you don't like it, then work toward getting the laws changed through due process.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. I'm not talking about the unorganized components.

Yes, I know, and have said many times, that the Dick Act created the Unorganized Militia.

What I am saying is that the state-run organized militia institutions that the founders intended as a counter to federal military power no longer exist.

If you don't like it, then work toward getting the laws changed through due process.

That ship left the harbor over 100 years ago, and the military industrial complex has all but assured that there will be no return to the decentralized military days of old.

As long as the people retain the right to keep and bear arms, I'm largely content to vote for whichever president is least likely to engage the United States in another imperial entanglement.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

52. So

....nothing in the Constitution?

[PavePusher]

56. U.S. law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. So....

Nothing in the Constitution.

[slackmaster]

63. You should read it. From Article I, Section 8, The scope of legislative power, i.e. that of Congress

...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress has been lax about its militia duties, but there is still some of it going on.

Arming: http://www.odcmp.com/sales.htm

Training: http://www.odcmp.com/Training.htm

[fightthegoodfightnow]

64. And AGAIN For The THIRD Post

Nothing in the Constitution.

[slackmaster]

66. I just quoted a paragraph from the Constitution

I'm not sure what you are asking for here.

When the Constitution was written it was generally understood that every able-bodied person, or every able-bodied male, was a member of the local militia. It was regarded as a civic duty, and anyone who shirked their militia duty was ostracized as a coward.

It was also generally understood that people had the right to own weapons.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. Not the Case Today?

Is it?

[slackmaster]

68. Until the law changes that, it most certainly is the case today

And it makes me happy that people like you are all eaten up about it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. You Keep Referring to a Law

...rather than the Constitution.

First you refer to the time of when the Constitution was written and then when called on it, you jump 115 years to some law you think makes your case when it doesn't. LOL.

[slackmaster]

70. You're not making any sense at all. The section of the Constutution I quoted...

Specifically says the states are responsible for their own militias. I did cite the California Military and Veterans code way up-thread as an example.

You seem kind of rattled. What's your problem today?

[oldsarge54]

14. DC vs Heller

And I for one think that the Supreme Court needs to revisit their 5/4 decision. Axing half the amendment IS wrong.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. Yes, axing half the amendment IS wrong

And that is precisely what happened in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act.

But the founders foresaw this, which is why they enumerated the right as one that belongs to the people, and not to the militias, nor the states.

If something were to happen to the militias, or even the states, then the people would still posses the means to defend themselves.

Also, the Supreme Court was unanimous in its ruling that the second amendment protected an individual right.

[slackmaster]

11. The LAW says that everyone is in the militia

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[oldsarge54]

13. Your point being

Now tell me about the words "well regulated."

Also, that law keeps being pushed just to give an excuse for everyone to be allowed a gun. It has nothing to do with an actual militia. That law is a NRA sponsored fig leaf.

[slackmaster]

21. Well-regulated in the 18th century meant in good working order

Also, that law keeps being pushed just to give an excuse for everyone to be allowed a gun.

That is a Straw Man. Nobody is arguing for everyone being allowed a gun. Most people accept reasonable restrictions as long as they are made by due process.

[oldsarge54]

26. That is why

my position is that instead of screaming and kicking, the NRA should sit down with lawmakers and cooperatively work out laws that would WORK. Be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem. I'm a firearm owner and I say this: Gun control does not equal taking your guns.

[hack89]

29. Like they did after the Va Tech shooting

when they worked with Congress to strengthen the background check system?

[oldsarge54]

32. Now yes

Now why not look at the whole control system and put something unified, consistent, and checked for holes by as many people from both sides of the argument as possible. A piece here, a piece there, no. We need a big pictures nationwide look.

[hack89]

33. Sure - I have no problem with a uniform set of national standards

I would love for my concealed carry permit to be valid in every state like my drivers license.

As long as there is no national registry of gun owners or blanket bans I am sure getting gun owner support is possible.

[oldsarge54]

34. We are in agreement

However, I think we are a minority. I'm willing to concede (but not understand) no national registry. And define blanket bans. For one, I see absolutely no need for any civilian to have M-16/AK-47 or equivalents, even if they are modified to be single shot. It is too easy to reverse that operation. Explain please.

[hack89]

35. Why do you want to ban semi-automatic rifles?

they are the least likely murder weapon. There are not enough deaths for the FBI to break them out separately - they are lumped in with all rifles and shotguns. And rifles and shotguns are responsible for only 3% of all murders. Banning them is pure safety theater with non real impact on public safety.

[Trunk Monkey]

39. Gun control does not equal taking your guns.

yet.

[oldsarge54]

48. Yep

And the moon hasn't fallen, yet. Real Americans recognize that there is a 2nd Amendment. Many just disagree what it has been twisted into.

[Trunk Monkey]

49. I will concede that YOU don't wish to take my guns

But there are entirely too many people in the halls of power to whom gun control means exactly that.

As long as they are there I will fight gun control tooth and nail.

[oldsarge54]

74. That is WHy I

Want the NRA to get involved in developing gun control. Freeze out the seizers, but cut down on idiots and madmen getting guns. This IS a middle road. I don't think any wants my firearm (laugh). A replica Civil War six band Enfield. The guys at the range keep teasing me about filing an EPA report before each round.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. The well-regulated militias of 1776 no longer exist.

There are no longer any well-regulated militias as existed in 1776.

[oldsarge54]

27. Good Reason for it

The universal right to bear arms predates the time when we had a large standing army. When the right to bear arms was written, raids by indians were a real possibility in nearly every state. (I think Delaware and Rhode Island were pretty much out of that, as well as New Jersey). I think the last Comanche attack on San Antonio was in the 1870s (made it as far as the corner of commerce and soledad. So explain, if militias are now a moot question, what excuse is there for universal gun ownership. Please don't say self protection. Self destruction is more likely.

[Paladin]

28. "Empire of the Summer Moon"

Have you read it? It's the book about Quanah Parker, and the account of that San Antonio raid is absolutely stunning. Highly recommended......

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Militias are NOT a moot question.

Good Reason for it The universal right to bear arms predates the time when we had a large standing army. When the right to bear arms was written, raids by indians were a real possibility in nearly every state. (I think Delaware and Rhode Island were pretty much out of that, as well as New Jersey). I think the last Comanche attack on San Antonio was in the 1870s (made it as far as the corner of commerce and soledad. So explain, if militias are now a moot question, what excuse is there for universal gun ownership. Please don't say self protection. Self destruction is more likely.

Yes, militias were intended to be used for external threats to the people. They were also intended to be used for internal threats to the people, specifically the federal government. This is why a decentralized military force was adopted, rather than a centralized one under the control of the central government.

We may no longer be under threat from Native American attacks, but this does not mean that there is no longer a danger of attack from someone else, or oppression from within.

So militias are NOT a moot question. They simply no longer exist anymore. Which is no doubt why the founders did not enumerate the right to keep and bear arms to the militias or the states, but to the people.

Also, self-protection is a perfectly valid reason to own firearms, as is hunting.

The second amendment does not say that militia use is the ONLY reason for owning firearms, it only provides A reason for firearm ownership.

It is like saying, "I am out of bread, so I am going to the store." This does not imply that the only reason for going to the store is to buy bread, nor that bread is the only thing that stores sell.

[Trunk Monkey]

40. Where do you get that idea?

Alaska State Defense Force
http://dmva.alaska.gov/asdf/

The Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF) is a volunteer organization whose primary role is to augment and support the Alaska National Guard. Our soldiers are equipped and trained for various missions including communications, emergency management, medical, logistical support, chaplaincy, and shelter management. Our soldiers meet for training on a monthly basis.

Texas State Guard
http://www.txsg.state.tx.us/

The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is one of three branches of the Texas Military Forces (TXMF), reporting to The Texas Adjutant General located at Texas Military Forces HQ, Camp Mabry (Austin), Texas. The Commander in Chief of the Texas Military Forces is the Governor of Texas. The other two branches are the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) and the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG).

State defense forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities

[Atypical Liberal]

41. Yes, some states do still have provisions for a militia.

Yes, most states do still have provisions for state-loyal militias, and 22 states have active ones:



But this is a pale shadow to what the founders had in mind.

[Trunk Monkey]

45. I agree that this wasn't exactly what the founders had in mind

But you can't really say that organized state militias doesn't exist.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. Nor did I.

What I said was, "There are no longer any well-regulated militias as existed in 1776."

There may have been a time or two when I get to lazy to type it all out, though, but my point is always this: The decentralized military system envisioned by our founders as a counter to federal military power no longer exists.

[Trunk Monkey]

47. THAT is quite true. NT

[Art_from_Ark]

72. 1791

That's when the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment, was ratified.

[Atypical Liberal]

73. The state militia system predates that.

The state-controlled militia system predates even the declaration of independence.

[Art_from_Ark]

84. Of course the militia system predates the Revolution

But the 2nd Amendment itself dates from after the Revolution, a time not of war but of when there was a wild frontier, and when there was a chance that King George might try to get his old colonies back.

[Atypical Liberal]

89. Or the government may turn against it's people n/t

[PavePusher]

36. When the militia is activated/called up, it is very well regulated.

If your screen name is accurate, you should be familiar with the UCMJ, yes?

[oldsarge54]

37. Hell yes I know the UCMJ

And what does that have to do with everyone owning a gun?

[PavePusher]

38. You brought up the prhrase "well regulated".

In the Second AMendment, the phrase "well regulated" referes to the militia, which can only be regulated when called up. If the militia is not in service, the "regulation" does not extend to "the people" in the non-militia portion of their lives.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. Says Who

You?

First, you folks argue I am in the militia.....then you say, we'll.... The militia can only be regulated when we want.

No such language in the Constitution.

[PavePusher]

55. Says the people and the law.

Go out and try to regulate someone not under active militia call-up.

Good luck with that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. It's Called Gun Control

It's important to a well regulated militia....you know, the people!

[PavePusher]

59. If I were in the milita, I would not be under Militia Regulation at all times.

(I'm not in the militai because I am currently on active military duty.)

When I'm not active Militia, the militia regs don't control me.

P.S. Please cite to the part of the Constitution that grants the Government the power to control me at all times.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. SOOOO

....the Second Amendment refers only to the Militia for which you do not belong. Got it.

[PavePusher]

71. Mis-direct, much?

The "well regulated" applies only to the militia. The Second otherwise does not limit "the people" OR the militia.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. So I Can Defend My Country Without a Gun

Thank Goodness.

[slackmaster]

9. No shit.

[daleo]

16. I wonder if he was on SSRIs?

There is a considerable body of evidence that these medications can lead to unpredictable violent behavior, both suicide and homicide.

[slackmaster]

44. Maybe, or perhaps he should have been taking some kind of medication but wasn't

Chemical imbalances work both ways.

My ex-wife became violent on Prozac. It may have been related to her ignoring her doctor's warning not to consume any alcohol while using the drug.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. Did she have access to your guns in her house?

.

[slackmaster]

61. No, I have always kept my guns locked up securely

My then-wife was not interested in them at all, and I kept them secure mainly because we had a child in the house.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. Good News

Hope someone who owns guns who may not be doing the same thing reads your post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. So THIS Whack Job is Now Our Militia and He's Constitutionally Protected ?!?!?!

Do you hear these gun advocates on this board???

Makes me wonder who is exactly is crazy!!!

[slackmaster]

65. Everyone who hasn't been legally disqualified from owning a gun has a right to own a gun

Some people, such as yourself, have decided that they should not own guns for whatever reason. I know a few people who used to own guns but gave them up after being diagnosed with mental illnesses.

That's a very responsible thing to do, and I for one am grateful for people like you who decide for yourselves that owning a gun is not a good idea, for whatever reason.

[Hoyt]

76. There is a difference between owning a few guns and a bunch of guns. Also difference in guns at home

and guns in public.

I think when you own a bunch, or guns designed to appeal to folks' baser instincts, there ought to be tougher restrictions, surveillance, perhaps fees, etc.

In fact, attraction to certain types of guns and gun use might well be an indicator of "mental illness."

[slackmaster]

77. You are certainly consistent in your support of authoritarian, police-state measures being used...

...against people who aren't even suspected of crimes.

[Hoyt]

78. Carrying guns against society is certainly immoral, if not illegal

because of lobbying by NRA, other right wing organizations, Tbaggers, etc.

[Remmah2]

80. WTF does that mean?

Carrying guns against society? No gun owners I know carry "against society". They carry to cover their asses so that when some miscreant attempts to rob them/their stores etc they can ask them to leave and have an upper hand in the negotiations.

BTW nobody has to leave in a body bag either. No means No, the handgun just reinforces the message for those that don't hear or comprehend.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. All Good

Contrary to what some might think, I do support the right to keep and bear arms.

I agree it's a personal choice....and I wish there was more agreement on how to minimize risk and maximize personal responsibility for those who carry....concealed or not.

Of course, I don't think the mentally ill are capable of taking that responsibility seriously...nor do I thnk those who drink or whose judgment is impaired are.

[4th law of robotics]

75. If you don't break any laws

you can't have your rights taken away.

Or more accurately without a fair trial that deems it necessary to strip you of your rights you can't have your rights removed.

Having your family members say you're kind of crazy is not grounds for such restrictions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. Right

Because until they kill someone, what's the problem?

That's the problem. They almost always do.

[4th law of robotics]

83. "they almost always do"

They who?

They as in people who in retrospect did kill someone?


Or they as in anyone who was ever described as a little "off"?

What rights do you believe should be removed without a trial based on how popular you are?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. Mentally I'll with Guns

1, the mentally ill with guns.
2. No, The mentally ill with guns
3. No, the mentally ill with guns
4. None, unless the popular person is mentally ill with a gun.

[4th law of robotics]

88. Mentally you'll with guns what?

1, the mentally ill with guns.
2. No, The mentally ill with guns
3. No, the mentally ill with guns
4. None, unless the popular person is mentally ill with a gun.

Nice platitudes. Like saying "we should arrest everyone before they can commit a crime".

Yeah, that would be nice.

How do you define mentally ill? How do you force every single one of the 100+ million gun owners to attend mental health screenings and then come up with an acceptable process for declaring them mentally unfit based on the assumption that we want to catch 100% of all people who are or *may become* insane.

[aikoaiko]

87. Thank you for posting this here. I like when gun policy talk comes out of the gungeon.