Expect more Sandy Hooks, not fewer

WND ^ | December 16, 2012 | Joseph Farah

[wolfman23601]

I understand what you are saying, but

1. How can you change this while making sure constitutional rights are protected? Who decides who gets locked up? Judge? Doctor? Relative? Jury of peers? My sister is a raging b*tch and nobody in the family talks to her. Should we be allowed to have her detained on our own word that she is crazy?

And under what basis if no crime is committed? You can obviously act on threats and known planned conspiracies, but those laws already exist.

2. I have seen nothing in the news, even in the most sensationalist stories, that would tell me that this man needed to be locked up and someone dropped the ball. He was obviously a loner and socially inept, perhaps slightly autistic, but that alone doesn’t make one a danger. There are millions of those out there that live and will continue to live non-violent, criminal free lives.

[TigersEye]

I have talked to two different schizophrenic people over the years. They live in a world that is beyond any normal person's wildest imagination. All sorts of entities talk to them and tell them amazing things.

I have also had a close association with someone I think was either bi-polar or borderline personality. In some ways that is even scarier because most of the time they act perfectly sane but when they go off their delusions are almost as far fetched as a schizos.

Brains/minds are just as subject to defects, breakdowns, injuries and disease as any other part of the body. Adam Lanza was apparently mentally defective from birth and his family knew it. They couldn't help but know it.

[dmz]

OK, some misunderstandings ...

Your sister (the raging bitch) would not be committed, as no trained psychiatrist is going to sign the committment papers. You (the family) don’t get the final word. They don’t lock folks up on your say so. It is the careful consideration of doctors and judges.

My mother had committed no crime (only cuz they never caught her drinking and driving), but she was certainly a danger to herself and others. The shrinks concurred.

I don’t think we have enough facts yet to determine if your #2 is accurate or not.

Your fear of loners and the socially inept being locked up for no reason are unwarranted. It is VERY difficult to get someone committed against their will.

[wolfman23601]

“Your fear of loners and the socially inept being locked up for no reason are unwarranted. It is VERY difficult to get someone committed against their will.”

I understand that, but you have been implying that this needs to change. How would you change the mental health system to make it easy to commit someone against their will without tamping on their constitutional rights? People all over are saying we need more laws and mental health needs to change. My point is I’d rather be free than allow a liberal shrink and/or a liberal judge be given the authority to send someone to the nut hut for their opinion (subjective or objective) that that person may commit a crime.

[dmz]

I think you’ve misunderstood me, as I’ve not been suggesting that it should change to make it easier to commit someone against their will. I was responding to what I thought was your opinion that it’s already too easy.

As difficult and painful as it is, I’d have it no other way, frankly.

It was my job as a family member to “steal” mom’s car when it got too dangerous for her to drive (psychosis is not a good prescription for driving), and had she owned weapons, I’d have removed them as well. I didn’t need an external force to let me know what needed to be done, but in all honesty, we had to swim denial before we got to that point.

I guess we’re pretty much in agreement.