Posted on 12/16/2012 10:32:32 AM PST by jimbo123
Edited on 12/16/2012 11:24:04 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That is exactly right.
The politicians of this country DO NOT HAVE STANDING to infringe my rights in any way.
A person only has as much power over you as you give them, and I give them no power over me.
Actually, that is not true.
There was the Bath school bombing in 1927, then the Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California in 1979, I'm sure there are others too but these come to mind.
Evil has been around for a long time.
Kid may have been bright, but doesn’t seem to have been all that bright.
There’s a report from when he was in public school about how hard he worked at his schoolwork. Then a couple of reports about how hard his mother pushed him to excel at school. Finally, after some home schooling, he took college classes at a local mediocre school and got B+ grades at fairly middling classes.
Sounds like smart, but not as smart as he and his mom wanted him to be. Also, the kid was clearly messed up at an early age while dad was still at home. Finally, the Columbine kids, among many others, had dads in their lives.
Charles Whitman had a malignant brain tumor that was diagnosed at autopsy. He was probably an Eagle Scout (and a Marine) before he developed the tumor.
Many of the Libs are saying the mental health situation today is Reagan’s fault, because he started “shutting down the asylums” in the 70s. It was actually JFK who proposed a shift from “asylum” to community care. The availability of SSI in 1972 and increased use of psychotropic meds led to this trend.
If at all possible, the mom should get the other kids to friends or family that can keep them safe.
Then she will have the ability to handle the problem and to do what is necessary to defend herself.
Even if it means charging the kid with a crime - depending on what it is, could be anything from assault (threatening to do harm) to battery (actual physical act).
Asylums DO need to be brought back!
Ever notice how these shootings really took off after the ACLU had them closed?
what do you think this mother should do when nobody will listen to her about getting her son committed,
_____________________________________________
]wheres the proof that she tried ???
If she did and was turned deown keep on trying...
Meanwhile get help for the other 2 ...
Protective custody would be a start...
relatives, friends...why hasnt she sent them somewhere ...
Plus remember this is a female who thinks gay marriage is just the cats PJs...
with that unstable thinking how is she someone whose story can be trusted ???
Maybe she was offered help but she didnt like the answers...
Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you.
What bothers me is who gets to decide and what is the criteria?
Some would say Conservatives are crazy.
Not all crazy people commit mass murder either, who do we decide who s\will and who won't or do we just lock them all up?
Sounds like Minority Report to me.
Perhaps not the best comparison, but by institutionalizing her other son, she will probably rob him of a normal life. Not that he would have one anyway, but as long as he’s at home, she probably holds out hope.
I would probably go ahead and commit him, but such a decision would definitely take its toll.
I just got through watching the original THE CABINET OF DR CALGARI. I can’t tell how it ends w/o a spoiler alert.
It starts with a young man in an asylum telling his story to another.
“This chick is a single mom, too. Where’s the father?”
Haven’t you heard? We don’t need father’s anymore, it’s all good:)
I would be inclined to let doctors, families and a judge decide who does or who does not need to be locked up
Thanks for the inspiration for a new tag!
wasn’t there a Geraldo expose that got laws changed?
Where I worked we had a man who constantly said he would like to kill the plant manager (The Plant Manager from HELL!).
He went into detail of what he would do and how he would dispose of the body.
Everyone laughed because he was a loudmouth.
But everyone was leery of a nice small quiet man who worked there. There was something not right about him even though he was a church going person.
He even had the toughest equipment operators shook.
Therein lies the problem with me, families I would trust. Doctors and judges not so much.
There is too much corruption and to many agendas being pushed these days.
Again, what would the criteria be? How do you know which person is going to snap? Do we incarcerate them because some one decide they MIGHT commit a crime?
It's a difficult dilemma to be sure, but I'm not ready to let bureaucrats decide peoples fates based on their whims and public pressures.
JMHO.
Well, if they are trying to push Granny into the home to get her money or something, I think that could be a problem. There has to be a professional opinion soewhere in the mix.
I don’t think doctors or judges should be able to initiate the process though
That’s the one, thank you. Unbeknownst to most of us, there are good people trying to help very mentally disturbed children, teenagers and young adults.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.