Mental illness is defined from a societal and somewhat medical perspective and has changed over time. Up until the DSM-3, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. A diagnosis also does not necessarily correlate to violence. Though the risk factors increase somewhat for people who are paranoid (typically associated with some forms of schizophrenia and bi-polar d/o) as well as people who receive "command hallucinations" both of which are fairly rare; people with diagnosed mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence rather than perpetrators.

Typically people with mental illness lead lives of quiet suffering unless or until they are brought to the attention of LE or MHS staff by distraught parents or because they are behaving strangely in public. When brought into MHS, there are very limited services available and client's rights are emphasized (rightfully so) due to past abuses. Privacy is also emphasized because of the public's ignorance about mental illness and the great stigma attached to having a mental illness. When people here schizophrenia they almost instinctively think about scary people being driven to kill by voices telling them what to do (again, this is exceedingly rare).

ArmedAznF wrote:I am with Thomas Szasz on mental illness...it's the modern day version of the witch hunt...used to demonize people with the 'wrong' opinions, preferences or behavioural patterns. Remember when homosexuality was a mental illness? Women had 'hysteria'?

I don't know how people can be so cavalier about the power of a coercive centralized state. Whatever happened to liberals being, urr, liberal. H/t John Stuart Mill. What happened to ultra-decentralist Progressivism? H/t John T. Flynn.

K. That was my rant.

I think that there is definitely some of that going on but mainly because of ignorance rather than malice. Most people accept and adapt to a "standard" or "norm" that tends to widen as time passes. That is how society functions.

When people make extreme statements like Szasz's, they shoot their credibility down somewhat. People who are "eccentric" or "odd" often get lumped into mental illness and to me that is a crime.

There are however, people who are severely affected by a biological or physiological condition that affects how they interpret visual, auditory, and social cues. People who are truly paranoid, who think that demons are after them, people who think that if they drink water, that a piece of their soul is lost who thus kill themselves by dehydration.

The difficult part is determining what is going on, whether it is causing suffering in a person's life, or creating such a disruption in the community that intervention is needed.

I worked with a person who had auditory hallucinations that told him jokes. He was always laughing and good natured. I wondered why he had been stuck in a social rehab program with those symptoms since he wasn't bothered by or bothering anyone. I also worked with said person who would not eat or drink because his soul would disappear. He went from 160 pounds to 130 within the span of 2 weeks and was so dehydrated that his skin was ashen and he could hardly function.

My uncle is one of the nicest guys I know when he is on his medications. When he has gone off, he has assaulted his brothers, ran his car off the road running from people who were "after him", and threatened to kill me because there was a gun in the house and he needed it to defend himself against the devil. Mental illness exists.

There are however, people who are severely affected by a biological or physiological condition that affects how they interpret visual, auditory, and social cues. People who are truly paranoid, who think that demons are after them, people who think that if they drink water, that a piece of their soul is lost who thus kill themselves by dehydration.

Sure. But I draw the line at coercion. Call me crazy.

ArmedAznF wrote:

There are however, people who are severely affected by a biological or physiological condition that affects how they interpret visual, auditory, and social cues. People who are truly paranoid, who think that demons are after them, people who think that if they drink water, that a piece of their soul is lost who thus kill themselves by dehydration.

Sure. But I draw the line at coercion. Call me crazy.

Coercion of who, by who? I guess I am not following you.

mark wrote:

ArmedAznF wrote:

There are however, people who are severely affected by a biological or physiological condition that affects how they interpret visual, auditory, and social cues. People who are truly paranoid, who think that demons are after them, people who think that if they drink water, that a piece of their soul is lost who thus kill themselves by dehydration.

Sure. But I draw the line at coercion. Call me crazy.

Coercion of who, by who? I guess I am not following you.

I am opposed to the involuntary commitment of anyone who has not committed a violent crime and is still capable of objecting (i.e. not totally delirious/comatose); and I am opposed to keeping people indefinitely in psychiatric hellholes. Prison would be far kinder.

ArmedAznF wrote: I am opposed to the involuntary commitment of anyone who has not committed a violent crime and is still capable of objecting (i.e. not totally delirious/comatose); and I am opposed to keeping people indefinitely in psychiatric hellholes. Prison would be far kinder.

I think its hard to make a blanket statement because mental health is so individualized. I have 2 friends who would be dead (from the many times they tried to kill themselves and failed - they were bound to succeed eventually) if they had not be involuntarily committed. And they objected. But they were indeed a danger to themselves. They are both fine and married now some 15 years later. And grateful to the people who stepped in.

mark wrote:

ArmedAznF wrote: I am opposed to the involuntary commitment of anyone who has not committed a violent crime and is still capable of objecting (i.e. not totally delirious/comatose); and I am opposed to keeping people indefinitely in psychiatric hellholes. Prison would be far kinder.

I think its hard to make a blanket statement because mental health is so individualized. I have 2 friends who would be dead (from the many times they tried to kill themselves and failed - they were bound to succeed eventually) if they had not be involuntarily committed. And they objected. But they were indeed a danger to themselves. They are both fine and married now some 15 years later. And grateful to the people who stepped in.

You are right Mark. I am not sure where you have gotten your information from ArmedAznF. In my years working in mental health I never saw anyone commited indefinately to a psychiatric hellhole, though I have seen people who did not want to be detained and observed in modern psychiatric facilities.

I cannot speak for other states, but in California, to be detained involuntarily a person has to meet strict and specific criteria. A person has to, as a result of psychiatric disorder, be an immediate threat of serious harm to themselves or others, or gravely disabled. That means that as a result of a psychiatric illness the person is either suicidal with serious intent, plans, and direct means to kill themselves, or has made serious attempts or threats to kill or harm and identifiable victim. Grave disability means that as a result of mental disorder, a person is unable to secure the basic necessities for life. That doesn't include being homeless but if you recall my story of the man who would not eat or drink anything to the point of dehydration and eventual death without intervention.

With a detention order, the authorities have UP TO 72 hours to observe and possibly treat the person. The ombudsman is legally obligated to visit with the detained person within 24 hours to advocate for their release. The individual is not obligated to take any medications and a separate hearing must be held with representation for the detained, to determine whether medication can be given without consent.

If the person continues to present a danger, they have to be certified by legal procedure prior to the end of 72 hours. The Ombudsman visits with each detained person every 24 hours at minimum.

I am sure, that from the detained person's point of view the detention is hell, but I have not heard of people being locked up indefinitely. For one, hospitalization is extremely expensive, and has a great deal of legal liability so counties and facilities avoid it.

There are, I am sure, abuses, but they are abuses not the normal procedure.

Our little friend seemed a bit sensitive about the mentally ill being "committed", did she not?

goosekiller wrote:Our little friend seemed a bit sensitive about the mentally ill being "committed", did she not?

And in one short sentence, goose swoops in and sums it up.

Caliman73 wrote:

mark wrote:

ArmedAznF wrote: I am opposed to the involuntary commitment of anyone who has not committed a violent crime and is still capable of objecting (i.e. not totally delirious/comatose); and I am opposed to keeping people indefinitely in psychiatric hellholes. Prison would be far kinder.

I think its hard to make a blanket statement because mental health is so individualized. I have 2 friends who would be dead (from the many times they tried to kill themselves and failed - they were bound to succeed eventually) if they had not be involuntarily committed. And they objected. But they were indeed a danger to themselves. They are both fine and married now some 15 years later. And grateful to the people who stepped in.

You are right Mark. I am not sure where you have gotten your information from ArmedAznF. In my years working in mental health I never saw anyone commited indefinately to a psychiatric hellhole, though I have seen people who did not want to be detained and observed in modern psychiatric facilities.

I cannot speak for other states, but in California, to be detained involuntarily a person has to meet strict and specific criteria. A person has to, as a result of psychiatric disorder, be an immediate threat of serious harm to themselves or others, or gravely disabled. That means that as a result of a psychiatric illness the person is either suicidal with serious intent, plans, and direct means to kill themselves, or has made serious attempts or threats to kill or harm and identifiable victim. Grave disability means that as a result of mental disorder, a person is unable to secure the basic necessities for life. That doesn't include being homeless but if you recall my story of the man who would not eat or drink anything to the point of dehydration and eventual death without intervention.

With a detention order, the authorities have UP TO 72 hours to observe and possibly treat the person. The ombudsman is legally obligated to visit with the detained person within 24 hours to advocate for their release. The individual is not obligated to take any medications and a separate hearing must be held with representation for the detained, to determine whether medication can be given without consent.

If the person continues to present a danger, they have to be certified by legal procedure prior to the end of 72 hours. The Ombudsman visits with each detained person every 24 hours at minimum.

I am sure, that from the detained person's point of view the detention is hell, but I have not heard of people being locked up indefinitely. For one, hospitalization is extremely expensive, and has a great deal of legal liability so counties and facilities avoid it.

There are, I am sure, abuses, but they are abuses not the normal procedure.

Good synopsis of the 5150 (refers to the section of the Welfare and Institutions code) process, though exact procedures vary from county to county. It is a process that stresses "patient rights" and started in the 1970's in California to end indeterminate commitments to state mental health facilities. The State saved money by closing most state mental hospitals and the counties were supposed to have received a boost of money for their community mental health services. However those were the years when Ronald Reagan was Governor and the counties didn't get the funds. Today Los Angeles County Jail is often referred to as the largest mental hospital in California and probably the US.

The wife is a retired jail nurse. A quarter of the meds she gave out daily were psych meds. Even more amazing, half her inmates were from INS, and a lot of them had psych meds.

I went to Metropolitan hosptial and Central Jail to evaluate people for admission to a social rehab program I worked for many years ago. It was an unforgettable experience.

Antiquus...no doubt a lot of the inmates have problems, but being on psych meds does not necessarily mean a psych diagnosis, or at least not one of the major Axis I diagnoses. Nowadays we see many people on psych meds to treat behavioral disturbances or substance induced disturbances.

I work with DD people now and many are on anti-psychotics although they are not psychotic, but they have major impulse control and aggression problems. The anti-psychotic are also known as major tranquilizers so it slows them down and reduces agression. I think it is sad that medication is so freely handed out, but then I haven't worked hands on with 200 pound people throwing tantrums in a long time.

Simmer down wrote:If my full time 40+ hour job regularly had me in shots fired scenarios I might consider somethnig that cut my reload need in half.

I personally don't have a work-related reason to own my extended capacity mags. They are just novel.

Where I work is right next to the FAMU campus where there seems to be a shootout every couple of months, usually while I'm at work, I can here the gun shots from my office and several of the businesses near us have been robbed in the last two years, some of them multiple times (the federal credit union down the street has been robbed three or four times in the last two years). The attendant at a BP station across from us was shot and killed last year (it's now closed because it was robbed so many times) and there was a drive by murder at another gas station not far from us. Couple years ago we had SWAT running through our parking lot to deal with an armed standoff at a crack house nearby and another time a guy who robbed the sandwich shop across the side street from us exchanged fire with the shop owner in the street right in front of our building.

Even with all that I don't feel the need to carry a pistol with a capacity greater than 10rds and I don't carry an extra mag.