Should mental Health Professionals Be Culpable For Failures Like The Maine Shooting?

[WestCanMan]

Robert Card was hearing voices and expressing his intent to kill people.

He was institutionalized for two weeks because of it in August, but then released, still with the ability to buy/own guns. Two months later he killed 20 people. 

This isn't a failure of "the system": a danger to society was identified, directed to the correct place for treatment, and then "released", or even inflicted on the public. It's a failure of the medical professionals who treated him imo. 

Everyone knows how serious it is to hear violent voices in your head. Ever since I was a kid we'd joke around and say "The voices in my head don't like you."

How did these medical professionals shrug that off? Are they guilty of failing to the point where they should be held criminally or civilly liable? Obviously job action is required imo. 

[Guest]

Given all that, no one thought to check and see if he had any guns, and take them away?

From a random Google search:

Card recently reported experiencing mental health issues, including hearing voices, and threatened to shoot up a military base in Saco, the law enforcement bulletin said. He was also reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks over this past summer, according to the bulletin.

In mid-July, leaders of the U.S. Army Reserve's 3rd battalion told garrison staff that Card was "behaving erratically," a spokesperson for the New York Army National Guard said in a statement to CBS News on Thursday. The battalion was staying at the Camp Smith training site in Cortlandt, while training at the U.S. Military Academy.  

"Out of concern for his safety, the unit requested that law enforcement be contacted," the spokesperson said in the statement. "New York State Police responded and transported Card to Keller Army Community Hospital at the United States Military Academy for medical evaluation."

One of Card's cousins, Michael Mercier, told CBS News Boston that Card has "a lot going on in his head" and called him a "schizophrenic."  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-robert-card-confirmed-details-maine-shooting-suspect-person-of-interest/

At the very least, should they have taken away all his guns and made sure he couldn't purchase any more?

Edited October 27, 2023 by bcsapper

[robosmith]

Where is the legal authority for medical professionals to prohibit gun ownership/access?

The culpability is with the legislators and the gun manufacturers who bought them, who have failed to grant that authority to anyone.

Your hero Trump revoked a law which prohibited mentally ill patients from acquiring arms.

Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns

Quote

The action was one of his earliest as president.

President Donald Trump has often pointed to mental illness as the underlying cause for mass shootings, but one of his earliest actions as president was to undo a regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with a known mental illness to buy guns.

Nearly a year ago, on Feb. 28, 2017, President Trump signed H.J. Res. 40, effectively ending the Social Security Administration's requirement to enter the names of people who receive mental health benefits into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This is the database used by the FBI to determine who is able to purchase firearms.

 

[WestCanMan]

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Given all that, no one thought to check and see if he had any guns, and take them away?

He shouldn't have been allowed access to guns, for sure, but:

1) That doesn't prevent him from getting access to guns illegally

2) It doesn't stop him from mowing people down with a van

3) He can still watch Khadr's bomb-making videos

The fact that he was such a blatant risk and was let out so quickly is the main issue here. 

Criminals and mental health patients aren't taken seriously enough in the US. 

I recently saw a NYC Police Chief saying that, on avg, murderers in NYC have at least 7 prior violent charges on their rap sheet. The cops are doing a decent job of rounding these guys up, but the system keeps putting them back out there. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

He shouldn't have been allowed access to guns, for sure, but:

1) That doesn't prevent him from getting access to guns illegally

2) It doesn't stop him from mowing people down with a van

3) He can still watch Khadr's bomb-making videos

The fact that he was such a blatant risk and was let out so quickly is the main issue here. 

Criminals and mental health patients aren't taken seriously enough in the US. 

I recently saw a NYC Police Chief saying that, on avg, murderers in NYC have at least 7 prior violent charges on their rap sheet. The cops are doing a decent job of rounding these guys up, but the system keeps putting them back out there. 

Strangely enough, I see a rare agreement coming here.

He should have had all his guns confiscated.

That said, I am one who thinks that the closure of dedicated institutions for the mentally ill was a big mistake. 

Funding of such institutions should be adequate, and the oversight of who and how people are held in them should be of an extremely high standard, but they should exist, and they should probably be full.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Robert Card was hearing voices and expressing his intent to kill people.

He was institutionalized for two weeks because of it in August, but then released, still with the ability to buy/own guns. Two months later he killed 20 people. 

This isn't a failure of "the system": a danger to society was identified, directed to the correct place for treatment, and then "released", or even inflicted on the public. It's a failure of the medical professionals who treated him imo. 

Everyone knows how serious it is to hear violent voices in your head. Ever since I was a kid we'd joke around and say "The voices in my head don't like you."

How did these medical professionals shrug that off? Are they guilty of failing to the point where they should be held criminally or civilly liable? Obviously job action is required imo. 

Should mental health workers be able to prohibit mentally unstable people from purchasing or owning guns? I think so!!!

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Should mental health workers be able to prohibit mentally unstable people from purchasing or owning guns? I think so!!!

Sure, but it's a very real concern that the Dr Fords of this world would be the ones with that power.

In case you've forgotten, nothing happened to her license to practice when she sat in a court and lied her face off under oath. 

If you are/were a member of a group that Trudeau/Biden/Trump/Poilievre doesn't like, and you get arrested for attending a Freedom Convoy/BLM protest, could you be forced to be evaluated by a Dr Ford/Dr Peterson?

 

I actually do think that preventing people who are a risk for this type of reason should be prevented from owning firearms, I just think that the power to do so needs to be strictly curtailed.

[Rebound]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Sure, but it's a very real concern that the Dr Fords of this world would be the ones with that power.

In case you've forgotten, nothing happened to her license to practice when she sat in a court and lied her face off under oath. 

If you are/were a member of a group that Trudeau/Biden/Trump/Poilievre doesn't like, and you get arrested for attending a Freedom Convoy/BLM protest, could you be forced to be evaluated by a Dr Ford/Dr Peterson?

 

I actually do think that preventing people who are a risk for this type of reason should be prevented from owning firearms, I just think that the power to do so needs to be strictly curtailed.

No, I don’t really understand what you think at all. 
I would agree that it makes sense that someone who loses their gun rights over a mental health evaluation should be able to get a second opinion from a court appointed licensed professional.  Obviously, if you can choose anyone to make the assessment, everyone will hire the “gun shrink” and get their guns. 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I would agree that it makes sense that someone who loses their gun rights over a mental health evaluation should be able to get a second opinion from a court appointed licensed professional. 

And you trust a court to appoint someone apolitical? 

Which SCJ would you describe as apolitical? Are lower court judges better? 

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Where is the legal authority for medical professionals to prohibit gun ownership/access?

The culpability is with the legislators and the gun manufacturers who bought them, who have failed to grant that authority to anyone.

Your hero Trump revoked a law which prohibited mentally ill patients from acquiring arms.

Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns

 

I love how everyone on the right is ignoring your inconvenient truth 

[herbie]

No shit, when you're doctor can pick up the phone and have your driver's license taken away or amended but they're not authorized or required to report you as a threat to the public?
That's on the legislators.

Other than that holding the shrink culpable for what the guy did is like suing your doctor for not being able to cure your cancer.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Robert Card was hearing voices and expressing his intent to kill people.

He was institutionalized for two weeks because of it in August, but then released, still with the ability to buy/own guns. Two months later he killed 20 people. 

This isn't a failure of "the system": a danger to society was identified, directed to the correct place for treatment, and then "released", or even inflicted on the public. It's a failure of the medical professionals who treated him imo. 

Everyone knows how serious it is to hear violent voices in your head. Ever since I was a kid we'd joke around and say "The voices in my head don't like you."

How did these medical professionals shrug that off? Are they guilty of failing to the point where they should be held criminally or civilly liable? Obviously job action is required imo. 

I don't know that the problem is the health professionals, i  think the problem there might be the laws and what they can do

There's no doubt that a lack of treatment and tools for the mentally ill play a very large role in these kinds of killings, whether they're with cars or guns or fire or anything else.

 

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

I love how everyone on the right is ignoring your inconvenient truth 

Is the inconvenient truth that this is a mental health issue and not a gun issue?    we're quite aware of it.

But this thread shows why that truth will never be addressed -  freaks like you will immediately turn it into a "confiscate all guns and gun owenrs R bad" discussion and that ends the chance of any productive talks.

I think most gun owners would support the idea of things like restricting anyone with mental health issues or the like - but they can't afford to even discuss it knowing that all people like you care about is locking them up and banning all guns and you don't care about absues of the system.  So they won't risk it.

And that is the REAL inconvenient truth.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

No shit, when you're doctor can pick up the phone and have your driver's license taken away or amended but they're not authorized or required to report you as a threat to the public?
That's on the legislators.

Other than that holding the shrink culpable for what the guy did is like suing your doctor for not being able to cure your cancer.

Or  suing a gun manufacturer for the actions of a crazy person?  LOLOL

 in any case for sure it's a legislative issue.  But - there's little chance of their being a change when the democrats act like psychopaths towards any gun or gun owner and the republicans are petrified of giving them a milimeter.

If the dems would settle down and just accept that gun ownership is a right in the us and lawful people are going to own one and that does NOT mean they hate their children, then i think headway could be made. Reasonable reporting laws for the background checks, reasonable laws compelling treatment of dangerous mental illnesess, etc.

[NYLefty]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Robert Card was hearing voices and expressing his intent to kill people.

He was institutionalized for two weeks because of it in August, but then released, still with the ability to buy/own guns. Two months later he killed 20 people. 

This isn't a failure of "the system": a danger to society was identified, directed to the correct place for treatment, and then "released", or even inflicted on the public. It's a failure of the medical professionals who treated him imo. 

Everyone knows how serious it is to hear violent voices in your head. Ever since I was a kid we'd joke around and say "The voices in my head don't like you."

How did these medical professionals shrug that off? Are they guilty of failing to the point where they should be held criminally or civilly liable? Obviously job action is required imo. 

Let's blame it on everything but the real cause. "THE F*CKIN NUT WAS ABLE TO BUY AN ASSAULT WEAPON" Jackass

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, NYLefty said:

Let's blame it on everything but the real cause. "THE F*CKIN NUT WAS ABLE TO BUY AN ASSAULT WEAPON" Jackass

well - you certainly just did blame it on everything but the real cause.  Well done.

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, NYLefty said:

Let's blame it on everything but the real cause. "THE F*CKIN NUT WAS ABLE TO BUY AN ASSAULT WEAPON" Jackass

Riiiight, because no one has ever mass-murdered people with vehicles or bombs, jackass.

[Caswell Thomas]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Given all that, no one thought to check and see if he had any guns, and take them away?

From a random Google search:

Card recently reported experiencing mental health issues, including hearing voices, and threatened to shoot up a military base in Saco, the law enforcement bulletin said. He was also reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks over this past summer, according to the bulletin.

In mid-July, leaders of the U.S. Army Reserve's 3rd battalion told garrison staff that Card was "behaving erratically," a spokesperson for the New York Army National Guard said in a statement to CBS News on Thursday. The battalion was staying at the Camp Smith training site in Cortlandt, while training at the U.S. Military Academy.  

"Out of concern for his safety, the unit requested that law enforcement be contacted," the spokesperson said in the statement. "New York State Police responded and transported Card to Keller Army Community Hospital at the United States Military Academy for medical evaluation."

One of Card's cousins, Michael Mercier, told CBS News Boston that Card has "a lot going on in his head" and called him a "schizophrenic."  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-robert-card-confirmed-details-maine-shooting-suspect-person-of-interest/

At the very least, should they have taken away all his guns and made sure he couldn't purchase any more?

" at the very least could they have taken away all his guns and made sure he can't purchase any more?" Nice thought but never as simple as it sounds. Many guns are purchased with the help directly or indirectly if the NRA who has suggested in thousands of advertisements for decades that people are " entitled" to own as many guns as they like, and often those who display and brandish them often have more squirrel ed away to fill in for confiscated ones. Likewise there are less than honest sellers who will sell you one or two and never do a background check if the money is good.  

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

" at the very least could they have taken away all his guns and made sure he can't purchase any more?" Nice thought but never as simple as it sounds. Many guns are purchased with the help directly or indirectly if the NRA who has suggested in thousands of advertisements for decades that people are " entitled" to own as many guns as they like, and often those who display and brandish them often have more squirrel ed away to fill in for confiscated ones. Likewise there are less than honest sellers who will sell you one or two and never do a background check if the money is good.  

Not to mention would we actually feel better if he'd driven a truck through a crowd instead? Or used fire as is often the case? or used an explosive or firebomb? All of which people in that frame of mind have done?

Once someone's decided to kill the tool they've decided to use becomes somewhat achademic.  The trick is to get to them before that point, or at the very least right after and before they can kill.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

" at the very least could they have taken away all his guns and made sure he can't purchase any more?" Nice thought but never as simple as it sounds. Many guns are purchased with the help directly or indirectly if the NRA who has suggested in thousands of advertisements for decades that people are " entitled" to own as many guns as they like, and often those who display and brandish them often have more squirrel ed away to fill in for confiscated ones. Likewise there are less than honest sellers who will sell you one or two and never do a background check if the money is good.  

Yes, hence the question mark.  I realise I was talking about something that didn't happen, and probably wouldn't happen if a similar situation were to occur elsewhere in the US, but might if saner, stricter laws around the owning of firearms were in place.

[NYLefty]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Riiiight, because no one has ever mass-murdered people with vehicles or bombs, jackass.

What's that even supposed to mean?

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, NYLefty said:

What's that even supposed to mean?

It means pretending that if he didn't have a gun he couldn't have killed people  makes you a jackass.  Pretending that insane people don't find other ways to kill, pretending that the problem is the tool and not the insane person to begin with makes you a Jackass.  And he's quite correct. Jackass.

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, NYLefty said:

What's that even supposed to mean?

Just know that when you go back and look at your old posts, and see how poorly they aged, you're finally noticing what we  knew in advance. 

[BeaverFever]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is the inconvenient truth that this is a mental health issue and not a gun issue?    we're quite aware of it.

But this thread shows why that truth will never be addressed -  freaks like you will immediately turn it into a "confiscate all guns and gun owenrs R bad" discussion and that ends the chance of any productive talks.

I think most gun owners would support the idea of things like restricting anyone with mental health issues or the like - but they can't afford to even discuss it knowing that all people like you care about is locking them up and banning all guns and you don't care about absues of the system.  So they won't risk it.

And that is the REAL inconvenient truth.

Where did I or anyone else on this say anything about confiscating all guns or gun owners are bad?  Stop lying

Remember you’re someone who likes to employ absurdly overly-literal attacks like “you said PP calls people Marxist but sometimes he calls them communist you’re such a liar!”  But here you are completely fabricating a straw man argument. 
 

Any person with common sense understands that severely mentally ill people with homicidal tendencies should not be allowed to own or purchase firearms. It’s completely idi0tic to suggest it’s a mental health issue, every country in the world has people with mental health problems and we all have access to the same Hollywood movies and popular music. But only USA has these regular mass shootings. The difference is clearly the ability of mentally ill to access firearms. 
 

The only reason Republicans oppose that idea is because their party is owned by the notoriously corrupt and scandal-plagued NRA. Saying “it’s a mental health issue” is a copout because Republicans also oppose any sort of publicly funded healthcare much less mental health treatment so it’s really just an excuse to do nothing.  Republican propagandist and sexual predator Bill O’Reilly has already stated that Americans should simply endure these massacres as “the price of freedom” which is ridiculous. I don’t think any Canadians want to import that here. 
 

 

[NYLefty]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Just know that when you go back and look at your old posts, and see how poorly they aged, you're finally noticing what we  knew in advance. 

Hmmm, let's see. Do I Care? Nope?

Unlike you Reichwing Nuts I could care less about who reads or likes my posts. I express thoughts. Something you town cryer, link posting knuckledraggers are incapable of. Now go hunt down a link on conveying original thoughts to others so you can pretend you even know what I'm talking about.?