If were going to lock people up because of a history of beligerent behavior, how do we handle records of online hissy fits? Do they count as much as face-to-face confrontations?
I find it much easier to get in a heated argument online where there’s no immediate danger of physical retribution. If I look at the discussion a day later, I sometimes realize that it’s an inconsequential issue and I would have brushed it off in “real life”.
Read the comments section on almost website. Many of those people seem scary enough to warrant institutionalization. But they may act like teddy bears at the company xmas party.
So how should we weight the personality testing for online vs offline conduct?
Yes, you bloody well are. So far, there’s been no release of official verified evidence that this person was anything other than nerdy, odd, withdrawn, or socially awkward. He was “institutionalized” at some point - says who? got any official evidence? And if so, so what? Lots of people are, under their particular state laws, for shit that’s not in any way related to violence or aggressive tendencies.
Until there’s some release of some hard evidence that this particular shooter was identifiably anything other than weird, all of the speculation in this thread is bullshit. “I heard his mom was a survivalist” - from whom? Got a link? “I heard he was diagnosed with Personality Disorder NOS” - from whom ? got official evidence? “I heard that she had an arsenal” - from whom? What’s the definition of an arsenal? “His mom knew he was mentally unstable and likely to do this” - how do you know? What’s your evidence?
Kolga, I’ll kindly thank you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. I don’t know who you mean to direct those questions to, but I said none of those things. I wasn’t aware that anyone had said Adam Lanza had been institutionalized, and have no evidence for this series of claims I never made. And I really wasn’t talking specifically about him anyway. I’m talking about creating better support systems, education, and resources to help families who are dealing with mental health issues, with the long term goal that most of these issues are identified, treated, and well-healed well before the kid is an adult.
And as far as I know, “a danger to himself or others” IS the current standard for involuntary commitment, so I don’t know what you’re on about there. I’m not suggesting that be changed, and specifically said as much, conveniently in the part of the quote you left out. Your asserting that I am doesn’t make it so.
Again, there’s been no official evidence presented that Lanza’s behavior PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT fit the definition of “danger to self or others.” So your inclusion of that issue does not fit this case, and if you are or were attempting to imply that such a declaration would have prevented this case, you are wrong.
You realize that there are others in this thread who have made those statements or asked those questions, and that I am allowed to include the entire thread in my post, right?
Well, great, except that’s not what I was saying. Magiver asked what could be done with a 20-year-old who is a legal adult and might refuse inpatient treatment. I said ideally you identify the problem and treat him way before, years before, he turns 18. What happens after that depends on how well the treatment works.
Obviously this little hypothetical is not a historical record of what actually happened to Adam Lanza, or any specific person.
I also said early diagnosis and treatment isn’t foolproof, but I guess you missed that too.
Then why attribute them to me and ask me to answer for assertions I never made? You quoted me, and were clearly addressing your words TO me.
What I AM saying, is I think our current mental health care system FAILED Adam Lanza. He needed help. For whatever reason, he didn’t get it.
I didn’t attribute anything to you but your quote.
There’s no proof of that. I haven’t heard a single report of anything other than “he was nerdy, shy, withdrawn, socially awkward, possibly issues that could meet a diagnosis.” For someone to not get treatment for “needed help,” the need for help actually has to show up. I have not yet read of anything that presented prior to this incident that indicated that people knew he needed the kind of help that would have prevented this incident.
You were addressing your words TO me and at no time indicated you no longer were.
The proof of its failure and his need for help is the fact that he shot up a school.
You can go back and read my prior posts about the need for better information/education/resources so that those closest to a person and in the best position to know, would have the information they need to identify red flags and to know where to go for help.
So your position is that when the authorities start rounding up people for abnormal behavior, that all online activity should be discounted from the evaluation. I disagree with that. I think that evidence of sociopathic behavior can be found in online communications but that it should be weighted less because so many otherwise normal people display abnormal behavior when their identity is concealed.
This conversation became somewhat confusing with the addition of the boy from the “Adam’s Mom” blog post (the veracity of which has been called into question). It’s difficult to determine, when people are petitioning to institutionalize otherwise productive citizens, whether they are talking about the shooter or this other boy.
I’m in favor of more and less expensive options for people who know they are troubled and their families. This shooter had no record of violence or criminal activity before Friday. Given that the family had money, I am assuming that some help was sought and that it was ineffective. Based on what I know from flawed media reports, I would not have recommended locking that boy up. But I presume that he was aware he was going off the deep end and that the only options he was aware of had not been of sufficient help in the past.
I had a friend like this kid. He was given to outbursts of anger but was otherwise a gentle person. I can see how this could have played out and you would be locking up a lot of otherwise productive people if that was the criteria. However, I am at a complete loss to rationalize killing school children who had no apparent connection to the boy and his problems. I wish that I was getting more accurate reporting now, because by the time that comes, I’ll be so burnt out on the case that I will no longer be interested.
I was not aware that it was customary to put a note in responses that said “Note: I am no longer responding to the person quoted above.” Since this is a new custom to me, I’ll endeavor to do so in the future.
Also, you are not the only person on this message board. Quoting one statement by you does not restrict my ability to discuss the broader issue.
Which, by definition, was not identifiable until it happened. Unless a reliable report comes forth in which a trustworthy person says “yes, this child exhibited X dangerous [note: not “weird” or “odd” or any of the other vague bullshit that’s been reported so far] behavior and nothing was done,” there weren’t any warning signs to treat.
Again, unless a reliable report comes forth in which a trustworthy person says “yes, this child exhibited X dangerous [note: not “weird” or “odd” or any of the other vague bullshit that’s been reported so far] behavior and nothing was done,” there weren’t any red flags to identify.
Kolga: You keep fixating on “dangerous” while missing my point that ideally help should arrive long before it gets to that point. I’m talking about prevention – and more than that, creating a community that provides emotional / mental health support for each other on an ongoing and not just emergent basis. I’m not talking about trying to stuff a genie back into a bottle.
I agree there’s some conflation going on with “Michael” and Adam Lanza. “Michael,” if the blog post is accurate, is clearly demonstrating violent tendencies and needs a great deal more help than he’s currently getting. Adam may not have needed intensive inpatient treatment for anger management issues. But he needed something. The human mind just doesn’t go straight from perfectly healthy one day to SNAP the next.
Help can only be provided when the need for such help has been recognized. Again, I have read no credible sources that indicate that Lanza had exhibited in the past behaviors that would be a red flag for help that would have prevented this event.
“Needed something” is uselessly vague. Unless a credible source of information comes forward that reveals that Lanza was demonstrating behaviors that needed intervention, there’s no indication that better mental health care could have prevented this incident.
I doubt those in a position to know are planning to share that with us anytime soon, really. That’s neither here nor there.
You still seem to be missing the point that emotional and mental health support
can prevent red flags from making an appearance in the first place – and that this is actually preferable. A person doesn’t need to be identified as dangerous before seeing a therapist or learning coping skills can help them. It’s perfectly okay to see a therapist because you’re “weird” and want some help dealing with fitting in. If that therapist helps you learn social skills and helps you feel more confident in yourself, don’t you think you’re less likely to get angry and shoot your mom? (This one’s a hypothetical too and not representative of what may or may not have been Adam Lanza’s life.)
Well, not having access to a total stranger’s medical files, I guess you’ll just have to deal with not knowing the specifics of this case and having to discuss in more general terms. There’s no indication that better care would NOT have helped, either, and given the dire state of the way our culture deals with mental illness, I think it’s more likely improved support would have been helpful than not.
3 other kids, the tag line at the end of the article says she has 4 kids.
Irregardless, she is capitalizing on this tragedy to get her name and writing out there.
And for those of you saying that mental health treatment would have made something like this less likely to happen, I disagree. I have been in a mental hospital for PPD, and some of the people in there were so broken nothing short of locking them up for life would have kept them and the general public safe.
Well, I have been arguing that we need a better system than we have now. We have some (see below), but not enough.
So we should… not bother to treat and support people, and just throw up our hands, cuz none of it will work anyway? Early intervention never works? Or maybe when it works, we just never hear about it because these are not the people who commit huge atrocious crimes.
Also, why is commitment not in option, if they’re so obviously dangerous?
Actually, it’s perfectly on point. Speculation that Lanza clearly needed mental health treatment that he wasn’t getting is simply that - speculation, useless for understanding the actual specifics of this case.
Was there any indication that Lanza WANTED help? If not, are you comfortable with stating that weird people should be forced to get treatment that they don’t want? Because if Lanza didn’t want treatment, and his behavior prior to this didn’t rise to the level of “danger to self or others,” then the only way he would be getting treatment would be against his will and for no reason than he was odd.
A made-up hypothetical about a person who WANTS mental help treatment doesn’t really help us understand this particular case unless it parallels the case itself, and I have seen no evidence that this made-up hypothetical does.
Again, you continue to insist that we know that Lanza wanted help he was not getting, and that led to the shooting. There’s no indication of this, and forcing mental health treatment on someone who does not express a desire for it, as long as that person’s behavior does not rise to the level of dangerous, is not the answer.
Fallacy of the excluded middle. Did Lanza want treatment? Was his prior behavior so obviously troubling that he should have gotten treatment he did not receive?
Early intervention might work, or it might not. It’s irrelevant in this case if Lanza’s behavior prior to the incident did not indicate a need for intervention for murderous rage.
If a person is not obviously dangerous, commitment is not an option. If they are obviously dangerous, commitment is an option, depending on the state. Did Lanza’s behavior prior to this incident indicate dangerousness?
So now good ol’ “Anarchist Soccer-Mom’s” true colors come out—A vain, vile, attention-whoring celebrity wannabe who is casually willing to risk lifelong damage to her clearly troubled children (with a mom like her, it’s not a deep, abiding mystery what went wrong in that family, eh?) by exposing them to publicity that will potentially follow them around for the rest of their lives (because if she wrote her little blog anonymously, protecting her children’s actual identity, she couldn’t get her repulsive mugg on the TV, allowing her adoring public to reassure her what a brave, courageous warrior-mother she is) is embarking on a national publicity tour, breathlessly telling the entire world how her “genius” 13 year-old son is fated to be the next Harris, Klebold, Loughner or Lanza.
Edited to add: She should have taken down every single other blog entry she ever wrote as soon as the one about her son went viral, because the odds that people would immediately start poring through all the old entries looking for nuggets of information proving she was a bad parent are nearly 100%. Personally I think she’s fairly brave for putting herself out there like that, and regardless of her personal circumstances, she’s contributed heavily to the conversation on mental health policy we’re having in this country right now. It blows ass trying to find help for mentally ill family and loved ones, and it shouldn’t.