E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Bill Dedman
msnbc.com
Pima Community College in Tucson has released records of its campus police contacts with student Jared Loughner, showing the increasing fear that he stirred in his classmates and teachers.
A thread running through the documents is the difficulty of campus police to find a context in which to intervene: Until they found a violation of the student code of conduct, or a state law, police officers wrote in the reports that they weren't sure what else they could do, even when a fellow student said she thought Loughner had brought a knife to class. (Not dissimilar from the confusion at Virginia Tech as it tried to deal with Seung-Hui Cho.)
The records show no indication that the college took steps to get Loughner any mental health counseling.
Loughner also seemed not to understand the seriousness of the fears. When police spoke with him, Loughner said his free speech rights were being violated, and seemed to have trouble understanding why he had been called out of class.
Finally, in September, after Loughner apparently posted a video on YouTube calling the college a scam, and accusing it of genocide, police went to his home to read him a suspension letter. Even then he seemed not to fully understand.
You can read the full records in this PDF file. The Washington Post also has a thorough profile of Loughner's deterioration.
On Feb. 5, 2010, Loughner disrupted a poetry class with comments about strapping guns to babies. The dean added that a student had sent an e-mail reporting that she thought Loughner had a knife in his possession. The police officer wrote, "I told her I would check Loughner's history and see if there was anything we needed to be concerned about that we could link to this kind of behavior. I told her if so we might make contact with him and discuss the concerns with him; and if there was nothing to indicate he might have a trend of misbehavior of this type, that we really didn't have anything to react to in a law enforcement mode at this time. I suggested they keep an eye on him and call us if anything else developed that concerned them."
This "law enforcement mode," of reacting to violations instead of looking to prevent violence, was discussed in today's chat on msnbc.com, regarding the Secret Service study of assassinations. You can read that archived chat here, and here's a Secret Service guide to an approach focused more on threat assessment.
On April 6, 2010, Loughner was disruptive in the library, while he listened to music on the computers.
On May 17, 2010, an instructor reported that Loughner became "very hostile" when told he was receiving a B in the class. He said this was "unacceptable." The instructor said she did not feel comfortable unless an officer stayed in the area until class was over.
On June 1, 2010, Loughner disturbed a math class with incoherent arguments that the instructor was using the wrong number. The teacher was also disturbed that Loughner had written "Mayhem Fest" on a paper; it turned out to be the name of a music festival with death-metal music. Again the police officer said that there was little to be done, because no law was violated: "At this time I have no student code of conduct [violation] or do I have any charges to file on this student. A further investigation is needed to be able to make the decision on the student's ability to stay in class or be with other students." The dean "has advised that the instructor and students in the class are uncomfortble with Loughner inside their class and are afraid of any repercussions that could exist from Loughner being unstable in his actions."
The next day, a counselor talked with Loughner. He denied he was disruptive, saying, "My instructor said he called a number 6 and I said I call it 18." He said he asked the instructor, "How can you deny math instead of accept it?"
Loughner said he wanted to remain in class, and agreed not to ask further questions, or at least not disruptive, philosophical ones.
"This student was warned," the counselor concluded. "He has extreme views and frequently meanders from the point. He seems to have difficulty understanding how his actions impact others, yet very attuned to his unique ideology that is not always homogeneous. Since his resolution was to remain silent in class and successfully complete the course, I had no grounds to keep him out of class." There is no mention of follow-up with his parents, or a mental health evaluation, or further intervention.
On Sept. 23, a teacher reported that Loughner was disruptive and would not let class begin after she told Loughner he would receive only half credit for a late assignment. He said his freedom of speech rights were being violated, and that he should be able to say or write whatever he was thinking. The officers said Loughner clearly had trouble understanding the consequences of his actions. Loughner was prevented from returning to class that day because the teacher and students were uncomfortable. A follow-up meeting with Loughner was scheduled for the next week. The police officers told an advanced program manager at the college that "through our training and experience that there might be a mental health concern." There was no mention of any mental health intervention. The program manager wrote a week later, "Follow up with the instructor said that Jared was doing ok, was still acting a bit 'bizarre' in class but there had been no further interruptions."
On Sept. 29, 2010, police investigated a YouTube video in which they recognized Loughner's voice and reflection in a window. Signed by "Jared ... from Pima College," it said, "We are examining the torture of students. ... The war that we are in right now is currently illegal under the constitution. ... This is my genocide school. Where I'm going to be homeless because of this school. ... I haven't forgotten the teacher who gave me a B for freedom of speech. ... This is Pima Community College, one of the biggest scams in America. ... If the student is unable to locate the external universe, the student is unable to locate the internal universe. ... This is genocide in America. ... Thank you... This is Jared ... from Pima College."
The video also rails about currency moving off the gold standard, about "illiterate" students and teachers, and says, "I don't trust in god."
Later that day, officers went to the Loughner home to read him a letter of suspension, while two other officers waited as backup in the neighborhood. "While inside the garage," the officer wrote, "I spoke with Jared who held a constant trance of staring as I narrated the past events that had transpired." Finally he ended his silence, saying, "I realize now that this is all a scam." The officers said they had a brief conversation with Loughner's father in the back yard, and they left.
There's nothing in the records to indicate that the college or its police department pressed for any further intervention, once Loughner was suspended in September. He withdrew in October, the college previously reported, when the college said he would need a mental health clearance before he could return to class. But with Loughner not attempting to return to school, there's no indication that he got such an evaluation.
Nearly four months later, Loughner was accused of killing six people and wounding 14 others in Tucson.
Update: The New York Times adds:
"The college overhauled its procedures for dealing with disruptive students last year. As part of a revision to the code of conduct, it introduced a Student Behavior Assessment Committee, a three-member team that includes the assistant vice chancellor for student development, the chief or deputy chief of the campus police and a clinical psychologist from outside the college.
"The team meets as needed to respond to students who have acted violently or threatened violence, or who may pose a threat to themselves or others. It came into existence in September, the same month Mr. Loughner was suspended following the five disruptive incidents reported to campus police.
"A campus official involved in setting up the behavior committee, Charlotte Fugett, president of one of the college’s five campuses, would not say whether the committee heard Mr. Loughner’s case."
As usual, not one person chose to get involved.
The mentality "As long as it doesn't affect me, why should I care?"
How exactly would you have gotten involved, Optomyst?
Oh, I'm sure it was the political vitriol (sarcasm).
The parents knew he was ill and did nothing. The high school new he was ill and did nothing. The college knew he was ill and did nothing, his friends knew he was ill and did nothing. The army knew there was a problem and did nothing. How many people does it take??????????????
I also doubt if he was a completely rational person when he purchased the gun and with a background check, nothing.
I also doubt if he was a completely rational person when he purchased the ammunition and no one raised a red flag.
As an outsider, I knew nothing, but if it had been my son, my son's friend, my neighbor, my student, I would have at least tried to get him some help. the laws of Arizona are very clear on that this type of help can be recommended by ANYONE.
Someone should have raised a red flag. Someone.
The only people that can force a mental health evaluation when no laws are broken are the parents of a minor. That's it. The info from the Army (unauthorized) is that he admitted to illegal drug use - which his friends all say was common. That disqualified him. The Junior college told him he could only come back upon completion of a mental health evaluation. So he didn't come back. But I will tell you this, if my son set up an alter in my backyard with a human skull and candles, we would be having a serious conversation - real serious - and the alter would not last the day.
How would you have tried to get him help? I would like to know what one can do - many of us see odd behavior by people and feel helpless. There are "hotlines" and "tiplines" but other than call and warn others (who seem to be unable to force an unwilling adult to get help) what else can we do?
You seem angry that it appears that no-one acted but I'd really like to know what specific action you would take.
Read the above again. People were concerned. It was stated several times that no criminal record was found and although he was verbally annoying, he did not break any law, therefore; nothing could be done.
There is something eerie looking with that photo the media keeps showing of him. That is not the appearance of someone who has both oars in the water, if you know what I mean. Definitely looks like a cross between Rosie O'Donnell and Uncle Festus of the Addams family. Clearly this fruitcake was a sandwich short of a full picnic and needed someone to speak up on his behalf. If not the parents, who then?
You are exactly correct that nobody got involved even when they should have. If I had to point a finger at the most obvious failure, I would fault the campus police. As a retired police officer, I know that an officer can have an individual taken into brief custody for a psychiatric evaluation if the officer has reason to believe that the individual may pose a danger to himself or the general public. I have done it myself on several occasions when I found myself dealing with someone who was obviously detached from reality. This is the case under Arizona law as it is in most states and the numerous incidents where the campus police were involved should have resulted in a trip to the county mental health facility.
Unfortunately, nobody seemed willing to make the tough call and risk a potential public relations backlash despite the frequent and increasingly bizarre behavior exhibited by this individual. As a result, this guy never got the help he obviously needed and he was never flagged in the government databases as being mentally unfit to buy a gun.
As I understand it, Arizona law allows for any concerned citizen to report such behavior to the authorities and request an evaluation. This means that although the campus police should have dealt with this, the councilor, the teacher, the dean or the kids parents could also have requested that he be examined. It would appear that there is plenty of blame to go around for the inactivity that eventually led to this tragedy.
Thank you for adding a voice of authority to this conversation. Insofar we've had a lot of conjecture that you can't do anything when a person is acting mentally unstable, but the comment above is proof positive that conjecture along that line is erroneous.
This is the crux of the Arizona law. What part of Loughner's behaviour would you think enable involuntary evaluation? Cutting up in class? Unusual poetry? Stupid videos? Walking the dog in unauthorized places?
Any responsible individual may apply for a court-ordered evaluation of a person who is alleged to be, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or to others, persistently or acutely disabled, or gravely disabled and who is unwilling or unable to undergo a voluntary evaluation.
I personally haven't seen any of Loughner's behavior, but I'd imagine his immediate social network of family and friends had 22 years to observe it. That is not to say that I fault the family; I want to re-iterate here that my problem is with the systemic ignorance of mental health, which results in red flag signs dismissed as innocuous eccentricities. I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone could share a home with a mentally ill person for two decades without realizing that an issue existed. There must have been ample opportunity over the course of this young man's life to change the path he was on in a way that did not involve policemen or any other unpleasantness.
fishinfool: In California, that evaluation is called a 5150 (fifty one fifty). I'm not sure if that brief custody would be found on a background check or not, but at least he would have had a chance of getting help while being observed by professionals.
The part where fellow class mates and teachers feared for their safety. One student wrote she sat by the door in the event he brought a gun to class--His math teacher said he was afraid to turn his back on him even to write on the board. Several other students in his poetry class said they were afraid to come to class...his former best friend said he cut contact with him because he refused to go target shooting in the desert with him anymore . Apparantely, while his parents simply refused to see what was in front of them, there were a whole lot of people willing to speak out. Had any one of them requested county mental officials get involved, under Arizona's one of a kind law, he would hae been evaluated (yes, even against his will). Sounds like a very strong tool that absolutely no one took advantage of.
Interestingly, I found another part to the Arizona law I quoted above -
For the purposes of this section, "person" includes a person who:
1. Is under eighteen years of age.
2. Has been transferred to the criminal division of the superior court pursuant to section 8-327 or who has been charged with an offense pursuant to section 13-501.
3. Is under the supervision of an adult probation department.
It sounds like this law is for parents and those already in the criminal system.
it's extremely sad for everyone that his parents didn't care enough to get their son help he needed.
I believe law enforcement dropped the ball on this one.They visited his and his pareents home several times over complaints about things like threatening phone calls.They were familiar with him enough to know he needed help.If one of the complainants had pressed charges,the police could have sent him to the hospital on a 72 hour hold for evaluation.Apparently, the police discouraged the complainants from pressing charges.
Paul 977599 makes as much sense with his skull and bones comment as loughner. Typical left: no proof just the emotion of hate. He hates Bush, therefore Bush must have done something wrong.
Feared but not referred to mental health for involuntary commitment so he could get evaluation. The shocking thing is this happened AFTER Virginia Tech tragedy. Had he been suffering from cancer or in a wheel chair unable to get around the classroom he would have gotten treatment and help.
Kathy, cancer patients are never forced to receive treatment. It has to be voluntary.
No PROOF, only because proof is denied. No subpoena power, no investigative power, no truth, no proof.
As a current Police Officer I am also familiar with a Police Officer's authority to detain someone against their will if certain criteria are met. These criteria include a subject posing an immediate threat to himself or someone around him. I read every report in the attatched PDF file and saw no event where he posed such a threat. Hindsight is 20/20 and many posters on this forum seem to forget that. Obviously this person had a loose screw and was mentally ill, but you cannot fault the authorities that handled his "odd" behavior for not doing more as they were legally not allowed to.
I am a Democrat that lives not in Tucson, but in Phoenix. I hope that we can bring about legislation where if someone is observed acting strangely, or says things that bother other, even if they are non threatening, that they can report that person and have he or she put on a list. Or perhaps have him picked up and questioned, and put through mental health examinations before they are freed. It used to be authorities could catch people that planned atrocities, because they were stupid ant talked. Or tried to recruit others. We need to find out what people are thinking and incarcerate those that are a risk. We were considering such legislation last year, but with the Republican control of the house, I fear it is too late.
Another bill under consideration that unfortunately will now no longer see the light of day, is that whenever anyone in this country buys a gun, that person will be put on a watch list for 90 days. But we will have to take back the house first.
Reginald Brown: Let me know when you get that passed, I have a relative that always acts "strangely".
LOL
Nobody felt that they could exercise judgment because they all concluded to substitute narrow applications of law for it (judgment). That's the lazy way out, because they think they avoid all further responsibility. The information about the knife, the simplest example, might reasonably have resulted in a confrontation by authority, ie, "Do you have a knife on you", followed by an exercise of judgment. So what if that evidence might be excluded? No jury would award damages for a reasonable exercise of judgment if the authority didn't believe "no" from the interviewee and a search resulted, regardless if one were found or not.
Yes, Reginald, i know many people who act "strangely" and bothers other people. Define "strangely" and in whos eyes is that determination made.
And when this new "watch list" is created. Tell me who is going to "watch" the thousands of people who buy guns in this country each week.
Even if he had received treatment more than likely he wouldn't remain compliant with his medications, only delaying the inevitable.
Uhm, please note that as a Democrat Reginald DOES Not speak 4 me. Sounds like an episode of the twilight zone 2 me
Optomyst
"The parents knew he was ill and did nothing. The high school new he was ill and did nothing. The college knew he was ill and did nothing, his friends knew he was ill and did nothing. The army knew there was a problem and did nothing. How many people does it take??????????????"
*********************************
Six. It took six.
But the rednecks and idiots still argue about which celebrity did or did not influence the vegetable. I am ashamed to be associated with many of you people. If this is what it means to be "American", then I am NOT one.
No one wants to see these tragedies occur, Reginald; even Republicans...believe it, or not.
If you put laws into effect that give "the People" too much power...as in, being able to have someone committed, just because you happen to think they are mentally unbalanced (many people later considered to be geniuses, were a little off the wall), where will it end? One reported instance of assault...pushing, slapping, punching...any type of violence, and I'm sure the police would have taken him into custody; anyone observing this type of behavior...knowing he was a brick shy of a load...should have reported him immediately. I haven't heard of one instance of violence; it's not very often, that a person who shows no proclivity for violence, goes off the deep end and commits mass murder. Having eccentric views, does not give anyone the authority, to have a person committed...had he been raving about his dog telling him to kill the congresswoman...we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
I think he should have an MRI...maybe a brain tumor, is behind this horror.
I can't believe this, I, a Republican am arguing points, that a few years ago, would have become a liberal rant on "the man" having too much power...imagine, being able to have someone committed who had done nothing more than disrupt a few classes, and voice opinions that to others seem strange... just on your word...how many people would use this out of nothing more than hatred, or dislike of another. If you will search into the past...you will find stories of husbands who had wives committed, simply because they were tired of them...How many people would arbitrarily use a law like that to keep anyone...from being able to purchase a gun for any reason...
Yes Y'all just have to accept the fact that there is a major defect in our system of education and justice system and thing like this only make it worst, too many people now are wanting to create a haz-hap to prevent this from happing again and this only going to make it worst. Me when I was 18 i got a 3 felony, now 30 years later I legally by-law can not get a job in the USA, America the land of the free. how this justice. If they could sentence some to death for thinking I would get million death sentence, Justice! What is it? Who create it and why. I have 4 college degrees and speak two half forgien languages, I have a dozen certification and three A.A.S degree's, I was member of Alpha Phi Omega for 6 years in college, I work 200 hours a month serving food too homeless people, make application too become a Mason. Employers do a back ground and says sorry we dont hire felones, Justice right, So some how maybe jare was right he just did not know how to communicate with US, maybe if we just dust the dirt we might see he was right, and we were wrong. What if his IQ was 200 plus. Look at history from artist to math people and psycoligist in last 300 years that we made in to common law, they were crazy they were skid-so, some there painting are worth 100 and 100's million dollars, Mc squared.
If 2 people close to the person says he is wack, then he goes into mental evaluation.
Since both parents were wack, there was no one close. They need to be locked up too.
Funny, there is no mention of how this was Rush Limbaugh's, Sarah Pallin's or the gun's fault. Wow, I guess they aren't to blame after all. Sorry all you liberals.
Reginald - how typical. "we need another law for that." You can't legislate everything. We have way too many laws now. By all means let's have a watch list. then we can elect a dictator next, then turn into Nazi Germany.
As is usually the case when something like this happens, there are lots of Monday morning quarterbacks! Blame the parents! Blame the right! Blame the left! Blame those who didn't intervene!
The fact is that the one who shot the gun is the only person to blame. If he didn't shoot, no one in the media would ever have heard of this guy. What is clear that he "creeped" people out prior to the shooting and that there were people who were afraid of him. As far as I can tell, he hadn't actually done anything that could get him arrested. Yes, apparently has been on the police radar since 2007. Unless there was something that he did that was a violation of the law, what could anyone do? Just because people are afraid of him doesn't mean that he did anything illegal or that anyone could have done anything.
A big assumption people have when they ask "why didn't the parents (or anyone else) do something about him" is that there was something that could have been done about him. As anyone who has been involved in the mental health area knows, more often than not, a person has to want to get better for it to work. There is no indication here that intervening or doing "something" would have accomplished anything. So, other than illegally locking him up so that he wouldn't have the opportunity to do something, even though he might not have done something anyway, is not the way our system works.
Having not only attended, but taught at the college level, the telling part for me IS involving University Police. I have NEVER been in a college setting, as a student or a teacher where an Officer was EVER called! To have repeated calls for one student, that I find to be quite disturbing. Students attend college to learn, the teachers to teach. Violent or irrational behavior is not part of the "norm" of the college existence. Jared was out of control and definitely needed help.
Until everyone who comes in contact with these kinds of people takes an active part in reporting them to authorities - it will continue. We need to stop hiding behind the concept that it is being handled by someone else....Get involved...it's free !!
This guy has all the symptoms of schizophrenia, which generally affects people in late adolescence or early adulthood, so there was nothing for the parents to notice until he was already 18 or so close to it that there wasn't time to go through the long process of evaluation, diagnosis and treatment before he became an adult.
Once they are 18, if they are unwilling to seek treatment on their own, the ONLY way to get them help is through the police forcing them into a short term (24-72 hour) stay at the county mental health hospital. Police are prevented from doing that unless they meet the criteria (generally: a danger to themselves or others). Unless they are waving a weapon around and threatening people, it's almost impossible to prove they are a danger, and the police can be called 100 times without ever agreeing to take the person to a hospital.
The family could have begged the police to take him in, and been refused because he didn't meet the criteria (which is likely here since mulitple police involvments did not result in him being treated). Or they could have simply not understood his illness or the severity of it at all, been baffled by his behavior and at a complete loss as to what it meant or how to deal with it because no one teaches you about mental illness, about the symptoms and what they mean. Either way, they would have been in the exact same boat....helpless to do a damn thing about it.
Finally, even if he was forced into treatment, there is no guarantee that would have prevented this. Schizophrenics frequently stop taking their medications and go back into psychosis. No one can force them to take them if they don't want to.
Fishinfool555 is correct. I am a retired psychiatric nurse and we often received the mentally ill into our locked facility by the cops. Usual scenario: A concerned citizen or family member called the authorities, 911 with complaints they believed the person was a danger to themself, others, or both. In most states this is how it goes. They can be detained in a locked psych. unit where they will be kept safe, receive meds, and basic care or kept in jail until they can get into a psych. unit; soon after that they will receive a mental evaluation by a DE-designated examiner-a Dr. usually a psychiatrist. During that evaluation, it is usually determined what course of action must be taken and then eventually brought before a judge.
In many cases, with the mentally ill, the family has been dealing with various behaviors for many years and it is a long, arduous process to get the kind of care/treatment/help needed. In the meantime, they can watch as their loved one deteriorates and then even refuses to engage in what is considered normal behavior,reasoning, they often act out. Many mentally ill people are in denial about their illness and refuse help when people they know bring it up. Then, when they agree to getting care, it is another very long process toward getting well. Sadly, psychiatric care is in higher demand than is usually available, meaning, many mentally ill have no where to go for treatment, are homeless, unemployed and no way to pay for care. They are at the mercy of society to "deal with them".
ANYONE who is concerned about an person being a danger to themselves or others or both can make the call to the police. Sadly, many people are either afraid to take this step or do not know what to do.
But lets blame Palin and Beck. That is just more fun.
lol ya !
oh not again...........can we give that a rest for a few hours??
when this guy was trying to get into the army, didn't the army do a quick mental test to determine he was unfit for duty? - and determine he wasn't? What was that test?
I believe he was simply disqualified for drug usage.
That's what I heard too freedman1
Very rarely does the army disqualify for drug usage. Very rarely. There is more to this than we are being told.
Actually optomyst, according to this straight from the military recruiting your not true about rarely being disqualified:
Step 7: Complete the process
Alcohol & Drug Disqualifications
Remember that in MOST cases, these are NOT permanently disqualifying. However, these are factors that you should mention to your recruiter. If you are later found to have lied or not informed the military about your legal or medical past, they might throw you out. Remember that there is no penalty or punishment in talking about your situations with your recruiter, so always check with him/her first!
In general, past alcohol abuse is waiver-able, but if it led to other problems such as violence, then you will have more trouble getting a waiver. Concerning drugs; "soft drugs" such as marijuana and hashish are usually waiver-able, while "hard drugs" such as cocaine and heroin are usually disqualifying.
Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
a. Alcohol dependence.
b. Drug dependence.
c. Non-dependent use of drugs characterized by -
(1) The evidence of use of any controlled hallucinogenic, or other intoxicating substance at time of examination, when the use cannot be accounted for as the result of a prescription of a physician.
(2) Documented misuse or abuse of any controlled substance (including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids) requiring professional care.
(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior.
d. The use of LSD within a 2-year period of the examination.
e. Alcohol abuse, use of alcoholic beverages that leads to misconduct, unacceptable social behavior, poor work or academic performance, impaired physical or mental health, lack of financial responsibility, or a disrupted personal relationship.
Positive drug or alcohol test
a. Any applicant or enlistee who was or is confirmed positive for the presence of drugs or alcohol at time of original physical examination or test may be retested in 6 months if the confirmed positive was for alcohol or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (marijuana) only. If retest is negative, a waiver may be requested for enlistment. No waiver for positive result on last test is authorized.
b. If applicant's retest is positive, he or she is disqualified for 2 years from date of retest. Applicants found positive for cocaine or other drugs are not authorized a retest until 1 year from date of original test. If after 1 year the retest is negative, a waiver may be granted for enlistment. If retest is positive, a 2-year waiting period from the retest is required.
And what you have had them do?
They couldn't just haul the guy away and lock him up. The ACLU would have had a field day with it. You would have had people howling in outrage over it because "the poor guy is just misunderstood. He's not dangerous, he just needs help." There would have been excuse after excuse given as to why he was the way he was.
That's part of the problem. There is currently no real definitive answer for dealing with someone like him. Oh sure, the college was finally able to suspend him and get him out of their hair, but what else could anyone outside of his immediate family do to remove him as a threat to others? And no, I don't mean killing him, I mean having him locked up in a mental institution or something like that.
It is becoming more and more obvious that a lot of people knew this guy was nuttier than a 10 pound fruitcake, but what options did they have? Under the current laws, pretty much none. Perhaps that should change, but then you run into the issue of individual rights. Does society have the "right" to lock up someone who is mentally ill simply for the "good of society"? If so, what criteria would be applied to making such legal decisions? Would such laws hold up in court? There are obviously many others.
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to an issue like this and the odds of the federal government coming up with an intelligent plan to deal with it are pretty much zero.
Excellent post. Mythoughts exactly. What I am wondering though is what was the conversation between the father and the police officer in the back yard. Also what about the temple type thing with the skull and stuff. As a father I would have noticed that. The parents should have had some type of Idea. Not of a potential homicide, but that the kid was troubled.
Idaho dragon:
I just don't know what to say. Your post is so rational, so factual, and so spot-on. We have these folks who seem to think our constitutionally-protected freedoms are absolute. They do not seem to understand that our freedoms necessarily overlap. As an instance, we have the freedom to smoke. You choose to do so. I do not. What do we do when the smoke from your cigarette comes into the air I breathe? These questions plague those who are charged with maintaining an orderly society twenty-four hours a day.
We may both look at Loughner and see a very troubled young man. We report him to the authorities and tell them of our suspicions. As it turns out, we would have been right, but what would we have the authorities do? Do we give them powers than can at some time in the future be abused to such an extent that with the wrong people in power, American suddenly finds itself with gulags full of "ill" citizens.
I grow weary of the simple-minded posters who believe all problems have a nice, tidy, black-and-white solution. Those who hold such a simplistic view - both left and right - unfortunately comprise the majority of the electorate.
I am rather long of tooth and I do not believe I will be affected by one of the two inevitable outcomes of our current status. Either America remains mired in gridlock until we collapse financially OR we eventually become an intractable populace that welcomes a dictator. History is replete with examples, and hackneyed though it may be: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Read the above post. Under Arizona's one of a kind law, yes they could have. (at least FORCED a mental health evaluation.)
Apparently all they had to do is document that he posed a threat to himself or others in order to get that involuntary evaluation. They had more than enough complaint and documentation of his behavior to do that.
If you read Arizona law, people other than family members can do something about a mentally ill or dangerous person.
They (officials) had plenty of options. You cannot tell me, nor would I believe that all these students, and the college, were unaware of his mental problems. The math teacher who was afraid to turn his back? The student who sat near the door in case this nutter brought a gun to class? His friend who cut off contact with him because he was afraid to go target shooting with him? They knew. They knew.
And under the law, any one of them could have asked for a mental evaluation. Heck, the college told him he could not return to school until he had one.
How much more proof does a person need?
AP,
Tell me all the laws in your state. I seriously doubt most people knew about this law until this story. In fact, I will be willing to bet even most people still do not know about this law. Just because a law exists does not know anyone knows about it.
Hindsight is so easy. This "crazy" person with no history of violence shoots a bunch of people. There was a law on the books that could have forced an evaluation that nobody knows about.
Is it even illegal to bring a knife to a college campus (even a junior college)?
Mental illness, especially when people do not exhibit violent behavior, pretty much never turns in to mass murder. If it did, we would have hundreds of thousand (if not millions) of people committing mass murder in this country.
People seem to be trying way to hard to justify how this could have happpened and not really looking at the reality of the situation.
You can bet your sweet bippy the high school, the college ANd the Army knew about it. The army is using drugs as an excuse, but I would put money on the fact that he could not pass their psych tests. This information would not be released as it would compromise the trial.
This might rough some feathers, but what about a mental evaluation every so often for firearm ownership, particularly handguns (Since most people are killed by handguns)?
Some of the gun nuts are rather, not cute, in their love affair with guns.
I believe all sane people have the right to have guns. I agree with you and I have been asking for years, why isn't a mental health evaluation done along with the criminal record check. And you are right, the mental health evaluation should be done periodically.
OK. I'll bite. What would that mental evaluation consist of? If the dude was intent on doing what he did he would have obtained a weapon illegally anyway. And facts behind "most people killed by handguns " would be nice. But I respect your opinion. That is what America is all about.
Some of the Anti-gun nuts are rather ugly in their love affair with trying to take away my constitutional rights.
I think its safe to say almost any mental health test you could devise...including forming a coherent sentence...would be failed by this young man. You wouldn't have to have set that bar too high.
I agree what would that evaluation consist of? And do people really think that those mental evaluations can't be outdone. Take it from somebody who knows they can be outdone... I know a kid who is a self mutilating Bipolar, border line personality disorder, who passed a mental evaluation by a psychiatrist with both hands tied behind her back at 15. The questions are easy to get around and any kid who stops to think about the evaluation can pass the thing with flying colors and come out as sane as any sane person. I do agree something should be done, but is there really a fool proof plan that can be done about this? Besides living in a dictatorship world????
In the state I used to live in (Mn) we went into the sherrifs office and had to get a permit to purchase. Fill out a long form and they ran it through whatever they ran it through. I think it was only good for a year or two. Just saying law enforcement had a hand in it. If the sherrif saw the record this kid had he would not have been able to obtain the handgun. (in mn). Legally that is.
bettyr
that was my point exactly. thanks
Its not just a criminal back ground check. It also checks for mental health issues but if the mental health issue is not reported then it dosn't go on the report. The back ground check can only report whats given to them. Some of the anti gun freaks, nuts (or anything else they seem to call us pro constitution folks) need to provide facts with some of their off the top of their head claims. I agree thunderbutt.....facts would be nice.
So a person should be mentally evaluated before purchasing a firearm? What about when they purchase an automobile? Maybe when they purchase a knife or a chainsaw for that matter?
All these can be used to take a persons life, but you only want mental evaluation for purchase of a firearm.
Gun control has not taken any guns out of criminal hands!!
I agree, and we also need periodic psychiatric evaluations of people while they exercise their first amendment provided freedom of speech. Have you seen some of these posts? It is clear to me that many should not be allowed to have a keyboard, let alone credentials to log in and post comments. We can add them to a list that will not allow them to have Facebook access or other electronic means of communications until a government appointed official evaluates and takes them off the list.
Additionally, we should have a list of individuals whom are perceived defective and take away their 5th amendment right to non-incrimination. Realistically, why do we allow anyone to "plead the 5th?" It must be clear that they are guilty of the crime and should be immediately convicted.
And where does that lead us? To a government that can claim everyone is too unstable to own a gun...of course, that would make many people very happy...until the backlash started, and criminals were coming into your house and taking whatever it is they want (including your wife or daughter) because they know that honest citizens no longer have guns...ask the Brits and the Aussies what they think of their gun ban...
Whether you like it or not...this is a free country...and the constitution gives us the right to defend our homes and persons...that is not going to change.
I totally agree with Marie Pierce....I couldn't have said it better.
I agree also, Marie Pierce.
Agreed. I love that the discussion has just been about the political motivations of this atrocity, which were completely superfluous. This kid clearly doesn't understand the things he's saying or doing in a rational way, so we can't accuse him of making a rational political decision to attack this woman. He wanted her dead because she couldn't answer a nonsense question he asked her, in person, in 2007. That's it. That's just plain mentally ill.
Which is what we should be talking about. How is it that a multitude of warning signs existed that this kid was unstable, and yet no mental health intervention occurred? Our ignorance of mental health in this country is downright embarrassing, and facilitates events like this.
I'm reminded of when Tyler Clementi killed himself. The upshot of the story was about the evils of bullying and what we can do to fight it, and how homosexual people are persecuted in America. Essentially, the story was immediately politicized.
Why wasn't the discussion about suicide prevention? People are bullied all the time without killing themselves, and yet no one mentions that the act of suicide is an extreme act of an ill mind? Suicide was cast as somehow inevitable and even UNDERSTANDABLE(!) given the homophobia this young man confronted. Again, the mental health issues at the core of the tragedy were ignored so we could put up a bogeyman and spit at it.
God bless America, where our national pastime is completely and habitually missing the point.
Exactly this.
This article gives proof that this man was clearly unstable. I wonder why he was able to purchase a firearm so easily.
Probably because he had never committed an act of violence...how would you like it, if I were able to go to the local car dealership, and say, "Phastey shouldn't be allowed to buy a car, he/she drinks, and will probably kill someone with his/her car."
Brandon, our national past time is freedom. Even the freedom to be weird. You cannot pick a man up and force him to not be weird. If he is a danger to himself or others, then rightfully so. But when that cannot be determined, then we can all be weird. I exercise that right frequently.
Exactly. Unfortunately it's often a fine line between weird and dangerously weird and even professionals need to perform thorough evaluations to determine when the line is crossed. Classmates, parents, and acquaintances aren't always going to see it until it's too late.
Enjoy your weirdness Freedman1 and don't go too close to the line...
freedman1, far be it from me to infringe on anyone's freedom. However, there's a difference between being weird (which most people are) and being threatening and erratic (which few people are), which are documented qualities of Jared Lee Loughner. Furthermore, those qualities were long documented prior to Saturday's events. I was also not suggesting "picking him up." Social workers and therapists are always more effective for the mentally ill than police, although municipal budgets would suggest otherwise.
My point wasn't that we should force this man to do anything. My point was that the media outlets are discussing this story in political terms, when the political aspects of the story are completely superficial. If his friends, teachers, or parents were more educated about mental health, and how to spot warning signs of extreme mental illness, this could have been easily prevented through therapy and possibly medication. I think in this case, the fact that he was a danger to himself and others could definitely have been determined, if the people around him knew more about mental health. Thus, the discussion should be about ignorance about mental illness. Period. This is what I meant by missing the point. Sarah Palin / Keith Olbermann / Rush Limbaugh / Tea Partiers / Crosshair Maps / Etc. had nothing to do with any of this, and yet that's all I'm reading about.
This is such new territory. Hoping for course of action, in the future, that keeps this problem at bay, for all involved.
From reading but a few of his YouTube rants, it's pretty damn clear he has issues. I believe he spoke this way around his parents, too. T
So, to use this dopes train of thought....if Jared is a dope, and jared lives with his parents, then jared's parents are dopes. Jareds parents are dopes because they live with jared. Jared is a dope.
Why didn't they get him help five years ago?
Because they were dopes?
(Was that a trick question?)
yup
Thank god he wasn't in the army. He would have been the one to turn on his buddies.
I remember when they used to pick up homeless guys and send them to the nuthouse. They really did, but it was ruled illegal.
what's so bizarre about this is that IF he was indeed a threat--and they acknowledged this possibility was the basis for denying him further access to classes--the college itself was clearly the most obvious target for any homicidal rampage that might ensue. Given AZ's very accommodating law and having law enforcement already involved with his behavior, you'd think they'd take advantage of it, to make sure he got evaluated.
Denying him access to classes doesn't solve the problem if the problem is a mentally disturbed man with a demonstrated grudge against the college, a grudge that is now going to be greatly exacerbated by their suspension of him. There is no check-in on the edge of a college campus. Just because you're barred from attending class doesn't mean you don't have access to the grounds.
In colleges SELF interest for the future--especially in the wake of Va Tech--it's mind boggling to me that this college would not have taken that step and prompted a mandatory evaluation. In most states, they wouldn't have even had the option, because his behavior was not overtly threatening. In AZ, they DID have the option, and didn't use it. That's incredible. All this talk about mental health funding is a red herring if the person never even had contact with the system to start with. He was 22 and a dependent student, for all we know he might have been still covered by his parents' health plan and it wasn't utilized. Unless we know he had no access to care, again all this talk about funding and follow up is a red herring in this particular case.
The college DID require a mandatory evaluation in order to return to campus. That's all they can do. Nobody can force you or I to see a shrink just on the basis of being weird. If that was the case, then people that are into sticking metal objects in their nose, tongue, face, etc., might be require to be evaluated.
And if this massacre had taken place on the campus instead of a Safeway store, we'd be burying a lot more people........the problem is no one has made an effort to fix the problem. The media is placing blame on anyone that has a public face when he was a psycho. How can this problem be fixed? Not by taking away our free speech! Mental health issues need to be addressed!
You are so right! Sadly, due to budget cuts, mental health programs are suffering. His mental illness issues should have been addressed in a health care setting, rather than in a court of law as they will be at this time. Mental health care in the country cannot take a back seat!
Loughner needs a bullet to the temple that should cure is mental issues
You agree with Loughner then. Killing is the answer.
He just wants the kid silenced before he starts talking about Limpballs, Palin and Beck. Where's the next Jack RUBY when you need him?
This kind of evil, one would debate if a society would not want to keep dibs on where this evil lives in a 6 by 9 foot cell. But this went Federal and the Federal law for this is Death Penalty. My opinion would side against Death Penalty.
Whether or not anyone got further "involved", Pima Community College COVERED THEIR BEHINDS! They were in a position to be seriously harmed so they did take action - THEY SUSPENDED JARED and refused to let him return until he had a mental evaluation.
The first thing I thought when I heard about the suspension was that somebody st PIMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE is THRILLED! Whoever suggested the suspension and whoever was involved in writing up and delivering the suspension, and whoever made sure the cops DELIVERED THE SUSPENSION surely earned a PROMOTION. He or she took a difficult controversial position, and by doing so very likely saved the school from becomming another VIRGINIA TECH!
This is the first time we've heard of a school actually taking proactive action against a mass shooter and because of this action, the shooter was unable to add another school to the growing list of institutions that hae been conquered by a crazed gunman. I have no doubt from previous incidents, shooting up a school and students is far more rewarding that shooting up total strangers in a shopping center.
I agree, the college made the right decision.
However, Loughner could have easily returned to the campus, not to attend class, but to shoot people, if that's what he had decided on. But the campus was not his target.
The problem with all this? People clamour for action, that something should have been done. Some one should have done something, There were "signs" etc. But when actions like this are avoided the first thing these very same people scream is rights were violated, Laws were broken and the person has not done anything. There is no real course in this action because regardless of whether rights get violated or not some one always has the 20/20 hindsight to know something is wrong.
The parents couldn't make their son do anything he is an adult, they could have lied to the magistrate and said he made threats to hurt himself or somone else-that could have gotten him an involuntary comittment.
I believe we need to have in place in every city a mental health crisis intervention team. When called could try to make an evaluation (very basic/limited one) Get the involuntary commital and then a resonable mental health evaluation. We do this with suspected drunk drivers-by doing a roadside assessment and breathalizer or blood test. Why not for this type of situation?
Yes this guy had mental issues and needed serious help!!! We also need gun control!!!!
Parents watch & listen to your kids, your responsibility never ends.
yes you are right some peps do need to learn how to control a gun thanks for your input
Please explain to me what gun control would do.
Gun control does nothing but take guns out of the hands of people honest enough to turn them in...in other words, it leaves all of us at the mercy of drug cartels, and other criminals, including home invaders...who would be the only ones left with guns. Look at Mexico, and Africa...those people are being slaughtered daily, because they have no means to defend themselves...
Gun control is not the answer.
Maybe a data base that could contain any mental issues or concerns...for instance, if a person...like Loughner...had been suspended from school or fired from a job, for threats or because of real (not imagined or invented) concerns...that could be included in the background check...and before that person could actually buy a gun...have a mental evaluation (which won't always stop them, guns are also sold on the black market, and anyone who really wants to, can aquire one)...it's a very slippery slope...but, if used as intended...I wouldn't have an objection to it...but many would try to twist it and abuse it, to suit their own political agenda...and that is why we fight so hard, to keep people from messing with the 2nd amendment...not because we want innocent people to be killed or maimed...because there will always be those, that would take something that could help, and use it to suit their own agenda.
Jared Lee Loughner, the latest political football.
Hes a Liberal, no hes a Conservative, No hes a liberal!
Mental health should be subsidized by the government, as one with a dangerous mind mixed with the constitutional right to buy a firearm seems to cause a lot more damage to those around him than a broken leg or cancer, I guess people with AIDS can cause damage by continuing the have unprotected sex, but it gets a lot less publicity.
Some of these people seek for other people to fear them out of their own paranoid thinking, and what better way to do that than to come off as completely crazy and own a handgun.
This is exactly the problem as someone said above "exactly how would you become involved". It is nearly impossible to have someone mentally evaluated without their consent. In the past years our country has swung completely overboard in the mental health arena. There are hardly any institutions for mental rehabilitation, mostly only out-patient. Many homeless are mentally ill and are left to the streets because of our fear of violating their rights. Recently I took someone to the ER that was patently psychotic, saying her husband was trying to kill her by poison, incoherent and speaking jibberish. The ER physician refused to put a hold on the person because the MD felt she was not a danger to self or others (excuse me)! The patient put on a show for the MD in hiding many symptoms until we were out the door. She stated she was smarter than he was and he was the one that was crazy for letting her fool him. This person refused to be admitted for eval and was merely made an apt with a psychiatrist in two days time, which of course she did not keep. Her family is afraid of her and she isolates herslf most of the time. They are at wits end about this and I suppose will have to wait until she commits a crime of violence agianst them.
That is very sad...I agree there needs to be a way for friends and family, to be able to say, "We believe this person is very likely to do something crazy...soon. Please help us..."
But again, people have abused that privilege in the past...people have been committed for all kinds of reasons...greed, hatred, jealousy...how would you be able to know if you were being scammed...just so a family member could get control over a parents estate?
Yes, people are quick to blame the parents. But the guy is legally an adult. And I know a couple of parents who have tried to get help for their teenagers, just very difficult. Mental illness is so difficult to deal with.
If we had any proper gun control in this country, then a mentally ill person would not be able to kill and hurt so many. Years ago, in Australia, they had a couple of nut cases shoot up a few places, and they sanely said, "Enough is enough" and put in strict gun control. No mass shootings since.
One option was that his parents could have sought help through the various systems in the state, county, and through the courts. He could have been asked to undergo voluntary testing, or his parents could have petitioned the courts for temporary commitment and evaluation. The school should have made that suggestion in a letter to his parents. In most states the police could have directed the parents to the agency that could advise his parents, since he did still live with them, as to options for him. There were a lot of balls dropped by a lot of agencies and his family and friends. As for the purchase of the firearm and ammunition. He had no real history to prevent him from making the purchase. He would have had to exhibit some pretty bizarre behavior at the time of the purchase for the police to have been called in.
I think we should set up a; "I think I know someone, that wants to blow people away" Hotline. It should be sponsored by the media and include letting people who think they are capable of hurting others to call and have someone to talk to before they go off and do something stupid.
That is a great idea....I have a list of Liberals I would like to turn in right now!
See Patrick, Scorned just gave you the perfect example...it is so easy for it to be used in a way not intended...how would you keep that from happening?
I don't see people dodging involvement here.
The campus police are not trained to be able to handle this, if there is even a way to handle it. He had committed no crime in these records.
At the same time, it is clear that something about him scared his instructors and fellow students.
Tech thought: police officers ought to actually record witnesses' statements these days (ie, audio recording). Too much is lost in the short summary they have to write. Of course they will still have to summarize, but the police record needs the more complete statement of the witnesses. How hard is it these days to carry a little MP3/recorder, and add that to the computer record?
Second thought: every police department ought to have available the services of a mental health professional. In a case like this, where an individual has creeped people out, is antisocial, and may have further drug-enhanced psychoses, the mental health professional should be consulted and should probably attend the call. Not the first call, but subsequent calls based on the history of that individual.
Where would that police department find such an individual? It's possible the c.c. has a counseling department, for students actually like this, who may have drug problems or life crises like it sounds like he was having. Having a counselor on hand or consulting in cases like this, could potentially make a difference, and would at least make the decisions more informed.
who cares he only shot whites, not like he can be accused of being a racist and shooting minorities, talk about a PC killer
It is a proven fact, Liberal whites HATE their own kind the most!
290,215 blacks live in Arizona according to the latest census, out of a total population of 6,595,778 people.
For sure ? I'm moving to AZ !
I really hope you guys are just joking...we have a pretty civilized conversation going, why start a rant about racism? It has nothing to do with the subject...
Schools, police, etc. should be able to funnel info into a database for individuals who exhibit threatening behavior. This information could be reviewed periodically and purged if there is no "pattern" of behavior. Also, when a U.S. Rep or Senator is at a local event, the local police should provide a temporary body guard. Most of these events do not last long so it shouldn't be a stretch for the local law to handle it. Unfortunately, you cant prevent violence in a free society completely but you can cut it down considerably with some common sense solutions.
Ken...I wouldn't object to a database like that...as long as it were purged after a suitable amount of time for the threat involved...I know a person who got mad, blew off steam (threatening to kill his wife's lover)...and then was quite embarrassed by what he said, and did (break the guys windshield; which he paid to replace, without being taken to court)...he apologized for his actions, and has never been in any trouble before or since. BTW, he had guns at his disposal; but never picked one up and pointed it at anyone, never even threatened too...he was upset...as anyone would be, about finding out about a spouses infidelity...thankfully, most of us do have limits to what we will actually do, in such a circumstance...obviously, he wasn't the kind of person that would do what he said while he was pissed; proof being that the wife divorced him, and married the lover...BTW, they are both still alive...that was over 20 years ago.
Would I have taken his guns, or had him committed? No, but I wouldn't have sold him one at the time either...