Page 1 of 2
#1
Ok, I basically have a story to tell.
There is a family with 2 young children who live/lived up the road for me, the husband was very well known in the community and had a great job. He had a mental illness earlier in life, but was on medication, however he had been mixing this with alcohol over the past few year, slowly getting worse.
Yesterday the wife left, taking the kids and bringing the cops there while she took the stuff out of the house, he was raging and this was the first time any of us in the neighborhood saw he act out directly, although for years we'd been getting various vandalism on different lawns, which we all always put down to kids, but now we think it could have been him.
Anyway the cops came around and told us all to avoid him and that he was dangerous, acknowledging he was possibly suicidal, yet leaving him in the house.
Last night he took his own life, burning down part of his house with him.

Now I think it ridiculous that he was allowed to remain in the community when he was already acknowledged as a threat to himself and the community. This man was quite a smart man who just fell into a bad drinking habit which aggravated his mental illness.
Why does it seem our governments leave known risks in the community when they should be being cared for. For all I know he may have decided to burn down my house along with himself, or he could have decided to take a few people out in other ways with him.

Anyway Pit, discuss mental illness within the community and what could be improved or any stories of your own..

Tl;dr

Mentally ill guy was let to stay in the community despite being acknowledged as a risk to himself and others. Last night he killed himself.
#2
alright. somebody screwed up obv.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#3
So you believe that the government should have the power to determine who is perceived as a threat and isolate them/remove them from the community?

Well that's clearly a brilliant, well thought out idea.

Actually reminds me of this.
#4
Theres no way to tell what people are going to do, and until we can read minds, we're gonna have to live with **** like this.
_____________________
_____________________
__________
................ ..................

Current Gear
Schecter Stiletto Elite-5LH
Dean E09L
Line 6 LD15
#5
Quote by RU Experienced?
So you believe that the government should have the power to determine who is perceived as a threat and isolate them/remove them from the community?

Well that's clearly a brilliant, well thought out idea.

Actually reminds me of this.


however, the man in OPs story was a threat to himself with reasonable proof. Japanese internment camps were just a precaution because the govt wasnt prepared for such a situation. japanese showed no harm as where this guy did.

although it is a good comparison
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#6
I don't think there was enough proof that he was a threat to himself and others. The real proof came from the suicide, but it's too late at that point.
#8
Okay, most of those in the religion thread know that I have a few problems to say the least, but that's not the point. Someone has demons they need to deal with. Put yourself in his shoes. He's going through a lot and has been through a lot because he wasn't ever seen as "normal"

I have bipolar disorder and borderline personality. I'm not medically or socially "normal" either. I've never been seen as such either.

I however try to contribute as much as I can for my community. I'm my school's mascot and I'm active in FCCLA, FFA, the academic team, HS choir, and just about everything else for the school. I teach 7 kids how to play guitar for $10 a week. They can't afford this, so the church pays for it.

I do everything I can and yet at the end of the day, I'm the same lonely, broken boy that was sent to the mental hospital a few months back. I have demons, but no one cares for anyone anymore.

I believe very much so in redemption and that one can overcome anything. People say that I'm not normal or that this man isn't normal are simply judgmental and if you look closely, the base of that word is judge and "mental".

I would argue that the side of society that does not care for those that are hurting and those that can't deal with their problems on their own are in fact the ones that are not "normal." They don't have the empathy for pain like this man probably has. He can see another's pain, relate to it, and feel less vulnerable because he isn't alone in the situation.

If you would give up on a person because they couldn't deal with the pressures of life and simply say "you're crazy" I would argue that in your judgmental state that you in fact are crazy and that you should be locked up. Not those you think are "crazy" for they are generally compassionate, caring, and are eager ti listen to you if you'll listen to them.

Give everyone a chance and have sympathy if you can't have empathy. If we could accept our differences and come together, this world would be a much better place for all of us, especially this man and me.
Quote by lceman13
The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing.
If consequences dictate, it's only wrong when we get caught - Tool
#9
Quote by Glen'sHeroicAct
I don't think there was enough proof that he was a threat to himself and others. The real proof came from the suicide, but it's too late at that point.


that's one of the things I've noticed about mental disorders compared to physical disorders. When you see a broken leg, you can tell that said person won't be able to walk right. When you see someone with a cold, you know they won't have as much energy. When you see someone with a mental illness, it's harder to react because you don't see the signs until it's too late
Quote by lceman13
The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing.
If consequences dictate, it's only wrong when we get caught - Tool
#10
Quote by koalabacon
however, the man in OPs story was a threat to himself with reasonable proof. Japanese internment camps were just a precaution because the govt wasnt prepared for such a situation. japanese showed no harm as where this guy did.

although it is a good comparison

Yes, but we cannot deny those being treated for mental disorders their rights because we merely perceive them to be a threat.

The government should not have the power to remove someone from their home, family, friends, etc. nor should they have the power to determine who is and who is not a threat, because that would most likely be abused (US Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping comes to mind).
#11
Quote by RU Experienced?
Yes, but we cannot deny those being treated for mental disorders their rights because we merely perceive them to be a threat.

The government should not have the power to remove someone from their home, family, friends, etc. nor should they have the power to determine who is and who is not a threat, because that would most likely be abused (US Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping comes to mind).


although you make a valid point, i believe the govt can deny rights to those who may potentially violate somebody elses.

however, whether they are believed to be a threat or not is completely up for debate.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#12
Quote by RU Experienced?
Yes, but we cannot deny those being treated for mental disorders their rights because we merely perceive them to be a threat.

The government should not have the power to remove someone from their home, family, friends, etc. nor should they have the power to determine who is and who is not a threat, because that would most likely be abused (US Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping comes to mind).


This man had been a visible threat including hitting his wife and children as well as threatening them.
He was mixing alcohol and medication, im not saying mental illness on its own is a threat, I dont think he needs to be locked up, he needs help though and I think the police who even said he was a threat to himself as well as to others.
#13
Quote by koalabacon
although you make a valid point, i believe the govt can deny rights to those who may potentially violate somebody elses.

however, whether they are believed to be a threat or not is completely up for debate.

It's not whether they can or cannot, it's whether they should.

If you deny people rights then they cease to be rights and become privileges which the government can strip away from you.

Edit^: that doesn't matter, either he or his family should have seeked help for him. The solution is not to remove those who the government perceives to be a threat from their homes, jobs, lives.

Edit2: And if he was physically abusing his family that's illegal and he should have been imprisoned for it. Maybe there he could have gotten the help he needed.
Last edited by RU Experienced? at Jul 21, 2009,
#14
Quote by RU Experienced?
It's not whether they can or cannot, it's whether they should.

If you deny people rights then they cease to be rights and become privileges which the government can strip away from you.

Edit^: that doesn't matter, either he or his family should have seeked help for him. The solution is not to remove those who the government perceives to be a threat from their homes, jobs, lives.


i somewhat agree with you in the first statement. however, certain rights should be stripped if its obvious that person is a threat, and has/will violate somebody elses. Wheres the justice in a letting a criminal convicted of homocide own a gun? however, only certain right should be denied.

it is unreasonable that the govt would take such direct action so quickly, but both sides have there points

EDIT: i do believe the govt did make the reaction in OPs story. they didnt have reasonable evidence for his emotional instability
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

Last edited by koalabacon at Jul 21, 2009,
#15
No one has any business getting into other business. He has a right to kill himself. If he wants to do so, let him.

He is mentally ill? Thats a matter of opinion.

To get help, you must seek help. If you don't acknowledge there being a problem, then one does not exist.

And to counter the eventual argument that he could of burnt TS's house down, well so what. I could burn your house down too. So could you. So could any other person in the world. You can't prevent it. If you took him away, someone else could have still burnt your house down. Safety is just an illusion.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#16
Quote by koalabacon
i somewhat agree with you in the first statement. however, certain rights should be stripped if its obvious that person is a threat, and has/will violate somebody elses. Wheres the justice in a letting a criminal convicted of homocide own a gun? however, only certain right should be denied.

it is unreasonable that the govt would take such direct action so quickly, but both sides have there points

EDIT: i do believe the govt did make the reaction in OPs story. they didnt have reasonable evidence for his emotional instability

If someone was convicted of a violent crime involving firearms and they went through the punitive system for that crime then they should be reformed and therefore pose no threat to society (again, I don't like the concept of the government determining who is and who is not a "threat").

The problem here is that our judicial system blows ass at its job and many of the people who are released have not been adequately treated to be integrated back into society.
#17
Quote by RU Experienced?
If someone was convicted of a violent crime involving firearms and they went through the punitive system for that crime then they should be reformed and therefore pose no threat to society (again, I don't like the concept of the government determining who is and who is not a "threat").

The problem here is that our judicial system blows ass at its job and many of the people who are released have not been adequately treated to be integrated back into society.


Everyone is a threat.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#18
Quote by TunerAddict
No one has any business getting into other business. He has a right to kill himself. If he wants to do so, let him.

.

its against the law to kill yourself.... soooo....
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#20
Quote by koalabacon
its against the law to kill yourself.... soooo....


thats wrong

No person has the right to tell you what to do with your own body. Its your property.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#21
Quote by koalabacon
its against the law to kill yourself.... soooo....

I'm sure that many suicidal people have a sudden change of heart when they learn that it's illegal to kill themselves.
#22
Quote by RU Experienced?
If someone was convicted of a violent crime involving firearms and they went through the punitive system for that crime then they should be reformed and therefore pose no threat to society (again, I don't like the concept of the government determining who is and who is not a "threat").

The problem here is that our judicial system blows ass at its job and many of the people who are released have not been adequately treated to be integrated back into society.

what if its multiple felonies? shouldnt there be a limit before that persons right is denied fully? Not that the govt makes the right actions in every situation involving the denial of peoples rights, and i do believe the abuse their power, but i do believe in some cases rights should be denied.

although our judicial system does blow major ass and there are many many flaws within it, they can do only so much to help one person and make them safe to themselves and the surrounding community.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#23
Quote by Feel bad inc.
Why does it seem our governments leave known risks in the community when they should be being cared for.

Because governments are retarded and like to put more effort into less important things.

In the U.S. a while back, the government cut funding to a lot of psych wards. Led to a lot of closings. Guess where a lot of the patients had to go? Nowhere.

They just opened the doors and kicked them out.
#24
Quote by RU Experienced?
I'm sure that many suicidal people have a sudden change of heart when they learn that it's illegal to kill themselves.

i was commenting on the previous statement that the govt should let a person kill them self if the person wants to.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#25
Quote by koalabacon
what if its multiple felonies? shouldnt there be a limit before that persons right is denied fully? Not that the govt makes the right actions in every situation involving the denial of peoples rights, and i do believe the abuse their power, but i do believe in some cases rights should be denied.

although our judicial system does blow major ass and there are many many flaws within it, they can do only so much to help one person and make them safe to themselves and the surrounding community.


No.

You cannot take rights away. They are something we are born with that others cannot tamper with.

And how do you know they won't change that time? You cannot know.

Say a guy robs banks and goes to jail 7 times. 7 times is the number of time it takes before he loses his right to whatever. But he finally learns and reforms that 7th time. Now he can't do what he wants even though he has turned over a new leaf. Thats bull****.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#26
Quote by TunerAddict
thats wrong

No person has the right to tell you what to do with your own body. Its your property.



uh, no. its definitely against the law. failure in attempt results in penalties and fines.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#27
Quote by TunerAddict
thats wrong

No person has the right to tell you what to do with your own body. Its your property.


What about in the case of someone who is unable to weigh up the situation properly?

If a man comes into a hospital with a crushed leg, drifting in and out of consciousness from blood loss and painkillers are you going to allow him to decide if the leg should be amputated? No, you would leave that desicion to someone who is able to see the issue clearly. In this case a Doctor or close acquaintance.

The same goes for those who are seriously mentally ill. Please note I'm not equating suicide or depression (although in more extreme cases I would) with mental illness, but in the case that someone is unable to reasonably decide something for themselves, someone else must decide for them.

Quote by TunerAddict
No.

You cannot take rights away. They are something we are born with that others cannot tamper with.

And how do you know they won't change that time? You cannot know.

Say a guy robs banks and goes to jail 7 times. 7 times is the number of time it takes before he loses his right to whatever. But he finally learns and reforms that 7th time. Now he can't do what he wants even though he has turned over a new leaf. Thats bull****.


I agree entirely but restraining someone who has displayed a will and means to cause harm to others property (including the body) is hardly an infringement of their rights.
Last edited by leeb rocks at Jul 21, 2009,
#28
somehow this became less about the disorder but about the preservation of rights... Just an observation
Quote by lceman13
The amount of ignorance in this thread is amazing.
If consequences dictate, it's only wrong when we get caught - Tool
#29
Quote by TunerAddict
No.

You cannot take rights away. They are something we are born with that others cannot tamper with.

And how do you know they won't change that time? You cannot know.

Say a guy robs banks and goes to jail 7 times. 7 times is the number of time it takes before he loses his right to whatever. But he finally learns and reforms that 7th time. Now he can't do what he wants even though he has turned over a new leaf. Thats bull****.


no. only Natural rights are technically the rights that cant be taken away since birth. the rights the US gives us [well, if you live in the US] are unalienable by the govt for no reason. they were put in place to limit the govt. [an old article states if they are denied, that one can overthrow the govt, however, this would never happen]


7 times is too many. sorry. and what right would be taken away from robbing a bank? be more specific.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

Last edited by koalabacon at Jul 21, 2009,
#30
Quote by leeb rocks
What about in the case of someone who is unable to weigh up the situation properly?

If a man comes into a hospital with a crushed leg, drifting in and out of consciousness from blood loss and painkillers are you going to allow him to decide if the leg should be amputated? No, you would leave that desicion to someone who is able to see the issue clearly. In this case a Doctor or close acquaintance.

The same goes for those who are seriously mentally ill. Please note I'm not equating suicide or depression (although in more extreme cases I would) with mental illness, but in the case that someone is unable to reasonably decide something for themselves, someone else must decide for them.


What is reason though? Thats an extrememly subjective matter.

The case of the leg is easy. A doctor's oath is to do whatever they can to save a patient, so they'd impose their will on the man. He cannot decide for himself, so a decision must be made for him. Sadly he doesn't have the option of deciding for himself, which makes the authority in this situation, the doctor, the one in charge. Sucks, but its just how it is.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#31
Quote by koalabacon
no. only Natural rights are technically the rights that cant be taken away since birth. the rights the US gives us [well, if you live in the US] are unalienable by the govt for no reason. they were put in place to limit the govt. [an old article states if they are denied, that one can overthrow the govt, however, this would never happen]


7 times is too many. sorry. and what right would be taken away from robbing a bank? be more specific.


Where did I equate my idea of rights to the US natural born rights?

I didn't. My beliefs are very different.

Its your opinion that 7 is too many times. Maybe I feel differently. Maybe for me its 8. For Joe over there its 20. For Pastor Pete, there isn't a limit.

There isn't some ultimate way to do it. Someone is always going to disagree, someone is always going to have their ideas and their rights violated. Once again, it sucks, but its the sad state of society, and its a unfixable problem. Its just a trade off system.

There are only problems that create more problems, and no solutions.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#32
Quote by koalabacon
what if its multiple felonies? shouldnt there be a limit before that persons right is denied fully? Not that the govt makes the right actions in every situation involving the denial of peoples rights, and i do believe the abuse their power, but i do believe in some cases rights should be denied.

although our judicial system does blow major ass and there are many many flaws within it, they can do only so much to help one person and make them safe to themselves and the surrounding community.

I don't believe anyone should ever be denied their inherent rights unless they are clinically diagnosed by a non-government employed professional who claims the person is not fit to live in society, own a firearm, etc.


Quote by koalabacon
i was commenting on the previous statement that the govt should let a person kill them self if the person wants to.

It seems kind of silly to me because regardless of whether or not it's legal if someone is determined and committed to kill themselves the government won't stop them.
#33
Quote by TunerAddict
What is reason though? Thats an extrememly subjective matter.

The case of the leg is easy. A doctor's oath is to do whatever they can to save a patient, so they'd impose their will on the man. He cannot decide for himself, so a decision must be made for him. Sadly he doesn't have the option of deciding for himself, which makes the authority in this situation, the doctor, the one in charge. Sucks, but its just how it is.


Justice is an extremely subjective matter as well. But the state still has to have outlined clearly what kind of justice is and isn't allowed in the country.

Likewise the medical community has had to come up with a base measurement of one's ability to reason. Obviously no two cases will be the same but that's where a certain ammount of leeway comes in regarding the treatment of the patient. Whether they will still be able to function in society with regular therapy or drugs. Or in extreme cases whether institutionalisation is the best thing for the individual and those around them.

Mistakes are made but I see no better alternate. Like you said. It sucks, but it's just how it is.
Last edited by leeb rocks at Jul 21, 2009,
#34
Quote by RU Experienced?
I don't believe anyone should ever be denied their inherent rights unless they are clinically diagnosed by a non-government employed professional who claims the person is not fit to live in society, own a firearm, etc.


It seems kind of silly to me because regardless of whether or not it's legal if someone is determined and committed to kill themselves the government won't stop them.

Agreed.

im pretty sure legal suicide was petitioned by the relatives of suicide victims. not really a thing people could argue against.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#35
Quote by TunerAddict
Where did I equate my idea of rights to the US natural born rights?

I didn't. My beliefs are very different.

Its your opinion that 7 is too many times. Maybe I feel differently. Maybe for me its 8. For Joe over there its 20. For Pastor Pete, there isn't a limit.

There isn't some ultimate way to do it. Someone is always going to disagree, someone is always going to have their ideas and their rights violated. Once again, it sucks, but its the sad state of society, and its a unfixable problem. Its just a trade off system.

There are only problems that create more problems, and no solutions.


YOU said that our rights were protected from birth and they couldnt be taken away, which is true to some extent, but if there is NO existing govt then there are no existing rights, except our NATURAL born rights. These aren't technically rights, but are a philosophical idea and are said to not be denied. Your personal beliefs do not out weigh laws. this is not a belief, this is fact. You equated natural born rights to rights given by the US when you confused the two. and once again, the US has the right to deny somebodies rights who violates another's. I forget the name for it, but its an act in which people trade some of there rights for protection.

There are solutions, and there are solutions that work. although, morally, people don't agree.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#36
Quote by koalabacon
YOU said that our rights were protected from birth and they couldnt be taken away, which is true to some extent, but if there is NO existing govt then there are no existing rights, except our NATURAL born rights. These aren't technically rights, but are a philosophical idea and are said to not be denied. Your personal beliefs do not out weigh laws. this is not a belief, this is fact. You equated natural born rights to rights given by the US when you confused the two. and once again, the US has the right to deny somebodies rights who violates another's. I forget the name for it, but its an act in which people trade some of there rights for protection.

There are solutions, and there are solutions that work. although, morally, people don't agree.


Its an opinion that they work.

I don't think so. All we do is create better criminals and punish those that need help rather than a prolonged detention.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#37
Quote by TunerAddict
Its an opinion that they work.

I don't think so. All we do is create better criminals and punish those that need help rather than a prolonged detention.


if the had detained the person in OPs story and he had lived, even though his rights may have been denied, theres no opinion of whether it worked or not.

exactly. we DO create better criminals which is why at some point rights need to be denied. limits must be set on the people, as there are limits on the govt.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#38
Quote by koalabacon
if the had detained the person in OPs story and he had lived, even though his rights may have been denied, theres no opinion of whether it worked or not.

exactly. we DO create better criminals which is why at some point rights need to be denied. limits must be set on the people, as there are limits on the govt.


Thats just not what I believe.

Taking away ones right denies them their humanity in my opinion.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#39
Quote by TunerAddict
Thats just not what I believe.

Taking away ones right denies them their humanity in my opinion.


what you believe is different then what should be done.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#40
Quote by koalabacon
what you believe is different then what should be done.


Thats your opinion bra.

Obviously I'd disagree with that notion.

Of course, my opinion doesn't really give any solutions...It just acknowledges that its a problem that cannot be fixed. We'll always be screwing someone over.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
Page 1 of 2