Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Colorado Looks to Broaden Therapists’ Power to Prevent School Shootings

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272

    Colorado Looks to Broaden Therapists’ Power to Prevent School Shootings

    DENVER—In a state that has been battered by mass shootings, Colorado lawmakers are trying a new, focused approach to stopping bloodshed in schools.

    A proposed bill would broaden the circumstances under which mental-health professionals can report a student that they believe poses a threat, an issue that has drawn increasing attention around the country.

    Colorado law requires mental-health workers to alert authorities if a patient expresses a specific, imminent threat, and mandates that they warn those being threatened.

    http://gazette.com/colorado-looks-to...rticle/1571590
    The basic plan is all ya need to know. If ya want to know more detailed info ya gotta subscribe to the WSJ.

    Another front in the war against individual liberty.

    Bad, very bad, if (when) a unaccountable bush-league psych-out stuff shrink is given more power.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,610
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The basic plan is all ya need to know. If ya want to know more detailed info ya gotta subscribe to the WSJ.

    Another front in the war against individual liberty.

    Bad, very bad, if (when) a unaccountable bush-league psych-out stuff shrink is given more power.
    You do know what a candidate who got through school w/D- average, can't make the grade for board certification, and had to move to a less restrictive state to be certified as a psychologist, and works out of a motel room is called?

    Answer: Doctor
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-07-2016 at 02:22 PM. Reason: fixed
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866


    most MH professionals have been ethically and in some cases judicially mandated w/a duty to warn since 1976ish.

    quote: Most states have laws that either require or permit mental health professionals to disclose information about patients who may become violent. One exception springs from an effort to protect potential victims from a patient’s violent behavior. California courts imposed a legal duty on psychotherapists to warn third parties of patients’ threats to their safety in 1976 in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California. This case triggered passage of “duty to warn” or “duty to protect” laws in almost every state as summarized in the map .....

    current Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117 states: Provides that a physician, social worker, psychiatric nurse, psychologist or other mental health professional, a mental health hospital, a community mental health center, clinic, institution or their staff shall not be liable for damages in an civil action for failure to warn or protect any person against a patient's violent behavior. Any such persons mentioned shall not be held civilly liable for failure to predict such violent behavior, except where the patient has communicated to the mental health provider a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons. If a duty to protect arises, that duty shall be discharged by making reasonable and timely efforts to notify any person or persons specifically threatened, as well as notifying appropriate law enforcement, or by taking other appropriate action including but not limited to hospitalizing the patient. Any persons mentioned above shall not beheld civilly liable or professionally disciplined for warning any person against or predicting a patient's violent behavior. This immunity does not cover negligent release of mental health patient information or the negligent failure to initiate involuntary seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation after a personal patient evaluation determining that the patient appears to have a mental illness, and as a result of that illness would be an imminent danger to others.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...y-to-warn.aspx

    the difficult part is getting (coaxing) the patient/client/whomever to notify the nice authorities on their own...

    (there are some MH professions who have capabilities to put folk on 24/72 observation hold... )
    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 03-07-2016 at 02:36 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    His opinion is all the justification the state needs to deprive a citizen of his rights. His opinion is all the justification the state needs to place a law abiding citizen in mortal danger. Individual liberty is so cavalierly disregarded by the state for so nebulous a justification. Shrinks wield great power and the ability to hold them to account for their "mistakes" is virtually impossible.

    A medical doctor usually leaves evidence of his mistake and therefore can be held to account. How about this, ask a shrink if he has a 100% money back guarantee.

    Every cop should approach a shrink, and his opinion, as a deliberate attempt to unjustly implicate a law abiding citizen in a crime. What is the time frame before a citizen is deemed to not be a threat? If a citizen who has been accused of commiting a crime in the future does not commit the crime what then? What of that shrink's credibility? Is it nothing more than a "oops, my bad."

    Regarding duty to inform laws...a shrink better have more than his opinion to substantiate his opinion. I will be researching duty to inform laws for the states that I frequent. Thanks solus for the heads up.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ... I will be researching duty to inform laws for the states that I frequent. Thanks solus for the heads up.
    No liability for petitioners.

    RSMo 632.445. No person making or filing an application alleging that a person should be involuntarily detained, certified or committed, treated or evaluated pursuant to this chapter shall be rendered civilly or criminally liable if the application was made and filed in good faith.
    No accountability.


    No liability for health care professionals, public officials and certain peace officers.

    RSMo 632.440. No officer of a public or private agency, ... shall be civilly liable for investigating, detaining, transporting, conditionally releasing or discharging a person pursuant to this chapter or chapter 475, at or before the end of the period for which the person was admitted or detained for evaluation or treatment so long as such duties were performed in good faith and without gross negligence.
    The qualified immunity statute. This too must be changed to permit a redress for state agents acting against the evidence before their very eyes.

    I'll be sending a note to my elected reps. False claims must be, whether made in good faith or not, must result in severe criminal and civil penalties.

    It is far too easy to deprive a citizen of his individual liberty based on a shrinks opinion.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    OC...after the debacle in 1976 decision in tarasoff California from events which began in the late sixties between two young adults. the decision put the mandatory onus on the MH provider to warn potential victims as well as the police. MH professionals were concerned about liability so the states enacted provisions to hold them harmless.

    back to current period, the MH professional involved with Aurora shooter, is being hounded by threats of civil suit for NOT notifying and she is saying she falls under the umbrella of the University which PROHIBITS outside notification. it is the same tactic the MH provider used at UVA when their 07 shooter went on the rampage, multimillion dollar civil suits filed by the families were dismissed in 13.

    personally, it is MHO both of the MH professionals i just mentioned violated the APA's ethic codes as they listened to and acted on their employer's policies instead of their PROFESSIONAL training which i akin with James E. Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen who developed a CIA interrogation program which included starvation, waterboarding, beatings and other techniques considered torture under international law.

    PM sent...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No accountability. ... It is far too easy to deprive a citizen of his individual liberty based on a shrinks opinion.
    Okay, I am one of these "shrinks" that you're talking about. Specifically, I am a licensed mental health professional with the authority to place someone on the 72 hour hold.

    Legally and ethically, I cannot breach confidentiality except in very specific circumstances. These circumstances are very narrowly defined. Prior to Tarasoff, if a client came in and expressly told me that once they left my office we were going to go shoot a very specific person and that they have the gun in their car, I legally could not breach confidentiality. In other words, I had to sit there, knowing full well that might an action would cost someone their life, and do absolutely nothing because if I called the police or warned their intended victim, I was violating my client's confidentiality. The same would go if they told me that they were walking out of my office and would be immediately committing suicide.

    The above dilemma is exactly what Tarasoff was about. The clinician did nothing and it cost someone their life.

    Is that the kind of "liberty" you're looking for?

    As was pointed out above, Tarasoff established the requirement that if I know of a specific threat against a person's life that I have the authority to detain the individual until such time as that person can be evaluated to determine that they are not a threat to themselves or others. Don't want to be detained? Don't tell your therapist you are going to kill yourself or someone else.

    All the new legislation does is broaden the ability to breach confidentially and the definition of a threat to others to include narrowly defined, non-person-specific threats.

    Back when it was my full time job to do these evaluations of whether to place someone on a hold, I did everything in my power to help them come up with a plan that would keep them from being put on that hold and placed in the hospital. But, as the duke said, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." And if you were telling your therapist or anyone else that you have every intention to go out and blow someone's nose off your face with a gun, expect to be stopped just as I would hope that anyone overhearing someone discussing specific plans to murder someone would call the cops.

    As for prosecuting the therapist, prosecute them for what? The therapist will have documented the entire session and interaction where you made the specific threats. It's impossible to prove something that never happened so expecting the therapist to be able to prove that you actually would have followed through is an impossibility. But they will be able to prove your threats and your stated intents. What more do you want from them?

    If this has or does happen to you and you feel it was done improperly, file a complaint with their licensing board. If you can prove that they acted unethically, they will be sanctioned up to and including the revoking of their licensed practice. And if you had a therapist unethically and illegally place you on a hold, then they deserve to lose their license.
    Last edited by eBratt; 03-08-2016 at 12:30 PM. Reason: Spelling and clarity
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by eBratt View Post
    Okay, I am one of these "shrinks" that you're talking about. Specifically, I am a licensed mental health professional with the authority to place someone on the 72 hour hold.
    Thank you for responding. My question is serious. Do you extend a 100% money back guarantee if a "customer" is dissatisfied with your service.

    Legally and ethically, I cannot breach confidentiality except in very specific circumstances. These circumstances are very narrowly defined. Prior to Tarasoff, if a client came in and expressly told me that once they left my office we were going to go shoot a very specific person and that they have the gun in their car, I legally could not breach confidentiality. In other words, I had to sit there, knowing full well that might an action would cost someone their life, and do absolutely nothing because if I called the police or warned their intended victim, I was violating my client's confidentiality. The same would go if they told me that they were walking out of my office and would be immediately committing suicide.
    Not talking about before. The op is focused on now and my comments address the laws now and going forward.

    The above dilemma is exactly what Tarasoff was about. The clinician did nothing and it cost someone their life.

    Is that the kind of "liberty" you're looking for?
    Hmm...

    As was pointed out above, Tarasoff established the requirement that if I know of a specific threat against a person's life that I have the authority to detain the individual until such time as that person can be evaluated to determine that they are not a threat to themselves or others. Don't want to be detained? Don't tell your therapist you are going to kill yourself or someone else.
    And what facts, other than only your word, substantiates that I communicated such a threat?

    All the new legislation does is broaden the ability to breach confidentially and the definition of a threat to others to include narrowly defined, non-person-specific threats.
    No, breach of confidentiality is but a minor inconvenience, and in this age of computers and computer hackers, any data you gather and place on a computer (database) may very well be public knowledge already. But, this is a minor concern. And you, obviously, are dodging. You have the power to deprive a law abiding citizen of his liberty...based only on your word.

    Back when it was my full time job to do these evaluations of whether to place someone on a hold, I did everything in my power to help them come up with a plan that would keep them from being put on that hold and placed in the hospital. But, as the duke said, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." And if you were telling your therapist or anyone else that you have every intention to go out and blow someone's nose off your face with a gun, expect to be stopped just as I would hope that anyone overhearing someone discussing specific plans to murder someone would call the cops.
    Again, you avoid my point. You allege I communicated a threat, have me arrested, I state I did not, yet I remain locked up until I prove 9prove innocence) that I did not communicate a threat.

    As for prosecuting the therapist, prosecute them for what? The therapist will have documented the entire session and interaction where you made the specific threats. It's impossible to prove something that never happened so expecting the therapist to be able to prove that you actually would have followed through is an impossibility. But they will be able to prove your threats and your stated intents. What more do you want from them?
    Again, you avoid my point. You state I communicated a threat, have me arrested, I state I did not, yet I remain locked up until I prove that I did not communicate a threat. What documentation? A audio/video recording?

    If this has or does happen to you and you feel it was done improperly, file a complaint with their licensing board. If you can prove that they acted unethically, they will be sanctioned up to and including the revoking of their licensed practice. And if you had a therapist unethically and illegally place you on a hold, then they deserve to lose their license.
    If you, for example, had me picked up and I prove that you lied, a stiff criminal penalty, felony, is to be applied not a mere revocation of your license. There are criminal statutes in Missouri for folks who falsely implicate a law abiding citizen in a crime alleging felonious criminal acts.

    Do you agree with this legal premise?

    If you agree with the laws as they are in Colorado, that are written to protect you, and will not work to hold your fellow professionals to a higher standard under the laws of Colorado (if such laws exist), as do cops when cops violate the law, then your protestations are meaningless, and any further response from you is pointless.

    My points stand. Do you extend a 100% money back guarantee if a "customer" is dissatisfied with your service.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Thank you for responding. My question is serious. Do you extend a 100% money back guarantee if a "customer" is dissatisfied with your service. ...
    Color me sceptical where cops and their truthfulness are concerned and every reasonable citizen should hold a similar view of any cop. Why should I extend a exception to a shrink. A medical doctors' mistakes can be proven rather easily, yours, not so much.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    OC, no when the client enters into a psychotheraputic relationship they sign specifically worded contractual documents addressing confidentiality, as well as acknowledging certain criteria, e.g., child/elder abuse, self harm, harm to others, etc., would be immediately divulged, w/o the client's permission, to appropriate law enforcement authorities in the event they are discussed and verified by the MH professional during therapeutic counseling sessions.

    further, most of these contracts specifically state in the event of judicial proceeding or subpoena, the client's written permission to release psychoterhaputic information is needed.

    let me clarify something OC, there is no arrest per se, detained & questioned ~ yes, arrest no...remember the nice LEs 'investigate' the allegation presented and go from there. MH professionals only transmit information the same as JQPublic. case in point, a member of Mother's MDDA calls 911 stating you are abusing your 'right' while carrying and as a result of the call you get swatted as the nice LE's investigate. there is not iota of accountability back to the initial caller as it is perceptual.

    remember the client is already under care and possibly under medication for MH issues and it becomes readily apparent to the nice LE's if the threat is viable or mental/drug induced.

    there are schemes MH professionals are trained and well versed in to discern viable threats...they are not like the individuals who participate in the Mother's or other emotionally biased fractions who make things up.
    Last edited by solus; 03-08-2016 at 02:03 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    I get it, I really do, we must trust that a shrink will not abuse his power and thus abuse us.

    Arrest. RSMo 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
    Each state is different.

    Procedure when a likelihood of serious harm is alleged.RSMo 632.300. 1. When a mental health coordinator receives information alleging that a person, as the result of a mental disorder, presents a likelihood of serious harm to himself or others, he shall: 2. ...however, that should the mental health coordinator have reasonable cause to believe, as the result of personal observation or investigation, that the likelihood of serious harm by such person to himself or others as a result of a mental disorder is imminent unless the person is immediately taken into custody, the mental health coordinator shall request a peace officer to take or cause such person to be taken into custody and transported to a mental health facility in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3 of section 632.305. ...
    A shrink has a great power to deprive a citizen of liberty on a whim. Trusting him to do the right thing on every occasion is not a courtesy we extend to LE.

    A great power indeed to subject a citizen unjustly to deprivations at the hands of the state. And it is certainly understandable that a shrink would work diligently to guard his advantages and his standing in the eyes of the law.

    Remember cops are not extended this much power where no accountability is available. Next to a judge, shrinks may just be as untouchable.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    If this has or does happen to you and you feel it was done improperly, file a complaint with their licensing board. If you can prove that they acted unethically, they will be sanctioned up to and including the revoking of their licensed practice. And if you had a therapist unethically and illegally place you on a hold, then they deserve to lose their license.
    This is a very familiar refrain when the "unethical" individual is a cop. Yet, if a cop violates our rights we all seek justice and justice beyond a tax payer backed check. eBratt may be just one of many ethical MH professionals that would never ever consider doing such a thing, yet the law allows for a one time aberration. The law in Missouri specifically insulates him from his "good faith" mistake....do I here a Heien defense enshrined into Missouri statutes? Yes, yes I do.

    This entire topic is always viewed from the perspective of a citizen who might do X, never from the perspective of, would these laws restrain a MH professional as well as permit him to make a actual honest to goodness good faith effort.

    eBratt is under no obligation to defend his profession or the laws that permit a citizen to be abused by the state based on only one citizen's unsubstantiated opinion.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I get it, I really do, we must trust that a shrink will not abuse his power and thus abuse us.

    Each state is different.

    A shrink has a great power to deprive a citizen of liberty on a whim. Trusting him to do the right thing on every occasion is not a courtesy we extend to LE.

    A great power indeed to subject a citizen unjustly to deprivations at the hands of the state. And it is certainly understandable that a shrink would work diligently to guard his advantages and his standing in the eyes of the law.

    Remember cops are not extended this much power where no accountability is available. Next to a judge, shrinks may just be as untouchable.
    a clarification, you are using the term shrink, a nickname for medical doc who, based on a smidgen more training, can function as a psychiatrist. a mental heath professional spans the psychologist (not necessarily a doctoral graduate), psychotherapist (normally at least a master's level but in some states only has a undergrad with the majority of them in psy), social worker (normally a masters but could be only undergrad), to varying degrees in between.

    reality...the nice LEs are granted that much power with qualified immunity across the board and abuse that power regularly under the that immunity.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    ...case in point, a member of Mother's MDDA calls 911 stating you are abusing your 'right' while carrying and as a result of the call you get swatted as the nice LE's investigate. there is not iota of accountability back to the initial caller as it is perceptual. ...
    There is quite a difference between being SWATTED and then let go after a couple of hours, less than a hour is more likely to be honest, and a 72 hour hold.

    Heck, under Missouri law I could be held longer if the shrink is persistent about his allegations. RSMo 632 is the series of statutes that define the laws that are on point for our discussion and the op. A cop and every other person in the chain that is used to deprive me of my liberty has QI, because as with cops, it is the petitioner who is the culprit and all the other state agents are nothing but unwitting pawns in a depraved scheme motivated by who knows what...and we may never know what.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    a clarification, you are using the term shrink, ...

    ipse
    please forgive our non-synchronoususity, I am slow to process my own thoughts when transferring them one index finger at a time to a keyboard.

    I abuse the term in the overly broad and generally accepted manner. Under the law all of those folks you mention, and likely more, such as a nurse of appointment maker, could rat me out to a cop for whatever reason, or for no reason other than I just happen to be the closest citizen when the grenade went off.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,610
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Color me sceptical where cops and their truthfulness are concerned and every reasonable citizen should hold a similar view of any cop. Why should I extend a exception to a shrink. A medical doctors' mistakes can be proven rather easily, yours, not so much.
    Medicos and attorneys are practicing. LEOs are not qualified to do either officially.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    So the powers that be, in all their glorious wisdom, consider therapists as the answer to school shootings?

  18. #18
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    please forgive our non-synchronoususity, I am slow to process my own thoughts when transferring them one index finger at a time to a keyboard.

    I abuse the term in the overly broad and generally accepted manner. Under the law all of those folks you mention, and likely more, such as a nurse of appointment maker, could rat me out to a cop for whatever reason, or for no reason other than I just happen to be the closest citizen when the grenade went off.
    nawlll, they would just increase your meds and you wouldn't know if you are coming or going or already been...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    More like getting all high skroolers to become patients. The law don't apply to non-patients.

    Which begs the question are skrool shootings done by kids of "sound mind and body" as bad as those done by "bat-carp crazy" kids.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271
    First, OC, please stop bringing up Missouri law. This isn't Missouri's forum and isn't about Missouri.

    In COLORADO (the forum you're in), doctors (MDs, DOs, etc), mental health professionals (Licensed Psychologists, Licensed Social Workers, Licensed Professional Counselors, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists), and law enforcement officers can all sign a 72 hour hold in the state of Colorado. So no, you aren't going to just be SWATTED for a few hours if a police officer picks you up for threatening a life, you'll be held for the same 72 hours. You don't have to prove your innocence. You'll be evaluated to determine if there is a mental illness and be released if they can't find sufficient cause for a court to continue to detain you.

    You keep saying I am dodging your point. So here I am addressing it directly. Yes, some people have the authority to detain others legally. That's the system we are in. What is your alternative? When that paranoid schizophrenic is threatening to shoot the garbage man who is planting mine control devices in his yard, when the woman who just lost her child insists she is going to go home and swallow two bottles of sleeping pills no matter what anyone says or does, when the kid says he is sick of getting picked on and is going to go to school tomorrow and shoot his bullies with his dad's gun, what is your suggestion on how to deal with these people? Let them wander free because we can't infringe on their liberty? Let them commit murder or suicide? I'm truly curious because it is one of just a few areas where I struggle with state authority as a libertarian. How am I protecting the victim's liberty or is it just the potential and intended offender's liberty that we are concerned about?

    And as for the money back guarantee, no, I don't. Guaranteeing an outcome in therapy is absolutely unethical. Lots of professional services don't. Primarily because much of the outcome of my services depend on the client. And I can't guarantee what my client will or won't do. Don't like it? Don't go see a therapist. And I fail to see where whether I offer a money back guarantee has anything to do with authority to place someone on a 72 hour hold.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by eBratt View Post
    First,
    .
    Independents flag. Nice to see another Browncoat, dong ma?
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by eBratt View Post
    First, OC, please stop bringing up Missouri law. This isn't Missouri's forum and isn't about Missouri.
    My apologies. I will confine myself to the CRS.

    You have the power to have a cop arrest a citizen for a minimum of 72 hours based only on your opinion (the term affidavit is used in CRS).

    C.R.S. § 27-65-105.(4) If the seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation facility admits the person, it may detain him or her for evaluation and treatment for a period not to exceed seventy-two hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays if evaluation and treatment services are not available on those days.
    Due process considerations do not require an in-person evaluation by an intervening professional prior to placement on an involuntary hold. Tracz v. Centennial Peaks, 9 P.3d 1168 (Colo. App. 2000).

    C.R.S. § 27-65-105. Emergency procedure. - ANNOTATION, paragraph two.
    I suspect that you too are shielded from criminal penalties for any "unethical" acts if I read the CRS correctly.

    In COLORADO (the forum you're in), doctors (MDs, DOs, etc), mental health professionals (Licensed Psychologists, Licensed Social Workers, Licensed Professional Counselors, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists), and law enforcement officers can all sign a 72 hour hold in the state of Colorado. So no, you aren't going to just be SWATTED for a few hours if a police officer picks you up for threatening a life, you'll be held for the same 72 hours. You don't have to prove your innocence. You'll be evaluated to determine if there is a mental illness and be released if they can't find sufficient cause for a court to continue to detain you.
    You have the power to falsely affirm that I am a threat. The falsity of your affidavit will not be discovered in a manner of a few hours or less as would cops if they were SWATTed into harming a law abiding citizen. Cops are pretty good at figuring out what's before their very eyes. CRS does not place a burden on a MH professional. Nor does CRS place a burden on a cop to use the facts before him to determine if the affidavit is valid. Nope, he arrests me and lets the shrinks and judges work it out later. QI comes to mind.

    Less restrictive alternatives need not be considered as a condition precedent to certification. Civil commitment constitutes a severe infringement of liberty requiring due process protection. However, the statutory scheme set forth in this article contains a number of procedural safeguards that greatly reduce the inherent risk of erroneous deprivation. Therefore, due process does not require a mandatory hearing at the time of certification since the statute provides for a hearing on request. People v. Stevens, 761 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1988).

    C.R.S. § 27-65-107. Certification for short-term treatment. - ANNOTATION - I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION., paragraph 3.
    Now, you may read this differently, but it sure does read to me that all you need to do is tell a cop that you affirm, fill out the proper form and off the cop goes.

    Of course I have to prove my innocence I have no 5A right under CRS as can be seen below.

    Privilege against self-incrimination is inapplicable to civil commitment proceedings. Due process does not require that the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination be extended to this state's civil commitment proceedings. People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1980).

    C.R.S. § 27-65-107. Certification for short-term treatment. - ANNOTATION - II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS., paragraph 14.
    Either I convince the petitioner that I am not a threat and then might be released, or I keep silent and remain jailed indefinitely. Ironic, the fella who falsely claimed I am a threat may likely be the very person I have to convince that I am not a threat.

    You keep saying I am dodging your point. So here I am addressing it directly. Yes, some people have the authority to detain others legally. ...
    Unfortunately legality will only be determined after a law abiding citizen's liberty has been harmed.

    What I expect from a citizen who wields great power under the laws of their state is to be held to accountable under the criminal laws of their state, as cops can be and are, if they deprive a law abiding citizen of his liberty unjustly. A cop's opinion is never sufficient to deprive a citizen of his liberty yet CRS does not extend this requirement to MH professionals.

    And as for the money back guarantee, no, I don't. ...
    I submit that the outcome is totally dependent on your efforts not the clients. The client has only your advice to act upon.

    If he follows your advice and the outcome is not satisfactory to him what then? Do you contend that it is your clients fault that your advice, that he followed, did not result in the outcome you implied and he expected?

    If this has or does happen to you and you feel it was done improperly, file a complaint with their licensing board. ...
    Losing their license? Is individual liberty so easily dismissed by those in your profession?

    The CRS is clear in its abcense of any accountability for malice on the part of a MH professional. There is a burden for a MH professional to provide evidence that his "petition" is based on. How do you document this evidence that is required under CRS to justify your opinion?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •