Suspect's family: 'We could see this coming'..( Seattle shooter)

But for a family to state "they saw it coming?" Really? And, what exactly did they do to notify someone of its risk? Maybe a lot, it is not clear, but just throwing that comment out there is startling to say the least. Incredibly "detached" for those who knew him and supposedly (at one point) cared for him.

So there actually is nothing they could do unless he met the Mental Health commitment laws of Wash State.
and if Wash is like other states, he would have had to indicate ( usually by words) that he was currently expressing of killing himself or others.
( used to evaluate people for commitment in Fla and here in Ala, so I am familiar with how difficult it really can be)

It is possible that the family WAS detached from him. He was 40, had been known to be an angry difficult person.
I would love to know if he had an arrest record, or any other documented trail of hostile behavior.

There really was not much a family can do to prevent an adult from acting out. They can't call the cops and say
"my family member is angry and hostile and gets kicked out of cafes a lot, please do something".
Police act AFTER a problem has manifested, as do therapists.

I will tell you now, with all sincerity, that I know a neighborhood child, who for the last 7 years has
vividly struck me as someone who will twist off one day. He is 11 now.
And there is nothing I can do.
His parents are part of the problem, ( fundies) and not open to hearing what I have to say.

so I understand how the family of the shooter could have a long history of worry and concern and yet not be able to make any change in the behavior.
Frustrating but there it is.

Gone through their efforts and frustrations... I certainly would have.... But who knows....

to have the right to pry into this families story? they said what they had to say. sorry it didn't satisfy your prurient interests.

people, there are folks on this board, lots of them, that are mentally ill themselves, or have family members who are. first off, most are peaceful people who wouldn't hurt a flea. but secondly, unless you have some knowledge of the herculean struggle that most of them go through to keep everyone safe and get help, you should just leave this thread alone.

?? there is no shrug for this family, or those of us here at du.
say what you want about the shooter. it is news. but to judge this family? takes giant brass huevos, imho.

this family has my deepest sympathy. i have walked in their shoes. it is a rocky fucking path.

the family all the benefit of the doubt. I find it curious that they didn't go into more detail, as my anger at a situation where my efforts were frustrated would have caused me to do. I said that after acknowledging that they may have more to say and I did so with no judgement. Simply a rhetorical comment of curiosity. Nor did I suggest less than sympathy for the family

I don't deserve that from you. I understand that this is a sensitive issue, but I did nothing to earn that rage from you. And, you know NOTHING of my own experience with these problems in my own family. Yet you presume to assume.

That is really a nasty turn that is increasingly seen here at DU... Both you and I have been long term members and deserving of far less jumping to negative conclusions.

i know the kind of hurt that such casual comments about these families causes to members. it was the shrug that was the last straw. shrug, those people should have opened up their whole lives to anyone and everyone. shrug. who do they think they are. shrug.
that is how it reads to me. that is my opinion.

ugly assumption> All the "shrug" connotes is that I DON'T KNOW.

Very sad to see you do this.

that you are taking it more personally than i meant it. i was speaking for more people than myself, reacting to more posts/comments than just yours.
it's a much bigger thing that your shrug. and i just felt the need to stick up for some folks here that would be very hurt if that shoe was on their foot.
i think your comment was just thoughtless. so i wanted you and others reading this thread to think a little bit about what these people are going through.

I understand that. Most who deal with mental illness issues in their families probably feel the need to vent from time to time. But, you need to focus your anger where it belongs. And that is NOT with me.

people get to the point where it starts to be a pile on when maybe one or 2 people may not agree with the whole group on a topic and before you know it those 2 are being bullied. It has happened to me. Sometimes people just won't except a difference of opinions and before you know it you are being bullied. Some of the comments then turn ugly. That's why I kind of stepped in because he didn't mean anything by his comment.

has got to stop. I saw it on your previous thread and it failed here. I don't know what makes some DUers do this, but it is an increasing problem.

I would not allow myself to be made their "demon" because I wasn't saying anything that they were attempting to imply--had absolutely no mal-intent, despite their best efforts to imply otherwise. I think this is what we have to do when this bullying behavior gets started. Stand your ground and they get tired and go away. Until Skinner decides to say something about this behavior.

the way this issue of women breastfeeding in uniform will be on GMA this morning. It should be interesting.

I might have to tune in.

I can't imagine they can object to the breast feeding, but their having participated in a public campaign wearing uniforms without permission of military, might well become an issue...? That seems to be the catch22 for these kind of matters.

has strick policies when it comes to the uniforms. I wasn't trying to be bitchie about it. I was bringing up a point. Evidently they didn't get permission. The military stated that they had no problem with them breastfeeding. Can you see how all soldiers went off and dressed the way they wanted to in uniform and they go into a combat zone you wouldn't be able to know who really is a soldier or just a person in camo uniform like hunters.

Not even a clip to help hold hair in place. The military takes that stuff seriously, but even more the use of military images.

I think all were missing the part that these women were taking part in a publicity type campaign and not simply breast feeding on their own accord.

edited to correct my German...

permission to do it. I am still getting responses. But I haven't even tried to go back and answer any. I just don't want to start another fire storm about it.

This "pack" behavior, once it gets started....They don't take a moment to reassess/check their own perceptions nor to allow their chosen target to respond before pulling in more similarly adamant and emotionally-charged posters to escalate the attack.

Again, very sorry that happened to you. Perhaps we can both "pay it forward" by trying to stop this kind of thing when it starts towards others here.

I hope you won't let it get to you.

see it start we must try to calm it down. I am game. I am sure WillyT is game also. Right WillyT?

You around?

I often suspect they have to type with one hand when they do it.

Julie

despite what others might think.

ended in a stack of restraining orders against all of us, the individual was eventually stabbed at a homeless shelter. It is surprising the legal resources that can be brought on behalf of psychos refusing medical care.

I knew someone who was impulsive, easily frustrated, showed some minor oppositional defiance and had an uncontrollable temper from early childhood. He had one minor encounter with law enforcement when he was arrested as a teenager for possession of marijuana. He was likely bipolar - though never diagnosed or treated. His typical pattern of behavior was to have a fit of anger/rage followed by deep remorse for his behavior - and seemingly normal behavior until the next big blow-up of anger.

His wife finally had enough and sent their kids on a weekend trip with the grandparents before leaving him. He tried to bribe and manipulate her to stay. When it was clear that he had been unsuccessful in that effort he put a gun in his mouth and killed himself. I have little problem imagining him directing his anger/rage against his estranged wife or children had they been present.

His wife had the foresight to get herself and her children away from him and out of danger. She also had the foresight to alert authorites, advise them that she suspected that he could become violent or suicidal. Authorities did a well person check on him and spoke to him at length - probably about an hour before he took his own life.

Sometimes you can know damn good and well that someone has a problem - and a tendency toward violent or self-destructive behavior - and you can alert authorties who respond and do an evaluation and still do not have the evidence required to put someone into protective custody or compel a psych evaluation.

The family of these violent mentally ill folks have often struggled for decades in an effort to get them to get help. They may have been abused or manipulated by the very family members they are trying to help. Their concerns are marginalized because that help often is not readily available, mental illness remains stigmatized and the person who most needs the help resists it. Often when these mentally ill folks kill themselves or others these families not only grieve their own loss they also feel responsible for the loss of innocent lives. Even when there is not a damn thing they could have done to prevent the violence that took them.

I guess it's easy to throw stones when you are on the outside of the situation looking in at past events. But if you have ever been in that situation (or known someone who has) then you know that sometimes you can try to intervene and you can try to alert authorities and you can try to get help. And your efforts can be utterly and completely unsuccesful.

same frustrations. The family has my sympathy. It was merely a rhetorical question about their response, since I know how much justifiable frustration and sadness would come bubbling out from my family members if this happened to our member of concern. PERIOD.

I was NOT casting stones, though you clearly are. I don't deserve it. This need to jump down the throat of other DUers who you have known for years, rather than giving any benefit of the doubt is a really sick increasing trend here. Shame on you.

have seen and dealt wth those kinds of issues.

From my window of experience you were in fact casting stones at the family members. I've had too many people in real life suggest that there was something I should have or could have done to prevent events that were completely beyond my control. You echoed those same criticisms.

Perhaps that was not what you intended. But that is exactly how I understood your comments. Based on other comments in this thread I am not alone in that understanding.

Stop it.

is clear in its intent. It is ugly and unwarranted. I wish your family and loved ones the best with your struggles. I would not judge you, though you seem all too ready to do so with me and mine.

does not owe you or me - or the survivors of those innocent victims - any kind of explanation. They made the mistake of saying "they saw it coming" and you respond by asking "what exactly did they do to notify someone of its risk?" That's not a rhetorical question. It is accusatory. It clearly suggests that if this family had just said something that they could have prevented these tragic events. It suggests that they bear some responsiblity for the events that unfolded.

The first judgment was yours. You clearly inferred that the family did nothing to try to prevent this tragedy. You made that inference without acknowledging that even had they made such efforts to intervene they likely would have been unsuccessful. The inference that this family might have been able to somehow intervene and prevent this tragedy is ugly and unwarranted. There is no reason to fault them.

As a family member of a mentally il person who died violently as a direct result of his illness, I would not tolerate this knd of accustation in real life. I will not permit it to go unchallenged here.

I'm sorry for your loss. I truly am.

And, I can appreciate your anger and need to vent. But, you need to focus that anger. I did not deserve it.

Or maybe you don't want to try to understand how your comments might be understood as being accusatory. Or maybe you just feel compelled to defend your words. Whatever.

Surviving families do not deserve to hear your accusations - and I am not the only one to characterize your comments as such.

If you refuse to even try to understand how survivng families would understand your comment as an accusation then it is hardly worth my time and effort to try to explain it to you.

Welcome to my fucking ignore list. There is simply no reason for me to further entertain your commentary.

Nothing personal. I can and have chosen to cut off relationships with people in real life who also wanted to hold me responsible for events I did not cause and could not have prevented. I wholeheartedly reject that shit - and any effort to try to pile it on my doorstep.

That's fine--I hope you feel better. My gift to you.

I hope you find peace.

a sincere apology without calling names and ranting.

clarifying to you. This is so damned ugly, mopinko... I recognize the anger you harbor, but I am not deserving of it.

this is a post on a message board.
i do not harbor anger. i harbor love and protectiveness for people whose shoes i have worn. i feel a duty to stick up for them when i see them being treated poorly. your insinuation that they failed to open their life up adequately to the whole world was insensitive.
if you didn't mean any offense, fine, end of discussion.
but really, it's a message board.

My good deed for the day. I hope it helped you.

Unless they are homicidal, suicidal or mentally incompetent (by legal definition) they have a right to b e as self destructive as they want. Until the man crossed that line, there wasn't much anyone could do.

Was he never involuntarily committed/evaluated?

He clearly had two, since he left one in the stolen car, and then shot himself.
I'd like to know if he was eligible to possess a firearm in the first place.

We don't have a law in this state about gun shows, but the primary private gun show, WAC, self-polices. You cannot buy or sell at the show without a background check.

their wishes, let alone get them committed? VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

My sister and I know firsthand. We tried with my mom for decades before we finally got medical power of attorney when she was elderly and in assisted living. Then finally she got psych meds for her last 5 years.

Committal???? Absofreakinlutely impossible until after they kill.

but I will certainly grant, it is a very difficult process. I would describe it as 'nearly impossible'.

That needs to change.

enough to be committed. We would have to commit half of the rw. And maybe some of us.

and to be able to do so little about it.

Even when the person is willing to be treated, it's very very difficult to get them admitted anywhere. I was there many times with my ex and he had "insurance".

patients rights here as my great aunt was committed by her husband and ten of his friends by just signing a petition. She spent 30 years of her life in an institution because her husband was tired of her.

That's what I was getting at. Even when someone is willing to go in for an evaluation and/ or to be stabilized, it's very difficult to accomplish.

The mentally ill in this country have been abandoned for decades.

We have a winner!

Exactly.

IF
that person is acting out and the police have been called.
If the evaluation ( performed, at the time, at a Crisis Center ) shows a problem, the person can be held for 72 hours while the professionals put together court ordered treatment plan.
The Baker Act covers both Mental Health and substance abuse problems.

sadly, Alabama does not have the same service for Substance Abuse.
some other states have a similar Mental Health commitment law ( I don't know which ones do or do not).

but agian, the usual route is that the person has be brought in by police OR court order.

Unfortunately my friend had bought the gun that she used to kill herself just BEFORE she was committed. Apparently it was hidden in the trunk of her car, which I failed to search. Any stay beyond the 72-hour evaluation in California disqualifies you from acquiring or possessing a firearm for five years.

Getting someone in for an evaluation is only the beginning. Unless the person's doctors can convince a judge to commit the person, which is extremely difficult, the patient often will talk his or her way out of the hospital. One downside of living in a free society is that people have the right to make bad choices.

Here is what happened from a mental health perspective. I didn't go into details of the suicide, but now you know all that I am comfortable disclosing online.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002730301

A very touching story, kind soul. Your friend was lucky to have you though I am sure she was unable to fully realize it.

Very good information in that post too!

Thanks for all of it. It couldn't have been easy to share that story and it was thoughtful to provide the video. Positive contributions all!



Julie

California gives broad powers to a lot of law enforcement people, mental health professionals, and even lifeguards.

Our famous "Section 5150" from the California Welfare and Institutions Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5157

Prohibited from owning a firearm for life, if the disability was severe or continuing. Not all those commitments are the same, and there are time limits on imposing a person to reside in the 'least restrictive setting,' that is, after they leave the place of being committed.

There are less funds and a push to criminalize the 'mentally ill' because of that, not because of a hatred or disdain of them. Those who favor 'starve the beast' to weaken government don't care who gets hurt and the decades of experts and the knowledge they have to serve these populations of people are leaving these fields.

When a person's 'least restrictive setting' by law is the street, or with their families or friends, and they have an episode that cannot be dealt with in an unstructured environment, the police end up being called. By the time one gets to that point, the outcome is uncertain, as they cannot be expected the level of threat a person presents to them or others.

Some states have changed their laws to prevent controlling or greedy relatives from committing family members to force them to their will or to take their assets, and changes have been made. But the overall cause of these incidents is the moves that Nixon made to close the standard places for care, once offered to many. This will continue as the funding continues to be cut from all social safety net programs.

I think it was Reagan that closed the Mental Health facilities.

I watched as Nixon enacted provisions of law that destroyed the many public hospitals and began turning the mentally ill out in the street. It was part of his 'the government should be run like a business' mantra.

But government should not be run like a business, because business has a profit and loss sheet. People and their needs are a moral issue, not a business one, there is often no profit in taking care of the vulnerable.

Not only did his administration push closure of facilities, he sought to turn it all over to private groups, which came and went. The needs of the people for services does not go away by the whim of politicans. It is ongoing.

Public housing also took a hit as the meaning of civil rights were abused to push the 'bootstraps' mentality. Some people will never be good business risks, but they are still human beings. That is why the government should be in the hands of the philosophers, perhaps, and not economists and businessmen, IMHO.

The difference between Obama and Romney is this point. People are more important than profits to Obama, whereas the reverse is true for Romney. The record shows this and Nixon was one of the chief pushers of the for-profit healthcare system.

Even though some good things were done in all areas during the Nixon administration, he was only reacting to the pressure from progressives in the house and senate and the continuing belief in the public to support the New Deal to protect the interests of the Commons.

Without the shared resources of government to fall back on, we with privatization which is simply an apartheid between those with means and those without. And rife with discrimination.

it started with Kennedy, although he doesn't own all the blame. The situation could have been remedied many times since, but it would cost money most people would rather spend on war.

The laws are set up here that it's nearly impossible to get someone mental health help if they object. The family's hands were tied.

get the mental health he needed. That is an area this country needs to do better in. Especially now people having very hard times and need someone to talk to. People use to be able to go to their local priest or minister but they are to busy getting involved in politics. People are losing their safety nets and it is going to get worse. I think our medical system is letting these people down.

Just as you were jumped on repeatedly for merely voice a slightly and mildly countering opinion to the prevailing winds on a post last night, it appears I too am being attacked, yet for actually AGREEING with the majority posting here, despite some poster's attempts to screw my words and meaning. I tried to step in to defend you last night, because it was wrong-- and I'm glad that I did. I only wish more of us who have been bullied like this would stand together to stop it.

This trend of seeking a poster to bully and deride is a very unfortunate trend nowadays.

Best to you, southernyankeebelle. I hope all is better for you today.

...voluntarily?

Addicts, for example, don't have access to their frontal lobes. Can you really say they are able to give or withhold consent? There are mental illnesses that prevent a person from knowing how ill they are. Can those people really be said to give or withhold consent?

People in the middle of a paranoid episode may not want help but it is up to the community to see that they are safe until they have access to their own brain again.

Dealing with community mental health often means helping people who are not in a state to judge for themselves what they need at the moment.

So, I'd answer slackmaster's question this way: of course.

Tolerate forcing more people to get treatment they don't want or tolerate the societal (and for some people personal) cost of not forcing people to get treatment.

But you want a gun? We got lots of those, and a well-funded network of citizens working all the time to be sure that you have full, unfettered access to all the firearms you want.

Seems our society loves its guns more than it loves its citizens.

but both times charges were dismissed, with help from his lawyer.
So nothing on paper showed up if he had bought a gun.
I admit I have no idea what the gun purchase laws are in Wash.

Which of course, is proper.

Failure point was the lack of convictions.

cousin. She came from a upper middle class family. She started getting mentally ill at the age of 19. They had her in and out of mental institutions. They even took her to Lourdes in France for a cure. She would get into crying spells and you would ask her why she was crying and she would look at you and tell you she didn't know why. She was even given shock treatments. One day her mother told the cook not to wake her up let her sleep because she didn't sleep well the night before. Well when she got up she went into the kitchen and asked why she didn't wake her up. The next thing she went to the balcony and jump off. She lasted about a week and then died. She was in that state of mind. When people are in that state you can't reason with them. They are going to do what they do. It left all of us very sad. She was 32 when she died. Her parents and her husband did all they could do to help her. I don't know what else you can do to help a person who wants to hurt themself.

normally they go with "he was always such a sweet boy, we never could have foreseen this" to avoid any culpability.

He won't go to the grave as an angry old man with a caffeine buzz