HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » 'Known schizophrenic' bou...

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:05 AM

 

'Known schizophrenic' bought guns before arrest in mother's shooting death

An Oklahoma City man was able to buy guns at stores in Moore and Del City, despite being “visibly” mentally ill, in the weeks before he shot his mother to death and later dismembered her corpse, police say.

Gerald David Hume, who had several mental health-related run-ins with Oklahoma City police before his mother's killing in November, bought the guns at a Walmart in Moore and Gun World in Del City, according to Oklahoma City police.

Oklahoma City Police Capt. Dexter Nelson said the fact that Hume, 52, was able to get the guns — despite being “visibly” mentally ill — is a scary reality in Oklahoma and a majority of the states in the nation.

Nelson said officers who've dealt with Hume described him as being “obviously” mentally ill.

http://newsok.com/known-schizophrenic-bought-guns-before-arrest-in-mothers-shooting-death/article/3750821

18 replies, 2316 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply 'Known schizophrenic' bought guns before arrest in mother's shooting death (Original post)
SecularMotion Feb 2013 OP
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #1
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #2
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #7
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #8
HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #10
hack89 Feb 2013 #12
WinniSkipper Feb 2013 #13
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #17
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #3
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #4
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #5
Remmah2 Feb 2013 #6
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #9
bubbayugga Feb 2013 #14
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #16
Straw Man Feb 2013 #11
Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #15
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #18

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:16 AM

1. Out of ~200 shootings per day, this one gets cherry-picked for a DU forum

Because it points a finger at a mentally ill person?

or

Because it shows the utter ignorance and biases of a Police captain who says that mental illness illness can be determined via photograph?

‘The man's visibly unstable.' …” he said Thursday. “Look at that picture on TV, or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:57 AM

2. Just like bars can be liable for drunk drivers

 

Gun stores should be liable for selling weapons to unstable individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:37 AM

7. I wouldn't expect gun shop owners to be able to do what mental health professionals cannot

If mental health professionals get a pass on accountability I can't see why a gun store employee or owner should be held to a higher standard. It's disappointing that a police supervisor would believe that mental illness can be determined from a photograph.

The APA specifically states that appearance is not sufficient to diagnose mental illness. We shouldn't expect shop keepers, or law enforcement, to be able to do what mental health professionals cannot do.

When we see law enforcement and shopkeepers claim to be able to do what mental health professionals cannot do we should consider the accuracy of those actions to be suspect.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:51 AM

8. The Police Captain's opinion is based on the observations of his officers

 

Nelson said officers who've dealt with Hume described him as being “obviously” mentally ill.

“From the officers who responded to the house, they said, ‘The man's visibly unstable.'


The testimony of those officers should be enough evidence to bring a charge of reckless endangerment against the Gun store for the sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:05 AM

10. He also "said Thursday “Look at that picture on TV, or whatever."

There is nothing in evidence about how the man looked or acted when he bought the gun.

To suggest that he manifested at the time of purchase the same thoughts, emotions or behaviors that might have suggested to officers that he was unstable is a presumption. On available evidence that introduces a procter hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

What we know is that the police captain suggests to reporters that all that is needed to see the guy is mentally ill is a picture shown on tv.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:41 PM

12. Mentally ill people have periods of lucidity

from personal experience I can tell you that drastic behavior swings are the norm/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:48 PM

13. You want police officers...

 

...to be the de-facto arbiters of mental health?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:35 PM

17. Not qualiied to make that assessment

All the gun store owners I know would probably refuse the sale if the guy seemed crazy, but the brief encounter in the store is probably not enough time to assess a person's mental health. It's not like there's a breathalyzer for schizophrenia.

That said, I do think the mental health aspects of NICS checks need to be expanded. Make it scientific and backed by hard evidence, not some gun store owner's perception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:09 AM

3. If we can stop people from flying on airplanes, we can stop crazy people from legally buying guns.

 

all it takes is one big data base containing the names and social security numbers of anyone ever diagnosed as being any kind of dangerously insane. This data base gets cross checked by the BATFE when the FFL holder calls the BATFE with the prospective purchaser's form 4473 information. It should be mandatory that dangerously crazy people be put into this database and once they attempt to purchase a firearm, they should be picked up by local LEOs where the process of involuntary commitment can be initiated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:31 AM

4. If he was diagnosed "dangerously insane," why wasn't he in NICS already?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:43 AM

5. Probably because he slipped through the cracks of the healthcare system

 

either intentionally or accidentally. Unfortunately, lots of things slip through the cracks of the healthcare system. Electronic charting/record keeping is being mandatorily implemented across the country and could probably help with this things like this eventually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:00 AM

6. Negligent medical care?

 

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:58 AM

9. No doubt the problems you mention have an effect...

 

But it's hard to miss a court finding of mental incompetence, which is how you get flagged by NICS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:53 PM

14. was there such a finding on record?

 

I was under the impression that he simply "looked crazy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:31 PM

16. I don't know. If there was a court finding, it should be in NICS.

 

For all the limitations of NICS, that is the procedure. I presume that due process will be followed no matter the changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:33 PM

11. Bingo.

Probably because he slipped through the cracks of the healthcare system

either intentionally or accidentally. Unfortunately, lots of things slip through the cracks of the healthcare system. Electronic charting/record keeping is being mandatorily implemented across the country and could probably help with this things like this eventually.


Now you're making some sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bubbayugga (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 06:06 PM

15. There are a few problems with that.

1. It grants medical doctors judicial power to bar a patient from exercising a civil right, which flies in the face of due process.
2. It discourages those who need care from seeking it, for fear that a doctor will unilaterally remove their rights.
3. It creates a permanent disability based on what may be (or have been) an entirely temporary condition.
4. It ignores the fact that patients are individuals, and a simple yes/no diagnosis does not take into account the severity of their illness, the duration of their illness, any risk or history of violence, success of treatment, etc.

I agree that we can improve the way that NICS deals with mental illness, but I think there are better ways to do it. Here's my suggestion from another thread:

If a psychiatric doctor believes that a person is unfit for gun ownership by reason of mental illness, I believe he should be able to request that a judge or panel place a disqualifying order on them. This might be the result of a consensual decision within a voluntary treatment program, it could be done following an arrest (i.e., the police arranging for a psych doctor to see a suspect), or by referral from a general practitioner, or whenever sufficient reason exists to believe a person may be unfit. An expedited hearing would be scheduled, and the patient and doctor would both have the opportunity to present evidence for or against disqualification, the burden of proof being on the doctor and not the patient. If the evidence is convincing, the disqualifying order should be issued and entered into a new category of the NICS list. After a year of disqualification, or however long a period the legislature chooses, the patient should be able to request a hearing to remove the disqualification, and a new hearing would be scheduled. This time, the burden of proof would be on the patient to demonstrate that the previously-valid disqualification is no longer necessary. If the court finds that the disqualified person is no longer a risk to public safety, the disqualifying order would be reversed and removed from the NICS database.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 02:41 PM

18. I agree that is a concern

If you can lose gun rights at the slightest suggestion that you're a bit off -- it could discourage people who need help from seeking it. You could have a hard-core anti-gun psychiatrist who thinks nobody should have guns and just inserts everyone he sees into the NICS system. On the other hand, if you could sue that psychiatrist for defamation, then maybe no psychiatrists would flag anyone.

It's not an easy solution. I wonder if maybe there's a way to voluntarily put oneself on the list temporarily, on the advice of a mental health professional. If they can get the person to a lucid state where they realize they could be a danger, some might do it. And some is better than none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread