related post: let us now speak ... w/ candor [about shooting of gabrielle giffords ...]
related post: by all means, let us do away with the politics of divisiveness
related post: politics & the shooting of ... gabrielle giffords
related news account from cnn: "the events that led up to what happened saturday as they related to law enforcement contact really do not add up in their totality to anything that would cause a police officer to say, 'this guy is going to go out and shoot 20 people,' there's nothing there," kastigar said.
the sheriff's department feels the heat, and formulates its position.
friends:
the simple truth about the sheriff of pima county is that he blames others for jared loughner’s shooting rampage in an attempt to shift attention away from the fact that his sheriff’s department failed the citizens of pima county.
i was for 25 years a lawyer and for 6 of those years a deputy prosecuting attorney whose duty included representing the county and its mental health professionals in “involuntary treatment act” commitments involving the mentally disturbed, and i am now going to relate what this has to do with firearms possession, … , and why jared loughner should have been prevented from this atrocity.
an “i.t.a.” is a creature of statute, and regulates the administrative process followed when someone is deprived of their liberty and placed involuntarily into confinement to be treated for mental illness.
for me, it was up early and down to the psyche ward at the local hospital for a little gossip with staff and a cup of coffee, before the psychiatrists and the mental health professionals would trot the mentally disturbed into a hearing room where i represented them in seeking civil confinement, and some poor hapless soul would be brought before the court in a hearing to see if legal grounds existed so that they could be involuntarily detained.
you will note, that in some instances, per the statute, they were involuntarily detained prior to the convening of the hearing.
the mental health professionals would describe the circumstances as to how they became involved in the case, usually involving requests for help from family, spouses, friends or arresting cops. the psychiatrists would recite their review of the case, and then they would issue a professional/expert opinion on the key factual basis that would excuse further detention, a very basic intrusion into a person’s liberty interests & rights, upon my inquiry.
i would pose this crucial question to the psychiatrist, “does/did the person present a risk of harm either to himself or members of the public as a result of mental defect or illness, or emotional defect or illness?”
were the answer to that opinion “yes” in the professionals’s opinions then the judge had the authority under the statute to pop ‘em into the hospital for 48 hours for observation and treatment, whether the patients wanted to be there or not.
then, the next issue to be examined, and the next question to be asked would be, “is it in the best interests of the patient to administer psychotropic drugs during his stay?”
were the answer to that question “yes” then psychotropic’s would be authorized would per the assessment of the treating medical staff, the usual powerful shit to make a person do a pretty good zombie imitation if the dosage were high enough. if the patient’s attorney objected to the administration of drugs, then there would be some palaver about whether it were legally justified to administer them against the patient’s will, but the judge would talk to the patient’s about this and usually secure their agreement: he had a very soothing, but direct approach in this, and the patient’s trusted him. if the patient’s did not agree, it was sometimes order and then forcibly administered: the ward had a bed into which resistant or difficult patients could not be restrained.
At the end of the 48 hours another hearing would be held to see if the mentally disturbed patient had improved enough to be released which was usually in the affirmative, and the person would be ordered to go forth and sin no more, and to see the shrink and the mental health guys, and to take prescribed and ordered meds, or to face further confinement if non-compliant. in my original draft of this, i wrote, “cuz if you get goofy again, you’re coming back in.” this may have been an artless way to explain it, but it was the understanding that the patient’s left with.
at that stage of the hearing process the court was authorized to hold the person for another 72 hours, if necessary because no improvement was noted, to see if some sort of resolution of the patient’s malady could be reached by further medical or psychiatric treatment and intervention.
If, during that 72 hours, the psychotropic’s and mental health guys, e.g., the counselors, shrinks and hospital staff, couldn’t resolve the patient’s condition satisfactorily, then the question of commitment to the state mental hospital came onto the table at the next hearing: in my brief tenure doing this, i cannot remember one totally involuntary commitment to the state mental hospital in which i participated. sometimes people would be so obviously looney tunes, that would be gravely disabled to you, but oddly cognizant of it that away they went to the state hospital for an agreed time. I always thought it interesting that someone who was so mentally ill as to require commitment could be viewed as sufficiently competent to make such a decision/agreement.
hey, it didn’t bother the supreme court of the state of washington, but it sure was an interesting issue to me.
sometimes a patient was so markedly improved even at this stage that out on the sidewalk he or she went, subject, of course, to the court’s continuing jurisdiction over his or her person, and subject to the court’s orders on continued medications and treatment: the patients remained, in other words, firmly under the supervision of the county & state’s mental health apparatus. any violations of the terms of release, and the mental health professionals were authorized to pop a person back into confinement in order to protect them and others from harm.
in short, once the question of whether or not this person’s mental condition merited confinement were answered in the affirmative, it stayed answered in the affirmative until the case were concluded.
in short, the patient stayed under court supervision and authority until the case were dismissed.
how does this relate to guns? and, big mouthed sheriffs?
if a person is adjudicated as dangerous to himself or others by reason of mental illness or impairment and they are committed for this reason, even to a local psyche ward, (or if a person is convicted of a misdemeanor level offense involving domestic violence or abuse or assault, or even, if the state of washington, after multiple convictions for d.u.i.), then they lose their rights to own or possess firearms. it is something about which patients are advised at the beginning of the involuntary commitment process hearing process described rather cursorily above.
let me repeat that.
if a person is adjudicated as dangerous to himself or others by reason of mental illness or impairment and they are committed for this reason, even to a local psyche ward, then they lose their rights to own or possess firearms.
any law enforcement person knows this. stone cold. they just do.
and, this is known by prosecutors, and to every mental health professional or doctor or psychiatrist or psychological counselor in a county. they all, just know this. stone cold.
now, when a person is so found and adjudicated in a hearing process this is passed up the chain, the judge’s order via the clerk in the courtroom to the county court clerk’s office, and then “into the system” and eventually it goes to the f.b.i.
when a person comes into a store to buy a gun, a pistol especially, they fill out paper work with the gun’s vendor. they fill out a form for the state, and they fill out paper work for the federal government, e.g. these records and applications go to the state and to the f.b.i. both forms have a little 8 or 9 question questionnaire, each question to be answered “yes” or “no.”
this questionnaire is then checked against a persons “record,” to include criminal record, and records of civil commitments for mental illness, if any.
so, it should come as no surprise to you to know that one of the questions on both forms is, “have you ever been adjudicated as being a risk to yourself or others as a result of mental or emotional defect or illness?”, or something along that general line. if you answer “yes” to that question the store owner will not deliver the weapon to you, no matter how much you rant or rave or carry on. it just isn’t good for a gun shop proprietor’s longevity in business to have an a.t.f. agent come into the shop, learn on the counter and ask, why did you sell a gun to a nut case who admitted he had been confined?
the a.t.f. doesn’t like that, no-sir-ee bob.
if you answer all the question “correctly,” … , e.g., “yes” to citizenship, “no” to felony history, “no” to domestic violence convictions, and “no” to mental defect, … , then you and your answers are subject to an instant check with the records bureau of the f.b.i. to see if the agency confirms the responses as against their records, and to see if the agency approves the transfer of the gun into the customer’s possession and ownership. it’s a pretty complicated process.-- the store clerk saunters over to the phone, and he simply calls up the f.b.i. records bureau in washington d.c. “hello, f.b.i., this fellow, __________, wants to buy a gun. here are the particulars. will you please check out his history.” the last time i purchased a gun, it was just about that simple.
the f.b.i. guy checks. If the f.b.i.’s record indicate that the purchaser has a felony, or a misdemeanor involving domestic violence, or if the person has been adjudicated as mentally defective and confined, he is turned down for delivery of the gun right there on the spot.
the clerk walks over to the guy and says, sorry, they say no. you got a felony, according to them, or, you are fruit loops, according to them. and the guy usually grumbles and says, it ain’t fair, or i got that taken off my record, it’s expunged, and the clerk tells him patiently that he doesn’t give legal advice, and that he doesn’t make legal determinations in the stead of the f.b.i., and that’s what they told him.
so, it’s a “no go” on the gun sale.
sometimes when things are not clear, the purchaser is advised that his purchase is on “hold” until the f.b.i. and the state authorities get the factual accuracy of his record clear, and until they draw all the legal conclusions and ramifications from the same. i was once put on hold over the phone, and had to wait a day or so until some mix up got cleared up, and i could take delivery of the weapon, subject of course to all the usual waiting periods.
sometimes computer records aren’t perfect. eh? there is always that factor, in any of this. so, if you have ever been adjudicated fruit loops, no legal gun purchase. it is as simple as that.
so why is the sheriff of pima county arizona trying to fob “responsibility” for jared loughner’s conduct of onto someone else, persons who have had no more contact with this shooting other than expressing their political views? well, we can probably safely assume that this particular sheriff doesn’t agree with the political views expressed by the persons he attacked. (in the law, we call it slander & defamation by “innuendo.” sort of a self explanatory phrase, ain’t it?)
to me, the answer for this question is quite obvious. and, that is, the bastard and the agency he runs dropped the ball on this kid. they did not do their jobs, and he knows it. and, he know that had they done their jobs, in all likelihood this kid could not have purchased a gun, nor could have he retained legal possession and ownership of one.
the sheriff was derelict in his duty to the citizens of pima county, and he knows it, so he seeks a scapegoat. simple as that.
hey, i am not a rocket scientist, but those propositions seem to hold up to me.
let’s look at the facts of the matter, and see if my assertions stand up.
that the pima county sheriff’s office had all kinds of contacts with jared loughner because of his mental health problems, an the aggressive and threatening behavior engendered by them, is quite beyond peradventure, and cannot be denied: the sheriff in his press conferences repeatedly said that jared loughner was well known to the department. they had all kinds of complaints on the threatening bastard, and they knew that he was cuckoo for cocoa puffs & getting kicked out of classes all the time for being disruptive and threatening, and that he had directed numerous threats of physical harm to others. some sort of authority, be it the sheriff’s office or campus security had to be called to several classes to haul him out because he was so disruptive.
he was even told by one of the local community colleges that he would not be re-admitted to class until he had been examined by a mental health professional.
let’s look at a point again. the sheriff admitted during his press conferences that he knew of much of this, at one point saying that the “suspect” in the shooting was well known to his agency. i repeat this, not because i don’t think you didn’t catch it the first time through, but because of the use by the sheriff of the terms “suspect,” a term of “respect” and of “caution” used by law enforcement in deference to the fact that the bastard hasn’t been found guilty and/or responsible in a court of law, not just yet, anyhow.
it is odd, therefore, given the sheriff’s deference to the “suspect” loughner (who did the shooting) that he did not given sarah palin or rush limbaugh any similar deference by calling them “suspects” in the shootings before he said that they were responsible and guilty for inciting the shooter’s behavior because of their discourse on political issues of the day. hey, no question about that in the good sheriff’s mind, no reason to wait for court process before pronouncing their guilt, eh?
an interesting facet of the sheriff’s rush to pin the tail on any donkey other than himself is the emerging fact that jared loughner hardly could have been inspired by sarah palin or rush limbaugh to go out and shoot someone for the conservative “ethos,” is that jared loughner is a thorough going leftist, from all appearances and accounts thus far.
this was, of course, not known to the sheriff when he issued his diatribe. well, small matter that to the sheriff, he was looking for an ideological whipping boy & girl to cover his own ass from the lash.
in short, and to connect all this up, the pima county sheriff knew or he should have known full well that jared loughner had been a prime candidate to be hauled off to a mental health professional for examination and evaluation for a long long time before these shootings. this, again, is based on the department’s knowledge of his bizarre behavior and repeated threats to others of physical harm, and the incidents of his disruptive behavior in classes.
somebody, by the way, will figure this out, and i figure pima county and its public health and sheriff’s department are gonna be the object of many law suits for failing in their obvious duty: anybody wanna make book on when the first one is filed?
and, don’t let anyone ever tell you that psychiatrists and mental health professionals cannot pop you into an “i.t.a.” hearing upon their own motion. oh, yes, that mild mannered milquetoast of a mental health guy can take you into custody and pop you into a hearing so fast that it will make your head spin.—
years ago a dear friend of mine, a lawyer, got all goofy over a woman and became obsessed with her, and then despondent and depressed over her because she wouldn’t leave her husband and kids for him. he started threatening suicide. i called his family, told them what i was gonna do (didn’t ask, just told them in advance), and called his psychiatrist and i told the shrink, he’s got a weapon, and he is fruit loops. (a technical term one picks up in law practice, after many years of experience. i don’t expect people to understand or condone the “gallow humor” aspect of this, but 25 years of law practice will leave you just more than a little bit that way.)
the psychiatrist called him. and, he said, you’re here in ½ hour, or the mental health guys are coming to get you on my medical directive per the statute. kapish?
he went to see the shrink, making the ½ hour deadline with room to spare.
the sheriff of pima county, or any of his deputies, or any mental health professional or any doctor or any shrink in pima county arizona could have done the very same thing, with as little physical effort, simply by exercising the same level of professional concern exhibited by the psychiatrist in my little story above.
just by picking up a telephone.
they could have hauled jared loughner to a mental health professional or into an “i.t.a.” commitment hearing, and had a legal determination whether commitment and medical intervention & treatment & even involuntary civil confinement could have been imposed, on the legal bases and considerations discussed above. in short, in any such involuntary commitment/treatment proceeding, they would have inquired into the question as to whether jared loughner presented a risk of harm to himself or to others in the public by reason of mental health or defect. and, based upon a “yes” answer to the inquiry, they could have imposed either temporary or permanent custody in a mental institution upon him, and continuing medical treatment, supervision and a regimen of supervised drug therapy upon him, until the matter got worked out.
yes, the process can be very draconian, along lines worthy of a kafka novel, but sometimes it is incredibly humane and healing, and quite likely the latter. a lot of life, and a lot of life’s processes are like that.
but, pretty much as simple and straightforward as that. someone has to care enough to initiate the process, and have enough nerve to bear the risk of consequence.
sarah palin and rush limbaugh and michael reagen and g. gordon liddy are not responsible for these deaths. if anyone is, in addition to jared loughner, it is the law enforcement officials and the public health apparatus of pima county arizona who are to be held jointly responsible for jared loughner’s actions. and, though it seems a harsh judgment, so to are his parents, his family, his friends and anyone who was treating him who are to be held accountable, if not morally responsible, for not taking the steps to get him treated, and evaluated, and confined, if necessary. in not accepting this conclusion, or adverting to these real world facts, the sheriff of pima county is either in denial, or he is a corrupt cynical leftist politician taking advantage of a tragedy to advance his political agenda, or both.
there is just no doubt about that.
everybody in tuscon knew it, and did nothing.
the faculty and students at the various community colleges he attended knew about him and his situation, and apparently knew and felt full well that he was dangerous in the extreme: more than one professor and student has said that they feared for their safety in his presence, and have said they feared this very thing would happen in a classroom. the sheriff of pima county said in one of his many press conferences (he really needs to do something about his weight and his hair cut) that jared loughner was well known for his dangerous and threatening behavior.
yet no one made the phone call. as to family and public, this is regrettable, to say the least. as to law enforcement and the mental health profession in the county, this was dereliction of professional duty and responsibility.
it cannot be fobbed off on to others.
there is very little valid reason that can be put forth as to why loughner was not hauled before a judge in a courtroom in a hospital mental facility, and asked to explain his behavior and mental health.
i suspect very strongly that the “reason” this was not done, and hardly valid, was out of deference to the fact that his mother was a well like and probably somewhat influential employee of pima county, and worked in the same building as the sheriff.
it would be interesting to know if the sheriff of pima county and jared loughner’s family ever discussed his behavior, and what was being done about it. i wonder whether any such conversations ever took place, and i wonder over their tenor and content and context, and i wonder at the chance that any such conversation will ever be revealed.
you wanna make book on that?
john jay @ 01.13.2011
p.s. i will tell you one other things which makes this doubly horrendous.
i am not a clinician, but i have been around this kind of stuff. and, i have seen the physical effects of psychotropic medications upon patients taking them. and, i will bet you a bag of dimes, that jared loughner was on some pretty heavy duty medications at the time leading up to all this, because of his mental condition. i base that upon his sort of giddy attitude during his mug shot, and upon his physical appearance.
the tissues of his head are all swelled up, and i didn’t see any deep bruises that would suggest that he took any kind of severe beating upon his apprehension. in short, his head looks like a melon that has swelled in the heat, starkly in contrast and comparison to his appearance we have in all of his other photographs that i have seen of him, even as little as a year ago or so.
he has apparently undergone some major physiological changes such as are in my experience and observation attributable to heavy doses of heavy duty med, and an increased consumption of food.
so, it is my estimation that he was receiving treatment and supervision from some sort of medical or mental health professional, and that his condition was evaluation as such to justify a very heavy regimen of drugs. so, if this were the case, whoever was the person treating him, … , even knowing what they knew to ethically prescribe this sort of stuff, … , did not seek his commitment, either voluntary or involuntary.
i am going out on a bit of a limb here, (with the clarity of hindsight), and suggest that it should have been terribly obvious to whoever was treating him that he should have been committed for evaluation and treatment. and, depending upon the code of professional ethics governing such a practitioner, it may have been ethically incumbent upon him to have reported his concerns over this type of behavior to the authorities.
were i suing the sheriff and the county, this would most certainly be something that i would inquire into on discovery.
had this been done, it should have removed jared loughner from legal access to and possession of firearms.
this is something i suspect that the sheriff of pima county doesn’t want looked into very much, and goes a long way toward explaining his wanting to shift inquiry away from him. and so, knowing that that the best “d”-fence is a good “o”-fence, the bastard went on the offensive after sarah palin and rush limbaugh and all the others, rather than deal with the questions lying closer to home in his own department, and rather than discussing pima county’s handling of this matter as a public health issue. from everything that i have learned of this case, the circumstances more than justified an administrative intervention into this young man’s life, and indeed, called out for it.
and, this is something that the good sheriff doesn’t want to talk about, because he knows his butt is in a political sling all its own. truth to tell, his butt isn’t going anywhere.
he wanted to fob his problems, and his responsibility to administer the law and to initiate appropriate treatment alternative over onto someone that had never met jared loughner, and onto to someone I am sure, given loughner’s leftist leaning, that he had never paid one bit of attention to.
the phrase is apt. he wanted to pin the tale onto another donkey.
now, if the good sheriff hadn’t acted this way, i would have said nothing, because sometimes things just fall through the cracks. it is, after all, an imperfect world. but, that he acted and spoke the way that he did, convinces me that the good sheriff is a cynical, disingenuous, duplicitous, deceiving & deceitful bastard and political hack. in my view, if he hadn’t realized his butt was on the line for professional malfeasance and misfeasance, he never would have felt the need to put the collar on someone else. but, he did, and after 25 years of law practice, all this says to me is “guilty knowledge” and guilty conscience.
jj, in the good old days, the local citizenry would have tarred and feathered this sucker and run him out on a rail. Alas, those days are past. I hope the locals make the rest of his miserable life a hell on earth, starting with his immediate expulsion from his position and followed up quickly with enough lawsuits to occupy the rest of his days. Thank you for your elucidation on this matter.
Posted by: fightforfreedom | January 13, 2011 at 03:24 PM
Thanks John. Maybe someone will use this lesson and make the call to stop another tragedy from happening.
mdd
Posted by: mdd | January 13, 2011 at 06:10 PM