About those paranoid kids...

AZZenny · January 13th, 2011, 11:18 PM

All the easy talk about how PCC and campus cops 'coulda-shoulda' identified the Tucson shooter -- I just want to put into perspective some of the difficulties deciding who is and who isn't delusional.

Quote:

[Brooklyn College had a novel way of dealing with a student who claimed that there was a spy camera in her room.

When she went to the Brooklyn College Campus Security and Safety Office to complain that her off campus landlord was using a spy cam on her, they offered her an involuntary two-week stay at a psychiatric hospital to treat her "paranoia".

The only thing was that the landlord had installed a spy camera in Nigerian student Chinemerem Eze's bedroom. It is not clear why, or what he was doing with the film. By the time she got out of the loony bin she missed her final exams and was not able to complete them. As a result she wound up losing a scholarship she'd received from the school.

Brooklyn College's case might be strengthened by the fact that Eze also claimed there was a defamaton campaign against her on the Internet and this suggested that she was paranoid.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/...era-complaint/

Several years ago I was an expert in a case of an elderly woman who'd complained one of her kids was embezzling her money, had forged documents, duped her and lied about her. When the alleged perp took her to a psychiatrist (against her will) and said that she was making paranoid accusations, the doctor decided without any other evidence that she was delusional and demented. No one at the nursing home believed her either -- the son was always hovering around and seemed so 'involved.' The woman got over-sedated with drugs for her 'psychosis' and fell, broke her hip, got pneumonia, and died.

Subsequently we determined that the son had embezzled nearly $2 million, and that every thing she had said was 100% true.

Gaddabout · January 14th, 2011, 01:08 AM

Zen, you said it yourself, the inability to distinguish between reality and their own fantasy world is a strong indicator. I agree outbursts in class and weird behavior and even grand claims aren't enough to throw someone in a padded room. All the incidents involving him speaking out in class and becoming somewhat hostile because he felt he wasn't getting what he paid for -- absolute right to speak what he wanted to, when he wanted to, and write what he wanted to and still get a good grade for it -- could be all kinds of pedestrian issues that don't necessarily point to a bigger problem.

But I continue to go back to the incident (which had two times precedent) in which Loughner was arguing with his teacher that the number '6' was actually the number '18.' This was in early October and he was allowed back in class and back on campus. The police were called, so agency reports were on hand, and the Pima SO noted it was aware Loughner was under investigation for a YouTube video he posted in September, taped on the NW corner of the campus, making strange and somewhat hostile claims about the school.

It took yet another incident in which he was finally suspended, and he still was allowed to return to campus. The SO ended up not pursuing Loughner for any crime and the county grand jury was nothing more than an issue to compel YouTube and Google to take the video down.

Considering the responding officer was almost always the same one, it's difficult for me to believe better training would not have led the officer to continue to not pursue stronger measures. In fact, she seemed very conciliatory, constantly (and hopelessly, in her words) trying to reason with him, constantly giving Loughner room to back off and avoid some kind of prosecution, and it wasn't until the long overdue suspension (and the revelation his mother had been coaching him to not talk to authorities but to do whatever they say) that everyone's hand was forced into actually addressing any of his issues.

AZZenny · January 14th, 2011, 07:21 AM

I agree with all you say Matt -- and when someone makes any kinds of threats along with patently bizarre beliefs or extremely irrational delusional statements, it should be a big head's-up.

But in the rush to judge, people have made it sound like the best place we can break this cycle of crazed violence is earlier and more aggressive MH intervention -- I just want to point out the pitfalls of over-enthusiastic embrace of that idea -- and in these two cases, note that trained MH professionals erred as well.

Making it easier to involuntarily hospitalize or medicate people, which is what people are really saying, is to me as dangerously slick a slope for essential civil liberties as a restriction on extended ammo clips seems to 2nd amendment fanatics.
You have to understand the history of involuntary psychiatric treatment -- as recently as 50 years ago -- to realize just how dangerous and fuzzy a line this really is.

Now, maybe the girl above WAS paranoid, as well as being spy-cammed. It is extremely tough to make an MH dx in someone from a very different culture, however, and Africa and SE Asia are notoriously problematic. (Reportedly a college psychologist interviewed her for just a few minutes and said that she should be committed. Obviously NY has far more lax laws than we do, because I can't see that happening in AZ.)

And to be fair, before the elderly woman's case (and I'll brag -- I actually cracked the case by spotting a clear forgery) I'm not sure I would have been any more likely to doubt the doting son's story, esp. as the woman got more and more angry that no one was listening to her.

It's actually breathtaking to me the way a label of 'demented' or 'brain-damaged' or 'psychotic' can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and everyday behaviors get instantly re-cast as proof of dementia or craziness and anything the person says to defend themselves gets discounted. I see a couple cases a year like that, but I am now exceptionally careful to check out all sides.

puckhead · January 14th, 2011, 07:56 AM

How early do these symptoms typically manifest? I'm curious because I'm seeing many folks looking at the MH system as failing, the school, the authorities, even Mama Grizzly, but very little about the parents' responsibility. To me they should be involved enough as parents to know 'something ain't right' and should do something about it before loosing these ill people into society.

Gaddabout · January 14th, 2011, 09:47 AM

If Arizona ever does put together guidelines for such a thing, Zen, I will surely hope you're on the committee to bring a libertarian point of view to a profession that hasn't always valued civil liberties!

LoyaltyisaCurse · January 14th, 2011, 09:56 AM

Here is just what happened at my Alma Mater:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ives-case.html

Word has it he was making threats to other students on campus.

conraddobler · January 14th, 2011, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZZenny

All the easy talk about how PCC and campus cops 'coulda-shoulda' identified the Tucson shooter -- I just want to put into perspective some of the difficulties deciding who is and who isn't delusional.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/...era-complaint/

Several years ago I was an expert in a case of an elderly woman who'd complained one of her kids was embezzling her money, had forged documents, duped her and lied about her. When the alleged perp took her to a psychiatrist (against her will) and said that she was making paranoid accusations, the doctor decided without any other evidence that she was delusional and demented. No one at the nursing home believed her either -- the son was always hovering around and seemed so 'involved.' The woman got over-sedated with drugs for her 'psychosis' and fell, broke her hip, got pneumonia, and died.

Subsequently we determined that the son had embezzled nearly $2 million, and that every thing she had said was 100% true.

Did her son run a very large bank?

DemsMyBoys · January 14th, 2011, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZZenny

And to be fair, before the elderly woman's case (and I'll brag -- I actually cracked the case by spotting a clear forgery) I'm not sure I would have been any more likely to doubt the doting son's story, esp. as the woman got more and more angry that no one was listening to her.

It's actually breathtaking to me the way a label of 'demented' or 'brain-damaged' or 'psychotic' can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and everyday behaviors get instantly re-cast as proof of dementia or craziness and anything the person says to defend themselves gets discounted. I see a couple cases a year like that, but I am now exceptionally careful to check out all sides.

Good for you Zenny! I had almost the exact same scenario play out in my own family. "Aunt Grace" had her cousin "Charles" committed to a facility where they proceeded to dope him up until he didn't know who he was. (Cousin Charles was loaded and Aunt Grace wanted to get her hands on his money.) Cousin "Hilda" wondered why Cousin Charles wasn't answering his phone and managed to track him down to the state hospital. She went to see him and he was medicated to the point of not knowing who she was. Thankfully, Cousin Hilda has a daughter who is a psychiatrist. The daughter managed to somehow get him put into her care. (She's pretty tough.)

She had them stop Cousin Charles' medications and he was back to his old self. But, sadly, not before his bank account was looted by Aunt Grace. He died not too long after.

So bless you. I have an idea this happens a lot.

LoyaltyisaCurse · January 14th, 2011, 10:09 AM

Here is a little bit more:

A Cal State Northridge student who threatened several at school is facing two felony charges after police found a shotgun and explosives materials in his on-campus dorm room, according to officials.

David Everson, 22, allegedly made threats to students and staff on campus and was taken into custody for mental health evaluation on Tuesday, said Anne Glavin, chief of CSUN police.

Police arrested him Wednesday and he is currently in county jail in lieu of a $150,000 bond, according to inmate records.

No injuries were reported during the Tuesday incident.

Everson is no longer enrolled at the university and had no previous reported problems at the school, Glavin said.

He is charged with possession of ingredients to make a destructive device and bringing a firearm onto a school campus, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

He is set to appear in court for arraignment Friday at San Fernando Superior Court.

nidan · January 15th, 2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZZenny

Making it easier to involuntarily hospitalize or medicate people, which is what people are really saying, is to me as dangerously slick a slope for essential civil liberties as a restriction on extended ammo clips seems to 2nd amendment fanatics.

How is that even a 2nd amendment issue.

I don't remember anything that mentions extended ammo clips. In fact I don't even remember it saying anything about ammo

LVG · January 15th, 2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZZenny

Making it easier to involuntarily hospitalize or medicate people, which is what people are really saying, is to me as dangerously slick a slope for essential civil liberties as a restriction on extended ammo clips seems to 2nd amendment fanatics.

I don't know if I would make it easier, AZZ, but I think more resources are called for to investigate these things when they come to light.

In essence, committing someone due to mental health issues should be (in my decidedly unexpert opinion) done only if you know something is wrong. Involuntary commitment is essentially stripping someone of almost all their rights without due process (other than a hearing composed of a few mental health experts, from my understanding) and has long lasting repercussions and a stigma you really can never escape.

But, if the MH Community doesn't have enough people or resources to check into these things (or if they are not being reported to the MH Community), then you guys need more resources. Right?

AZZenny · January 15th, 2011, 03:57 PM

Yes, more well-trained people (and less watering-down the acceptable credentials) would help (OK, we won't go there...). But it's the actual mechanics of the referral process and commitment laws that will get looked at, not the diminishing resources.

Nidan, extended clips aren't a 2nd Amendment issue to me, but there was a gun expert on CNN the other night who went off the wall about -- I kid you not -- if they start preventing grandma from having an extended clip for her semi-automatic handgun, itsthe first step towards denying people the right to bear arms and adequately defend themselves. So to the gun culture, that is a 'slippery slope' was my point. Making involuntary commitment easier is a far more serious risk to our civil liberties, IMO.

conraddobler · January 15th, 2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZZenny

Yes, more well-trained people (and less watering-down the acceptable credentials) would help (OK, we won't go there...). But it's the actual mechanics of the referral process and commitment laws that will get looked at, not the diminishing resources.

Nidan, extended clips aren't a 2nd Amendment issue to me, but there was a gun expert on CNN the other night who went off the wall about -- I kid you not -- if they start preventing grandma from having an extended clip for her semi-automatic handgun, itsthe first step towards denying people the right to bear arms and adequately defend themselves. So to the gun culture, that is a 'slippery slope' was my point. Making involuntary commitment easier is a far more serious risk to our civil liberties, IMO.

On that I would whole heartedly agree.

In the larger scheme of things they've taken that OMG the government is going to take all our guns thing a bit too far.

Meanwhile they've voted for people who've passed laws like the Patriot act and been fine with abolishing Hab corp etc, and would probably give you easier commitment laws if it was that or guns.

This whole idea that guns keep you safe from some evil government, that's kind of antiquated in the era of urban life, combined with predator drones and tanks.

The picture of some gun nut living off the land, fighting the good fight, holed up against everything our modern military could throw at it and prevaling is idiotic.

The idea that a new band of freedom fighters would form in a country that's fat, spoiled and totally dependent on modern society is equally far fetched.

No one has to roll tanks into a modern city to disarm you, all they have to do is cut off the food shipments, electricity and you'll beg them to come get you.

Heck you cut the wireless internet out and I swear you'd have people surrender just to turn it back on.

The key on gun laws is how specific they are, the majority is against major gun control, letting through a ban on extended clips wouldn't be that slippery of a slope if it's that specific.

LVG · January 15th, 2011, 08:30 PM

The problem is, CD, that we are quick to protect the rights we believe in, and quick to discard those we don't.

Someone said it earlier with the comparison of abortion rights to gun rights, insofar that with respect to each, there is a minority opposition that believes they should be outlawed. This leads to the minority who are staunch supporters fighting against every possible regulation, no matter how minor, because they are afraid that once they give that ground up, they won't get it back. It doesn't help that the ones who want to outlaw it also crow from the rooftops that the minor restriction is really just one more step towards total banishment.

In reality, we should all strive to protect the rights we have, even if we don't exercise them, even if we don't agree with them, because they're rights - not privileges (in the constitutional sense). The WBC idiots are a perfect example - even though I think their actions are reprehensible, inflammatory, bigoted, ignorant, hateful, hurtful, and shouldn't be said, I must admit that they have a right to say them. Though I spit every time I say that, it's the truth, and if someone tries to take away their rights, we have to stand to protect them, because once you start chipping away at one person's rights, all are in jeopardy.

conraddobler · January 16th, 2011, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LVG

The problem is, CD, that we are quick to protect the rights we believe in, and quick to discard those we don't.

Someone said it earlier with the comparison of abortion rights to gun rights, insofar that with respect to each, there is a minority opposition that believes they should be outlawed. This leads to the minority who are staunch supporters fighting against every possible regulation, no matter how minor, because they are afraid that once they give that ground up, they won't get it back. It doesn't help that the ones who want to outlaw it also crow from the rooftops that the minor restriction is really just one more step towards total banishment.

In reality, we should all strive to protect the rights we have, even if we don't exercise them, even if we don't agree with them, because they're rights - not privileges (in the constitutional sense). The WBC idiots are a perfect example - even though I think their actions are reprehensible, inflammatory, bigoted, ignorant, hateful, hurtful, and shouldn't be said, I must admit that they have a right to say them. Though I spit every time I say that, it's the truth, and if someone tries to take away their rights, we have to stand to protect them, because once you start chipping away at one person's rights, all are in jeopardy.

This is why people get the government they deserve.