T1B

trev wrote:As a parent, they had to know he was not stable.

Of course they knew. He lived with them. They attended the conference at the college when he was suspended. They had to have known about the police involvement with his multiple death threats.

What did they do?

Absolutely nothing.

mvscal wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:So how is it that it's the parents' or sheriff's fault? If AZ is anything like CA, only a firefighter, peace officer, or physician can commit a person to a mandatory 72 hour psych exam. So that rules out the parents. And I have yet to year of an incident where LE would have reason to believe his mental condition was serious enough to make such a detention. So how is it that the parents and/or the sheriff are at fault, numbnuts?

Last time I checked, a sheriff is a peace officer,

Thanks for the bulletin, Capt. Obvious.

Also, Arizona is NOT anything like California, so the parents could have (and should have) had their kid committed. It is the fault of the sheriff and the parents because they knew that loser was both dangerous and batshit crazy but they did absolutely nothing about it.

Parents can only have their child committed when they are juveniles, dumbfuck. This guy is 22, and is an adult. Can you cite a law (AZ or anywhere else in the US) that allows parents to forcibly commit their adult children for psych evaluations?

And how did the sheriff know that they guy was batshit crazy? Do you really think that the Secret Service commits everyone who utters a threat to the POTUS for a psych exam?

Come back when you have some substance, slappy.

Diego in Seattle wrote: Can you cite a law (AZ or anywhere else in the US) that allows parents to forcibly commit their adult children for psych evaluations?

Iowa. Two adult family members can get someone committed by filing statements with the Court saying that he is a danger to himself or others and have information to substantiate their claims.

Mace wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: Can you cite a law (AZ or anywhere else in the US) that allows parents to forcibly commit their adult children for psych evaluations?

Iowa. Two adult family members can get someone committed by filing statements with the Court saying that he is a danger to himself or others and have information to substantiate their claims.

That's good to hear, but who knows if that's the case in AZ.

Diego, I like you, but you are talking out of your ass in this case. Parent's can do a lot to get their kids help. Even if they are adult kids.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Mace wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: Can you cite a law (AZ or anywhere else in the US) that allows parents to forcibly commit their adult children for psych evaluations?

Iowa. Two adult family members can get someone committed by filing statements with the Court saying that he is a danger to himself or others and have information to substantiate their claims.

That's good to hear, but who knows if that's the case in AZ.

What the fuck do you mean who knows? Are you saying that you were making positive declarations about who can or cannot be involuntarily committed and you don't what Arizona law says? Are you fucking kidding me? That's pretty stupid even for you.

Oh, in answer to your question, I know that that is the case in Arizona. In fact, it's even easier than that. Pretty much anybody can petition the court for an evaluation in Arizona per ARS 36-520.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... ocType=ARS

Maybe you should spend a little less time sucking on a fat baby's dick and a little more time acquainting yourself with the facts lest you kick you own ass...again.

You may go now.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Mace wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: Can you cite a law (AZ or anywhere else in the US) that allows parents to forcibly commit their adult children for psych evaluations?

Iowa. Two adult family members can get someone committed by filing statements with the Court saying that he is a danger to himself or others and have information to substantiate their claims.

That's good to hear, but who knows if that's the case in AZ.

Apparently, AZ is one of the easiest states to get crazy fukks locked up in.

His parents along with quite a few others dropped the ball.

That's awesome Scott. You're an exceptional parent. I wonder if his father took the keys trying to stop him from going anywhere ? Then the kid outwitted him and took a cab.

Maybe we need to stop finding fault here - the fault lies with the dude that pulled the trigger.


Maybe we could take a look at what sent him into his descension into madness. I mean if Sarah Palins words can incite a massacree, just think of what all the video games, "rock and roll", movies, t.v. shows, etc.. can incite people to do, or feel, or think.

Tom In VA wrote:I mean if Sarah Palins words can incite a massacree, just think of what all the video games, "rock and roll", movies, t.v. shows, etc.. can incite people to do, or feel, or think.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I mean if Sarah Palins words can incite a massacree, just think of what all the video games, "rock and roll", movies, t.v. shows, etc.. can incite people to do, or feel, or think.

Grow up.

Tom In VA wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I mean if Sarah Palins words can incite a massacree, just think of what all the video games, "rock and roll", movies, t.v. shows, etc.. can incite people to do, or feel, or think.

Grow up.

KC Scott wrote: At that point - if I'm that parent, I'm calling 911 and letting police know he's potential armed and dangerous

That's a death sentence.

"Hey you fucking paramilitary, steroidal maniacs...my kid has a screw loose...lock and load."

Tom In VA wrote: I mean if Sarah Palins words can incite a massacree, just think of what all the video games, "rock and roll", movies, t.v. shows, etc.. can incite people to do, or feel, or think.

Most rational thinkers are not affected by the slant of the media either way. Simpleton thinkers who are looking to deflect the personal responsibility away from the criminal, are more concerned with what kind of political mileage they can get out of this versus the crime itself.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Stay forever young. You're beyond any hope* already a well seasoned, mature individual. Screw is trying to get in the game here in D.C. Rolling his eyes won't work.

People contending that to suggest "words" in radio and t.v. caused this, and instituting a "fairness doctrine" or other form of censorship are walking a slippery slope. That's my point. The 1st Amendment was about FREEDOM in political discourse. Not for sculptures made of poop.





*You know I'm kidding, you rock dude.

Derron wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: I mean if Sarah Palins words can incite a massacree, just think of what all the video games, "rock and roll", movies, t.v. shows, etc.. can incite people to do, or feel, or think.

Most rational thinkers are not affected by the slant of the media either way. Simpleton thinkers who are looking to deflect the personal responsibility away from the criminal, are more concerned with what kind of political mileage they can get out of this versus the crime itself.

Precisely, but the course we're on is to address the lowest common denominator. We do it in our education system, we're doing it with healthcare, we're doing it with draconian - and even more draconian gun control measures being called for, we do it at airports, etc....

We do it everywhere.

I'm voicing caution and concern over notions of "The Fairness Doctrine", the already too late surrender of much of the U.S. based internet to the FCC and even more - the evolution of a thought police.

KC Scott wrote:

Martyred wrote:

KC Scott wrote: At that point - if I'm that parent, I'm calling 911 and letting police know he's potential armed and dangerous

That's a death sentence.

"Hey you fucking paramilitary, steroidal maniacs...my kid has a screw loose...lock and load."

Then so be it.

I've got a 25 yr. old son. If I thought he had intentions that would harm innocents I have no hesitation in trying to stop that at all costs

The normal parental instinct would be to protect your child. But then again, you're not normal.

Captain Hyperbole In VA wrote:People contending that to suggest "words" in radio and t.v. caused this, and instituting a "fairness doctrine" or other form of censorship are walking a slippery slope. That's my point.

Thanks for clarifying.

Tom In VA wrote: I'm voicing caution and concern over notions of "The Fairness Doctrine", the already too late surrender of much of the U.S. based internet to the FCC and even more - the evolution of a thought police.

If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

KC Scott wrote: Not sure where your disconnect is here in seeing that this could have potentially stopped this

Misunderstood your point, you've clarified. Thanks.

KC Scott wrote:
Protect my child at the cost of innocent lives that child planned to take?

The father had no idea of what was going down that day.

Keep changing the narrative to suit your purposes, though.

KC Scott wrote:
a black gun bag

runs out of the house with the gun

Martyred wrote: Keep changing the narrative to suit your purposes, though.

Martyred wrote:The father had no idea of what was going down that day.

Then why did he chase him? Just getting in a little exercise?

mvscal wrote:So they shouldn't have even bothered then, right?

Move the goal posts much? Lie like a rug much? Totally full of shit?

mvscal wrote:Actually if Dumbprik had been doing his job, that whack job never would have been able to buy a gun.

the TRUTH is that assuming the Sheriff's job was to turn is guy over to Mental Health then there is a 4% chance dude would not have been able to buy a gun. You can remember what you wrote a few posts back right?

Dumbass.

trev wrote:Diego and Moving Sale aren't even parents so they don't even qualify to answer or speak on this.

How the hell do you know if I am a parent?

As a parent, they had to know he was not stable. A good parent would go to the end of the earth to get their kid help. These parents did not do that. What did they do? If anything?

First you say they did not go to the end of the Earth to help then you ask what they did do? Climb out of the bottle you picked fuck. If you have no idea what they did then stop assuming them of not 'going to the end of the Earth' to help.

mvscal wrote: Are you saying that you were making positive declarations about who can or cannot be involuntarily committed and you don't what Arizona law says? Are you fucking kidding me?

I see so you are allowed to talk out your ass about shit you know nothing about but he isn't? Gotcha.

Moving Sale wrote:the TRUTH is that assuming the Sheriff's job was to turn is guy over to Mental Health

Now that you mention it, that IS part of the sheriff's job.

Tom In VA wrote:The 1st Amendment was about FREEDOM in political discourse.

Do you think her rhetoric is positive political speech or negative political speech? I guess a third choice would be neither good nor bad but I would hope you would not fence sit that badly.

Do you think she should keep it up or quit it?

Cuda wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:the TRUTH is that assuming the Sheriff's job was to turn is guy over to Mental Health

Now that you mention it, that IS part of the sheriff's job.

One would think so, but I have not looked into that part of it enough to know. I assume you have, and that you would be willing to give us the facts and state the law that supports your position.

Moving Sale wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:The 1st Amendment was about FREEDOM in political discourse.

Do you think her rhetoric is positive political speech or negative political speech? I guess a third choice would be neither good nor bad but I would hope you would not fence sit that badly.

Do you think she should keep it up or quit it?

1. Positive and with no more or less rancor than speech we've had in the past.

2. I think if she plans on running for anything, she's going to have to tone it down a bit. But she's not going to run for anything. She's "entertainment" now, as such, I don't see much of a difference between what she says and the things John Liebowitz, Bill Maher, Howard Stern, Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, The leg tingle guy, the ex-ESPN dude, etc.. say.

They're all just a brain cell or two ahead of Kanye West's political expression.

Moving Bowels wrote:

mvscal wrote: Are you saying that you were making positive declarations about who can or cannot be involuntarily committed and you don't what Arizona law says? Are you fucking kidding me?

I see so you are allowed to talk out your ass about shit you know nothing about but he isn't? Gotcha.

Finally got in touch with your own reality I see...glad to see you verbalizing your self analysis..takes a real tard to do that.

Tom In VA wrote: 1. Positive

So all the death panel stuff all the cross hairs stuff all the hate and vitriol, you find that positive?
What is so positive about it?

and with no more or less rancor than speech we've had in the past.

I'm not asking you to compare. You get that right?

I don't see much of a difference between what she says and the things John Liebowitz, Bill Maher, Howard Stern, Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, The leg tingle guy, the ex-ESPN dude, etc.. say.

First off "leg tingle guy"?
As I just said I'm not asking you to compare but since you brought it up, you don't see a difference between Rush and Keith Oberman? ( not sure why you didn't put the two ex-ESPN guys or use Keith's name and call Rush the ex-fat guy but I have a good guess.) Did you listen to both of them in the days after the Tucson shooting? If so please tell me how what they said was anywhere close to being the same thing.

Derron wrote:

Moving Bowels wrote:

mvscal wrote: Are you saying that you were making positive declarations about who can or cannot be involuntarily committed and you don't what Arizona law says? Are you fucking kidding me?

I see so you are allowed to talk out your ass about shit you know nothing about but he isn't? Gotcha.

Finally got in touch with your own reality I see...glad to see you verbalizing your self analysis..takes a real tard to do that.

So what you are saying is that I said mvskkkal is talking out his ass but your take is that I am really the one talking out my ass, but that you are not willing to back up your take and show me how I am talking out my ass?

You are one dumb fuckhole.

KC Scott wrote:

Martyred wrote:

KC Scott wrote:
a black gun bag

runs out of the house with the gun

Martyred wrote: Keep changing the narrative to suit your purposes, though.

how would you read this ?

I'm giving an opinion based on what's reported -

I'm guessing the bag looked something like this:

Moving Sale wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: 1. Positive

So all the death panel stuff all the cross hairs stuff all the hate and vitriol, you find that positive?
What is so positive about it?

Death panels are a part of the overall Obamacare effort. You can look for more desensitizing words but that's what they'll do. Kind of like in polite society one might say "Poopoo", or doctors might refer to it as "feces", but in the end - it's shit. By pointing that out, without using misleading words - it compels people to look at the bill closer and see that it isn't good. That's positive.

Cross hairs are symbolic, a metaphor used to focus attention on something. Nothing really positive or negative about it, it's a symbol.

As for the comparisons. Okay, you didn't ask me to compare. I did. I have no problem with asking public figures such as these to exercise some discretion and responsibility in their tone and rhetoric. I wish all of them would. The difference between THAT and what folks are clamoring for is individual governance over words - NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATION, which is being called for now.

I think "progressive" ideas should be governed by conservative principles and if we choose to we can generate such synergy in this country that we prosper, thrive - and deliver.

Moving Bowels wrote: but your take is that I am really the one talking out my ass, but that you are not willing to back up your take and show me how I am talking out my ass?

How about a link to any of your posts to prove you talk out of your ass ? Or go for an opinion poll?

Tom In VA wrote:Grow up.

Did you just tell a hack who frequents an internet chat board to "Grow Up"?

sin,

Now that you mention it, it was pretty silly.

Tom In VA wrote:Death panels are a part of the overall Obamacare effort.

That depends on what you mean by "Death Panels". If you mean a person gets voted to be "saved" by meds by a board or voted to be denied meds and "sentenced" to die, then no, there are no death panels.

You can look for more desensitizing words but that's what they'll do.

The term you're looking for is Palliative Care and no, it's not something sinister from a Stephen King novel. Basically the idea is "why continue to give 95 y/o Grandma massive doses of chemo? The old bat is much better off going out high on morphine." This task of providing end of life counseling used to be done (if at all) by the patient's PCP, but has now become a recognized specialty in the medical community.

Truthfully, a lot of this comes from insurers wanting to improve their bottom line by ending the massive expense of chemotherapy and substituting relatively cheap painkillers and sedatives. But it also came about because it was determined that as an industry we were over-treating some older patients with no realistic gains to be made in terms of life expectancy, and at a massive cost to insurers. That cost is of course passed on to everyone with that health plan, or the taxpayer if the patient was on Medicaid or Medicare.

But Palliative counseling can and does help patients too. If Great-Grandma has six months to live due to pancreatic cancer, a Palliative Care specialist will help her decide (by providing information and statistics) if suffering through chemo is worth it or if it may (for example) actually weaken her body to the point that she dies sooner.

Thanks for the education OCMike. I think the point is though - shouldn't it be the Palliative Care Counselor helping Grandma and possibly her children in making the decision rather than a panel ?

Death Panels



What a nation of infantile dipshits that can be corralled by boogey-man ghost stories into voting against their own self interest.