Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

He didn't make any threats that ANYONE knew of before he shot up the theater and killed 12 people. The package was only found AFTER the event. How can anyone investigate something that they don't know about?

Then what was it he did or said that spooked his shrink enough to call in the vaunted BETA team? And why did they do nothing? Not an e-mail or a phone call or anything. Nothing. Is nothing your plan?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

More on this possible missed opportunity to avoid slaughter from the Denver Post. While I readily admit it's possible nothing could have been done to avert this massacre, I'm also thinking the "he's no longer our problem" defense being offered here falls far short of the mark.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...-referred-threat-assessment-team?source=email

 

[Almington]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Then what was it he did or said that spooked his shrink enough to call in the vaunted BETA team? And why did they do nothing? Not an e-mail or a phone call or anything. Nothing. Is nothing your plan?

We don't know why she was concerned, I suspect that it may come out in the future. Unless it was a direct threat to the health and safety of someone, doctor-patient confidentiality would prevent her from contacting law enforcement.

Once he left the University, the BETA could have meet, but unless they had evidence of a credible threat, they wouldn't have been able to do much anyway as he was outside the universities control.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

We don't know why she was concerned, I suspect that it may come out in the future. Unless it was a direct threat to the health and safety of someone, doctor-patient confidentiality would prevent her from contacting law enforcement.

Once he left the University, the BETA could have meet, but unless they had evidence of a credible threat, they wouldn't have been able to do much anyway as he was outside the universities control.

Jeebus. They could have called the cops. They could have called his parents. You just absolutely won't give on this uber-legal analysis, will you? All I've suggested is they could have done more. And they should have at least tried. And the fact that they didn't and 12 people are dead you have claimed is evidence that something "worked."

 

[The Rube]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Hindsight is always 20/20. In this day and age, sadly, you have to follow every law to a "t" so as to not open yourself up to a lawsuit. It's sad, yes, but that's the way it is. The minimum of "we did what we legally had to do, nothing more" is standard now.

 

[Almington]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Jeebus. They could have called the cops. They could have called his parents. You just absolutely won't give on this uber-legal analysis, will you? All I've suggested is they could have done more. And they should have at least tried. And the fact that they didn't and 12 people are dead you have claimed is evidence that something "worked."

They could not have called his parents period (since he was over 18) or the police unless they had clear evidence that he was going to hurt someone else or himself. Their are VERY clear guidelines on when a patients confidential medical records can be shared without his express written permission. If his communications did not meet those requirements for involuntary disclosure then to have shared anything would have opened the university up to a major lawsuit and the medical staff to misconduct investigations.

What part of doctor-patient confidentiality do you not understand?

 

[duper]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

So what I am hearing here is:

Almington - They didn't have the information that the law requires to break doctor-patient confidentiality.

Old Pio - The law needs to be changed

Rinse

Repeat

It seems quite possible that a given person could agree with both of you on this. Under current law, there may not have been enough. And perhaps that legal situation should be reviewed.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

They could not have called his parents period (since he was over 18) or the police unless they had clear evidence that he was going to hurt someone else or himself. Their are VERY clear guidelines on when a patients confidential medical records can be shared without his express written permission. If his communications did not meet those requirements for involuntary disclosure then to have shared anything would have opened the university up to a major lawsuit and the medical staff to misconduct investigations.

What part of doctor-patient confidentiality do you not understand?

Jack McCoy, I presume. I understand that 12 people are dead, Jack. And I further understand it might be better to bend your precious rules and risk possible civl exposure then to permit even the chance of that slaughter. Are you happy with this ultra-legalistic approach? And all those deaths? I guess you must be, because you have strenuously defended the principals involved. Suggesting they did the best they could with their hands tied. Extending to them a benefit of the doubt that in my judgement is premature. Maybe you're right to do it. But maybe you're not. Shouldn't we wait until we know the full story? What I'm talking about is an after-action report. Maybe we learn nothing. Maybe we change nothing. At least we will have looked into it.

All I know about confidentiality I "learned" on "Law and order." What part of the distinction between what's legal and what's right don't YOU understand? What's right is to take a chance on legal repercussions to avoid a mass shooting. What's legal is to offer up endless excuses about why nothing could or should have been done.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Hindsight is always 20/20. In this day and age, sadly, you have to follow every law to a "t" so as to not open yourself up to a lawsuit. It's sad, yes, but that's the way it is. The minimum of "we did what we legally had to do, nothing more" is standard now.

It is not hindsight to suggest that we might learn something from what went on here with an eye toward possibly preventing further tragedies. Otherwise we all need to shut the eff up about these events. They're just the price we pay for a 2nd Amendment and letting crazies roam the streets. It's not impossible to ever so slightly adjust the balance here as between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community.

Was it the Beadle in Oliver Twist who said: "If the law supposes that the law is a a*s. A idiot?"

 

[The Rube]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

It is not hindsight to suggest that we might learn something from what went on here with an eye toward possibly preventing further tragedies. Otherwise we all need to shut the eff up about these events. They're just the price we pay for a 2nd Amendment and letting crazies roam the streets. It's not impossible to ever so slightly adjust the balance here as between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community.

Was it the Beadle in Oliver Twist who said: "If the law supposes that the law is a a*s. A idiot?"

I didn't say we shouldn't learn something. I said that right now, as it stands, no one will do more than they have to, because of the laws and the fear of getting sued if one doesn't follow said laws.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

I didn't say we shouldn't learn something. I said that right now, as it stands, no one will do more than they have to, because of the laws and the fear of getting sued if one doesn't follow said laws.

That would be known as the Paterno Theorum, no?

 

[joecct]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

That would be known as the Paterno Theorum, no?

No, no, no. It's the Paterno corollary to the Bishop Theorum.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

That would be known as the Paterno Theorum, no?

Sad but true?

OP makes some very valid points on this subject, but as I noted earlier I'm not sure how we go about combatting this when John Doe doesn't notify someone and even then how law enforcement et al goes about responding. To OP's credit his point is, "are we really doing all that we can" without skirting civil rights and I think he's someone that would be a big defender of such were it to come into question.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Sad but true?

OP makes some very valid points on this subject, but as I noted earlier I'm not sure how we go about combatting this when John Doe doesn't notify someone and even then how law enforcement et al goes about responding. To OP's credit his point is, "are we really doing all that we can" without skirting civil rights and I think he's someone that would be a big defender of such were it to come into question.

Thanks (I hate it when somebody sums me up better than I did ) As I've said, if we're going to err here, it should be on the side of protecting the rights of individuals. We aren't that far removed from the Soviets slapping political dissidents into looney bins and pumping them full of drugs. However, realistically I don't see that as much of a risk. Except perhaps for greedy children wanting to get their hands on the money by getting rid of their parents.

But, as you ask, "are we doing the best we can?" The vast majority of these people are no danger to others. Only a microscopic percentage of them wind up shooting up theatres or colleges or high schools. Sadly, the ones who might explode don't glow in the dark. Given the legal framework and the deeply held cultural instinct for government to "leave me the h*ll alone" identifying and dealing with crazies may be impossible.

Yet, in many (most?) of these cases, we learn that there WERE people who were concerned, that an effort WAS made to cull them from the herd. But it came to naught. A reminder, Nikki Giovanni who gave that marvelous speech at the VT memorial service, had the shooter in one of her classes. And she told the administration in effect, either he goes or I go. He totally creeped her out. And many of his classmates, too. Many in the university reached out to the kid (the chairman of the English department was tutoring him, because nobody wanted to be in class with him). Why then, could that one next step not be taken? That one phone call not be made?

And some of these people disguise their madness. Recall that Klebold and Harris had some run-ins with the law over stealing radios from cars. Among other things, they were required to write essays on overcoming their anger. And the people responsible for reviewing those essays were totally snowed. And issued glowing reviews about how much "progress" the boys were making. Turned out to be a bit premature. Beause they were already planning their rampage. Just a few days before they shot up Columbine, they went to their prom. Recall, on the day of the shootings, one of their buddies showed up late to school and they told him to go home, that he didn't need to be there that day.

But when someone's behavior is called into question. And well-intentioned professionals are deeply concerned (Virginia Tech, Aurora) but are unable to take that one final step for whatever reason, then I think it's fair to ask: Why? And what can we do next time around? And is it possible to make changes in the "system" to better protect us from these murderous rampages, without diminishing the freedoms we all enjoy?

Settling back into "we did the best we could," not only ensures we'll never be free of these outrages, but also suggests people who may have droped the ball, didn't. A review of events has been announced.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...review-events-before-aurora-theater-shootings

 

[The Rube]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Sad but true?

OP makes some very valid points on this subject, but as I noted earlier I'm not sure how we go about combatting this when John Doe doesn't notify someone and even then how law enforcement et al goes about responding. To OP's credit his point is, "are we really doing all that we can" without skirting civil rights and I think he's someone that would be a big defender of such were it to come into question.

And I agree with that. However, as it stands, I do not encourage breaking any laws to do the right thing (in most cases*). That's all.



*Say I see some guy hit a woman. Haul off and hit her. I would then explain to him why he shouldn't hit her. And I probably wouldn't use just words.

 

[Almington]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Thanks (I hate it when somebody sums me up better than I did ) As I've said, if we're going to err here, it should be on the side of protecting the rights of individuals. We aren't that far removed from the Soviets slapping political dissidents into looney bins and pumping them full of drugs. However, realistically I don't see that as much of a risk. Except perhaps for greedy children wanting to get their hands on the money by getting rid of their parents.

But, as you ask, "are we doing the best we can?" The vast majority of these people are no danger to others. Only a microscopic percentage of them wind up shooting up theatres or colleges or high schools. Sadly, the ones who might explode don't glow in the dark. Given the legal framework and the deeply held cultural instinct for government to "leave me the h*ll alone" identifying and dealing with crazies may be impossible.

Yet, in many (most?) of these cases, we learn that there WERE people who were concerned, that an effort WAS made to cull them from the herd. But it came to naught. A reminder, Nikki Giovanni who gave that marvelous speech at the VT memorial service, had the shooter in one of her classes. And she told the administration in effect, either he goes or I go. He totally creeped her out. And many of his classmates, too. Many in the university reached out to the kid (the chairman of the English department was tutoring him, because nobody wanted to be in class with him). Why then, could that one next step not be taken? That one phone call not be made?

And some of these people disguise their madness. Recall that Klebold and Harris had some run-ins with the law over stealing radios from cars. Among other things, they were required to write essays on overcoming their anger. And the people responsible for reviewing those essays were totally snowed. And issued glowing reviews about how much "progress" the boys were making. Turned out to be a bit premature. Beause they were already planning their rampage. Just a few days before they shot up Columbine, they went to their prom. Recall, on the day of the shootings, one of their buddies showed up late to school and they told him to go home, that he didn't need to be there that day.

But when someone's behavior is called into question. And well-intentioned professionals are deeply concerned (Virginia Tech, Aurora) but are unable to take that one final step for whatever reason, then I think it's fair to ask: Why? And what can we do next time around? And is it possible to make changes in the "system" to better protect us from these murderous rampages, without diminishing the freedoms we all enjoy?

Settling back into "we did the best we could," not only ensures we'll never be free of these outrages, but also suggests people who may have droped the ball, didn't. A review of events has been announced.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...review-events-before-aurora-theater-shootings

I don't think that we are that far apart really,

With each event we do get better at identifying and preventing these incidents, and we never know how many of these incidents are prevented because the person will get the help that they need and no one will be harmed.

The issue is that NO system will ever be 100% effective, between the limits on reporting information and the difficulty in putting all the pieces of information together a priori. I hope that all schools evaluate how they handle withdrawing students with respect to having them receive mental health counseling in the future.

Part of the issue is that medical professionals who disclose patient information open themselves to not just liability lawsuits, but also to losing their medical licence and ability to earn a living.

In cases like this, until it becomes clear that someone didn't follow protocols and was negligent, I give them a benefit of the doubt because it is possible to do everything right and not have been able to prevent what happened.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

I don't think that we are that far apart really,

With each event we do get better at identifying and preventing these incidents, and we never know how many of these incidents are prevented because the person will get the help that they need and no one will be harmed.

The issue is that NO system will ever be 100% effective, between the limits on reporting information and the difficulty in putting all the pieces of information together a priori. I hope that all schools evaluate how they handle withdrawing students with respect to having them receive mental health counseling in the future.

Part of the issue is that medical professionals who disclose patient information open themselves to not just liability lawsuits, but also to losing their medical licence and ability to earn a living.

In cases like this, until it becomes clear that someone didn't follow protocols and was negligent, I give them a benefit of the doubt because it is possible to do everything right and not have been able to prevent what happened.

There are only 10 "protocols" that can never be changed or modified. The rest were created by us and can be changed by us as we see fit. However, given the rarity of these events, it may be nearly impossible to prevent them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Yes, of course, it's possible to "do everything right" and still things go wrong. I'd imagine that's the case in most of these episodes. But in your strenuous defense of these people you conveniently overlook the possibility that they might also be feather bedding, bureaucratic drones who badly screwed the pooch. I'm not sure one way or another, but you seem to be. Why? And why have you made up your mind, absent a complete exegesis of the facts in this case? The legal seminars are interesting, but hardly dispositive.

 

[joecct]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Pio

I would submit that the 10 "protocols" are now open for negotiation.

(a) Kids respect their parents?
(b) Murder is still a good business
(c) Who cares who you have sex with?
(d) Stealing is bad, if you get caught
(e) We want more and more and more.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Pio

I would submit that the 10 "protocols" are now open for negotiation.

(a) Kids respect their parents?
(b) Murder is still a good business
(c) Who cares who you have sex with?
(d) Stealing is bad, if you get caught
(e) We want more and more and more.

The "protocols" haven't changed, we have. And there are no first hand accounts available about enforcement.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Turns out one of the victims in Aurora, a baby-faced 26-year old Navy vet, may have died trying to stop Holmes.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/0...assacre-may-have-tried-to-stop/#ixzz22bMc3600