« Obama Vs Netanyahu (Cartoon)
The Lost Poetry of Sikh Poet Nunihal Singh Layal: Events of the Times »
Giffords Shooter Raised Concerns But No Action Taken
May 21st, 2011 | 7 responses
Jared Loughner, who killed six and wounded thirteen in the January 8 assassination attempt on Congresswoman Giffords, had a troubling and well documented history of mental and emotional disturbance. An upcoming competency hearing is scheduled in court to determine his ability to stand trial.
More than 200 emails have now been released as well as other records from his time at Pima Community College. A pattern of mental disturbance emerges from the details.
Some of the highlights include:
• Pima Community College had concerns about Loughner’s mental stability dating back to at least September, 2009
• He had at least five run ins with campus police that included inappropriate laughing during questioning
• Campus administration at one point requested information from ATF on whether Loughner had a gun. ATF had no record of him
• He was a consistently disruptive influence in class
• He displayed knives in class
• He consistently engaged in behavior described as intimidating of both students and faculty
• He made bizarre statements in class and in emails to other students and faculty, including asking a math teacher why the teacher denied math instead of accepting it.
• Requests were made by teachers to have him removed from their classes
• Requests were made by campus police to have him expelled
• In October, 2010 he was told to get a mental health evaluation or not return
Despite the warning signs, no serious action was taken. Dean Patricia Houston attributed the school’s reticence to respect for Loughner’s due process rights. She said in one email,” “It is a matter of balancing the disruptive student’s right to due process with the rights of the other students in the class.”
While the newly released emails and records do not constitute a diagnosis, they do provide some insight into a deteriorating mind and the bizarre and intimidating behaviors that resulted and eventually led to the events of January 8th.
7 Responses to “Giffords Shooter Raised Concerns But No Action Taken”
Despite the warning signs, no serious action was taken.
ES what serious action do you think should have been taken? The college recommended he seek mental health care. Past that I don’t know what they could have done. You can’t court commit someone for inappropriate laughing and behaviors. That’s the problem with psychotic people – they generally have poor insight into their own condition, often don’t want help, and cannot be forced to get help unless they are a clear danger to themselves or others. Do you see behaviors that would have allowed a judge to force treatment?
Hi DaGoat,
I would have suggested the possibility of a “mental health hold”. A mental health hold results in a 1 to 3 day hold for mental evaluation in most jurisdictions. The basis for such a hold is reason to believe the person is a danger to self or others.
In this case, in addition to inappropriate laughing, there was intimidating behavior, flashing weapons (a knife) in conjunction with bizarre ideation. The fact that the school went so far as to check with ATF to see if he owned a gun, tells me they had reason to believe that he was a potential danger to self or others.
Outside of notifying the appropriate mental and criminal authorities, nothing more could have or should have been done. I might be comfortable giving certified school counselors the ability to hold a student for evaluation…or we could arm the entire school. I guess that depends on your political point of view.
there are in fact, post Columbine, many things to be done to make effective effort to intervene early. It is against the law in most states to carry an unregistered weapon. A knife with a blade longer than a couple inches is considered a weapon in many states now. It is against the law to carry without registration. As are other items of weaponry besides firearms, requiring registration in order to carry them on public properties.
There are laws against menacing, disruption of the peace of others; there are laws against intimidation and against harassment. There are other charges that can be filed at misdemeanor and felony levels. There have been recent cases in New York wherein defendant accused of repeated disruption to private citizens in public and private, claimed 1st amendment rights to disrupt and harrass others. Rykers is now their home. They too were likely not running on all cylinders and now have some mental health help in prison. In one case, it was the consistency of the harassment, the unrelentingness of it, the intrusion into private lives so that business could not be carried on as is the right of private citiznes. I believe the case law exists for such as Jared to have been taken into custody, put on a 5150 (72 hour hold and treat), and likely not released to the street until more determinations made legally and mentally.
There are also civil charges that could be made such as tortous (help me ES spell that) interference with business advantage that the school potentially could have made stick… for when there are mentally ill disruptive people in a class so that others cannot absorb and learn, and the students have a business contract with the college that the college will provide learning, but the school then fails to preserve an atmosphere for that… it is likely the school will lose business as students leave to go elsewhere to learn in peace. This last is a long long shot, but one of the things we learned from Columbine especially, is that people can sue and be sued for anything, anything. Whether its a short shot or a long shot. That there are many lawyers who will take up even doa charges and complaints, for their own reasons. But most interesting to me, even in those ‘off’ complaints, the due process ensues, and sometimes the person who is not well, will be charged by the court to be mentally evaluated… and may gain the effective treatment needed. The “may gain” is where the issue lies, in my view. Utter inconsistency in training in judges/the court about these issues that face the mentally ill. Hired gun shrink-witnesses for defense or prosecution have too often made a shambles of ill people gaining the treatment they need, as not the truth about the condition is sought, rather ‘winning the case’ became the prime point, so that often a very ill person could be freed with no true unbiased evaluation/treatment whatsoever.
One of the most glaring things about Columbine, before the massacre, when Eric and Dylan were acting out insanely in classes, were that some normally reasoned adults outside and inside the school kept giving passes to their increasingly bizarre behavior, saying it was any number of things, including, they thought, protected by law. It wasnt. It was those adults lack of insight and understanding of what constitutes adolescent onset of mental illness, and what to do about it, and how to differentiate potential for harm to others and suicide by police, from kids who are just acting weird and going through a phase of life but without mental wiring flapping undone.
Cho displayed the same characteristics at VTech. Eric and Dylan also. The man who murdered so many soldiers. Jared. Paranoid schizophrenia, psychopathic behaviors, any of the schizophrenias that deem others ought be punished because the deemer is pure and others are seen as in some way in league with the dark –belongs to regular garden variety neurotic people too, particularly around people’s views on politics, religion and sexuality.
The difference is, the neurotic people usually dont arm themselves illegally for they are not driven by some insatiable and unwired sense of feeling unsafe, dont do the paranoid stare nor the insensible giggling and manic howling the person with schizophrenia / and or person in a manic psychosis, does.
In all, it is saddest for the person so afflicted and esp for their families who love them but often cannot stand them. Yet, there has to be a useful solution that is neither barricading everyone against people who are mentally ill, thereby interfering with well people’s freedom of movement and peace, and yet does not falsely imprison just regular people just because someone does not like them or their politic or whatever else. I think the laws on the books actually are already able enough to contain and restrain, cause diagnosis and treatment.
You know from my other comments over time, that i am for ‘mental health’ courts, as they have in some jurisdictions now… judges, prosecutors, etc are far better trained in what an ill person needs in order to get better, in order not to be a peril to themselves and others.
just my .02
Very well put Dr. E.
There are many opportunities to intervene. But as you say, we hesitate to do so because we fear we may be overreacting…or discriminating…not seeking the best means of achieving treatment.
In past experiences as a judge, my duties included one day each month doing committment release hearings at the state hospital. Being no expert, but having some experience, Loughner’s age and progression of illness seem consistent with manifestation of schizophrenia.
Edit Added: not in this case, but as a general critique, too many in the legal system [judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys] take the easy way out and rush through the criminal system rather than trying to identify mental health issues. Our jails are full of the mentally ill as a result. My view.
E.S.
Oh, the word is tortious, as in interference rising to the level of a civil tort.
In my town I know of two ways to force someone into treatment for mental health. One is generally through the emergency room, most commonly with an OD who doesn’t want to stay in the hospital. In that case a judge is called and the patient is placed on a 48 hour hold either in the ICU or in the mental health unit. The judge usually goes along with the recommendations of the ER doc or whatever health care provider does the eval, although I have seen situations where the judge did not agree.
Say Jared had been in the ER for some reason, would a judge have agreed to commit him based on the evidence above? Some judges I’ve dealt with would have, some would not. Some judges will sign anything as long as they can go back to bed, others take the process and individual rights very seriously.
The second way requires two adults to go down to the courthouse and file paperwork to court commit someone they are familiar with who they think has an serious mental health problem. This is also for 48 hours, then they go to a judge and are almost always released. In my experience most laypeople are hesitant to commit someone, and rightly so in my opinion since it involves the patient losing a good amount of freedom.
I have been involved in the decision on whether to commit someone many times and it is often a difficult one even for medical professionals. It’s for that reason I have to disagree with ES and Dr. Estes. Untrained professionals such as teachers and administrators should not be expected to commit students unless they are extremely familiar with them. I doubt very much the community college personnel met that definition.
This is all 20/20 hindsight. Sometimes bad things happen despite everybody doing their best.
DaGoat,
You are correct that 20/20 hindsight is being employed in the Loughner case, as it was after Columbine. But, the use of hindsight in one tragedy can, if properly employed, lead to corrective action that may prevent future tragedies.
As an aside, my guess is that Iowa, in addition to the two methods you mention, also has what Dr. E referred to as a “5150 hold” and what I referred to as a mental health hold which can be initiated by law enforcement.