Sheriff Dupnik's criticism of political 'vitriol' resonates with public

[Hastrman]

I think it is worth mentioning that only a small minute percentage of people with the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia actually have an intent to harm others. Having a mental illness is not a crime.

Since I have one (generalized anxiety disorder), I’m not in need of being told that.

The thing is, a paranoid schizophrenic—through no fault of his own—is, by definition, entirely liable to think you mean him harm. Therefore he might do something very dangerous that is, to him, self-defense. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think people who are that likely to be dangerous, albeit without a shred of malice, ought to be put in some kind of care, for their own safety and others’.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Since I have one (generalized anxiety disorder), I’m not in need of being told that.

My statement was not directed at you specifically, and I do not know anything about your mental state.

The thing is, a paranoid schizophrenic—through no fault of his own—is, by definition, entirely liable to think you mean him harm. Therefore he might do something very dangerous that is, to him, self-defense. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think people who are that likely to be dangerous, albeit without a shred of malice, ought to be put in some kind of care, for their own safety and others’.

So if I am understanding you correctly, are you saying that someone should be locked up without ever have commited a crime? In that they have not demonstrated to be a threat to themselves or someone else?

I am assuming that they have been through the standard observation period by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist to have arrived at a correct diagnosis of a mental illness.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Hastrman]

So if I am understanding you correctly, are you saying that someone should be locked up without ever have commited a crime? In that they have not demonstrated to be a threat to themselves or someone else?

I am assuming that they have been through the standard observation period by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist to have arrived at a correct diagnosis of a mental illness.

Uh, yes, that’s why we were talking about “paranoid schizophrenics”. Once you are reasonably sure a person is one, yes, they really ought to be put into some kind of care—as nonrestrictive as is safe.

Because seriously, “schizophrenic” is what the layman means when he says “crazy.” They’re divorced from reality; therefore, by definition, you cannot assume that their actions will be rational. At least not rational in the sense of “following logically from their situation”, because, again, they have an erroneous concept of what their situation is. If you come up to me and I stab you, well plainly that makes no sense, and I’m in the wrong—but what if I was absolutely sure you were going to poison me? That’s why paranoid schizophrenics are inherently dangerous.

 

[Los_Angeles]

That’s why paranoid schizophrenics are inherently dangerous.

I do not agree that they are all inherently dangerous from what I have been taught, only a small percentage actually have intentions of hurting themselves or others. But I tell you what I will suspend judgement until I talk to a specialist that I know that deals with paranoid schizophrenics and get back to this.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Hastrman]

I do not agree that they are all inherently dangerous from what I have been taught, only a small percentage actually have intentions of hurting themselves or others.

“Intentions”, no. But look: are you actually going to say you expect reasonable behavior from someone who may be reacting to things only he can see?

Anything you don’t understand is dangerous until you understand it, and since their reactions are based on things that exist only in their heads, you can’t understand everything they’ll do. Therefore, they’re dangerous.

I’m not saying they’re bad or malicious; they react the way anyone would, to the freaky pseudo-world they inhabit. But they need to be treated with caution—as much compassion as possible, but caution.

 

[a_priori]

In any population, you will have people “go off” from time to time and kill people. That’s what some people do. It’s like a hurricane, volcano or asteroid. Some threats just go with being alive. There isn’t always an explanation.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

As for the Yaquis, if it’s true they’re mostly Catholic now, that’s wonderful. My point, overall, is simply that Paul’s “unknown god,” as manifested among the more scattered and less populous North American nations, probably played no small part in disposing them and many other Native Americans to an easier acceptance of the Christian faith.

More sophisticated nations such as the Aztec and Quechua, with their elaborate polytheistic pantheons, were arguably beginning to experience some of the disillusionment with their faiths that the whole Mediterranean world was experiencing at the time of Jesus’ birth. A hankering for a more peaceful practice under the worship of Quetzalcoatl was already budding in Mexico at the time of the Spaniards’ arrival, for instance.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

In any population, you will have people “go off” from time to time and kill people. That’s what some people do. It’s like a hurricane, volcano or asteroid. Some threats just go with being alive. There isn’t always an explanation.

Very true. And the left in America knows this, and have been hoping and praying for the last two years that ONE nut would go off and that there was be some evidence showing he had attended a Tea Party rally or two, and then they’d have their DREAM strawman. With that one unstable nut that they’ve been hoping for for the last two years, they’d then tar the entire anti-Obama movement as “dangerous”. They’ve been waiting so long for this nut, with let down after let down, nuts flying planes into buildings (a communist), nuts trying to blow up Times square (a Muslim), that when a Democrat congresswoman got shot they simply said; "we don’t care if this guy doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with conversatives or the Tea Party, or anything on the right, or if he even watches the news, we’re going to MAKE him oured dreamed about right-wing nut, the guy we’ve been waiting for for the last two years. We need our strawman Now!

It’s pretty much a textbook case of mass delusion we’re witnessing watching some of these people on MSNBC and the rest of the left-wing asylum, I almost feel sorry for them.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Frank Waters was a convert to some kind of Christianity; there’s a great deal of doubt about a lot of the things he said. The Hopi really do not have a Great Spirit type of idea; Taiowa is basically the Aztecs’ Ometeotl. That’s not God, it’s more like the ancient Egyptian god Ptah.

I’m always careful about believing claims such as these. A lot of such claims are based on certain hand-picked Native Americans saying such things under the proddings of careerist-minded anthropology students out to make a name for themselves in the academic world. Many of these students are also nihilistic 60s-types pursuing an atheistic/agnostic vendetta against Western notions of God by “proving” that Native American religious notions couldn’t POSSIBLY be about a personal creator being. I’d take the claims of a Native American Christian like Frank Waters or Black Elk over THEIR claims any day.

 

[He_Man]

The question that remains I guess, is what does society as a whole prefer and how do we respond to guys like you?

Just hit the reply button, dude.

 

[a_priori]

Very true. And the left in America knows this, and have been hoping and praying for the last two years that ONE nut would go off and that there was be some evidence showing he had attended a Tea Party rally or two, and then they’d have their DREAM strawman. With that one unstable nut that they’ve been hoping for for the last two years, they’d then tar the entire anti-Obama movement as “dangerous”. They’ve been waiting so long for this nut, with let down after let down, nuts flying planes into buildings (a communist), nuts trying to blow up Times square (a Muslim), that when a Democrat congresswoman got shot they simply said; "we don’t care if this guy doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with conversatives or the Tea Party, or anything on the right, or if he even watches the news, we’re going to MAKE him oured dreamed about right-wing nut, the guy we’ve been waiting for for the last two years. We need our strawman Now!

It’s pretty much a textbook case of mass delusion we’re witnessing watching some of these people on MSNBC and the rest of the left-wing asylum, I almost feel sorry for them.

Good point ronnie. Maybe a fortune could be made from selling strawmen on Ebay?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=589387

 

[DawnInTexas]

This guy’s nuttier’n a Fruitcake.

God Bless you.
+Peace Be With You.
Love, Dawn

 

[Rolypoly]

I have paranoid schizophrenia and I am concerned with all the “schizo-phobia” this is causing. Honestly most of us with this illness are far less dangerous than any sociopath, narcissist, pedophile or any generally immoral/angry/violent person. I have had four major psychotic episodes but in between them I have been relatively normal. My last episode was several years ago now and I take my medication faithfully and try to follow my psychiatrist’s advice and directions. The most violent thing I have done since my conversion is to tackle a guy in the hospital. Quite truthfully I was very delusional and I did NOT intend to hurt him, I just wanted to get his attention to tell him something. But for some reason I sort of tackled him in slow motion but I did not injure him at all. Also it is very important to know that I was a real scumbag before my conversion and I had once assaulted a person (this was also before my schizophrenia emerged). But now I am a new man in Christ (well at least I am not a violent scumbag anymore). And honestly I would not feel comfortable owning a gun because I am afraid that in a delusion I may use it on myself. Also there is a danger of me using it on another in a situation wherein I percieve falsely that I need to defend myself, but truthfully I am more concerned about suicide. But having said all this again I say that I am far less dangerous than a lot of people already in the neighborhood. If we start locking people up for what they can potentially do then in all truth we should pretty much lock up everyone.

 

[pismopal]

I have paranoid schizophrenia and I am concerned with all the “schizo-phobia” this is causing. Honestly most of us with this illness are far less dangerous than any sociopath, narcissist, pedophile or any generally immoral/angry/violent person. I have had four major psychotic episodes but in between them I have been relatively normal. My last episode was several years ago now and I take my medication faithfully and try to follow my psychiatrist’s advice and directions. The most violent thing I have done since my conversion is to tackle a guy in the hospital. Quite truthfully I was very delusional and I did NOT intend to hurt him, I just wanted to get his attention to tell him something. But for some reason I sort of tackled him in slow motion but I did not injure him at all. Also it is very important to know that I was a real scumbag before my conversion and I had once assaulted a person (this was also before my schizophrenia emerged). But now I am a new man in Christ (well at least I am not a violent scumbag anymore). And honestly I would not feel comfortable owning a gun because I am afraid that in a delusion I may use it on myself. Also there is a danger of me using it on another in a situation wherein I percieve falsely that I need to defend myself, but truthfully I am more concerned about suicide. But having said all this again I say that I am far less dangerous than a lot of people already in the neighborhood. If we start locking people up for what they can potentially do then in all truth we should pretty much lock up everyone.

I am not sure that the suspect has been diagnosed by a health care pro. If he has been and he is schizophrenic…ok fine but he could have other mental issues concurrently. Not to say that schizophrenics are not sometimes dangerous. At any rate…even a non professional could tell you…and many did…that this guy was dangerous. He fell through many cracks…his parents…his college…and absolutely unforgivably the Pima County Sheriffs Department and it’s CEO Sheriff Dupnic who is currently busy trying to create a smokescreen in order to obscure his culpability… sad affair and it has nothing…absolutely nothing to do with political rhetoric. Sort of like Pearl Harbor…and 9-11…ignore the obvious and it will come back and bite you.

 

[Rolypoly]

I am not sure that the suspect has been diagnosed by a health care pro. If he has been and he is schizophrenic…ok fine but he could have other mental issues concurrently. Not to say that schizophrenics are not sometimes dangerous. At any rate…even a non professional could tell you…and many did…that this guy was dangerous. He fell through many cracks…his parents…his college…and absolutely unforgivably the Pima County Sheriffs Department and it’s CEO Sheriff Dupnic who is currently busy trying to create a smokescreen in order to obscure his culpability… sad affair and it has nothing…absolutely nothing to do with political rhetoric. Sort of like Pearl Harbor…and 9-11…ignore the obvious and it will come back and bite you.

I agree with all that, I just saw a couple of comments on this thread that concerned me.

 

[Los_Angeles]

I agree with all that, I just saw a couple of comments on this thread that concerned me.

I have been talking to some people that have a stigma against those with a mental illness.

From what I understand only a small percentage of people with paranoid schizophrenia would harm themselves or others. I am referencing what a county social worker and a behavioral therapist once told me. If anyone claims that people with a mental illness are inherently dangerous and should be locked up I would question their qualifications. Again, having a mental illness is not a crime.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Hastrman]

From what I understand only a small percentage of people with paranoid schizophrenia would harm themselves or others. I am referencing what a county social worker and a behavioral therapist once told me. If anyone claims that people with a mental illness are inherently dangerous and should be locked up I would question their qualifications. Again, having a mental illness is not a crime.

I didn’t say “locked up”, I said placed under care. Being institutionalized is not a punishment, therefore whether it is a crime or not is immaterial.

I did not say “will harm others”, I said dangerous. Not all people with a mental illness are inherently dangerous; schizophrenics are. Admittedly not all schizophrenics; some can manage their illness better than others. But those who can’t or won’t really are dangerous. Not in the way that sociopaths or malignant narcissists are dangerous (schizophrenics, after all, are still more or less normal, emotionally)—they’re dangerous in the way that epileptics can be dangerous, as in, you don’t let them drive in Vegas.

 

[Los_Angeles]

I didn’t say “locked up”, I said placed under care. Being institutionalized is not a punishment, therefore whether it is a crime or not is immaterial.

We were talking about taking away people’s freedom and institutionalizing them against their will purely because they have a mental illness, without having commited a crime. That is locking someone up.

There are laws in the State of California that allow law enforcement to do so, but only if it can be proven that they are a threat to themselves or another. They must be evaluated by a psychologist or psychatrist under a period of observation for a number of days.

I did not say “will harm others”, I said dangerous. Not all people with a mental illness are inherently dangerous; schizophrenics are. Admittedly not all schizophrenics; some can manage their illness better than others. But those who can’t or won’t really are dangerous. Not in the way that sociopaths or malignant narcissists are dangerous (schizophrenics, after all, are still more or less normal, emotionally)—they’re dangerous in the way that epileptics can be dangerous, as in, you don’t let them drive in Vegas.

Again, evidence is needed that a person with a mental illness has been a threat to themselves or another before they can be classified as “dangerous” and held for a holding period for evaluation by a professional.

Making the claim that paranoid schizophrenics are inherently dangerous is pure conjecture, unless you have a scientific study to back up that claim.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Hastrman]

We were talking about taking away people’s freedom and institutionalizing them against their will purely because they have a mental illness, without having commited a crime. That is the same as being locked up.

There are laws in the State of California that allow law enforcement to do so, but only if it can be proven that they are a threat to themselves or another. They must be evaluated by a psychologist or psychatrist under a period of observation for a number of days.

You know what’s a laugh riot? We have those same laws here in Arizona. And yet, Jared Loughner walked the streets a free man, because he couldn’t be shown to be a threat to himself or others, until he murdered six others.

I tend to find a corpse is a pretty compelling argument.

Again, evidence is needed that a person with a mental illness has been a threat to themselves or another before they can be classified as “dangerous” and held for a holding period for evaluation by a professional.

Okay, so you can quote the current practice of the psych establishment. You are aware that “what the ‘experts’ currently do” and “what is reasonable to do” are not the same thing?