Loughner now understands Giffords survived shooting, psychologist tells judge

[Ptah]

Source: Arizona Republic {Phoenix}

TUCSON - Jared Loughner's mental health condition is improving and he now
understands that U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords -- whom authorities said was
his target in the Jan. 8 shooting rampage that left six people dead --
is alive, a psychologist testified Wednesday.


Under questioning by federal prosecutors during a Wednesday hearing on Loughner's
mental state, Dr. Christina Pietz said it was her professional opinion that
Loughner could be restored to competency to stand trial with eight more
months of treatment.

Lougner's lead attorney, Judy Clarke, questioned Pietz for more than two hours,
largely trying to compare Loughner's behavior in May, before he was heavily medicated,
to his behavior now. She cited several examples - a suicide note found this month,
and a report dated Sept. 21 saying Loughner spoke of not dreaming and having
imaginary friends with whom he maintained dialogue - as examples suggesting
that his medication was not working.

Clarke's chief point was that Loughner suffers from a psychotic disorder which,
according to her research, makes his restoration to stand trial less likely.
Pietz agreed that research shows restoration is more difficult with psychotic patients.




Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/09/28/20110928loughner-mental-competency-hearing-tucson-brk28-ON.html

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Well ok ,whose culpable for the lack of discernment ,when warned by

teachers and students ,how about the restoration of those 6 people?

[ellisonz]

2. I think this has been a reminder for many of us of the need for public mental illness institutions.

"Pietz said Loughner is being forcibly medicated and remains on suicide watch but is no longer having auditory hallucinations."

[MADem]

3. The problem isn't that with this guy--he surely had college health insurance,

his teachers knew he was a fucking wack-job, but no one DID anything.

There's a fine line at play, there--you have the right to be an unmedicated space cadet, up to and until you start killing people. It's tricky. When does a person leap in and say something?

Leap too soon, you get sued. Leap too late, people get killed.

That Korean kid who shot all those people at VA Tech--same deal. Everyone knew he was unhinged, no one said much, if anything. They all had plenty to say after the fact, though...

[Bjorn Against]

5. It is far more easy to see the warning signs than to do anything about them

I knew someone who commited a truly attrocious crime against a young infant, everyone saw warning signs but no one thought he would do something so horrible until it was too late. After a horrible crime is commited people often accuse those who knew the perpetrator of doing nothing to help, the problem is that there is generally nothing these people can do to help. It is not like you can just say "this person needs psychiatric help" and it is done, if a person doesn't want psychiatric help you can't force them to get it. Too often after a horrible crime the media wants to blame the people who knew the perpetrators for not doing enough to help, in my view any journalist who suggests that other people are at fault for "not doing enough to get help" is scum. After a horrible thing like this happens the people who knew the perpetrator are often devastated and want to blame themselves for what happened even though there is nothing they cold have done to prevent it, for the media to suggest that they should have done something to get help for the person is despicable. The media knows damn well that getting help for any person with mental illness other than one's self is far easier said than done, the way they try to create controversy by falsely suggesting it is the responsibility of others to get help for someone we have no authority to get help for is disgusting.

[MADem]

8. I agree with you. I don't have an answer, that was just an observation.

There's that line I mentioned. You can't interfere with a person's freedom to be a nutter, but then they step over that line, where the person's craziness morphs from simple annoying characteristics that might be a bit irritating, to a public danger that could get someone killed. Where's the point where you pick up the phone? When the knife comes out? When the neighbors are held hostage? When the parent runs off with the little kids and no one knows where the hell they are?

There are procedures (involuntary commitments) to lock a person up for their own safety or the safety of the public, but you've got to know what the hell you are doing or you expose yourself to liability. And then you get the cadre that looks at this sort of thing, even when it's plainly needed, as "the gubmint INTERFERING with liberty"...and of course, it all costs money. The state has to get a lawyer for the person who's under the commitment order, and it's a big to-do, usually.

And then, people who are crazy aren't stupid--the laws vary from state to state, and if they don't want to be committed, they pick up and run.

I don't think most crazy people particularly like being crazy (I am no expert, but I know two people who do a pretty good job managing their mental illness, and this is what both of them shared with me, more or less)--they just don't care for the side effects of the medications, which apparently make them logey and brain-fogged. When they slip up and go off the meds, they always think they can take a little less and be "OK" and then they get in trouble. One friend went through years of compliance/noncompliance, and it was only when her family read her the riot act that she cut that shit out and has been pretty even (knock wood) for the last five or six years or so. Lotta drama before that, though.

It's a tough situation, made worse by doctors who would rather just write prescriptions and not spend any time talking to the patients. There needs to be a better way.

[Bjorn Against]

6. Dupe

[boppers]

9. "no one DID anything"?

Have you seen the evidence released so far?

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/pdf_1f40ad6e-1eb6-11e0-bed9-001cc4c03286.html
http://azstarnet.com/online/pdf/pdf_05961ca0-8284-11e0-9725-001cc4c03286.html

Lots of things were done. Lots of actions were taken. Lots of people had things to say, and they said them.

Short of requiring annual mental health tests in order to possess firearms, or live in a house with people who possess firearms, or work in a facility that has access to firearms, there's not a lot more that could have been done.

[MADem]

10. The guy was running around the campus talking to himself, making threats,

scaring people.

If he'd been involuntarily committed, who knows what might have been avoided? Perhaps he might have been locked up on that fateful day, or appropriately medicated?

The question--and I don't have an answer--is how much is enough? How much is too much? When should people say "This nutty behavior is bullshit--you need to get help even if you don't like it or want it, and you're going to be hauled in and committed, like it or not?"

It's all well and good to "document" behavior, but if nothing is done beyond that, it's just ass covering.

[boppers]

11. He wasn't just documented.

He was kicked out of school, and forbidden from even returning to the campuses, unless he got help.

But, of course, your question "how much is enough? How much is too much?" is spot on.

[unionworks]

4. i call bullshit

"We'll keep working on this guy till we can prove he's sane enough to execute,that way noone will assk why he was sold guns and ammo when it was obvious he wasn't sane. Kiss my ass NRA and all your sockpuppets with state jobs.

[glinda]

7. Welcome! You are indeed fiery!