House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@Lash,

I must loom large in your mind, Lash, as I haven't had a dog in this fight. I've been wondering what the hell you guys have been arguing about.

I'd enjoy your suggestion anyway as I'm part fish.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Wouldn't it be something if you, Om, a mensan, actually happened to say something that was a little more than inane?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

But that doesn't seem to stop you from jumping to your own political conclusions it seems. We still don't know what motivated the shooter so to rule out reasons based on your political leanings is as much of a jump to a conclusion as it is to rule in reasons.

You seem to mistake being glib with being clever parados.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
With or without the current atmosphere in Tucson, if someone who has just undergone what Fuller has and then issues what can only be interpreted as a death threat,

That's interesting.. You seem to jump to conclusions without any facts. And to top it off your conclusions seem to be politically motivated.

I've made no conclusion about Fuller's actions and his politics. I connected them to his mental state.

His actions speak for themselves. If you don't believe they consituted a "death threat," so be it.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

hey, i've seen people and wanted to yell out "Your dead", it turned out it was just their complexion (really, get a little sun buddy, lookin' like a zombie)

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

What I really don't understand:
a) when you shout something like "You are dead", you have to undergo an involuntary examination?
b) this examination can be ordered by police officers?

That's really just personal interest - I couldn't find the related laws on the internet - because I've been involved here with this quite often. And since it's extremely different [a physician has to examine you at first (mental health related), the local department of public security (re danger to other and/or yourself) has to sign that examination order; then a judge has to decide within 48 hours if you stay in a psychiatric hospital) I'm asking here.

Walter

I am not an expert on Arizona law, but my guess is that the police officers alone cannot order the examination. Assuming they intended to move forward on this I believe they will simply hold him while a request for forced examination is made to a judge.

Of course I could be wrong about this, and if I am, I'm sure one of our crack researchers will point out my error.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

we have crack researchers?

(is there an opening on the ganja research team?)

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Thanks. (I've already looked up the 'fifty-one-fifty', Lash mentioned - in Arizona they've indeed an additional a category for the "persistently and acutely disabled." [I'll have to be careful when driving through that state ...] )

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

(is there an opening on the ganja research team?)

They are HIGHering.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

What I really don't understand:
a) when you shout something like "You are dead", you have to undergo an involuntary examination?
b) this examination can be ordered by police officers?

That's really just personal interest - I couldn't find the related laws on the internet - because I've been involved here with this quite often. And since it's extremely different [a physician has to examine you at first (mental health related), the local department of public security (re danger to other and/or yourself) has to sign that examination order; then a judge has to decide within 48 hours if you stay in a psychiatric hospital) I'm asking here.

A discussion about the issue of gun control was going on at this forum which was being taped for broadcast on ABC this morning. Mr Fuller (one of the victims of last week's shooting) was in the audience and he became enraged at Mr Humphries (a spokesman for the local Tea Party) who was also in the audience, after Mr Humphries stood up and said that he felt that any discussion of gun control should be delayed for a while. Mr Fuller apparently then photographed Mr Humphries with his cell phone camera and then shouted at him, "You're dead". He also was reportedly yelling and saying things like. "You're all whores". There appeared to be tight security at this event, and the police present arrested Mr. Fuller for disorderly conduct and threatening as the forum was ending.

So, to answer your first question--No, just because you threaten someone does not mean you have to undergo an involuntary psychiatric evaluation.

Threatening someone, as Fuller did, is a misdemeanor criminal charge, and that's why he was arrested. Based on Mr Fuller's behavior after his arrest, the police felt that a psychiatric evaluation was warranted, so instead of transporting him directly to jail, they took him to a hospital to be seen by a psychiatrist.

To answer your second question--The evaluation was not ordered by the police. It was requested by the police because of the way Mr Fuller was behaving. So, a psychiatrist in the ER of the hospital (or whatever mental health facility they took Mr Fuller to) then performed a mental status examination and apparently felt that Mr Fuller did require a 72 hour hold for further psychiatric evaluation--and this was an involuntary hold--to determine whether Mr Fuller constituted an immediate threat to self or others, due to a mental disorder, and whether he required psychiatric treatment. Mr Fuller cannot be held beyond the 72 hours without a court order and statements from the evaluating mental health professionals that he requires a longer period of inpatient psychiatric treatment. They can also choose to release him at any time before the 72 hours are up.

I can't find the specific procedural codes for Arizona, but here is a general discussion about involuntary psychiatric holds. The procedures are fairly similar from place to place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I can't find the specific procedural codes for Arizona, but here is a general discussion about involuntary psychiatric holds. The procedures are fairly similar from place to place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment

Thanks.

By now, I've updated my knowledge about the various US-laws re public health.

It's indeed in Arizona (and two or three other states) a little bit different, since they've the above mentioned additional reason.
See: Arizona Revised Statutes - Title 36 Public Health and Safety
(especially 520 et seq) >link<

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

The Arizona difference that matters here is that the state can keep a citizen confined for 72 hours even if they don't find this person to be a threat to themselves or others, according to what I read on a discussion of the matter. Arizona is highly unusual in allowing this.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

It's indeed in Arizona (and two or three other states) a little bit different, since they've the above mentioned additional reason.
See: Arizona Revised Statutes - Title 36 Public Health and Safety
(especially 520 et seq) >link<

Yes, besides posing a possible immediate danger to self or others, Arizona adds the categories of being "persistently or acutely disabled, or gravely disabled" as criteria justifying a 72 hour involuntary hold/evaluation. That would cover a person who might not be able to recognize or fulfill their need for a psychiatric evaluation (i.e. due to chronic/acute psychosis, dementia, etc.) which prevents it being done on a voluntary basis.

In Fuller's case, he was probably held for the 72 hour involuntary evaluation on the possibility of danger to self or others, and because he refused a voluntary evaluation. He may well be released before the 72 hours are up, and, since he is still under arrest, I guess he would then go back into the custody of the sheriff's department. This whole incident is certainly a strange twist of events.

I watched the last portion of that forum on ABC this morning. I saw Humphries make his statement about wanting to delay discussion of gun control, but they did not show what happened after that with Fuller--the event was really concluding when that business went on. They did briefly mention what happened and the fact that Fuller was hospitalized.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

but they did not show what happened after that with Fuller--the event was really concluding when that business went on.

I saw multiple reports that the audience walked out of the space clearly not having any idea that anything was going on re the police.

1 Reply

So where were Arizona cops when our paranoid Schonoid was acting out? Another case of acting after the cows are out!

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I saw multiple reports that the audience walked out of the space clearly not having any idea that anything was going on re the police.

It didn't look like a very large space. I don't know how they could have been totally unaware of what was going on since Fuller was apparently yelling. That's why he was also arrested for disorderly conduct.

The people on the panel on the stage, and those in the audience seated toward the front of the room, would certainly have seen and heard what was going on.

They appeared to have many police officers in attendance. Some were in the audience, some were standing in the back of the room.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Quote:

Another case of acting after the cows are out!

It is not even that, they are just picking on one guy. Arizona has no ability to start putting people in psych holds, there are almost no beds to put them in and no money to pay for the program.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

So where were Arizona cops when our paranoid Schonoid was acting out?
Another case of acting after the cows are out!

That 's the reason that the victims
need their own private defensive firepower.

David

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

It is not even that, they are just picking on one guy. Arizona has no ability to start putting people in psych holds, there are almost no beds to put them in and no money to pay for the program.

Whose "picking on" one guy? Is this another of your conspiracy theories?

Fuller threatened someone's life--that's a criminal misdemeanor. He also created a disturbance at a taping of a TV program, so he was also arrested for disorderly conduct, another criminal misdemeanor.

He then exhibited behavior that the police felt warranted a request for psychiatric evaluation, so they transported him to a hospital where a psychiatrist did a mental status examination and concluded that a 72 hour involuntary hold for further evaluation was necessary. And they obviously had bed space available for him. And they have mental health professionals already on the payroll of the hospital. And who says the cost of his stay won't be covered by private insurance? And why are Arizona's mental health budgetary problems such a concern of yours?

So, why do you feel Fuller is being "picked on"? And who, exactly, do you feel is "picking on" him? And why would they be "picking on" him?

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The sheriff, as any other American citizen, is free to express his views.

He may be free to do that as a citizen, but as a public official and as a sheriff making those statements, it shows his incompetence and unprofessionalism. By making those statements, it appears he is too dumb to know that he is at risk of prejudicing the crime and the suspect in the case. It is not just my opinion that the guy is a loose cannon and is not up to the job of sheriff. It would not surprise me to hear the locals are beginning to recall him from office, and I think they would have good reason to do it.

1 Reply

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know