|
19 Apr 07 - 10:38 AM (#2029979) Subject: BS: Intervention...when? From: saulgoldie There are many questions about who should have done what and when when they encountered a pre-massacre Cho Seung-Hui. And there will be much discussion sbout that, and quite possibly some lawsuits. But I ask the bigger question. When does one intervene in any situation? How does one respect the right of somone to be left alone to their own devices and even harm themselves but no one else? This question comes up with alcoholics, depressives who might be suicidal, and others involved in assorted risky behavior, like bungee jumping, motorcycle riding without a helmet, or climbing a snowy mountain just before the big storm. The fact is that we intervene all the time in a variety of places where we may or may not reasonably do so. I contend, for example, (but not limited to this for this discussion) that a pot smoker should be left alone. However, if said smoker is just living a life of smoke to the exclusion of all other things and if it is someone I care about, I may intervene. I may also try to disuade someone I KNOW is going to kill themselves on a motorcycle from riding one. Comments? Thoughts? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 10:46 AM (#2029984) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Jean(eanjay) This is a difficult one. Whilst we may feel that we have to consider one person's human rights we also have to consider the human rights of many other people who may be in danger from that person. With things like drug addiction, interventions can be futile and sometimes it is better to stand back from the situation. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 10:50 AM (#2029992) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: alanabit There is a saying, which lawyers quote, along the lines that exceptional cases make for bad law. Personally, I believe that a combination of the easy availability of firearms and mental illness is a pretty lethal cocktail. No one is going to take away an American's gun any more than you can separate a German from a fast car and the "right" to drive it as aggressively as he possibly can. These are regarded as "civil liberties". I think you will find the wording of the law in most countries is something along the lines of, "You may intervene when there is reasonable cause to believe that..." Trying to find a one size fits all definition of "intervene" - let alone "reasonable cause" could keep the lawyers busy for a long time. In short, I do not know and I feel considerable sympathy for those, who are required to make those decisions - often at very short notice and with imperfect information. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:01 AM (#2030008) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Donuel It is immensely difficult. This was fictionally explored in a Tom Cruise movie where future crime was detected with a device and psychics to arrest people before the crime was commited. You can't arrest everyone who acts wierd but if the individual has a cache of weapons what is the harm in taking a second look? One harm was the seige at Waco. Ruby Ridge The fire bombing by Philly police that killed a black community SWAT team murders resulting from a wrong address etc etc under react vs over react its a tough nut One thing I could say is if you live by the gun you might die by the gun. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM (#2030016) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: wysiwyg We all like to have (need to have?) the illusion that someone is actually in control of life, maybe even ourselves. The sad reality is that no type of intervention can actually predict what any individual will do. There have been recriminations about what "someone" "should" have done, after every tragedy. My view is that if "they" could have done it, they would have done it, and tragedy is tragedy. People, and the suystems in which we work, can LEARN from tragedy, and improve laws and strategies and procedures over time.... but prevention is another matter. Ask any bodyguard-- if someone really wants to kill, they are going to find a way to do it. Whenever the media is looking for someone to blame-- I always like to try to remember to think of the ones being targeted for that blame. When I look at what happened from the view they had at the time it happened-- most of the time it turns out that they were mere human beans trying to do their jobs the best they could on that particular day, in the face of some other human bean in the grip of an awful drive to do something wrong, who had the edge in creativity. Looking at other Mudcat threads I often see people wanting to name themselves "God." We ALL want to do that when tragedy strikes-- expect the "responsible" party to have had the prescience of "God"-- and then blame the person we think should have been Godlike that particular day. ~Susan |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:15 AM (#2030029) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: GUEST,meself After an incident of the nature of this latest, the question always arises of why there wasn't more aggressive intervention beforehand. What many people don't seem to realize is that at any time there are a great number of people who display symptoms of psychological/emotional disturbance, but only a tiny proportion go on to commit some horrific act of violence. Yes, all these people need help, but how do you get it to them? In my teaching career, I literally could not count the number of kids I've known who appeared to need psychological help of the professional variety. I've had classes in which half or more of the kids showed classic symptoms of being suicidal, and many showed signs of other disturbance as well. It's overwhelming. It's only the most extreme or urgent or disruptive cases that can get any kind of attention. However, of the thousands of kids I've taught, I can think of only three that did commit suicide (that I know of), and none that committed murder. The actual numbers are probably a little higher, because I've moved around a lot and have not always kept close contact with communities in which I used to live. So, while psychological/emotional disturbance is fairly common, it is actually quite rare for someone to become a homicidal maniac ... I don't know what the answer is. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:16 AM (#2030030) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Donuel True Susan, Godlike would be nice. for fun... Lets pretend there is a fourth dimensional civilization that does have forsight. Evertime something bad might happen they change the situation in their timeline so it will not happen - which results in a branching of the timeline into the bad outcome and they enjoy living in the good outcome timeline. After a while everything bad would have branched into the bad outcome timelines and everything good was concentrated in their preferred timeline. The preferred timeline would be heaven and the bad outcome timeline would be hell. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:42 AM (#2030066) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Willie-O I generally agree with Susan's point--who the hell knows what's going to happen? "Interventions", while dramatic and probably somewhat satisfying to the participants who feel they are doing something concrete about a frustrating situation, aren't very effective, any more than any other coercive treatment attempts. In the Virginia Tech case though, there are a couple of really egregious points. -They had a double homicide on campus and no apprehended suspect, basically no idea what was going on except that an unidentified killer had struck on their grounds and was loose. They should have closed the campus instead of pursuing "business as usual". -It appears they automatically, as standard procedure, investigated the status of the first female victim's boyfriend and prepared to search his home for weapons he was known to possess. This is a reasonable avenue of investigation but does not excuse the sweeping and tragic conclusion, repeatedly stated by the soon-to-be-unemployed (I suspect) university president, "We thought it was an isolated incident". -It seems persons with a history of stalking, mental instability and threatening behaviour have no problem buying firearms and ammunition in Virginia. Might want to reconsider that. Oh, sorry, didn't mean to point out the elephant in the living room. These questions are quite different from hypotheticals of what should have been done before the situation turned tragic. We consider and discuss these things, whether our points are valid or not, because we want to believe it didn't have to happen, and that we can learn how to make sure it doesn't happen again. If only. W-O |
|
19 Apr 07 - 11:46 AM (#2030069) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Donuel The Massachsettes gun law would not grant Cho a gun. The VA law did. This small change could be made. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:15 PM (#2030098) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Wolfgang Alanabit, just the idea of an upper speed limit makes me cringe. It is a God given right to Germans to speed as fast as the car allows and to show the person in the car in front that we can go faster than he dares. You'll pry the car keys only from my cold hands. (grin) Meself, you have said much of what I could have said. I remember a young student all in black with a wild, fierce and menacing look. The only question seemd to be will she kill herself before she commits a murder. Two years later, she was a happy young woman, still in black. Wolfgang |
|
19 Apr 07 - 12:43 PM (#2030120) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Georgiansilver Donuel...being British I don't know much about US gun laws but why would he not have got a gun in Massachusetts please? The Massachsettes gun law would not grant Cho a gun. The VA law did. This small change could be made. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 01:12 PM (#2030142) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: GUEST,meself I might have added that the three kids I taught that did commit suicide showed NO signs to me of being suicidal - they were in fact kids that I had thought quite well-adjusted. Similarly, a friend from the neighbourhood who committed suicide in adult life seemed to be a very well-adjusted, popular, sociable person when I knew him ... |
|
19 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM (#2030160) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Little Hawk Well said, Susan. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 01:46 PM (#2030167) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: GUEST,mg To start with, intervene each and every time a child is bullied. Those who are somewhat stronger will probably be OK, although damaged. Those who are not, will snap, one way or the other. This is turning out to be another bullied child case...although probably 50% of American children are bullied one way or another. Do not tolerate schools or bus drivers looking the other way. Make this clear at hiring them that the safety of children is their first command. mg |
|
19 Apr 07 - 02:07 PM (#2030181) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Mrrzy Hmmm - interesting question. I have been the instigator of an intervention, and been the subject of another one. I think the intervention I started was necessary but not the one that was about me! Sounds pretty common... |
|
19 Apr 07 - 02:33 PM (#2030207) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Greg B "The Massachsettes gun law would not grant Cho a gun. The VA law did. This small change could be made." Incorrect. Cho was not entitled to purchase a firearm because he had a history of having been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. However, he lied about it on his application. The system failed to bring this up on his background check. The 'small change' is to properly record and transmit the information that he had at one time been considered 'an imminent danger to himself or others.' However, had he been denied ownership legally, he could easily have purchased a weapon illegally or by circumvention of Virginia's laws by going to another state. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 03:05 PM (#2030248) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Donuel There are only 17 states that have gun laws similar to MA. |
|
19 Apr 07 - 03:28 PM (#2030275) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: wysiwyg Today's proposed "intervention" is tomorrow's folkie protest against the limiting of rights. If state gun laws vary-- what does that tell you? ~S~ |
|
19 Apr 07 - 03:30 PM (#2030277) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Greg B "If state gun laws vary-- what does that tell you?" Drive out of state? |
|
19 Apr 07 - 05:04 PM (#2030408) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: wysiwyg It says that people have different feelings in different areas, and that state rights protect them. It says that there is no one jurisdiction that can legislate what the laws ought to be, and that people make those decisions state by state because they have a right to do that. ~S~ |
|
19 Apr 07 - 08:14 PM (#2030573) Subject: RE: BS: Intervention...when? From: Richard Bridge Judging solely by where the the majority of US gun massacres occur, intervention in US education is urgent. |