Jump to content

more people killed at mt pilchuck


XXX

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK. I'm a liberal who is mad at the conservatives for de-funding the mental institutions and landing my ex's ex on the streets where he is free to drive without a license and talk to passers by about how 5 evil demons are going to make him kill his own son (my stepson) thereby making it my responsibility to provide for my ex family's defense against a man who doesn't give a rip about laws or reason. Meanwhile, those same "conservatives" are spending all the money they saved by closing the mental programs on invading Iraq and now occupying it indefinately. Today's conservatives are radicals. Yesterday's leberals are toting guns. I say bring back the dope smoking George Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'd all be safer if all law-abiding citizens owned a gun.

 

I hear about criminals killing people a hell of a lot less often than I hear about a teenager walking into school with an assault rifle and shooting 25 of his classmates, or a father shooting his family and then himself, or a guy showing up to a rave afterparty and slaughtering the partygoers, or a father blowing away his 14-year-old daughter as she crawls in her bedroom window thinking she's an intruder.

 

I wonder if the parents of the Amish schoolgirls murdered last month think we'd be safer if only more law-abiding milkmen had easy access to guns?

 

All these people, right up to the point they started spraying bullets, were your "law-abiding citizens."

 

And no one ever said they were insane either until they killed a bunch of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you tell us YOUR version of...self defense strategies?

 

present a larger target: take an accompanying large friend.

Shit! How'm I gonna fit all those hiking requests into my calendar? hellno3d.gif

 

Thanks a lot, DeC.

 

Another benefit of the larger friend is in clearing your path by pushing him/her through the brush ahead of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I'm a liberal who is mad at the conservatives for de-funding the mental institutions and landing my ex's ex on the streets where he is free to drive without a license and talk to passers by about how 5 evil demons are going to make him kill his own son (my stepson) thereby making it my responsibility to provide for my ex family's defense against a man who doesn't give a rip about laws or reason. Meanwhile, those same "conservatives" are spending all the money they saved by closing the mental programs on invading Iraq and now occupying it indefinately. Today's conservatives are radicals. Yesterday's leberals are toting guns. I say bring back the dope smoking George Bush.

 

Actually, I believe it was liberal judges back in the early 80's that ruled the mentally ill can no longer be involuntarily committed to mental institutions. A violation of their civil rights, ya know. Now we have ten's of thousands of people roaming the streets of this country who, by all rights, should be receiving treatment in an institution. But if its easier for you to blame those evil conservatives, then by all means...... rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I believe it was liberal judges back in the early 80's that ruled the mentally ill can no longer be involuntarily committed to mental institutions.

hellno3d.gif

 

RCW 71.05.150:

 

"When a county designated mental health professional receives information alleging that a person, as a result of a mental disorder: (i) Presents a likelihood of serious harm; or (ii) is gravely disabled; the county designated mental health professional may...file a petition for initial detention..." etc.

 

http://www.psychlaws.org/LegalResources/StateLaws/Washingtonstatute.htm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I'm a liberal who is mad at the conservatives for de-funding the mental institutions and landing my ex's ex on the streets where he is free to drive without a license and talk to passers by about how 5 evil demons are going to make him kill his own son (my stepson) thereby making it my responsibility to provide for my ex family's defense against a man who doesn't give a rip about laws or reason. Meanwhile, those same "conservatives" are spending all the money they saved by closing the mental programs on invading Iraq and now occupying it indefinately. Today's conservatives are radicals. Yesterday's leberals are toting guns. I say bring back the dope smoking George Bush.

 

Actually, I believe it was liberal judges back in the early 80's that ruled the mentally ill can no longer be involuntarily committed to mental institutions. A violation of their civil rights, ya know. Now we have ten's of thousands of people roaming the streets of this country who, by all rights, should be receiving treatment in an institution. But if its easier for you to blame those evil conservatives, then by all means...... rolleyes.gif

Guess again.

Fed funding of state institutions was cut under Reagan during his first and second term and then again completely eliminated under Bush.

Right now you can have a direct relative committed if you can prove they are a danger to themselves or someone else. My ex's ex could be committed today if his family would take responsibility and PAY for his entire bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, yea - You better read the entire statute. Also, note in your snippet, "initial detention".

I did read the entire statute. Did you?

 

At the risk of wasting valuable cc.com board space, here is the section which lays out the criteria for extended involuntary commitment:

 

-----------------

RCW 71.05.280

Additional confinement -- Grounds.

 

At the expiration of the fourteen-day period of intensive treatment, a person may be confined for further treatment pursuant to RCW 71.05.320 if:

 

(1) Such person after having been taken into custody for evaluation and treatment has threatened, attempted, or inflicted:

 

(a) Physical harm upon the person of another or himself or herself, or substantial damage upon the property of another, and

 

(b) as a result of mental disorder presents a likelihood of serious harm; or

 

(2) Such person was taken into custody as a result of conduct in which he or she attempted or inflicted physical harm upon the person of another or himself or herself, or substantial damage upon the property of others, and continues to present, as a result of mental disorder, a likelihood of serious harm; or

 

(3) Such person has been determined to be incompetent and criminal charges have been dismissed pursuant to RCW 10.77.090 (4), and has committed acts constituting a felony, and as a result of a mental disorder, presents a substantial likelihood of repeating similar acts. In any proceeding pursuant to this subsection it shall not be necessary to show intent, willfulness, or state of mind as an element of the crime; or

 

(4) Such person is gravely disabled.

 

----------

 

Please let me know what I'm missing here confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...