Neo-NeoCon: "So, why did no one report Loughner to the Arizona mental health system?"

In my mind, the bigger question is, "would it have done any good?" Time and time again, I have seen the mental health system fail for those who are ill and the families that need them. Psychiatrists hand people meds and don't monitor their patients and psychologists don't take the time to really assess the patient and take the time to do the grueling work it takes to get someone who is psychotic/and/or personality-disordered back to reality. It is hard time-consuming work.

I have gotten a number of calls and emails from the media about this case and many others. Mainly, these reporters want some quick answer about why these killings happen with a simple explanation or game plan to tell their readers or viewers how to stop it. In my experience, there isn't one. The solution is rather, a complex set of variables that must be assessed and then intervened upon. This takes tremendous time, energy and work, none of which our quick-fix society wants to engage in.

Clayton Cramer at PJM: "Mental illness and Mass Murder."

"If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast..."

Drudge has a link to this Washington Post article that details a classmate's encounter with the Arizona shooter in a college class. Here are some highlights:

From June 10:
"As for me, Thursday means the end to week two of algebra class. It seems to be going by quickly, but then I do have three weeks to go so we'll see how I feel by then. Class isn't dull as we have a seriously disturbed student in the class, and they are trying to figure out how to get rid of him before he does something bad, but on the other hand, until he does something bad, you can't do anything about him. Needless to say, I sit by the door."

From June 14:
"We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird. I sit by the door with my purse handy. If you see it on the news one night, know that I got out fast..."

Across the country, there are other Jared Loughners out there--students who are mentally ill, and disturbing classrooms with little to nothing being done--either to help them or the other students. Their behavior is just to be tolerated. The Post article did say that Loughner was thrown out of class after 3 or 4 weeks but he probably just went on to disturb someone else. Welcome to classrooms across America.

A while back, I wrote an article entitled "Violence on Campus: Practical Recommendations for Legal Educators" along with two University of Tennessee Faculty members. In it, we outlined steps for teachers to take to reduce the chances that a student would commit an act of violence. For a while, no law review would take it. Why? The suggestions were apparently not PC enough. The Journal of Legal Education at Georgetown turned it down--stating that we "must be working with John Ashcroft" given the suggestions we made. Our outrageous suggestions? Have a designated person assigned in the school to handle reports of inappropriate behavior. We finally got it placed with a law review but that is not my point.

My point is that as long as schools and society simultaneously place the rights of the mentally ill above other citizens while refusing the mentally ill the help that they may desperately need, we will continue to see mass killings like the one in Arizona. People will seemed dazed and ask "why?" until they forget and another horrible killing takes place. The media will give the whole thing a political spin and indeed, perhaps there is one, but usually only in some idiosyncratic bizarre way that only the killer (or maybe a good therapist) would understand.

And while the media uses the killings for political gain, another Jared is brewing, ignored, feared and filled with fury, rage and homicidal revenge.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of employed adults say they have seriously thought that someone in their workplace was capable of mass violence...

I read this poll over at Rasmussen and wasn't surprised:

Twenty-six percent (26%) of employed adults say they have seriously thought that someone in their workplace was capable of mass violence, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Most working adults (64%), however, say they have not seriously thought a co-worker would be capable of such violence. Another 11% are undecided.

One-in-three men (33%) say they have held that thought before, compared to only 17% of women.

Forty-three percent (43%) of government workers say they have felt a fellow employee was capable of mass violence, more than double the number among those who work for private companies.

A few thoughts about this. First, why do so many government workers think their co-workers want to commit mass violence? Could it be that there are just so many government workers that some may seem or act in a way that makes people think they are violent? Could it be that government workers are more suspicious of their co-workers, or could it be that the government does a poor job of screening and hires people who have behavior that is unstable, and never gets rid of them?

Second, are men just more suspicious of people or better at sensing dangerous behavior than women? And finally, with 26% of respondents to this poll thinking that their co-worker is the next mass murderer, it is reassuring to know that there are only about 1000 people murdered at work each year. But, less reassuring is 1.5 million are assaulted in the workplace each year.

A good book that I use if you are looking for one on the topic is Preventing Workplace Violence: A Guide for Employers and Practitioners.

"They said Hasan also once tried to convert a patient to Islam and that he received a verbal warning."

Drudge linked to a story at NPR entitled, "Answers Sought On Fort Hood Suspect's Link To Imam." Within the story was this:

The officials also dismissed the significance of reports that Hasan's colleagues complained about his religious and political views. One official said they get thousands of complaints every year, some of which lead to investigations, while others do not.

Two psychiatrists who worked with Hasan at Walter Reed and asked not to be identified told NPR that during the six years he worked there, he was frequently distracted and often late for work. They said Hasan also once tried to convert a patient to Islam and that he received a verbal warning.

At one point, the psychiatrists said, some co-workers actively sought to have Hasan removed from the Walter Reed program. He was later reassigned to Fort Hood.

Well, at least Hasan wasn't trying to convert his patients from gay to straight. Now that would definitely have led to an investigation.

Why wasn't Hasan Investigated?

After reading about the horrific Ft. Hood shootings, I was rather puzzled when I read the following:

Federal law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed homicide bombings and other threats. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author.

One of the Web postings that authorities reviewed is a blog that equates homicide bombers with a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.

"To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause," said the Internet posting. "Scholars have paralled (sic) this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."

They say an official investigation was not opened.

Hasan was working with soldiers at Darnall Army Medical Center on Fort Hood after being transferred in July from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he had worked for six years before recently receiving a poor review.

This man was being entrusted with the mental health of soldiers, and no one could be bothered to take the time to find out if he was mentally stable himself? After a poor review, remarks that make you wonder which side this guy was on, and possible writings on a web posting that are troubling, he was not investigated?

Was it political correctness and concern for his Muslim heritage that kept officials from looking further into his mental health? Was the army so desperate for a psychiatrist (there is always a shortage) they didn't dare do anything?

The public deserves an explanation.

Update: AllahPundit at Hot Air has much more on the topic.

More Questions than Answers

The coverage of the VT massacre continues and it seems that little information is being provided. The gunman was possibly a student, maybe even a teaching assistant, but this is not yet known.[Update: The shooter--at least in the second shooting is now known to be a VT student]. It would make sense, since he seemed to have good access to the buildings and knew how to quickly get around in the engineering building. The authorities are not saying if the two incidents in the dorm and later Norris building are connected, yet one would think they would be. My guess is that this was a student of some sort whose girlfriend was seeing another man and the killing was out of revenge--both at her, her new suitor and the school. Perhaps he was having a hard time at the school and had decided to kill himself. Suicide is often the accompaniment to mass murder now in our society.

In many of the news reports, students who saw the killer's face remark on how calm and unemotional his face appeared. People mistakenly believe that the killer would look angry and deranged in the act of mass murder--but that is a different kind of violence--affective violence in which a person feels an imminent threat from another person etc. By the time the killer gets to the stage of actually taking revenge on his targets, he is in a warrior-like state, on a mission, and in predatory mode. In predatory violence, the killer is generally calm and cool, there is minimal or no accelerated heart rate, breathing, or flushing of the skin. There is no conscious emotion and the killer may feel emotionally nothing at that point (for more on predatory violence, take a look at J.Reid Meloy's book, Violence Risk and Threat Assessment: A Practical Guide for Mental Health and Criminal Justice Professionals).

By the time, the killer walked into those classrooms, my guess is that he had rehearsed his mission a number of times, all in his head, while practicing private rituals to encourage him to take the steps necessary to overcome any fear or doubt he might have had. He is the hunter and they are the prey. At that point, nothing will stop this type of killer except the gun they put to their own head or the shot from an officer or private citizen's weapon.

I have many questions. What brought the killer to this point? Could someone have intervened before he went on his rampage? Could the school authorities have done a better job of warning students about the potential of a gunman on the loose? When you have a double murder in a dorm and a gunman who has not been caught, doesn't it make sense to let students know what is happening? For the killer has had the opportunity to think through his act a thousand times in private and has the element of surprise. The students and teachers who were wounded or killed had no warning at all. Would the warning have helped? I don't know, but it couldn't have hurt.

Update: The gunman was a jilted lover who apparently killed his girlfriend and her new lover. [Correction: The jilted lover theory may be false according to the media, the male student killed in the dorm was an RA coming to assist a female resident of that dorm].