MONTHS BEFORE SHOOTING, “CIVIL LIBERTIES” GROUPS DEFEATED CONN. LAW AIMED AT THE VIOLENT MENTALLY ILL

 by 

First of all, I want to say that neither you nor I know all the facts about yesterday’s unthinkably horrific events in Newtown, CT. Intelligent people understand that no news reports can be considered reliable in the first 24 hours following a cataclysmic tragedy. Indeed, it will be weeks, perhaps months, before the facts of the shooting are known.

But with so many on the left exploiting the atrocity to call for new firearms regulations, I thought I might explore a different angle.

There have been reports that the shooter, Adam Lanza, had mental health issues. This would very much fit the profile of people who commit that type of crime, from Laurie Dann (who used a gun to murder schoolchildren) to Steven Abrams (who used a car for the same purpose) to Zheng Minsheng (who used a knife).

And here’s a fact you might not know – Connecticut is one of only SIX states in the U.S. that doesn’t have a type of “assisted outpatient treatment” (AOT) law (sometimes referred to as “involuntary outpatient treatment”). There’s no one standard for these types of laws, but (roughly speaking) these are laws that allow for people with mental illness to be forcibly treated BEFORE they commit a serious crime. Whereas previous legal standards held that the mentally ill cannot be institutionalized or medicated until they harm someone or themselves, or until they express an immediate intent to do so, AOT laws (again, roughly speaking) allow for preventative institutionalization or forced medication (I highly recommend reading the data cited in the link I provided in this paragraph, especially regarding what is known as “first episode psychosis”).

AOT laws vary state-by-state, and often bear the name of a person murdered by an untreated mentally ill person (“Kendra’s Law” in New York, “Laura’s Law” in California, etc.).

Earlier this year, Connecticut considered passing an AOT law (and a weak one, at that), and it failed, due to protests from “civil liberties” groups.

read more:

http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/4364

Views: 68

Reply to This

Diamond & Silk

Tea Party
Facebook & Twitter

ALERT ALERT

Breaking: Jury Sides With Sheriff Joe
Smacks Down Establishment GOP’s Lawsuit

A jury has sided in favor of conservative icon, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio, against the lawsuit filed by Austin Flake, the son of GOP establishment Senator Jeff Flake, and Austin’s ex-wife, Logan Brown.

Flake and Brown had filed a lawsuit against the Arizona sheriff for “malicious prosecution” after over a dozen dogs died on their watch at a Gilbert dog kennel.

The jury decided Flake and Brown had failed to provide sufficient evidence to back up their accusations of malicious prosecution by Arpaio, The Associated Press reported via Tucson.com.

Flake and Brown ran the kennel while Brown’s parents were out of town in 2014, the AP reported.

The two were still in college.

Initially, Flake and Brown were charged in the incident, but the charges were dropped at the prosecution’s request. Later, Flake’s in-laws pleaded guilty to animal cruelty charges after an expert determined that the facility air conditioner failed because it was not properly maintained.

Thus, the owners of the kennel were responsible for the death of the 21 dogs, and they answered for their crimes.

Nonetheless, Flake and Brown reportedly alleged that Arpaio had charged them to gain publicity and deal damage to Senator Flake — an establishment fixture within the GOP.

The two “contended the charges caused them emotional distress, contributed to the demise of their marriage and led the senator’s son to being suspended from college for an honor-code violation,” according to The Associated Press.

Despite the jury’s decision, the U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake will not issue a final verdict until the defense explains why it didn’t turn over documents that may have benefited the plaintiffs, according to a statement from the plaintiffs’ attorney to The Associated Press.

“The struggle to hold government officials accountable has always required a steep, perilous climb,” the plaintiffs’ attorney said in a Friday statement according to KNPX.

“Although we disagree with the jury’s verdict, we are grateful we had the opportunity to force former Sheriff Arpaio and his subordinates at Maricopa County to account for their indisputably reckless conduct. Near the end of the trial, we discovered that the County failed to turn over documents that might have helped us prove our case,” he continued.

“The Court has ordered the County to explain its failure and indicated that it will not enter a final judgment in the case until a satisfactory explanation is provided. We will access our future options in this fight when the County complies with the Court’s Order.”

Charges that didn’t pan out are an annoyance to those affected — there’s no question of that.

But to claim that those charges — which were dropped — were the reason behind a failed marriage, and that Arpaio needs to pay is completely ridiculous.

What do you think about this story? Please share this on Facebook and Twitter and let us know!

Are you glad about the jury’s decision? Scroll down to comment below!

YES PATRIOT STORE

© 2017   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service