Virginia Gunman Told by TV Station to Seek Medical Attention

The Guardian has the documents from the television station's personnel file on the shooter. It is a chilling read. Clearly the man was unhinged and had become difficult to deal with in the workplace and out in the field. At one point he was instructed to get medical attention. Things went from bad to worse as his bizarre accusations of racism and angry outbursts continued. In the end, on the day he was terminated, the police were contacted to escort him from the premises. Employees locked themselves in offices. After his removal, employees were instructed to call 911 if he was ever seen on the premises again.

theguardian.com: Virginia Gunman Told by TV Station to Seek Medical Attention

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/26/virginia-gunman-vester-flanagan-wdbj-2012-memos-medical-help?CMP=share_btn_tw

How many mentally ill people are likely to seek "help" upon advice? It is not like they would be able to sit in therapy session after therapy session. There are barely any places for people who do want help, but need intensive care and protection.

I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.

I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

TarheelsInNj said:

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

As I understand it he bought it legally right asfter the Charleston shooting.

Too easy to get a gun.....

TarheelsInNj said:

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

Why? He was never diagnosed with anything. It's not likely much could have been done to prevent him from buying a gun. And gun laws in VA are pretty loose. Heck, you can bring your gun into a bar.

ParticleMan said:

TarheelsInNj said:

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

Why? He was never diagnosed with anything. It's not likely much could have been done to prevent him from buying a gun. And gun laws in VA are pretty loose. Heck, you can bring your gun into a bar.

It's scary that he could have obtained it legally but you're right, he wasn't diagnosed with anything and didn't have a criminal background.

In this situation it's possible there's nothing that could have been done. That said, I still think it's helpful to ask the question. Did he buy it on the internet? If he bought it legally, was there a waiting period? Did anyone that knew him (and his troubling issues) know he had the gun?

He was escorted from his work place by the police, after threatening his employers.

Shouldn't that count for something?

ParticleMan said:

TarheelsInNj said:

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

Why? He was never diagnosed with anything. It's not likely much could have been done to prevent him from buying a gun. And gun laws in VA are pretty loose. Heck, you can bring your gun into a bar.

Hahaha said:
I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.


I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

With regard to your preference: are there any other of our civil liberties you'd surrender so readily?

Insofar as your quest to limit access for those with mental illness to purchase firearms goes; how do we identify them, without trashing patient confidentiality?

Practical approaches? Move to Virginia and vote for candidates who embrace your viewpoint.

TomR

I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty or right. The 2nd Ammemdment is arcane and needs to be modified to address our modern world.

And throwing up your hands and telling me to move to Virgina to vote is a cop out. As it relates to gun trafficking and violence, what happens in Virginia affects me here in NJ. I shouldn't have to live in the state to have a voice. This is a national issue that deserves a national solution.

Tom_R said:

Hahaha said:
I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.


I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

With regard to your preference: are there any other of our civil liberties you'd surrender so readily?
Insofar as your quest to limit access for those with mental illness to purchase firearms goes; how do we identify them, without trashing patient confidentiality?
Practical approaches? Move to Virginia and vote for candidates who embrace your viewpoint.
TomR

Hahaha said:
I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty or right. The 2nd Ammemdment is arcane and needs to be modified to address our modern world.
And throwing up your hands and telling me to move to Virgina to vote is a cop out. As it relates to gun trafficking and violence, what happens in Virginia affects me here in NJ. I shouldn't have to live in the state to have a voice. This is a national issue that deserves a national solution.

Tom_R said:

Hahaha said:
I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.


I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

With regard to your preference: are there any other of our civil liberties you'd surrender so readily?
Insofar as your quest to limit access for those with mental illness to purchase firearms goes; how do we identify them, without trashing patient confidentiality?
Practical approaches? Move to Virginia and vote for candidates who embrace your viewpoint.
TomR

I don't see how what happens in Virginia or any other state that has a obvious person with a mental illness affects you here in NJ. If it's gun trafficking, maybe you should have the judges looked at that give a slap on the wrist & let the criminal trafficker go free or the buyer that gets caught walk away. Do you really think the two kids that were caught in Trenton on bicycles shooting at an apartment building will suffer any repercussions? No... Somehow it will be turned around on a the law abiding gun owner.

I don't quite understand your post, @maresleg, but I will reiterate that what happens in Virginia affects me because 1) guns are mobile and 2) I'm American and care about protecting people from gun violence in every state.

And, for what it's worth, this man who murdered his co-workers was a law-abiding gun owner until he wasn't.

That we have to think about convoluted ways to screen people with mental health problems (and accociated privacy and discrimination issues) is indicative of our warped national view of guns. The problem IS the guns not the individual. They just shouldn't be available. And as E.J. Dionne put it so well in a recent WP editorial, we should refocus the "rights" discussion to protect the right to live, work, go to school without the the threat of gun violence.

The 2nd Amendment is part and parcel of the Constitution (and the Constitution's bill of rights - right along with the Freedom of Speech). You do not just repeal a constitutional provision with a quick vote up or down. Further, the 2nd Amendment does not prevent registration and regulation of firearms as demonstrated by New Jersey's extensive regulatory scheme. If you believe that firearms in Virginia should be more extensively regulated then you have a question to be resolved by the voters and elected representatives of Virginia.

With regard to guns being mobile, this argument is a red herring. First of all, each state is entitled to create its own laws including firearms laws. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution (also part of the Bill of Rights) sets forth the principle of federalism. Namely, the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Back to your guns are mobile argument, assuming we enacted (what I believe to be your dream legislation), namely, banning all firearms and ammunition for civilians then we would likely create a large black market (AKA profit center for organized crime and gangs). Based on various estimates, we have at least ten million ("10,000,000) illegal/undocumented/unauthorized persons in the US. If we cannot keep these mobile illegal/undocumented/unauthorized persons out of the US then how would you propose we prevent firearms from coming into the US?

Do we really want to create more profit centers for organized crime?

Do you really believe the 10th Amendment does not apply in this situation?

The NRA and its members are watching closely for the response of various legislators to this tragedy. A knee jerk reaction by legislators in the form of gun control will likely be met with a vigorous NRA response. As a result, I doubt we will see any real change arising from this incident. We are a country with three hundred million ("300,000,000") firearms and I doubt anyone will be able to create/enact legislation where these three hundred million firearms will be confiscated.

Hahaha said:
I don't quite understand your post, @maresleg, but I will reiterate that what happens in Virginia affects me because 1) guns are mobile[emphasis added] and 2) I'm American and care about protecting people from gun violence in every state.
And, for what it's worth, this man who murdered his co-workers was a law-abiding gun owner until he wasn't.

Hahaha said:
I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty or right [emphasis added]. The 2nd Ammemdment is arcane and needs to be modified to address our modern world.

And throwing up your hands and telling me to move to Virgina to vote is a cop out. As it relates to gun trafficking and violence, what happens in Virginia affects me here in NJ. I shouldn't have to live in the state to have a voice. This is a national issue that deserves a national solution.

There's a zero percent chance of changing the second amendment. A significantly more narrow judicial interpretation is extremely unlikely. Not zero - maybe 2%? Outside of that, I'm not sure what you can do. Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, that change in the gun laws of a solid blue state triggered a huge increase in gun license applications.

RobB said:
There's a zero percent chance of changing the second amendment. A significantly more narrow judicial interpretation is extremely unlikely. Not zero - maybe 2%? Outside of that, I'm not sure what you can do. Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, that change in the gun laws of a solid blue state triggered a huge increase in gun license applications.

It is a tough problem, but I also think we need to be very careful before we put former employers, ex-boyfriends, or anyone else in a position to easily make a report that takes away the civil liberties of others.

We need tighter gun laws (to the extent possible), much better attitudes and availability for mental health care, and very carefully controlled ways to push adults showing dangerous disorders toward the help they need before they escalate to suicide, homicide, or overdose.

There are many parents out there who will tell you just how hard it is to get appropriate mental health help, to afford this help, or to get an adult child to use help, no matter how obvious the downward spiral (I was just reading one harrowing account yesterday). Our mental health system isn't working. Let's fix it.

In this specific case, I read that the employees at the TV station were told to call 911 if they ever saw the ex-employee. (In a perfect world) There should have been some mechanism for the employer to file a report with local authorities and then the local authorities would determine if action was needed regarding his legally acquired firearms.

Tom_R said:

Hahaha said:
I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.


I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

With regard to your preference: are there any other of our civil liberties you'd surrender so readily?
Insofar as your quest to limit access for those with mental illness to purchase firearms goes; how do we identify them, without trashing patient confidentiality?
Practical approaches? Move to Virginia and vote for candidates who embrace your viewpoint.
TomR

susan1014 said:

RobB said:
There's a zero percent chance of changing the second amendment. A significantly more narrow judicial interpretation is extremely unlikely. Not zero - maybe 2%? Outside of that, I'm not sure what you can do. Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, that change in the gun laws of a solid blue state triggered a huge increase in gun license applications.

It is a tough problem, but I also think we need to be very careful before we put former employers, ex-boyfriends, or anyone else in a position to easily make a report that takes away the civil liberties of others.
We need tighter gun laws (to the extent possible), much better attitudes and availability for mental health care, and very carefully controlled ways to push adults showing dangerous disorders toward the help they need before they escalate to suicide, homicide, or overdose.
There are many parents out there who will tell you just how hard it is to get appropriate mental health help, to afford this help, or to get an adult child to use help, no matter how obvious the downward spiral (I was just reading one harrowing account yesterday). Our mental health system isn't working. Let's fix it.

Would you be willing to change the standard of review to make involuntary commitments easier?

If so, what your new standard be?

Currently, the standard of review for NJ involuntary commitments is as follows:

Is there probable cause to believe that the person is in need of
involuntary commitment, i.e. is there probable cause to believe that
the person is mentally ill, that the mental illness causes the person to be a danger to self, others or property [emphasis added], and that there are no other appropriate facilities or services available? If yes, the judge may enter an order of temporary commitment authorizing the admission to or retention of custody by a facility pending a final hearing.

See http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/ICC_ResourceBinder.pdf

yahooyahoo said:
In this specific case, I read that the employees at the TV station were told to call 911 if they ever saw the ex-employee. (In a perfect world) There should have been some mechanism for the employer to file a report with local authorities and then the local authorities would determine if action was needed regarding his legally acquired firearms.

That's an interesting idea. Does any state currently have a system like that? If someone is reported to the local authorities, and/or charged with a crime, then the police are also notified that this person might have firearms?

And then what would happen? Is a firearm license conditional, such that it can be lost if someone is no longer able to meet the criteria?

It probably wouldn't have helped here but I'm thinking more about instances of domestic violence. Can you/should you lose a legally acquired firearm if you are charged with assault or domestic violence?

TarheelsInNj said:

yahooyahoo said:
In this specific case, I read that the employees at the TV station were told to call 911 if they ever saw the ex-employee. (In a perfect world) There should have been some mechanism for the employer to file a report with local authorities and then the local authorities would determine if action was needed regarding his legally acquired firearms.

That's an interesting idea. Does any state currently have a system like that? If someone is reported to the local authorities, and/or charged with a crime, then the police are also notified that this person might have firearms?
And then what would happen? Is a firearm license conditional, such that it can be lost if someone is no longer able to meet the criteria?

It probably wouldn't have helped here but I'm thinking more about instances of domestic violence. Can you/should you lose a legally acquired firearm if you are charged with assault or domestic violence?

RobB said:
Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing).

The same law also loosened the laws surrounding the loss of your LTC. Under the old rules, when you lost it (for domestic violence, mental illness, drug abuse, etc) it was gone forever. Now you can go to court and try to get it back after 5 years of being "cured" of whatever reason you lost it.

Whoops, I missed that! Yes, that seems logical and sensible. And on the surface, who could argue with that? But plenty will and do.

wharfrat said:
He was escorted from his work place by the police, after threatening his employers.
Shouldn't that count for something?

ParticleMan said:

TarheelsInNj said:

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

Why? He was never diagnosed with anything. It's not likely much could have been done to prevent him from buying a gun. And gun laws in VA are pretty loose. Heck, you can bring your gun into a bar.

Does he have a criminal record? Does he have a documented medical history of mental illness?

I don't know how anything else would "count for something."

ParticleMan said:

wharfrat said:
He was escorted from his work place by the police, after threatening his employers.
Shouldn't that count for something?

ParticleMan said:

TarheelsInNj said:

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

Why? He was never diagnosed with anything. It's not likely much could have been done to prevent him from buying a gun. And gun laws in VA are pretty loose. Heck, you can bring your gun into a bar.

Does he have a criminal record? Does he have a documented medical history of mental illness?
I don't know how anything else would "count for something."

In Virginia maybe it counts for nothing. But it doesn't have to be that way.

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:

wharfrat said:
He was escorted from his work place by the police, after threatening his employers.
Shouldn't that count for something?

ParticleMan said:

TarheelsInNj said:

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

Why? He was never diagnosed with anything. It's not likely much could have been done to prevent him from buying a gun. And gun laws in VA are pretty loose. Heck, you can bring your gun into a bar.

Does he have a criminal record? Does he have a documented medical history of mental illness?
I don't know how anything else would "count for something."

In Virginia maybe it counts for nothing. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Rob, how do you propose it count for something? Not being argumentative, just trying to understand what the mechanism would be.

ParticleMan said:

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:

wharfrat said:
He was escorted from his work place by the police, after threatening his employers.
Shouldn't that count for something?

ParticleMan said:

TarheelsInNj said:

wharfrat said:
Will be interesting, and certainly the subject of much speculation and controversy, to find out when and where he got his gun.

That's exactly what I've been wondering too.

Why? He was never diagnosed with anything. It's not likely much could have been done to prevent him from buying a gun. And gun laws in VA are pretty loose. Heck, you can bring your gun into a bar.

Does he have a criminal record? Does he have a documented medical history of mental illness?
I don't know how anything else would "count for something."

In Virginia maybe it counts for nothing. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Rob, how do you propose it count for something? Not being argumentative, just trying to understand what the mechanism would be.

Depends on if he bought the gun before or after his blow-up at the station. But if it was after, couldn't a background check be checked against any police reports or actions?

And if it was before, then the police could petition for suspension of license, as mentioned above.

That said, this is really all counting on someone else's perception that someone could be dangerous. In the absence of a specific threat, how does anyone make that determination? So often after situations like this you hear people say "we had no idea he was capable of this" or whatever.

RealityForAll said:

susan1014 said:

RobB said:
There's a zero percent chance of changing the second amendment. A significantly more narrow judicial interpretation is extremely unlikely. Not zero - maybe 2%? Outside of that, I'm not sure what you can do. Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, that change in the gun laws of a solid blue state triggered a huge increase in gun license applications.

It is a tough problem, but I also think we need to be very careful before we put former employers, ex-boyfriends, or anyone else in a position to easily make a report that takes away the civil liberties of others.
We need tighter gun laws (to the extent possible), much better attitudes and availability for mental health care, and very carefully controlled ways to push adults showing dangerous disorders toward the help they need before they escalate to suicide, homicide, or overdose.
There are many parents out there who will tell you just how hard it is to get appropriate mental health help, to afford this help, or to get an adult child to use help, no matter how obvious the downward spiral (I was just reading one harrowing account yesterday). Our mental health system isn't working. Let's fix it.

Would you be willing to change the standard of review to make involuntary commitments easier?
If so, what your new standard be?
Currently, the standard of review for NJ involuntary commitments is as follows:

Is there probable cause to believe that the person is in need of
involuntary commitment, i.e. is there probable cause to believe that
the person is mentally ill, that the mental illness causes the person to be a danger to self, others or property [emphasis added], and that there are no other appropriate facilities or services available? If yes, the judge may enter an order of temporary commitment authorizing the admission to or retention of custody by a facility pending a final hearing.
See http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/civil/ICC_ResourceBinder.pdf

As far as I can tell (I'm not an expert), the issue is less the ability of family or others to call for involuntary commitment (which already exists), than what happens after the usually-short involuntary commitment is over, and the person is released into the messy patchwork that we call a mental health system.

ParticleMan said:

Rob, how do you propose it count for something? Not being argumentative, just trying to understand what the mechanism would be.

I honestly haven't been following the whole mess in Virginia. But I assumed this guy made threats to co-workers if they were hiding in their offices when the cops came to remove him and were told to call 911 if they ever saw him again. If that is the case, the police should have the ability to take your guns and bring you before a judge to decide if you can have them back.

Hahaha said:
I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty or right. The 2nd Ammemdment is arcane and needs to be modified to address our modern world.
And throwing up your hands and telling me to move to Virgina to vote is a cop out. As it relates to gun trafficking and violence, what happens in Virginia affects me here in NJ. I shouldn't have to live in the state to have a voice. This is a national issue that deserves a national solution.

Tom_R said:

Hahaha said:
I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.


I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

With regard to your preference: are there any other of our civil liberties you'd surrender so readily?
Insofar as your quest to limit access for those with mental illness to purchase firearms goes; how do we identify them, without trashing patient confidentiality?
Practical approaches? Move to Virginia and vote for candidates who embrace your viewpoint.
TomR

Regardless of your consideration, or it being arcane or not, gun ownership is a right. That's a fact that is not open to opinion. Furthermore the expression of extreme incorrect positions such as yours is what gets the gun nuts all riled up and sells a lot of guns.

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:Rob, how do you propose it count for something? Not being argumentative, just trying to understand what the mechanism would be.

I honestly haven't been following the whole mess in Virginia. But I assumed this guy made threats to co-workers if they were hiding in their offices when the cops came to remove him and were told to call 911 if they ever saw him again. If that is the case, the police should have the ability to take your guns and bring you before a judge to decide if you can have them back.

If there was a restraining order system that had any teeth (in any state), and the coworkers were able to take out orders of protection, then I could see a background check requiring a check for restraining orders. Beyond that, it would require that cops knew he had a gun (if he had it before the cops were called). I guess it could be part of routine questions that the cops ask. But since there is no gun registry, if he said no, how would they know? Some states don't even require a permit.