mobulis
568
So if a person shoots someone with a gun the gun played no part in the shooting?
Maybe you should quit giving orders and derailing the thread.
2 Likes
This is not a test…it is a psychiatric evaluation that is a serious diagnostic tool…and cannot be administered with out consent of parents until the age of consent is reached.
Public school is the government. Mandatory psych eval without consent is government intrusion.
Read about how the companies that put out the SAT are selling student info. Info that’s supposed to private under FERPA.
You asked for sources. I gave you sources. You responded without even reading them. You looked at the last paragraph of what I wrote…and made the conclusion…as always you are correct. Forget that i spent the last hour and a half looking at this stuff for you.
While your at it. Forget you Rose. You are wrong admit it and move on from it. Otherwise the conversation is over.
3 Likes
I type extremely quickly and I read even more quickly. I didn’t find anything there that makes a convincing argument to me that there would be a violation of rights.
It’s not like they would be forced into medical/psychological treatment, it’s simply a diagnostic tool.
Democrats are proposing all sorts of things that would violate everyone’s rights with respect to gun control while all this would do is help to identify kids that might have some serious issues that need to be addressed before they go off the deep end hurting themselves or others.
Teachers evaluate their students daily and if they identify problems those kids are dealt with or at least could be.
I simply don’t see the problem here.
We either want to address these mental health issues or we don’t. We either want to prevent future murders and certainly mass shootings or we don’t.
Banning “assault rifles” absolutely cannot prevent future mass shootings or other murders but something like this could.
Do we want to actually solve any of these issues or is it simply about using them to push gun control for the sake of gun control?
What exactly is it I’m wrong about? I’m asking questions, gathering information, and evaluating it to come to a conclusion?
The gun is an inanimate object, it plays no part in the planning or execution of the crime any more than your car is responsible for your DUI or speeding ticket.
The object has no responsibility for the crime being committed.
zantax
575
Well not really. First of all, psychologists can’t predict who will or won’t go on to murder anyone. All they can do it is tell if they presently represent a danger to themselves or others. The vast majority of people with mental health issues never kill anyone.
Zan you’re being self contradictory here. If they can be identified as being a danger to themselves and others there’s a high likelihood they are going to harm themselves or others.
You’re right, most mentally ill people are not dangerous, I’m not the least bit concerned about them.
What I am concerned about is the repeated failures to identify and deal with those who obviously are in an appropriate manner before they commit murder or other serious crimes.
You are wrong that it is not a 4th amendment rights violation. This what the 4th amendment says.
The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government.
Mandatory psych evals by schools is massive governmental over reach.
You just don’t want to see it.
Bye!
What unreasonable search or seizure is taking place by them taking such a test?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I simply don’t see how there is a violation here.
zantax
579
We already have a legal system in place to handle those who presently pose a danger to themselves and others. Some police and school systems may not be using them but they already exist. A lot of these people have openly made threats prior to their acts, if people were following the law they should have been corralled at that point. What we are usually talking about when we say everyone knew there was a problem and they slipped through the cracks is the legal system dropping the ball and not acting on already actionable behavior. If teacher has a kid in class who makes it known he is a danger to himself and others, the teacher is supposed to report that to law enforcement who are then supposed to haul them in for a mandatory psych eval.
Bodecea
580
There is a difference between providing a test that all students take such as a standardized test…and specifically picking a child out for specialized testing. Just like the policy of doing drug testing for all and specifically picking a person out for testing… That’s basic.
zantax
581
How not? You are talking about forcing kids to give potentially incriminating evidence against themselves without either probable cause they have broken any law or any sort of due process. Sorry, you aren’t throwing my kid to some school psychologist absent probable cause or due process.
It’s much broader than just a problem with the legal system.
It starts with parents, schools, and police. I listed out four or five cases and went into some detail on them.
Sandyhook, his mother sheltered him knowing his problems and rather than get him “labeled for life” by going through the mental health system, she raised a homicidal moster at home.
Giffords, the shooter had a long history of mental health issues, drug abuse, violent, threatening and completely insane behavior at school, where they hid his problems, never called police etc. His parents knew of all of his issues, and ignored them.
Parkland, perhaps the most egregious of all, his dangerous and threatening behavior was known by the schools, parents, foster parents, and police including at least one prior ADW holding a gun on the foster mom and threatening to kill her and she talked the police out of arresting him.
In all of these cases it was clear these kids were dangerous ticking time bombs and there were numerous opportunities to stop them before they committed their crimes yet nothing was done.
zantax
583
I can see it now, subject indicates an interest in guns, frequently goes hunting and to the range with his father and likes war movies. Talks about the second amendment, liberty and the constitution and expresses the desire to join the army some day, may be alt right. Obviously a heightened risk of being a mass shooter. Strip him of the right to own a gun as an adult.
No, there’s nothing potentially incriminating in the psyche eval and if there were it could never be used against them because of the confidentiality laws.
Well we both know that’s bs but we already live in a world where that’s enough to get his rights taken away with a simple call to police even though none of them indicate the kid will ever commit a single crime.
zantax
586
You make my point.
Both cases of the ball being dropped, not of a lack of existing legal remedy to the situation.
zantax
587
Oh and Lanza, nothing really stood out differentiating him from tens of thousands of other kids with mental health issues, they most they had on him was some violent writing, hand washing and anti-social behavior. He hadn’t really done anything that would indicate he poses a threat to himself or others prior to going off.
Same thing we’ve been discussing for decades.
What needs to be done is to tweak the laws holding parents responsible, and requiring schools to report the obviously dangerous monsters to the police/courts so they can be dealt with before they go postal.
