RE: James Holmes guilty on all 165 counts.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: James Holmes guilty on all 165 counts.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: James Holmes guilty on all 165 counts.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: James Holmes guilty on all 165 counts. - 8/8/2015 12:53:15 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

i remarked elsewhere, I often wonder why/how such cases take years, as opposed to just weeks, or even days...

I didn't answer then because the only excuse I have ever heard is backlog, or in plain English is it because it is.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to bounty44)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: James Holmes guilty on all 165 counts. - 8/9/2015 6:06:04 AM

MercTech

Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

So don't take the bait. Holmes has severe mental health issues and sought treatment before the shooting.

Even the staunchest gun fanatic would agree that this man had no business having access to a firearm, even if he did have the right to own them.

The psychiatrists dropped the ball on this one.

Ok, tossing in a bit about HIPA laws and "legally sane".

Under the HIPA laws; medical records are privileged and private unless the person is of immediate danger to themselves or others then the physician is obligated to inform local authorities. Frankly, no physician is going to stick his neck out on a bankrupting lawsuit and felony charges for violating HIPA without a court order to release records. i.e. after the patient has been shot by police trying to kill a theater full of people.

A person is "legally sane" unless court ordered into psychiatric treatment.

Unless a judge has ordered a person to undergo psychiatric treatment; it will not show up on a background check. This is a big disconnect in the theory behind background checks altogether.

Should the FBI database have access to your medical records?

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: James Holmes guilty on all 165 counts. - 8/9/2015 12:53:51 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

So don't take the bait. Holmes has severe mental health issues and sought treatment before the shooting.

Even the staunchest gun fanatic would agree that this man had no business having access to a firearm, even if he did have the right to own them.

The psychiatrists dropped the ball on this one.

Ok, tossing in a bit about HIPA laws and "legally sane".

Under the HIPA laws; medical records are privileged and private unless the person is of immediate danger to themselves or others then the physician is obligated to inform local authorities. Frankly, no physician is going to stick his neck out on a bankrupting lawsuit and felony charges for violating HIPA without a court order to release records. i.e. after the patient has been shot by police trying to kill a theater full of people.

A person is "legally sane" unless court ordered into psychiatric treatment.

Unless a judge has ordered a person to undergo psychiatric treatment; it will not show up on a background check. This is a big disconnect in the theory behind background checks altogether.

Should the FBI database have access to your medical records?

Of course the FBI should not have access to medical records.
But there has to be some provision for psychiatrists notifying authorities when a person is a clear danger to society.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MercTech)

Profile

Post #: 23