Florida mental health agency examined Cruz in 2016, didnt hospitalize him

[TomCADem]

Last edited Mon Feb 19, 2018, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: NBC News

A 2016 mental health report said that crisis workers from a South Florida mental health facility were called to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to hold alleged gunman Nikolas Cruz for a psychiatric evaluation, but ultimately decided against hospitalizing him.

According to the report, an individual alerted Henderson Behavioral Health to come to the school to evaluate Cruz for possible detainment under the Baker Act, which allows authorities to hold individuals against their will for up to 72 hours. Those 17 and younger can be held for 12 hours.

The involuntary psychiatric exam of Cruz took place in 2016, but Henderson Behavioral Health health professionals chose not to hospitalize him after speaking with him, according to a November 2016 Florida Department of Children and Families investigative report obtained by NBC News.

The Florida Department of Children and Families was alerted after Cruz sent out a Snapchat video in which he cut both of his arms and shared his intention “to go out and buy a gun,” according to the report. The report also noted that in 2015 Cruz had a “Nazi symbol drawn on his book bag” and “hate signs on a book bag stating, ‘I hate n------.’”

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/social-media-post-led-florida-agency-investigate-nikolas-cruz-2016-n849221

---

No wonder Florida's Governor is so quick to Trump's bandwagon. Cruz had a long, long history of run-ins with Florida state and local officials. Yet, he was able to buy a gun.

[Sneederbunk]

1. But the FBI, but, but, but.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. In WA state, a 48hr evaluation would have flagged him ineligible to buy a gun.

I think 7 states have that law.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Are you saying that anyone who had a MH eval. cannot buy a gun?

Or do they have to have an actual MH diagnosis/ treatment before they are forbidden to buy a gun?

[sweetloukillbot]

23. I believe the key is involuntary

I'm pretty leery about the whole "mentally ill people shouldn't buy a gun" because it is a fuzzy line to draw, but I think involuntary hospitalization is a safe place to draw the line.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. It's also about Possession, so if they already own guns, they must find a conservator/custodian.

I don't know how often that is done in practice, but that's the law.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. 48h or longer evaluation against the patient's will.

So, adjudicated by a court for evaluation, or medical professional/best judgment.

Unlawful to purchase or possess a firearm for any reason under that condition until it's been restored by a court.


&quot iii) After having previously been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment under RCW 71.05.240, 71.05.320, 71.34.740, 71.34.750, chapter 10.77 RCW, or equivalent statutes of another jurisdiction, unless his or her right to possess a firearm has been restored as provided in RCW 9.41.047;"

[cbreezen]

3. I am heartbroken...

They might have been able to make a difference, but they chose not help this kid.

Maybe, they spent too much time harrassing boring parents who happen to smoke weed.

[marybourg]

4. Maybe they're not able to foretell the future,

hesitant to wrongly label a kid for life, dealing with shortages of facilities and funds, and sincerely doing their best with what they have. No connection with the mental health field, but that's how I see it.

[cbreezen]

5. Watch a few episodes of Cops...

Busting someone for a felony because they happen to have an un-prescribed Xanax in the bottom of their purse.

This is what Florida spends its time on.

Boring.

[marybourg]

6. Thanx, but that's not the world I live in.

I prefer life to TV.

[cbreezen]

7. That is life...

I've seen it in my own.

[dixiegrrrrl]

33. "choosing not to help this kid" is factually incorrect.

As you say, social Workers, cops, schools all saw something wrong, but had no law to use to wrap him up and take him to treatment.
In fact, they DID take his 18 year old brother, so there must have been something the brother did that met criteria for them to hold.and something the shooter did that did NOT meet the same criteria.

If we step back and take a look, we know this: The Baker Act worked for one the boys, so funding was not an issue.
The Baker Act allows for evaluation to see if someone is suicidal or homicidal...planning harm to self or to others.
If the kid has plausible deniability , and there was no other proof, the Act cannot be applied.
even if they hauled him in for a mental health evaluation, all he had to do was deny any bad intentions, and he would be free. If he were hearing voices, THAT could have helped them to commit the kid. Apparently does not apply in this case.

the problem is, we do not have laws that allow us to involuntarily commit people without sufficient evidence, or UNTIL they prove intent, or DO harm to others or themselves.
Under current law, they can't be arrested or confined, even if we are smart/experienced enough to see down the road.

[hibbing]

8. I get all this, but to me it's easy access to the weapon he used

Call me naive, but I think the issue is the access the guns. In fact, from what I understand that evil governor has done all he can to make it easier to buy these types of weapons along with the corrupt U.S. Congress.

Peace

[iluvtennis]

10. + agree

[ffr]

9. Let's be real here. Cruz really isn't that much different from most conservatives.

Do we have enough hospitals for all of them?

[Jedi Guy]

17. Um, no.

As someone who grew up in a very conservative area and is the progressive black sheep from a conservative family, this kind of hyperbolic broad brush attack is uncalled for and unhelpful. It's one thing to disagree on politics; it's another to liken a large swath of the population to psychopathic murderers.

Broad brush attacks aren't okay, no matter who they're aimed at. What you just did is exactly the same as saying "Most Muslims aren't really that much different from ISIS." You'd be outraged and offended, and rightly so, if a conservative smeared all progressives as being "not that much different" from the nutter who shot Steve Scalise last year.

[JI7]

18. Muslims that Support ISIS ARE like ISIS . just as Conservatives that support Trump are like MAGA

supporting Killer Cruz.

[Jedi Guy]

27. That's the worst kind of black and white thinking, as well as total lack of nuance.

If you legit believe that somewhere around 20-30ish% of the population are psychopathic murderers in waiting, I don't know what to say to you, other than that I can't imagine the kind of mortal terror you deal with on a daily basis.

[ffr]

37. Straw Man fallacy.

You're shooting two for two on the fallacies today. JI7's comments are clearly deductive, while your rebuttal sets up and shoots down an argument that he didn't bring up.

Please stick to what people say, not to what your interpretation is of what they are saying. You might also wish to brush up on your understanding of fallacies. I'd recommend:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Logic-And-Contemporary-Rhetoric-The-Use-Of-Reason-In-Everyday-Life-Third-Edition-/112532473042?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10

$12.99. A very good value.

[Jedi Guy]

46. What JI7 did is take the views of an extreme outlier and apply them to the main group.

It's the same exact thing we rightly call out when conservatives do it with Muslims, or African-Americans, or any other group that conservatives like to go after. It's wrong when conservatives do it to those groups, and it's still wrong when it's done to conservatives. It's divisive and unhelpful, and only serves to further the animosity between conservatives and progressives.

As an aside, are you always this condescending when you post? Was that tone necessary? I didn't attack JI7 or you personally in the least, so I feel that your tone in your reply is unwarranted.

[ffr]

48. * Sigh *

Not attacking you then and not attacking you know. However I am questioning your reasoning skills, which is draw into question your reasoning skills, which is not an ad hominem attack on you. I'm directing my argument at your argument and your reasoning skills. You say and imply things for people that they never said nor implied.

Condescending? Yeah, sometimes. When someone goes after someone else in the way you did, you can expect me to come to their defense. And sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm not very good at playing defense when it's the other side, "Most Conservatives" that should be on defense. I typically go on the offense, to right the wrong.

[ffr]

36. Red Herring fallacy, you're putting words in my mouth and mischaracterizing my point

You certainly have an issue with any negative connotation towards my use of "most conservatives," but that's okay to have an opinion. Please re-read what I wrote. Your reply does not reflect accurately upon my post.

[Jedi Guy]

43. You said, and I quote...

"Cruz really isn't that much different from most conservatives."

You're saying that most conservatives "[aren't] much different" from a psychopath who murdered 17 innocent people. So please explain what you meant. How are they "not that much different" from Cruz? Expound on your point, because I'd like to hear why people who disagree with you politically are not much different to murderers. Furthermore, I resent the accusation that I put words in your mouth. All I did was switch out the words to change the targeted group and individual.

What I saw was a broad brush attack, and I oppose those no matter who the target happens to be. I stand by my assertion that statements like yours are uncalled for and unhelpful if we wish to see any meaningful gun control legislation become reality.

[ffr]

45. You did well, but then veered off course again with a Red Herring and Straw Man fallacy.

Most conservatives, that I know of and read about and see on TV are quit like Nicholas Cruz. Yes,, absolutely. They love the power of holding a gun, showing it off to people and often have a tendency to use it as a means to make themselves appear tough.

So yes, absolutely, this is me expounding on my proposition that most conservatives are like Nicholas Cruz.

Where you make the Straw Man fallacy, is where you veer off into your own tangent about the meaning of what I said, which I didn't say. Then you continue with a Red Herring distraction that I'm saying that "people I disagree with politically," most conservatives, "are not much different to murderers." I never said that. You did.

Please. This is getting ridiculous. I would encourage you to brush up on your philosophy and reasoning skills before you make more bold fallacious statements.

[Jedi Guy]

47. Wow, you're splitting hairs mighty fine there, ffr.

You're right, this is getting ridiculous. I have much better uses for my time than being lectured on logic and reasoning by someone who makes assertions about what others think and feel based on anecdotal evidence and then gets defensive when someone questions their broad brush statements. Have a nice afternoon.

[ffr]

50. That's your 3rd fallacy, another Straw Man.

Congratulations, you made your point with the attack on the straw man.



A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

[Jedi Guy]

51. Okay.

Now you're going out of your way to be condescending and patronizing, when I've done neither that nor made any ad hominem attacks. If you've got nothing better to do with your afternoon, I'm sorry that you're bored. I'm going to go play Kingdom Come: Deliverance. If you play video games, I'd recommend it.

[ffr]

55. I'm not interested in playing games. Total waste of time, causes muscle atrophied.

I think your propositions would sound stronger if you were to just stick to supporting your argument.

Now you're going out of your way to be condescending and patronizing, when I've done neither that nor made any ad hominem attacks. If you've got nothing better to do with your afternoon, I'm sorry that you're bored. I'm going to go play Kingdom Come: Deliverance. If you play video games, I'd recommend it. - Jedi Guy

It's like a poker tell that you're either losing or have lost your way in support of your proposition when you offer distracting comments that, yes probably meet the threshold of ad hominem attacks upon me and not my argument; that whole first sentence. But then you begin again with another ad hominem attack, that has nothing to do with either supporting your argument nor refuting mine, with " If you've got nothing better to do with your afternoon." It implies that you think I'm babbling and expressly states that I'm bored, when if fact, my rebuttals are true rebuttals to your propositions directly.

Where I veer off a little is in trying to help you to understand where you went wrong, educate you perhaps, if you're willing to see passed this as a chess match, which it isn't. I will genuinely offer you advice that I hope you will accept, because I think through education, you will become a more effective debater, able to support your own argument and rebut others without falling into fallacy traps.

And I appreciate the offer of a truce to play games, but again, I have no interest. I prefer games that don't involve digital media. My preference. Get me on a court, track, pool, lake, hill where I can compete and find comradery.

[Jedi Guy]

56. We'll have to agree to disagree as far as video games are concerned.

They've been shown to aid in problem-solving, spatial perception, hand-eye coordination, reaction time, etc. I've played them since I was a wee lad, and they're a hobby as well as a collector's item for me. I enjoy going through my collection and expanding it. Your mileage may vary. The other nice thing is the ability to play with others who are far away. I'm the only progressive in a conservative family and social environment, so going to the court or whatever frequently winds up being... uncomfortable.

And yeah, you did come off as condescending, with the winky emoticons and the links to books and such. That didn't come across as an attempt to educate, not in the slightest. It was unnecessary, and it felt like you did it for no better reason than to twist the knife. Maybe you meant it that way, maybe you didn't, but that was most definitely how it came across. If you tell someone to educate him- or herself, there's a subtext there.

I made a logical inference from your statement. You said that Cruz "isn't really much different from most conservatives." The inference is that the difference between most conservatives and Cruz is that Cruz acted on his desires, while most conservatives don't, or at least haven't. I don't think that inference is far off base, especially given the "do we have enough hospitals?" remark, as if most conservatives are mentally ill and in need of treatment.

When I asked you to expound on your assertion, you followed up with "they love the power of holding a gun, etc. etc.", which reinforces my interpretation of your assertion. I find it a little ironic, by the way, that for all your talk of philosophy and logic, you offer up an anecdote without any evidence to support it. Furthermore, your anecdote presumes to know the thoughts and feelings of "most conservatives."

TL;DR - I made an inference based on your statement, and based on the totality of what you've said, I think my inference wasn't unreasonable. I also dislike broad brush attacks, regardless of who they're directed at.

[Blackjackdavey]

39. This same broad brush

is also being used on people with mental health issues -- also not okay.

[Jedi Guy]

44. Apparently it is okay, provided it's aimed at an "acceptable" target group. N/T

[samir.g]

19. You make a great point

Lots of professionals have brought up the mental illness involved in conservatism. That alone is grounds to fail a background check.

[Jedi Guy]

28. Hang on.

Are you saying that simply being a conservative is grounds for failing a background check to purchase a gun? What other rights should conservatives lose on the basis of their political ideology? Freedom of speech and assembly? Unreasonable search and seizure? Cruel and unusual punishment? If you're talking about stripping someone's rights solely because of their political beliefs, you are advocating for tyranny.

[ffr]

38. Relax and take a time out for a minute. This is a forum where we all get to express our views. n/t

[Jedi Guy]

42. Yes, it is.

And I'm expressing mine by asking for clarification of what was said. The implication of samir.g's post is that conservative beliefs should disqualify someone from buying a firearm. In other words, mere ideology, not actions, are grounds to strip someone of a right.

If he/she wishes to clarify what was meant, I'm all ears. But as of this moment, what I heard from him/her is that it's desirable to bar access to a right based not on criminality or mental illness, but by political ideology. If that is indeed his/her view, then I'm well within my rights to oppose it on the grounds that I view it as tyranny.

[samir.g]

52. Mental illness is already grounds for prohibiting possession

[Jedi Guy]

53. That's true.

However, I don't consider conservatism to be a mental illness in and of itself. Arguing that it is a mental illness sets a very dangerous precedent.

[rainlillie]

21. Yes!

You are so right. Maybe he's not mentally ill, maybe he's just a racist asshole! Weird how Muslims who commit acts of terror are never called mentally ill.

[ascap_scab]

11. #ReturnTheNRAMoneyAndResign

So the Florida DCF failed the citizens again. Who is ultimately in charge of the DCF? None other than Gov. Rick Scott!

#ReturnTheNRAMoneyAndResign

See how easy it is to take a cheap shot you blood-sucking vampire?

[Tatiana]

12. Ugh. Heartbreaking.

Looks like school personnel did the right thing. Looks like facility has some explaining to do. Did they have space for intake or was it a triage situation where they needed to reserve beds for more severe patients?

This is a perfect illustration of why we need to fund mental health services. And why having Destructive DeVos as Education Secretary also contributes to people falling through the cracks. Federal funds can be used for residential educational facilities and when we cut the funding for these places, we remove safe havens for people like Cruz who are in need of help.

[janterry]

26. No one wants a belligerent

teenager on their inpatient unit. I posted about this a few days ago - it's just a management problem. I have had a terrible time committing teens that appear potentially aggressive.

A nice depressed girl? Sure. A depressed boy? Okay. An angry young man with nazi symbols on his book bag? Nah, hard pass.

[Blackjackdavey]

41. This is ridiculous

Nobody is turning anyone away based on Swastikas or aggression. The issue is, here comes real info, Conduct disorder (a condition of childhood) is not treatable via most outpatient or inpatient psychiatric means. The second a kid turns 18, conduct disorder is revised to anti-social personality disorder -- also not treatable via most outpatient or inpatient psychiatric means. All mass shooters have conduct disorder or anti-social personality disorder, at a minimum.

There may very well be co-morbid, treatable issues, but none of those other issues include or cause a callous disregard for the lives and safety of strangers. The only caveat I would place on that might be someone with paranoid schizophrenia that experiences delusions regarding "others" but then, with schizophrenia, that person would act out only as a means of self or community preservation -- their delusion also includes the belief they must kill to protect someone or something.

Inpatient psychiatric units will nearly always admit, for at least the maximum observation period allowed by law, someone who is aggressive. However, in doing so, they begin to learn that this person is at an inappropriate level of care. The appropriate level of care for intractably conduct disordered kids is residential care. For adults, unless they pass which is usually a factor associated with their socioeconomic background, it is jail. If they pass they may very well become successful career people, with anti-social tendencies. We all know someone like that.

Therefore, that this person wasn't hospitalized a year ago is neither at all relevant nor unusual for someone like this and not for the reasons stated in the previous post.

[forgotmylogin]

14. Sociopaths are good at making you believe they're normal.

This proves that mental health evaluations are NOT ALWAYS THE ANSWER.

Gun proponents say "Well, they can kill people with a knife."

The answer is "Yes, but a knife forces an assailant to confront victims close up. A gun lets them kill in a large radius with a fair degree of ease and detachment they won't be able to hide behind with a non-firearm."

Massacres with a knife or other manual weapon are rare because of this. An assailant with a blade is much likelier to be subdued quickly by a crowd.

The availability of high-power, high fire-rate guns facilitates massacres psychologically and logistically.

[mr_lebowski]

16. This, 1000X ... exactly correct ...

Person must also be reasonably physically fit to inflict damage on multiple people, and must be ready to 'stomach' the blood all over themselves and their hands (which also will make gripping the weapon more difficult), AND the sensation of blade sinking into skin and hitting bone and looking a terrified victim right in the eye AND who is fighting back for their lives.

It's SOOOO friggin' different killing people with knives vs guns it's not even funny. Not to mention there's not big 'knife culture', no National Knife Association, nobody goes to the KNIFE range and practices sinking blades into targets (or maybe a tiny group of people do I dunno but it's nothing like gun culture in size or scope).

And nobody looks at a simple knife or blade and has illusions of massive POWER to DESTROY lives en masse. Also, nobody grows up in households where the parents fetish-ize knives and their 'power' ... and their 'right to have them' ... like they do with guns.

They also don't spend upwards of a $1000 to procure knifes or even swords unless they're like REALLY nice or historical pieces. There's no 'allure' to 'use them' like their can be with an expensive firearm, that can get into the head of a distraught/damaged soul like Cruz, no 'siren song' if you will.

Frankly it's just stupid to even try to compare the two things, quite honestly.

[Demit]

20. I remember reading in crime fiction, not every assassin can do 'wet work'.

It's too intimate, for the reasons you mention. With a gun you are detached.

[forgotmylogin]

34. And while I'm in no way blaming video games...

They can impart a sort of numbness to the idea of mowing down crowds of zombies or enemies from a distance with a gun.

I've watched let's plays of a lot of shooters (which are videos of people playing) and the reaction when using a gun is often "hell yeah, take that" where using a melee/hand-to-hand weapon is much more visceral and dangerous and "emotional" as you said.

Games, of course, on their own, do not cause people to become murderers - rational people understand the difference between fantasy and reality. There has to be an underlying pathology that would make a person play a shooter and say "hey, I'd love to carry this out in real life..."

Give kids games, not guns. (Of course appropriate to their age and maturity level. Parents should participate when possible with gameplay activity, either play along with or watch occasionally and discuss and get a good read on their children's headspace when playing potentially violent games. If mom takes a turn shooting Nazis every once in a while, coached by their "expert" teen, the "cool" factor of slaughtering hordes is going to be mitigated a good deal.)

[bluestarone]

35. exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOD POST HERE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Phoenix61]

15. They examined him in 2016!

Even if they had admitted him then how would it have changed what happened now? It's so easy to look back and say this or that should have been done but the reality is until someone does something illegal there's little we can do to remove that person from society.

[LisaL]

22. If he were involuntarily committed to a mental institution, he wouldn't have been able to legally

purchase his assault weapons.

[moriah]

30. If he'd had an involuntary admission based on it and was adjudicated to stay for treatment...

He wouldn't have had the ability to purchase.

Just getting a 72 hour hold may not necessarily involve loss of gun rights. At least here, there's a hearing to determine, based on the information gathered by the hospital during the involuntary admission time, whether the person is a danger/in danger.

Losing that hearing and being involuntarily committed for mental health treatment is when the loss of gun purchase rights hits here. Essentially because the hold itself isn't considered due process, but the hearing in mental health court is.

[milestogo]

24. Reading the headline I thought of Ted Cruz.

[dembotoz]

25. Have a friend with a nutso kid

I am a former psych major and I see more red flags than a Kremlin parade, but shit it's hard involuntary commitment is not easy

[Pachamama]

29. Gov Scott and Traitor Trump - Whose fault is that?

[haele]

40. There's a difference between disaffected and mentally ill.

According to spouse's and kidlet's various therapists and psychiatrists, while psychopaths can be diagnosed early on, it's much more difficult to diagnose sociopaths as there are a lot of environmental and social aspects to consider that are also present in for moderate personality disorders in young people that can often be corrected by "growing out of it" or changing their environment and risk/reward situation enough that they learn to control their emotions and not act out in rage or fear.

We all have the primitive inside of us; most of us just learn to discipline it enough it won't run our lives.

A reason why at least certain firearms and accoutrements should strictly controlled and not be available to people under 21. It's already established that much of the upper brain functions controlling emotion just have not developed enough even by then for the person to be able to completely and emotionally understand responsibility of action.

Haele

[idahoblue]

49. He probably came across as nice and rational

When interviewed, he was probably able to convince them he was sorry about the cutting and would not do it again, was sweet, rational, harmless. I have had encounters with some really bad people who could turn on the charm in a heartbeat. They know what is expected, the right answers to the questions, how to appear reflective, rational, regretful of past behavior.
It would be interesting to know what happened during the social services and law enforcement interviews.

[Justice]

54. All of this just proves how broken the system is. In real background check,

Someone should be able to look at the totality, the number of guns, the expulsions and trouble at school, the mother’s death the police calls to the house, the involvement of child and family services, consideration of psychiatric hold. — you look back and say, there is no way this young man should have been allowed to get a gun, an assault weapon.


The current system doesn’t allow for anyone to have the complete picture.