• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Colorado Looks to Broaden Therapists’ Power to Prevent School Shootings

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
DENVER—In a state that has been battered by mass shootings, Colorado lawmakers are trying a new, focused approach to stopping bloodshed in schools.

A proposed bill would broaden the circumstances under which mental-health professionals can report a student that they believe poses a threat, an issue that has drawn increasing attention around the country.

Colorado law requires mental-health workers to alert authorities if a patient expresses a specific, imminent threat, and mandates that they warn those being threatened.

http://gazette.com/colorado-looks-t...r-to-prevent-school-shootings/article/1571590
The basic plan is all ya need to know. If ya want to know more detailed info ya gotta subscribe to the WSJ.

Another front in the war against individual liberty.

Bad, very bad, if (when) a unaccountable bush-league psych-out stuff shrink is given more power.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The basic plan is all ya need to know. If ya want to know more detailed info ya gotta subscribe to the WSJ.

Another front in the war against individual liberty.

Bad, very bad, if (when) a unaccountable bush-league psych-out stuff shrink is given more power.

You do know what a candidate who got through school w/D- average, can't make the grade for board certification, and had to move to a less restrictive state to be certified as a psychologist, and works out of a motel room is called?

Answer: Doctor
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
DTPMap12.gif


most MH professionals have been ethically and in some cases judicially mandated w/a duty to warn since 1976ish.

quote: Most states have laws that either require or permit mental health professionals to disclose information about patients who may become violent. One exception springs from an effort to protect potential victims from a patient’s violent behavior. California courts imposed a legal duty on psychotherapists to warn third parties of patients’ threats to their safety in 1976 in Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California. This case triggered passage of “duty to warn” or “duty to protect” laws in almost every state as summarized in the map .....

current Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-117 states: Provides that a physician, social worker, psychiatric nurse, psychologist or other mental health professional, a mental health hospital, a community mental health center, clinic, institution or their staff shall not be liable for damages in an civil action for failure to warn or protect any person against a patient's violent behavior. Any such persons mentioned shall not be held civilly liable for failure to predict such violent behavior, except where the patient has communicated to the mental health provider a serious threat of imminent physical violence against a specific person or persons. If a duty to protect arises, that duty shall be discharged by making reasonable and timely efforts to notify any person or persons specifically threatened, as well as notifying appropriate law enforcement, or by taking other appropriate action including but not limited to hospitalizing the patient. Any persons mentioned above shall not beheld civilly liable or professionally disciplined for warning any person against or predicting a patient's violent behavior. This immunity does not cover negligent release of mental health patient information or the negligent failure to initiate involuntary seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation after a personal patient evaluation determining that the patient appears to have a mental illness, and as a result of that illness would be an imminent danger to others.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-professionals-duty-to-warn.aspx

the difficult part is getting (coaxing) the patient/client/whomever to notify the nice authorities on their own...

(there are some MH professions who have capabilities to put folk on 24/72 observation hold...:uhoh: )
ipse
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
His opinion is all the justification the state needs to deprive a citizen of his rights. His opinion is all the justification the state needs to place a law abiding citizen in mortal danger. Individual liberty is so cavalierly disregarded by the state for so nebulous a justification. Shrinks wield great power and the ability to hold them to account for their "mistakes" is virtually impossible.

A medical doctor usually leaves evidence of his mistake and therefore can be held to account. How about this, ask a shrink if he has a 100% money back guarantee.

Every cop should approach a shrink, and his opinion, as a deliberate attempt to unjustly implicate a law abiding citizen in a crime. What is the time frame before a citizen is deemed to not be a threat? If a citizen who has been accused of commiting a crime in the future does not commit the crime what then? What of that shrink's credibility? Is it nothing more than a "oops, my bad."

Regarding duty to inform laws...a shrink better have more than his opinion to substantiate his opinion. I will be researching duty to inform laws for the states that I frequent. Thanks solus for the heads up.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... I will be researching duty to inform laws for the states that I frequent. Thanks solus for the heads up.

No liability for petitioners.

RSMo 632.445. No person making or filing an application alleging that a person should be involuntarily detained, certified or committed, treated or evaluated pursuant to this chapter shall be rendered civilly or criminally liable if the application was made and filed in good faith.
No accountability.


No liability for health care professionals, public officials and certain peace officers.

RSMo 632.440. No officer of a public or private agency, ... shall be civilly liable for investigating, detaining, transporting, conditionally releasing or discharging a person pursuant to this chapter or chapter 475, at or before the end of the period for which the person was admitted or detained for evaluation or treatment so long as such duties were performed in good faith and without gross negligence.
The qualified immunity statute. This too must be changed to permit a redress for state agents acting against the evidence before their very eyes.

I'll be sending a note to my elected reps. False claims must be, whether made in good faith or not, must result in severe criminal and civil penalties.

It is far too easy to deprive a citizen of his individual liberty based on a shrinks opinion.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
OC...after the debacle in 1976 decision in tarasoff California from events which began in the late sixties between two young adults. the decision put the mandatory onus on the MH provider to warn potential victims as well as the police. MH professionals were concerned about liability so the states enacted provisions to hold them harmless.

back to current period, the MH professional involved with Aurora shooter, is being hounded by threats of civil suit for NOT notifying and she is saying she falls under the umbrella of the University which PROHIBITS outside notification. it is the same tactic the MH provider used at UVA when their 07 shooter went on the rampage, multimillion dollar civil suits filed by the families were dismissed in 13.

personally, it is MHO both of the MH professionals i just mentioned violated the APA's ethic codes as they listened to and acted on their employer's policies instead of their PROFESSIONAL training which i akin with James E. Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen who developed a CIA interrogation program which included starvation, waterboarding, beatings and other techniques considered torture under international law.

PM sent...

ipse
 

eBratt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
271
Location
Fort Collins Area, CO
No accountability. ... It is far too easy to deprive a citizen of his individual liberty based on a shrinks opinion.

Okay, I am one of these "shrinks" that you're talking about. Specifically, I am a licensed mental health professional with the authority to place someone on the 72 hour hold.

Legally and ethically, I cannot breach confidentiality except in very specific circumstances. These circumstances are very narrowly defined. Prior to Tarasoff, if a client came in and expressly told me that once they left my office we were going to go shoot a very specific person and that they have the gun in their car, I legally could not breach confidentiality. In other words, I had to sit there, knowing full well that might an action would cost someone their life, and do absolutely nothing because if I called the police or warned their intended victim, I was violating my client's confidentiality. The same would go if they told me that they were walking out of my office and would be immediately committing suicide.

The above dilemma is exactly what Tarasoff was about. The clinician did nothing and it cost someone their life.

Is that the kind of "liberty" you're looking for?

As was pointed out above, Tarasoff established the requirement that if I know of a specific threat against a person's life that I have the authority to detain the individual until such time as that person can be evaluated to determine that they are not a threat to themselves or others. Don't want to be detained? Don't tell your therapist you are going to kill yourself or someone else.

All the new legislation does is broaden the ability to breach confidentially and the definition of a threat to others to include narrowly defined, non-person-specific threats.

Back when it was my full time job to do these evaluations of whether to place someone on a hold, I did everything in my power to help them come up with a plan that would keep them from being put on that hold and placed in the hospital. But, as the duke said, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." And if you were telling your therapist or anyone else that you have every intention to go out and blow someone's nose off your face with a gun, expect to be stopped just as I would hope that anyone overhearing someone discussing specific plans to murder someone would call the cops.

As for prosecuting the therapist, prosecute them for what? The therapist will have documented the entire session and interaction where you made the specific threats. It's impossible to prove something that never happened so expecting the therapist to be able to prove that you actually would have followed through is an impossibility. But they will be able to prove your threats and your stated intents. What more do you want from them?

If this has or does happen to you and you feel it was done improperly, file a complaint with their licensing board. If you can prove that they acted unethically, they will be sanctioned up to and including the revoking of their licensed practice. And if you had a therapist unethically and illegally place you on a hold, then they deserve to lose their license.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Okay, I am one of these "shrinks" that you're talking about. Specifically, I am a licensed mental health professional with the authority to place someone on the 72 hour hold.
Thank you for responding. My question is serious. Do you extend a 100% money back guarantee if a "customer" is dissatisfied with your service.

Legally and ethically, I cannot breach confidentiality except in very specific circumstances. These circumstances are very narrowly defined. Prior to Tarasoff, if a client came in and expressly told me that once they left my office we were going to go shoot a very specific person and that they have the gun in their car, I legally could not breach confidentiality. In other words, I had to sit there, knowing full well that might an action would cost someone their life, and do absolutely nothing because if I called the police or warned their intended victim, I was violating my client's confidentiality. The same would go if they told me that they were walking out of my office and would be immediately committing suicide.
Not talking about before. The op is focused on now and my comments address the laws now and going forward.

The above dilemma is exactly what Tarasoff was about. The clinician did nothing and it cost someone their life.

Is that the kind of "liberty" you're looking for?
Hmm...

As was pointed out above, Tarasoff established the requirement that if I know of a specific threat against a person's life that I have the authority to detain the individual until such time as that person can be evaluated to determine that they are not a threat to themselves or others. Don't want to be detained? Don't tell your therapist you are going to kill yourself or someone else.
And what facts, other than only your word, substantiates that I communicated such a threat?

All the new legislation does is broaden the ability to breach confidentially and the definition of a threat to others to include narrowly defined, non-person-specific threats.
No, breach of confidentiality is but a minor inconvenience, and in this age of computers and computer hackers, any data you gather and place on a computer (database) may very well be public knowledge already. But, this is a minor concern. And you, obviously, are dodging. You have the power to deprive a law abiding citizen of his liberty...based only on your word.

Back when it was my full time job to do these evaluations of whether to place someone on a hold, I did everything in my power to help them come up with a plan that would keep them from being put on that hold and placed in the hospital. But, as the duke said, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." And if you were telling your therapist or anyone else that you have every intention to go out and blow someone's nose off your face with a gun, expect to be stopped just as I would hope that anyone overhearing someone discussing specific plans to murder someone would call the cops.
Again, you avoid my point. You allege I communicated a threat, have me arrested, I state I did not, yet I remain locked up until I prove 9prove innocence) that I did not communicate a threat.

As for prosecuting the therapist, prosecute them for what? The therapist will have documented the entire session and interaction where you made the specific threats. It's impossible to prove something that never happened so expecting the therapist to be able to prove that you actually would have followed through is an impossibility. But they will be able to prove your threats and your stated intents. What more do you want from them?
Again, you avoid my point. You state I communicated a threat, have me arrested, I state I did not, yet I remain locked up until I prove that I did not communicate a threat. What documentation? A audio/video recording?

If this has or does happen to you and you feel it was done improperly, file a complaint with their licensing board. If you can prove that they acted unethically, they will be sanctioned up to and including the revoking of their licensed practice. And if you had a therapist unethically and illegally place you on a hold, then they deserve to lose their license.
If you, for example, had me picked up and I prove that you lied, a stiff criminal penalty, felony, is to be applied not a mere revocation of your license. There are criminal statutes in Missouri for folks who falsely implicate a law abiding citizen in a crime alleging felonious criminal acts.

Do you agree with this legal premise?

If you agree with the laws as they are in Colorado, that are written to protect you, and will not work to hold your fellow professionals to a higher standard under the laws of Colorado (if such laws exist), as do cops when cops violate the law, then your protestations are meaningless, and any further response from you is pointless.

My points stand. Do you extend a 100% money back guarantee if a "customer" is dissatisfied with your service.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Thank you for responding. My question is serious. Do you extend a 100% money back guarantee if a "customer" is dissatisfied with your service. ...
Color me sceptical where cops and their truthfulness are concerned and every reasonable citizen should hold a similar view of any cop. Why should I extend a exception to a shrink. A medical doctors' mistakes can be proven rather easily, yours, not so much.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
OC, no when the client enters into a psychotheraputic relationship they sign specifically worded contractual documents addressing confidentiality, as well as acknowledging certain criteria, e.g., child/elder abuse, self harm, harm to others, etc., would be immediately divulged, w/o the client's permission, to appropriate law enforcement authorities in the event they are discussed and verified by the MH professional during therapeutic counseling sessions.

further, most of these contracts specifically state in the event of judicial proceeding or subpoena, the client's written permission to release psychoterhaputic information is needed.

let me clarify something OC, there is no arrest per se, detained & questioned ~ yes, arrest no...remember the nice LEs 'investigate' the allegation presented and go from there. MH professionals only transmit information the same as JQPublic. case in point, a member of Mother's MDDA calls 911 stating you are abusing your 'right' while carrying and as a result of the call you get swatted as the nice LE's investigate. there is not iota of accountability back to the initial caller as it is perceptual.

remember the client is already under care and possibly under medication for MH issues and it becomes readily apparent to the nice LE's if the threat is viable or mental/drug induced.

there are schemes MH professionals are trained and well versed in to discern viable threats...they are not like the individuals who participate in the Mother's or other emotionally biased fractions who make things up.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I get it, I really do, we must trust that a shrink will not abuse his power and thus abuse us.

Arrest. RSMo 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
Each state is different.

Procedure when a likelihood of serious harm is alleged.RSMo 632.300. 1. When a mental health coordinator receives information alleging that a person, as the result of a mental disorder, presents a likelihood of serious harm to himself or others, he shall: 2. ...however, that should the mental health coordinator have reasonable cause to believe, as the result of personal observation or investigation, that the likelihood of serious harm by such person to himself or others as a result of a mental disorder is imminent unless the person is immediately taken into custody, the mental health coordinator shall request a peace officer to take or cause such person to be taken into custody and transported to a mental health facility in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3 of section 632.305. ...
A shrink has a great power to deprive a citizen of liberty on a whim. Trusting him to do the right thing on every occasion is not a courtesy we extend to LE.

A great power indeed to subject a citizen unjustly to deprivations at the hands of the state. And it is certainly understandable that a shrink would work diligently to guard his advantages and his standing in the eyes of the law.

Remember cops are not extended this much power where no accountability is available. Next to a judge, shrinks may just be as untouchable.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
If this has or does happen to you and you feel it was done improperly, file a complaint with their licensing board. If you can prove that they acted unethically, they will be sanctioned up to and including the revoking of their licensed practice. And if you had a therapist unethically and illegally place you on a hold, then they deserve to lose their license.
This is a very familiar refrain when the "unethical" individual is a cop. Yet, if a cop violates our rights we all seek justice and justice beyond a tax payer backed check. eBratt may be just one of many ethical MH professionals that would never ever consider doing such a thing, yet the law allows for a one time aberration. The law in Missouri specifically insulates him from his "good faith" mistake....do I here a Heien defense enshrined into Missouri statutes? Yes, yes I do.

This entire topic is always viewed from the perspective of a citizen who might do X, never from the perspective of, would these laws restrain a MH professional as well as permit him to make a actual honest to goodness good faith effort.

eBratt is under no obligation to defend his profession or the laws that permit a citizen to be abused by the state based on only one citizen's unsubstantiated opinion.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I get it, I really do, we must trust that a shrink will not abuse his power and thus abuse us.

Each state is different.

A shrink has a great power to deprive a citizen of liberty on a whim. Trusting him to do the right thing on every occasion is not a courtesy we extend to LE.

A great power indeed to subject a citizen unjustly to deprivations at the hands of the state. And it is certainly understandable that a shrink would work diligently to guard his advantages and his standing in the eyes of the law.

Remember cops are not extended this much power where no accountability is available. Next to a judge, shrinks may just be as untouchable.

a clarification, you are using the term shrink, a nickname for medical doc who, based on a smidgen more training, can function as a psychiatrist. a mental heath professional spans the psychologist (not necessarily a doctoral graduate), psychotherapist (normally at least a master's level but in some states only has a undergrad with the majority of them in psy), social worker (normally a masters but could be only undergrad), to varying degrees in between.

reality...the nice LEs are granted that much power with qualified immunity across the board and abuse that power regularly under the that immunity.

ipse
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
...case in point, a member of Mother's MDDA calls 911 stating you are abusing your 'right' while carrying and as a result of the call you get swatted as the nice LE's investigate. there is not iota of accountability back to the initial caller as it is perceptual. ...
There is quite a difference between being SWATTED and then let go after a couple of hours, less than a hour is more likely to be honest, and a 72 hour hold.

Heck, under Missouri law I could be held longer if the shrink is persistent about his allegations. RSMo 632 is the series of statutes that define the laws that are on point for our discussion and the op. A cop and every other person in the chain that is used to deprive me of my liberty has QI, because as with cops, it is the petitioner who is the culprit and all the other state agents are nothing but unwitting pawns in a depraved scheme motivated by who knows what...and we may never know what.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
a clarification, you are using the term shrink, ...

ipse
please forgive our non-synchronoususity, I am slow to process my own thoughts when transferring them one index finger at a time to a keyboard.

I abuse the term in the overly broad and generally accepted manner. Under the law all of those folks you mention, and likely more, such as a nurse of appointment maker, could rat me out to a cop for whatever reason, or for no reason other than I just happen to be the closest citizen when the grenade went off.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Color me sceptical where cops and their truthfulness are concerned and every reasonable citizen should hold a similar view of any cop. Why should I extend a exception to a shrink. A medical doctors' mistakes can be proven rather easily, yours, not so much.

Medicos and attorneys are practicing. LEOs are not qualified to do either officially.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
please forgive our non-synchronoususity, I am slow to process my own thoughts when transferring them one index finger at a time to a keyboard.

I abuse the term in the overly broad and generally accepted manner. Under the law all of those folks you mention, and likely more, such as a nurse of appointment maker, could rat me out to a cop for whatever reason, or for no reason other than I just happen to be the closest citizen when the grenade went off.

nawlll, they would just increase your meds and you wouldn't know if you are coming or going or already been...

ipse
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
More like getting all high skroolers to become patients. The law don't apply to non-patients.

Which begs the question are skrool shootings done by kids of "sound mind and body" as bad as those done by "bat-carp crazy" kids.
 

eBratt

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
271
Location
Fort Collins Area, CO
First, OC, please stop bringing up Missouri law. This isn't Missouri's forum and isn't about Missouri.

In COLORADO (the forum you're in), doctors (MDs, DOs, etc), mental health professionals (Licensed Psychologists, Licensed Social Workers, Licensed Professional Counselors, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists), and law enforcement officers can all sign a 72 hour hold in the state of Colorado. So no, you aren't going to just be SWATTED for a few hours if a police officer picks you up for threatening a life, you'll be held for the same 72 hours. You don't have to prove your innocence. You'll be evaluated to determine if there is a mental illness and be released if they can't find sufficient cause for a court to continue to detain you.

You keep saying I am dodging your point. So here I am addressing it directly. Yes, some people have the authority to detain others legally. That's the system we are in. What is your alternative? When that paranoid schizophrenic is threatening to shoot the garbage man who is planting mine control devices in his yard, when the woman who just lost her child insists she is going to go home and swallow two bottles of sleeping pills no matter what anyone says or does, when the kid says he is sick of getting picked on and is going to go to school tomorrow and shoot his bullies with his dad's gun, what is your suggestion on how to deal with these people? Let them wander free because we can't infringe on their liberty? Let them commit murder or suicide? I'm truly curious because it is one of just a few areas where I struggle with state authority as a libertarian. How am I protecting the victim's liberty or is it just the potential and intended offender's liberty that we are concerned about?

And as for the money back guarantee, no, I don't. Guaranteeing an outcome in therapy is absolutely unethical. Lots of professional services don't. Primarily because much of the outcome of my services depend on the client. And I can't guarantee what my client will or won't do. Don't like it? Don't go see a therapist. And I fail to see where whether I offer a money back guarantee has anything to do with authority to place someone on a 72 hour hold.
 
Top