Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:01 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 8:24 pm 
_____________________________________________
"There is nothing wrong with slaughtering a cop. Just throw the carcass into the Dumpster with the rest of the garbage. Cops are nothing but vicious, brutal thugs anyway," said one that he acknowledged and read on the air during a radio interview last week.

He said then his anti-police comments were mostly to "kick the hornet's nest" and provoke a response.

_____________________________________________
Fox News
http://tomalciere.com

I can't believe people voted for this guy. Even on the issues he ran on openly. Only in America.

Get 'em Panther


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
First, let me caveat this post by saying that I do not advocate "killing cops", nor do I think such actions should be condoned or tolerated.

OK, with that out of the way and an admonishment (prior warning, if you will) against anyone misrepresenting anything that follows... Let's take a look (perhaps a "devil's advocate view") of this situation...

Well, it seems that prior to getting elected as a NH state representative (as a Republican), Mr. Alciere was apt to post to various news groups, chatrooms and bulletin boards. Some of those rantings have been published by the AP and many have suddenly become enraged because in one such typical rant, Mr. Alciere advocated that he was in favor of "killing cops when they cross the line". (My emphasis added.)

So, a bunch of folks, including the NH GOP, want him to "voluntarily" resign. Seems those folks are all upset because there's no provision under NH law whereby they can recall a duly elected official because they disagree with that person's stated beliefs. Hmmmmm...

Now, as for all those folks who voted for him. If you vote for someone without knowing where they stand on fundamental issues and you then inadvertently elect that person to office to later find out that they don't believe what you thought they believe... 1) be more careful how you "spend" your vote, 2) make certain that you understand a candidate's positions before you cast your vote, and 3) Welcome to the fun and entertaining world of politics!

Well fine. Mr. Alciere's comment is pretty inflammatory isn't it... well, isn't it? Or is it?

Listen folks, this guy has a certain talent for just, well, pi$$ing people off! I mean really... right after the election he referred to his constituents as a bunch of "lamebrains"! Not the type of comment that is going to help one's future political aspirations, is it... Image

Some have made comments along the lines of "typical Republican". But look at the facts. Mr. Alciere ran as a Republican after running previously as both a Democrat and a Libertarian... neither party wanted him and it has been reported that the Libertarians even told him to leave!

Supposedly, he also wrote letters to the editor of local NH papers advocating violence against women, but unlike his internet rants, we have never seen any proof that those allegations are true or exactly what those letters said. Given that his anti-police writings seem to be available all over the place, let's stick with those. At least for the moment...

Those anti-police writings show the temper, frustrations, and indignity that many people vent when posting on an internet forum in what they feel is a psuedo-anonymous forum. If we take those writings in context, however, we find something else in common which all of his "killing cops" posts share... They're conditional. That is, he advocates (regardless of the intemperate manner in which he may write) that everyone should exercise their rights of self-defense against police officers who are engaging in abusive behavior. (Racial harassment, excessive force, etc...) Now, I haven't read everything the man's ever written, far from it, but in the things I've looked at he has only advocated violence against police who have "crossed the line".

As nice and understanding as the people on these forums are, don't we all get a little, ahem, emotional over issues sometimes? I mean, if you put aside the emotionalism surrounding the stuff that's been put out by the AP, Fox News, CNN, etc., etc., is what this guy is saying really all that bad?

If it is, the NH Constitution is a pretty nasty document itself! Their article 10 of the NH Bill of Rights (FYI, it's entitled "Right of Revolution") says:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.


It doesn't say you should go out and shoot a cop, but if you look at the NH provisions for the use of deadly force in self-defense, they clearly recognize a right to self-defense against any "unlawful" force. I've yet to find the exemption that says that citizens of the Granite State have to submit to Rodney King-style beatings if the perpetrator is wearing a police uniform!

There's plenty of the same type of provisions in other State Constitutions, and the U.S. Supreme Court has even upheld the right of self-defense against those who are assaulting you "under the color of law". In fact, contrary to the sentences and judgements handed down by the Judge in the case, all of the Branch Davidian survivors were found innocent of murdering Federal agents by reason of legitimate self-defense. (Some rather upset jurors have since spoken out that they convicted on the most innocuous charges with the expectation that the Judge would release the defendants for time served!)

So, maybe this guy is a real @$$hole... maybe not... but given this era of Amadou Diallo, LAPD & NYCPD scandals, and on and on, does anyone think that issuing a badge and a gun gives a cop the right to run rough-shod over the citizenry?!?

Mr. Alciere isn't really a concern in the NH legislature, he can only accomplish what the other members of the legislature agree with after all... What I really don't understand is why more hasn't been made about his alleged writings advocating violence against women? Image Or anyone else for that matter?!? Image I mean, let's think about this for a second. Everyone is upset because he's supposedly anti-cop, but those folks are armed, fully capable of defending themselves, work in a profession that is prone to having people saying nasty things about their every action, and can resign to a different profession if they wish.

On the other hand, why hasn't a full investigation of these writings espousing violence against women been conducted? If those are true (and I've yet to see any evidence that they are), then: That's the real outrage! Image That's the real issue! AND That's where (IMNSHO) the "investigative" journalists need to be focusing.

Now, Mr. Alciere has either sponsored or co-sponsored bills in NH which would:

1) Stop pro-choice parents from regaining custody of underage teenage runaways who have decided to take their pregnancy to term.

2) Repeal statutory school attendance.

3) Have the State provide computers and internet access along with parental control software to parents in order for children to download as much "unbiased" educational material as desired from the internet, in lieu of public schooling.

4) Repeal the drinking age restrictions.

5) To make drunk driving penalties harsher.

(go figure)

6) To study a change in the building safety laws into codes that are not as intricate to the zoning laws.

7) To repeal all drug laws... period.

8) To discontinue involuntary commitment to mental institution.

9) Co-sponsor of a measure regarding funeral processions.

He has maintained his belief that the citizenry should be able to stop the government and it's agents from violating our inaleinable rights and has spent his time so far focusing on these bills. If there is no concrete proof of these supposed misogynistic writings, it seems that his election to office is a non-issue. Perhaps next time, the people in his district of NH will be more careful to clearly punch out any dangling chads! Image


[This message has been edited by Panther (edited January 08, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2001 5:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
Disclaimer: DID NOT sift through a million posts to get all the exact things the man wrote or the context.

However IF (second disclaimer) you can kill cops that "crossed the line" then you can defend yourself from biased ticketing or a little shoving by ending someone's life. Sounds like murder to me no matter how the guy is dressed.

Also, making mental health treatment entirely voluntary poses some serious risks to the patients and the public, as I've described elsewhere.

However, I do support the right to defend myself from anyone who is unjustly trying to take my life or hurt me or people I care about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2001 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:

However IF (second disclaimer) you can kill cops that "crossed the line" then you can defend yourself from biased ticketing or a little shoving by ending someone's life. Sounds like murder to me no matter how the guy is dressed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't see any place where he wrote that you could or should use deadly force against a police officer who has given you a ticket or gotten into a shoving match. The rules and guidelines for the use of deadly force are very specific. There are provisions in many State Constitutions (and examples on the Federal level) of being able to use deadly force in self-defense against government agents who have maliciously placed you in fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm. From the stuff I've read, that is what is being referred to as "crossing the line". (Although, as I stated, Mr. Alciere's vitriol and emotion gets pretty heated and outraged at times...) There is plenty of support for the right to defend oneself from those who are attacking you "under color of law". The penalties are quite harsh and the defender is not considered a murderer.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
Also, making mental health treatment entirely voluntary poses some serious risks to the patients and the public, as I've described elsewhere.


I happen to agree with you that there may be conditions under which someone must be involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. However, I see both sides of this issue and think that his proposal to have zero capabilities in this respect is a backlash against the abuses which you've previously touted as "rare". Too many people have seen too much harm come from this abused power in the hands of a few... that results in this type of attitude and proposed legislation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
However, I do support the right to defend myself from anyone who is unjustly trying to take my life or hurt me or people I care about.


Wouldn't an abuse of involuntary incarceration be considered harming someone by denying them their freedom and liberty? If yes, then wouldn't self-defense be justified against such a mental health worker? If no, why isn't it?



[This message has been edited by Panther (edited January 09, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2001 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 178
Location: Grove City College, PA
I live in Hollis, a town over from Nashua, and get Nashua's paper every day, so I've been getting quite a bit of this.
What scares me is the fact that the people had no clue what Alciere stood for. There was a Democratic candidate and a Republican candidate, and nobody checked up on them. The Republicans, being so glad to have somebody run on their ticket, didn't bother to find out what kind of guy he was. His opponent didn't do his homework either. Neither did any of the voters. People merely voted for their party, and there were more Republicans than Democrats. Sad.
For any republican form of government to function, the people need to know who they are choosing as representatives. In national elections, there is much campaigning and people know where candidates stand. On local elections...campaining has never been a big part of it because people were supposed to know their neighbors. But no longer. Its sad.

--Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2001 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
On some of Panther's points--all I can say is, hence the disclaimers.

On defending yourself from mental health workers... no, I said kill or hurt, not deprive of freedom for a short period of time. Why wouldn't I think this would be a good idea....

The patient has been brought to the ER by self/friends/ambulance/police whoever. A psychiatrist decides for the patients welfare (can't care for self or danger to self) or someone else's (danger to others) that the patient needs to be committed, and this decision has been reviewed and confirmed by the appropriate review board. The patient then decides his/her rights have been violated and decides to fight back.

Here's what happens: people working hard at their jobs for the patient's benefit or the patient is/are potentially seriously hurt and the patient ends up committed anyway because of those armed guards at the ER. A waste.

But from the moral/legal/ethical front, I'd say a reason is not too hard to come by. First, I'm not going to advocate violence against a group of MD's nurses administrators etc who are working generally quite hard to help people out. The person that gets hurt is not going to be the MD who made the decision, its likely to be a hardworking and caring nurse working in the hospital who has no ability to reverse a decision an MD made.

Further, Panther has the sole evaluator of the righteousness of the decision as: the patient. Or the victim of the government action, in a broader sense. So anytime I feel wronged or harmed or my freedom and liberty curtailed, perhaps in the following situations:

1) The state plans to run a highway nearby my house
2) The state tickets my car--I feel, unjustly
3) Regulations disrupt my business
4) Too many forms to fill out for taxes or property or cars or guns etc
5) too long a prison sentance for my drug habit, my race, my crime, whatever
6) these taxes ******!

... I decide to respond with force. So basically law is meaningless because everyone who disagrees feels harmed and simply fights the darned thing (literally). In other words, The United States of Anarchy.

Nevermind that the people in question are mental patients and don't necessarily know what's best for them or others and some of them can't accurately tell what is really happening in the world because it gets confused with all the noise in their heads.

In short violence in this case constitutes an overreaction, much as suggesting NO commitments because SOME have been unjust is an overreaction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2001 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Brian,

Good points... Good post. Sums things up pretty well, IMHO.

As I said before, I never felt Alciere was a threat to the process in NH, given that he was just one of many Representatives and could only accomplish what the entire legislature agreed to anyway. That's one of the reasons that this system of government (generally) works as well as it does. It's a moot point now, since he resigned.

Special election in NH perhaps? One positive outcome I bet will be that people will find out what the candidates actually believe this time. (And I'm all for that...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2001 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Now on to other tasks... Image

Lately I have not been in either the mood or the mindset to deal with BS... Take that as a warning for the tone of this rebuttal. I thought about letting this one pass by, but decided it warranted, no, required a response.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ian:

On some of Panther's points--all I can say is, hence the disclaimers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I have "caveated" my prior posts as well. I made it very clear that I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with anything personally, and that I did not condone the things that Alciere had said or written. I then took the "devil's advocate" position and made a case for Alciere's side of the debate. As stated, I made it fairly clear that I was not personally advocating those positions or beliefs, but rather looking at them from a different, possibly Alciere's, point of view.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
On defending yourself from mental health workers... no, I said kill or hurt, not deprive of freedom for a short period of time.


As always, you're changing context to suit your needs. I'll play along, but we will come back to this point.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why wouldn't I think this would be a good idea....

The patient has been brought to the ER by self/friends/ambulance/police whoever. A psychiatrist decides for the patients welfare (can't care for self or danger to self) or someone else's (danger to others) that the patient needs to be committed, and this decision has been reviewed and confirmed by the appropriate review board. The patient then decides his/her rights have been violated and decides to fight back.

Here's what happens: people working hard at their jobs for the patient's benefit or the patient is/are potentially seriously hurt and the patient ends up committed anyway because of those armed guards at the ER. A waste.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wrote that I understood the need for involuntary commitments in some extreme circumstances. I was perfectly clear in my post that I did not agree with the proposed legislation, but that I understood where it came from as a "backlash" against known abuses.

YOU are building a strawman argument that you can tear apart. I've been very tolerant and patient with this (very common of your) tactics in the past. My patience is wearing thin. I really wish you would refrain from doing this, but I'm learning that it's just in your nature. In fact, I haven't decided whether it's intentional or not... So, I will do as I have in the past and simply correct the misrepresentations.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
But from the moral/legal/ethical front, I'd say a reason is not too hard to come by.


I view this as an admission that you have no moral/legal/ethical difficulties coming up with a reason! What's really sad is that you still refuse to see where this is exactly the type of behaviour and attitude on the part of some who can wield such power that causes the backlash I mentioned. And you either do or will have that power someday... That's actually getting to be a scary thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
First, I'm not going to advocate violence against a group of MD's nurses administrators etc who are working generally quite hard to help people out. The person that gets hurt is not going to be the MD who made the decision, its likely to be a hardworking and caring nurse working in the hospital who has no ability to reverse a decision an MD made.


Image I never advocated that position and the entire thread is here for anyone to know that! I will not allow you to continue twisting mine or anyone else's posts around to say or mean what they do not. I have been and will be "nice" in other's forums, but I will caution you right now that personally, in this forum, I won't tolerate this despicable tactic.

I've responded to your post as being directed specifically at me because you make that fact quite obvious when you continue...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
Further, Panther has the sole evaluator of the righteousness of the decision as: the patient. Or the victim of the government action, in a broader sense.


Well, that person certainly does have the capability of evaluating the action taken against them and their belief (among other things) should carry weight and be given due respect. However, I never maintained it as simplistic as you pare it down to be. There's that little bit that you leave out about a person being completely responsible for their own actions and having to take the consequences of those actions... as well as the fact that I've already written that I know there are instances where involuntary commitment is necessary, but understand the backlash against abuses. (Read that again, maybe it will sink in this time... )

Not only do I take issue with the way you've misrepresented things up to this point, but you absolutely step over the boundary of debating propriety by continuing in the manner of...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So anytime I feel wronged or harmed or my freedom and liberty curtailed, perhaps in the following situations:

1) The state plans to run a highway nearby my house
2) The state tickets my car--I feel, unjustly
3) Regulations disrupt my business
4) Too many forms to fill out for taxes or property or cars or guns etc
5) too long a prison sentance for my drug habit, my race, my crime, whatever
6) these taxes ******!

... I decide to respond with force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NO ONE (and certainly not me) ever said that. You are again twisting things and building strawman arguments. Your argument fails because it is a rebuttal against a position that has never been taken or made.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
So basically law is meaningless because everyone who disagrees feels harmed and simply fights the darned thing (literally). In other words, The United States of Anarchy.


And this is such a load of crap that is unrepresentative of both the basis and points of the thread, that I'll just leave it at that. Image

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
Nevermind that the people in question are mental patients and don't necessarily know what's best for them or others and some of them can't accurately tell what is really happening in the world because it gets confused with all the noise in their heads.


Are you just thick? Or do you work hard at misconstruing what has been previously written when you disagree with others? We weren't talking about those cases where someone truly needs help and I never said I agreed with Alciere's bill.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
In short violence in this case constitutes an overreaction, much as suggesting NO commitments because SOME have been unjust is an overreaction.


And as I've previously written, I decided long ago what that acceptable ratio for me is. At risk of being overly redundant for many folks, I repeat:

I will always advocate for allowing 1000 insane people (or guilty criminals) going free before I will accept a single innocent person wrongly committed (or wrongly incarcerated or worse still, wrongly put to death)!

You have put yourself firmly in the group that feels that SOME innocent casualties are acceptable, while I never will.


[This message has been edited by Panther (edited January 12, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2001 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
I said we'd get back to that one little point and now we will...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
On defending yourself from mental health workers... no, I said kill or hurt, not deprive of freedom for a short period of time.


Let's look at the original statement you made:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
However, I do support the right to defend myself from anyone who is unjustly trying to take my life or hurt me or people I care about.


To which I originally responded:
"Wouldn't an abuse of involuntary incarceration be considered harming someone by denying them their freedom and liberty? If yes, then wouldn't self-defense be justified against such a mental health worker? If no, why isn't it?"

Now, In the context of having already, previously to this, written that "I happen to agree with you that there may be conditions under which someone must be involuntarily committed... However, I see both sides of this issue and think that ... this ... is a backlash against the abuses.... ", I will now finish going where I was headed before so rudely sidetracked...

You see, there once was this country (after a person gained power who, IMNSHO, should have remained involuntarily committed) which began a systematic review of many of it's own citizens. Large numbers of those citizens, because they disagreed with the government's actions and had the nerve to speak out, were labeled as mentally unstable. They were involuntarily committed... incarcerated, sent away for that purpose. By the time they were faced with the "hurt or kill" aspects, they had already lost any means of resistance... It was too late, tyranny won. (A side note: That country isn't necessarily the one you're thinking of right now. Unfortunately, there is more than one country that fits the description just given... Image )

So you tell me... Your loved one (perhaps a wife, daughter, sister) is perfectly sane. For whatever reason, they get on the wrong side of someone who can wield that power. They are going to be sent away and you can't stop it through the system. Would you help them escape? Would you help them fight back? Would you leave them to rot and carry on with your own life?

I know my decision. And don't give me the "it can't happen here" bravo sierra... It already has (within some boundaries of scale) and innocent lives have been lost.

My "anecdotal" friends who survived that abuse have told me that they will never submit to that abuse again. (FYI, one woman was "involuntarily committed for her own safety" because she told her doctor - in passing - that she'd rather die than miss a friend's party. Image The doctor had her committed as a danger to herself and she spent the next 2+ years in a mental health facility where he could use her, at his whim, as his own personal sex slave. Her father finally figured out what was going on and got her out. It took years for her to forgive him for letting it happen in the first place... tough thing to fix, that "innocent trust betrayed". A complaint was sworn out against the doctor, state oversight board found her, an "ex-mental patient, not a credible witness". BTW, she went in a virgin, but that wasn't the only innocence she lost... She was also abused by some of the attendants. - She loved the scene in T2 where Linda Hamilton took care of an orderly who salaciously licked her when strapped to the bed, but only after she had seen the movie many times could she watch the "hospital" parts without crying. I understand why she has a healthy fear and disrespect for doctors in general and mental health professionals in particular. One night, in tears, she asked me to promise that I'd help her stop that from ever happening again. Those scars - physical and mental - run deep. Image ) Then again, she doesn't count, she's just an "anecdote".

Image

Tread lightly...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
I wrote my response to answer the question in Panther's last paragraph before my post. I believe(d) it to ask, is violence against mental health workers justified in the case of inappropriate commitments, and if not, why?

I responded: violence was inappropriate in this event, in large part because it wouldn't help (hence my scenario) and good people could get hurt AND if this philosophy of fighting back when one felt harmed were generalized, people would start fighting back against a great many situations they disliked. Some specifics:

1) "changing context to suit [my] needs"... I am innocent of this charge. I used the phrase, "...take my life or hurt me...
By this I meant kill or injure. There are other definitions for hurt, but I don't think they should be assumed from my original phrasing. I have not tried to use any sneaky language here and I haven't changed what I meant in the slightest.

2) My post does not mention Alciere's proposed legislation or imply that anyone endorsed it.

3) That man isn't straw. The scenario was the most accurate way I could describe the circumstances of self defense from mental health workers. I addressed a question about an action by describing the context and consequences of that action. I don't find anything misleading or illogical about my scenario.

4) My phrasing, "but from the moral/legal/ethical front, I'd say a reason is not too hard to come by" was poor, but was only intended to convey that there ARE philosophic reasons not to fight back AS WELL AS the practical ones I just gave. That's all. Doesn't mean I was *searching* for some excuse to justify my position. My phrase obviously failed to convey what I intended, and in this case I see why Panther did not read it as I intended.

However his suggestion that it would be "scary" for me to be a psychiatrist, is personal. He's speculating about my ability to do a job, and given the small amount of text he had of mine to deal with, and the fact that he's never met me or seen me manage a patient, the harsh conclusion he reached.... well, it didn't leave ME any benefit of the doubt.

5) The phrase, "...wouldn't self-defense be justified against such a mental health worker? If no, why isn't it?" suggests to me that Panther was asking if it was ok to be violent to health care workers when one felt wronged.

I don't mean to "twist" Panther's words around, but this was the only way I could understand them. To me, this is a direct question about when violence against health care workers is justified. And I replied: not in the case of inappropriate committment.

6) I don't feel I skirted Panther's statement that involuntary committment is sometimes justified. A person undergoing involuntary committment will decide if they like it or not. Most will not, and feel harmed (if they liked it, there'd be no need to make it involuntary). So if people who feel harmed decided to be violent, that'd be a lot of violence.

When Panther says he is not talking about when a person "truly needs help," I can only reiterate, of persons involuntarily committed, almost all feel they don't need help!! Self-defense despite a justifiable committment WILL occur, because it won't seem justifiable to the PATIENT, the decision maker here.

I am not "thick" nor misconstruing anything. Just pointing out that the person who decides when to fight back will almost always feel harmed. This is a legitimate fear and a valid point; it's not dumb or misleading.

7) My six examples were made up by me, not by Panther or anyone else. However I don't think I was portraying them as anyone's ideas but my own. There's a logic involved if one were to think, "when i feel wronged by committment I can fight back." I was asking, what if we applied it elsewhere--to show what could happen. This is the slippery slope argument, not the straw man, and it was used VERY frequently in the several graduate ethics courses I've taken, by some big names in bioethics at that.

8) I never said that the people involved in anecdotes weren't important. That's just an insult, like calling me "thick" or my skills "scary."

I think if someone directed a question about whether its ok to fight cops to a cop, they'd get a passionate response. Since a question about whether its ok to fight health care workers was directed to me, a health care worker, I stand by my passionate response.

I have come within a tenth of a second of using a palm strike to the face of an acutely psychotic patient that charged me thinking he was inappropriately confined. I've worked closely with another that attempted to strangle a close friend in the same circumstances. Both were NUTS and classic cases of justifiable commitments--and forced therapy, I might add. Lastly, I also barely avoided needing to restrain a 53 yr old man who almost attacked me when he felt I was getting nosy asking the 19 year old woman he was abusing about her medical history when she came in to deliver his child.

These are among the reasons I take questions about attacking health care workers seriously and respond to them passionately. While Panther's question touched a certain nerve, I have certainly touched some of his by asking theoretical but unintentionally personal questions elsewhere; we take a risk of doing this whenever we post decent questions. So I do not resent the question, but wanted to explain, in part, why I wrote my response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2001 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
Ian,

That was a calm and reasonable response. It's hard to step back sometimes and give those (needed and necessary) dispassionate responses. I think that while we disagree about many things, both sides have (as we've had the propensity of doing before) talked past each other... both sides have made good and valid points and missed the other side's good and valid points. I'll apologize, which I should and you deserve, for treading too close to the personal precipice.

Thank you for the debate, discussion and thought provoking contribution.

I'm stepping back from this thread (basically).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group