It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Non compos mentis is a term meaning 'not of sound mind'. Non compos mentis derives from the Latin non meaning "not", compos meaning "having (command of)", and mentis (genitive singular of mens), meaning "mind". It is the direct opposite of Compos mentis (of a composed mind).
 UsageAlthough typically used in law, this term can also be used metaphorically or figuratively; e.g. when one is in a confused state, intoxicated, or not of sound mind.
Also applicable in health care, when a determination of competency needs to be made by a physician for purposes of obtaining informed consent for treatments and, if necessary, assigning a surrogate to make health care decisions. While the proper sphere for this determination is in a court of law, this is practically, and most frequently, made by physicians in the clinical setting.
In English law, the rule of non compos mentis was most commonly used when the defendant invoked religious or magical explanations for behaviour.
The Clinical Problem
Physicians are required by law and medical ethics to obtain the informed consent of their patients before initiating treatment.1 Valid informed consent is premised on the disclosure of appropriate information to a competent patient who is permitted to make a voluntary choice. When patients lack the competence to make a decision about treatment, substitute decision makers must be sought. Hence, the determination of whether patients are competent is critical in striking a proper balance between respecting the autonomy of patients who are capable of making informed decisions and protecting those with cognitive impairment.
Originally posted by Manhater
reply to post by draco49
Yeah, I won't know any of the doctrines or appeals that the prosecuting attorney has on him until tomorrow. He will probably have to go to trial. He's nervous. He's a good kid.
He shot the Plaintiff and I've known the defendant for a very long time and I know he wouldn't of shot him if he didn't think he was scared or in danger. Plaintiff had 2 other friends with him, so it was a 3 to 1 ratio and the officers didn't do any forensics of fingerprints to capture the other two for questioning. But, I know they were in that house. Plus, there is no way he would been able to hold a shotgun upright and in full force with the way his mental capacity was that day. He was heavily medicated on drugs because of a car accident that happened that morning, and he was released from the hospital that day moments prior to the event.
He shot the kid in the foot, which tells me, either they struggled with the gun and it went off or he couldn't hold it due him being so intoxicated that it went off and hit his foot. I don't think any malice intent is there, he they cornered him and the shotgun aimed at floor?? Means the guy was close enough to where he did corner him to get shot.
He wouldn't of done what he did if he wasn't scared for his life.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)edit on 3-6-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)