Therapist declined temporary confinement for accused Colorado gunman: report (Holmes)

Therapist declined temporary confinement for accused Colorado gunman: report (Holmes)

www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - A psychiatrist who treated accused Colorado theater gunman James Holmes rejected a law enforcement offer to involuntarily confine him for 72 hours after he told her six weeks before the shooting that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people," the Denver Post reported on Wednesday.

Citing an unnamed source, the newspaper said that Holmes made the remark to his therapist, Lynne Fenton, on June 11. But when a University of Colorado police officer asked whether to detain Holmes on a psychiatric hold, Fenton said no.

A psychiatric hold is usually involuntary hospitalization

(visit the link for the full news article)

The article is citing unnamed sources. Take it as you wish. I for one am a firm believer that Holmes did not act alone. However this appears to confirm earlier reports that Holmes was receiving at least psychological treatment at the school. It is also the first that I read that he failed his oral exams. I believe I read before that he didn't do well. Anyway, would love some ATS opinion on this revelation.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by GrantedBail


I'd add that the history of disciplinary action taken against his Psych sure doesn't require unnamed sources to see. She has a history of being Dr. Feelgood to friends and relatives in need of the right pill to pop.....and her rep, near as I have been able to determine, was one of servicing the students for their 'issues'. Ahh... Dr. Feelgood indeed. Always there when finals come to help what ails a tired student mind.

Yeah.... After hearing more about her in the start, I can't say I feel I know what happened perhaps...but I sure think I have a better sense of what HELPED make this happen. I want to know what 'scrips he was on, by authorized Dr. order here...and which of those are known to have psych side effects? How blown might he have been with a warped sense of judgement and reality ....not by those things T&C here would jump on..but by what Medicine today deems legal, appropriate and pefectly necessary just to function in life.

Personally, I saw someone that looked brain damaged as much as anything in court. I actually, initially, feared the cops might have 'tuned him up' a little and went too far with it before his firts appearance....but it doesn't track with no physical signs of injury. Brain damage seems to have been from something else, if that is what we were seeing...........so I sure wonder about a Doc. known for abusing the Rx pad and known to service a selective college audience.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Could that have actually made a difference?

If he had been confined for doing nothing, you would think that may have just made him more pissed off.




eta: I may be a bit confused about this...

If the Psychiatrist didn't think that any action needed to be taken, then why did she break the patient-doctor confidentiality or w/e.... by telling the cops what he said?

Originally posted by GrantedBail


The article is citing unnamed sources. Take it as you wish. I for one am a firm believer that Holmes did not act alone. However this appears to confirm earlier reports that Holmes was receiving at least psychological treatment at the school. It is also the first that I read that he failed his oral exams. I believe I read before that he didn't do well. Anyway, would love some ATS opinion on this revelation.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If this 'unnamed source' is speaking the truth, then the therapist was concerned enough about the statement to break confidentiality at least once. I say 'at least once' because if the 'unnamed source' is not that policeman and not the therapist, then she broke confidentiality to at least another person.

In my opinion, if she was concerned enough to break confidentiality to a policeman, then she should have done so for the sole purpose of expecting some sort of intervention on his part. Yet she declined?

To me, either she is a loose-tongued psychiatrist who failed to recognize the severity of issues in her client, or she is complicit in an evil plot to frame her client. (Or the story is bunk.)

If these allegations are true (I haven't read the article yet), that doc is in violation of her code of ethics. She, as a doctor, is a MANDATED REPORTER. That is, if you are in a patient/doc or client/therapist confidential situation, you MUST make clear to the client from the GET-GO that

if they tell you they are considering harming self or others, you - as the professional consultant - MUST notify authorities of that possibility. It is UNETHICAL to FAIL TO DO SO.

She is in violation of her practice, and could lose her license entirely, and be held accountable for failure to protect others. At least, that's how it is in my state, and the state next to mine (in both of which I worked as a professional with the "confidentiality" clause). Colorado also happens to be a state "next to mine", and to my knowledge that is a wide-spread REQUIREMENT -

MANDATED reporter. You don't have a choice; if a client tells you he is homicidal or suicidal, and you FAIL TO REPORT IT, you are in violation of the code and the law.

Shame on her. She should be ripped of her credentials.

reply to post by wildtimes

I just noticed this↓ comment under that article, which is a valid point.....

smartnic wrote:

If everyone who fantasized committing a violent crime was detained, the streets would be empty.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


Part of the onus of being a professional consultant (whether an M.D. or a licensed clinical therapist) is to develop the skills to determine when a person's confession of "murderous" ideation is REAL or not.

When I was practicing (which I no longer am), the client was required to "promise" (sometimes in writing) that they would not ACT ON such thoughts. Usually people who are that mentally ill will be open with their intentions, and it is meant to be a request for help, no matter how melodramatic.

A 72-hour stay for observation and a second opinion are not that big of a deal. She had to have some "reason" to decline the LEO's recommendation (police, as well as teachers, are also mandated reporters). He'd have gotten some more careful attention and another assessment of his risk level. If there was none, and he was just "fantasizing", they'd have been able to determine that and he'd have been let go.

He should NOT have been allowed at large with that ideation. And if there WAS collusion going on, his mentioning it would have been viewed as a veiled "help me get out of this" and at the very least sparked further inquiry into his actual state of mind.

Originally posted by GrantedBail

Therapist declined temporary confinement for accused Colorado gunman: report (Holmes)

www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - A psychiatrist who treated accused Colorado theater gunman James Holmes rejected a law enforcement offer to involuntarily confine him for 72 hours after he told her six weeks before the shooting that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people," the Denver Post reported on Wednesday.

Citing an unnamed source, the newspaper said that Holmes made the remark to his therapist, Lynne Fenton, on June 11. But when a University of Colorado police officer asked whether to detain Holmes on a psychiatric hold, Fenton said no.

A psychiatric hold is usually involuntary hospitalization

(visit the link for the full news article)

More importantly, why does any of this matter?

A 72 hour hold, 6 weeks before the shootings...

Anyone wanna do some elementary math, because I'm not sure if that would have changed a damn thing.

reply to post by Kody27


A hold would have allowed a second opinion and he would have been observed and talked to by outside professionals. The hold can turn into a longer stay at the hospital. It could have been a time when medications were addressed, and his family involved. He could have ended up back with his parents and perhaps received some other treatment and support.

The thing that mystifies me is why call the police and inform on the threat but then not recommend a hold??? Unless she was laying out a history that would have been uncovered after the event. That is pretty fishy if you asked me. In California the law requires a 72 hour hold on the threat of harm to yourself or others.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


The thing is with a violent threat they likely would have searched his residence and at this point in time he was (allegedly ) gathering the goods to do it. This could have been critical. Seems I read him and the shrink may have had a questionable relationship, also that inmate that said he talked with Holmes for hours. There are so many things about this case that don't add up. His dad works for FICO in a position that would allow him to know things about the LIBOR situation even thought there is no evidence he was set to talk (my question is why he has been so quite). I just notices that his(Roberts) LinkedIn profile is either gone or deep in a pile that used to not be there..

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Could that have actually made a difference?

If he had been confined for doing nothing

This is exactly what ATS stands against, yet this thread seems to be bringing up the fact if he WAS then a crime may have not been committed.. Exactly what the GOVT is trying to say.

reply to post by CALGARIAN

I'd like to think there is a line in there somewhere that reasonable and decent people could generally agree on. There has to be a point before overt action and killing people, where a building threat that is enough to raise questions in peoples minds and among professional ones at that, can be confined. For cops, I understand the 72-hr hold works fine and I know for a fact it's a viable option in that county of Colorado, so what is the harm in that?

By his appearance in court, if he'd been grabbed for 72 hours of in patient, full time observation and contact, the nature of the threat would have become obvious enough to extend that.....as events proved it needed to be. Just my thoughts.

......and while I love Reagan in most things? One of the worst legacies of that Presidency was his act of totally gutting the mental health system in the U.S. for most functional service. One of those things....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

[color=BCFFB5]I'd like to think there is a line in there somewhere that reasonable and decent people could generally agree on. There has to be a point before overt action and killing people, where a building threat that is enough to raise questions in peoples minds and among professional ones at that, can be confined.

That's just not a feasible option. It is impossible to accurately draw a definitive 'line' based solely upon opinions and emotions. There would be far too much variance from one person to another.


For example: A person whom you might think is reasonable and decent, I might think they're a dam moron whose opinion is completely worthless. (or vice versa.... just an example)

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

For cops, I understand the 72-hr hold works fine and I know for a fact it's a viable option in that county of Colorado, so what is the harm in that?

A blatant violation of an individuals Freedom Of Speech, Civil Liberties, & Human Rights.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican

Originally posted by ParanoidAmerican

The thing is with a violent threat they likely would have searched his residence and at this point in time he was (allegedly ) gathering the goods to do it. This could have been critical.

He obviously wasn't viewed as being a violent threat, at that time.

What you're advocating here↑ is that not only should he have been unjustly detained, but also should have had both his residence & his vehicle searched extensively, even though he hadn't actually done anything wrong?






reply to post by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Could that have actually made a difference?

If he had been confined for doing nothing

This is exactly what ATS stands against, yet this thread seems to be bringing up the fact if he WAS then a crime may have not been committed.. Exactly what the GOVT is trying to say.

It's kinda sad, really. It's actually a quite common occurrence, yet many don't even realize it.

"he told her six weeks before the shooting that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people," "

Sounds like more disinfo to me. It supports the idea that Holmes actually did the shooting, when there is considerable doubt on that point.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


It is not detention, it is hospitalization. Big difference. If someone goes to their therapist and tells them they want to kill themselves, they get a 72 hospital stay to protect them. If someone goes to their therapist and tells them they feel like killing a bunch of people, they get a 72 hour hospital stay to protect others. Nothing wrong with that. It is not Gitmo, it is not suspension of habeas corpus, it is a protective order. Huge dif.

reply to post by GrantedBail

Originally posted by GrantedBail

If someone goes to their therapist and tells them they feel like killing a bunch of people, they get a 72 hour hospital stay to protect others. Nothing wrong with that.

What exactly was it that he said to the therapist?






P.S.

Originally posted by GrantedBail

It is not Gitmo, it is not suspension of habeas corpus, it is a protective order. Huge [color=DBCF1F]dif.

I'm slightly curious:
How much longer would it have taken you to type '[color=DBCF1F]ference'?

Would that have been too much of a hassle?

reply to post by BrokenCircles

A psychiatrist who treated accused Colorado theater gunman James Holmes rejected a law enforcement offer to involuntarily confine him for 72 hours after he told her six weeks before the shooting that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people," the Denver Post reported on Wednesday.

The above is the only a description and not an exact quote. The gist is he informed the therapist that he had fantasies about killing a lot of people.

I was using slang when I typed "diff". Does it really bother you that much that you had to devote part of your reply to that? Seriously?

reply to post by BrokenCircles


I am not advocating anything, what I am saying is that if this claim that his phyc knew 6 weeks before he wanted to harm many people would have been taken serious that is what would/should of happened. You said, "He obviously was not being viewed as a violent threat at that time." He obviously was a threat just was not taken serious. You also claim it would be unjust to detain a person that makes threat, but this happens daily when the publics safety is at risk. Do you think law enforcment should not be allowed to investigate a person who makes threats on peoples lives, at least to find out their capibility?