As the article said, Arizona has the only law in the country that would have allowed the college to report him as a danger and at least get him evaluated--whether he agrees to it or not. They already had made the decision he was a danger and suspended him until he got clearance from a psychiatrist. It's not a big stretch to then report that to the state and force a mental health evaluation.

The school not only gave him the boot but they also went to his home and explained to him AND his parents why he was getting the boot.

At that point it was on the parents, never mind the many clues they had all around them like the skull sanctuary in the back yard. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Ronin, I don't think the skull has anything to do with anything. Plenty of non-violent normal people are goth and like skulls and other dark figurines, etc. Some people wear it all over as jewelry and tattoos and pierce themselves beyond what is considered appropriate by some. We have no idea if that was even his stuff.

Point is, the school followed protocols, told the parents, told him, said there wasn't a way back IN to school until an evaluation was done, and....

he AND his parents did nothing; granted, he may not have either wanted to admit he needed counseling/drug therapy or not have believed it was necessary, but overage or not....he LIVED with his parents.

They likely had blinders on, didn't want to see what was going on, didn't force any 'tough love' situations but the majority of blame lies with him, and a good percentage with his parents. 22 doesn't mean you're an adult in terms of emotional, psychological, and emotional growth. There was a problem, and the parents may or may not have been enablers, but the school?......

Did exactly what they should have, I'm a bit surprised they actually went as far as they did considering today's day and age of 'political correctness', and made the potential problem aware to those that could do something about it.

How in the hey could they have ever guessed 'this' would happen? Put the blame where it belongs, ignore the partisanship and the sensationalism in headlines....

Why aren't his parents receiving their share of the blame game?

Sarah Palin is getting more blame than the guy's parents and she (Palin) didn't raise him.

He did not commit any criminal acts while at Pima Community College, he did not threaten anyone, he did not engage in any behavior that would qualify him to be committed to psychiatric institutionalization against his will. He was "weird" or "creepy," but that is not illegal. Keep in mind he is an adult -- his parents have no more leverage than his teachers, an employer, a friend or anyone else who might suggest -- but cannot force him -- to seek psychiatric care or counseling. There is no law that says a 22 year-old must attend community college, so the school telling him that he would not be re-admitted without psychiatric counseling is about as relevant as the school telling him he would not be re-admitted without an SAT test score of at least 1000.

Wherever the blame lies for the failure to give this sick young man the help he needs, that blame certainly does not lie with the college or with his parents.

The problem lies with Sheriff Clarence Dupnik! If the reports are true about Loughner multi death treats? Why no arrested? This would have helped Loughner, He would have gotten treatments he needed, plus with a felony record he would not been able to buy a weapon, The Sheriff is refusing to release public record about Loughner. Why this idiot of a sheriff is pointing finger at everyone else, he should be pointing his finger at himself

If this is true Dupnik needs to step down as Sheriff

Headline:

Could college have done more to help Tucson shooting suspect?

Well the parents could have done more if you ask me. I am not saying that the blame is with the parents, that would be wrong of me to place that burden on them. What I am saying is that If they noticed unusual thought patterns with him, why not try to see what is going on with him. I know that is what I would do.

I do feel bad for the victims but I also feel bad for the parents (IF THERE WAS NO NEGLECT INVOLVED) that is. I also wonder what the political views of the parents are.

I also wonder if his written rants have some kind of code overlooked, who knows.

Having cancer isn't a crime, either. But if the college had a student who apparently HAD cancer and was unaware of it, wouldn't they have taken steps to get that student in touch with the proper medical professionals? Why should mental health issues be any different.

What have we become?

We want others to be responsible for our actions.

We want others to pay our home loan when we cannot.

We want others to build new homes for us when we lose a home to an event that we knew would happen if we built where we did.

The list is never ending.

The college was doing all it could within its' authority. Let US face it, WE MUST HAVE An American National HealthCare System With FollowUp, Psychiatric in this case, AS There EXISTS in other "civilized" countries. Loughner's INSANITY is classic and the whole event could have been Prevented from happening. He was/is a schizophrenic which, as the disease progressed, developed Loughner into being CRIMINALLY INSANE, Which IS When these Sick people Kill Other People. If We Had a competent National Healthcare System there would have been Psychiatric FOLLOWUP after his dismissal from ALL the "RedFlags" spewing from his behavior. A Psychiatric team with "visit and detain" authority would have intervened and this tragedy, like VA Tech, would have been PREVENTED. But No, Our national leaders channel the much needed funds for Our National healthCare System into UNENDING WAR with recruiter video arcades championing violence and killing video games which are created to arouse young males to "sign Up". There is NO Free Lunch except for the Perps making profit on War and Violence which Is NEEDED In America to produce yearly crops of Young Men to continue America's Role as the World's Cop and Tough Guy And is Leading US down the road to Self destruction. The Real tragedy is "Job Justification". These terrible calamities are needed to justify the existence of the police, court baliffs, Judges, prosecutors, public defenders, prison system maintenance, prison vendors, wardens, correction officers and on and on and on down through the career "feeding trough". Crime and tragedy is An Industry which is depended on by so many. We have to Change Priorities around ASAP.

No, they would not step in to handle the medical issues of the student...the student would have been given information about their identification of a problem and advised to seek medical treatment...but it would be up to the of age student to handle his affairs...if his family was also advised, as this man's family was informed, then the decision to encourage the son to seek medical care would be within their purview...but not with the college...this is an institution of higher learning...adults are the students, presumably they are of an age to be legally responsible for themselves...the college is responsible for maintaining an environment conducive to learning and to advise students when they need to seek some outside assistance with a non educational issue that is interfering with their ability to respond appropriately to the learning at hand, or is interfering with the ability of other students to concentrate on the learning at hand...then what the student and the family decide to do is their call but not within the legal or moral responsibilities of the college!

The community college did everything they needed to do to protect the students and staff from this guy. They sent him a letter advising that he was suspended until he got a psychiatric evaluation. Their responsibility ends there. Leave it to the media to raise an issue where none exists. It's unfortunate that people were hurt and died at the hands of this lunatic but to blame the community college is irresponsible journalism.

I don't feel as if the college is really being "criticized". It does appear that they were in the best position to judge Jared's behavior, and did so, but had no other avenues to pursue action other than suspension. Once he left, they were pretty much out of the picture, based on current law.

There needs to be some manner of involuntary commitment to mental health services if this sort of tragedy is to be avoided in the future. The same exact thing could happen again, by a student at the exact same school, and they would have no additional means to stop it from happening. Such a student could not be arrested, could not be forced into treatment of any kind, could not be singled out for any kind of action, because of his civil rights. Such actions could actually result in a lawsuit against the school, as it now stands. All they could do is wait for problems to happen, and then deal with those as the law allows. That's what they did in Jared's case, and look what happened.

It is my belief that public and private schools should have the right to seek court-ordered mental health evaluations for any of their students deemed worthy of it. They shouldn't be allowed to just order it on their own, but in extreme cases the students could be referred to a judge, who would then determine if a psychiatric evaluation is warranted based on the facts. If that student were so ordered, then s/he would have to "pass" the examination in order to remain in school, and if s/he could not, then they would not be readmitted to school and should be legally required to surrender any firearms, other weapons, driver's license, etc.

I believe employers should have the same rights as schools in this matter. There needs to be an effective way to single out extreme cases when other employees are actually worried about their own safety, other than just firing the guy and letting him continue to circulate with the general public. These referrals should be considered extremely serious matters reserved for only the most extreme cases, and not just some avenue of achieving retribution against perceived trouble-makers. If the student or employee passes the examination, then the record is completely expunged. If a different school or employer immediately refers the same person into an evaluation, it should be treated as if the earlier evaluation never even happened. But, the individual would have to pass the new examination too, in order to "proceed".

I'm not an attorney (obviously), and there would likely be opposition to this plan from a variety of angles. But all of those angles would have to involve some form of the belief that "crazy people have rights in America, too". I agree, they do. They have the right to not attend school, own guns, drive vehicles, or hold jobs, along with their god-given right to remain crazy and "on the street". Their craziness isn't the main point, it's what can happen to the rest of us BECAUSE of that craziness. What's REALLY crazy is allowing it to continue unabated, even after what just happened in Tucson.

"you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink"

thats the old saying and it holds true. Fact is, this guy was an adult. It was his responsibility to seek treatment, not the school's, his parents, the kids he went to school with. suggestion was the only option i see anyone having a part in if they did. he was old enought to look at his own self, in a respective manner that should have said, "maybe i need help?" but he didnt.

when are people going to realise when they are 18 or older, time for the hand holding, making choices for them is done? HE bought the gun, the ammo, went out and shot a bunch of people. the school officials didnt do it, his parents, or any politician, just him. he acted alone, and did this act willingly, so let him be responsible for it rather pump the blame onto someone else. eventually, idiots are going to set the stage where we dont get to make any choices, because 1 person will be responsible for everyone, and i hope i or my kids never see that day. If i dont go to work, because i just dont feel like it, who's responsible for me making it to work if i dont feel like going in? maybe im depressed about the state of the nation, so i will balme everything on the president as to why i dont go in. maybe the governer, or maybe even my high school, because god forbid I, take responsibility for MY OWN actions, because thats too hard. might be like facing the facts, and being honest with myself for once, but then its always easier to blame someone else for my actions right? i mean really, lol. to look at this and blame anyone but the person who did it, is absurd! is this what we are coming to, blame everyone but the person at fault? man up, and take responsibility for your own actions, like the adult you are. a 3 yr old, sure, blame the parents or other, but c'mon! he's an adult, let the law do its job, and stop pointing fingers at everyone who had nothing to do with it.

ok so the school forces him into mental help? will he accept it? chances are more in favor he'll tell everyone to F-off, and walk out. can say well that 1% chance he would have taken it while commited, but ummmm... ive met people like this, they dont get the help while there, and are worse when released. might have gone to the school and shot that up because of it is my guess. that any better? nope, lets all pizz and moan untill the gov says enough, and puts us all on lockdown.... there ya go, Hitler would have been proud.

I would have been po'd if I found out a school had put me at risk of being killed because the school was afraid to boot out a crazy person. As Spock said in whatever Star Trek movie, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Sorry to say it, but toss these nutjobs OUT. The school had the responsibility to protect the larger student body from someone who is truly unhinged. It's the same in business. I've worked at a couple of places where people were let go after it was quite clear they were a danger to all of us.

Frankly, if the guy was completely over the edge...and it sure seems like he had a complete mental break...his parents, with whom he was living, had the greatest responsibility to force him into some help. He obviously couldn't do it on his own, and needed the intervention. Yes, he bought the gun and the ammunition, and he made the choice to shoot and kill people. And yes, he is responsible for what he did and he needs to pay for the lives he destroyed. However, he was living under his parents' roof, even though he is an adult. He didn't go to school, he didn't work. That in itself is a big problem even if there aren't any mental issues. But, if his parents weren't paying attention, or chose not to see the many, many clues, then something is amiss with them, too.

They chose not to get him any help. They chose not to have him committed. They chose not to see the clues. They allowed a monster to be unleashed on an unsuspecting public. Now 6 people are dead, and the Congresswoman is likely going to suffer disabilities from traumatic brain injury for the rest of her life. Yes, they are responsible too, for how their son destroyed lives and families last Saturday.

After reading the previous article about what they asked him not to return over, I'm not so sure that anyone could have determined that he was going do something violent. I live in semi-rural area and if you kicked every guy out of the community college who came to school with fold up knife in thier pocket they'd be removing about 3/4ths of the guys(like you can't stab someone in the eye with a pencil or pen if you were really going to hurt someone). The most worrisome incident is where he argued with the math teacher that 6 was 18. The rest isn't anything I haven't heard on talk radio or the cable news programs.

I think that what he was badly trying to convey is that language,writing, symbols and what not only have the meaning that we collectively agree that they have. Proof of this is the fact that so many different languages, alphabets, and writing systems exist through out the world. I often bring this point up whenever there is a controversy over profanity. It has no more power or meaning than what we give it. I think this becomes a problem with some that have mental illness when it affects speech and word comprehension. I'm sure that when you think and want to say apple and your brain tells your speech center potato and that's what comes out of your mouth it become quite frustrating especially for others if you don't realize or understand that it's happening to you(as most schizophrenics don't). And that's only a simple example of a very much more complicated problem. Don't get me wrong. This guy looks very much like the cat who got the cream in his mug shot, but we have to accept the reality that what's going on in his mind and how it's being processed is very much likely different than the rest of us. It's easy to say he's crazy, unbalanced, or a nut. It's much harder to understand why he was that way.

His parents, family and friends failed him. These people would have known what was going on with him and they should have gotten some type of help. Bottom line is - IF YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR FAMILY SUPPORTING YOU OR BY YOUR SIDE - YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This shouldn't be about a blame game. This should be about coming up with solutions. I believe some solutions that were mentioned in this article that could be applicable.

People are trying to determine if this tragedy could have been prevented and the college had noticed behavior that was deemed sufficient to suspend the student. It's not really to blame the college, but more to figure out a way to stop these kinds of events from happening in the first place, if there is a practical way to nip these kinds of threats in the bud without destroying everyone's freedom.

I don't understand why it is the college that should be criticized?

I found the section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that I think the article is talking about. What the article and the people being interviewed failed to mention is the very last clause of the statute:

"J. For the purposes of this section, "person" includes a person who:

1. Is under eighteen years of age.

2. Has been transferred to the criminal division of the superior court pursuant to section 8-327 or who has been charged with an offense pursuant to section 13-501.

3. Is under the supervision of an adult probation department."

There appears to be another way, and it does not mention any age restrictions. Its a "petition for treatment" AZ Rev. Statute 36-533. Here's the part that seems to me would have applied:

"A. The petition for court-ordered treatment shall allege:

1. That the patient is in need of a period of treatment because the patient, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to self or to others, is persistently or acutely disabled or is gravely disabled.

2. The treatment alternatives which are appropriate or available.

3. That the patient is unwilling to accept or incapable of accepting treatment voluntarily.

B. The petition shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the two physicians who conducted the examinations during the evaluation period and by the affidavit of the applicant for the evaluation, if any. The affidavits of the physicians shall describe in detail the behavior which indicates that the person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to self or to others, is persistently or acutely disabled or is gravely disabled and shall be based upon the physician's examination of the patient and the physician's study of information about the patient. A summary of the facts which support the allegations of the petition shall be included.

C. The petition shall request the court to issue an order requiring the person to undergo a period of treatment."

Note that section B specifically states the petition has to be accompanied by affidavits by two physicians that think someone needs a mental health evaluation. How the heck do you get someone to go see two separate doctors if they don't want to? Based on this what could the parents have done?

I'm not saying there might not be some other statute out there and I'm not a lawyer, but as a parent that might need help with an adult child, this would say to me that I was out of luck unless I could convince that adult to go see two doctors and find two doctors that agreed with me that the person was a danger to others or themselves and explain it in detail.

I completely agree, rascal. There has to be some way to get adults off the street if they are a danger to themselves or others, yet are so incapacitated that they don't themselves even recognize the need. If one of these individuals WANTS to voluntarily comply, that's great. But the AZ shooter was apparently paranoid and thought EVERYONE ELSE had been somehow brainwashed by the powers that be. No way would he ever voluntarily accept treatment, under the circumstances. So, what can be done? Right now, the answer is "nothing", until tragedy strikes first. That's an abject failure of the law and of our society. There has to be a fair, legal way to get resistant adult mental cases some help, before it's too late.

If the AZ shooter ends up in a mental hospital as part of his sentence, and gets better, he would likely ask us "Why didn't you help me, before I killed someone? My life and the lives of my dead victims are over. Why did you wait?"

What's our answer? Civil rights? Please.

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy NOW to lay blame at the college, at the parents, or whoever for what happened. The blame is on THE SHOOTER. No one else. Our society is so quick to lay Blame for someones bad behavior. But it's time we started taking responsibility for our actions. HE DID it. HE ALONE is responsible. Lay the blame where it belongs. At HIS feet.

Thank you Janine! This guy is not a child, he is 22 years old. A legal adult in every state in the union. He was responsible for himself. Not his parents, family, friends, the college or society. Blame him, the one who is smiling in the mug shot.

Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy NOW to lay blame at the college, at the parents, or whoever for what happened. The blame is on THE SHOOTER. No one else.

I completely agree that the responsibility for the shooting is Loughner's, 100%. But we as a society need to start recognizing the need for diagnosis and treatment of troubled individuals like this. So many people had an opportunity to prevent this from happening: his parents, his friends, many people at the college. Because no one did anything, 6 people died needlessly, including a 9 year old girl, and a woman's life has been changed forever. How many more incidents like this, involving a mentally ill person, have to happen before we realize that we can prevent many of them from happening? We need to remove the stigma from mental illness so that individuals and families will be less reluctant to seek help. Mental illness is just that, an illness, like cancer, muscular distrophy, diabetes, or any other. People need to stop making sufferers the object of ridicule and realize that they are sick and need treatment, just like the sufferers of any other devastating illness.

There are no 20 year old adults in this country. There are barely any 30 year old adults. In any case, a person who is as mentally disturbed as this is not likely to get help on his own.

Nor are the parents likely to get help for him. In most cases, a person who is this dysfunctional belongs to a dysfunctional family. In other words, his parents are probably a big part of the problem and no part of the solution. Because they now weep and moan, everyone wants to support their denial and feel sorry for them, but they had plenty of warning that their kid was deranged and they did nothing.

The college was in the best position to insist on a mental health exam. But in most cases, that probably wouldn't be true. We need to figure out what to do about this sort of thing, balancing rights and freedom while dealing with the fact that violence and mass murder is a way of life for Americans.

Cheryl, it is just easier to blame someone else. Can we say "lawsuit"? This is pathetic.

Did anyone notice what the "experts on campus violence" - yup, they're mentioned in the article - had to say? Not much.

How is it one cannot read an article that doesn't include a quote from an "expert". If there's so many of these guys around, how come we have all these problems requiring their comment?

How about if we stop listening to these "experts" and accept some personal responsibility? Even better, what if we tell the "experts" to STFU and stop playing the victim game?

In this case, we can ask whether someone could have helped Loughner or gotten him help all day and all night. Fact is, we'll never know. However, it sure wouldn't hurt if we learned a bit about mental illness. It can have some truly frightening dimensions. Do we need "experts" to tell us that?

@DWalker;

Agreed about the experts. For the past year, we've been inundated with articles about why crime, violent and otherwise, has risen in the past year and a half.

Not an expert here, but losing everything, joblessness and underemployment cause personal despair; chances are, people with personal and fiancial problems already? Would'nt a recession like this push more over the edge, some to a 'nothing to lose' or desperation status?

Wonder how much was spent, governmentally and otherwise to prove and/or publish what's common sense. And yes, that money could've been better spent on understanding the bio, psycho, and chemical phenomenas that are our psyches.

I'd swear; sometimes I think some is printed just to see how many will take the bait....

This kid, different story but the money spent over the past year or so... similar to the financial 'experts' and 'consumer sentiment', etc.. .

flbikerchick, i would love to lock up every loon out there and get them treated. fact is, though, we're a free society, and you cannot mandate anyone receive psychiatric treatment unless you go to court and prove that they need it. do you realize how hard that is, the amount of time involved in doing that, and the legwork needed? Of course it would have been worth it in this instance....if the college didn't get slapped with a lawsuit for wrongful detention, etc, etc.

Hindsight is forever 20/20.

I looked into involuntary commitment. In case you don't know what it is - involuntary commitment means forcibly putting a person into psychiatric care or "locking them into an insane asylum."

IT IS NOT EASY TO COMMIT SOMEONE AGAINST THEIR WILL IN ARIZONA.

In fact, most states have made it super difficult.

Apparently, some people were trying to commit their wealthy relatives so they could "manage" the wealthy relative's estate (ie, drain it).

RackNStack

To back you up, in AZ it takes 2 doctors who must declare a person to be an immediate danger. Many of the articles on Tuscon have discussed how no one could have committed him anyway.

Here is a "free advice" column about it.

http://www.freeadvice.com/law-questions/is-there-an-involuntary-c-49423.htm

Because they now weep and moan, everyone wants to support their denial and feel sorry for them, but they had plenty of warning that their kid was deranged and they did nothing.

This is NOT true. And I was glad to hear that HUNDREDS of cards and letters in support of the parents have been delivered to them so far.

THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR SON'S MENTAL ILLNESS. IT IS BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL, NOT LEARNED BEHAVIOR.

Stop spreading lies.

This is a very difficult issue. It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say that someone should have given him an involuntary evaluation and forced him into treatment. The problem is this: who gets to decide who can be forced into treatment and who can't? In many countries, the government/law enforcement have broad powers to decide that and -- predictably -- people end up being involuntarily committed to mental institutions on the basis of politics.

Example: To many liberals, the belief that Obama is not a US citizen seems to be absurd to the point of being delusional. Would any conservatives be comfortable with a liberal being empowered to decide who has a clinical mental illness characterized by "delusional beliefs"? Similarly, to many conservatives, some liberals believe things that seem absurd to the point of being delusional. How many liberals would want a far-right conservative to be empowered to decide whether or not your views qualify as clinically delusional?

Another danger -- in our haste to prevent further tragedies like this one we must not make the mistake of viewing anyone that seems odd or different as a threat. The worst mistake we can make now is to encourage people to"report anyone displaying odd or bizarre behavior", possibly followed by employers and schools discharging the person "just to be safe".

The risk is that the lives of many perfectly harmless people with mental disorders may be made MUCH worse if we create a culture in which odd behavior is automatically taken as evidence that a person is dangerous. A high functioning person with a mental disorder may then be needlessly denied educational and employment opportunities -- possibly stressing some otherwise harmless people to the point where they may become dangerous.

Just to add to my point above -- some of our most brilliant people are those that might have been (or were!) diagnosed with a mental disorder. Einstein had a severe language delay and could not speak until he was about 3. Van Gogh's bizarre behavior is well documented. There are nobel prize winners that have been formally diagnosed with mild forms of autism. Several of our most brilliant mathematicians were given to behaviors that were TRULY strange.

How impoverished would our world be today without the contributions of those that behave in ways that the rest of us might find odd or strange?

MG-Rochester

I agree. Many GENIUSES act weird.

There are MANY reasons the government makes it difficult to lock us up for being insane.

How many of you watched the movie THE CHANGELING? Angelina Jolie's character's son disappeared. The police found an imposter replacement who they tried to pawn off as her kid. Because Angelina Jolie's character refused to say an unknown kid was hers, the police locked her in an insane asylum.

When reading about involuntary commitment, IT IS NOT EASY. The ACLU is involved as well as the government.

WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND TO EXPRESS OURSELVES.

Are you kidding the school officials even came to his home and explained to him AND his parents why he was being bounced out of school.

At that point even if the parents had been clueless they should have had enough information to start putting two and two together. I'm in absolute disbelief over their complete and total ignorance by CHOICE!

How can the college be responsible for this guy's weird behavior? Granted they did see how far out of reality he was,but how much of it was drugs or some other substance abuse?

To start having colleges account for every odd ball, every student that acts out and is 'strange' would be akin to a police state crack down.

These kids are finding themselves, exploring, rebelling, questioning the system, the status quo, the 'why's' of most everything.

One individual hell bent on what he likely thought would be destruction and then suicide by cop shouldn't and can't turn in to suppresion of all.

Some may think this type of occurence can be stopped altogether, but it can't. Too many people doesn't equate to too many restrictions for all. It's not a great answer, but individuals have to be dealt with and in this case, strongly. 6 billion plus on the face of the Earth; I wouldn't want one of my kids being thrown out of school, shunned, and scrutinized for asking questions of 'why' or for question authority, etc... .

Hindsight is always 20/20, and Dahmer's parents should've connected the dots better in this respect, as should have this guy's. As should have many others, but again... his college did what they could, and no one saw this coming.

Great to speculate about, great to sell headlines, great to distract and divide politically, but I believe most know what this boils down to, and human animals are going to have their share of aberations as do other animals and this is going to happen some times; unsavory, but factual.

I don't like the term "suspended". It's cold and antagonistic, and should not be used with someone who is unstable and possibly dangerous. The term "leave of absence" is more compassionate and appropriate. When you get a leave of absence for medical reasons, the school can require a doctor's approval to return - I think they usually do. That way the school can have some monitoring capabilities off campus, while removing the dangerous individual from the general student population. There is usually a time limit to a leave of absence. It leaves the student with the impression that they are welcome to return when they are up to it and a doctor approves - unless the deadline passes. It's less likely to offend and anger the questionable individual.

Calling the police seems kind of mean, but I don't know how he was behaving. Perhaps by framing it as a leave of absence the police wouldn't have been needed and it could be handled by a school representative.

There should be a carefully considered way to handle a deranged individual, but it does seem like a lot is being required from the school that other places don't have to deal with. I guess their responsibility is to ensure the safety of the general student population.

As a community college employee, I am even surprised that college officials when to his home and discussed this with his parents. Because of all the federal privacy laws (FERPA, HEPA, etc.), I believe this could be considered a violation of his rights.

The community college should not be held responsible in this situation. This man had shown signs of unstabliness since high school. If anyone failed him, it was his parents.

Yes, with privacy practices and so forth, there's only so much that could be done by any public entity in the first place, so by having taken affirmative action along with an explanation I'm surprised any would blame the college to begin with.

Some is specualtion here (well, by all as of now... not enough info) but I have a daughter going on 18 and for her, there's going be a good deal of 'as long you live under our roof', of legal age to do things or not. Now, his parents may have tried that and other remedies, but again... not enough info there yet, and may not be for quite some time, if ever.

wichasha, exactly how would the college implement your idea of "Rather than dis-allow his return without a mental exam, they could have put him through one."? Should they have hired armed thugs to drag this man -- a legal adult like yourself -- kicking and screaming, to force an involuntary mental health exam? Is that the kind of behavior you expect from our colleges? Is that the kind of society you want for us?

What if someone decides that your idea is nutty, and that you might be a mentally unstable person, possibly dangerous? Do they have a right to grab you from your home or workplace, by force, against your will, and subject you to examination or treatment -- without you first breaking a law or having a court hearing?

I used to work at a 4 yr college. I got tired of seeing students graduate with outrageous debt levels knowing that many of them would never get a job to justify that much debt. Colleges have little responsibility to help them with employment. When moving out of state, I decided to get a job in the 1 yr trade school market believing their job placement services would make me feel better. They have the same problem with student debt levels being out of balance with employment potential, except that the students borrow much less there while they have much less ability to repay their debts. It's proportionately the same problem. In either kind of school, the attitude of the management is that higher education is a business. The welfare of the students during or after enrollment is the problem of the teachers in the classroom, only as far as getting them to pass their courses, unless the government mandates something for other reasons. As the years passed, the government became active in making the schools be more responsible for student outcomes after graduation and their welfare during the in-school phase. The current environment in these schools is that of caring about the students, which didn't exist in most cases until mandated by the government a few decades ago.

While at the trade school, I ran into a couple of arrogant, incompetent "managers." At different times, a few students complained about the school, the instructors, the programs, etc., which made the management nervous. These students were normal, they were just critical of the school and were usually somewhat justified. Being in the managment of the school, it was difficult to live up to everyone's expectations. The public expected things that were, and were not, unreasonable. The management would hold meetings about these individuals and label them as 'nuts'. They would call them into their office and have discussions with them about their attitude. Eventually, after getting the entire administration and 'faculty' on these student's backs, they managed to drive them out of the school. Of course, the students lost the money they had invested in their tuition. A few times after the students left, I did hear that they were very angry at the school - much angrier than when they were enrolled. Personally, I was disgusted with this kind of treatment to students who were basically completely normal. Their only 'crime' was disagreeing with the way the school was run. This was long before the school shootings occured and the government started requiring policies to address unstable individuals on campus.

I think it's important for those who mandate such policies be aware of the possible abuses that can occur, as well as the competency level of those who enforce them. It's a serious matter and needs a very thoughtful consideration and implementation. Individuals working at schools are not necessarily that bright.

Again, I want to state that the use of the term "suspended" is unnecessarily confrontational and shouldn't be used with an unstable and possibly violent individual. They should be put on a medical "leave of absence" with a requirement for a medical certification to return to class. They may not ever be able to get such a certification, but that puts the ball in the court of the mental health community who are better able to deal with it than unqualified school personnel.

ditto that.....his fault.

Sure, having a mental illness is his fault. Would you say the same if he had a brain tumor instead?

Certainly not the fault or responsibility of the college!

Most certainly not the fault of Sarah Palin. The only person responsible for this is this guy!

Am i the only one that could see the look in this young man's eyes. As if college or anything else mattered. He was pissed about something. No one knows what it is. That's the stupidisisisis thing I have ever read. My heart goes out to the people that are involved or who have lost their lives in this tragesty. But who is to blame? Our retarded government that is superficially trying hard to piont the fingure. Who gives a @!$%# why or how? It was probably our own gov that pulled the trigger. One day we will all understand but when we do it will be encielo. In a week or so no one will even remeber the people who died or the people who were injured except thier family members. Does that bother anyone else? Let us divert the people from what really matters...

RealAmericanFirst, at some point you need to stop pointing fingers and realize this guy acted alone.

I agree with you, rd. I hope he gets his just punishment and to the full extent of the law.

Yes, very well stated rd.

I disagree with you. I noticed my child's attitude changing, and I took action to correct the situation. There was no more spending the night at other people's houses, there was no more "hang-time" with bad influences, there was no more "I need to be alone time" (except homework). We brought out the problem and made her hang around responsible individuals for an example in life... We nipped it in the beginning. We found out that she was drinking and smoking pot, when she crossed that line, it was all over but the crying. I'm proud to say that we now have a young lady that realized her mistakes and is getting ready to graduate college with nearly a 4.0 GPA. She is steady, and she is stable...

hocfish,

I hear a lot of "I" and "we" and that is good as you are a parent and did a good thing. However, the University is not the "parent" and cannot be expected to act as one.

hocfish, how old was your daughter when you noticed problems? This young man had been a legal adult for 4 years and the vast majority of his problems began within the last year.

I raised three sons, and am happy to say they are all well adjusted adults. Even though the youngest is 27, I still know when there is something bothering them. The problem is that all I can legally do is sit down and talk to them unless they commit a crime. With a well adjusted person, talking a problem out will normally work. With a person with mental issues, talking doesn't always work.

@hocfish, now that your daughter is a legal adult, what will you do if her behavior starts changing in ways you don't approve of? It's one thing to talk about parental responsibility when the child is a minor, but it's quite another matter when the child turns 18 and has exactly the same rights as you.

Maybe Mr. Loughner's parents suggested he get help, or maybe they didn't. Either way, it's irrelevant. If this 22 year old adult man said "no thanks, I don't need help" then that's about it. If his parents were unconvinced, they could threaten to kick him out, withdraw financial support or otherwise try to influence him, but one adult can't legally make another adult do something they refuse to do.

The behaviors that got him expelled from school last Fall don't sound like enough to get him involuntarily committed by a court. At best, maybe a 72 hour psych hold and then he would be a free man again. And maybe he had not yet formulated his murderous plans back then, so on what basis would a judge order him committed for longer than 72 hours?

I agree. The college just sort of dumped off this person who was acting sick as well as behaving in a frightening way. And a college should be more than a McDonald's.

You can't force people to get help and continue it. These people are obviously working class and perhaps not in a position financially to get him any help. Besides, no parent or anyone else can foresee the future or would think their child might engage in a violent act such as this. There is no way to predict it so no way to prevent it.

I'm certain he was out there, but also certain that going back 10 years to now most students of high school or college could think of 100 or more people that if they did this, would say, 'well, yeah.... they were strange, loners, weird as hell, etc...' but the vast majority that do nothing but annoy and stay odd aren't questioned, aren't used as a tool to restrict, or used as the subject of 'couldn't more have been done?' brought up.

Where would you draw the line betwixt personal responsibility and profiling, taken away personal freedoms for the 'just in case?'

No different than the guy that took shots at Reagan to show his love for Jodie Foster; no political motivation, no reasoning or encouragement, just the unavoidable and thank god rare whacko that's going to go for all or nothing, regardless of any reasoning and can't be predicted.

It's not something most want to hear, not something anyone wants ever, but it's going to happen again; gun or no gun, political or not, abused or not, the list goes on.....

A terrible flaw in human nature, and witnessed rarely in other animals as well. High profile just makes headlines, but do some research; close calls, limited harm, .... this happens more than some may think. Still terrible, but...

A community college is an institution of higher education, not a counseling office, nor is it a mental institution. Educators are paid to educate and administrators are paid to perform administrative tasks. Educational institutions are not equipped to deal with mental illness nor should they be forced to do so. The college went to the kid's home after sending him a letter explaining why he was booted and they met with the parents. At that point it is the parents or studnet's responsibility to have a mental evaluation completed. This is not a high school student; this is an adult and if he didn't feel he needed an examination, then it was his choice.

Looking the other way when your food makes someone fat, and looking the other way when you know a deranged individual is on the street, are hardly the same.

looking the other way when you know a deranged individual is on the street

Exactly what the parents did.

Not the college's job to baby Jared. They aren't responsible for raising him or how he conducts himself. That falls on the family.

His parents were probably walking on egg shells around him trying to keep him from another rant. They probably put up with the same crazy crap he put on youtube daily. How can you blame a parent for a chemical imbalance? How can you blame a psychosis on the parent? The ones that dropped the ball was law enforcement, they have the authority to put him in a mental health hold and they didn't.

They did NOT have the authority to put him in a mental health hold without specific gross behaviors which indicated the individual was unsafe with himself or others they..just because he created a disruptive atmosphere that interfered with the learning environment, does not qualify for being put on a mental health hold. It is the laws we have created which now interfere with our ability to take early definitive action which is within the legal mandates. If he had been waving a weapon around in the classroom, then the college would have called the police and at that point he could have been placed on a mental health hold and forceably evaluated...the evaluation, however, is only to the extent of determining whether or not the person is safe with himself and others...unless he says something specific that would indicate he is planning to harm himself or others, they would not be able to retain him even then.

Your comments are spot on Jenifer. All the blame here is on the shooter himself.

Jenifer, you hit the nail on the head! Thank you!

How can you blame a paranoid schizophrenic for being a paranoid schizophrenic? I'm not convinced that he was capable of recognizing and seeking help for himself...he was delusional! If his college, parents or the police had requested an involuntary psych eval be performed, maybe he would have been committed. Maybe the appropriate flags would have gone up for the FBI background check to fail him. Maybe 6 lives could have been saved. Please, if you know someone who needs help, take the time to help them get it.

The college did suggest that he have an evaluation and Jared did not follow through. He's an adult, he has adult rights. His parents could have called law enforcement and told them they were concerned. Law enforcement could have put him in a mental health hold, they didn't. Parents can't have a mental health hold put on their kids. Think about it... do you know how many kids would be sent? The mental health facilities would be on over load because they were housing smartass teenagers.

lynsey...

I agree. If those w/ mental health issues could help THEMSELVES then there wouldn't be school shootings, suicidal/homocidal acts, people talking jibberish to themselves, people hearing voices and seeing images that aren't there, etc!!

Your comments are spot on Jenifer. All the blame here is on the shooter himself.

Peter 17...

Sorry - but I disagree. It's very easy to just blame the shooter cuz he pulled the trigger but if those w/ mental health issues could help themselves, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, and 6 people wouldn't be dead and 14 others wounded. Those with mental health issues ARE EVERYONE'S concern. There were multiple failures on many levels to get Jared Loughner, the Asian boy in the Virgian Tech shootings, and Kliebold and Harris - Columbine shooters, the help they needed. Time and time again, when these shootings occur, we see multiple failures on different levels when looking back in hindsight. Please people, we are all to blame when these incidents happen. As a society, we must figure out how to do a better job getting mental healthcare to those who need it.

Deborah

I hear you but this it not the place, this vine is nothing but frustrated people who get some type of relief blaming others for their sorry lives. It is a fascinating resource if you doing a paper on human behavior. Because the majority if not all type what they will not or can not say in public speech. Unfortunately these vines bring out the worst in people.

Deborah, you are so right! They are just about to cut emergency mental health drugs in Washington state. It is a program that saved my daughter's life. It took months for my daughter to get the care she needed, so with the upcoming cuts I can't imagine how difficult it will be for the most vulnerable of our population. It's just shameful. People are asking how/why this tragedy happend. With the lack and concern for the mentally ill in this country, I can clearly see why it happened and why it will keep happening.

Deborah - I'm so sorry you've had to go through that with your son. I truly hope he is getting better, and I wish you peace, too.

Deborah people don't want to admit mental illness is a very very real serious problem and alot of mental illness usually has a phyiscal medical underling problem. Mental illness affects every walk of life, Abraham Lincoln's wife had mental illness many famous people have had or have mental illness but what about everyday people-oh it really does not matter unless your super famous. Deborah I sat on the Disability Actions Rights Commitee for two terms @ 4 years each-and the arrogance that premeeats the public. Mentally ill people more often than not are taken advantage of one of them is sexually by the people that are needed to help them.

Deborah--thank you not just for your post, but also all you have done to be a responsible parent, citizen and human being. I hope many other parents will listen to you and learn. Sometimes just saying "I love my child," or ""I'm sorry" is just ineffectual or too little too late! Real parenting means actually doing something. You did, and again--a great big THANK YOU for being the adult and taking responsibility. We are all your friends and respect you for it.

Deborah. I agree that mental illness is woefully undiagnosed and its research underfunded. I praise you for your strength and foresight to help your daughter. I love that you put the name of an available resource (or maybe soon to be "once available resource") for families/friends of mentally ill to contact. I like your proposed suggestions for help. However how do you propose we pay for more doctors, expensive treatments, procedures, mental counseling, costly drugs needed for a lifetime of maybe 75 years for a very small percentage of the whole population? Also, if your daughter had not been a victim of mental illness, would you be so vehemently active in seeking out information on mental illness and how to get help? Be honest. The answer is more than likely "no" And that does NOT make you a bad person. Its in our nature to ignore and disregard things like mental illness until it affects us personally. My point maybe harsh but it is valid. Human nature hasn't changed much at all since the caveman days.

Unfortunately, mental illness in this country is a taboo subject. Nobody wants to talk about it, nobody wants to acknowledge it, until something like this happens. Then you have all these armchair psychiatrists, who offer a solution, coming out of the woodwork: "This one should have done something, that one should have done something." These people offering their two-cents should keep their lack of knowledge on the subject to themselves because that is all it's worth - two-cents. As the saying goes, "If you can't be part of the solution, quit being part of the problem."

In the early 80's most states cut mental health spending drastically. They emptied out mental health facilities and sent patients to live in half-way houses and left to medicate themselves. What resulted were patients walking around town doing the "Thorazine shuffle" mumbling incoherently to themselves, walking out in the middle of traffic, going into businesses and disturbing customers, exhibiting delusional episodes, etc. Not to mention the ones who didn't take their medication. What did the authorities do? Unless they harmed someone, they did nothing. Why wait until that happens? Because it's not cost effective for the government to intervene. Let's wait until the wolf kills some sheep before we guard the flock. Sad to equate human lives to dollars and cents, but that is how our government addresses most issues in this country.

Paranoid schizophrenics, once diagnosed, and are not compliant with oral medications usually end up getting a monthly injection of a long-acting anti-psychotic medication. It doesn't have anything to do with "ready"....... His parents should have obtained an OPC,(order of protective custody), where they could have had him brought in to a psych facility for an evaluation. The evaluation would have certainly sent up red-flags; from there he would have more than likely been properly diagnosed and placed on medication.