White House Pushing Proposal That Would Subject Mentally Ill People To Increased Surveillance

from the people-with-mental-problems-will-definitely-respond-positively-to-this dept

The White House has decided we’re going to power through our mass shooting crisis by aiming our surveillance apparatus in the direction of the mentally ill. In addition to claiming we might be able to find the next mass shooter by tracking fitness trackers, the administration is pushing for a mental health-based “solution” that would increase the stigma of not being “normal.”

The White House is considering a controversial proposal to study whether mass shootings could be prevented by monitoring mentally ill people for small changes that might foretell violence.

Former NBC Chairman Bob Wright, a longtime friend and associate of President Trump’s, has briefed top officials, including the president, the vice president and Ivanka Trump, on a proposal to create a new research agency called HARPA to come up with out-of-the-box ways to tackle health problems, much like DARPA does for the military, say several people who have briefed.

HARPA (a takeoff of the military’s DARPA project) stands for Health Advanced Research Projects Agency. HARPA’s webpage says things about uncured diseases and promises to “put patients first,” but the administration’s commandeering of its resources pretty much guarantees more law enforcement officers lacking the training to address mental health issues will be put in contact with people with mental health issues more frequently. Perhaps the Trump administration thinks we can avoid a mass shooting by increasing the number of people shot by cops one at a time.

A three-page proposal from HARPA contains a clunky acronym and some very scary ideas. The route to a mass shooting-free America runs through millions of devices owned by millions of US citizens.

Advisers to Wright quickly pulled together a three-page proposal — called SAFEHOME for Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes — which calls for exploring whether technology like phones and smartwatches can be used to detect when mentally ill people are about to turn violent.

No one has any idea how this is supposed to work. No one seems to know whether it can even be done. Administration officials, however, aren’t asking the only question that matters: should this be done?

In addition to generating a massive amount of false positives for law enforcement and HARPA analysts to sort through, there’s the very real concern that such a program would put tons of people under surveillance and still not do anything to solve the problem it’s supposed to be addressing.

Most concerning, [Marisa Randazzo] said, is that the proposal is based on the flawed premise that mental illness is directly linked to mass shootings. “Everything we know from research tells us it’s a weak link at best,” said Randazzo, who spent a decade conducting such research for the Secret Service and is now CEO of a threat assessment company called Sigma.

There is violence associated with mental illness, but not the violence this administration is targeting. Suicide is the problem going unaddressed. But since Trump believes mass shooters are all mentally ill, that’s what HARPA will likely focus on. Unfortunately, it will be working against available data.

[S]tudies of mass shooters have found that only a quarter or less have diagnosed mental illness. Researchers have noted a host of other factors that are more significant commonalities in mass shooters: a strong sense of grievance, desire for infamy, copycat study of other shooters, past domestic violence, narcissism and access to firearms.

It also runs contrary to the government’s own research work. A Pentagon study on mass shootings said simply that prediction-oriented programs don’t work. Threat assessment is far more productive than amassing a bunch of biometric data and hoping to find a pattern that indicates someone’s going to engage in mass murder.

But this is what the administration wants to pursue: widespread surveillance based on the faulty assumption that this will produce anything other than negative results.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “White House Pushing Proposal That Would Subject Mentally Ill People To Increased Surveillance”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

No, you are politicizing my comment. My comment was not politically motivated, but looks at the reality of the human condition especially as it deals with a mental state which is a temporary not permanently fixed state of being normally associated with mental illness when related to the majority of shootings across the globe.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:


People in other countries have mental illnesses. They aren’t going around murdering people with weapons of war every ten days or so. The issue with this proposal is how it would further stigmatize people with mental health issues. That would result in fewer people seeking help for those issues out of fear that they’ll be put on some sort of “future mass murderer” list. People deserve help for their mental health issues; they don’t deserve to be treated like a potential criminal only because they asked for said help.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A rights to millio

“Few”? Those with diagnosed mental problems may be a minority, but they’re not that rare. Pretty much everyone in America has personally encountered someone with a mental illness.

Plus, there’s the question of where making 2A rights reasonable conflicts with 4A rights.

Also, please define “people who are known mentally unstable [sic]”. Not all mental illnesses are connected to violent behavior at all.

Then there’s the fact that statistics show that there is no significant correlation between mental illness and either gun violence in general or mass shootings specifically. One could argue that, by definition, anyone willing to kill a bunch of people must be mentally ill, but even setting aside that that would make every soldier who has been in active combat mentally ill, that doesn’t make them diagnosibly mentally ill, and it’s an entirely ad hoc definition which cannot be used to diagnose someone with a mental illness before a mass shooting, which makes it effectively worthless in this debate.

Finally, show me where Techdirt writers, specifically (not commenters), have been for “denying 2A rights for millions”. I’ve seen them questioning the scope and limitations of the 2A, recognizing the consequences that result, and being highly critical of many of the talking points used by pro-2A advocates—like blaming mental health issues, movies, and/or video games while completely ignoring any attempts at putting reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, like ammo limits, restrictions on the types of firearms permitted, better data on shooting incidents and who is restricted from possessing a firearm that are readily available to anyone who sells firearms or works for the government, restrictions on private sales, or banning certain accessories that make a firearm more deadly to larger numbers of people—whenever a mass shooting or talk of gun control pops up. I fail to see how any of that is denying 2A rights to anyone without reasonable due process.

It is possible to have a country with democracy, violent movies, violent video games, mentally ill people, and private gun ownership without mass shootings occurring multiple times a year. At least one developed nation does. We should look towards other developed nations that don’t have so many mass shootings but are considered democratic for ideas to fix our gun-violence problem. Not every idea is good, nor will every idea work here, but it’s worth looking into.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A rights to mi

A big difference between the US and other gun owning democratic countries is that the US is about the only country that considers carrying a gun ready for use while carrying out everyday activities to be reasonable. Everywhere else expects guns and ammunition to be kept in separate locked safes, and guns and ammunition to be carried in bags or cases between storage, gun shop, shooting ranges and hunting grounds.

Stricter rules on gun storage and transport would not remove the guns, and but eliminate many accidental and impulse shootings, and make it easier to stop someone carrying a gun into a crowded public area.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A rights t

impulse shootings

Stopped reading right there. If you actually think people who go around carrying guns everywhere actually think like that, you’re more deranged than the mass shooters. No wonder the left demonizes gun owners…. all they see is a gun and assume the worst of everyone involved out of pure fear.

A big difference between the US and other gun owning democratic countries is that the US is about the only country that considers carrying a gun ready for use while carrying out everyday activities to be reasonable.

Another big difference is the willingness of other societies to help each other out in times of need instead of victim blaming and crying moral failure. The other societies deal with their problems better because they address them before the issue grows into an all consuming desire for retribution against a perceived enemy.

You can whine about guns as much as you want, and just how much you’re uncomfortable around them, but mandating gun reform as a "solution" for "doing something about the gun violence" is nothing more than political theater. You want to know why people disagree with your "solution?" Where does it fall on this progression:

  1. Develop a passion / conviction to commit a mass murder.
  2. Justify the act.
  3. Plan out your attack. (I.e. Find your victims, means of reaching them, and inflicting harm on them.)
  4. Obtain the means to carry out your attack. (*)
  5. Attack!

If you chose number 4, then congratulations, you’ve successfully tried to do something at the last possible second. Which is exactly where your enhanced background checks falls on that list. Further,

  1. Again, the mass murderer must decide that the means of acquiring their weapon of choice must be legal.
  2. The mass murderer must already have been labeled previously in a database somewhere as a risk, so the sale of the weapon is denied.
  3. The mass murderer must also choose to give up on their illegal plot when they cannot obtain the weapon of choice legally.

Number 1 fails due to basic risk vs reward. I.e. You can’t kill someone multiple times over, nor give them multiple infinite incarcerations to be served consecutively. There is a limit to the amount of punishment society can give out to any criminal, and given the punishment for mass murder tends to be Death (often by cop or suicide) / Indefinite Incarceration, throwing on another 20 years for illegal obtainment of a deadly weapon isn’t much of a discouragement.

Number 2 requires society to have been paying enough attention to the would be mass murderer to have the evidence needed to put a ban on them. Which in that case, why the fuck didn’t they do anything about the issue sooner? Obviously society knew they needed help, but refused to provide it. Instead opting to the least amount of work possible to sort of / kind of remind them that the person might be dangerous later. Don’t believe me? Go ask the LV shooter (a retired serviceman).

Number 3 is just a failure of society to understand basic psychology. If you are so worked up that you are willing to commit an act that will bring you more harm, and most likely death, to vent said frustration, you’re probably not going to suddenly give up when the sales clerk for the gun shop tells you that your background check failed and they can’t sell the weapon to you. Especially, if you are still that worked up after waiting out the time it took for the background check to complete. (Or three days, which ever is longer.)

The legislative idea is unsound. Just because a bunch of people have a heart felt belief that something is true doesn’t make it so, but I guess it will take the further removal of rights from the public to eventually make you realize that fact. I just hope the rights you care for are still standing when you do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A righ

"No wonder the left demonizes gun owners"

The left … that nebulous and undefined terminology used by some to denigrate others en mass without knowing anything about them.

Could it be that some lefty libs do not demonize gun owners, but rather demonize the dumbass shit they do with their firearms?

cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A righ

I agree with everything you said. The problem is people want a solution, and explanations of why all the proposed solutions won’t work seems to go ignored. Or labeled as fatalist.
People are scared. Unfortunately, their more afraid of the random, lone wolf, individual attackers over the highly organized, fortified, armed thugs with badges. Of course, people are far more afraid of strangers lurking in the bushes than the people we know and trust that are far more likely to perpetrate a crime against us.
I think we do need more mental health care, but not by force or with dystopian technology. We need more counselors, with community ties, who people can reach out to, and that can reach out to not only offer their services, but also help people connect with what they need, be it a job, opportunities for social interaction, or even hobbies to take interest in. Basically ways to connect troubled people with outlets to focus their energy and relieve some of the conditions that drive them to violence. And people with disabling mental illness need access to safe places to sleep and eat that aren’t forced institutionalization, with advocates and lawyers so they aren’t being warehoused in jails for being a nuisance. But I don’t know if anyone could build a business off such things without turning into the bloated dysfunctional government mess we already have.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A righ

Only if you assume only one thing can be done. If accessing weapons capable of rapid killing of large numbers of people is made harder, that could help. It doesn’t preclude addressing any of the other issues.

With that said, mass killings are a very small part of the problem. Suicide by handgun is much bigger, and accessibility really is a huge part of that problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A rights t

the US is about the only country that considers carrying a gun ready for use while carrying out everyday activities to be reasonable.

That’s true. Have there been many mass murderers with a history of doing that?

Stricter rules on gun storage and transport would … make it easier to stop someone carrying a gun into a crowded public area.

How so? A criminal would disregard the rules and conceal the gun. If there were a security checkpoint, they’ll find it whether concealed or open-carry.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Oh, Lood Gord! You've no problem denying 2A rights to mi

Finally, show me where Techdirt writers, specifically (not commenters), have been for “denying 2A rights for millions”.

I rather recall them being awfully pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling the last time the practical effect of the amendment was challenged with respect to its actual language. (I think they are both high, personally.)

So lol at that a/c’s claim.

Anonymous Coward says:


HARPA seems to be more of the same silliness we have seen coming out of our dysfunctional government for some time now but this is a bit more on the dystopian side.

I wonder, what percentage of serial/mass killers wear smart watches and/or carry cell phones. In addition, what does HARPA intend to measure … heart rate, blood pressure, alpha waves? This is really out there. Next they will suggest brain implants and exploding necklaces.

Michael (profile) says:

Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean the US government isn’t spying on you, in fact it actually means the US government is going to start spying on you if they were not already spying on you.

So, if you think the US government is spying on you, you will always be correct.
Is it paranoia if you are correct?

Hey wait, did we just cure paranoia?

My head hurts. Why is the light blinking on my phone now?

Anonymous Coward says:

The best way to keep tabs on them is to care for them.

If they really want to keep tabs on the mentally ill, they should fund and take care of their medical and mental needs. Ensuring that they are seeing the right people and taking the right meds would eliminate most of the episodes of violence and destruction that often leads to their going to prison. Prisons are full of mentally ill people who society forgot about.

It would be more cost-effective to take care of all mental health issues free of charge by the government than it does to deal with the results of so many people going without care or medication each year.

The by-product of the government also now knowing every detail of these potentially dangerous people as the HARPA program seems to wish to do, ceases to become a divisive issue since they are the ones responsible for them in the first place.

I guess we couldn’t use domestic terrorism as a get out of the constitutional restrictions catch-all as we do now though.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The best way to keep tabs on them is to care for them.

As a quote from the article points out, less than 1 in 4 "mass shooters" have diagnosed mental illness. Anything centered on "keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" is absolutely futile in terms of cutting down on shootings.

On the other hand, mental health care in the US is abysmal at the best of times. So… sure. Let’s go with "give free mental health care to all who need it." It’ll at least help in a few percent of the cases, maybe. Better than "let’s freak out when Joe Schitzo shops at Target instead of Walmart" – which doesn’t address ANY of the causes.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: The best way to keep tabs on them is to care for them.

I believe the point they were going with was to use the baseless fearmingering for something actually useful, where if they really want to keep people with mental issues under watch the best way to do that would be to provide them with free mental health care, where they can be ‘watched’ by those giving them help.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: The best way to keep tabs on them is to care for them.

Hi. I’m on the autistic spectrum. I have SSI and am on Medicaid and go to a clinic for my needs. I’ve had therapy since I was three or four years old. I took medication since I was prepubescent. I was fortunate enough to live in NYC which actually tried to do something about their gun problem instead of make it worse. I realize I’m one of the lucky ones, but that’s not to say "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: The best way to keep tabs on them is to care for them.

I don’t disagree with taking care of those with mental illness, but I wonder how it will benefit the government in any way, with regard to identifying ‘dangerous persons’? I think that the medical professionals would adhere to their responsibility to doctor patient confidentiality, and withhold information the government might find useful (for their own agenda (aka propaganda), not for resolving the ‘shooter’ issue). The only indicator the government might find of value would be when someone gets committed to a psychiatric hospital, and that may or may not be too late.

That is, if the shooters are actually mentally ill and not behaving so for other reasons.

Anonymous Coward says:

Well Puerto Rico and the other US territories all have our share of people with mental health issues and yet we don’t have mass shootings or any need to infringe their rights with state driven surveillance targetting them. What we do have is sensible gun laws and contrary to gun nut fears we can still enjoy both liberty and the government isn’t taking our existing guns nor preventing those with a need for them to get them.

Hugo S Cunningham (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Puerto Rico has a homicide rate about 3 times the USA’s, "sensible gun laws" notwithstanding.


But you may have a point that if we tamped down the media-saturated hysteria about "mass shootings," new infringement of rights would be unnecessary.

Hugo S Cunningham (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You have set up a tiny set of goal posts that cover only 6 inches (15 centimeters) of the end zone. But the legal remedies gun-prohibitionists propose, supposedly for your 6-inch (15 centimeter) goal zone, would also impact the 24-foot (7.32 meter) goal zone of criminology and self-defense policy generally.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I didn’t set up the goal posts, the OP did that – you choose to ignore them by referencing a statistic that has almost no bearing on the point he was making about mass-shootings.

If you want to focus on the homicide rate in Puerto Rico, wouldn’t it be more probable then that Puerto Rico would have more mass-shootings compared to the rest of the US which have a lower homicide rate?

The point I’m making by highlighting this, is that it seems that the correlation between mass-shootings and homicide ratio isn’t as straightforward as you implied with your post.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The media owned by new world order fascists is just piping in for the UN Small Arms Gun agenda that is now entering its final phase. GE got in on it with Newtown false flag shooting by posting donation web sites Three days before the alleged mass shooting directing donations to Trentacosta’s bank. It was found out by google’s search automated analyser.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'Hey, look over there, a handy scape-goat!'

Researchers have noted a host of other factors that are more significant commonalities in mass shooters: a strong sense of grievance, desire for infamy, copycat study of other shooters, past domestic violence, narcissism and access to firearms.

No need to wonder why they’re focusing on mental illness rather than those factors, as addressing those would require looking into some rather uncomfortable issues(not to mention upset some powerful groups) that most people would probably prefer not to acknowledge.

A strong sense of grievance? Addressing that would require facing why someone would be so warped/desperate that they are willing to kill, and if the reason for that grievance happens to involve the people and the society around them, well, can’t have any of that.

A desire for infamy and/or a copycat killer? Addressing that would require admitting that society and the news agencies have basically made it crystal clear that if you want your face and name plastered everywhere the quickest route is to kill a few people, with huge numbers of people paying anyone who does so enormous amounts of attention, both during and after. Warped enough that you are willing to kill and want fame the likes of which celebrities can only dream of? Just shoot a few people and it’s yours.

Domestic violence? Hey now, everyone knows that just doesn’t happen, what happens in someone’s house is entirely their business and it would be downright rude to meddle in someone else’s business, not to mention rather unpleasant for people to own up to how often they just looked the other way because it just wasn’t their problem

And the last two, narcissism and access to firearms… I don’t think I need to explain why addressing those would get hefty pushback.

urza9814 (profile) says:

Of course...

…and they wonder why people with mental illness often don’t seek help. Plenty of people saw this kind of crap coming even decades ago. Because it already happened decades before that. The way this stuff cycles, if you admit to having problems, you’re guaranteed to be targeted and attacked like this at least once in your lifetime.

ECA (profile) says:

1 step closer...

I said before.
that there is 1 things that is Hard to do, and protected Very well, is your medical records.
And Access to it, and a central location, would solve allot of the problems, but also OPEN A BIG can of worms…

the way the net is going, they will have it for the Fed First, then the states, then Someone will hack it and spread the info ALL OVER…
Then the corps get it, and the insurance comapanies.

we come to the understanding that People need abit of help, and NOT ISOLATE them…this includes Pedophiles..
That humans are NOT NORMAL..and there is no NORMAL..But there Can be UNDERSTANDING…
(sounds abit like Socialism)(sounds abit like killing off about 1/2 the religions of the world)

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Its a magic trick..
Dont pay attention to what is happening in front of your eyes, you must watch all of it at once..which isnt easy.
While allot of this has been happening, go look at what they didnt SAY… they removed allot of environmental protections..as an excuse that NOW we can make more jobs..and not FIX the problem they caused.
Ask Japan/ROC/China/ others, WHY they quit manufacturing..
They like to fish off the coastlines.. Go to the end of the major rivers in the USA, and look for the pollution and warning signs.. Then think about Birth control pills being Dumped into the sewers, and into the rivers..(thats only 1 pill type of thousands) and Im noting even talking about plastics yet.

Anonymous Coward says:

A story

doctor harpa:sir I’m afraid you exhibit concerning symptoms that make you a danger.
Guy: oh no I’m perfectly fine it’s just that I can comprehend more then you ever could.
Guy: hear that guy yelling in the cell next to mine? sane just lost his job and was not able to find one that was able to cut the checks. It ain’t the 90s anymore you know. So he got real depressed one day and because he has “concerning symptoms” he is here and one day he might get released back to the world in the EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES he was like so many others but because you guys just figure that it’s easier to put people in a giant horror story of lost hope like this instead of caring because of economic and social reasons he’s just going to be back here…a little while after he’s gone…that’s what help you get when you ask for help and some don’t even have that. So doc…am I sane?

bob says:

Re: Re: Re: Other Countries Have The Same Mental Health Problems

Copy cat crimes, the notoriety of being on all news channels at once.

But another small thing to consider is the perception that a 24/7 news cycle gives. I know America has a gun problem and far too many mass killing (anything above 0). But all cases of gun violence are also publicised because of reporters, writers, and social media that can help spread that info.

Now look at a 3rd world country or one that the state controls the media they won’t have the same level of connectedness as a 1st world country. So if there is gun related violence including mass shootings it may or may not be reported on the news or on social media.

So I think because of that lack of reporting the rest of the world looks slightly better than they are, regarding gun violence. And I mean only slightly because if it was a major massacre news of the incident would get out.
But you won’t hear all about the smaller level crimes involving guns like in America.

I am not saying 24/7 is causing shootings. But a mass murder knows they can leverage the eagerness of major news corporations to report everything. So they will use the news media to further their goals.

The blame lands at the foot of the shooter and no one else for pulling the trigger. But news agencies are not contributing to a solution by plastering every detail of a mass shooting all over the place.

Hugo S Cunningham (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Other Countries Have The Same Mental Health

Yes. That is how Britain minimized the danger from Nazi V-bomb attacks in 1944, and Israel minimized the damage from Saddam’s missile attacks in the First Gulf War (1991). Investigators should carefully go over each mass shooting (including a thorough examination of the shooter’s mental health and other usually-sealed records), for clues how to detect and prevent future shootings. But there is no need for national media hysteria that incites two roughly equal halves of the population with white-hot hatred of each other.

bob says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Other Countries Have The Same Mental Health

No, the news should report on incidents. But there is a difference between stating that something happened with a few facts of the incident and spending hours repeating the same few pieces of information while re-rolling endlessly a few clips of the incident.

One gets the information to the public the other creates a greater fame for the perpetrator of the crime.

urza9814 (profile) says:

Re: Other Countries Have The Same Mental Health Problems ...

China doesn’t have the guns; they just have mass stabbings. Maybe it’s not the weapons that make people do these things but the circumstances. Maybe people aren’t just buying guns and saying "Well, I’ve got this gun now, dunno what to do with it, I guess I’ll go murder some people."

London also has string gun control; and they’ve recently started banning the sale of kitchen knives due to the high number of stabbings. Maybe we ought to look at what direction their politics/society is going right now and run the other way. Only problem is I think they’re roughly following us…

Tee (profile) says:

Mental health surveillance

Well in that case the first spotlight should be aimed at the insane moron in the Oval Office..This is the pot calling the kettle black…If he would shut with his racist rants,there would be less violence. We are headed to a totalitarian society,and that is not what our country should be about.Get that nutjob out of the White House before he destroys our democracy.

Anonymous Coward says:

incorrect premise?

The article does an excellent job pointing out how problematic the proposed solution is.

Is the premise that mass murder is severe mental illness wrong though?

-Granted it’s not just ‘any’ mental illness, it’s a particular (thankfully rare) kind of ultra violent hateful dehumanizing vindictive psychopathic narcissistic state- but how can anyone argue that’s not a severe mental illness?

How are we defining mental health if actions such as these don’t preclude it?

Anonymous Coward says:

That isn’t how mental illness works. Further "mental illness" is a wombo broad brush if you are painting up publicly violent people capable of mass murder. Those shooters claimed to have or have had a mental illness — lol, what mental illness? Which ones cause mass murder?

Even those mentally ill who are prone to violence due to their illness are generally disorganized and outwardly random in their actions.

And the answer is … not to make sure people with illnesses have treatment, but to spy on them and round them up when someone feels they are going to "cross the line"? I just don’t even.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I was NOT implying mental illness is any sort of excuse or even limit’s culpability.

Or is that not what you meant by "that isn’t how mental illness works"? I"m not sure exactly what you meant to be honest… Could you explain?

"lol, what mental illness? Which ones cause mass murder?"

Hateful Vindictive self-righteous dehumanizing/sociopathic ultra-violent psychosis. -At minimum; Extreme exclusive tribalism/prejudice and many other aspects could factor in; but I’d imagine the particular psychosis element as prerequisite. Otherwise- like I said; How are we defining mental health if acts like these don’t preclude it? What then becomes the relevant measure?

It’s not normal or healthy to have a complete disregard for, or lack of awareness of, the lives and suffering of others, and the severely negative and long reaching consequence of such horrendous acts. There is no sane logical perspective whereby these acts could be considered justifiably beneficial to ANY group. Do you disagree? What’s wrong with considering that severe mental illness? Specifically, How can such acts not be considered a ‘detachment from reality’ aka psychosis?

Anonymous Coward says:

I think it’s fairly obvious what the underlying problem is, the helpless malaise the average Joe feels – whether he be a follower of Allah, Jesus, Satan, or whatever. The hard part is agreeing on why that is in a world of the 1% vs. the rest of us (stagnant wages for the majority, the "gig" economy, and all the rest of the baggage that goes with that) a world of nationalism, xenophobia, and racism, bathed in an increasing amount of intolerance to opposing viewpoints…oh wait it ain’t that hard.

Stephen Frost (profile) says:

Safety Vs Healthcare

Very strange and somewhat sad as a reflection on developing culture. While core motivation for gaining warning should people ‘snap’ is good, having people who are in need of quality psychological help held under surveillance incase they ‘snap’ is in many ways likely to increase their justification for ‘snapping’ due to feelings of persecution.
How come as a culture things seem to be coming up short of actually dealing with things and creating healing?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...