On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:03:02 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/21/18 10:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:27:49 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting"
someone who might pose a danger.

But if they don't get "reported" they won't get any treatment, will
they?
I really think the problem is deeper but right now it is not being
addressed at all.



Typically, the reports go to the police. If the cops send someone out to
check up on a person, the odds are unless the person is acting really
wild and irrational, they'll just leave. If they do take someone in,
there is the problem of "where do we take him/her?" If there is a
facility other than the county jail, a judge typically will release that
person in short order.

Dramatic changes in rules and regulations need to be made on the state
level as part of the way to address this problem. It needs to be done,
and it probably will take a long, long time. That's one of the reasons
why I say the issues are "far more complex" than reporting.

You must have actually learned something since you were arguing
exactly the opposite with me just a few months ago.
Typically here, a Baker Act person goes to a county mental health
facility. If they qualify for medicaid or have better than average
insurance and they are willing to go, they might get put in some kind
of commercial rehab since most of these people also have some kind of
substance abuse problems along with being nuts. If they don't do that,
most are home by lunch time the next day.
Laws and court decisions in the 70s made involuntary commitment a very
steep hill to climb. I have no problem keeping guns away from these
people but the elephant in that room is they can usually get a gun
from the same people who sell them their illegal drugs. Evidently a
stolen gun is as good as money when you are trading for crack.