this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023

103 points (98.1% liked)

News

23296 readers

5206 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

103

Nashville DA says "law must be altered" after suspect released from jail is accused of shooting college student in the head (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Nashville district attorney called on Wednesday for the Tennessee legislature to make it easier to commit someone to a mental institution after a man who was previously released for incompetence to stand trial was accused of shooting an 18-year-old college student in the head.

Belmont University student Jillian Ludwig, of New Jersey, was walking on a track in a local park when she was shot and critically wounded at about 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, according to the Metro Nashville Police. They arrested Shaquille Taylor, 29, after surveillance video and witness statements pointed to him as the shooter.

"Taylor was shooting at a car when a bullet hit Ludwig in the head as she walked on a track in a park across the street," police said on social media when announcing the arrest Wednesday.

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] poke@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How did they have access to a gun?

[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago

Tennessee doesn't have background checks for "private sales" so the pipeline of once legal guns flowing to the black market is very robust there.

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, it's a southern US state, so probably Walmart.

[–] TryingToEscapeTarkov@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It was right next to the liqueur too! So convenient

[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Federal and state law prohibit the prosecution of mentally incompetent defendants.

WTF??? Get the mentally incompetent help so that they can be assured fair representation, but they should absolutely be charged if they commit crimes. No one is above the law, not even the mentally ill.

[+] JustZ@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Don't forget the severe, widespread lead poisoning that affected anyone born before about 1980.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't really care why at this point. He should have never been allowed out

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes he should have, but under 24-hr supervision.

Herein lies the biggest issue with those who suffer from severe mental health issues ... warehousing them in a jail is stupid, yet that's what happens almost every single time.

Maybe instead of increasing cop's budgets exponentially, take 30% of that money and invest it in supports for people who need it, esp mentally ill people.

[–] MarmaladeMermaid@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

If he’s functioning at a kindergarten level he actually should legally be under 24 hour supervision, just like a kindergartner.

He should also have as much access to guns as a kindergartner ( zero).

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We mostly need jail that's not 100% punitive. If there were mental health services in there and a LOT less abuse, there should be zero issue with "locking up" mentally incompetent people: it would be exactly the 24/7 observation and help you're asking for.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We had those in the US, but Reagan shut them down instead of properly regulating them.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because they were literal shitholes in decrepit buildings who had loooong histories of viciously abusing their residents.

The problem was they needed to be shut down, but first local supports needed to be put into place for them. Instead Reagan just booted people into the streets with zero money, zero training and zero supports. This was the start of the massive unhoused population increase you see playing out today.

Btw the same thing happened at the same time in Canada, because we had a right-wing gov't who was Reagan's lapdog.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they didn't need to be shut down. They needed to be regulated and funded.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Byberry opened in 1907 and closed in 1990.

Trans-Allegheny opened in 1863 and closed in 1994.

Willard Asylum opened in 1869 and closed in 1995.

Danvers opened in 1878 and closed in 1985.

These are just a few in the institutions that closed. As you can see the buildings were extremely old, so refurbishing/rebuilding them without fed funding (Reagan cut it in 1981) was impossible without massive tax increases neither the feds or states wanted.

The stories attached also tell of abuses that occured in each institution.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

refurbishing/rebuilding them without fed funding (Reagan cut it in 1981) was impossible without massive tax increases

Bullshit.

Reagan cut funding as part of his "trickle down fails yet again like it always has" and that is why they weren't funded. No increase was needed, slashing funding was the problem. Don't repeat Reagan's lies.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

source

In 1963 President John F. Kennedy signs the Community Mental Health Act to provide federal funding for the construction of community-based preventive care and treatment facilities. Between the Vietnam War and an economic crisis, the program was never adequately funded (this is the last bill JFK signs before his death)

In 1965, with the passage of Medicaid, states are incentivized to move patients out of state mental hospitals and into nursing homes and general hospitals because the program excludes coverage for people in “institutions for mental diseases.”

The California Legislature passes the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act in 1967, which makes involuntary hospitalization of mentally ill people vastly more difficult. One year after the law goes into effect, the number of mentally ill people in the criminal-justice system doubles.

President Jimmy Carter signs the Mental Health Systems Act in 1980, which aims to restructure the community mental-health-center program and improve services for people with chronic mental illness.

Under President Ronald Reagan in 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act repeals Carter’s community health legislation and establishes block grants for the states, ending the federal government’s role in providing services to the mentally ill. Federal mental-health spending decreases by 30 percent.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

People needing mental health care should NEVER be in a jail. Full stop.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So because he had pneumonia-induced brain damage, he should be permanently imprisoned?

[–] QuinceDaPence@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He should be prevented from being free in society since he has demonstrated he's too dangerous to be out unsupervised.

Whatever form that restriction takes is up for discussion, saying he's not fit to stand trial and then letting him loose is obviuosly not the answer.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

saying he’s not fit to stand trial and then letting him loose is obviuosly not the answer.

I didn't say it was.

Whatever form that restriction takes is up for discussion

Yes. That's exactly the discussion. Where will you put him, if not jail?

[–] QuinceDaPence@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My opinion in an ideal world is to bring back asylums but do it proper this time with careful consideration for due process, checks and balances, and fair conditions.

But the realistic side of me knows that's a big ask and doesn't trust the government to do anything right.

There's also a part of me that thinks, for certain crimes it's a [I'm drawing a blank on the word here] that you're mentally-ill because no sane person would do ___________ and anyone that does ________ should be in prison.

Ultimately I think asylums for the ones where there's no hope of improvement or that become murderous when off their meds, and remote rehab facility type things for the ones that are less serious.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I appreciate the detail, and I don't disagree with anything you've written. I simply have a problem with people who look at a situation like this and their immediate reaction is "that person should be locked up." (not saying you said that, mind you)

To those people, I say: We tried involuntary institutionalization for a long, long time, and it was an unmitigated disaster where people with legitimate mental illnesses were driven more into psychosis as a result of subhuman treatment and relentless stigma. We know a lot more about mental illness than we did just a few short decades ago, and the longer we ignore that those maladies are just as much "illnesses" as things like the flu, the more we invite violence like this. Mental illness is a problem none of us give a single shit about until an untreated, hopelessly abandoned person with a crippling mental illness does something that directly impacts one of the rest of us. Then suddenly it's knives out. None of us want to pay enough to fix the system, we just want to bitch and complain inside our safe little bubbles where we can rely on a retributive justice system to repeatedly dole out harsh punishment that gives us an illusory sense of security so we can go back to our normal lives. Folks fire off "thoughts and prayers", we put the person in jail (or to death), wash, rinse, repeat.

Sorry for the rant. Coming from someone who lost a bipolar family member to suicide, people like this piss me the fuck off, and I just had to put it out there.

[–] ___@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He could be police officer in 6 months.

[–] Chakravanti@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

And then his murder could be charged with a mere $35.50 charge on failing to yield to a pedestrian causing bodily injury.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes. If that's what you call a care facility.

In any case, he clearly shouldn't be out in society. If he's not responsible for his own actions, he should be in a place where other people are responsible. How can you actually advocate for a violent,, mentally deficient man to be out and about, with access to guns? Clearly you don't give a shit about his young victim and her family, or the kids and mother he terrorized previously.

When you're threatening my family do you think I give a flying fuck about my attackers mental well being? It's not my problem, it's not my concern.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes. If that’s what you call a care facility.

I don't call prison a care facility.

In any case, he clearly shouldn’t be out in society. If he’s not responsible for his own actions, he should be in a place where other people are responsible.

Not unsupervised, no. He should be granted access to shelter and provided treatment. He should have a permanent legal guardian. If he cannot afford one, or one does not volunteer, one should be appointed by the state. Our taxes should pay for a competent, trained, and well-staffed social services program that can meet demand and ensure his safety and the safety of others around him. He should be barred from owning or possessing a weapon. It's amazing how many valid alternatives you can come up with when you go one step further than "hE sHoUlDn'T bE lEt OuT1!!!"

How can you actually advocate for a violent, mentally deficient man to be out and about, with access to guns? Clearly you don’t give a shit about his young victim and her family, or the kids and mother he terrorized previously.

I didn't say anything of the sort, jackass. Shove your knee-jerk righteous indignation where the sun don't shine, broseph.

When you’re threatening my family do you think I give a flying fuck about my attackers mental well being? It’s not my problem, it’s not my concern.

So long as you understand that you're advocating that we indefinitely imprison the mentally ill, I don't give a shit what you think, say, or do.