E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Arapahoe County Sheriff via AP
Aurora massacre suspect James Holmes, shown here in a photo released by the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office. A federal lawsuit has accused the University of Colorado of failing to stop his rampage.
The widow of an Aurora massacre victim has filed a lawsuit against the University of Colorado, claiming a school psychiatrist could have prevented the slaughter by having cops lock up student James Holmes after he "fantasized about killing a lot of people."
The case could be the first of several actions against the university, which received 11 notices of possible lawsuits from victims' families before a 180-day deadline for state filings expired this week.
"I believe any lawsuits would not be well-founded either legally or factually," university counsel Patrick O'Rourke said, adding that he could not comment further because of doctor-patient confidentiality.
The suit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Denver by Chantel Blunk, wife of Navy veteran Jonathan Blunk, alleges that Dr. Lynne Fenton "knew that James Holmes was dangerous" after the grad student told her on June 11 that he wanted to kill.
"Fenton had a duty to use reasonable care to protect the public at large from James Holmes," the suit says.
Fenton notified a campus threat-assessment team about her concerns, but turned down a police officer's offer to arrest Holmes and put him under a 72-hour psychiatric hold, court papers say.
Blunk was one of 12 people killed when Holmes allegedly opened fire during a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20. The 26-year-old father of two died shielding another moviegoer from bullets.
It appears the claims in his widow's suit are based on published reports about Holmes' meeting with Fenton and the actions she took afterward, since much of the evidence in the case is still under wraps.
The suit doesn't specify damages except to say it's more than $75,000.
Tom Russell, a University of Denver law professor, said Blunk’s was filed in federal court because she lives in Nevada, but it’s subject to the same restrictions as an action in state court. That includes a limit on total damages to $600,000 for all plaintiffs in cases against the government.
It's unclear how many of the 11 notices the university has received will result in suits, but Russell said he thinks the chance of success of any potential suits is low.
Although what Holmes said to Fenton has not been made public because of doctor-client privilege, it appears that it was vague enough that the psychiatrist would not have been legally bound to act on the threat, Russell said.
Ed Andrieski/AP
Chantel Blunk, widow of Jonathan Blunk, shown on the left after a preliminary hearing for James Holmes this month.
Holmes reportedly sent a notebook to Fenton that may contain more specifics, but since the psychiatrist didn't receive it until after the rampage, she can't be held liable for what's in it, Russell added.
"A lawsuit against the shooter himself is a winning lawsuit," the professor said. "But he has no assets."
Several families have also filed lawsuits against Cinemark, owner of the movie theater, which is set to reopen Thursday.
A judge has given prosecutors the go-ahead to put Holmes on trial, but he won't be arraigned until March. In the face of overwhelming evidence, he's expected to mount an insanity defense, which would remove doctor-patient privilege and reveal more about his dealings with Fenton.
Leave a Comment:
Greed, just pure greed. Just because someone fantasizes about something is no reason to lock them up. If we do then we have become the thought police and who is the one who decides if a thought is cause enough to have a person locked up.
"fantasized about killing a lot of people."
I would say a good percentage of humans have that fantasy. How do you distinguish those who just fantasize and will never do anything from people like James Holmes or Adam Lanza?
Bob - what would you say is a good percentage?
I've never fantasized about that, I try to reserve my fantasies for a sexual nature...I'm pretty sure that's way more fun.
What comprises a 'fantasy'? Someone who fantasizes themselves as Rambo or any number of the action movies stars could be considers fantasizing about killing people. The problem with locking people up because of their thoughts is dangerous because it is all up to someone else's judgement of what level of danger the individual poses.
Depending on the sexual fantasy, do we lock someone up because they could be a rapist?
How many people have thought of the perfect crime, or had delusions that they did. Do we lock those people up?
At what point can the doctor change fantasy to intent?
Yes, there are many people who fantasize about a great many disturbing things. Not all of them speak openly about it to a Psych. It's a responsibility of medical professionals to report such things to the authorities if they think the threat is real. It's unfortunate for Fenton, I'm sure she wishes she'd given the go ahead to hold Holmes.
Not really sure where I rest here, I hate the litigious nature of our country, but that doesn't mean some of them aren't warranted.
Wait a mintue here, the article states the Fenton had an offer from police to lock up Holms? Then to me it seems that she did notify the proper authorities about Holms possibly being a threat. But where do the laws of Colorado or the United States give a private psychiatrist the authority to decide who should be incarcerated and who shouldn't? I would think that authority should reside with a court appointed psychiatrist.
Release his medical records. I want to know what drugs he was on and why. Not everyone tolerates the widely prescribed SSRIs, anti-anxiety meds, or for that matter Ritalin, Adderall, etc. and we KNOW the side effects include thoughts of self-harm or harm to others.
If anyone should be faced with a lawsuit, it's the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA for releasing these medications without proper testing. And we KNOW they have done this. They know that some people just cannot tolerate them, and they know that doctors will have to try a number of different formulations on their patient until they find one that works the best - or has the least undesirable side effects. The FDA and Big Pharma have not been queried enough about these issues.
The FDA and Big Pharma should have been put under a microscope before any new gun legislation. And no, I'm not a "gun enthusiast".
The FDA and Big Pharma should have been on the hook for this from the get-go. Holmes' medical records need to be released. He gave up his right to "doctor/patient confidentiality". I think the anti-gun crowd "shot from the hip" on this issue when they should have been looking to the dysfunctional FDA and the greedy pharmaceutical industry.
I agree, nothing but $$$$$...sue his parents, sue his school buddies, sue his DNA.....money is driving this...and a scumbag (aren't they all??) lawyer...
"Release his medical records."
If he pleads an insnity defense, I believe the medical records will become part of the chain of evidence. Otherwise, they are sealed. I may be wrong; if so can an expert weigh in?
Prescription drugs are a huge problem in this country. They are over-prescribed and cause many problems. This where the government needs to step in, not on our second amendment rights. I have seen families destroyed by a psychiatrist's prescriptions.
.Unless he mounts an insanity defense his medical records would be off limits. Someone posted that a Psych cant have someone locked up if they are a threat - they can have them jailed - but any physician is morally bound to evalauate a patient who suggests harming self or others, and if they truly suspect there is a possibility they can have the patient held for 72 hour evaluation.
Sadly I agree with the greed comments, it was tragic that this womans husband died at the hands of this nut case, but sometimes @!$%# happens and no one is truly responsible other than the nut cacse .
Frigging "sue happy" Americans. Yet another disgusting example of the Dumb American. Her mentality which is abundant is disturbing. Blame someone else instead of the SOB that did it. Make some money "because."
How did we raise so many idiots?
Can we please keep this bug eyed ugly psycho idiot scumbags picture off of the articles please? Stop glorifying and sensationalizing him. Media, you are a part of the problem and not the solution that's for sure. He should get the William Wallace style of death.
Not that WW deserved it but what he got was horrible and this @sshole deserves just that. Torture him and then give him the guillotine and then some. He should not be shown at all media!!
Actually a guy telling a shrink he wants to kill lots of people is a good reason to lock him up. His shrink, Dr. Fenton was concerned enough she called the security force on campus. SO she believed as a doctor, this guy was dangerous. She balked when a cop asked her to press it so he could arrest the guy. Why she balked is not released yet. It will come out in court. The fact she called security is a matter of fact on the public record. IT is not speculation. Later her patient carries out his fantasy. OH yes, confess your murdering fantasy to a Doctor and you should find your self behind bars. It may be a mental hospital but darned sure you should be locked up. Those dead people did not deserve to die. The weak Doctor who balked is deserving of the suit. Her employer put her in the position to do a job and when she balked she did not do her job. The survivirs of the dead deserve justice. IF the University has to pull out a claim form to their Ins Co. and cough up $600k per victim then that's just what has to happen. IF the Doctor, her boss and a dean or two have to cough up their jobs, then that's just what has to happen. After Aurora and after the kids in Connecticutt,, it's time to stop worrying about offending mentally ill people that are known to be dangerous. They can get their hands on guns. They need to be locked up.
It's $600,000 for all plaintiffs, according to the article. A drop in the bucket if all injured parties file suit. Ever since the Supreme Court caused the release of mental patients from residential facilities many years ago, there has been a reluctance on the part of medical/law enforcement authorities to implement involuntary commitments. That's not likely to change because the mentally ill person can also sue for having been wrongfully committed. Ah, lawyers -- you gotta love them!!
Perhaps. And perhaps grief is driving this. Perhaps loss and the prospect of going forward without the one you love and trying to put this horror behind you is driving this. Sometimes people just want something tangible to blame. I doubt the thought of money is any consolation at all in the face of what is gone.
Gotta make a buck some how..sue them all. Might win one!
The widow may be driven by greed. That was my initial thought. But after reading the story, I'm not so sure.
If a qualified psychiatrist thought enough of his fantasies to inform the campus police, then you might make the case that this guy represented a creditable threat to public safety.
Does that make the Doctor or the University which hired her culpable?
I don't know. But I don't see it as an open & shut case.
it is interesting that he told profesor enough information to have him forcibily kicked off campus and restraining order issued to not come back on campus. the school failed to perform legal required duty. this has happened in the majority of these incidents since late 80's, they are required to take action, but normally don't want to put label on these individuals. eventually they get labelled murderers.
Sue haggsisbingo, she probably would not get anything though since haggs just some worthless little boy in mommy and daddys basement playing on their computer!!!! Grow up little boy, you libs always need to blame everyone for your own ignorance and incompetence!!!
Ain't that the way in the US. Find something or someone to point fingers at and blame, and when the perpetrator is dead, sue someone else instead.
And meanwhile, all the use of meds, and even abuse (say hello to pain killer addictions) is in large measure because we are the same society that's looking for the quick fix, the easy answer, the pill to pop, the ready to nuke in the microwave and 30 secs latter it is done, solution. Even with matters that aren't so simple, or that don't fit into the ready made, or convenience category. Something isn't in quite right, go the medicine closet and take a cold remedy that only relieves symptoms and nothing else, or take a pain pill; but never a question as to what is wrong or why one is experiencing pain in the first place. And the next thing one knows, some get addicted to Perkaset, or something of the sort. If they could, they'd probably try to invent a pill for drug addiction too...
dman-353357,
That's the thing though, if she told the police, and the police came down, then the decision on what to do should be upon them. Arguing if it is the university or the psychiatrist, when the police only suggested she could have him held, but didn't want to make the call to hold them, themself? Why aren't the campus police being mentioned in this? She already reported it, to the police; if one looks at that account. Calling the police, is reporting it....
If this person was on something, that have a side effect in SOME individiduals for violent thoughts or thoughts of suicide, then there you go. And if not, the guilty party is dead already. But in either case, the litigous nature of things, combined with societies desire to find something to blame (outside individual responsibility), and to look for a quick fix remains. Funny that, that for drug addicts, the look for a quick fix is also part of what got them into trouble, in the first place. Oh well...
sounds like she is fantizing about alot of money!LMAO
./yawn Went to append my reply to dman to the end of my post above, page didn't reload instantly (server seems a bit sluggish here at least), and it came 1 paragraph before the end. Can't edit anymore, to correct that....
garrie-haggs outed herself as a woman a couple days ago.
I don't know why I'm bothering with this, but since I'm allergic to bull$h!t, I have to try. God knows this thread if full of BS.
1. Mental health care providers are required by law to notify law enforcement if they believe that a patient they are treating may be a danger to themselves or to others. This determination is based upon diagnosis, not fantasy. It does not look good for Dr. Fenton that she turned down a police request to put Holmes on a 72 hour psychiatric hold.
2. Psychiatric medication is not part of some grand conspiracy or whatever. At the time of his arrest, Holmes was not taking any medication. He was put on it after his arrest because he was not mentally competent to understand the charges against him.
3. Psychiatric drugs are not a quick fix and are not the only treatment for mental illness. Medication along with therapy is the most effective treatment for mental illness. Suggesting this only shows your ignorance.
4. If you are taking psychiatric medication and you are experiencing side effects or it is not working properly, then it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to inform your doctor so they can try a different treatment. If you notice a member of your family experiencing negative side effects from any medication, ESPECIALLY psychiatric meds, then it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to inform their doctor, especially if they are in no shape to do this themselves. The "overprescribed" line is a cop-out and shifting the blame from the people who should be telling their doctors that something isn't working or ignoring a family member experiencing side effects onto the doctors who prescribe it. Unless you've ever had an insurance company deny covering the only medication that works for you and you're stuck with something that "sorta works", you have no idea what you're talking about when you shoot your mouths off about psychiatric medication.
msannomalley
" Mental health care providers are required by law to notify law enforcement if they believe that a patient they are treating may be a danger to themselves or to others"
That's right, and she did that. The police will then ask her if she thinks he is really a threat, and if she says no it stops there.
What if he was committed for 72 hours? He has advanced degrees and could probably pass himself off as sane for three days.
The Dr., police, school, guns, magazines, society or anyone or anything else is not to blame. The blame lies 100% on the shooter and no one or nothing else.
So fire the psychiatrist for not doing the job properly... no payouts should occur. I realize the psychiatrist worked for the school, but I honestly don't see how The University of Colorado would be held liable. They should be responsible for something they weren't directly connected with? You can say "what if," "what if" all day long, but the outcome will remain the same. You can't pinpoint every maniac. Maybe more action should have been taken, maybe not. However, if we always took precaution and sent patients to jail because of threatening/disturbing talk, I feel as if a lawsuit could arise from that scenario as well. Overall, a lose-lose situation.
We have omnipresent suing in this day and age. Money won't bring him back... I won't have any sympathy for this woman if she collects a payment.
She talked to the campus cops, not the Aurora police.
SUE THE NRA
Why?
For believing in the Constitution?
...whom I believe have the power to arrest.
Let's not judge this case on the basis of a few paragraphs of information. I do not believe anybody speaking on this thread knows all the facts of the case, including the laws governing a mental healthcare worker's responsibilities regarding a possibly dangerous patient.
dman. Correct nobody here has all the facts. Incorrect we can't fantazise about the missing facts. Since no one here is arresting or convicting anyone, denying them their rights or endangering the public. It's a discussion forum. We can make stuff up, just like the reporters do, just like our leaders the politicians do. We can also stick to the facts available, apply our experiences, and share facts from similar stories. IT's fun.
Speculation is one thing. Pronouncements based upon so little information just makes one look stupid.
Yes, we all have the right to say pretty much whatever we want regarding this law suit. My point is that most of what has been said is just vapid and useless. It does not illuminate. It obscures.
But, by all means, do what you like. Who is stopping you?
Yep . Probably should take it easy on telling everybody they have nothing to go on toward developing the conversation. As you are one of the everyone , you would be including yourself. I for one wouldn't want that. I like reading comments from people who can help develop the conversation.
So they put him on 72 hour hold. What then? They would have had to turen him loose. All he's done is postpone his plans for three days. He'd had this whole thing in the works for months.
Essentially what she's saying is that if Holmes psychiatrist had put a hold on him, someone else's husband would have died instead of hers.
No - The 72 hour hold allows them to do a complete clinical evaluation of the person. After that, if the doctors determine that he is a danger to himself or others they can go to the courts and have him committed for a longer period, basically until the doctors are ready to certify he is no longer a threat. It is called an involuntary civil commitment. It certainly sounds like this doctor had more than enough cause to have him put on 72 hour hold and a full clinical work-up done on him. Many doctors are afraid to do this because they feel it will hurt their relationship with the patient and make it harder, if not impossible for them to continue as their doctor going forward. They get more concerned about keeping the patient and the money they bring than doing what is right. I do not think that money had anything to do with the reason why this doctor did not have him put on a hold, I just think that she exercised very poor judgement.
Also the hold would have been a few weeks before the event, and by then he might have been involuntarily committed.
Not necessarily. Holmes would have been evaluated and if he were found to be a danger to himself or others and had a diagnosable condition that was behind him being a danger to himself or others, then he'd be involuntarily committed and treated for whatever mental illness he was diagnosed with.
"The 72 hour hold allows them to do a complete clinical evaluation of the person"
I have worked in a hospital with a psych ward that had many people brought in for "evaluation", when in fact they were there mostly for observation. they would spend an hour or two with a Dr and then nurses would administer tests. Most patients would also be sedated for their stay. Almost all of the people were brought into the ward in handcuffs because of a domestic or civil disturbance, in other words, after the fact.
I thought that it came out that she did try to get the authorities involved, but was rebuffed.
Fantasies are a good part of the reasons that people see a psychologist. As much as I would have liked this jerk to have killed himself first, I don't want people locked up because of their thoughts.
This country is just too sue-happy. Will any amount of money make up for the loss of these people?
SHAME ON YOU MRS. BLUNK.
Total lawsuit abuse. Money Hungry is all you look like.
GREED isn't going to bring your loved one back.
Mrs thorn,Lawsuits such as this ladies is another good case for tort reform in the U.S. to stop these types of frivolous lawsuits in the first place.
Completely agree Mrs. Thorn. This was horrific, but sueing the college for a payday is reaching for straws.
While I agree suing the college is a grab for money it might make some sense very little but some. The thought of suing the movie theatre is the one I considered way out wrong.
What about the fact that she no longer has her husband to support her. Maybe you think it would be better for her to just go on welfare.
Nothing frivolous about piles of dead humans.
This isn't about someone being called fat or getting a bad haircut.
What would be an acceptable thing to sue over?
pheonix3, maybe she should go get a JOB. Hopefully her husband was responsible and bought life insurance in case anything happened to him. I can tell you are looking for all the free rides she could get.
Why on earth would anyone sue the movie theater?
I was wondering the same thing. Exactly what did the families expect for the movie theater to do to stop this shooting? That's like suing a city because someone was murdere on a street corner.
OH good I am not alone.
STLMike- or like suing the auto industry because someone died in a car wreck.
I'm scratching my head on the movie theater part of this. There is no reasonable way they could have known this was going to happen in the first place, so how could they have prevented it?
Not having alarms at the emergency exits?
Didn't he leave, block the door and then re-enter?
I hope she loses.
Didn't you here? She did loose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, her HUSBAND.
He died.
Shielding people with his body.
I hope the government fights the lawsuits. Simple greed. You can't lock everyone up simple because they have a fantasy. We would all be locked up. It is called a fantasy for a reason.
It's not normal to fantasize about killing other people.
Again who is suppose to replace her husbands pay check.
I personally hope she wins! If Ms. Fenton would have had him arrested and held for 3 days, just maybe they would not have let him go after a mental evaluation people. That is one thing that is wrong with mental health today that needs to change. When someone makes a threat verbally or has these fantasies and talks about them to someone, it should be legal for the person to be held and evaluated. Some people will be returned to society and they were all mouth in their statements. But some people will be hospitalized and held for further psychiatric help and medications to control whatever psychiatric disorder of the mind that they are diagnosed with. There is not enough money spent on mental health and instead we would rather spend it on people's funerals, which is a disgrace in itself. Until you loose someone to gun violence, you will never understand what people go through afterwards and the why questions. Believe me a lot more can be done with one today that was announced for the center of disease control to study why people commit gun violence against themselves and others. It is not guns that kill people, it is the person behind the trigger and as a society we must understand the mental thought process more clearly to prevent gun shootings. Do nothing is not the answer unless you want to get that call about your loved one that is now in the hospital or dead in a morgue.
You make a great point, it is the person at fault who did the killing.
Now Even if they had been locked up, who is to say that the nut wouldn't have gotten a gun through other means and done the same thing.
Suit is about money.
Oh, so now I'm responsible for some nut case that wants to tell me something? The fault lies with the killer and only the killer. You can always find someone to blame later and now Ms. Fenton's life is ruined because she was doing her job.
If you're put on a 72 hour psychiatric hold and then found to be a danger to themselves or others by a psychiatrist, you don't go to jail. You go to a mental hospital where you stay and receive psychiatric treatment until a doctor deems that you are no longer a threat. If he were involuntarily committed after a 72 hour hold, he would have been in there for at least 60 days. It takes anywhere from 4 to 8 weeks for psychiatric medication to take effect, plus then he would have to go through some form of psychotherapy or cognitive behavioral therapy, depending on his particular illness.
Ms. Fenton is required by law to report any patient she treats that she feels is a danger to themselves or others. Ms. Fenton turned down the police's offer to put Holmes on a 72 hour psych hold. She exercised poor judgment here.
mmm1379- If you have gone to school for 6 years to get your PHD then yes you should be responsable if you make a mistake, just like any other doctor.
mmm changes sheets at a whore house so of course he shouldn't be responsible. At least he is close to his mom.
The doctor is an idiot.
The widow has my sympathy but her lawsuit is without merit.He should have been in a mental hospital but the Patients Rights Act would have prevented him from being held for more than 72 hours.Mental health hospitals are scarce due to government funding so she should be suing the United States of America for not funding mental health hospitals with our tax dollars.
During the 72 hour hold, Holmes would have been examined by a psychiatrist, who could then petition to have him involuntarily committed to a mental hospital if the psychiatrist felt Holmes was a danger. If no evaluation is done in that time, or he is found to not be a threat, then they cannot hold him.
Of course, someone has to pay other than the wacko. My lawyer said so, and he only get's 35 percent.
They have filed a lawsuit without knowing the facts? Sounds like a recipe for total failure in the courtroom. And maybe some of these families would prefer we ban movie theatres? There are no laws, no requirements to have security at a movie theatre, mall, etc, etc. In fact when security is in place the majority of people scream their rights have been violated (TSA anyone?).
If you were walking down the street and were hit by a car and died would the survivors sue the automobile manufacturer or the builders of the sidewalk? Or maybe we should have "MOM IN ILLINOIS" do mental health evaluations on everyone since she is obviously a huge expert on the subject.
She could sue the doctor that delivered this wacko into the world. Or sue the mom. His mom must have known he'd grow up to be a killer. Doesn't everyone have a crystal ball?
They filed because if they didn't and it later comes out that the schools is liable (I personally doub it) and they had not filed within 180 days (which is just about now - they would have been SOL.
Has anyone else caught on that this was his estranged wife? I thought I recalled seeing stories about Mr. Blunk on the news right after the tragedy, and how he was killed protecting his girlfriend, Jansen Young. Did a bit of digging and sure enough, there it was. Perhaps Mrs. Blunk is acting to ensure the financially stability of her children. One can hope. Don't think this will go anyone, but I am no legal expert.
More support of the Greed thoughts. If it were for the kids wouldn't it be his estate suing not the estranged wife.
HappilyRetired- thats what this country has come to.
Why not sue the guy who shot your husband? - oh yeah - no money there...
Money grubbing bitches. Will sue for any reason
Just because it wasn't an accident, doesn't mean that it's someone's fault (other than the shooter - obviously). There is no way to predict who will act on their crazy fantasies and who will turn their sick thoughts into books/movies or blog about them. How many sick horror movies are made every year? Those had to be conjured up by someone didn't they? Are those people locked up for having perverted thoughts?
We have the NRA going on about gun owners rights taking opposition to restictions on certian gun types, magazines and a national gun owner registration, but supporting armed guards in schools, arming teachers, and having people running around with concealed weapons. I keep wondering if there had been an armed patorn at the theatre who shot it out with this guy how many additional people might be dead - a shoot out could have caused either more or less dead folks, if this shooter had been killed by the armed NRA memebr would AUrora police have known he had boobytrapped his apartment - how many more dead. Would Innocent bystanders have been able to sue the NRA?
IF the NRA has there way our schools, places of employment, and communities will become armed camps, subject to potential shootouts between folks who percievfe a threat that may or may not be there. Do we really want to live in the old west?
Holly; you are the typical ignorant anti gunner. The shooter would have been unable to walk around just shooting people laying down or hiding behind their chair. The situation would have been a lot different. Lets look at the mall shooting where an armed off duty police officer fought back and because of it only 2-3 people were shot when the guy was armed to take out hundreds or the shooting at a church where an armed guard fought back and the shooter was not able to walk through a church full of unarmed people. An armed response against a shooter will always deter more shootings if the armed person is capable of getting off at least one round that normally makes the active shooter run for cover and re-act....... This gives people more time to run and prevents the shooter from just walking around freely shooting unarmed people who can do nothing but hide and pray!!!!!!
You anti gunners are so afraid you would rather just be sitting ducks for lunatics who want to kill you, myself I plan on fighting back if it happens and I am one of those who would rather be tried by a jury than carried by six friends in a coffin. You scaried little libs can just be buried I will fight back!
"Several families have also filed lawsuits against Cinemark, owner of the movie theater, which is set to reopen Thursday."
People are stupid. Or desperate for money. Or both.
If, maybe, should, would, could, perhaps, in retrospect, in hindsight, someone should have. Aurora was a terrible tragedy as was Newtown, as was the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin. And there will be more of them. 300 million guns in this country in a population that is overprescribed, overmedictaed, & overstimulated.
The Aurora shooting was a horrific tragedy, but I am really tired of people suing everyone except the person who committed the crime. They are after deep pockets. The university did not shoot up the theatre, they did not have a warning from Holmes that he was going to do so, and the University is not responsible for the individual crimes of others. These kinds of lawsuits need to be stopped!
How about suing the one person who is responsible for the tragedy, James Holmes?
Pretty certain there are criteria a psychiatrist must use for 72 hour psych holds. They have to be prudent in their use of mandatory psych holds too. Also, the 72 hrs is used to further evaluate the psychological well-being of the person being held. Its not automatic this guy would have been kept in any longer and the minute he got out could have still done the horrible act. People who are intelligent can fake their way through psych evals. and fool the most competent, experienced professionals. My husband did.
If someone does you wrong, then sue. It's the American way. And then people wonder why this country is going broke.
Gold diggers. Phsychiatry is not an exact science and he didn't say he was going to do it.
In the wake of all gun violence talks and new proposed laws moderating gun ownership, it’s good to see the issue taking another path. The issue of dangerously crazy always takes a back seat to gun violence. Dr. Lynne needed to put her dangerously crazy student patient on a watch list for gun background checks. Dangerously crazy patients should have no right to privacy after an accredited psychiatrist deems the patient dangerous to others. Dr. Lynne can now hide behind patient confidentially in citing why did not take the police offer to hold him for 72 hours. After shooting 70 people and killing 12 with an assault rifle there is no more patient physician privilege. Those deaths make it null and void.