shot dead in DC
 

Info about the woman who was shot dead today in DC is sketchy here, but i dont get why they killed her. There was a child in the car too. Any deeper insight from those in the know?

It's a story that mysteriously disappeared from the BBC news website ...
[correction]
Here it is on the Beeb

She was trying to run down police officers during the chase. They don't like that.

My understanding from multiple news sources is: she apparently either rammed or pulled right up to a barricade at the White House; when approached by Secret Service officers, she reversed and made a turn that hit an officer. He had to be airlifted to a hospital. She then headed at high speed toward the Capitol. At one point she was surrounded and stopped, but again reversed, hitting a patrol car, and drove at officers before heading further toward the Capitol at high speed. No shots were fired until after she had escaped the stop and continued heading for the Capitol at speed. Seven shots were fired then. I believe more shots were fired once she crashed near the Capitol. Officers didn't know there was a child in the car until it was all over.

Apparently she was a 34 year old dental hygienist with a history of post-partum depression within the past year, for which she'd been hospitalized. There's no way to know yet whether her depression played a role in the tragedy, but PP depression has psychotic features more often than other types.

This is just horrible. But I think the officers did their best to resolve the crisis without shooting, until she rammed a cruiser and continued at speed toward the Capitol. They had no information on who was in the car or what the intent was; they could only assume a worst-case scenario.

And this is all in a climate where we just had a mass murder in a government facility a week or two ago a mile away.

Were any children endangered during that incident?

Duh... bullets were fired, weren't there ?

Hahahaha! You senile old people are so amusing with your tunnel vision.

I'm referring to the practice of people who go on a rampage taking children with them. From the stories I've come across, it seems that women are more likely than men to take children with them, by a wide margin.

True. Men just kill their kids because the monther leaves them.

It seems women are more likely to murder their children just before they commit suicide.

Crazy women almost by definition do not have the social supports that would enable them access to child care. The kid is with them by default, not because they say, "Hey, I should choose to involve my child in something that I understand is crazy."

Sexo I massively disagree. At least in this country.

Also I'd add that when a child dies of neglect or abuse there is usually a new partner/ step-dad involved. In no way exonerating the mother, just saying how I read it/ view it time and time and time again.

Clod read my post in Unhappy thread.
Incapable woman who was incapable of allowing help to be given.
On a bottle of vodka a day. I came close to those depths, but I looked after Diz (barely in the bad times.) How much more work is a child when you're at that level?

You make a strong argument for prophylactically taking their children away from them in view of this social ill. Well done.

That's not the first argument I would make given Clodfobble's post. I would first argue for universal, non-judgmental support. If you fear being mentally ill will necessarily mean you have to give up your kids then you won't seek treatment. The only social ill I see here is stigmatizing sick people in need of health care.

Yes, yes of course, thank you for making all so doable. We argue for universal, unconditional support, elimination of poverty, and the end to all wars. Pie in the sky arguments are saving lives everyday dontcha know.

...because only a man would try to figure out how to do it afterward.

Don't patronize me. I never said unconditional support, elimination of poverty or the end to all wars.

I think it's better to set lofty goals and take baby steps toward them than to give up and dehumanize people. No "one big push" ever succeeds fully. No matter what you are going to have a painful period where you zero in on what's most effective.

A starting point would be a movement to stop mental illness stigma. We have bullying prevention and all sorts of other social initiatives. Generally not expensive.

Incarceration is what happens to a lot of mentally ill people who don't have access to social support. It's much cheaper to put someone in a hospital for a while, get them the drugs and therapy they need and then do whatever helps them reintegrate with society as safely as possible. You prevent a lot of negative externalities by helping those in need.

I think the problem most people have with this sort of suggestion is that it's addressing the cause not the symptom. Most people just can't fathom that. It's easier to use whatever quick fix is available after the problem becomes acute.

Well said, PW

The problem is not with that sort of suggestion; but, that you would FIRST argue it:

The problem is already chronic. For serious issues there are often two solutions, a short term solution and a long term solution. In this context, Clod's argument supports both a short term solution of intervention which prioritizes saving children's lives and a long term solution of not stigmatizing those in need of mental health care to further that objective ... not the other way around ... one doesn't have to wait on a cure to address the symptoms.

As you wish, then get ye to a tanning booth or something. I'm sure your dermatologist will understand:

Think that might have something to do with your perspectives?

Treating mental illness as comparable to physical illness and refusing to stigmatize those who suffer from it are not pie in the sky concepts.

Crisis intervention is a stop-gap measure that does help defuse many situations, but not all. But it's the long term care that's lacking. In spite of legislation requiring insurance companies to cover mental illness, the majority of policies I've looked at in the past month offer NO coverage for 'behavioral health'. People with severe illness can't wait months for an appointment and then just see a mid-level. They will decompensate.

This is a huge problem on both sides of the border. The reality is that there's no care for the 3% of the population with psychotic disorders! and little to none for the 10-15% of mothers who suffer postpartum depression.

No but it is expensive, and the Muslim Kenyan in the White House is too busy redistributing wealth to bother. :rolleyes:

It's far less expensive than treating lifestyle-induced chronic disease, and we don't balk at that. Although if we don't address that issue, we'll go bankrupt. Stay tuned for campaigns to promote healthy lifestyles that are similar to the very successful anti-smoking campaigns of the past couple of decades.

They are as a first priority; or, first method of approach as the issue currently exists. That's what my comment addressed.

ETA: Pass me a 64 oz. regular Coke.

Psychology was mostly a subjective art. Without tools to properly quantify a disorder and identify its causes, psychology remained something above blood letting. A subjective art.

Pet scanners and other recently developed tools are just beginning to turn psychology into more of a science. So how is any doctor to make a diagnosis supported by hard facts? That's the problem. Mental disorders are identified mostly by subjective observation.

Now, would a women suffering from post-partum depression always be obvious? Do symptoms come a go even within hours? How would one identify simple depression from potential acts of violence? Could the many who saw her days before recognize anything wrong if informed what to observe?

I think most of the people I meet are mentally ill, so how to we select which need help, as opposed to the ones that are self pitying attention whores?

Also, how do we help the ones that are so crazy they think they're fine? I sure as hell don't trust Dr Phil, and the courts have ruled you can't force institutionalize them unless they are a danger. There again, a judgment call unless they've harmed someone.

The advent of PET scanners has done a great deal to move our understanding from theory to observable, reproducible information, as has our understanding of neurotransmitters and neuroanatomy/neuropathology. It's true that psychiatric diagnoses remain clinical, but so do many 'physical' diagnoses, such as carpal tunnel syndrome (EMGs don't make the diagnosis; they just provide information regarding the extent of neural disruption), MS, and most of the degenerative neurological diseases. Many, many diseases are identified by direct observation.

Postpartum depression is a particularly malignant form of depression, with a higher prevalence of psychotic features than many other forms. Any woman who suffers from it needs aggressive treatment, support, and frequent assessment. The presence of any psychotic symptoms is a huge red flag indicating the need for immediate evaluation and probable admission.

Could others have noticed differences in the days leading up to the crisis? Possibly, if she had shared any delusions or hallucinations. Could they have gotten help for her? It's fairly unlikely. If she even had a policy that covered mental health, the criteria for admission are so stringent that unless she vocalized direct threats to herself or others she would not be admitted. Being psychotic on its own does not get you admitted. Even then, insurers will force discharge the moment the direct threat appears to have settled, even though the person is not stable.

Self-pitying attention whores are just that. I'm talking about major mental illness, the kind that kills - major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar 1 disorder. Not the personality or anxiety disorders or the urbanites who can't decide what they think about anything until they see a therapist.

Psychotic people are completely immersed in their delusions or hallucinations. That IS their reality. They live in fear more often than not. If you hear your furniture whispering bad things about you at night and plotting to kill you, you act to try to prevent that and you live in fear, as the next place you stay has furniture that whispers about you, too. The danger comes when command hallucinations start, or delusions become so overwhelming or terrifying that the person acts on them.

Dr. Phil doesn't do psychiatry, he does family therapy.

OK, but the first group are more likely to demand attention, whereas the second are more likely to retreat and sequester, from what I've read/seen. Seems pretty hard to sort out, even if they agree to talk to a shrink. :confused:

The second group is definitely more fearful and resistant to treatment. But these things can be sorted by diagnosis. The first group should have access to care, because the anxious ones will function better with some treatment. But they could be treated by PCPs. The second group needs priority for specialty care. They're harder to reach and treat because they're seriously ill with a brain disorder that makes them distrust everything they encounter. But they should have the Elite Class pass to immediate specialty care whenever they present.

But how do you locate and treat them before they try to ram the White House gates, or gun down a classroom full of children?

That's the million-dollar question. I do think that if serious attention were paid to providing priority treatment to those with serious mental illness, we could reduce the number of those who decompensate in a dangerous way.

Maybe their furniture will turn them in.

Not funny.

You reacted in the thread about Sundae's last drink because you had personal experience with some who'd lost that battle. This battle is worse. As with alcohol, no one chooses it - but with psychosis there isn't any way to abstain. The furniture example came from the experience of someone close to me, and it's as far from amusing as you can imagine.

Not me, you're confused.

I lost someone close to me on 9/11 who was confused, you're imitation of a confused person is as far from amusing as you can imagine.

"I prefer to keep them alive by keeping it real rather than killing them with kindness."

That said 'personal experience' to me. If instead you were just blowing smoke out your ass, your tasteless attempt at being funny about psychosis is doubly offensive.

I'm sorry you lost someone close to you on 9/11.

It was just their finger. And, P.S., .... I'm not sorry about it.

All of my personal experiences with alcoholics are success stories as they are all still recovering alcoholics. I have been an Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program Coordinator and have acquired knowledge of failures of people I didn't know personally. I believe it was regular.joe who posted about the loss of personal acquaintances. It's more plausible that you either misattributed the "personal experience" or gambled on your statement being correct knowing you had a 50/50 chance; but, lost. Now you're backpedaling, hoping that doubling down on your I'm so offended routine is going to fool someone but it's old hat. Carry on with your carrying on.

Well, i am sure there will be revelations about the womans mental health in the coming days. What i wondered about this situation was why they didnt box her with cars. She wasnt shooting at the cops was she?

@sexobon ... yes, I misattributed your reference, thinking you actually had personal experience. As for 'doubling down' or having an 'I'm so offended' routine - there is no routine. I grew up with a mother who was mentally ill. Two of my children were psychotic at different times; one was admitted to inpatient multiple times.

While in medical school and residency I did extra work in psychiatry, always on the inpatient wards with the most severely ill patients. I saw successes and failures of treatment. I saw that these diseases were and are heartbreaking. I worked with a man who had the delusion that he needed to stare at the sun so that an alien race would perceive him and land in Canada to rescue him. He had stared at the sun long enough that he had gone blind.

But, never mind. Why should I share the experiences of people in pain and fear with you, when your only concern is for a puerile one-upmanship?

I'd hoped to have an actual conversation, but you're always and only about the put-downs and one-ups. At your age, that's sad.

They did at one point but they were rolling and she braked out of it. The fact that she wasn't shooting is irrelevant. She'd tried to crash the White House gate and was racing around the Capitol area. She had to be stopped before she killed a pedestrian or detonated a trunk full of TNT. Nobody knew what she was up to or capable of.

[paraphrasing mine]

:violin:

I am sure thats all true Bruce. It just all seems so senseless. And so terrible for the child. A tragedy.

Maybe i am bleeding heart, but i am trying to be less cynical about people. I am finding it to be less stressful.

Eta: some people do make it difficult to not think the worst though. :/

OK, but when people do some stupid shit there's no time to find out if they are just having a bad day. This is called "suicide by cop".

Besides, we got over 300 million more. :haha:

This. You're a lard-ass with emphysema needing a triple bypass? Well, of course, that's just basic necessary medicine. You were born with a psychotic disorder through absolutely no fault of your own? Let's pretend it's your own fault and deny treatment.

The vast majority of those with mental illness have family members who tried for years to get them help. The current situation is made clear in an essay that made the rounds awhile back, called "I am Adam Lanza's Mother." If this mother could get the support she needed now, then her son hopefully would be stable and no threat by the time he's grown. But once they are adults--or sometimes many years before they are adults--family members are no longer equipped to take care of these mentally ill relatives by themselves anymore. They fight the system for as long as they can, but as has been noted, it's extremely difficult to get someone resident care unless they are a direct, immediate, violent threat to themselves or others.

It's true that it's harder to do something about those with mental illness who are already far off the beaten path. But if we invested in the supports now, families would get their children the help they need before things got too deep to handle. Even bad parents whose drug/alcohol/physical/emotional abuse is partly to blame for their children's mental state, they would still be more likely to seek support because from a selfish perspective it would ease their burden.

I hope the driver finds the peace that eluded her in this life.

My sympathies for her child, friends, and any family she had. I'm sure they were stunned to hear of this tragic, wild incident.

Congrats to the Capital police force. They did their job, being neither too quick to shoot, nor too hesitant to fire, when it became obvious that she would not stop.

Luckily, the child wasn't hurt.

I rather expect that her family and friends were the opposite of stunned. I imagine their primary thought has been, "Goddammit. We told you all something like this would happen."

I have a relative with only mild mental illness. Yet he has, surprise surprise, no insurance, so it comes and goes in waves and is not at all managed. And if one day I learned he had done something like this... I'd be very sad, but I most definitely would not be stunned.

Along Clod's line of thinking...
MassLive.com
10/5/13

Rep. Ellen Story calls Miriam Carey death 'wake up call' on postpartum depression

It's odd, I keep running into stories and clips about her that don't add up. First they're saying she has PPD real bad. Then less than a year ago she told the CT cops Obama had her under surveillance. And she was apparently twisted enough to drive all the way to DC. OK, that all adds up.

But then they talk to her family, neighbors, and people she'd worked with.
Almost everyone of them, said she was pleasant, happy, communicative, and all around pleasant.

Now I admit I'm been watching the news with one eye, part time, and less than 20% interest. Maybe I misunderstood or misheard, but didn't sound right to me.

Many people with depression are very good at hiding it from the people around them. Thats why some people are shocked while others just saw it coming. I know when i had it i hid it from most people till i started being treated.

That's been a common thread in a lot of the mass shooting incidents, hasn't it?

Mentally ill person gets a gun or two and ....

I like guns. But you have to keep mentally unstable people AWAY from them!!

In part because of what Orthodoc said long before so many irrelevant "put-downs and one-ups" were posted. We have little to no way of quantifying who is most dangerous. The science has only just recently obtained tools to study this stuff. Of course, in an extremist government that hates research on guns, violence, stem cells, and other relevant concepts, then we would only remain ill informed. So you could not know who needs help.

Let's be quite clear about this. When the CDC did studies that clearly noted what increases risk and death, then extremist organizations got laws passed to ban all future Federal government research. By the CDC or anyone else. Unfortunately extremists would rather blame the mentally ill rather that identify, treat, and develop new products that could avert this.

Only moderates want to address this and similar problems. We currently see how much influence wacko extremists now have over America. Mission Accomplished and the wasted 5000 American servicemen were just one example of extremism. Even those extremists are even calling the current crop of wackos extremists.

Maybe we should submit Ted Cruz, et al to diagnostic testing for mental illness. No wonder they want more guns and no research.

Good gracious, don't tell me you still think you're a moderate.

Bwahahahahahaaa