Girlfriend: Shooter was taking cocktail of 3 drugs

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

You weren't claiming it wasn't prudent, you suggested that it was basis for a law suit.

no kidding grasshopper. and not being prudent at a time like this and running off at the mouth is a good way to wind up in court.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's probably a good thing you are not a lawyer.

don't have to be a lawyer to know that's not a prudent thing on her part to admit

simple lawyer questions ...

did you tell him at anytime, to stop taking his medication(s)?

do you have a degree a field of medicine (psychiatrist/ doctor)?

what expertise do you have in making ... insisting on his not taking the medication(s)?

That doesn't make her culpable. Remember that the next time you tell your spouse you wish they would not snore at night.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

It's probably a good thing you are not a lawyer.

don't have to be a lawyer to know that's not a prudent thing on her part to admit

simple lawyer questions ...

did you tell him at anytime, to stop taking his medication(s)?

do you have a degree a field of medicine (psychiatrist/ doctor)?

what expertise do you have in making ... insisting on his not taking the medication(s)?

That doesn't make her culpable. Remember that the next time you tell your spouse you wish they would not snore at night.

oh please

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, you run along with your 'the girlfriend bears some responsibilty for the shooting because she asked him to stop taking some medication' theory. I am sure it'll fly.

[natty bumppo 297]

It's probably a good thing you are not a lawyer.

don't have to be a lawyer to know that's not a prudent thing on her part to admit

simple lawyer questions ...

did you tell him at anytime, to stop taking his medication(s)?

do you have a degree a field of medicine (psychiatrist/ doctor)?

what expertise do you have in making ... insisting on his not taking the medication(s)?

That doesn't make her culpable. Remember that the next time you tell your spouse you wish they would not snore at night.

oh please

nm

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's probably a good thing you are not a lawyer.

don't have to be a lawyer to know that's not a prudent thing on her part to admit

simple lawyer questions ...

did you tell him at anytime, to stop taking his medication(s)?

do you have a degree a field of medicine (psychiatrist/ doctor)?

what expertise do you have in making ... insisting on his not taking the medication(s)?

That doesn't make her culpable. Remember that the next time you tell your spouse you wish they would not snore at night.

A lawyer "might" ask those questions - but the judge ultimately decides whether they fit within the bounds of the law. Of course those questions do rely on the assumption that her "persuasion" was the sole motivating factor behind the rampage - you don't have to be a lawyer to see that this is spurious reasoning. Of course if statements made in the article 'could' form the basis of a law suit, then it stands to reason that you'd have to consider the psychiatrists view.

A psychiatrist not familiar with the details of the case said the three-drug combination was not necessarily either unusual or dangerous.

"It's not terribly unusual to prescribe all three," said Dr. Nada Stotland, professor of psychiatry at Rush Medical College in Chicago and president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association.

Xanax typically has a sedating, calming effect on users, she said.

"If you take a lot of that class of medication, you can be sort of like somebody who is drunk, out of it, but not violent," she said.

A person who had stopped taking it might feel anxious and edgy, she said.

Put simply, violent (read homicidal) pre-meditated behaviour is not what a health professional would expect from a patient who had been prescribed those drugs.

Sounds like something else was at work...

Edited February 21, 2008 by Number 6

[wishbone 0]

Baty said the psychiatrist prescribed the medications, a fact that made her so "nervous" that she tried to persuade Kazmierczak to stop taking one of the drugs.

She said he had stopped taking the antidepressant three weeks before the Valentine's Day rampage on the NIU campus in DeKalb, Illinois, which left five students dead and 16 wounded. He then killed himself.

civil suit coming her way, i can see it already.

The victim's families suing her or the psychiatrist?

the girlfriend. psychiatrist prescribes drugs for individual, g/f tries to get him to stop taking one of them, he stops taking all of them and goes on a rampage. i'd be willing to bet lawyers are salivating all over this news.

If proven to be true, families of victims will surely sue her, she got something to pay for these.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

oh please

Think about the flip side of your argument. Suppose it was his girlfriend who told him he should go see a psychiatrist about taking medication for his anxiety...and he had committed the shootings while on the medication. Unless she had explicit information that telling him to stop taking the medication could cause him to be psychotic, there's no way any court would find her legally culpable.

[natty bumppo 297]

It's probably a good thing you are not a lawyer.

don't have to be a lawyer to know that's not a prudent thing on her part to admit

simple lawyer questions ...

did you tell him at anytime, to stop taking his medication(s)?

do you have a degree a field of medicine (psychiatrist/ doctor)?

what expertise do you have in making ... insisting on his not taking the medication(s)?

That doesn't make her culpable. Remember that the next time you tell your spouse you wish they would not snore at night.

A lawyer "might" ask those questions - but the judge ultimately decides whether they fit within the bounds of the law. Of course those questions do rely on the assumption that her "persuasion" was the sole motivating factor behind the rampage - you don't have to be a lawyer to see that this is spurious reasoning. Of course if statements made in the article 'could' form the basis of a law suit, then it stands to reason that you'd have to consider the psychiatrists view.

depositions are interesting things .... before a trial ....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's probably a good thing you are not a lawyer.

don't have to be a lawyer to know that's not a prudent thing on her part to admit

simple lawyer questions ...

did you tell him at anytime, to stop taking his medication(s)?

do you have a degree a field of medicine (psychiatrist/ doctor)?

what expertise do you have in making ... insisting on his not taking the medication(s)?

That doesn't make her culpable. Remember that the next time you tell your spouse you wish they would not snore at night.

A lawyer "might" ask those questions - but the judge ultimately decides whether they fit within the bounds of the law. Of course those questions do rely on the assumption that her "persuasion" was the sole motivating factor behind the rampage - you don't have to be a lawyer to see that this is spurious reasoning. Of course if statements made in the article 'could' form the basis of a law suit, then it stands to reason that you'd have to consider the psychiatrists view.

depositions are interesting things .... before a trial ....

Sure - but innuendo and unprovable allegations don't lend themselves well to a "guilty" verdict.

[natty bumppo 297]

It's probably a good thing you are not a lawyer.

don't have to be a lawyer to know that's not a prudent thing on her part to admit

simple lawyer questions ...

did you tell him at anytime, to stop taking his medication(s)?

do you have a degree a field of medicine (psychiatrist/ doctor)?

what expertise do you have in making ... insisting on his not taking the medication(s)?

That doesn't make her culpable. Remember that the next time you tell your spouse you wish they would not snore at night.

A lawyer "might" ask those questions - but the judge ultimately decides whether they fit within the bounds of the law. Of course those questions do rely on the assumption that her "persuasion" was the sole motivating factor behind the rampage - you don't have to be a lawyer to see that this is spurious reasoning. Of course if statements made in the article 'could' form the basis of a law suit, then it stands to reason that you'd have to consider the psychiatrists view.

depositions are interesting things .... before a trial ....

Sure - but innuendo and unprovable allegations don't lend themselves well to a "guilty" verdict.

whatever ....

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

oh please

Think about the flip side of your argument. Suppose it was his girlfriend who told him he should go see a psychiatrist about taking medication for his anxiety...and he had committed the shootings while on the medication. Unless she had explicit information that telling him to stop taking the medication could cause him to be psychotic, there's no way any court would find her legally culpable.

two entirely different situations. suggesting someone see a psychiatrist for medicaton isn't the same as suggesting he stop taking medication prescribed by a competent authority.

got it yet?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its a fair question. How would they "prove" culpability?

The guy might have been "edgy" and "uneasy" from going off his meds - but its a far cry to go from that to a pre-medidated mass-murder. People have committed suicide before both on and off psychiatric medication - but a rampage murder requires something else entirely.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think there are people who 'need' someone to blame. The girlfriend just isn't going to work out guys. She didn't do anything that could concievably render her liable. There is simply no causality between her suggestion that he stop taking one drug and his going on a killing spree. Nice try though.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course "anxious and edgy" (as general and ill-defined as they are) could equally apply to someone who quit drinking or smoking. Would a person who advised another to quit alcohol or cigarettes be liable in the event the "crazed" smoker or booze-hound commits a crime because he's "anxious and edgy"?. As much as I hate the cliched catchphrase - what is wrong with laying the blame for the criminal act on the "personal responsibility" of the guy who actually did it? Even if they're insane - it doesn't absolve them from responsibility. I mean... isn't this the thinking behind the concept of "diminished responsibilty"?

Suggesting that the g/f is somehow legally liable for a crime that noone could have predicted (not her, not the guys family, and apparently not a psychiatrist) is really very silly.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Number 6