What is most disturbing to me about the Doug Ostling case

What is most disturbing about the Doug Ostling case on Bainbridge Island, Washington, is the similarity to the murder of Otto Zehm in Spokane, Washington; and the murder of Kelly Thomas in Fullerton, California.  All three victims had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, none of the victims had come into contact with the Officers who killed them because they had committed a crime; and none of the men had threatened the Police Officers who murdered them.  In all three of three cases, the Police Officers involved and their superior Officers were dishonest about the chain of events which lead to their victim's being killed.  Three beloved sons are mourned by their families; because of criminal conduct of Police Officers. All three men were killed by men who abdicated their responsibility to the communities they serve, and then sought to avoid being held accountable for their criminal conduct by lying.  Three homicide victims, who were vulnerable adults were killed by men who had a sworn duty to protect and to serve them...

I know it doesn't have to be this way---I don't have words to express how grateful I am that my son, who is also a young man with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, has always been treated with respect by the Officers in the Yakima Police Department, and the Yakima County Sheriff's Department. I

via The Seattle Times:
Bainbridge seeks new trial on award in police shooting

A jury awarded $1 million to the family of a mentally ill man who was killed by police in 2010.

The city of Bainbridge Island is challenging a federal jury's decision to award $1 million to the family of a mentally ill man who was fatally shot by Bainbridge police in 2010.

The Kitsap Sun reported that attorneys for the city are asking a federal judge to halt the June 1 decision. The city wants a new trial, saying Bainbridge Police Chief Jon Fehlman, who had fallen ill, did not have a chance to defend himself during the trial.

Doug Ostling was shot and killed in his apartment in 2010. His family sued.

This month, the jury rejected the family's claims that officers illegally entered Ostling's bedroom, used excessive force and failed to help him after he was shot. But jurors found the Police Department failed to properly train its officers in dealing with the mentally ill.  

via The Seattle Times

Originally published February 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM | Page modified February 26, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Two cops, an ax and many questions on Bainbridge

What happened when two Bainbridge Island officers clashed with a mentally ill 911 caller raises serious concerns about police hiring and the Department's competence.

By Jonathan Martin and Ken Armstrong

Seattle Times staff reporters -- First of two parts

an excerpt:
The minutes pass
The radio call — "Shots fired!" — came in 4 minutes and 50 seconds after the officers had arrived at the house.

Bill and Joyce wanted to run up the stairs, to check on their son. But the police wouldn't let them, saying it would be unsafe. Bill went and grabbed a 40-foot ladder so he could look through a skylight into Doug's room. Police intercepted him, saying he couldn't do that, either.

Within an hour, at least 17 officers arrived: Bainbridge, Kitsap County, Washington State Patrol. Police shepherded Doug's parents to a secluded part of the house, away from the garage. Minutes passed, without word. "I just knew in my soul they had shot him and he was dead," Joyce says. "I could just feel it."

As Doug lay in his room, bleeding, police dealt with him as a barricaded suspect. They waited on a SWAT team. They waited for medical aid. They called Doug's room and got voice mail. Police searched for the key that had been put in the lock. They considered ramming the door. They considered using that 40-foot ladder to do what Ostling's father had wanted to do.

More minutes passed.

Both of the Ostlings' daughters were at the house when the shooting occurred. Police told the family they needed to leave. Kim, in slippers, left without her brace. She marched the long driveway on the edge of her foot, in pain.

"We were treated worse than a bad dog by the Police Department," Bill says.

An hour and 17 minutes after the shots were fired, police peered through a skylight into Ostling's room; he was behind the door, his body still.

He had bled out and died.

The shooter goes on Facebook

The next day, Bainbridge Island Police Chief Jon Fehlman held a news conference. He described Ostling's death in a way that was dramatic — and dramatically untrue.

When police arrived, Ostling was in the driveway, "yelling and screaming and acting very aggressive toward the officers," Fehlman told reporters. The officers tried to calm him. But Ostling "came at the officers several times. They tried to deflect him, just push him away."

The officers used a Taser, but that didn't work. Ostling retreated to a garage apartment "and retrieved an ax and came back at the officers with the ax raised above his head." An officer fired, Fehlman said. Ostling then went back inside his apartment and "barricaded the door."

So much of Fehlman's story was wrong. There was no confrontation in the driveway. Ostling didn't retreat to go get a weapon. He didn't raise the ax over his head.

When Fehlman spoke, Benkert had yet to be interviewed about why he fired.

The Police Department's regulations say an officer using deadly force must submit to an investigative interview within 24 hours. But Benkert was advised by a police-guild attorney not to do so. So he didn't.

The Kitsap County Sheriff's Office investigated, and two months later, prosecutors said Benkert would not be charged with a crime. By this point Benkert still had not been interviewed. Kitsap County Prosecutor Russ Hauge, explaining his decision, wrote that when Benkert fired, Ostling was "standing over" Portrey, with an ax "raised over his head."

The following month, in January 2011, Benkert finally sat down for an interview.

An internal review by Fehlman's second-in-command subsequently concluded that all department personnel followed policy and "acted reasonably under the circumstances and within the scope of the law."

Bill and Joyce Ostling hired Jack Connelly, a Tacoma attorney, and filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Bainbridge Island, Benkert and Fehlman, saying the shooting was unjustified. Trial is scheduled for May.

Last month, a lawyer in Connelly's firm took Benkert's deposition.

"Is it possible that he wasn't coming over to attack you or your partner, but that he was coming over to close the door?" the lawyer asked.

"It's possible," Benkert said.

"Did he ever raise the ax above his head?"

"Not that I saw."

And later:

"Is it possible that Douglas Ostling was actually behind the door at the time that you opened fire on him?"

"Not completely."

"How about almost entirely?"

"I don't know."

Connelly took Fehlman's deposition a couple of weeks later and grilled him about the story he'd told the media. Fehlman blamed underlings for feeding him bad information. When he learned of the inaccuracies, he alerted city officials in a private session, Fehlman said.

"Did you ever go to the press and say, 'I gave you a false report?' " Connelly asked.

"No," Fehlman said. The police chief said he did not believe he was ethically obliged to correct his account to the public.

Although Benkert went months without providing any formal statement about the shooting, he did address it on Facebook.

A week after the shooting, an officer with the LAPD sent Benkert this message: "Hey man how you doing? Heard you did some combat qual???!!!"

The next day, Benkert responded: "no sweat here ... bad guy should have listened a little better."

News researcher Miyoko Wolf contributed to this report. Jonathan Martin: 206-464-2605 orjmartin@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @jmartin206. Ken Armstrong: 206-464-3730 or karmstrong@seattletimes.com

read here

Bainbridge Police Guild Requests Removal of Chief Fehlman with No Confidence Vote here

I am not the jerk whisperer

 

This started out being a response to a comment left on my blog post titled, "Advocacy "for the mentallly ill" is actually advocacy for an agenda" and wound up being too long for a comment, and so I made it a blog post, months later, I rewrote portions of it to more clearly state my views...

It is simply incredible to me that people with a psychiatric diagnosis who are victimized by violent crime are perceived to be somehow at fault for being victimized. 

DJ Jaffe interviewed Carla Jacobs in an apparent attempt to use the murder of Kelly Thomas to further his agenda for forced treatment, and Jaffe states that, "police could always use better training in how to handle dangerous mentally ill individuals, the police are not always the villains."

It is true that police are not always the villains when a person with a psychiatric diagnosis ends up dead as a result of police contact; it is also be true that police officers may need more training to effectively interact with people with psychiatric diagnoses safely.  It shows extremely poor judgement on Jaffe's part to make these statements in relationship to Kelly Thomas' brutal murder at the hands of rogue police officers in Fullerton, California.  It seems that DJ Jaffe is attempting to minimize the horrific nature of the behavior of the police officers involved in Kelly Thomas' murder. Jaffe's interviewee, Carla Jacobs, insults one's intelligence when stating, "When it comes to treating people with the most serious mental illnesses, the police will react where California's mental health system won't." Jacob's statement implies that the brutal attack on Kelly Thomas is in some way understandable; since he was not being drugged!

The murder of Kelly Thomas is neither understandable, nor justifiable.  I find these two advocates statements minimizing and excusing  felonious conduct of police officers who victimized Kelly Thomas incomprehensible.  How can  advocacy "for the seriously mentally ill" include minimizing homicide committed by men who had sworn an oath to perform a legal duty with honor and integrity, i.e. to protect and to serve Kelly Thomas?

People who claim to be advocating for those with a psychiatric diagnosis who fail to defend the mentally ill who are victimized and who exploit tragic events to further an  agenda, are not so much advocating for "the mentally ill," as they are lobbying for a special interest agenda; specifically, an agenda to expand the number of people who are forced into psychiatric treatment. The appropriate word which describes a person who advocates for a narrow agenda, including exploiting tragic events to further the agenda, is not "advocate;" the appropriate word is lobbyist.  DJ Jaffe and Carla Jacobs are Special Interest Lobbyists who promote forced psychiatric treatment as a public policy. Jaffe and Jacobs lobby for legislation to legally mandate forced treatment on people regardless of the adverse effects or actual benefit to the individual.

Most of the training provided to police in this country is developed by Treatment Advocacy Center, the 'research' arm of NAMI, and provided by NAMI affiliates.  If it is true that police need more or different training; it is likely that who is entrusted with developing and providing the training may also need to be reconsidered.  There is a definite bias in the training provided to Law Enforcement due to an inherent Conflict of Interest: the training serves to support, and market the forced treatment agenda; the biased "information" used in the training is meant to justify forced psychiatric treatment. To exploit Kelly Thomas's murder as a means of furthering a biased forced treatment agenda dishonors his memory. I wonder, do advocates like Jaffe and Jacobs have any ability to focus solely on the needs of the people they advocate for?  Where is the outrage for people who are victimized because of their psychiatric diagnosis?  Where is the advocacy for "the seriously mentally ill" when Justice is needed for those who are victimized? Where is the desire to protect and defend the mentally ill from perpetrators who victimize them?  Nowhere to be found...   

"AOT does not require anyone to take dangerous chemicals. The only required service is case management services. Others are optional and are negotiated by patient, his lawyer, and the court. Interestin­gly, consumers in AOT retroactiv­ely overwhelmi­ngly support it;" according to DJ Jaffe.

DJ Jaffe is apparently unaware of the glaring contradictions in his statement.  The fact that people in AOT who object to taking what are dangerous drugs--which may or may not "help" them--need to have a lawyer to help them 'negotiate' with the Court,--makes it obvious that this is not a "medical diagnosis" being treated so much as it is a psychiatric diagnosis being adjudicated, and a legal sentence applied.  I am sick of people like Jaffe claiming that "Anosognosi­a (not being aware you are ill) is very common."  This diagnostic label is assigned to anyone who is not "treatment compliant;" it is a label used to denigrate, malign and slander people who have had their rights diminished due to a legal determination under a guise of  "medical necessity." In this respect, a Court determines that a person is guilty of having a "mental illness," then sentences them to psychiatric treatment which may ultimately disable and kill them.  

I am not saying that people who have been labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis can't have a lack of insight. I am saying that it is simply ludicrous to imply that the only reason people don't want to take neuroleptic and other psychotropic drugs is due to a lack insight; because they "just don't know what's good for them!"  The drugs have serious negative effects, and serious risks; so pretending that people in distress don't know what an adverse effect feels like, or know what is tolerable to them; adds insult to injury. It is apparent to me that even when in distress, a person in an extreme state can discern if they are being respected or invalidated by the manner in which they are being treated. A patient being de-voiced and being deprived of choice in this way is not due to the patient's lack of insight, it is a ploy which serves to prevent patients from being believed or even heard when they refute the forced treatment lobbyists claim that forced treatement is effective and in the best interests of people adjudicated as mentally ill. Advocates and professionals who are devotees to the bio-disease paradigm justify this use of force by claiming that virtually anyone who refuses to comply with psychiatric diagnosis and treament has anosognosia. It is a specious claim to make. All things considered, it is despicable that it is acceptable to malign and slander people; to in effect, deprive them of a means to defend and advocate for themselves by ensuring others don't listen to them because "the seriously mentally ill lack insight and don't know what's good for them." 

Some just may not be amenable to being coerced and manipulated; some may be sick of being misled and outright lied to about the diagnoses they are given and the drugs forced upon them purportedly to "medically treat" psychiatric diagnoses.  As DJ Jaffe knows, the drugs are, "dangerous chemicals," and are part and parcel to AOT. Some do not want to experience the negative effects of the drugs, the drugs can be agents of trauma for a statistically significant percentage of people who take them. Some are unwilling to subject themselves to the dishonesty: i.e. the manipulative, coercive and patriarchal manner that public mental health services are provided.  I would be willing to bet that anosognosia is rarely the reason a person refuses 'treatment.' This claim is offered in an attempt to rationalize and justify what is an unethical abuse of power and authority of mental health professionals and self proclaimed "patient advocates" who lack not only insight, but ethical integrity as well.

It is likely that the fraud, i.e. misinformation used to coerce treatment compliance, and the disrespectful manner in which people with a psychiatric diagnosis are treated may have something to do with the lack of trust many have for the mental health treatment system and for the professionals who adhere to the bio-disease paradigm of mental health "treatment."  The subterfuge and the disrespectful treatment is well-known and incredibly, socially accepted--and this is one reason some people do not "seek treatment," and/or become "non-compliant." It is also why some are determined to avoid "mental health treatment" like the plague. It is not a lack of insight on a non-compliant patient's part, given the reality of the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnoses, and the disabling and fatal risks of the teratogenic drugs used to treat psychiatric diagnoses, it is despicable to state the only reason that a person would avoid taking the drugs is because they lack insight. It is mental health professionals and so-called advocates that lack insight, since they seem to have decided to be willfully blind to the well-documented risks and seem to believe it's acceptable to medically neglect their patients with iatrogenic injuries. Drugs used in "standard psychiatric treatment" can and do benefit some people; they are not "effective treatment" in a therapeutic or healing sense biologically; while they do alter biological processes, they do not correct an identified dysfunction, or cure an identified disease. Whether a person treated with the drugs experiences positive benefits which justify the serious risks is not the criteria which determines whether or not a particular drug or combination of drugs is successful. In bio-psychiatry, "successful treatment" is synonymous with "treatment compliance," so the real world outcome for the patient is and never has been a determinant of what is considered successful treatment.

The fact that "treatment compliance" is the primary goal of "successful treatment;" rather that the real world outcome for the patient, is a clear indication that this "medical treatment" is not to primarily serve a patient's "best interest;" it is primarily used to control the patient. "Psychoeducation" is used to limit a patient's autonomy and restrict their ability to advocate for themselves; in effect, people are (de)VOICED; not "allowed" to make treatment decisions for themselves. Complaints of harm are dismissed; or attributed to the proverbial "tolerable side effects." Bio-psychiatry, i.e. psychopharmacology first, foremost for life; is not an ethical standard of medical care. Ethical medical care serves the individual patient's "best interest;" not the interests of the people who seek to control a patient. In the ethical practice of medicine, the actual effects of the medical treatment on a particular patient, i.e. the real world medical condition/outcome and the patients's perspective would be used to determine whether a person is "successfully treated."

The patient's perspective is never irrelevant, and should never be minimized or dismissed. No one but the patient can ultimately determine what adverse effects are "tolerable." It is inconceivable that anyone else can determine what a patient can and cannot tolerate; the need for the patient's perspective is implicit.  It is an abuse of power and authority to minimize or dismiss the patient's perspective; a disrespect that evinces a profound lack of regard, compassion and respect for a patient. Treatment that doesn't cure shouldn't have significant risks for causing a patient harm!

photo from FB~ Troublemakers
this post was originally published October 10, 2011 and appears here with minor alterations...

the truth is, justice denied is a living nightmare

 

Timonere.com

via Psychology Today Blogs Spycatcher
Detecting Lies v. detecting truth - serious implications an excerpt:

"Singularly appalling fact:
And while these facts are startling, nothing was as shocking to me as this single fact which I discovered while researching these 261 cases: In 100% percent of these cases, the prosecutor and the judge, but more importantly, the investigating officers who initiated these cases through the legal system, believed that these individuals were lying when they denied their complicity. One hundred percent is a number that you almost never hear in anything, even germ killers are only 99% effective), and yet here, 100% of the officers involved were convinced through statements and through reading the defendant’s body language that they were the true culprit. 100% of the officers involved swore and averred that these individuals were culpable, beyond all doubt, lying in their protestations and declarations of innocence. This is the part that should make every law enforcement officer who is ethical and every citizen to take pause. 100% of the officers in these cases failed to detect the truth." read it here.

Joe Navarro's article really struck me, because although it is about wrongful convictions, and the failure of police officers to recognize their personal limitations in discerning whether a suspect is being truthful or not, I think that it has valuable lessons about the importance of seeking the truth, regardless of where it may lead. It is important to be aware of our personal biases and innate limitations, so that we do not become willfully blind to the truth found. Seeking the truth in a given situation, can not be done by osmosis, or solely based on personal impressions. Simply knowing without being able to demonstrate why, is not sufficient. In Law Enforcement, it is impossible to do the job with honor or integrity if the pursuit of the truth is limited; collecting evidence in a criminal investigation requires following the Rules of Evidence. Diligently pursuing the truth in an investigation, requires being open-minded enough to realize that one's impressions and gut feelings, simply are evidence of being human. Investigating a crime ethically, requires collecting and documenting evidence while complying with the Rules of Evidence. I am certain there are Police Officers with excellent insight, whose instincts in a given situation are correct, however, there is no way to document impressions and gut feelings; in order to use them as evidence. This article illustrates how important it is to rely on more than impressions when investigating and prosecuting crimes. No one has perfect insight into themselves or anyone else; and even people with good instincts and excellent self-awareness can be wrong.

Whether a police officer lies in a criminal investigation in an attempt to avoid the consequences of his/her own criminal conduct, or lies for another officer who is seeking to avoid being prosecuted for a crime, that officer has committed a crime.

I've written about two homicides in which several officers were involved. In both cases, the homicides of Kelly Thomas in Fullerton, California and Otto Zehm in Spokane, Washington all of the police officers lied about the events which they had witnessed and/or participated in. There is no such thing as an innocent bystander in a Police uniform who witnesses a crime. Homicide committed by anyone is a crime; there is no doubt (in my mind) that both of these homicides may have been prevented had the Police Officers who 'witnessed' the assaults performed their respective Duty to Protect and Serve with due diligence. Loyalty, truthfulness and a zealous pursuit of justice are necessary characteristics for a Police Officer. These are not ideals; they are required.

Being a Police Officer is an honorable vocation. The reality is, the profession can only be as honorable as the individuals who comprise a Police force. Respect for individual officers, and for the Police in general, is unfortunately no longer a given; if it ever was. When police officers do not follow police procedure, it is up to other police officers to honor the profession, and hold one another accountable. The 'blue wall' is inspired by loyalty and brotherhood. It is not appropriate to be loyal to an individual when doing so dishonors the law itself, or the people whom the Police Protect and Serve. It is this type of misplaced loyalty to a fellow officer which neglects a Police Officer's primary duty, that is most responsible for a loss of positive regard for the Police. This misplaced loyalty has caused some to disrespect the Police. Loyalty and brotherhood are important; truth and justice are too. To perform the duties of being a cop with integrity, requires all of them.

via The Daily Mail Online:

"Speaking about his son's death, Thomas's dad, Ron Thomas, a former sheriff's deputy, said: 'His death was gang-involved, the way I see it. A gang of rogue officers who brutally beat my son to death.'

He said he now feels ashamed for having ever been a law enforcement officer.

He has been in the area his son was attacked handing out flyers and asking people for help.

He said: 'The only thing we have left of our son is the blood in the gutter, that's all we have left.'

Read more: here.

Initially, there was no investigation launched by law enforcement into the homicide of Kelly Thomas; and I have no doubt there would not have been, if not for the fact that Kelly was blessed with a family who loved him; including a father who had worked as a Deputy Sheriff. The crime was ignored by the mainstream press, and the story was broke by The Friends for Fullerton's Future Blog. via FFFF:


"Those fine folks at Reason made a nice little documentary on FFFF and our role in exposing corruption and brutality within the Fullerton Police Department while the conventional media went along with the cover-up."

via NAMI

Kelly Thomas Tragedy in Fullerton, California Statement by National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)

"No one really knows at this time—other than the police officers themselves—what went on during the horrible beating and use of tasers on Kelly Thomas. They may not have fully realized that he was living with a serious mental illness. Too often, however, language and stereotypes in our culture serve to dehumanize people."

This statement is so totally misguided; it is sad. Whether the officers involved knew Kelly Thomas had a psychiatric diagnosis or not, it was patently obvious when this letter was posted on August 5, a month after the violent assault which killed Kelly, that Kelly Thomas was dead due to the brutal beating administered by members of the Fullerton Police Department. It is Police brutality that killed Kelly Thomas; not the fact that he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Kelly Thomas is not dead because he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and was not on psychiatric drugs. Kelly Thomas is dead due the actions of Police Officers who had a duty to protect and to serve; Police officers who chose to give him a brutal beating instead. What I noticed about this statement is nowhere does it advocate  that the perpetrators of Kelly Thomas' murder should be prosecuted. It suggests that Kelly Thomas' homicide is another opportunity to further an agenda for increasing forced treatment.

I agree that the tragic murder of Kelly Thomas is an opportunity; it is an opportunity first and foremost, to seek justice for Kelly Thomas. Secondarily, it is an opportunity to lobby for a Federal Law which will hold make officers who fail act in a victim's defense, equally responsible for the crime. Those who enforce the law need to comply with the spirit, the intent, and the letter of the law; particularly when their failure to do so may cost a person's life. In both of these cases, neither of the victims had committed the crime they were being questioned about; all of the officers present failed to perform the Duty to Protect and Serve, and all of the Police Officers initially lied about what had occurred.

We must put a stop to the abuse and brutality which is becoming more and more common in our society. It is time we stop allowing the people with a psychiatric diagnosis to be victimized, without holding the perpetrators who victimize them responsible. We must put a stop to rogue Police Officers who are a disgrace to the badge, by holding them accountable. The men and women in blue deserve our respect; but to have it, they must act with honor and integrity; Police Officers are not  above the law.

Karl Thompson was found guilty of the crimes he was charged with--the charges did not include homicide; although Otto Zehm's death was ruled a homicide. The entire event was caught on video---All due respect to Thompson's 40-year career as a Police Officer, he chased a frightened innocent man down and proceeded to beat him with his baton repeatedly in the head; then he hog-tied and sat on him, causing cardiac arrest. All of this being undisputed, makes what took place Friday, November 4, 2011, in Court at a post-conviction hearing, truly despicable.

via the Spokesman Review:

"Some four dozen Spokane police officers and other supporters stood while someone yelled, “Present arms.” The crowd then saluted Thompson; he smiled at the gesture and walked out, flanked by U.S. marshals, who had not placed him in handcuffs."

“They were showing their honor and support of Karl. The disconnect is that the community is thinking that this officer has been convicted by his peers. Why aren’t (Thompson’s fellow officers) accepting it? I do think that this community needs a reset button here,” Kirkpatrick said. “We as a Police Department need to be unified and show that we share the values of this community. And the community needs to believe the Police Department is reflecting their values.”

"Vincent Reagor, 82, a retired federal and state prosecutor from California, was prompted by coverage of the case to call The Spokesman-Review. He said the attitude of Spokane police officers keeps him from venturing into the city from his home in Nine Mile Falls."

“They’ve pumped their arms when other cases went their way,” Reagor said. “I think they are a joke, but not a funny joke. I think they are a dangerous joke. Their attitude seems to be that they believe they are above the law.”

Kirkpatrick said she understood reactions like Reagor’s from the community. “Was it insensitive to the Zehm family? Sure,” Kirkpatrick said of the salute. “Was it actionable? No.” read here.

The Chief of Police is correct. The officers were exercising their first amendment rights and were "insensitive to the Zehm family" in showing their "honor and support of Karl." However, showing their "honor and support of Karl" in the manner, at the time and place these officers chose, showed a disrespect for the Law itself; disrespect for the homicide victim that some of them had failed to Protect and to Serve; and disrespect for his family who were present in Court. Those Police Officers did this to "honor and support" a cop who had in fact gotten away with murder; is sickening, and truly despicable...

Chief Kirkpatrick: It is not the community that needs a reset button, it is the Spokane Police Department. The community needs to know, not only, "believe the Police Department is reflecting their values." It is obvious with conduct like this in which so many of them participated, you have some serious housekeeping to do.

the author has the following Conflict of Interest to disclose:

I am totally biased about this issue. I have a son who has a psychiatric diagnosis. I know for a fact that no crime he has been the victim of, has ever been investigated and prosecuted by Law Enforcement. In my son's case, it is not the failure of Police Officers; but the failure of mental health and social services professionals that Washington State Law decrees are the only ones who can cause the State Police to launch investigations into crimes against vulnerable adults, like my son. I have filed complaints on my son's behalf with every County and State and Federal authority which has a legal duty to act on such complaints. Every one of them has failed to act. I have filed complaints with my State and Federal legislators who, unlike their predecessors, have not even bothered call me. I have filed a detailed report with the local Police Department; spoken to the Sheriff's Office, the State Patrol and the FBI. The FBI agent advised me to file my complaint with the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights Criminal Division, and I have. It is my hopeful prayer, that the complaint will be investigated.

My son is 23 years is 6'3" tall and weighs 280 pounds and has been repeatedly victimized and traumatized. This includes being illegally "treated" with drugs not approved for use in children, in Federally-funded drugs trials without my consent. He is not able to defend himself, or file complaints on his own behalf, due to the profound brain damage caused by the drugs.

Like I said, I have no desire to be a Police Officer. I stated in an interview this past August, I don't have a badge, but I do conduct investigations, gather evidence and file reports. I have to. I will report crimes in which my son is victimized. To do otherwise, would be morally reprehensible. I would be failing my duty as his mother.

I can not make anybody do a damn thing; but I will not fail to do everything that is within my power for my son. I will speak up, especially when it is for people who are not protected or defended due to a psychiatric diagnosis. I will share what I know about 'how things are done;' unfortunately, it is more often a case of sharing how things are not done.

Sometimes I think that at any moment, I will wake up and I will be actually living in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave where the United States Constitution is the Law of the Land, where the protections of amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, protect me and mine. I will wake up to find that the promise inherent in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a promise that has been kept.

I have to admit, there are times I wonder if this is all a freaking nightmare. The reality is, I've been wide awake, and much of the last eighteen years have been a nightmare.

 I seek Justice. 

I miss who I once was. I wonder if Justice exists; if it ever did...

Advocacy "for the mentally ill" is actually advocacy for an agenda

“Prejudices are what fools use for reason.”

Voltaire

DJ Jaffe never misses an opportunity to capitalize on a tragedy which involves a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.   Oddly, whether the tragedy involves the person with the diagnosis committing criminal acts or the person being victimized by the criminal acts of others, does not matter. He uses tragic events to further his advocacy platform and spread the seeds of ignorance and to justify bigotry towards those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  Using fear and misinformation, he capitalizes on tragic events and advocates for his agenda in a column in the Huffington Post, and in whatever arena or forum he is allowed. In the latest instance of fear based "advocacy for the seriously mentally ill," DJ Jaffe's utilizes the murder of Kelly Thomas in Fullerton California, to further his platform calling for increasing forced psychiatric treatment. Kelly Thomas died after a prolonged violent assault in which six police officers beat and repeatedly shocked him with tasers; a homicide committed by out of control police officers.

The US Constitution grants DJ Jaffe the same Individual Rights that are  granted to all individual American citizens.  The First Amendment protects his right to say whatever the hell he wants, whether based on reality or fantasy.  Jaffe uses his Freedom of Speech to advocate for an agenda that implicitly suggests that people with a psychiatric diagnosis either don't need or don't deserve equal protection of their Individual Rights under the US Constitution; although he denies this is so.  DJ Jaffe denies this is the case because he is unwilling to objectively consider whether one's individual rights are in fact effectively preserved, when individual rights are not defended.  DJ Jaffe's advocacy activities are protected by the US Constitution; and he is entitled to exercise these rights as he sees fit.

DJ Jaffe assumes that because Individual Rights are defined within civil commitment statutes, and the statute itself contains a declaration that  Individual Rights of people Court Ordered to Involuntary Treatment are to be preserved and defended when Court Orders are sought; the declaration written into the law preserves and defends an individual's rights. This is an erroneous assumption.

When we as a society, fail to preserve or defend the individual rights of an entire class of people, predicated on the notion that preservation of the individual rights of people labeled "mentally ill" is secondary to the interests of the rest of society, we diminish ourselves as a society and as individuals; we violate The US Constitution, which clearly states that no law can deprive any individual or group of their Liberty, without Due Process of Law.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the Involuntary Treatment laws are implemented and carried out, the Individual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process are neither protected or defended for those who are the Court Ordered to conform to a treatment protocol which may disable or cause their  sudden or early death.


We as a society have allowed so-called advocates like DJ Jaffe and the "grass roots advocates" like NAMI, to successfully lobby Have we done so in the mistaken belief that these laws help the people who are effectively deprived of their Individual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process of Law? The casual manner in which DJ Jaffe, and other advocates "for the seriously mentally ill" dismiss the negative impact of a legal deprivation of individual rights on the people so deprived, is despicable.


DJ Jaffe and "grass-roots advocates" who claim to be "The Nation's Voice on Mental Illness" do not seem to understand or care that Individual Rights are not protected by words alone. Rights are protected when Rules of Evidence are followed, Proper Notice served upon to the person facing a Court Order for Involuntary Treatment and Proof of Service is filed with the Court, Standard Court Procedures used, and Effective Assistance of Counsel provided.  All of these elements are necessary to effectively preserve an Individual's Rights under the US Constitution. When Court Orders for involuntary psychiatric treatment are sought, these clearly defined individual protections are conspicuously absent.


The people who are detained on psychiatric holds, Court Ordered to Involuntary Treatment, and/or Assisted Outpatient Treatment under Laura's Law, Kendra's Law, or other Involuntary Treatment statutes, are deprived of these individual rights as a matter of course; and as a matter of fact.  We, as a society, have been misinformed by zealous advocates and have blindly accepted it and in effect, we have justified allowing fears, biases and ignorance to be the legal basis used to deprive an entire class of people, "the seriously mentally ill," of their individual rights outlined in the US Constitution. We have legally declared the mentally ill to be different and have passed laws that are obviously discriminatory, and which effectively lower the legal standards applicable in Court proceedings for Involuntary Treatment. How can we as a society claim to be acting in the best interests of an entire class of people by instituting lower legal standards applicable only to them, depriving them of their Individual Rights?

The Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
As a society, we validated intolerance and openly discriminate against people with a psychiatric diagnosis Under Color of Law. 


Advocates like DJ Jaffe, are lobbying for strengthening existing laws that are much like the public policies implemented in Germany during WWII:  Identify, segregate, and provide "treatment" to people who are given no choice; depriving the people targeted of the individual protections the rest of society takes for granted.  We are doing this right now in the United States of America, targeting the people who are labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, depriving those targeted of their Individual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process of Law, under the US Constitution, and Court Ordering psychiatric treatment with teratogenic drugs and/or electric shock which can be disabling and fatal, "for their own good."


Utilizing a human tragedy as a means of furthering a forced treatment agenda to "help the mentally ill" belies having any altruistic intent. Involuntary Treatment Laws are morally reprehensible.  It is as if proponents of these discriminatory laws determined that the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not self-evident truths, but are privileges some of us still have... 

"Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, 
he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope."

Robert Kennedy

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."  C.S. Lewis 

DJ Jaffe's huffpo Kelly Thomas article which inspired me to write this post 

DJ Jaffe's Washington Times article September 16, 2011 well worth your time to read the comments to see how DJ Jaffe is unwilling to answer questions about what he has written.

DJ Jaffe's Tip Sheet written when he was a NAMI Board member and co-author E. Fuller Torrey 

they are both co-founder's of the Treatment Advocacy Center a non-profit established as a function of NAMI in 1998.

from this "tip sheet":

"While AMI/FAMI is not suggesting you do this, the fact is that some families have learned to ‘turn over the furniture’ before calling the police. Many police require individuals with neurobiological disorders to be imminently dangerous before treating the person against their will. If the police see furniture disturbed they will lusually conclude that the person is imminently dangerous.

Read How and why to change involuntary treatment laws in your state.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT WHICH MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION TO THOSE WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM IT.

NAMI/ NYC (formerly AMI/FAMI) does not endorse any medicines or treatments. This info is a public service as part of our efforts to educate and help others affected by these disorders. Do not rely on it. Consult your doctor before making any decisions. NAMI/NYC is a non-profit dedicated to improving the lives of people with neurobiolgical disorders (“NBD”, formerly known as ‘mental’ illness) through education, advocacy, support, and research. If this has been useful to you, PLEASE JOIN US. Send a deductable contribution of $30 (or more) to NAMI/NYC, 432 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016 to get on our mailing list or call (212) 684-3AMI. To join chapter outside NYS: 1 800 950 NAMI. Families Helping Families is what NAMI/NYC is all about. Thank you for helping us help others."

Summary:

This "tip sheet" is no longer available on the website I originally found it on; so I am glad I took the liberty of copying it verbatim. I suspect it is no longer on the NAMI site due to how much DJ Jaffe has been confronted about the outrageous advice it offers...He has claimed that he does not endorse lying or tipping over furniture---I, for one, do not believe him. Jaffe in fact put these statements on a widely distributed Tip Sheet meant to advise families how to get help for a family member who is in crisis, making his denial not at all credible. The fact that this document was disseminated by "advocates for the mentally ill" belies an altruistic intent. NAMI functions as a Nation-wide special interest lobby, using propaganda produced by The Treatment Advocacy Center. The fact that NAMI advocates for a very specific agenda--which is not the same thing as advocating for a group of individuals who have psychiatric diagnoses.  
NAMI, the Treatment Advocacy Center, Torrey, and Jaffe, all disseminate the same inaccurate information claiming that schizophrenia is a "brain disease" or "neurobiological disease" as if it is a scientific fact, or medical certainty; and further assert the disease can be "effectively treated" with teratogenic drugs. The claim that schizophrenia is a disease, defect or the newest term, "neuro-biological" disease is not in reality, based upon any empirical evidence, there has been no pathology found to cause schizophrenia to date. All of these "advocates" take their cues from the corrupt drug industry and continue to exaggerate the effectiveness of neuroleptic and other psychiatric drugs; while minimizing and denying altogether the actual brain damage and disability caused by the drugs. Even worse, is their denial of drug-induced adverse events including fatalities---advocates effectively become co-conspirators of a corrupt drug industry in defrauding federally funded medical programs.
The fraud, corruption, and Conflicts of Interest in psychiatric Research, Drug development and marketing, and Medicaid and Medicare being the source of the majority of the ill gotten gains which were obtained in the Pharmaceutical pilfering of the Federal Medicaid and Medicare Programs ARE not even mentioned. NAMI, TAC, Torrey and Jaffe function as pharmaceutical Lobbyists who advocate for a very specific agenda.  It is obvious that if their advocacy was for individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis, these Lobbyists would spend some of their energy towards stopping such criminal conduct from victimizing the people they claim to be advocating for. 


It is also plain that when a person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia is killed as a result of being beat to death by a gang of out of control Police Officers, the death is the fault of the assailants. Blaming the victim or 'the mental health system" is inappropriate. It is done for because is serves as propaganda to support the forced treatment agenda which is the primary focus of their "advocacy."  
The simple truth is that Kelly Thomas is dead because of brutal assault and battery, intentionally inflicted by six Police Officers; each of whom had a duty to protect and serve Kelly Thomas. It is a Hate Crime. The tragic death of Kelly Thomas, a man with a diagnosis of schizophrenia is used by Jaffe, TAC and individual NAMI members as a means to a very specific end: to lobby State legislatures in support for forced psychiatric treatment; including soliciting the endorsement of Kelly's grieving family members, to support Laura's Law. Jaffe and others minimized the fatal actions taken by those whose Duty was to Protect and to Serve Kelly Thomas---whether he was "treatment compliant" or not; homeless or not, and whether he was mentally ill or not. The fact that he was a man diagnosed with schizophrenia, homeless and not on psychiatric drugs or any intoxicating substances when he was killed---should have compelled any advocate who reached out to support the family to stand with them to demand that Kelly Thomas's murderers be brought to justice. It is not advocacy or altruism that compels advocates who choose to blame the victim or "the broken mental health system" for the murder of a mentally ill person. It is self-interest that compels advocates to exploit a brutal murder committed rogue Police Officers of a mentally ill man to further a forced psychiatric treatment agenda.


I am a mother of a young man who is diagnosed with schizophrenia, and I know that when I heard of Kelly's murder; my first thoughts were for his family. My second was that those responsible, would be held accountable. I know from painful experience, crimes committed which victimize people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are seldom prosecuted, or even investigated. I do not believe that Kelly's lifestyle choices are the issue, nor do I doubt or question his family---It is for me, very simple: Senseless brutality committed by anyone which ends a person's life must compel society to hold the perpetrators responsible. Kelly Thomas and people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are considered "vulnerable" yet when victimized, are in fact frequently neither protected or defended; far more often, the victims of crime are blamed or ignored altogether. It is as if their vulnerability compels the rest of society to abdicate any responsibility by failing to perform any duty which would protect or defend them---even when they are killed. Otto Zehm was killed by Police Officers in Spokane, Washington and although his death was ruled a homicide, and his brutal assault was caught on video---none of the handful of Police officers who killed him were charged with murder.  This is the 'norm.'


The forced psychiatric treatment agenda, that some 'advocates' focus on, is a biased and discriminatory agenda; not altruistic advocacy in the public interest in service to the mentally ill. People psychiatry labels as mentally ill and society considers to be vulnerable should have the same legal protection those of us who are not mentally ill take for granted. Surely, we can not claim to be a just, civil society if we deprive vulnerable people of their individual rights under color of law, and then claim the deprivation is "for their own good."
 

Portions of this post were first published on August 16, 2011 under the title, Advocacy for who?

homicide committed by out of control police officers

The Daily Mail on the death of Kelly Thomas after a vicious beating by several Fullerton California Police Officers quotes his grieving father Ron Thomas,  

'The only thing we have left of our son is the blood in the gutter, that's all we have left'

It is more than a little sad...to have the life of this man ended by a handful of people who have a duty to protect and serve...Police Officers have a tough job; but I bet that people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who are homeless, probably have a tough time getting through a given day without being bullied, or otherwise mistreated, and having enough to eat; among other things...


Having a psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia puts a person at an increased risk of experiencing mistreatment; and being victimized by violent crime.   A person with a diagnosis can lose their liberty without Procedural Due Process of Law and be forced to get "treatment" that can cause disability or take their life.  "Treatment" usually consists of being forced to take neuroleptic drugs to "medically treat" their symptoms---These drugs have an abysmal safety and efficacy record---certainly not one that would suggest they are helpful to more than about 25% of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Bad cops who aren't weeded out by the recruitment and screening process, are a liability to Law Enforcement in general, and to society at large.   It remains to be seen what the Fullerton Police Department and the prosecutor's office will determine is appropriate in this particular homicide by cop case.  Ultimately, I hope that these officers will be held accountable.   A vicious attack by a group of out of control Police Officers, ultimately cost Kelly Thomas his life.  When the person is killed by an  group of out of control Police Officers it is a particularly heinous crime.  It is crucial to hold those responsible accountable for their actions.  


Why are crimes committed which victimize people with a psychiatric diagnosis not considered to be as serious as crimes committed BY a person with a psychiatric diagnosis?  It is yet another way that, in effect, our society holds those with a psychiatric diagnosis to a different standard.  

" I am sure that we will recognize that there are some things in our society,  

some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted."  

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am sure that mistreatment of vulnerable people with a psychiatric diagnosis  

is something we should never become adjusted to...

Read the Daily Mail article and watch the video here.