Nancy Steele 
Member since Jul 19, 2014


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “A Clear and Imminent Danger

The issue is that once identified as a risk (to self or others), the individual should not be the ONLY one questioned when it comes time for reassessment of whether they are still a danger to self and/or others. Legislation needs to change this. Chris Henderson was not self-identified as a possible risk to self and others. He was identified by someone close to him (Sheena). The police removed his weapon due to HER report of his instability. Why wouldn't the law support a phone call to significant others before giving the weapon back? Chris never reported himself as a risk in the first place. You can't give him back the weapon based upon HIS assessment of himself! It seems so obvious and illogical. She'd be here today if they would have made one call to a spouse or significant other, one call to the employer, one call to the children's teacher or caregiver ALONG WITH the person's self assessment should be the criteria used before releasing a gun back to an individual previously determined dangerous enough to lose it. Laws can and should change to support simple questioning of those closest to the individual. Once you are identified as a danger to self and/or others, your personal rights should not be the foremost issue. You should have to earn your right to hold a gun by displaying to those around you that you can handle the mental and emotional responsibility that comes with that. Nobody asked Sheena. She did not think he had that gun back and stated so that morning. The current legal and mental health care system let both of them down. We can change that, and we should.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Nancy Steele on 07/19/2014 at 7:44 AM

© 2014 Inlander
Website powered by Foundation