TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I have NO idea what you're blathering about, but I DO KNOW that mental illness is 100% REAL.

GO FIND A REAL DOCTOR & ASK HIM OR HER.

flan

---

Don't be dumb.  You know damn well what I'm talking about.  You were screaming "mental illness" to the top of your poster board lungs on the thread about the woman getting killed by the deputies, now, on this article, you dismiss it outright and call "evil". 

 

I'm willing to go by the "evil" mantra--in BOTH instances.   

---

 You are way off.  The woman on the other thread was a diagnosed schizophrenic.  This many was "normal" right up until the time he killed his family and himself. 

---

If Husker can't understand the difference between a truly mental ill schizophrenic and an evil cold blooded killer, not sure there is much else we can say.    

---

 Just because he wasn't diagnosed doesn't mean he wasn't mentally ill.  Lots of people go undiagnosed.

The woman was diagnosed with a mental illness. I don't know if the father was mentally ill or not. I do believe there are people who are just plain evil.

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I have NO idea what you're blathering about, but I DO KNOW that mental illness is 100% REAL.

GO FIND A REAL DOCTOR & ASK HIM OR HER.

flan

---

Don't be dumb.  You know damn well what I'm talking about.  You were screaming "mental illness" to the top of your poster board lungs on the thread about the woman getting killed by the deputies, now, on this article, you dismiss it outright and call "evil". 

 

I'm willing to go by the "evil" mantra--in BOTH instances.   

---

Except she didn't kill anybody.  THEY killed her.  Hello. 

---

 Ah, so now one is defined by ones ACTIONS--just like EVERYONE ELSE--and mental illnessis then irrelevant to any given situation.  

---

 Mental illness is RARELY irrelevant.

flan

---

 yet if this guy would have turned out to be mentally ill--that's exactly what you would have called it.  And maybe he was.

flan327 wrote:

---

Called it what? Irrelevant?

I can't keep up with your lack of comprehension.

flan

---

 Yes. you completely dismissed even the possibility that he could be mentally ill--because it IS irrelevant.  

Husker - your argument on this thread vs. the other makes absolutely no fvckin sense. That woman was in police control and custody, she was a diagnosed schizophrenic, and yet, she did not murder anyone. That's a completely and totally different set of circumstances. And I'll repeat, if 5 grown men can't subdue a UNARMED little crazy woman without killing her - they are incompetent idiots who do not deserve to wear the uniform of a police officer.

In THIS thread, in case you are incapable of reading, a normal man shot his family and then himself. He had no known history of mental illness and could be anyone you meet on the street.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Wednesday 16th of September 2015 02:50:11 PM

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Called it what? Irrelevant?

I can't keep up with your lack of comprehension.

flan

---

 Yes. you completely dismissed even the possibility that he could be mentally ill--because it IS irrelevant.  

---

 Where did I dismiss the possibility?

flan

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

James Holmes is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. Does that absolve him for killing 12 people?

---

 Nobody says she was absolved of her crimes.  We said she shouldn't have been tazed 4 times in order to subdue her when she was ALREADY in custody.  What was she doing that deserved death?  And if you DARE say throwing piss, that's just assinine.

---

That is a serious hygiene problem and the workplace has to deal with it. 

---

 Yes.  That menstruating bitch should be tazed until she's dead.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

And a criminal throwing pee should be stopped.

---

 With death.  Got it. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Husker - your argument on this thread vs. the other makes absolutely no fvckin sense. That woman was in police control and custody, she was a diagnosed schizophrenic, and yet, she did not murder anyone. That's a completely and totally different set of circumstances. And I'll repeat, if 5 grown men can't subdue a UNARMED little crazy woman without killing her - they are incompetent idiots who do not deserve to wear the uniform of a police officer.

In THIS thread, in case you are incapable of reading, a normal man shot his family and then himself. He had no known history of mental illness and could be anyone you meet on the street.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Wednesday 16th of September 2015 02:50:11 PM

---

 We don't know he was " normal" at all.  I would say that anyone who kills their own family is anything but "normal".

 

that aside, they did not intend to kill that woman--but you are daft if you think someone who is violent won't have force used on them.

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Called it what? Irrelevant?

I can't keep up with your lack of comprehension.

flan

---

 Yes. you completely dismissed even the possibility that he could be mentally ill--because it IS irrelevant.  

---

 Where did I dismiss the possibility?

flan

---

 By saying he was just pure evil.  You may be right, but there is then no difference between that and mental illness.

huskerbb wrote:

---

James Holmes is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. Does that absolve him for killing 12 people?

---

 Crickets chirping 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

No. With force if need be.

If death is the result of the criminals actions, too bad.

---

 I see.  So, then, the bosses could give her a forced hysterectimy to stop her from bleeding all over.  I mean, she might have HIV and knowingly spreading your blood around when you are HIV positive is a crime, right?  So, stop that bleeding by force.

---

 She threw her pee intentionally.  Not the same thing.  If she is spitting or throwing blood,mhowever, then yeah, make her stop.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

No. With force if need be.

If death is the result of the criminals actions, too bad.

---

 I see.  So, then, the bosses could give her a forced hysterectimy to stop her from bleeding all over.  I mean, she might have HIV and knowingly spreading your blood around when you are HIV positive is a crime, right?  So, stop that bleeding by force.

---

 Same could be said for pee.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

No. With force if need be.

If death is the result of the criminals actions, too bad.

---

 I see.  So, then, the bosses could give her a forced hysterectimy to stop her from bleeding all over.  I mean, she might have HIV and knowingly spreading your blood around when you are HIV positive is a crime, right?  So, stop that bleeding by force.

---

 She threw her pee intentionally.  Not the same thing.  If she is spitting or throwing blood,mhowever, then yeah, make her stop.

---

 The woman bleeding is intentionally allowing it to happen by not blocking the flow.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

James Holmes is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. Does that absolve him for killing 12 people?

---

 Crickets chirping 

---

 I already responded to this.  However, even the police in that case didn't kill him in his cell and try to justify it because he was crazy.

---

 He wasnt violent in his cell.  If he was, then theynwould have.  Still doesn't answer the question.

Yep.

All kinds of things are spread from pee.

It may be sterile inside the bladder, but once it passes the urethra and genitals, it could have anything in it.

Would you stand around while a person was throwing piss? No. You would leave. Why? Cause its nasty.

You would expect a police officer to stop it.

 

How is HIV spread?


Basics

HIV is spread through four body fluids:
•semen
•vaginal fluid
•blood
•breast milk

HIV is NOT spread through:
•tears
•sweat
•feces
•urine



BASICS

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Called it what? Irrelevant?

I can't keep up with your lack of comprehension.

flan

---

 Yes. you completely dismissed even the possibility that he could be mentally ill--because it IS irrelevant.  

---

 Where did I dismiss the possibility?

flan

---

 By saying he was just pure evil.  You may be right, but there is then no difference between that and mental illness.

---

 That is the faultiest leap I've seen yet.

---

I can't even...I have defended husker in the past, saying that he's not stupid, just stubborn...

flan 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Yep.

All kinds of things are spread from pee.

It may be sterile inside the bladder, but once it passes the urethra and genitals, it could have anything in it.

Would you stand around while a person was throwing piss? No. You would leave. Why? Cause its nasty.

You would expect a police officer to stop it.

---

 I wouldn't expect a Police officer to KILL someone over no.  So, stop assuming you are speaking for other people who have enough sense to understand a truly dangerous situation from one that isn't.

Ya'll are not understanding the full scope of the situation. That's just it.

You are focusing on this one criminal.

Not the others, inmates, workers, jailers, officers in the situation.

This may have been one woman in a cell alone.

But she wasn't in the building alone.

You can not let an inmate throw a tantrum. It infects the whole building.

You ever been to a zoo and one monkey begins to throw a fit and within minutes all the monkeys are throwing a fit.

Do you understand the chaos that would exist in a jail if tantrums were left unchecked?

That's dangerous for everyone in the building.

Mob mentality will take over. Next thing you know, it's a riot.

Yes. One woman out of control can lead to all kinds of problems.

And then you have law suits left and right. Cause people tend to get violent in jail.

No. They did not intend to kill that woman.

Yes. They had to stop the throwing of pee and fit.

It wasn't about mental illness.

It was about safety for everyone.

I don't know how else to spell that out.

flan327 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Yep.

All kinds of things are spread from pee.

It may be sterile inside the bladder, but once it passes the urethra and genitals, it could have anything in it.

Would you stand around while a person was throwing piss? No. You would leave. Why? Cause its nasty.

You would expect a police officer to stop it.

---

It's just PEE.

flan 

---

Some of us have changed babies' diapers. Some of us have raised sons who've peed in the middle of a diaper change. 

Some of us have or had dogs that peed when they were excited.

It's annoying, and undesirable, but not dangerous.

 

 

Well, now - don't worry about kids peeing on you, anymore. Apparently, the death penalty is justifiable for tantrums!

My advice to anyone going directly to the end of this thread without reading all of it first... don't, lol.

So I heard a news headline about some items they found in the family's house. Don't know the details. Need to watch the news tonight.