To state the obvious, the right to own a gun in the United States, the most heavily armed population in the world is a political powder keg laced with ambiguity. The NRA slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." as Dr. Johnson points out contains obvious over simplification and fallacious reasoning or as Bart Simpson might say, "Doh".
The reality is that both the solution and the problem is political in all levels of government. Competing interests such as the right of privacy, right to bear arms, free speech, inadequate mental health funds; tools and screening, privileged communications, federal enforcement and local law enforcement collide in treacherous whitewater rapids for lack of a pilot at the helm. In many states and locales there is no discussion because it is deemed political suicide. If you would like to know more about legal solutions to prevent gun violence check out Smart Gun Laws.
A Duty to Protect--Who
Many moons ago, a therapist was deemed to have a duty to warn potential victims of viable threats by their patients in a California case Tarasoff vs The Regents of The University of California. I became aware of this case while studying at the University of California, Irvine and performing field work involving high risk teens under the supervision of licensed professionals. Over the years, some states have adopted a Tarasoff Duty to Warn or Protect, but at the same time courts across the nation have qualified the duty to protect third parties citing patient confidentiality and foreseeability issues.
Some courts have gone so far as to relieve treating professionals of any duty to the public regardless of the threat by their patients. In part because the science is inexact in determining what is insanity at any given point and what to do about it. Additionally, therapists who are the only professionals with the expertise to determine if a person in their care is insane are not required to predict whether a patient's rants and raves may result in a Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, Aurora Colorado Movie Massacre or the Safeway Massacre in Tuscon, Arizona involving Representative Gabby Gifford.
The Duty to Decide--Sorting Out Ambiguities
As recent as today, The United States Supreme Court in Elonis vs The United States of America, June 1, 2015 decided that Facebook posts and violations of protective orders in the form of Rap lyrics by Mr. Elonis did not violate a federal criminal law 18 U.S.C. section 875 (c) which prohibits the transmission in interstate commerce "any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another. In Mr. Elonis's own words:
Federal
“Hi, I’m Tone Elonis.
Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to
kill my wife? . . .
It’s one of the only sentences that I’m not allowed to
say. . . .
Now it was okay for me to say it right then because I
was just telling you that it’s illegal for me to say I
want to kill my wife. . . .
Um, but what’s interesting is that it’s very illegal to
say I really, really think someone out there should kill
my wife. . . .
But not illegal to say with a mortar launcher...
The statements over time escalated involving schools within a ten mile radius, FBI agents, police, and park employees.
"That’s it, I’ve had about enough
I’m checking out and making a name for myself
Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius
to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined
And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a Kindergarten class
The only question is . . . which one?”
The court found that the jury instruction in the lower court specifying the objective fear of persons receiving the threats was not the issue. Instead, in order to be convicted of the crime the government must prove Mr. Elonis intended to convey a "threat" by his words and statements. It sure seems like a lot of work to end up blowing it on a jury instruction.
“We are a nation of laws and not of men.”
I will be #wearingorange on June 2nd because to do nothing is to say current gun violence is OK and it isn't okay. 
No comments:
Post a Comment