Multiple casualties reported in downtown Louisville shooting

I think he misread your use of "harsh" in that post.

 

ABC reports the shooter was recently informed he was being terminated from his position @ Old National Bank

What we know about the Louisville shooting suspect - ABC News (go.com)

Also .....
"Gunman Connor Sturgeon left a chilling final voicemail message revealing his plans to “kill everyone” at the bank, according to police dispatch audio.

The audio, released by Broadcastify, captures the minute-by-minute police response to Monday’s horror attack, when the 25-year-old disgruntled employee gunned down his colleagues at the Old National Bank in downtown Louisville.

In the audio, the dispatcher is heard relaying to law enforcement officials on the scene that Sturgeon had called a friend before the attack and left a voicemail saying he felt “suicidal” and planned to “kill everyone at the bank”.

Louisville bank shooting latest: Gunman legally bought AR-15-style rifle as bodycam video to be released | The Independent

And apparently, Sturgeon suffered a number of concussions in HS and may have suffered from CTE

Louisville bank shooter Connor Sturgeon’s high school ‘concussions’ raise questions of CTE (msn.com)

Co-worker on Teams meeting during the shooting:

"A manager at Old National Bank in Louisville was in a virtual meeting with her colleagues and watched in horror as they were gunned down inside a bank conference room Monday morning.

Bank manager Rebecca Buchheit-Sims told CNN she witnessed the Louisville shooting by employee Connor Sturgeon over a computer screen while attending a Microsoft Teams meeting that had just gotten underway.

During the gunfire, five people were killed and another eight were injured.

“I witnessed people being murdered. I don’t know how else to say that,” Buchheit-Sims told CNN."

Old National Bank manager witnessed Louisville shooting virtually (nypost.com)

 

Right here:

"Harsh" seems like a euphemism for abuse, especially when he seems to be calling for a return to early 20th century-style facilities, which were abusive.

 

Or perhaps he just thinks "harsh" sounds better than abuse, while not really being different.

 

Harsh was used in partner with reality.
Harsh reality doesnt equal abusive behaviors.

 

An interesting conclusion from the LA Times article:

Some people have lamented how quickly the news cycle leaves these stories behind. Based on the LA times conclusion, perhaps that’s not a bad thing.

 

He didn't say "harsh reality." He said "harsh and full of reality." That is two different things (both essentially euphemisms, but separate).

Again, "abusive" is not great framing. People don't like to think of themselves as calling for "abuse" even when they are. "Harsh" sounds a lot better.

 

At the very least, it sounded punitive to me. And if people are truly clinically insane, they presumably have no control over their thoughts or behavior. If that's the case, it would seem not only cruel but also pointless to punish them. Of course, some people argue that free will is an illusion for all of us. I've never bought into that but think it's a different can of worms anyway.

 

Well he clarified very clearly that it wasnt what he was trying to say, so why not give him the BOTD?

 

I took ot as these facilities have gotten soft on who they let out and when.

That isn't the same as saying they need abuse while they are in there.

It isnt a abusive though to protect the public and the patient by keeping them behind the walls of a necessary treatment center for as long as needed.

 

One reason I'm skeptical of this claim is that these facilities generally have a profit incentive to keep beds filled, releasing people when they don't have to seems to run counter to that incentive (unless they are trying to get people in). But in general it seems like places like this should err on the side of not locking up people in perpetuity. But I think the more relevant question is that should anyone who's spent time in such a facility have gun rights? No crime has been committed, and once released they have more or less been deemed fit for normal life.

 

He didn't like the framing. But he is free to describe what harsh but not abusive treatment of mentally ill people is. Let's get rid of the euphemisms altogether.

 

I tend to think it comes from a place where mental health issues are not healthcare-related issues but rather moral failings. That gives them justification to call for the harsh treatment of those who have failed in such a way. Pretty similar to how mental health was handled by the facilities that he seems to be calling to return.

 

I thought maybe he was contrasting softer or more accommodating treatment centers with mental institutions which would be run more like prisons - where we intend the experience to be harsh, unpleasant, and punitive. I'm not accusing the poster of wanting to torture or abuse people. Just noting my thought that we typically don't punish people for behavior that's beyond their control. Even in civil law, punitive damages aren't awarded unless there has been some reckless conduct such as voluntary intoxication. If someone is truly insane and wholly detached from reality, I don't think punishment should be the goal. It's definitely not going to be a deterrent, for example.

I don't disagree with you that we have the right and obligation to keep violent people away from the public when necessary for public safety so long as they're given due process, etc. I'm not saying mental institutions need to be like the Four Seasons either for that matter. Just kinda thinking about these things conceptually.

 

I can't recall any mass shooters who had been released from a psych ward, so I'm not sure how locking people up in those facilities for longer would do much of anything to solve the problem.

And that's without considering the very substantial problems with forcibly institutionalizing people who have committed no crime based on a fear that they might commit a crime at some indefinite future point.

 

Motive?

Louisville shooting: Bank gunman told he would be fired, sources say

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A Louisville bank employee armed with a rifle opened fire at his workplace Monday morning, killing five people - including a close friend of Kentucky's governor - while livestreaming the attack on Instagram, authorities said.

Sources told ABC News that the gunman was recently given notice that he was going to be fired, and that he left a note for his parents and friends indicating he planned to shoot up the bank.

Police arrived as shots were still being fired inside Old National Bank and killed the shooter in an exchange of gunfire, Louisville Metro Police Department Chief Jacquelyn Gwinn-Villaroel said. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg, called the attack "an evil act of targeted violence."

 

It's a similar argument regarding restoration of rights for felons. If we don't trust them enough to have a gun why are we releasing them back into free society?

Part of the problem is prisons aren't in the business of rehabilitation, and some people just can't/won't be rehabilitated. Given that, society is understandably distrustful of felons, leading to the vicious cycle of most felons having to resort to crime once they get out as much for lack of alternatives as anything. I don't like the prison-industrial complex, and I wouldn't want to see the same happen with psych facilities.

 

Being mentally ill is not a crime. The vast majority of those with a mental illness are not dangerous (in spite of movies and tv shows casting them in that light). Those with a mental illness are more likely to be the victim of a crime than a perpetrator.

 

Part of the complication to me is that mental health issues exist on a spectrum from mild to very severe. I assume that mens rea changes as we go down that line. There may be a case where a given person is borderline between knowing right from wrong and not knowing. There may be someone who has moments or periods of being sane and other times is completely detached from reality. I'm not sure how we can or should address these sorts of nuances but the discussion often seems very binary.

 

I think there is a class system when it comes to these facilities, and it will be more pronounced unless we democratize healthcare. If you have money you are going to get what people might consider "softer" care in that they treat you like a human being, almost like celebrity rehab in a way. I think the further down the ladder you go (especially if the state were to subsidize these facilities or assist in financing new private ventures), the worse the care will probably be as they seek to cut corners (and costs to pocket more money) and hire questionable people, etc. Really not unlike vouchers/charters with education.