Jump to content

Menu

Goldcrest

Members
  • Posts

    130
  • Joined

Posts posted by Goldcrest

  1. 2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

    It is 18 here in Michigan. So it gets really dicey trying to force near adults to attend school when they do not want to and are determined to buck the system.

    That's incorrect. It's 16 in Michigan. 

    Quote
    THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE (EXCERPT)
    Act 451 of 1976

     


    380.1561 Compulsory attendance at public school; enrollment dates; exceptions.

    Sec. 1561.

      (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, for a child who turned age 11 before December 1, 2009 or who entered grade 6 before 2009, the child's parent, guardian, or other person in this state having control and charge of the child shall send that child to a public school during the entire school year from the age of 6 to the child's sixteenth birthday.

     

  2. 3 hours ago, KSera said:

     

    Isn’t that what most of what we’re talking about is? I was responding to someone who suggested that instead of any gun reform, we should just increase sentencing, which given what we already have and see, doesn’t appear likely to do much to reduce homicides, and nothing at all for suicides or mass shootings. I mean, I don’t see any reason any one who purposely kills another person (other than in clearly warranted self defense) should ever be out of prison, but I don’t think that really has much to do with this particular discussion.

    Multiple major US cities are no longer prosecuting an assortment of violent crimes by choice, so it would appear as if you aren't actually attempting to reduce homicides and violent crimes using even existing laws. Do you think these prosecutors will be more likely to enforce new laws than ones that already exist against violent crime? 

    Of course additional laws can reduce crime, but if no one prosecutes the violators, they are just as impotent as the laws and court officials you have now who actively promote not prosecuting crimes in the name activism. 

    If you are fixating on suicide and school massacres, those are very specific instances, but the vast majority of gun violence (as the name of this thread indicates) committed against other people are neither suicide nor school massacres, and it seems that you already have laws in existence to address many many forms of gun violence. 

    Why isn't there more outrage against the lack of prosecution and prison sentence against gun violence in general? From the outside, it seems like Americans think that something new and improved is going to help but you don't even avail yourselves to what you have. Aren't prosecutors elected in most municipalities? People are voting in prosecutors who are actively opposed to prosecution it would seem. 

     

     

    • Confused 2
  3. 5 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

    No.  I actually don’t like the idea that it’s just mental health.   Especially because mental health has been used against women and minorities for generations.  If a woman can be declared hysterical and be disarmed, that leaves us vulnerable, especially in a domestic violence situation. 
    However, there were multiple people in this woman’s life who thought she was unstable.  The idea that there is literally nothing that could have been done to prevent her from buying firearms isn’t really an acceptable answer either.   

     Could a system be set up that allows red flags to be acted on prior to violence.  Sure.  Could it be abused. Yes.  Could we safeguard it to prevent that? Maybe, if it was well thought out and well funded, 2 things we don’t do for social programs in this country. 
     

    There are no easy answers to this.  We want easy answers because babies are being slaughtered, here and only here. But we don’t have them. 

    Predictive models by default end up discriminatory though in any scenario I can think of. Because they are proactive, not reactive, therefore there must be an element of profiling, or typecasting, whatever terminology you want to use. 

    Would it not be more simple to strengthen your country's laws against already violent criminals. Domestic violence, criminal violence, repeat violent offenders? While that would not likely have stopped this individual from possessing a gun, isn't strict and harsh prosecution and high prison/jail sentences a better deterrent to the overall problem with gun violence? 

    I have read many many US news stories that detail very violent criminals committing crimes with guns and then being released on bail, and also in many cases having the charges dropped, not because there were. not grounds, but as AnotherNewName outlined, because the state chose not to prosecute. 

    • Like 4
  4. 1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

    A few things should have gotten her more scrutiny. 
     

    she was under mental care for a personality disorder.   There is no mechanical for that to show up on a background check or garner more a scrutiny. 
     

    Asking in good faith- do you think it is a sound principle to give federal authorities access to the health records, including mental health counseling of all citizens? It sounds as if she had never been institutionalized, therefore wouldn't you be opening up the records for all private counseling? Wouldn't this make private counselors responsible for deciding whether or not a person was stable enough to own a fire arm? 

    Also curious what personality disorders people here would think of being exclusionary to own fire arms, were such a law enacted? If I am understanding correctly, certain mental diagnosis would be used as red flags in such a situation? Would that include gender dysphoria? Autism? Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? I am unclear how this would work, or how it would not be extremely prejudicial against large groups of people. It seems that it would in fact end up with people being less likely to seek counseling or treatment? 

    • Like 3
  5. OP, I hope someone tells your daughter that separation, even divorce, from a murderous spouse, is not a moral failing. It's not a religious failing. If her religion tells her otherwise, then her husband is not the only abusive relationship she is involved in. 

    Nothing about subjecting your children to a man who physically attacked you is noble. She has been under a tremendous level of stress and may be incapable of seeing that, which is when other people, those who state they care for her, need to hold that truth up to her right now. Her religious larger family needs to be showing her truth, not enabling an abuser. Resolution in the face of something that is seen as a moral failing is difficult in the best of times, and people need to be lifting her up and illustrating this separation, this EPO is not a moral failing. She is not better or on higher ground for disregarding her safety. That stands for morally as well as legally. 

    This whole situation is tragic. I hope you see we are not piling on you. We are all, I think unanimously quite deeply concerned for everyone involved here. 

    • Like 18
  6. 8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

    I apologize for repeated comments on the same post, but this "framing" is really bothering me, because it's a way to gaslight DD and deflect blame onto other people:

    "I only smashed your car and threatened to kill your mother and changed the locks and cut off your phone and credit cards because other people were telling me bad things. And you mistakenly believed I was dangerous and you needed a protective order because other people gave you bad advice  — you need to stop listening to those people and to your own instincts, and just trust me because I love you and I know what's best for us."

    The backpedalling and minimizing and gaslighting and rewriting history in favor of the abuser is a clear and obvious pattern in every abusive relationship, and this development is not only not a "positive" direction, it's waving big red flags all over the place. 

     

    Completely agree. Abundant red flags. 

    I am struggling to understand how you can swing from the extreme of him being a life or death risk in a matter of weeks to thinking that this is a positive development, GardenMom. If they still exist, I wonder if it would be helpful for you both you and your dd to reread your own threads and words on the topic and see how very urgent and dangerous the situation was in the moment. 

    He still has the guns. He is not a different person. Drugs can make people do crazy things, yes, but plenty of people take illegal substances without becoming psychotic and threatening to murder their mother in law. It's not as if he was forced into a straight jacket and padded room while in hospital and tranquilized. He was quite clearly functional while issuing these threats and physically attacking you and yours. He was able to clearly function in a  reality to some level to do all of the things he was doing. One can be altered and still be completely responsible for their actions. 

    There is much more at play here than many who are supporting her in this seem willing to admit. 

    • Like 10
    • Thanks 1
  7. 1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

    My daughter loves her husband.  He's a good dad.  Before all this started four months ago, he was a good husband.  He wants to still be married to her.  (We do have that from others as well.)

    I have, and still do, love him like a son.  Before all of this, he knew it.  He has said he feels more love from me than from his own mother. 

    The pain drug cocktail after surgery drastically changed his personality. The concern was he wouldn't give it up.  (He's now on different meds.)

    I appreciate those who understood the hope was first reunion and an ultimately stronger relationship. 

    Both sides recieved bad advice that caused more hurt and distrust. 

    Random things happened that didn't help.  Eg. dd's abruptly phone stopped working early yesterday morning.  He swears it wasn't him.  considering other wonky stuff her phone has done since, I believe him.  He completely supports her having ordered a new phone. 

    Bad advice does not cause one to chase one's wife, Mother in law, and young children with a shovel. Someone said an axe? Bad advice does not cause one to change locks and take money away from a wife and children leaving them at the mercy of others. 

    No one recovers from an addiction as you described in a matter of weeks. Wanting to be married is well and good, but he has not had enough time to work on himself much less his marriage. 

    I agree with @thatfirstsip that blaming your daughter is not helpful, however, people who push your daughter into blindly walking into a reconciliation after being terrorized should absolutely be subject to blame when this goes badly. Optimism for reconciliation through proper time and methods is one matter. Blindly advocating for reconciliation in the face of substance abuse and domestic terrorism is folly to put it mildly. It is straight endangerment of your daughter and those innocent children caught up in this, as well endangerment to you as you are there with them. 

    You can support your daughter and still be firm that this is insanity. 

    • Like 9
    • Thanks 2
  8. 7 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

    The problem is, not divorcing is also fraught. In my state if she remains married and he hurts the kids, she can also be charged and lose them to foster care. Parents cannot win when it comes to safety, sigh. On top of which, without the divorce, he can bankrupt them on the drugs, especially when income is considered joint marital property. The safe parent just has so little protection.

    I agree that the best advice is a cut throat, top notch, local attorney,

    I do not know the ins and outs of American law by any means, but if there were a legal separation with defined visitation and terms set forth by a court that were adhered to on her end, she should be fine unless she does something that falls under negligence herself. With proper representation, as it appears she can afford and is seeking from what her mother describes, she should be protected in many ways from any criminal prosecution as a result of his actions. Properly set up, it should also protect her financially. "Should" of course being the defining word. Her solicitor should be able to advise her on that and the potential problems on legal separation versus divorce. It has not been my experience that all American courts are a complete and total fiasco for all women. Proper counsel and proper preparation and having eyes wide open is key.

    It seems that getting blindsided is often the case of either poor advice or insufficient funds to afford proper advice, rather than a completely incompetent system, as with so many other areas of life. 

    No legal document can guarantee physical safety, but financial safeguards are doable in a situation where the concerned spouse has the means for good counsel. Even without a legal separation there are financial options she can pursue both in the US as well as out of the US with international accounts that would allow her to legally shield some assets away from her spouse. Ex-US assets are not subject to US property division laws, but rather the laws of the country the accounts are maintained in. It may temporarily make that money unavailable to her, but there are legal options to shield assets from irresponsible spouses. A sound family law advisor should be aware of these options in her jurisdictions, and if they are not, an experienced financial advisor familiar with ex-US banking in particular countries will. 

    It is fortunate that she is financially stable on her own accord. That gives her a large advantage as compared to many women facing a similar situation with an unstable spouse. 

  9. I am assuming he is still also dealing with a significant amount of physical pain, whether or not this is a technical addiction. That is going to need to be managed in some way. I know that is not your focus at this moment, and understandably so, but pain can have a major effect on behaviour even if it seems from the exterior that the pain is being treated.

    On top of the medications there is still the real physical pain that must be dealt with in some way, which makes it not an either/or situation necessarily. 

    It is not a simple case of "If he loves his wife, he will stop these medications that are being legally prescribed, and simply carry forth in pain out of sheer devotion." It is more a case of "He is in pain. He is being treated legally by physicians. He is also acting irrationally and threatening violence and therefore there are now multiple issues at hand." 

    Not to be contrary, but I do not think this is as black and white of an issue as you are describing it, but I fully acknowledge that none of us have the background information that you do which is obvious.

    Pain management is never simple. Addiction is never simple. Spousal relationships never simple. There is clearly much complexity to be dealt with here.

    Hopefully his parents are available to take over for his care consulting with the medical facility while you and your daughter can search out her legal and safety options and the best course to keep her and their children safe.

    Would it be possible for your daughter and her children to come stay with you and she take a temporary leave of absence from her job? From your descriptions he sounds unlikely to take a long flight to track her down and maybe things will be able to settle down and everyone take a breath. The stress level on them both has to have been incredibly high throughout all of this. 

    • Like 13
    • Thanks 1
  10. 20 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

    Seems to me the first step would be securing the protective order, yes? Because otherwise there’s no basis upon which to restrict his access to marital property.

    Agreeing with this. I do not know the legalities from state to state within the US. I would take this slowly on a legal front. 

    It's good she is seeking a family law solicitor for advice. Drug addiction or substance use does not necessarily preclude visitation or shared custody. In the cases where it eventually does, it appears to rarely be permanent. She may be able to keep more control by being legally separated if that is an option available in her location, and not legally divorced. She cedes much control over the children in many jurisdictions if she divorces him. A solicitor should be able to make that clear. More than one opinion may be beneficial to seek out, as in, speak to more than one to ensure the advice is sound and the outcome being promised by the initial consult seems probable to another experienced in that particular court system. Judges do matter on outcome as well. 

    Divorce seems rash at this stage because it will instantly rob her of a good deal of control over the children once it is finalized, and as it sounds they are quite young, this will be a long road and a long fight unfortunately. 

    • Like 7
  11. 5 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

    I think most people are very (very) well aware of how many pharmaceutical commercials we're bombarded with. Most people don't like them much more than they like political commercials. I can only speak from my experience, and I admit to having a very limited circle, but I don't know of anyone who goes to their medical provider and tells them they want a specific medication. They might suggest something like "Should I try X?" But only on this board have I ever encountered anyone who thinks they'll go to their doctor and tell them what tests they want done or what medication they want prescribed. I do think this board is an outlier in that regard.

    The legality of such advertisements.....I will admit that it is easy to make the assumption that most Americans are on board with them in that one, they legally exist, and two, that they are so financially lucrative that they make up what would seem to be a large amount of advertisement which would indicate they are effective. I am not an advertising "Mad Men" or something though, and it is just a perception. 

    Also, I did not mean to rankle the Americans! I love your country. I will send myself off to bed now before I step in it further. 

    • Like 1
  12. 3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

    I’m not sure why this is addressed to me. You aren’t telling me anything new about the country I live in.  But many simple measures will improve things greatly. 

    This.  Yes no one simple measure is going to cure it all. But many simple measures can be done to help pull our country into a healthier direction. 

    I highlighted a sentence in your post, so that is why it quoted you. I am not sure of how to quote without that. Specifically your comment that it is "all over the globe." I have lived in the US. It is not the same as any other fill in the blank country. 

    I have no currency in the game of what measures you do or do not take and was remarking that these threads tend to underestimate the differences between your country and others. Feel free to disregard the observation. 

  13. 29 minutes ago, stephanier.1765 said:

    This is mine. I like having a solid part to prop my pillows against. One day I may get an adjustable bed to make sitting in bed easier but this is working well for now. I'm able to clamp a reading light to the outside edge.

     

    IMG_0969.JPG

    What kind of cat is that if I might ask? I am trying to tell if it is the angle, but I think he is simply enormous! (And gorgeous!). I have never seen a cat that size! 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  14. 5 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

    Genuinely curious. How is depression or anxiety treated outside of the US?   Here we get pills from the GP, maybe do talk therapy and sometimes get referred  to a psychiatrist if the GP thinks we need meds outside of what they feel comfortable writing prescriptions for.  Generally we would see the GP yearly, talk therapy weekly and if you need a psychiatrist to write prescriptions that’s usually monthly. 

    Do ya’ll have a different protocol or just way less people with depression and anxiety? Are you using supplements or better therapies or what?  

    I don't pretend to know if it is culture or therapies or what make the differences. I am also not meaning to say that mental illness is not a serious and ongoing topic for other countries, or that it is not an increasing concern. I am not a mental health professional, so I cannot speak to any protocols for better or worse. 

    It is hard for me to describe what I see.......but I don't know that Americans really register how completely filled your media and culture is with prescribed drug use. I don't know that Americans fully realize that most people elsewhere in the world do not know the brand names of prescription medications that are not in their dresser or cupboard. Commercial slots on news shows are not filled by Astra Zeneca or Pfizer or Merck or whoever the largest producers are there. We do not hear about erectile dysfunction treatments on the radio while driving to the shops.

    Most people, and I will say this is an assumption of course and I am not about to lay out a medical paper for someone, but most people take what their physician prescribes. We do not go into our physician asking for a specific prescription. American commercials are "Ask your doctor about this!" Until you live without it, I am not sure you understand how much of your television space and magazine  and radio advertisements are taken up by these products. 

    Some people may argue that America has so many people on these medications because there is less stigma in the US, and perhaps there is something to that. 

    I do think some of it is you have so very many people. So very many. I laugh (not making light of a situation) but I do anytime I see a post that compares the US to Australia or some European country. It is not comparable. It is not compatible either (I am laughing at my first typo). I do not think that the Europeans have the answers to your problems (they have their own problems.) It is like looking to your next door neighbor to diagnose what it going on in your own home. While maybe there are helpful ideas, it is just such different pathologies to be frank. I have no answers just observations. 

    One of the great things I think about America, and why I do not see Americans as a bag of bigots or anything else as some portray, is that you look around and seem to be "oh you are like me!" and I do mean that in the best way possible. As if we were simply all one grade on a spectrum and not entirely different cultures, with entirely different upbringings and norms. It is a very bright eyed and enviable trait in my opinion. But it doesn't make it true. And I think perhaps that over-estimation of similarity brings unfair expectations or assumptions that one place can easily be like another if only they twig the one thing. 

    For all of the positives in your country, you are not really like anything to be found anywhere else in the world. (Which I think is a positive.) But you are not going to find your solutions amongst a bunch of (deleted bad slang and don't know another word) old places doing their own infighting on their own social and political problems. They sure haven't it figured out either. 

    • Like 1
  15. 1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

    i can say that my own mental health is much worse because of mass shootings, and the gun culture we have here. So maybe instead of trying to fix shooting swith mental health care, we could fix mental health to some extent by stopping shootings. Just a thought. 

    (and I say gun culture, vs gun ownership, as we have guns.)

    I am not sure if you are trying to be flip? 

    I was pointing out that you have much more than a gun problem going on. Whether it is chicken or egg that started it, it doesn't negate the existence of your current problems. You have both chickens and eggs with where you are now and they both (along with all of the other metaphors) must be addressed at this point. 

    Knifings, acid attacks.....there are many other ways that pathologically unwell people cope. You can remedy the outlet to a small extent, but there is always another outlet. 

    • Like 2
  16. 3 hours ago, KSera said:

    I was trying to look for confirmation that the US has atypical enough mental illness rates to account for this, but nothing I found confirmed that. We are a little higher than many similar countries for depression, but not dramatically enough to account for any of this and there are i other countries with more depression that don’t have these problems. We have a drug problem for sure, but I haven’t seen much indication that our mass shooting problem is connected in any way to that. 

    I am not sure what you are looking at, but if you look at any investment portfolio outlook for sales of psychotropic drugs it is blatantly obvious. North America, the USofA in particular, leads the pack by leaps and bounds and is at the top of the heap for future growth for psychotropic producing drug makers.

    If one assumes that a diagnosis of mental illness precedes the prescribing of psychiatric and psychotropic medications, then that is your confirmation. If no mental illness diagnosis is necessary, then I would say that is another issue. 

    Look at the financials and the financial outlooks of the producing companies and they will tell you the story. Your country is absolutely drowning in psychotropic medications compared to any other western country. I am not saying it is directly linked to every gun incident. But you do have a problem at least outward looking in, at the sheer amount of pharmacologicals being prescribed in your country, and they would seem to not be doing much to improve the situation. I fear to consider how bad it would be were they improving things. 

     

    • Like 4
  17. I think though, that seeing healthcare as either a cause or solution to these problems is also minimalist. 

    Healthcare can help treat mental illness, but mental illness in numbers like you have isn't stemmed from lack of healthcare. Nor is drug abuse. It is stemming from something else.

    This is a population that seems to see the solutions to its problems in prescribed medications, far more so than any other nation on earth. Prescribing more medications, whether self paid, or government paid and provided would be an unlikely solution. And it does seem  that the medical solution for most things in America is a product of a pharmaceutical company, whether it is an injection, a pill, or an implant of some variety. 

    Drugs illegal or otherwise, seem to be exacerbating the problem, not improving it. 

     

    • Like 8
    • Thanks 1
  18. 16 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

    It depends and can get complicated.  Some judgements are excludable from taxation (damages related to a physical loss/death being the big one) while punitive damages are usually taxable (with a few exceptions).  

    Interesting. Are people, the ones involved in the suit, made aware of the taxation issues before filing for the suit? That would be a nasty surprise, indeed if not! I wonder if for punitive cases, the taxation is partly to dissuade frivolous suits? 

  19. On 6/2/2022 at 11:09 PM, Murphy101 said:

    I’m so fed up.

    This is just stupid.  There’s not any other word I can have for it.

    Mental illness is not some new age American thing. It’s all over the globe and yet there aren’t daily mass shootings all over the globe.

    Civilian gun ownership is not an American concept nor is it only allowed in America.  There are many places around the world that allow civilian gun ownership.  But only in America do we have daily mass shootings.  

    Of developed nations, we pay exponentially more for less access to medical care of any kind and certainly not mental health care but have crazy unfettered and unlimited access to guns that can mow down dozens of people at a time.

    People persist in this false paradigm that we can’t have freedom without that kind of gun access even in the face of watching over and over and over families lose what freedom in the republic should safeguard for them - LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT of HAPPINESS - as they are shot to death just for going to the store, church, the doctor or school.

    That is NOT freedom.  

    That’s just stupid.

    Because it’s flat out a lie that we cannot tremendously reduce the chances for someone to be a mass shooter.  That we can’t stop all gun crime does not mean we cannot stop a heck of a lot of it.

    And just like we don’t have to take away everyone’s cars to reduce vehicular crimes, we can and we have managed to greatly reduce the numbers. often with basic simple measures that are not onerous to the majority of citizens.

    We can reduce mass shootings and it’s just recklessly stupid not to.

    As far as the bolded, your country is a whole different mix when it comes to that. You do have far, far, more untreated mental illness than most other countries of similar economic standing. You do not have the same laws and regulations in relation to involuntary commitment for decades now.

    You have more types of drugs and exponentially higher drug use per capita which seem to factor into the mental illness issue. You have a colossal homeless problem in most of your populous cities. There are homeless and drug addled persons dominating the streets in many of them. 

    You have pharmaceutical companies marketing directly to your citizens and the most medicated population in the entire world. 

    You have a comparatively massive and diverse population compared to other countries, politically, ethnically, racially, and economically. 

    A comparison on anything with other countries would not be accurate as you do not come from any type of similar starting point. 

    I am reading along as an outsider and this is not a simple problem you have here. This is an immense, many faceted problem you Americans are dealing with. I do not envy you, but from an outside view you are long past simple measures. Simple plans will not fix the things you are trying to fix. 

    • Like 9
    • Thanks 5
  20. 27 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

    And since they were only married for 15 months, it basically cost him around $1 million per month of marriage to get away from her.

    And speaking of taxes.... According to this Forbes article, not only will the monetary awards in this trial be taxed as ordinary income (37% + 13% in CA), there is no offset for what they have to pay to the other person, and the millions they spent in legal fees are not deductible. I assume they will eventually settle for less (or no) money, but if the amounts awarded by the jury were to stand, Depp would be taxed on his $10+ million, even though $2 million of that will go to Heard, and Heard would have to pay income tax on her $2 million, even though she wouldn't actually get a dime, and there's no deduction for the $8 million (net) that she would have to pay him. 

    Thank you for the link. I had no idea the taxes were that complex.

    At the end of the article, for people who have to pay the full amount of settlement as if it were income, even if the attorney fee was a 40% contingency, that was shocking too. I assume then that attorneys on large class action suits come out smelling like roses while the clients are left footing the whole settlement amount as taxed income? That sounds so outlandish, but it seems the attorneys are always the ones who come out ahead in these cases. 

    I can understand why JD brought the case, but it is very much in for a penny, in for a pound after reading this! 

  21. 1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

    I believe that lump sum settlements are taxable, and I have read that one of her demands was specifically that he pay all the taxes on any money or property she received as part of the settlement, and that the total cost of the settlement, to Depp, was $14 million.

    Goodness that is steep! 

×
×
  • Create New...