2 found dead at Rob Reiner's house; possibly Rob and his wife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick had 17 stays in rehab. Severely mentally ill and needed more than rehab support/interventions.

Why is rehab so ineffective? This isn't a matter of money or access. I have a brother like this too, I don't trust him and just hope he doesn't rage out like this some day.

It’s ineffective when people are only doing it out of force. Same as all therapy.

It has to be choice and the person wants to get help. Many mentally ill folks do not want to be on drugs and don't think they need drugs.

Then they need to be locked up and not free to harm others.

Oh sure! Snap! It's so easy to get someone locked up just in case they might do something someday. You clearly have no idea.

When there's a history of drug/alcohol addiction and mental illness, the person needs to be hospitalized longterm if that person refuses help.

It is virtually impossible to get someone locked up unless the explicitly threaten harm against themselves or others. If happens over and over that people tell the police that they will not harm anyone, the cops leave, and the person kills people later.

Who exactly benefits from this insanity? Certainly not society.

People have a right to freedom. It would be kidnapping if you just put people away behind locked doors against their will. They have to be at imminent risk to harm themselves or others or completley unable to care for themselves before you can take their rights away. That is why many are against the ICE detainments. Snatching people off the street and locking them away isn't really the sign of a funcational society. There are places in the world where there are even fewer human rights and families can have a family member with a significant illness or disability locked away.

Well at some point society has the weigh the rights of the individual against the rights of the general population.

Unitl they are threatning or commit an act of violence, then how do you weigh those rights? You can't put everyone with a mental illness or addiction in a locked facility just in case they were 1 of the very few who might go on to commit a violent crime. People with mental illness are not more likely to commit a violent crime than the general population. When they do commit a crime, it is more likely to be directed at family and more likely to be unrelated to drugs / gang etc and therefore it makes the news more often.

When you have a history of violence, engaging in crimes, homelessness, etc, you should be in a strictly supervised facility and forced to take needed meds. If you don't agree, then longterm hospitalization in a mental hospital.

[Anonymous]

Any insight into what other countries do? It’s so awful because nobody really knows what to do with these people.

[Anonymous]

If we didn't try to keep these people alive that would solve the problem. E.g. no narcan, no treatment to keep them out of depression and ready to k*ll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick had 17 stays in rehab. Severely mentally ill and needed more than rehab support/interventions.

Why is rehab so ineffective? This isn't a matter of money or access. I have a brother like this too, I don't trust him and just hope he doesn't rage out like this some day.

It’s ineffective when people are only doing it out of force. Same as all therapy.

It has to be choice and the person wants to get help. Many mentally ill folks do not want to be on drugs and don't think they need drugs.

Then they need to be locked up and not free to harm others.

Oh sure! Snap! It's so easy to get someone locked up just in case they might do something someday. You clearly have no idea.

When there's a history of drug/alcohol addiction and mental illness, the person needs to be hospitalized longterm if that person refuses help.

It is virtually impossible to get someone locked up unless the explicitly threaten harm against themselves or others. If happens over and over that people tell the police that they will not harm anyone, the cops leave, and the person kills people later.

Who exactly benefits from this insanity? Certainly not society.

People have a right to freedom. It would be kidnapping if you just put people away behind locked doors against their will. They have to be at imminent risk to harm themselves or others or completley unable to care for themselves before you can take their rights away. That is why many are against the ICE detainments. Snatching people off the street and locking them away isn't really the sign of a funcational society. There are places in the world where there are even fewer human rights and families can have a family member with a significant illness or disability locked away.

Well at some point society has the weigh the rights of the individual against the rights of the general population.

That will never happen. People wouldn’t tolerate what that actually looks like.

Yes, let's hand more power over to domestic abusers so they can have their battered girlfriends/wives locked up for being "a threat to themselves or ohers". "Doc, you see I've been unemployed for a few years and the labor market is just terrible out there you know...but she has all these panic attacks...and she just..well, you know how women are...it's just nag, nag nag...get a job, get a job...blah blah blah...but you see, she just won't stop hyperventilating in the middle of the night or freaking out about the amount of debt we're in....she blames me....women...you know how they are..glad she'll be safe and sound in this place, though...for a while...she's really starting to scare the kids with all her wild eyed yelling, shouting and crying---she used to be so soft when we first met..and now she's just out of control..I mean I worry about what she might do to herself and the kids....she needs to be...you know...structure, medicine...some groups....I'll take care of the house she bought us and in a month or so, however long it takes, I'll come back and get her. I mean, at some point we have to weigh my rights, the kids rights, society's rights....against hers."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we didn't try to keep these people alive that would solve the problem. E.g. no narcan, no treatment to keep them out of depression and ready to k*ll.

Depression and addiction isn’t always permanent goodness gracious. Some people do change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick had 17 stays in rehab. Severely mentally ill and needed more than rehab support/interventions.

Why is rehab so ineffective? This isn't a matter of money or access. I have a brother like this too, I don't trust him and just hope he doesn't rage out like this some day.

It’s ineffective when people are only doing it out of force. Same as all therapy.

It has to be choice and the person wants to get help. Many mentally ill folks do not want to be on drugs and don't think they need drugs.

Then they need to be locked up and not free to harm others.

Oh sure! Snap! It's so easy to get someone locked up just in case they might do something someday. You clearly have no idea.

When there's a history of drug/alcohol addiction and mental illness, the person needs to be hospitalized longterm if that person refuses help.

It is virtually impossible to get someone locked up unless the explicitly threaten harm against themselves or others. If happens over and over that people tell the police that they will not harm anyone, the cops leave, and the person kills people later.

Who exactly benefits from this insanity? Certainly not society.

People have a right to freedom. It would be kidnapping if you just put people away behind locked doors against their will. They have to be at imminent risk to harm themselves or others or completley unable to care for themselves before you can take their rights away. That is why many are against the ICE detainments. Snatching people off the street and locking them away isn't really the sign of a funcational society. There are places in the world where there are even fewer human rights and families can have a family member with a significant illness or disability locked away.

Well at some point society has the weigh the rights of the individual against the rights of the general population.

That will never happen. People wouldn’t tolerate what that actually looks like.

Yes, let's hand more power over to domestic abusers so they can have their battered girlfriends/wives locked up for being "a threat to themselves or ohers". "Doc, you see I've been unemployed for a few years and the labor market is just terrible out there you know...but she has all these panic attacks...and she just..well, you know how women are...it's just nag, nag nag...get a job, get a job...blah blah blah...but you see, she just won't stop hyperventilating in the middle of the night or freaking out about the amount of debt we're in....she blames me....women...you know how they are..glad she'll be safe and sound in this place, though...for a while...she's really starting to scare the kids with all her wild eyed yelling, shouting and crying---she used to be so soft when we first met..and now she's just out of control..I mean I worry about what she might do to herself and the kids....she needs to be...you know...structure, medicine...some groups....I'll take care of the house she bought us and in a month or so, however long it takes, I'll come back and get her. I mean, at some point we have to weigh my rights, the kids rights, society's rights....against hers."

Irrelevant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we didn't try to keep these people alive that would solve the problem. E.g. no narcan, no treatment to keep them out of depression and ready to k*ll.

Depression and addiction isn’t always permanent goodness gracious. Some people do change.

Too bad so sad if they don't change and kill someone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:18:06 poster here

When mentally ill family members are in a mania or psychosis there is not much that the other family members can do.

It is legal to have untreated mental illness in the US.

The U.S. movement in the 50s-80s of “deinstitutionalization” has been a massive failure.

Mental institutions should have been reformed; not eliminated as they largely have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:06 poster here

When mentally ill family members are in a mania or psychosis there is not much that the other family members can do.

It is legal to have untreated mental illness in the US.

The U.S. movement in the 50s-80s of “deinstitutionalization” has been a massive failure.

Mental institutions should have been reformed; not eliminated as they largely have been.

+1 million. It's insanity to think it's just fine for the severely mentally ill and long term addicts to be living on the streets. Their poor defenseless victims pay the price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kathy Griffin said that Nick had schizophrenia. Would not be surprising.

I assumed this was the case. Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:06 poster here

When mentally ill family members are in a mania or psychosis there is not much that the other family members can do.

It is legal to have untreated mental illness in the US.

The U.S. movement in the 50s-80s of “deinstitutionalization” has been a massive failure.

Mental institutions should have been reformed; not eliminated as they largely have been.

+1 million. It's insanity to think it's just fine for the severely mentally ill and long term addicts to be living on the streets. Their poor defenseless victims pay the price.

+2 million. Totally agree mental institutions needed reform.

[Anonymous]

His addiction needed to be addressed at 15. It is much harder the older you are to treat.

As an aside, there may be a bit of neglect that he was already addicted at such a young age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His addiction needed to be addressed at 15. It is much harder the older you are to treat.

As an aside, there may be a bit of neglect that he was already addicted at such a young age.

Sounds like it was. Over and over again. Yet, the addressing didn’t work. What next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His addiction needed to be addressed at 15. It is much harder the older you are to treat.

As an aside, there may be a bit of neglect that he was already addicted at such a young age.

Sounds like it was. Over and over again. Yet, the addressing didn’t work. What next?

We don’t know what happened other than he went to rehab for the first time. Did he come out and return to previous life?

[Anonymous]

He was creeping people out at Conan's party.