The CardBoard
Richard Sherman in trouble? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Richard Sherman in trouble? (/thread-22096.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - JustAnotherFan - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 02:34 PM)DC 86 Wrote:  
(07-15-2021, 12:50 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:  I'm glad others here have pointed out that it is in no way universally believed that we need violence workers to respond to mental health situations. Just because society has accepted certain ways of doing something (driven often by the desire to maintain social control) does not mean that those are necessarily the most effective, safest, or even reasonable ways of doing something. I recently read and highly recommend Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System by Alec Karakatsanis, which highlights the decisions people within the criminal justice system make and how it is so often divorced from anything that is concerned with public safety.

If folks want to better understand why abolitionists have been working so hard to remove police from situations they may want to start with We Do This 'til We Free Us: Abolitionist Organizing and Transforming Justice by Mariame Kaba, or for a less radical, more deliberate checking off of the ways we need less policing they can read The End of Policing by Alex S. Vitale. 

Thanks to all those who were measured in their response to this incident, and who provided grace to one of our fellow alums.

Obviously your continued reference to police as "violence workers" indicates your overall position and bias. But more to the point you exclusively refer to a "mental health situation" without acknowledging that this was also a "public safety situation." RS appears to have consumed a bottle of Hennessy and a bottle of vodka, driven his vehicle until he crashed it (rendering it temporarily unusable) and then walked two miles to his in-laws' house and attempted to kick the door in. If a social worker or mental health professional are dispatched, what do they do if RS rejects their assistance and acquires another vehicle (or manages to restart his vehicle) and hits the road again? Enforcing drunk driving laws seems like a fundamental and vital police function. Taking RS into custody is absolutely necessary to prevent harm not only to himself but to others, and I fail to see how a social worker would have accomplished this. Are you arguing that drunk drivers shouldn't be detained, out of compassion for the issues that may have precipitated their drinking?

I believe that I am being very compassionate and sensitive to RS's possible mental health struggles, but where is similar concern for potential victims of his drunk driving, or for his in-laws who surely were terrified? perhaps I am misunderstanding your posts, because we can certainly agree on the need in these situations for multi-agency response (police and mental health professionals) or at a minimum much more extensive training of police. But I am mystified by the notion that police weren't required to take a severely inebriated and unstable individual into custody. They accomplished that without injuring RS while preventing any injury to innocent drivers or pedestrians, or to RS's family members. Seems like an outstanding outcome to me, under the circumstances, and not a source for criticism.

It is clear you are completely uninterested in questioning the dominant narrative that you have been fed your whole life and so I don't find it surprising that you are more concerned about the term "violence workers" than about the impact of that violence on others. You probably are not interested in finding out how many people with mental illness the police kill each year, either. After all, we can just slap the cops on the back each time they don't kill someone. If you're their buddy that is, else it is felony. I didn't mean to bother you with book recommendations. Feel free to mute me.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - 76lsjumb - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 02:44 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:  
(07-15-2021, 02:34 PM)DC 86 Wrote:  
(07-15-2021, 12:50 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:  I'm glad others here have pointed out that it is in no way universally believed that we need violence workers to respond to mental health situations. Just because society has accepted certain ways of doing something (driven often by the desire to maintain social control) does not mean that those are necessarily the most effective, safest, or even reasonable ways of doing something. I recently read and highly recommend Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System by Alec Karakatsanis, which highlights the decisions people within the criminal justice system make and how it is so often divorced from anything that is concerned with public safety.

If folks want to better understand why abolitionists have been working so hard to remove police from situations they may want to start with We Do This 'til We Free Us: Abolitionist Organizing and Transforming Justice by Mariame Kaba, or for a less radical, more deliberate checking off of the ways we need less policing they can read The End of Policing by Alex S. Vitale. 

Thanks to all those who were measured in their response to this incident, and who provided grace to one of our fellow alums.

Obviously your continued reference to police as "violence workers" indicates your overall position and bias. But more to the point you exclusively refer to a "mental health situation" without acknowledging that this was also a "public safety situation." RS appears to have consumed a bottle of Hennessy and a bottle of vodka, driven his vehicle until he crashed it (rendering it temporarily unusable) and then walked two miles to his in-laws' house and attempted to kick the door in. If a social worker or mental health professional are dispatched, what do they do if RS rejects their assistance and acquires another vehicle (or manages to restart his vehicle) and hits the road again? Enforcing drunk driving laws seems like a fundamental and vital police function. Taking RS into custody is absolutely necessary to prevent harm not only to himself but to others, and I fail to see how a social worker would have accomplished this. Are you arguing that drunk drivers shouldn't be detained, out of compassion for the issues that may have precipitated their drinking?

I believe that I am being very compassionate and sensitive to RS's possible mental health struggles, but where is similar concern for potential victims of his drunk driving, or for his in-laws who surely were terrified? perhaps I am misunderstanding your posts, because we can certainly agree on the need in these situations for multi-agency response (police and mental health professionals) or at a minimum much more extensive training of police. But I am mystified by the notion that police weren't required to take a severely inebriated and unstable individual into custody. They accomplished that without injuring RS while preventing any injury to innocent drivers or pedestrians, or to RS's family members. Seems like an outstanding outcome to me, under the circumstances, and not a source for criticism.

It is clear you are completely uninterested in questioning the dominant narrative that you have been fed your whole life and so I don't find it surprising that you are more concerned about the term "violence workers" than about the impact of that violence on others. You probably are not interested in finding out how many people with mental illness the police kill each year, either. After all, we can just slap the cops on the back each time they don't kill someone. If you're their buddy that is, else it is felony. I didn't mean to bother you with book recommendations. Feel free to mute me.

So, when was the Terry Rule repealed?

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - BostonCard - 07-15-2021

LSJU is right, we have crossed from discussing this interaction between police and a Stanford alum who may be having symptoms of mental illness, and are now talking generally about interactions between police and people with mental illness.

Talking about what happened with Richard Sherman is fine.  Broader discussion of policing and mental illness runs afoul of the Terry Rule.

BC

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - DC 86 - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 02:44 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:  It is clear you are completely uninterested in questioning the dominant narrative that you have been fed your whole life and so I don't find it surprising that you are more concerned about the term "violence workers" than about the impact of that violence on others. You probably are not interested in finding out how many people with mental illness the police kill each year, either. After all, we can just slap the cops on the back each time they don't kill someone. If you're their buddy that is, else it is felony. I didn't mean to bother you with book recommendations. Feel free to mute me.

You are implying that I am stupid (only capable of digesting a narrative fed to me, not thinking for myself) and you are resorting to personal attacks in lieu of staying on topic. I am discussing the Sherman incident specifically. He was driving drunk and attempting to gain entry to someone's house. The drunk driving alone could have easily resulted in an innocent person's death. You don't address that point at all, because there really is no rebuttal to the fact that he was a threat and being taken into custody by police was the only realistic solution at that point to maintain public safety. Separately, the mental health part of what happened is real and as far as I can tell everyone on this board is concerned and compassionate and hoping he gets the help he needs. It's a straw man argument to accuse anyone of being insensitive to that aspect of all this or to bring race into it.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - Canalejas - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 02:34 PM)DC 86 Wrote:   Are you arguing that drunk drivers shouldn't be detained, out of compassion for the issues that may have precipitated their drinking?

Isn't that bit somewhat a straw man? 


Quote:They accomplished that without injuring RS 

Well, except for the bite from the dog, no?

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - DC 86 - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 03:28 PM)Canalejas Wrote:  
(07-15-2021, 02:34 PM)DC 86 Wrote:   Are you arguing that drunk drivers shouldn't be detained, out of compassion for the issues that may have precipitated their drinking?

Isn't that bit somewhat a straw man? 


Quote:They accomplished that without injuring RS 

Well, except for the bite from the dog, no?

Police not being called into this incident was the actual argument, so I don't consider it a straw man. I suppose social workers can conduct citizen's arrests but that wasn't suggested, and seems impractical when dealing with a volatile individual.

I stand corrected, he did sustain a minor dog bite.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - Phogge - 07-15-2021

I am a Catholic kid who grew up in the Sunset. A cop lived on most every block in the 40's and 50's. Knew scores of cops and sons of cops and many of them became cops. Now they live in Novato and Pacifica and Livermore. My buds knew where the line was and very few crossed it.

We need a helluva lot more black cops.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - OutsiderFan - 07-15-2021

Remember "the Naked Guy" anyone? Andrew Martinez sat next to me in Home Room in High School. He wasn't my best friend, but certain A friend, who played on the football team as a lineman and helped make practices super fun.

After he succumbed to mental illness he was treated as a criminal, not as someone mentally ill, and he killed himself in jail. 

This is just to say it's good for people to recognize mental illness can drive criminal behavior and the mentally ill should be treated as needing treatment more than policing. Doesn't mean there isn't a place for Police when dealing with their behavior, but there should absolutely be one for counselors and mental health professionals.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - BobK - 07-15-2021

I do remember but for those younger than us

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Martinez

lex24 - lex24 - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 04:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Remember "the Naked Guy" anyone? Andrew Martinez sat next to me in Home Room in High School. He wasn't my best friend, but certain A friend, who played on the football team as a lineman and helped make practices super fun.

After he succumbed to mental illness he was treated as a criminal, not as someone mentally ill, and he killed himself in jail. 

This is just to say it's good for people to recognize mental illness can drive criminal behavior and the mentally ill should be treated as needing treatment more than policing. Doesn't mean there isn't a place for Police when dealing with their behavior, but there should absolutely be one for counselors and mental health professionals.

I wish it was that easy. It is, of course, important for people to try to help the mentally ill get treatment.  One major problem is that so many of the mentally ill dont want treatment.  And it’s very difficult to impose treatment upon one that doesn’t want it.  Legally your options are limited. 

And, of course, in the criminal arena, being mentally ill in and of itself is not a defense. Nor should it be.  Being adjudged legally insane is a defense.   But that’s a very different standard. 

It is a multi faceted problem.  I certainly don't have the answers.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - Mick - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 12:50 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:  I'm glad others here have pointed out that it is in no way universally believed that we need violence workers to respond to mental health situations. Just because society has accepted certain ways of doing something (driven often by the desire to maintain social control) does not mean that those are necessarily the most effective, safest, or even reasonable ways of doing something. I recently read and highly recommend Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System by Alec Karakatsanis, which highlights the decisions people within the criminal justice system make and how it is so often divorced from anything that is concerned with public safety.

If folks want to better understand why abolitionists have been working so hard to remove police from situations they may want to start with We Do This 'til We Free Us: Abolitionist Organizing and Transforming Justice by Mariame Kaba, or for a less radical, more deliberate checking off of the ways we need less policing they can read The End of Policing by Alex S. Vitale. 

Thanks to all those who were measured in their response to this incident, and who provided grace to one of our fellow alums.

What's a "violence worker?"  I've never heard that term.  A pugilist?  An MMA fighter?

RE: lex24 - jonnyss - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 04:25 PM)lex24 Wrote:  
(07-15-2021, 04:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Remember "the Naked Guy" anyone? Andrew Martinez sat next to me in Home Room in High School. He wasn't my best friend, but certain A friend, who played on the football team as a lineman and helped make practices super fun.

After he succumbed to mental illness he was treated as a criminal, not as someone mentally ill, and he killed himself in jail. 

This is just to say it's good for people to recognize mental illness can drive criminal behavior and the mentally ill should be treated as needing treatment more than policing. Doesn't mean there isn't a place for Police when dealing with their behavior, but there should absolutely be one for counselors and mental health professionals.

I wish it was that easy. It is, of course, important for people to try to help the mentally ill get treatment.  One major problem is that so many of the mentally ill dont want treatment.  And it’s very difficult to impose treatment upon one that doesn’t want it.  Legally your options are limited. 

And, of course, in the criminal arena, being mentally ill in and of itself is not a defense. Nor should it be.  Being adjudged legally insane is a defense.   But that’s a very different standard. 

It is a multi faceted problem.  I certainly don't have the answers.

yes, it's hard to impose long-treatment on those who don't want it; but it's not hard to commit someone to a hospital for a 72-hour involuntary hold if dangerous to self or others (pretty much the same criteria for which r s was arrested). a 14-day hold afterwards needs just a bit more evidence.  a great many individuals agree to follow-up treatment during the 72-hours (or the following 14 days). pretty much why the 72-hour hold exists. lots of folks are intensely troubled briefly rather than chronically.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - JustAnotherFan - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 03:23 PM)DC 86 Wrote:  
(07-15-2021, 02:44 PM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:  It is clear you are completely uninterested in questioning the dominant narrative that you have been fed your whole life and so I don't find it surprising that you are more concerned about the term "violence workers" than about the impact of that violence on others. You probably are not interested in finding out how many people with mental illness the police kill each year, either. After all, we can just slap the cops on the back each time they don't kill someone. If you're their buddy that is, else it is felony. I didn't mean to bother you with book recommendations. Feel free to mute me.

You are implying that I am stupid (only capable of digesting a narrative fed to me, not thinking for myself) and you are resorting to personal attacks in lieu of staying on topic. I am discussing the Sherman incident specifically. He was driving drunk and attempting to gain entry to someone's house. The drunk driving alone could have easily resulted in an innocent person's death. You don't address that point at all, because there really is no rebuttal to the fact that he was a threat and being taken into custody by police was the only realistic solution at that point to maintain public safety. Separately, the mental health part of what happened is real and as far as I can tell everyone on this board is concerned and compassionate and hoping he gets the help he needs. It's a straw man argument to accuse anyone of being insensitive to that aspect of all this or to bring race into it.

I wasn't implying that you are stupid. I was implying that you were uninterested in challenging your own preconceived notions. But that's okay. I'm willing to abide by the Terry Rule and drop it.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - 81alum - 07-15-2021

This topic needs to be shut down.  Not because the topic is unimportant, but because it is exposing deep and possibly irreconcilable political differences between members of the Cardboard community and traveling far from the original purpose of discussing Richard Sherman.  There is at times a tone of invective creeping in--which while all too common in American politics needs to be kept out of the Cardboard if this board is to be an oasis in the great desert of incivility.  The beauty of sports and this forum in particular is that they can unite fans with vastly different political (and other) beliefs behind a common interest in a team we mutually admire.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - BobK - 07-15-2021

ShermN was released from jail

No bail

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - pefloresjr - 07-15-2021

Agreed.  I have a lot of experience in criminal law but want to wait until further information is developed to comment on the case.  It seems to me that this thread has gone too far across the no politics, just focus on Stanford sports line and should be shut down.  Maybe we can try again with a true focus on the Richard Sherman case after more facts are out.  

I just saw a tweet that seems appropriate to the type of thing that happens in too many online disputes:  "Nice opinion you got there.  Be a shame if I reduced it to its worst possible interpretation, ignored all complexity, removed all nuance, ran it through my tribal value system, then performatively presented my outraged response."  We don't need that here.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - teejers1 - 07-15-2021

(07-15-2021, 05:14 PM)81alum Wrote:  This topic needs to be shut down.  Not because the topic is unimportant, but because it is exposing deep and possibly irreconcilable political differences between members of the Cardboard community . . .

Oh, The Horror!
People have political disagreements . . . how can this place possibly survive?

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - OutsiderFan - 07-15-2021

I have a friend with a schizophrenic brother. He's fine on his meds. But believe it or not, in his case, he has been known to think he's being controlled by taking his meds, stop taking them, and one time ended up 100 miles from his home talking to himself on the street. Luckily he had ID and a ICE contact so when Police picked him up, his sister could be called and intervene to protect and get him back home. 

So yes, sometimes getting people to stay on their meds is a challenge in and of itself.

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - needle - 07-15-2021

CELEBRITY PITCHMAN, HEAL THYSELF

Quote: 
NFL’s Richard Sherman: It's 'time to address' mental health
Ihsaan Fanusie
Ihsaan Fanusie
June 25, 2021·3 min read

Richard Sherman, one of the NFL’s most prolific defensive stars, recently collaborated with health tech company Nurosene to spread awareness about mental health issues.

The 10-year veteran cornerback said in an interview with Yahoo Finance Live that the pandemic has created an opportunity for people to be more honest in their personal assessments of mental health.

“I think [mental health has] been a h.uge issue for a really long time,” Sherman said. “And I thought it was time to address it. I think, obviously, the pandemic has done a tremendous job of making people sit back and be introspective about how they deal with their own thoughts, their own issues, [and] their mental health in general,” he said.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nf-ls-richard-sherman-time-to-address-mental-health-180028267.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAH8zjXglkry1mEElUfgEBjfJR-CqKuB24-h9Vq9BB3Fl0IUNqpEST-rEh4RfT4t3VoiDNtN8FeX2QfOM1SNbWjjRQ6jAf_f6LbQdHLEOji6RCT3hkU-MPIPTQdUaP_apQ5tUtv395rRvP9vNAD034eyUHWPjpdu6Qnwqdbh8lGS6

RE: Richard Sherman in trouble? - JustAnotherFan - 07-16-2021

[twitter] https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/1415798363912478722 [/twitter]

I'm assuming this is accurate. Note the PR bond. Seems very fortunate for Sherman and hopefully he can quickly dispense of the criminal charges, and more importantly, get the support he needs to make sure that his mental health is prioritized and an incident like this never happens again.