Gerritsen Convicted in Jamming Case

As to all the posts here about Mr.Gerritsen being mentally ill and not responsible for his actions, compare that with a drunk. I have seen alot of people in my day do some really stupid stuff and then I would ask them about it the next day and they would say, "O, I was just drunk and did'nt know what I was doing." Well, I will say that more than once I told them drunk or not ya goofball, you're still responsible for your actions! Always seemed to provoke a stupid look. Maybe that's why you got your butt kicked last night. You ran your mouth but figured that dude would just shrug you off as "being drunk and not knowing what he's doing." Tough way to learn a lesson! Pay up Jack!

 

It has been kind of brushed upon previously, but the bottom line is that we have a long history of dealing with criminal offenses that were comittted by persons medically or mentally not responsible. Our laws (both federal and verious states) basically says that it doesn't matter. The behavior will be controlled so as not to expose society to it again. Some states call it "criminally insane". But the bottom line is that even if a person is not responsible for the criminal actions, society can and will be protected against them. The person either goes to prison or to a controlled mental institution. If in the mental institution, they are not (supposed to) be released until there is assurance that the behavior will not happen again. SO . . . it was clearly evident that this character was not going to change his behavior, SO . . . the state has an obligation to remove him from his ability to cause such behavior.

 

Whatever happened to the previous sentence he was supposed to serve for jamming police freqs?  I read a 4 or 5 year old notice of sentencing on ARRL.org, but no follow up until this series of incidents.  Was he released on shock probation, or some similar miscarriage?

And who cares what purported mechanism causes him to do what he does?  Some people are just *holes.  It's not a disease. It's not a mental illness. It's not a medical condition.  They are just *holes--which is why the condition and the resulting behavior persist despite medical treatment.  

If your sanctimonious, superior medical intellect needs a gentle, medical sounding euphemism for it, call it SPD--Social Proctology Disorder.  Comfort yourself with the assurance that Gerritsen imposes the "suffering" of his SPD upon the radio community.  Those who are directly or indirectly affected by his campaign will continue to call it by its real name--i.e, He is an *HOLE!  

 

I don't think most people need to do basic research to tell the difference between genuine mental illness, and excuses for anti-social behaviour.

It reminds me of when alcoholism was defined as an "illness". It was an illness because it was treatable, and not because it was an excuse. Nevertheless, there was a brief period where it WAS accepted as an excuse by many, until MADD came along.

 

Maybe you can fly out to California and go to the sentencing phase.  The judge may let you take Jack home with you. Then you can use you superior knowledge to rehabilitate poor Jack.

Greatness starts by saving that first "poor soul".

W6NJ

 

He was let out early due to jail overcrowding.

 

They got Gerritsen- now let's see them go after K1MAN with the same determined effort. One down, one to go!  

 

Charles,

If I'm not mistaken your medical background is that of an EMT or perhaps a Paramedic.

Even though you may be intelligent, and you read a lot on the Internet, I hardly think you are qualified to make clinical diagnosis of a persons "mental illness"

In addition, despite what the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) says, mainstream America isn't buying into this theory that citizens with "behavioral" problems can be excused of their actions and be provided treatment for "mental illness".

This nonsense that a persons actions are because he is a "product of his environment" that caused him to develop a mental illness will never be accepted by mainstream society, at least not until someone develops a device that can be placed on the perpetrators' head so that he may be reconditioned and returned to society as a productive citizen.

Since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, perhaps you might consider spending your time inventing this device rather than trying to brainwash the rest of us into believing people should not be responsible for their actions because they have developed a mental illness.

David ~ KY1V

 

The notion that alcohol"ism" is a disease is another fallacy shoved down the throats of the American people.

Since when does the deliberate action of placing a bottle to ones own mouth to consume an intoxicating beverage constitute a disease or mental illness?

If the term mental illness can be interchanged with stupidity of the individual for allowing himself to be consumed by his own self destruction thereby causing pain and suffering for those that love and care about him, Lord help us all.

In my opinion, many of today's repeated criminal behavioral problems can be directly attributed to the practice of Psychology by liberals in our society. Today's Psychologists repeatedly tell the American public that it's not your fault. Your father abused your mother, your uncle molested you, you were raised in a single parent home, your mother was an alcoholic...it's not your fault!

Well, it's somebody's fault and at some point the kid is old enough to make his own decisions.

If it's the parents fault, let's start locking up all the parents and send the kids to military school!

Quite frankly, I think they should restore corporal punishment in the schools. It worked for years and no one died because of it!

David ~ KY1V

 

...He could receive up to 15 years in federal prison...

So? Who could care if he has any "Condition" it still warrants he be put someplace where these morons can be removed from good people, healthy people or whatever you would like to call it.

The fact remains, in spite of the ACLU, liberals and any other unreasonable thinking group that if the creep is a threat to society- (and this toad is a threat)- remove him and isolate him

If more attitude towards removal was upheld, we would'nt have to see the collage of photographs of our innocent children on milk cartons. We would not se the endless parade from a dememnted Press Corps of people who are asked after their loved one is killed to decribe what they are feeling to some Stepford Wife like Bimbo holding a microphone. We would not allow so called lawmakers to scream from the roof tops treason towards our commander and chief yet lie and skirt the issues when it came to what really happend to the poor girl in his Oldsmobile.

WHO GIVES A RATS BUTT WHAT HIS PROBLEM IS! AND so what if he won't pay the fine? He'll rot in jail until he does!

At least that's what they do to Father's who are swamped under in child support payments and can't get any relief!

 

You can have my turn, this is getting tiresome.

 

darn bleeding harts.
irregardless of "why" he did it, it should not have done what he did, and his actions could have been prevented.

Darwins theory holds true. eveloution and delution of a species when the "strong and intellegent" help the "weak and dumb".
I beleive, if you kill someone intensionally, you die.
no getting off for good behaviour, no deals.
if 6 guys rob a bank and one of them kills someone durring that robery, all 6 should be put to death, even the guy waiting out front in the get away car. game over. no deals. no bleeding harts.

Gerritsen did what he did, and continued to do so after he was instructed not to do so. game over. he should not even be allowed to use a wired telephone.

God bless Texas and the express lane to the electric chair.

 

1. Unless you provide us with your medical credentials, your "clinical judgment on the matter" is so much BS. No wonder you don't want to debate it any further.

2. "Early intervention" What would you have society do, until he commits a crime? The courts found him mentally competent to be his own lawyer, and it's up to HIM, his lawyer, or his relatives to raise the issue of mental competency. We certainly don't want a society where anyone (especially you) that believes that another person has a behavioural problem, makes the second person a candidate to be "treated" for "mental illness".

3. That's not the FCC's job, nor should it be. The FCC was doing a poor enough job in getting him out of circulation as it was, without raising the specter of mental examination (which would have further prolonged the FCC in taking final action).

I'm reminded of the case years ago (I think in Ohio) where some guy was accused and then convicted of rape. The court-appointed psychologist examined him as part of the sentencing evaluation, and interpreted his denial of the rape as an indication that he was "hard core unrepentant" (or some such). So, his sentence was particularly harsh (long).

Of course, seven years later, the girl who made the accusation recanted. She had had unprotected sex with her boyfriend as a teenager and then thought she was pregnant. So, she made the rape claim, and when faced with a lineup, picked the guy at random. I think DNA analysis confirmed his innocence, and he was set free.

So, what was the most grievious part of this story to me? The whacko Ohio psychologist who testified as to the "mental state" of the accused. If I had my way, she would be BANNED FOR LIFE from being employed in ANY part of the medical/psychological field.

There is genuine mental illness, but the whackos out there (especially in Ohio) that try to interpret the mental state of others, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

I think you're confusing the Billy Milligan case with another high profile case.  In the Milligan case, which was in Ohio, he was exonerated because the jury fell for the explanation that it was only one of his 7 known personalities that perpetrated the series of rapes.

The other case was in Minnesota, I think.  The victim underwent a religious conversion, which compelled her to recant her testimony, even against damning medical evidence.  One theory was that the girl so enjoyed the profile of the case, that she became addicted to the spotlight.  So she reversed her testimony to get in the spotlight again.  I don't remember how the second trial turned out.

Those two cases were roughly the same time frame, a little less than 20 years ago.

 

I'm so happy, and excited!

Let's celebrate with a POLL!!