NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/20/D8DBSF006.html

You see a woman throw a child off of a pier. Assuming that you know how to swim, what do you do next? What, walk away and try to find a phone? Or jump in?


Mom Arrested in Bay Area Children's Deaths
Oct 20 12:35 PM US/Eastern
By JORDAN ROBERTSON
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO

A woman who tossed her three young children off a pier into San Francisco Bay near Fishermen's Wharf has been arrested, authorities said Thursday, and the Coast Guard searched for the bodies of two of the children.

The body of a third child was recovered Wednesday.

Lashaun Harris, 23, of Oakland, was booked on three counts of murder and three counts of assault on a child with great bodily injury, according to Susan Fahey, spokeswoman for the San Francisco Sheriff's Department. Harris remained in custody early Thursday with no court date set, she said. Harris' children were identified as Trayshaun Harris, 6, Travante Greely, 2, and Joshua Harris, 1.

A child's body was found about four hours after a witness reported seeing a woman drop the children into the bay near Pier 7 , said Jonathan Guerra of the Coast Guard. The body was not immediately identified.

While rescuers searched for the children Wednesday night, an empty stroller was visible on the pier. A small inflatable Coast Guard boat hugged the water front as rescuers used hand-held flashlights to search under the pier. Larger Coast Guard and San Francisco police boats searched the water with high-powered flashlights.

Mayor Gavin Newsom came to the scene to get briefed by authorities, telling reporters, "I'm sick to my stomach," before leaving.

Lashaun Harris told authorities that voices had told her to throw her children into the water, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. It was not immediately known whether she had an attorney.

Asia Powell, who identified herself as Harris' cousin, said Harris was taking medication for a mental illness.

"I know that she would never hurt her kids," she told KPIX-TV. "I know that."

Harris had been staying with her children at a Salvation Army shelter in Oakland, the Chronicle reported.

"I just talked to her yesterday," Mary Ann Ramirez, the shelter's social services manager, told the newspaper Wednesday. "We had our usual, 'How are you doing, how's the kids.' I would never have guessed in a million years that today she would do that."

The pier is in the Embarcadero area, which draws tourists to the historic Ferry Building within view of Coit Tower and the landmark Transamerica pyramid. It's about a mile from Fishermen's Wharf.

What's this got to do with anyone's politics?

We wait until a liberal claims she was a conservative,or vice versa,or something along those lines where two opposing political beliefs fight over what they would do if the saw someone throwing a baby off a pier.

I believe I heard she was schizophrenic. I may be a horrible person, but I am not a total fool. All people with mental illnesses that can even possibly pose a threat to themselves or their potential children, especially schizophrenia, should be sterilized.

I believe I heard she was schizophrenic. I may be a horrible person, but I am not a total fool. All people with mental illnesses that can even possibly pose a threat to themselves or their potential children, especially schizophrenia, should be sterilized.
Dude, you don't get schizophrenia from germs. Sterilizing her would be a waste of time.

What's this got to do with anyone's politics?
From what I can tell, absolutely nothing at all.

What's this got to do with anyone's politics?
Presumably only the right leaning would have the moral fibre to intervene.

Dude, you don't get schizophrenia from germs. Sterilizing her would be a waste of time.
Sterilizing someone with mental illness has got nothing to do with germs. In fact, sterilizing a person in general has nothing to do with germs.

Sterlizing a person means that you make it so that they cannot have children, and therefore pass on their genetics.

You are confusing this with sterlizing an object, which is getting rid of germs.

That said, sterilizing people with mental illness is a terrible, no, evil idea. It is a huge overkill, when science is learning how to treat such disorders. You know what government actually had programs for sterilizing the mentally ill? THE NAZIS!!!!

I don't know of any other government that has ever tried this approach, and I hope no one ever does.

Dude, you don't get schizophrenia from germs. Sterilizing her would be a waste of time.
No, sterlizing at the start is what was likely meant...before any harm could be done.

Dude, you don't get schizophrenia from germs. Sterilizing her would be a waste of time.
LOL (at least I got it):p

Sterilizing someone with mental illness has got nothing to do with germs. In fact, sterilizing a person in general has nothing to do with germs.

Sterlizing a person means that you make it so that they cannot have children, and therefore pass on their genetics.

You are confusing this with sterlizing an object, which is getting rid of germs.

That said, sterilizing people with mental illness is a terrible, no, evil idea. It is a huge overkill, when science is learning how to treat such disorders. You know what government actually had programs for sterilizing the mentally ill? THE NAZIS!!!!

I don't know of any other government that has ever tried this approach, and I hope no one ever does.
The US went through a Eugenics craze and sterilized alot of mental patients, retarded people and poor folks who's lack of education and manners was seen as evidence of imbecility.

LOL (at least I got it):p
I guess everybody else thought I was picturing a big autoclave for mental patients.

i dont think we can tell from the original post just what action the witness took or where s/he was when s/he saw the children being tossed into the water.

therefore we have no way of assessing the morality of the witnesses actions.

The other method proposed of solving the problem [p. 107] is to take away from these people the power of procreation. The earlier method proposed was unsexing, asexualization, as it is sometimes called, or the removing, from the male and female, the necessary organs for procreation. The operation in the female is that of ovariectomy and in the male of castration

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Goddard/chap5.htm

Well, if she's going to drown her kids anyway, that's just a waste of the surgeon's time, isn't it?

after a witness reported seeing a woman drop the children into the bay near Pier 7
And how close was this witness? You have no idea, do you? For all you know, someone a couple of miles away saw this through one of those coin operated binoculers cities set up for tourists.

Regardless, the most important decision when it comes to saving someone is not putting yourself in danger. I say that as a certified First Responder (one level below EMT). They primary concern is the safety of the rescuer, as the last thing you want to do is create more victims. More victims means more resources are needed, and less of a chance of saving everyone.

That said, sterilizing people with mental illness is a terrible, no, evil idea. It is a huge overkill, when science is learning how to treat such disorders.
yes most mental disorders are treatable but the thing is they have to stay on thier meds. I have enough experience with mentally ill people to know that is no small feat, and most of the meds can't be taken while pregnant/nursing

I don't really know what the solution should be, or if there even is one, but maybe figuring out how to make meds that can be continued during pregnancy without harming the baby would be a huge step.

The other method proposed of solving the problem [p. 107] is to take away from these people the power of procreation. The earlier method proposed was unsexing, asexualization, as it is sometimes called, or the removing, from the male and female, the necessary organs for procreation. The operation in the female is that of ovariectomy and in the male of castration

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Goddard/chap5.htm
Just curious, maybe I am missing something, but I don't see evidence of American Eugenics here. I definitely see it being discussed, but also see the problems being discussed, and I don't see where it says that it was being done in practice.

yes most mental disorders are treatable but the thing is they have to stay on thier meds. I have enough experience with mentally ill people to know that is no small feat, and most of the meds can't be taken while pregnant/nursing

I don't really know what the solution should be, or if there even is one, but maybe figuring out how to make meds that can be continued during pregnancy without harming the baby would be a huge step.
Definitely agree with you there. The problem of keeping people on their meds is not only in people with illnesses like schizophrenia. People who are depressed get put on anti-depressants, and assuming they work, they feel better. This then convinces many of the people on the medication that they are all better and do not need medication, so they stop taking them. The result:
They get depressed again, often quite quickly
That feeling of depression leads to the same problems as before they were medicated
These people often then decide (remember, they are looking at the world from a depressed point of view, not a rational one) that the medications are worthless and don't help, and hurt themselves or other.

Just curious, maybe I am missing something, but I don't see evidence of American Eugenics here. I definitely see it being discussed, but also see the problems being discussed, and I don't see where it says that it was being done in practice.
The practice was begun because of research conducted in New Jersey but was widespread in the US.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
Click on sterilization laws.

Definitely agree with you there. The problem of keeping people on their meds is not only in people with illnesses like schizophrenia. People who are depressed get put on anti-depressants, and assuming they work, they feel better. This then convinces many of the people on the medication that they are all better and do not need medication, so they stop taking them. The result:
They get depressed again, often quite quickly
That feeling of depression leads to the same problems as before they were medicated
These people often then decide (remember, they are looking at the world from a depressed point of view, not a rational one) that the medications are worthless and don't help, and hurt themselves or other.
yeah, it is even worse for people with conditions like bipolar disorder, the wrong balance and they can go either way
manic- they don't need meds, they are too busy, they can take care of it themselves
depressed- they don't feel like themselves, if they are depressed on the meds maybe they would feel better off

it is a delicate mix to find the right meds and the right combo of meds
sometimes when people are depressed they get put on one SSRI and it doesn't work so they quit it is really hard to explain that another drug even another SSRI could be completely different.

Closer monitoring would be ideal, but I don't want to step on someones right by making it a law, and it gets sticky as to when to step in and when not to.

I can just try to be helpful when they are open to help,and pray to God that they trust me enough to tell me if they start having harmful urges....