[Noisebridge-discuss] dealing with a troubled young lady? Discuss it on today's member meeting?

Christie Dudley longobord at gmail.com
Tue Aug 10 22:32:04 UTC 2010

If the police are involved and they take her off, they have a burden of
proof of something specific.  Police can make her leave our space, but they
can't take her anywhere if she's not "a danger to herself or others"
according to state law.  This is the reason there are so many crazy people
on the streets of San Francisco.

The logic follows that if they take her back, and she's not being a danger
to anyone around her, then they have to be able to back up their actions
with a reasonably solid assessment that she's a danger to herself.  After
all, her right to personal liberty is greater than any of society's views on
wellness and inappropriate behavior.  See

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to deal with this, but I would like to
point out that by keeping her around the space, she's unable to get the
treatment it sounds like she needs.  Although I do understand there's a good
argument against the mental health business as to what "needs" really
entails and the merits of "treatment".  Nevertheless, if she was on
medication and she is no longer on that medication, her relation to reality
will continue to slide.  Is this something people are willing to take
responsibility for?

"Would you rather be a lion in captivity and live 24 years, or in the wild
and live 10-14 years? Answer the question every morning then look at your
condition." -- Nassim N Taleb

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Gian Pablo Villamil
<gian.pablo at gmail.com>wrote:

> I've been on the phone with her father (who is in Kansas,
> unfortunately). He thinks she is off her meds and should be back in
> the hospital (John George Psychiatric Pavilion).
> In her condition, while she is not violent or nasty, she is
> disruptive. She keeps asking everyone to pretend to be her roommate
> and get money from her sister, which is a very non-good situation.
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar <neilk at brevity.org>
> wrote:
> > On 8/10/10 11:40 AM, Quinn Norton wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Frantisek Apfelbeck wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello to All,
> >>> Well I've met this girl yesterday, directly after her arrival to
> Noisebridge.
> >
> > FYI she has shown up to Noisebridge before and was removed by police (at
> > the request of other Noisebridge members who were present, and who had
> > medical training).
> >
> > I do not know anything about her specifically. I can tell you what I saw
> > that night.
> >
> > She had made a lot of confused/erratic statements to other
> > Noisebridgers. In the informed judgment of said NoiseBridge regular she
> > was showing signs of schizophrenia. She was wearing a hospital bracelet
> > (a hospital in Berkeley if I remember correctly).
> >
> > She was sitting at a computer terminal quietly when the police showed
> > up. When the police asked her about how she got there or where she
> > wanted to go she started speaking loudly about somebody else, who I
> > later realized was herself in the third person. Like "SHE HAS TO STAY ON
> > THE COMPUTER AND FIND HER SISTER". There was some task she was trying to
> > accomplish involving Facebook.
> >
> > The police officers removed her gently but firmly although she was
> > struggling and continuing to try to explain herself all the way down the
> > stairs. I don't know what happened after that.
> >
> > I was rather shocked to see the police in Noisebridge, but in fairness,
> > they dealt with the situation about as gently as could be imagined.
> >
> > It's up to NB if they want the space to be a haven for people who don't
> > conform to the usual standards of sanity. I have to admit she didn't
> > seem particularly dangerous or even troublesome to others or herself,
> > but I think if she were to come regularly to NB it probably wouldn't end
> > very well. Even if she doesn't disrupt others, she could also be taken
> > advantage of. And if she ever does become a problem, I'm not sure
> > Noisebridgers have the correct training to contain her without harming
> > her (and even then, this opens NB members to legal scrutiny if she
> > somehow harms herself or others).
> >
> > --
> > Neil Kandalgaonkar     <neilk at brevity.org>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100810/aab34308/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list