DAT

[Chiefsfan1963 1,101]

How many incidents does it require before some is labeled as having a problem? You say Hill has a problem with the opposite sex. I have only read where he had a problem with his girlfriend. The same one he had to call the police on because she was causing trouble at his house. That happened shortly before he went off on her. My point is does he have a problem with the opposite sex or this girlfriend?

 

As far as Belcher goes brain damage or not HE elected to kill his girlfriend and HE elected to kill himself. I can almost guarantee you that there are others in worse shape/worse condition then him and they don't kill people or themselves.

[SEMO 6,811]

He can inflict whatever he wants on the discussion, Bil. Who died and made you forum boss? Afterall, we put up with Mugsy's crap. No offense, Mugsy.

[jetlord 10,209]

Don't pick on Mugsy.  He's like that ache in the knee that you miss when it's not hurting.

[DieHard 2,061]

1) Belcher did not have this problem until he had brain damage from the concussions. It is a known effect of traumatic encephalopathy

2) Marcus Peters came from a football family. His dad was a coach. He knew the coach on his team was wrong about something and told him so, leading to his suspension. That is not a "piss poor attitude." It is knowing what you know and being willing to say it. No comparison. Not even worth mentioning in this thread.

3) Giving a kid a chance has nothing to do with forgiveness or a lack of it. Hill did not make a bad decision. He has an emotional problem with the opposite sex which would not affect his play on the field but could embarrass the entire team if there is another incident and lead to his dismissal, which adds a huge risk. I am not condemning him for his action, but acknowledging the truth about this type of rage reaction. Don't inflict your self-righteous pseudo-religious crap on a discussion about an emotional disorder. It has nothing to do with forgiveness or a lack thereof. It is a purely practical calculation about what is best for the team.

I am not ready to attribute Belcher to concussions. That may be a stretch. Unfortunately this kind of thing happens to non football players. It is probably a function of many things.

[eraser 722]

There are people who have had head injuries, the thought of suicide or killing someone else never crossed their mind. 

[Bilyous2 884]

He can inflict whatever he wants on the discussion, Bil. Who died and made you forum boss? Afterall, we put up with Mugsy's crap. No offense, Mugsy.

Well taken.  I should not have posted that last part. I am not a forum boss.  It was that his post claimed that I showed lack of forgiveness, which is self-righteous.  That is the definition of "self-righteous."  Forgiveness is a spiritual issue. So his post implied that I was lacking in the spiritual quality of forgiveness. This angered me, but I should not have been so harsh in my reply. Here is what I meant. This episode of Hill's has to do with an emotional problem. It has nothing to do with a bad thinking decision due to immaturity or of making a moral mistake. It was neither of those things.  I feel very bad for the kid, and I am sure he feels terrible and contrite.  But his action was a rage reaction. Than kind of outburst requires investigation and treatment by a professional. It has nothing to do with a bad moral decision.  If it did, then it WOULD be reasonable to address the issue of forgiveness.  Hill doesn't need forgiveness.  He needs treatment. Otherwise, he will eventually do it again.  

[Bilyous2 884]

There are people who have had head injuries, the thought of suicide or killing someone else never crossed their mind. 

That makes no logical sense, Eraser.  Just because some people with traumatic encephalopathy become violent and/or suicidally depressed, does not mean that all of them do. But it is a known effect in a significant number.  If Belcher had no prior history of depression or violence, then it is absolutely reasonable to conclude that his murder-suicide was the result of his severe traumatic encephalopathy, which was established at autopsy.

 

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy/basics/symptoms/con-20113581

[KCSLC2008 606]

Well taken. I should not have posted that last part. I am not a forum boss. It was that his post claimed that I showed lack of forgiveness, which is self-righteous. That is the definition of "self-righteous." Forgiveness is a spiritual issue. So his post implied that I was lacking in the spiritual quality of forgiveness. This angered me, but I should not have been so harsh in my reply. Here is what I meant. This episode of Hill's has to do with an emotional problem. It has nothing to do with a bad thinking decision due to immaturity or of making a moral mistake. It was neither of those things. I feel very bad for the kid, and I am sure he feels terrible and contrite. But his action was a rage reaction. Than kind of outburst requires investigation and treatment by a professional. It has nothing to do with a bad moral decision. If it did, then it WOULD be reasonable to address the issue of forgiveness. Hill doesn't need forgiveness. He needs treatment. Otherwise, he will eventually do it again.

This reminds me of a conversation I had in law school with someone who was talking about drunk driving. The conversation was staring in the direction of "how could someone with that blood alcohol level drive well?" It was like they were saying that they didn't blame them for being bad drivers because of how much alcohol they consumed.

 

The issue with drunk driving was drinking and then deciding to drive or deciding to go somewhere where you knew that you were going to drive home but then still getting drunk. That decision doesn't change whether you hit somebody or don't hit anybody.

 

But often, you are looked at as much worse if you hit somebody than if you don't, and if you don't hit anybody, some people act like there's no harm no foul. The decision was the same and people can decide on whether that decision is worth X amount of punishment or judgment, but the results shouldn't tie into that.

 

Oh, you're wondering why it reminded me of this? It's because you were saying that a bad decision wasn't the issue, it's the emotion. We'll talk about the decision to attack versus the emotion.

 

Still don't get why I thought of that? Oh well. It's not worth trying to explain more.

[eraser 722]

That makes no logical sense, Eraser.  Just because some people with traumatic encephalopathy become violent and/or suicidally depressed, does not mean that all of them do. But it is a known effect in a significant number.  If Belcher had no prior history of depression or violence, then it is absolutely reasonable to conclude that his murder-suicide was the result of his severe traumatic encephalopathy, which was established at autopsy.

 

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy/basics/symptoms/con-20113581

Didn't Belcher blow a hole through his noggin? How can a autopsy indicate squat when the brain tissue is spattered all over the Arrowhead paring lot. Also, just because there were no official records of antisocial behavior does not mean there weren't any. I do recall classmates from elementary school all the way through college who would beg to differ with those boy scout superiorities. Stealing lunch money, beating up kids, stealing bikes, bullying fellow students into doing papers, and the like is not documented, but it was reported. Sometimes schools cover for adverse behavior.

[Bilyous2 884]

 

That makes no logical sense, Eraser.  Just because some people with traumatic encephalopathy become violent and/or suicidally depressed, does not mean that all of them do. But it is a known effect in a significant number.  If Belcher had no prior history of depression or violence, then it is absolutely reasonable to conclude that his murder-suicide was the result of his severe traumatic encephalopathy, which was established at autopsy.

 

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy/basics/symptoms/con-20113581

Didn't Belcher blow a hole through his noggin? How can a autopsy indicate squat when the brain tissue is spattered all over the Arrowhead paring lot. Also, just because there were no official records of antisocial behavior does not mean there weren't any. I do recall classmates from elementary school all the way through college who would beg to differ with those boy scout superiorities. Stealing lunch money, beating up kids, stealing bikes, bullying fellow students into doing papers, and the like is not documented, but it was reported. Sometimes schools cover for adverse behavior.

 

A gun doesn't destroy the brain in that way, Eraser.  A shotgun might make it hard to find fragments.  But other types of guns leave a track with a spreading cone of tissue damage.  The findings in CTE are atrophy of the grey matter, the cerebral cortex.  Generalized thinning is also known as "atrophy" of gray matter. It only takes recovery of several pieces to make that diagnosis, Eraser.  I don't want to get into details of tissue diagnosis to back up all my statements.  I guess, as a pathologist, you will have to take my word for it.  Atrophy of the cerebral cortex can be seen grossly by the thickness in mm of the cortical gray matter that sits  above the white matter.  In the frontal and prefrontal lobes, where much of the cognitive functions reside, the atrophy is particularly bad.  The diagnosis is also made at the microscopic level from slides with a microscope.  There are changes in the gray matter microscopically that are seen with atrophy also.  The diagnosis depends on atrophy combined with the history of multiple concussive trauma.  In contrast, things like Alzheimers Disease also have atrophy but show amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles in the white matter. Now they are finding an abnormal protein called "tau" protein in those other kinds of degenerative diseases.

 

Even if a brain is splattered all over a highway, pieces can be examined that are plenty big to see what is needed for the tissue part of the diagnosis. It only takes a fragment smaller than your little fingernail to see it.  Even the worst gunshot damage leaves many pieces lying around that are much bigger than a golf ball. With a small caliber handgun, usually most of the brain is intact.

[Bilyous2 884]

This reminds me of a conversation I had in law school with someone who was talking about drunk driving. The conversation was staring in the direction of "how could someone with that blood alcohol level drive well?" It was like they were saying that they didn't blame them for being bad drivers because of how much alcohol they consumed.

 

The issue with drunk driving was drinking and then deciding to drive or deciding to go somewhere where you knew that you were going to drive home but then still getting drunk. That decision doesn't change whether you hit somebody or don't hit anybody.

 

But often, you are looked at as much worse if you hit somebody than if you don't, and if you don't hit anybody, some people act like there's no harm no foul. The decision was the same and people can decide on whether that decision is worth X amount of punishment or judgment, but the results shouldn't tie into that.

 

Oh, you're wondering why it reminded me of this? It's because you were saying that a bad decision wasn't the issue, it's the emotion. We'll talk about the decision to attack versus the emotion.

 

Still don't get why I thought of that? Oh well. It's not worth trying to explain more.

Legal interpretations have nothing to do with psychological functions related to brain disorders or emotional disorders, or, for that matter, to moral interpretations.  In fact, legal interpretations are often wrong and also change over time, as they should. Being a criminal may be part of a decision making process, where the perpetrator knows right from wrong but still acts impulsively, or it could be part of a disease or disorder that involves only the emotional centers with no conscious control.  But it is irrelevant.  From a legal standpoint, a dangerous person needs to be removed from society for the safety of other people. That is the only thing that the laws are interested in.  And that is the way it should be.  But whether a person has underlying emotional disorders determines their likelihood of repeating the pattern.  That is what I am referring to.  Hill is probably a great guy in all respects, and he probably feels shame or remorse and contrition for what he did.  But a rage reaction sufficient to cause somebody to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, throw her against a wall, and try to choke her is a threat to repeat.  As for alcohol or drug use or abuse, that is very vague as to whether an impaired person is less culpable legally. In most areas, the law says that it is, and a judge can reduce a sentence but require a person to go into treatment.  I am not sure if that is right or wrong, but it makes no difference.  The person needs to be kept from being behind the wheel.  Those alcohol sensors that lock up the ignition are a decent solution.  No solution for blood levels of other drugs...yet.  I personally believe that Hill should have been required by a judge to have psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

 

That is all I am going to say about it.  Nothing further from me.