This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Has she? The stuff I read had her saying something to the effect of "when she went to get him he was groggy" meaning she wasn't there the whole time. If I've missed something, my apologies.I have been harping on this part of the report as well. Kim Etheridge claims to have been at the scene the whole time yet there is no mention of her. If Kim was there and this was not a suicide attempt, I would expect the story to go like thisaramedics asked T.O. if he tried to harm himself. T.O. answered 'yes'. Eye witness at the scene claims, 'He is delirious.'Or something like this. If Kim was there the whole time (which she claims to be) and believed this not to be a suicide attempt then why isn't anything this mentioned in the brief police report?
disagree totally. i think the liability argument works the other way. they are much more at risk potentially releasing a mentally unstable person then they are at holding someone for 24 hours after a police report saying he attempted suicide. they could always say they thought he was a danger to himself and others.It takes a lot to keep someone in the hospital involuntarily and in this situation with a celebrity involved the hospital's liability antennae are WAAAAAAAAY up. If TO didn't agree to that extended hospitalization (and you can imagine the advice that Rosey & Co. are giving him in that regard), I doubt the hospital would try to keep him there involuntarily. Note that he's certainly not a physical threat to anyone else which is one of the main criteria of involuntary commitment for medical treatment.i don't disagree, it could definitely be spin. the biggest piece of info to me is that he's out of the hospital. i can't believe, if that many people thought it was a suicide attempt, that they'd let him go so soon.Agreed. That's my problem as well.In addition ... I'm having a lot of trouble placing more weight on the info that's come out after Etheridge and Rosenhaus got involved than on info that came out before. It's odd to me that there's so much trust in Etheridge's take ... but
Where is the :noonecaresaboutyourfantasyteam: smilie?
Or the value of your leaguemate's intelligence.
You lost.
were you actually grabbing your ankles for that whole 5 minutes?
The honeymoon has been over since the end of last year.
Oh sorry I thought this was a fantasy football board. Instead lets speculate about what we think happened and what we think a guys psyche is. As for me, I want to hear what happened from Mr Owens mouth. Has he ever given us a reason to doubt his honesty before?
It's not. I'm constantly amazed at how naive Big Bill thinks people are.
wow... im crying here. still lol
We have a thread in here for bashing reporters for ruining fantast football and then comments like this make fantast football look bad. This guy may have tried to end his life and wether we like him or not it is a life. So now you hvae people running and trying to benefit their fantast team off this bad situation. Happened the other day with Simms too. People like this should be ashamed and maybe we should be bashing them and not the media.
best of luck this season
In a dynasty league I'd much rather have Santana Moss and Michael Turner. That is why your leaguemate didn't even need 5 minutes to think. He robbed you! He wanted to pull the trigger before you pulled the deal off the table.HTH.
Future Stud? You mean backs up a stud... Top reciever.... You mean fluke 05 season and mediocre WR... I mean GAAAAWD. YOUR A GUPPIE.
I am not sure when she got there but Kim seems to infer she was there before the cops arrived and actually called 911. However, I think her presence and eye-witness account would be note worthy in a police report.Has she? The stuff I read had her saying something to the effect of "when she went to get him he was groggy" meaning she wasn't there the whole time. If I've missed something, my apologies.I have been harping on this part of the report as well. Kim Etheridge claims to have been at the scene the whole time yet there is no mention of her. If Kim was there and this was not a suicide attempt, I would expect the story to go like this
lol AM I in the guppie pool????
I've been there, having represented doctors and hospitals in these kinds of cases in CA. In terms of a normal person, that may be true, but the normal rules get turned on their head with a celebrity given the celebrity's PR interests and the entourage.disagree totally. i think the liability argument works the other way. they are much more at risk potentially releasing a mentally unstable person then they are at holding someone for 24 hours after a police report saying he attempted suicide. they could always say they thought he was a danger to himself and others.It takes a lot to keep someone in the hospital involuntarily and in this situation with a celebrity involved the hospital's liability antennae are WAAAAAAAAY up. If TO didn't agree to that extended hospitalization (and you can imagine the advice that Rosey & Co. are giving him in that regard), I doubt the hospital would try to keep him there involuntarily. Note that he's certainly not a physical threat to anyone else which is one of the main criteria of involuntary commitment for medical treatment.i don't disagree, it could definitely be spin. the biggest piece of info to me is that he's out of the hospital. i can't believe, if that many people thought it was a suicide attempt, that they'd let him go so soon.Agreed. That's my problem as well.In addition ... I'm having a lot of trouble placing more weight on the info that's come out after Etheridge and Rosenhaus got involved than on info that came out before. It's odd to me that there's so much trust in Etheridge's take ... but
I'm pretty sure this is what Studs N' Duds always talks about playing with his friend moobers.
again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
Please let's stick to the topic of Terrell Owens please.TIAJ
Um, yes. Good heavens. ANY question of a real suicide attempt, and the hospital would have kept him there. End of story. TO "certainly" not a physical threat to others? Um. Hugh Douglas probably disagrees with that.disagree totally. i think the liability argument works the other way. they are much more at risk potentially releasing a mentally unstable person then they are at holding someone for 24 hours after a police report saying he attempted suicide. they could always say they thought he was a danger to himself and others.It takes a lot to keep someone in the hospital involuntarily and in this situation with a celebrity involved the hospital's liability antennae are WAAAAAAAAY up. If TO didn't agree to that extended hospitalization (and you can imagine the advice that Rosey & Co. are giving him in that regard), I doubt the hospital would try to keep him there involuntarily. Note that he's certainly not a physical threat to anyone else which is one of the main criteria of involuntary commitment for medical treatment.i don't disagree, it could definitely be spin. the biggest piece of info to me is that he's out of the hospital. i can't believe, if that many people thought it was a suicide attempt, that they'd let him go so soon.Agreed. That's my problem as well.In addition ... I'm having a lot of trouble placing more weight on the info that's come out after Etheridge and Rosenhaus got involved than on info that came out before. It's odd to me that there's so much trust in Etheridge's take ... but
I was typing a little quick so you get the point.
From what I have heard regarding that situation, Douglas had it coming...Um, yes. Good heavens. ANY question of a real suicide attempt, and the hospital would have kept him there. End of story. TO "certainly" not a physical threat to others? Um. Hugh Douglas probably disagrees with that.disagree totally. i think the liability argument works the other way. they are much more at risk potentially releasing a mentally unstable person then they are at holding someone for 24 hours after a police report saying he attempted suicide. they could always say they thought he was a danger to himself and others.It takes a lot to keep someone in the hospital involuntarily and in this situation with a celebrity involved the hospital's liability antennae are WAAAAAAAAY up. If TO didn't agree to that extended hospitalization (and you can imagine the advice that Rosey & Co. are giving him in that regard), I doubt the hospital would try to keep him there involuntarily. Note that he's certainly not a physical threat to anyone else which is one of the main criteria of involuntary commitment for medical treatment.i don't disagree, it could definitely be spin. the biggest piece of info to me is that he's out of the hospital. i can't believe, if that many people thought it was a suicide attempt, that they'd let him go so soon.Agreed. That's my problem as well.In addition ... I'm having a lot of trouble placing more weight on the info that's come out after Etheridge and Rosenhaus got involved than on info that came out before. It's odd to me that there's so much trust in Etheridge's take ... but
You're not getting it. If he doesn't want to be there they can't keep him unless they seek a court order to do so.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
Good point.. Also when someone attempts to commit suicide by taking an overdose of pills. It would make more sense to take them all at once instead of taking some and realizing it's not working so I guess i'll pop a couple more maybe that will do the trick.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
That's celebrity. Being a part of the entertainment community in SoCal I can back up Redman's take. Celebs have not and will not conform to standard logic and rules in these types of situations.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
Keep him in their care if they really thought he was in danger. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.I've been there, having represented doctors and hospitals in these kinds of cases in CA. In terms of a normal person, that may be true, but the normal rules get turned on their head with a celebrity given the celebrity's PR interests and the entourage.disagree totally. i think the liability argument works the other way. they are much more at risk potentially releasing a mentally unstable person then they are at holding someone for 24 hours after a police report saying he attempted suicide. they could always say they thought he was a danger to himself and others.It takes a lot to keep someone in the hospital involuntarily and in this situation with a celebrity involved the hospital's liability antennae are WAAAAAAAAY up. If TO didn't agree to that extended hospitalization (and you can imagine the advice that Rosey & Co. are giving him in that regard), I doubt the hospital would try to keep him there involuntarily. Note that he's certainly not a physical threat to anyone else which is one of the main criteria of involuntary commitment for medical treatment.i don't disagree, it could definitely be spin. the biggest piece of info to me is that he's out of the hospital. i can't believe, if that many people thought it was a suicide attempt, that they'd let him go so soon.Agreed. That's my problem as well.In addition ... I'm having a lot of trouble placing more weight on the info that's come out after Etheridge and Rosenhaus got involved than on info that came out before. It's odd to me that there's so much trust in Etheridge's take ... but
For example, let's assume the initial reports of attempting to harm himself were true, but he turned up at the hospital, had his stomach pumped and is otherwise out of physical danger, and is now denying that he was attempting to hurt himself - perhaps by saying that he didn't know what he was saying. Moreover, his agent or attorney is also there and threatening to sue if he's not released because of the negative effect that this would have on his reputation and public image.
What do you think the hospital realistically will do given that situation? Go to court and seek injunctive relief that enables them to keep him involuntarily in their care for 72 (or whatever number of) hours for observation, or release him to the care of someone in his entourage who is insisting no doubt that they'll monitor him?
Please stop acting as though you speak for everyone. It's not your business to tell others they can't post things like what he posted. He did or said nothing out of line, even if you personally don't think it's worth anything. I'm really sick of people feeling they have the right to rip others whenever they feel like it. It didn't used to be allowed, but now it's become the norm.
The Hugh Douglas incident is not why he was hospitalized here and is therefore irrelevant to the issue of Baylor Hospital's decision to keep him involuntarily versus discharge him.
this is true, unfortunatlely have some family experience in this area.....You're not getting it. If he doesn't want to be there they can't keep him unless they seek a court order to do so.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
you're telling me that someone comes into the hospital that the cops say has attempted suicide. there's evidence of it (pills in his system). two hours later he says it was a mistake, the hospital is not allowed to keep him there for his own safety?You're not getting it. If he doesn't want to be there they can't keep him unless they seek a court order to do so.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
This I can answer for fact. If someone turns up in my emergency room as a suspected suicide attempt and I clear him medically, I am medically and legally bound to have him evaluated by a psychiatrist. There are no ifs ands or buts here. If the psychiatrist has any inkling that he may be a danger to himself or others, he is medically and legally bound to place the patient under involuntary hold. If the patients lawyer wants to get him released he must go to court to do that. The lawyer can't keep the psychiatrist or other authorized medical personal from instituting the hold, he must go to court.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
wow.... that's messed up. my bad if true.this is true, unfortunatlely have some family experience in this area.....You're not getting it. If he doesn't want to be there they can't keep him unless they seek a court order to do so.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks for clearing that up. The Hugh Douglas incident is, however, relevant in rebuttal to your ridiculous statement that a superbly conditioned, incredibly strong and fast professional athlete like TO is "certainly" not a physical threat to others.
Thanks for the insight WD,When you say have him evaluated by a psychiatrist, do you mean right then? In other words, he stays there at the hospital until he is evaluated?JThis I can answer for fact. If someone turns up in my emergency room as a suspected suicide attempt and I clear him medically, I am medically and legally bound to have him evaluated by a psychiatrist. There are no ifs ands or buts here. If the psychiatrist has any inkling that he may be a danger to himself or others, he is medically and legally bound to place the patient under involuntary hold. If the patients lawyer wants to get him released he must go to court to do that. The lawyer can't keep the psychiatrist or other authorized medical personal from instituting the hold, he must go to court.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
No it is not...I'm a Deputy Sheriff in Iowa and when we have someone attempt to harm themself, like stated earlier, they are placed on 72 hour hold in a mental hospital. They can be held longer is a judge sees fit. They certainly are not charged with a crime for this. There is no state code that says it's illegal to hurt yourself, but you will be taken into custody and hospitalized.
*Thank* you. The number of amateur lawyers practicing on this board is astounding. It's the PATIENT that has to go to court in a civil commitment hearing and seek the order, folks - - not the hospital. Think for a second about why this is and it will probably begin to make sense.This I can answer for fact. If someone turns up in my emergency room as a suspected suicide attempt and I clear him medically, I am medically and legally bound to have him evaluated by a psychiatrist. There are no ifs ands or buts here. If the psychiatrist has any inkling that he may be a danger to himself or others, he is medically and legally bound to place the patient under involuntary hold. If the patients lawyer wants to get him released he must go to court to do that. The lawyer can't keep the psychiatrist or other authorized medical personal from instituting the hold, he must go to court.again, they didn't even keep him 24 hours, let alone 72and i think they would have no problem defending a decision to keep him a little while to make sure he's not a danger rather than risk releasing someone who's unstable, regardless of his celebrity status. they're going to take the word of someone they think attempted suicide less than 12 hours ago? doesn't make sense to me.
You see this is the kind of posting I like...useful ones.Thank you
