13-Year-Old Girl Accused of Trying to Murder Her Family by Arson -- Four Times

::hi5::

First.....FUCK CHARLIE SHEEN...He's is a delusional douchebag.The Trolls I am against are the ones who frequent this site just to start shit..;) And I have to sorta disagree with you on some things.My Nephew on my Husbands side of the family did play with fire right there in his house he would hide behind things and just light things on fire alone he started when he was pretty young.

I also agree with the father's statement.But my nephew suffered from what they called Defiant Detachment Disorder....and they Claimed he was ADHD .Which I can say without a doubt he wasn't...My Son had ADD and he never scared me like my nephew did and he started around age 5 and as far as I know stopped around 8 or 9.

Thank God they do get caught is right on......It's a shame they have already have ruined someones property though.They are very creepy when they set it and watch it as in creepy sounding.I saw a video one time where this kid was filming a house burning that he started and he was like orgasmic.I kid you not.Very scary.

I also have to say, as Silas I think was, that to charge her with attempted murder, they must have some other evidence that she wanted to kill her family.  The setting of fires alone does not necessarily mean you are trying to kill anyone.

First I have to ask you if your av is Charlie Sheen patented, b/c I know he is against trolls, too.  Second, I was suggesting psych meds mostly due to the sudden and severe onset of the behavior, not so much b/c of what particular behavior it was.   A typical person who will become and arsonist just for the sake of setting fires usually has a much slower onset.    B/c of the fear of being caught, they will usually space it out more and would not target their own home.  (Of course this girl only has the thinking capacity of a 13 year old.)  Typically teenagers who commit arson also usually do it in pairs. 

I think the statement by the father is very telling.  How would he be so certain that she "just needs help" if she was already involved in the mental health system?  Most people who set fires are not mentally ill, they have just set fires to cover up something else they did.

But yes, I agree, true pyromania is an impulse control problem.  That's why they always get caught, usually before someone gets hurt, thankfully.

That's true you are so right about that they do go blindly and the Doc's get kick backs for  any Meds they write scripts for. So there is no research and half of them just want that all mighty buck.Trust me when I say that I have seen literally hundreds even the best big city ones and that's all they wanted to do.

Post that up to Haloween ..My reply was to her comment she made about how drugs make you a Pyromaniac.I already knew all this ..And I'm a Huge Def Leppard Fan and you just made my day by mentioning not one but two of their best selling albums ...Pyromania and Euphoria ;)))) 

Thank you>

I would be interested to know if an accelerant was used too..Her family is quoted saying "she wasnt trying to kill us, she just needs Help." That could be an indicator of acting-out-for-attention, more than a child intent on killing her family. Though I have to say that the repetition involved raises redflags. At this point there simply isnt enough evidence one way or the other.

Pyromania is a an impulse control disorder usually. But since there is not really enough historical information on this girls life, or previous behaviors (i.e. how long shes been setting fires.) it's somewhat hard to determine whether or not she was trying to kill her parents, or simply a pyromaniac who was starting fires to somehow ease building tensions/frustration...or simply for excitement gratification.

An arson commits arson either for personal gain, revenge...political reasons, vandalism (willfull and malicious mischief.)etc. I think they should put forth more psychological/investigative efforts to determine whether she is a pyromaniac causing fires to increase a sense of euphoria/cathartic release of stress..excitement...Or actually an Arson..who was intent on killing her family.

If she had issues with her family and wished death on them all for some reason, I imagine there would be plenty of physical, or online journals depicting her desire to kill them, and probably the reason behind it.

This is exactly the type of response from you I'm talking about.  This is right from the article:

"There is well-established law -- and this is iron clad throughout the country -- that the physician's first and foremost duty is to his patient and to do what's in the best interest of that patient," he said. Requiring a duty to third parties "would change the type of care [doctors] render, because now they would have to worry about all the others impacted by their care."

They should have been concerned about this all along.

The children are suing for the wrongful death of their mother (mother is the harmed third party)  Usually the mother (the dead person) would have to have been the patient sufferring from some negligence on the doctors' part,  not injured by  a doctor's negligence to someone else.

As far as pre-emption goes:

This article (and many more) explain what it is:

http://www.mmm-online.com/appe...

From the article:"demonstrates the concept of “pre-emption,” or federal regulatory law superseding state-law tort actions."

"The “pre-emption” ruling follows a similar decision in the Supreme Court last February that found in favor of Medtronic, a manufacturer of medical devices. In that case, Medtronic was exempted from a liability suit over a malfunctioning catheter, since the device had received premarket approval from the FDA."  

Why would anyone bother suing a doctor if they could sue a pharmaceutical company?

These articles say exactly what I said.  Doctor's and pharma are held almost non-accountable for their actions and products.  

Children are held more accountable for their actions than these entities.  How many children have you seen on TCR tried as adults? 

Basically, if the average person were given the same protection as doctors and pharmas, that would mean that if you had a gun, stored it improperly and your five year old got a hold of it then:

if you're a doctor, you would only be liable if your kid shot themselves, not if they shot 20 other people,

if you're a pharma, no one could sue you no matter who or how many people were shot, you would get your gun back and could do it tomorrow, because the govt. approved the gun for use and sale. 

This needs to be extremely curtailed

God, I almost hate to even open this Pandora’s Box w/ you,but against my better judgment I allowed my curiosity to get the best of me andI read your link.  And once again, itdoes NOT say what you claim it says!  Andwhat’s so freaking crazy is that what it does actually say should thrillyou!  In the GA case, the lower court didfind in favor of the doctor; however, the appellate court reversed thatdecision, and the state supreme court affirmed the appellate court, ALLOWINGTHE LAWSUIT TO PROCEED!  Consequently,the physician may very well be held liable to a third party!  In the UT case, again, the lower court foundin favor of the doctor.  The Utah courtskipped the appellate process altogether as the state supreme court elected tohear the case.  So, again, the physicianmay very well be held liable to a third party! PLEASE, for the dumbasses in the group, point out the spot whereanywhere in this article or anywhere else in the world there is some evidenceto support your claim about doctors and pharmas being insulated from liability(of any variety, whether to third parties or anyone else).

Well, thanks for the dissertation!  And I can agree w/your statement that docs and pharmas generally aren't liable to third parties; I didn't understand that to be the premise from your earlier comments.  Thanks.

Regardless of which mode of transportation you are using today, I will explain, although I've been burned by you before offerring a link.  It said exactly what I said it did and you came back and said it didn't.  (The TMAP clinicians manual which features newly patented psychotropics as first line treatment in a trial nine-tier drug procedure for depression.  That's what it says.)

Anyhow, the link above explains it.  Ragsdale was given numerous medications by a nurse practitioner, pretty obvisouly negligently, and then shot his wife in a parking lot.  He is serving life, no shocker there.  The question is, can his kids (a third party) sue the doctor for negligence?  Currently, no doctor can be sued by you, say if they prescribe a bunch of narcotics to someone and they crash into you, leaving you permanently disabled.    They have no duty to a third party.  The rules are very specific, only if a doctor knows he has a patient that is a danger to himself or others is he liable for the person's actions (and that is only if the doctor does not "take action", ie, commit or prescribe.)  You would have to say, "Doctor I am going to home and kill my wife."  And then do it for the doctor to have any liability.

In the current environment, if you go to the doctor and he thinks you may be depressed and says,  "Come back in two weeks."  and you kill yourself, he would be more liable for not acting than if he gave you an SSRI, (which are known to cause suicide) and you killed yourself.  LOL.  

Pre-emption means that the govt. has taken away any individual's right to sue a drug maker for product liability based on the FDA declaring a drug is safe.   That's why all drug side effect/suicide cases are settled out of court with the maker paying but not admitting to anything.    Drugs can cause all kinds of harm and death but if there is a class action suit with a drug recall, the victim is only entitled to get the cost of the drug back, no pain and sufferring or wrongful death payments.

Could you provide a link to the law that says doctors and pharmas are preempted?  I know I'm an idiot, riding the short bus and all, but I think what you're saying is that doctors and pharmas can't be sued, and I'm curious.

You are the exception to the rule.  Most people have no common sense or experience when it comes to psych meds and blindly follow what the doctor says, although most PCP's who prescribe these meds have less experience with them than the people taking them.

This article shows where the public and legal system is moving on the prescribing of these drugs, finally in the correct direction:

http://www.ama-assn.org/amedne...

Hopefully this legislation will be passed in time for the Alyssa Bustamante verdict and Elizabeth Olten's family can sue the pants off any doctor's dumb enough to be working with DCFS.

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies should have never been protected by pre-emption in the first place.  No other corporation is held so non-accountable for their products.

There's an article recently about how patients are avoiding telling their primary care doctors about depression symptoms because they are terrified that they will be prescribed an anti-depressant.  I doubt the people interviewed have ever read any of my posts on TCR.  

This should make the point very clear that these medications are working against mental health treatment and recovery, not for it.    The public is very dissatisfied with the treatment options they are being given and is choosing therefore not to be treated, because of side effects and the knowledge that they will get no follow up from a pcp.    Counseling and therapy should always be a first treatment and the public eventually will get it b/c the market responds to demand.    That's why so much of psychotroptic medication profit is spent on marketing, b/c they have to work hard to create a need that doesn't exist.  Pharma has engaged in some of the most complex and creative marketing schemes ever developed.  At some point in the near future it will become a losing proposition as many psych meds lose their patents and you will see a huge shift in a different direction with pharma.

Why do we not see direct to consumer ads for therapy?  Because those people are busy b/c people want and need their services.  Just like sock, underwear and toilet paper.  How much of their budget do you think they spend on advertising? 

::Slow shake of the head followed by two handed facepalm::...unbelievable, amazing to watch someone completely miss an opportunity to do something that's already proven from someone who has already done it. You need a holiday from your concrete thinking (I had one for just that reason when I was actively campaigning)...it helps to see what your audience needs to listen. It's not your message, it's what they hear.I've met many HD's before HD...your way doesn't really work and creates a barrier to gaining the support of the general public. No one want's such a divisive topic thrust down their throat. And, please, stop using isolated cases to describe a general effect.

I'm not naive when it comes to taking medication's that all the Doctors want to throw at me believe me when I say that.I have a few illnesses that are in no way pleasant to live with.And they really do try and push a lot of new medicines on me to which I tell them a flat out no because they have not been tested long enough to know what they will do to you and most of the side effects have the same things to them that I already suffer from and much much worse.That would be stupid of me to say sure! Sign me up for more of what I already have and add a heart attach to it as well. I see the points your are making and most of the time you can be right.But what I see is that you label every person who has ever committed a crime as being medicated and then go on these rambles about the damn drug companies and so on.WE get it.And were sick of having it crammed down our throats. How about thinking about someones situations as well as past issues before you conclude it's all the drug companies and Doctor's fault for reasons why. Here's the point if anyone has been given a script by their Doctor for any medicine for whatever illness you may have before you put that pill in your mouth research it first,compare it to others that are used for the same purpose and if you don't feel comfortable about taking it you can say no.Unless your illness is serious and you have to take meds like say Diabetes and so on.Let people make their own decisions as to what they do with their bodies and go fight the drug companies their the ones you have the problem with.And Good luck with that because they have their own agendas and it's called greed with a government to back them. One more thing......The use of the words in the very last line in your comment about them not needing you...........Says it all..Just saying

I think the reaction of people on TCR only supports my belief that marketing and govt. programs have done one of the best jobs in history of fleecing the unaware.  There are equal studies on both ends that support these drugs improve and harm.  Counseling on the other hand has never been shown to cause mania, homicidial or suicidal ideation, diabetes, birth defects, etc.  So why wouldn't the mental health industry push for counseling given that it is always effective if the person continues with it? (unless you have some type of true chemical imbalance or organic brain problem like psychosis.)  The answer is in the nature of mental health, which is and "industry" which means for profit.  Counseling makes no profit, pharmaceuticals do. 

If the public was well-educated on the trail that goes from pharma trials to the pill bottle in your medicine cabinet, no unspychotic person would take psychotropics.  The psychotropic medication business has been more corrupt for decades than any bank or other coporation.  People just have a hard time believing that doctors' sole purpose for existing isn't to help them.

By citing the reactions of commenters who frequent TCR, you are belieiving that you are taking representative sample of the total public view?  The commenters screaming at me to take my meds and sticking up for them are also the ones with a history of getting into it with others, not just me. 

Taking the comment about people being prescribed these meds because they are 'effed up in the first place, are the supporters of these meds admitting that they are in fact naturally 'effed up?  that's what that statement says.   Then Obviously, they are just saying that I must be be correct b/c I don't admit to being naturally 'effed up and need of drugs.

I would have to agree with you on the freak show comment.  Psychotropics have supplied us with a cornucopia of a freak show with Andrea Yates, Allyssa Bustamante, Sonia Hermosillo, Tyler Hadley, Rebecca Riley, Melissa Huckaby and many more, they probably don't need me.

AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH. WHAT...A...LOAD...OF...BOLLOCKS!!! YOU ARE SO FULL OF MADE UP NONSENSE! How dare you assume the mantle of creator of information, inventor of facts and deliver them in such pious, grandiose and patronising ways. Get your facts straight first then deliver them realistically...there isn't a single chemical compound on earth natural or man-made that has a 100% across the board consistent effect...even the oxygen you're breathing now. As for your "evidence"...the medications you have chosen to attack, while often questionable for their physical side effects are amongst the most studied in history and their efficacy, even if only as low as 40 % has been well documented and proven across the globe in THOUSANDS of unlinked, independent studies. The main problem HD is not the meds but the willingness of people to have a dependency on them rather than a need. Neurotic types pushed into a fear of the world by people such as yourself promoting  paranoia and suspicion. Mass screening can work if delivered by well educated, specialist healthcare providers and THATS where you should be focussing your energy. Currently you're working for the drug companies by making a well intentioned crusade for the safe use of psychotropic medication look like a circus of clowns and freaks scaring people away or just making them laugh. Peolple on this site consistently tell you to 'take your meds'...that's the level of success you have achieved. Can you really take pride in that. You even have a co-campaigner like me shunning your efforts...and I know I've achieved an enormous amount in reducing poor prescribing of these drugs and increasing awareness of alternatives. Take a breath and start again this time with a degree of empathy and respect for those you are addressing. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH ramble, ramble, yada, yada etc (calm, calm) zzzzzzzzzz

I know you were not talking about me but you mentioned ADHD drugs and how it's a well known fact they cause pyromaniacs it was a general statement directed at the drugs for ADHD and not the girl since you do not know for sure she even has ADHD and has ever been medicated for it. And I wanted to let you know that's just not true in my case .And Adderall isn't a Psych med ...While you are right about meds affecting everyone differently how do you even know if this girl was even on meds or had ADHD? She could have been abused ,neglected or many other things that could cause her behavior..

A lot of people who are "already fucked up in the head" who are on them, have been on them since childhood.  So I'm not sure if we can relly say that they were fucked up to begin with or simply labeled, drugged and changed in some way from what they would have been normally.

There is no evidence that these drugs help people given the current usage of them.  The clincal trials are conducted for a duration of six weeks and a certain number of participants ( whatever they deem statistically significant, which is way lower than 100%) report improvement in their symptoms. 

The current usage of these drugs is long term.  Years, a lifetime.  They trial the drug for one use and then use if for another.  There is no supporting evidence of anything these drugs due at all based on how they're used.

If the drugs cure a so-called chemical imbalance, shouldn't we be careful to not give them to people that don't need their chemicals balanced?  If, so, then poplulations of healthy, normally functioning people should not be screened en. masse, like Teen Screen, The Mother's Act, TMAP, etc. If they truly miraculously balance chemicals then shouldn't we assume that given to someone without a chemical imbalance, they would cause an imbalance? 

When people are fucked up and truly in need of mental health treatment, they will be sufferring enough to come in for help, or their families would bring them in or the authorities.  If I act normal, function, go to work, live in a house, don't beat people, don't steal, appear content, why do I need a mental health screening?  I don't!

Exactly. They help a lot more people then they supposedly hurt. The biggest problem that I have with your phsyc meds argument, is that the people on them are already fucked up in the head. But when you constantly blame phsyc meds, when there is no report of the perpetrator being on phsyc meds, it gives your argument way less validity.

I'd like to see that..... =) 

Sounds romantic..okay, let's do it. I'm ready to hold hands with you Boo.

I just wanna hold your hand....