Armory Psycho Terrorizing Prospect Park West

What institution is located at the armory that is housing these people?

homeowner wrote: [quote=The Chipster]Thanks for posting. As Brooklyn Paper noted recently, crime in WT is up 50%!! So hells yeah, we need to b.o.l. for creeps like this. They are dangerous.

I don't disagree with your assessment that she is dangerous, but I think that we should remember that this woman and people like her are ILL. They exist in delusional worlds that are not of their own making. She may just have a family someplace that cares about her and who is wondering where she is. From what I have learned about this type of mental illness, often the drugs that treat the illness create side effects that are unbearable to the patients. Rather than try to work through the medication issues, many people use alcohol, pot or other drugs to self-medicate and find some relief from their demons.

Not that this makes it any easier to deal with the crazy woman threatening to toss blood on you, but I do think we need to keep the fact that the behavior of this woman and people like her is directly related to the fact that she is CRAZY, and not simply a criminal.

Nice thoughts, but if I have to pick I'm all for ass whuppin' before she whups me.

Hamilton wrote: Homeowner.
She didn't threaten to splash blood on anyone, she actually did.

How about a criminal that is crazy,would you accept this behavior if it was directed at you or your family?

Of course not .

I'm making no judgement about how you respond if actually confronted by her. I just think that refering to people who are mentally ill as creeps is wrong.

As for the issue of confrontation, I'm all for an eye for and eye thing and if confronted you should absolutely defend yourself or your family. But addressing this woman, and others like her as if she were sane is not the way to go. Recognize that a response from you that might cower a criminal may have absolutly no effect on someone who is not in their right mind. So it may be best to think of her as being mentally ill first rather than as just some other person intent on making you a victim.

can we call the mentally ill, reality challenge. never like the other word.

homeowner wrote: [quote=Hamilton]Homeowner.
She didn't threaten to splash blood on anyone, she actually did.

How about a criminal that is crazy,would you accept this behavior if it was directed at you or your family?

Of course not .

I'm making no judgement about how you respond if actually confronted by her. I just think that refering to people who are mentally ill as creeps is wrong.

As for the issue of confrontation, I'm all for an eye for and eye thing and if confronted you should absolutely defend yourself or your family. But addressing this woman, and others like her as if she were sane is not the way to go. Recognize that a response from you that might cower a criminal may have absolutly no effect on someone who is not in their right mind. So it may be best to think of her as being mentally ill first rather than as just some other person intent on making you a victim.

Completely agree.

I'm a little offended by the terms "psycho" and "nutjob", but I'm not going to chastise anyone for using them. Just realize that those are the very terms that give mental illness the stigma that it has. And maybe if you witnessed someone close to you become mentally ill, you might learn to be more sensitive about the terminology. As someone said earlier in this thread, she might have family members somewhere that are concerned about her.

No doubt, this woman sounds dangerous, and the armory's negligence seems to be effecting the surrounding neighbors' quality of life. But, although she may be a menace right now, it's really the system that is to blame. It's really very sad and I hope that she gets the help she needs before her crimes escalate.

Thanks for the warning, Hamilton.

jf22561 wrote: I truly don't understand what all this fuss is about - maybe someone can enlighten me?? The ACLU and their supporters for many, many years fought long and hard for the rights of individuals just like this woman - to a great extent taking away the rights of regular citizens. Thanks to the ACLU, this woman has the RIGHT not to take medication if she needs it; she has the RIGHT not to be forced into a hospital if she doesn't want to go; she has the RIGHT not to be forced into a homeless shelter. If she is truly violent, all that the police can do is arrest her. However, thanks again to the ACLU, if she is not deemed too criminally insane, she will be back on the street in no time - IT IS HER RIGHT!!! Thanks ACLU and your supporters!

at which point does her right to disturb and threaten and entire neighborhood trump the rest of our rights to feel and be safe?

i'm all about civil rights, and i don't think this country should ever, force anyone to take meds, etc., but the rest of us have rights as well. her rights put others in danger, make people in her neighborhood frightened and wary. and, frankly, all this does is make people who'd have normally been kind to the mentally ill lose a whole lot of their patience with them.

her rights are just as important as mine, or yours, and you seem not to be remembering that

sorry i missed your sarcasm; when it's not said out loud, well, you know. lots can get lost

Hamilton wrote: The neighborhood is not the problem, it's the indifference exhibited by the Armory, who should have their security patrolling the Circle and PPW.

It's not unusual to observe the ladies of the Armory having afternoon cocktails in the Circle before going wild.

Are you kidding? Take some pictures and send it to the media, Bloomberg and that weasel Markowitz. This organization needs to leave PS.

eggcream wrote: [quote=brooklynpotter]braded, it's a shelter for mentally ill and drug dependent women. it's run by CAMBA, but they do little to keep things running smoothly.

at the end of last year i was in a dialogue with one of the women who ran the place, and she offered to meet with people in the community to talk about problems between armory residents/neighbors. i posted on the board and nobody wanted to come with me so i never schedule the meeting. (my bad, i should have gone.)

even without this particular psycho, i hear all the other pyschos screaming on my street day and night, because i'm on 15th.

if anyone--hamilton?--wants me to contact the armory woman and set up a meeting i'd love to do so. personally, i'd like her to come sit on my stoop for an evening and watch and listen--hard to see how she can ignore what will unfold before her.

I feel for you, that is just awful. Not an environment in which to live.

there are far worse environments, but this isn't ideal. i wish others were as concerned and would work with me to affect some change.

The Chipster wrote: Ha! I gotcha! People are also "free" not to take their TB medicine, and now we have multiple drug resistant TB strains out there on the subway for all you psychos, creeps and nutjobs to pick up.

I dunno if I am sarchasming here, but people are _not_ free to not take their TB medicine, they will lock yo ass up.

The Chipster wrote: Ha! I gotcha! People are also "free" not to take their TB medicine, and now we have multiple drug resistant TB strains out there on the subway for all you psychos, creeps and nutjobs to pick up.
The PC police really need to get organized. Just accept that you are as fascist as the taliban, and pick up a good moniker, like....The Ministry of Cultural Correction....

Actually, people can be legally mandated to take their TB medication in directly observed therapy (DOT) programs. As a last resort, patients can even be detained until therapy is completed (up to 12 months).

Here is information about it from the NYC Department of Health site:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/tb/tb2a.shtml

Hello, everyone. I saw this article in the NYT this morning and figured it to be relevant to this thread.

Bellevue Is Allowed to Medicate Suspect

By JOHN ELIGON
Published: June 11, 2008

A lawyer for a schizophrenic man accused of killing an Upper East Side psychotherapist tried three times on Tuesday morning to persuade his client to leave his holding cell for a hearing. Each time, the lawyer, Ben Bernstein, got little response from his client, David Tarloff.

Mr. Tarloff gave two main reasons for refusing: He did not believe Mr. Bernstein was actually a lawyer, and he believed the officials at Bellevue Hospital Center, where he is being held, manipulated a calendar to make him think that it was Tuesday, the date of his hearing, although he was convinced that it was not Tuesday.

The hearing, held in a small courtroom at Bellevue, was held to decide whether doctors could force Mr. Tarloff to take his medication. It went on in Mr. Tarloff’s absence, and Justice John E. H. Stackhouse of State Supreme Court in Manhattan granted the hospital’s request.

A week ago, Mr. Tarloff had an outburst during a hearing and had to be ushered out the courtroom.

His case underscores the difficulties of bringing a mentally ill person before the court, especially when the person is refusing medication. Just getting to trial in cases like these can be a challenge because, among other things, defense lawyers are not always eager to consider their clients fit through medication alone.

Ronald L. Kuby, a defense lawyer, said medication was too often used to create a false sense of sanity. “When the jury sees your client sitting there calmly, peacefully, sort of blankly staring, that person then looks sane,” Mr. Kuby said. “But that’s a chemically induced stability designed to make the judicial railroad function.”

Last month, a judge denied a motion by Mr. Tarloff’s principal lawyer, Bryan Konoski, to allow a psychiatric exam that would determine whether Mr. Tarloff was fit to stand trial for the murder of the psychotherapist, Kathryn Faughey, who was fatally stabbed in February. That judge, Justice Charles H. Solomon, told Mr. Konoski that previous exams and defense statements suggested that when Mr. Tarloff was properly medicated, he was competent.

So Justice Solomon told Mr. Konoski to make sure Mr. Tarloff was getting his medication and said he would reassess the situation at a later date.

When Mr. Tarloff entered the courtroom for the follow-up proceeding on June 3, he immediately began a tirade and could not be quieted.

“If a fireman comes in, the police come in here, the mayor calls, anyone sends a messenger, they are lying,” Mr. Tarloff said. “The police are trying to kill me.”

Justice Solomon had him removed from the courtroom.

Mr. Konoski, who was also present Tuesday, said he hoped that a doctor’s testimony during the hearing detailing Mr. Tarloff’s erratic behavior at Bellevue would be enough for Justice Solomon to order a psychiatric evaluation.

“He doesn’t understand, can’t rationalize and can’t meaningfully make decisions with respect to his medication,” Mr. Konoski said. “That’s been my exact same experience with his legal case as well.”

Dr. Paula-Ann Francis, a psychiatrist who has been treating Mr. Tarloff since his most recent admission to Bellevue, May 22, said he was delusional and aggressive. He has been “screaming that he is the Messiah,” Dr. Francis said.

She added, “He’s threatened that he will hurt other members of staff, that he will hurt other patients if he does not have his own way.”

He had refused his medication for about a week, Dr. Francis said. On Friday, he started taking three antipsychotic medications, she said, but remained erratic and needed further medication.

The court order will allow doctors to inject Mr. Tarloff with antipsychotic drugs and mood stabilizers, even if it means strapping him down to receive a shot, said Raymond Baltch, a lawyer who represents Bellevue. But the doctors are not permitted to force-feed him oral medication, he said.

If a person with a mental illness goes to court unmedicated, “their behavior in court can wind up becoming disruptive or bizarre or they can retreat into a silence,” said N. G. Berrill, a psychologist and the executive director of the New York Center for Neuropsychology and Forensic Behavioral Science.

In 2000, Andrew Goldstein, a schizophrenic man on trial for pushing a woman in front of a moving subway train, was advised by his lawyers not to take his medication. They planned to put him on the stand to show jurors how ill he was. But Mr. Goldstein assaulted a social worker and was given his medication. He did not take the stand.

Mr. Konoski said the defense strategy in that case was interesting and well within the defense lawyers’ rights, but not something he would try in Mr. Tarloff’s case.

“When somebody is in need of medication,” Mr. Konoski said, “forcing them not to have it, forcing them to deal with their demons instead of being able to suppress them through the medication, that’s almost like torture.”

honestly, i think this is so wrong it sickens me.

who draws these lines, deciding when people are so bad they should be forced to have meds?

i'm not saying tarloff isn't crazy, he clearly is. but i don't, and wouldn't, trust the government with my healthcare decisions and i don't believe we have the right to push them on others