@MandyL: Arguments are allowed. Rudeness, attacks, swearing, threats, etc is what I am blocking. We believe in free speech, but we also know that this is a privately-run forums and therefore we decided those are the rules and I am the arbiter.
Someone said yesterday that this conversation wouldn't change anything or change each other's minds. Maybe it won't, but maybe it will too. I think polite conversations or even arguments can change the world.
It is up to all of you individually to decide if you want to take part in our conversation or not.
Judge clarifies that the proposed instruction being discussed is 9 pages. Orman's first concern is on paragraph 38. It relates to Dr. Fenton
Orman says Dr. Fenton believed the law didn't allow her to initiate a 72-hour hold, but the instruction says she could've done that.
Nelson says she disagrees with Orman's interpretation of the testimony
@markefc_: This case is one of the rare occasions when we've had this kind of access, so this is the first time we've done things this way
Nelson quotes that Metzner mentioned a statue in Colorado allows psychiatrists to hospitalize people who are dangerous to themselves or others
Nelson says Dr. Fenton's belief that she couldn't hospitalize the gunman was wrong
Orman points out that the defense didn't call experts to support this assertion from the defense
Orman says this is not an instruction, this is argument
Judge suggests changing the instruction to indicate Dr. Fenton believed she couldn't do the hold
Nelson says she is willing to work on a new version of her instruction
"I don't remember anyone saying Dr. Fenton had enough to put the defendant on a 72-hour hold," Judge says. Based on his memory, he is telling defense to reword that paragraph