Military Vet Detained For Psych Evaluation Over Anti-Government Facebook Posts
By
ManagingPrime, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
jinlee 0
Quote>ok, they have an old codger of a judge, rubberstamping medical evaluations as
>great as 30 days
If he's not doing his job, get rid of him. If he is, then good for him.
>My view is the medical field should not be used to ignore rights of Americans
And my view is that someone who is at risk of harming themselves or others due to a mental illness should be evaluated and treated to ensure they are NOT a risk before being released. This is the current medical standard and it is a good one.
>I am so sick of hearing post 9/11 bs. Damn fear mongers, every news story
Agreed. The "government is abducting people over Facebook posts!" is absurd fearmongering. This happens daily throughout the US; people with mental problems are evaluated and (usually) released. Some aren't, generally for good reason. People do have mental problems, and often they need treatment.
This is a singular event that we are all aware of. So the fear-mongering you've applied doesn't apply ("government is abducting people over Facebook posts!"). However what does apply is that a large number of people in this single state, Virginia are in fact caught up in this process without any due process rights and the lawyer/judge presiding over a named medical board can't even hear, he is so old.
Not only replace him, do away with the entire snatch and grab process.
The State/Federal government can't even say if a single gun or knife was found in this guys residence because it was warrantless. Or the AXE. Yet it was also a search and seizure of the mans residence and possibly his property.
They were not concerned with warrants because in Virginia this is allowed using the medical mechanism in place.
Now he is out, we'll be able to hear him talk or not.
I'd respectfully say I disagree with you and think in regards to this issue your judgement is clouded.
As you've said in a prior post, investigate the Facebook associates also if need be, that is frightening, although you doubt they even did anything wrong or made threats.
Due the Patriot Act they more than likely can and will, and have already done so, and are doing it now.
Here is the danger you are overlooking, it's been viewed as a breach of law. 92% are against it. but the danger is if the law doesn't apply to the government it doesn't apply to the citizens either. That is the danger. And the government is leading the way.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/local-news/2012/aug/24/tdmain01-facebook-posting-marine-veteran-released--ar-2151724/
Quote
The State/Federal government can't even say if a single gun or knife was found in this guys residence because it was warrantless. Or the AXE. Yet it was also a search and seizure of the mans residence and possibly his property.
Is there any evidence that there was a search or seizure at this guys house? I may have missed it in one of the articles. I've just seen that they detained him for evaluation (and then the commitment). Maybe I overlooked it.
davjohns 1
QuoteAnd my view is that someone who is at risk of harming themselves or others due to a mental illness should be evaluated and treated to ensure they are NOT a risk before being released. This is the current medical standard and it is a good one.
Insane until proven competent???
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
If you can prove you aren't a nutter you've got nothing to worry about. Ust take out the new DSM-V and prove there is no condition that you have ever suffered from.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
davjohns 1
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
Quote[Reply]nd THAT is why reporters can't get any information
I haave read the objection documents. They held him for 8 hours before getting an order. That's an unlawful detention.
With the exception of him being released, what happened here is exactly what many on here have argued should be happening wholesale. He posted weird stuff on facebook. No threats. He's just weird. Committed no crime. Charged with no crime.
But removed from society. Whew. That was close. No telling how many he would have killed yeterday...
Do you really think he was held just on the basis of the Facebook postings? I really don't know.
I do agree that if the timelines were not followed that is a huge failure and he should not have been held.
davjohns 1
"The petition is so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy," the order says.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
QuoteNone of us know. That's part of the problem. When presented to a Judge, he couldn't figure it out either.
"The petition is so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy," the order says.
Yeah. Just out of curiosity I asked one of my peers in the Emergency services department what percentage of people who were brought in for evaluation she ended up releasing. She said, off the top of her head (so not scientifically valid information) that she ended up not TDO'ing about 1/3 people brought in. I asked if she ever petitioned for a TDO and was denied. She said only once in another jurisdiction (guy overdosed that night) and once in our current jurisdiction. Anyway, that is one person from one agency in VA following the same process.
I think this hearing and order was about the second hearing (confining for 30 days), not the TDO. I know a little less about that process.
Anyway, just some data as I was curious to know how much of a rubber stamp it is to hospitalize somebody when the cops bring them in.
What i find interesting is that in the aftermath of his release everyone is talking about the VA state statutes that were used (and abused) to detain him. Ive read the statutes and i dont have a problem with them.
Remember, the local police and the VA statutes were simply tools utilized by the FBI.
My concerns are that many people still fail to realize that all of our electronic communications are being monitored. The DHS used VERY broad strokes when stating who could possibly be a domestic terrorist. American citizens can be detained indefinately simply for "links" to terrorism and our government refuses to state what these links might be. That's scary.
This case feels like a dry run. I can with certainty state, albiet wothout factual evidence, that this week reports have circulated through various federal agencies regarding the american peoples response to this event....such are the timrs we live in.
QuoteHow many would she not TDO where the FBI, secrect service and local police were present?
What i find interesting is that in the aftermath of his release everyone is talking about the VA state statutes that were used (and abused) to detain him. Ive read the statutes and i dont have a problem with them.
Remember, the local police and the VA statutes were simply tools utilized by the FBI.
My concerns are that many people still fail to realize that all of our electronic communications are being monitored. The DHS used VERY broad strokes when stating who could possibly be a domestic terrorist. American citizens can be detained indefinately simply for "links" to terrorism and our government refuses to state what these links might be. That's scary.
This case feels like a dry run. I can with certainty state, albiet wothout factual evidence, that this week reports have circulated through various federal agencies regarding the american peoples response to this event....such are the timrs we live in.
I don't know, as it was a brief conversation in a hallway while we were both on our way somewhere else. From what I can read, which again is not everything printed and certainly not a complete story, the local police took him into custody and it isn't clear to me that the FBI and DHS had anything futher to do with it (meaning I am not sure at all that they attended any interview--typically those are done with the officers out in the waiting room and just the screener with the person).
I share a lot of your concerns about the overreaching security laws and the ability to detain for links to terrorism.
So there must first be probable cause. That allows a cop to take a person for pysch eval. The psych eval can lead to a 72 hour hold. If the person is still dangerous, then a petition is filed for an additional 14 days. Then a certification for up to 14 days for danger to self, up to 180 days for danger to others, or a year for grave disability.
The issue on this with section 1983 is privilege. Most states have laws that limit liability for people reporting or taking a person in for a hold.
So while I initially thought 42 USC 1983, I'm coming off of that a bit because of the legal privileges that may be associated.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Then it has to go to a judge. In this case that was 30 days, but I confess I am not sure it is always that way.
jinlee 0
QuoteWhen a health care professional makes the determination in Cali, it's an automatic hold of up to 72 hours. Under the statute, an individual may be detained when, as the result of a mental disorder, the individual is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or is gravely disabled. Probable cause is defined as facts known to the authorized person that would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or to entertain a strong suspicion, that the person detained is mentally disordered and is a danger to himself or herself, or others, is gravely disabled.
So there must first be probable cause. That allows a cop to take a person for pysch eval. The psych eval can lead to a 72 hour hold. If the person is still dangerous, then a petition is filed for an additional 14 days. Then a certification for up to 14 days for danger to self, up to 180 days for danger to others, or a year for grave disability.
The issue on this with section 1983 is privilege. Most states have laws that limit liability for people reporting or taking a person in for a hold.
So while I initially thought 42 USC 1983, I'm coming off of that a bit because of the legal privileges that may be associated.
All of which does not pertain to Mr Raub otherwise a circuit court judge would not have released him and stated what he did.
Another related article states Lubbock TX judge seeking additional tax revenue for more deputies in the event of BHO reelection and civil war.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/texas-judge-we-need-to-raise-taxes-to-prepare-for-civil-war-if-obama-is-re-elected/
Later posted articles call for his resignation.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites