Former Marine Brandon Raub Sentenced To Up To 30 Days In Psych Ward Over Facebook Posts

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Swills

 

So it makes sense to see the US Govt. acting the way they do, right? Why would anyone or any entity want to lose the power/control they currently have??

Bloody revolutions have worked over time. Have peaceful revolutions ever worked?? Doubt it.... So I dont even see how a revolution could ever gain any steam here in this country...USA just has too much damn power, this isnt 200 years ago, we (us citizens) have allowed our Govt. to build itself up to a size (man power, hardware, technology, resources, etc) where it would impossible to battle or overthrow... I'm calling it now, it would be impossible... If Russia and China would have a tough time, than a group of extreme minds/thoughts has zero shot...

Of course it makes sense but that doesn't make it right. Our Gov't is clearly corrupt, and isn't alone, so changes need to be made. Step 1 is a more transparent Gov't. Obama promised us this but then he went back on that promise. So we have no transparency yet. My peaceful solution is vote out all of these incompetent and corrupt fools in DC, from top to bottom. I'm not looking to start a new form of Gov't, like Communism. I am looking for changes and removal of current corruption. If that were to happen I'd expect there would be arrests, maybe a lot of arrests. I find it incredible no one is held accountable for the false war on Iraq. There's more we can pin of DC, ATS is full of these threads, but the point is, no one is held accountable for things like Operation Fast & Furious and it pisses me off.

I'm all for a Ron Paul revolution because there's a revolution that doesn't require violence and can deliver change. Ron Paul has a strong youth following who are getting involved in politics with a passion for change. In time we shall see what blossoms. Whether Ron Paul becomes President or not, change is already on its way. If he is in office he can only speed it up. History has shown us plenty of versions of revolutions and I think we can learn our lesson, no? People need to be able to control their emotions when dealing with politics.

reply to post by Swills


For the longest time ive preached term limits for both the House/Senate....Change cant just happen with the President...

Isn't is strange that there arent term limits for the House/Senate? Ive always wondered why...

reply to post by hadriana


Thank you for your very insightful post. I can tell you this, his immediate family did not commit him. Can his extended family sign the form and then remain anonymous or would his mother be told who signed the form?

reply to post by GreatOwl


Humor is a good thing
LMAO man

reply to post by jhn7537


There used to be term limits but congress found out they could do away with them with a simple vote. Also serving in Congress was an honor and was done for free, until they decided they wanted to get paid for voting.But at one time they were not paid and they had term limits.

reply to post by GreatOwl

SOURCE: www.timesonline.com...

I think they must be trying to round everybody up before the Mayan date of Dec 21, 2012

Just a quick thought on this...as it crossed my mind there are probably people who honestly don't know this is more than urban legend or movie plot filler. This guy threatened the president in your post. He asked for it.

Threatening the President...in *ANY* form is a Federal Felony Crime. They WILL find you. No question. They will VERY LIKELY arrest you and it's very likely you're also going through the system and a prosecution. I'm not sure if there is any other law specifically making an expression of thought an outright crime, by name. That one is and it's absolute though.

Your kidding? They don't care. You were drunk? They don't care. You had a bad day? Good...they're about to make it much much worse. That's been the law for as long as I've been around and recently expanded to cover more individuals within the National Command Authority. (President and top national leaders like Speaker of the House and Majority leader in the Senate).

If someone wants to meet real life Secret Service agents in a very bad mood....just crack a joke along these lines, let alone anything half way serious. You'll meet them and that is as certain as taxes and the sun rising each morning.

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by jhn7537

 

There used to be term limits but congress found out they could do away with them with a simple vote. Also serving in Congress was an honor and was done for free, until they decided they wanted to get paid for voting.But at one time they were not paid and they had term limits.

Sounds a little reversed now doesnt it...

Not paid, term limits...

Paid, no term limits...

Hmmmm??? Now I wonder, how hard would it be to get a bill passed to bring back term limits? I'm guessing a local rep (somewhere) would have to write the bill and bring it to congress, but would they ever vote with killing their jobs??? highly unlikely... So whatever action is there that can be taken?

What I would like to see is a Yes/No box on the upcoming presedential ticket where every citizen can cast their vote to either keep or kill the current non term limits format... That would be a great day for sure...

Ive never reached the point where im scared to post my thoughts..... well i just have.......

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by hadriana

 

Thank you for your very insightful post. I can tell you this, his immediate family did not commit him. Can his extended family sign the form and then remain anonymous or would his mother be told who signed the form?

Depends on the state law there. IN Georgia - ANYONE can sign the form on ANYONE else.
But to do so, you take a risk if you are not justified in doing so, with a potential suit/charge of false imprisonment.

Here's how it goes here - now, most states are similar but you'd have to check with the particular one he is in...
Someone signs that you need an involuntary evaluation - they sign the form.
The cops THEN have the authority to go pick you up against your will.
You get to the hospital - you don't want to stay - at this point, 2 psychiatrists have to agree that you pose a danger to yourself or others, through violence or failing to care for yourself.
Generally they can hold you 48-72 hours - that can vary by state- doesn't matter if it is a business day or not - then you go to court - it's usually just in a meeting room there at the hospital. The docs, maybe the clinical director, a patient advocate, and the judge will be there. They will state why they think you'll be held, you can have your say. Should you be deemed to unsafe to leave the unit, there's special provisions for that.

At that time, usually you can be held for about 30 days. It goes progressively up in time limit.

Now, once you get a commitment, there doesn't seem to ever be big hurry to DO anything with getting you out unless there is some outside pressure, or if you have private insurance and/or can afford a transfer to a private facility. That is, UNTIL the end of your commitment period. Then usually they will do their best to get you discharged if you've not made any violent statements, have taken care of yourself, stayed out of any sort of restraints or time out/restrictive measure - if not, they will probably move towards a longer commitment. 6 months.

If I had to give this young man advice, it would be to remain calm and polite, stay out of altercations with any other patient. I'd tell him that in working the system in a responsible manner, he can show he is organized and functional. "Functional' and 'nonviolent' are very important in the minds of the treatment team. Go to activities. Ask to speak with the office of patient advocacy and know that they can be the ones he can talk to about his comments being taken out of context that might try to see it his way and help - these are the people that will be MOST familiar with the danger of the system being used to suppress political opinion.

Be careful of the media- steer clear, if you can, of any organization that might seem to an uptight control freak to be 'conspiracy' - understand that a lot of these people are as brainwashed to believe the system is good and fair and to want to maintain the status quo as about anyone gets. Think Church lady on steriods - they may NOT be- but assume they are.

and they said the nazi's lost HAH

Once again the police fbi cia protecting and serving the one percent of crooks and liars.

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow

Once again the police fbi cia protecting and serving the one percent of crooks and liars.

Everybody serves the person that signs his checks.

reply to post by nunya13

What I see happening here is the exact same thing that happened after 9/11. People got scared and were convinced that certain people deserved to have their rights infringed upon so the rest of us could feel safe. As I heard and hear so many times, if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Is planning to kill people wrong - or a crime - or some grounds to justify interference by law enforcement/medical staff?

I can get charged with a thing called manslaughter for driving 'excessively fast' - because it is an activity that endangers the lives of other people and is unnecessary. I didn't actually harm anyone - but I'm doing something that could.

Ideally, yes - I agree with you. People should only be charged according to crimes committed - not their potential for damage or intention to do damage.

But that attempts to live too much in the black and white.

The real world exists in shades of gray, and law enforcement always has to operate in the gray. There's hardly ever a clear cut case. It's all a judgment call.

If you shoot someone for pulling a gun out in a theater - how do you really know what he was going to do with that weapon? You don't know he was going to harm anyone. You merely suspected it - and you put him in the hospital or ended his life.

And let's say he shot one person. How do you know he is to shoot another? You don't, and you are not judge, jury, and executioner for the crime of killing the previous person.

It's unreasonable - but it's the world you're trying to live in.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by nunya13

 

What I see happening here is the exact same thing that happened after 9/11. People got scared and were convinced that certain people deserved to have their rights infringed upon so the rest of us could feel safe. As I heard and hear so many times, if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Is planning to kill people wrong - or a crime - or some grounds to justify interference by law enforcement/medical staff?

I can get charged with a thing called manslaughter for driving 'excessively fast' - because it is an activity that endangers the lives of other people and is unnecessary. I didn't actually harm anyone - but I'm doing something that could.

Ideally, yes - I agree with you. People should only be charged according to crimes committed - not their potential for damage or intention to do damage.

But that attempts to live too much in the black and white.

The real world exists in shades of gray, and law enforcement always has to operate in the gray. There's hardly ever a clear cut case. It's all a judgment call.

If you shoot someone for pulling a gun out in a theater - how do you really know what he was going to do with that weapon? You don't know he was going to harm anyone. You merely suspected it - and you put him in the hospital or ended his life.

And let's say he shot one person. How do you know he is to shoot another? You don't, and you are not judge, jury, and executioner for the crime of killing the previous person.

It's unreasonable - but it's the world you're trying to live in.

Yeah, it is actually a crime if the cops think you're gonna do it.

Pretty clearly laid out in the law as well... if you pose a threat, then yeah, they can question you, send you for a psych eval and throw you in a ward, no probs, and all legally.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Ive never reached the point where im scared to post my thoughts..... well i just have.......

Don't be paranoid.

They didn't arrest him for posting his thoughts.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by nunya13

 

What I see happening here is the exact same thing that happened after 9/11. People got scared and were convinced that certain people deserved to have their rights infringed upon so the rest of us could feel safe. As I heard and hear so many times, if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Is planning to kill people wrong - or a crime - or some grounds to justify interference by law enforcement/medical staff?

I can get charged with a thing called manslaughter for driving 'excessively fast' - because it is an activity that endangers the lives of other people and is unnecessary. I didn't actually harm anyone - but I'm doing something that could.

Ideally, yes - I agree with you. People should only be charged according to crimes committed - not their potential for damage or intention to do damage.

But that attempts to live too much in the black and white.

The real world exists in shades of gray, and law enforcement always has to operate in the gray. There's hardly ever a clear cut case. It's all a judgment call.

If you shoot someone for pulling a gun out in a theater - how do you really know what he was going to do with that weapon? You don't know he was going to harm anyone. You merely suspected it - and you put him in the hospital or ended his life.

And let's say he shot one person. How do you know he is to shoot another? You don't, and you are not judge, jury, and executioner for the crime of killing the previous person.

It's unreasonable - but it's the world you're trying to live in.

Charged for manslaughter for driving fast? Huh, no you would get a speeding ticket, if you hit someone and kill them you may be charged with manslaughter. His statements were vague , bringing him in for 30 days doesn't keep anyone safe . If he's got misguided beliefs, he will still have them 30days from now, you've protected nobody and may assisted in making him retaliate.

Posting from a phone sucks.

“It would seem that in the government’s infinite wisdom, especially in this time of obscenely massive deficits, that they are going to send him to a Veteran’s Administration Medical Center. That doesn’t sound too bad now does it? How about this then. The hospital that they are sending him to is NOT the one about eight miles away from his home in Richmond. But is instead on the other side of the Commonwealth of Virginia in Roanoke!” writes Smith.

In view of the above - its possible that he is still military?
As in Marine Reserves?
Otherwise why the commitment to a VA facility?

Anyone here know the answers?

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Ive never reached the point where im scared to post my thoughts..... well i just have.......

Don't threaten to kill people or attack Government facilities and employees (Especially former Presidents..they get so offended at that) or threaten to harm a President, and you can still say anything you want. Heck.. Look at the people on here. I've come right up to that line and close enough to notice people looking back at me. Just don't stick a toe over it...and you're good. Nothing has changed that much......yet.

That's part of the problem in understanding all of this...

He's in VA, as in the State of Virginia, but there is also a common term, VA, as in Veteran's Administration, and he's former military.

It's not clear whether he's in a VA hospital, or a hospital in VA.

I have heard that the hospital is owned by Bain, and I have heard that it is a Veteran's hospital.

It can't be both, can it?

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
That's part of the problem in understanding all of this...

He's in VA, as in the State of Virginia, but there is also a common term, VA, as in Veteran's Administration, and he's former military.

It's not clear whether he's in a VA hospital, or a hospital in VA.

I have heard that the hospital is owned by Bain, and I have heard that it is a Veteran's hospital.

It can't be both, can it?

Bain? As in Bain capital? Perhaps you can explain what relevance that can possibly hold to anything at all? I'm totally confused how a company a Presidential Candidate had contact with over a decade ago fits into the story of a former Marine being put on Psych hold after repeated and direct indications of intent to harm others (to make a real understatement).