Former Marine Brandon Raub NOT put in psych ward for posting on FB - Calm down everyone.

I've seen a lot of people on here and a few other forums freaking out about Brandon Raub.

They seem to think he was thrown in a psych ward for posting something controversial on FB. That is NOT the case.

Let me explain what the law allows the police, etc. to do, with an example.

Say that someone who didn't like you, who had military training, and who you thought might be slightly unhinged, started posting on FB that they thought your family deserved to be killed.

Say they did that every day for weeks.

So, you think, this is kinda freaky, I'm gonna call the cops, just in case. I know I would, cause if the guy murdered me, I'd want the cops to know who probably did the crime.

Anyway, you call the cops and they investigate.

After reading the posts they decide, maybe he's just talking crap, maybe he's a threat, we don't know, but hey we're cops, let's go see.

They show up at his house, and he refuses to be rational with them, a crowd gathers.

The cops then decide that, the only way they'll get answers is to take him somewhere, a third location, and ask him questions. He refuses to go. Legally they can handcuff him and take him for questioning.

uk.answers.yahoo.com...

At that point, if they think you are a immediate threat, they can get an emergency involuntary psychiatric hold, but they need a judge to sign off on it in most cases.

Virginia
As of 2008 Virginia was one of only five states requiring imminent danger in order to involuntarily commit someone. But after the Virginia Tech Massacre, there was significant political consensus to strengthen the protections for society and allow more leniency in determining that an individual needed to be committed against their will.

-- the person has a mental illness and there is a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (1) cause serious physical harm to himself or others as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening harm and other relevant information, if any

--the person has a mental illness and there is a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (2) suffer serious harm due to his lack of capacity to protect himself from harm or to provide for his basic human needs

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, during this, the guy CAN claim he's not crazy, not a threat etc. Most people dealing with cops claim innocence, but.. you know, that's pretty meaningless.

The important points:

- He was NOT kidnapped
- He was NOT locked up for posting something controversial on FB
- He could ONLY be locked up if the cops (and probably a judge) think he's an imminent threat.

So, please, keep exercising your free speech, calm down, and don't spread false rumours.

What? You mean Kenyan Socialist Illuminati members from nibiru didn't teleport him to a scret base on Jupiter and sacrifice him to their owl god to appease the Zionists?

Man, my whole world has been turned upside down.

Originally posted by jtap66
What? You mean Kenyan Socialist Illuminati members from nibiru didn't teleport him to a scret base on Jupiter and sacrifice him to their owl god to appease the Zionists?

Man, my whole world has been turned upside down.

hahahaha... that should be a TShirt ^^^

reply to post by longlostbrother


It seems your argument would hinge on him threatening your family. So my question is, who did Brandon threaten to kill?

reply to post by longlostbrother


That is no excuse, Freedom of speech is still freedom of speech. Especially when he was talking about the Ron Paul Revolution. These cops and under cover Marine MP's had no right to do what they did. If they would have just had two deputies show up and talk to him like a normal man then they would have realized he was not a threat to anyone.

Ok, so you've posted the requirements by law for one to be admitted into a psych ward. We knew that already. Now where is a link saying that he is at home with his family, and not detained by the state?

Originally posted by kennylee
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

It seems your argument would hinge on him threatening your family. So my question is, who did Brandon threaten to kill?

No, that was an example, like I said. All they needed was enough evidence that he might pose a threat to someone. In fact, all they REALLY needed was a complaint by a member of the public.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Only two things wrong with your theory.
One....according to witness's he was engaging in civil talks with the officers. He was being a or acting like a deranged lunatic.
Two....Why was the FBI there for a police investigation. Either its a local investigation or a federal one. What reasons were the feds brought in?

And then not to mention...his fb posts (from what is being circulated) were only anti-government. He wasn't threatening to blow anything up and murder anyone....or commit any other crimes. So your comparison in your OP isn't exactly comparing apples to apples...but you know this.

And finally. Both the police and the FBI stated to his mother that they did not have him in custody and know nothing about the situation, initially. Only until did this news become so rampant due to social media, did they finally admit what was going on and where he was.

Is this the practicing of NDAA? None of really know, because as far as were aware, this is the first possible case.

Note to mention...some of my post may be slightly inaccurate...as is yours.

Originally posted by becomingaware
Ok, so you've posted the requirements by law for one to be admitted into a psych ward. We knew that already. Now where is a link saying that he is at home with his family, and not detained by the state?

edit on 22-8-2012 by becomingaware because: (no reason given)

You don't know the whole story though, do you?

Obviously, he wasn't locked up for posting on facebook, but for whatever happened in the interview, etc.

You can't be locked up for 99.9% of things you write, unless you specifically say your going to kill the President, etc., and even then, they're gonna talk to you before they do anything...

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

That is no excuse, Freedom of speech is still freedom of speech. Especially when he was talking about the Ron Paul Revolution. These cops and under cover Marine MP's had no right to do what they did. If they would have just had two deputies show up and talk to him like a normal man then they would have realized he was not a threat to anyone.

You don't ACTUALLY know if he's a threat, do you? You think he isn't, but you were NOT there for the interview. They don't lock people up for supporting Ron Paul, obviously.

reply to post by longlostbrother


there were at least 3 threads
you could have posted this on.


did you?

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by kennylee
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

It seems your argument would hinge on him threatening your family. So my question is, who did Brandon threaten to kill?

No, that was an example, like I said. All they needed was enough evidence that he might pose a threat to someone. In fact, all they REALLY needed was a complaint by a member of the public.

That's my point. He didn't threaten anybody. None of his FaceBook posts were threatening to anybody. All of his posts were ANTI-government, which according to the 1st Amendment, he had every right to post.

The officials say that someone reported his posts on FaceBook. Why? Because they probably were offended because they support the current Regime. No matter how you spin this, Brandon was arrested and held and still being held because of his anti-government rants on FB.

Why are you linking UK yahoo answers page? What relevance does it have in this situation?

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Only two things wrong with your theory.
One....according to witness's he was engaging in civil talks with the officers. He was being a or acting like a deranged lunatic.
Two....Why was the FBI there for a police investigation. Either its a local investigation or a federal one. What reasons were the feds brought in?

And then not to mention...his fb posts (from what is being circulated) were only anti-government. He wasn't threatening to blow anything up and murder anyone....or commit any other crimes. So your comparison in your OP isn't exactly comparing apples to apples...but you know this.

And finally. Both the police and the FBI stated to his mother that they did not have him in custody and know nothing about the situation, initially. Only until did this news become so rampant due to social media, did they finally admit what was going on and where he was.

Is this the practicing of NDAA? None of really know, because as far as were aware, this is the first possible case.

Note to mention...some of my post may be slightly inaccurate...as is yours.

You don't have to ACT deranged to be considered a threat. James Holmes acted very calm while he shot a theatre up.

The FBI often coordinates with local cops if they think the guy potentially has targets out of state, etc.

You have only seen SOME of his FB posts and don't know what he ACTUALLY said in the interview, etc., or what other evidence they may have.

The cops and the FBI didn't have him in custody. You don't have to be arrested to be help for questioning. And you don't have to be arrested to to be in a psych ward. They may have just been being cute with language, etc.

If he's giving interviews and talking to lawyers, he's not been disappeared, has he.

Originally posted by WildWorld
Why are you linking UK yahoo answers page? What relevance does it have in this situation?

here's an American one:

au.answers.yahoo.com...

the answer is the same though...

Handcuffed !=! arrested

More legal mumbojumbo here:

region14utah.com...'s/NonArrestHandcuffing.pdf

Ah,that old chesnut-its for your own good.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by kennylee
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

It seems your argument would hinge on him threatening your family. So my question is, who did Brandon threaten to kill?

No, that was an example, like I said. All they needed was enough evidence that he might pose a threat to someone. In fact, all they REALLY needed was a complaint by a member of the public.

So , according to you. I could make an anonymous complaint about something you posted online, and you could be whisked away with no rights too.....doesn't that scare the crap out of you. It should

Des

reply to post by Destinyone


It takes two adults ( by most states standards ) with substantiative claims to get a judge or magistrate to sign a commitment order. Almost 100% of the time one of those adults has to be a member of the immediate family of the person the order is sought for.

These orders can only demand evaluation and not arbitrary commitment. "Evaluation' can be one question or weeks worth of testing and analysis.

So, yes and no... People can have you checked out - but it's actually a lot more complex than that and takes quite a bit of effort and legal work to make happen.

reply to post by Hefficide


Thanks, Heff, for letting us know the guidelines for having someone committed for observation in a psych unit. It's good to have clarification on these matters.

So, it would stand to reason, Raub's pickup was in the works for some time.

Des

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by kennylee
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

It seems your argument would hinge on him threatening your family. So my question is, who did Brandon threaten to kill?

No, that was an example, like I said. All they needed was enough evidence that he might pose a threat to someone. In fact, all they REALLY needed was a complaint by a member of the public.

So , according to you. I could make an anonymous complaint about something you posted online, and you could be whisked away with no rights too.....doesn't that scare the crap out of you. It should

Des

edit on 22-8-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

No, that's NOT what I said, but it is a very paranoid version of what I said.

The cops, in very specific circumstances, can take you to be interviewed. You have seen that on tv many many many times?

"Am I under arrest"
"No, you're free to go"

That's on pretty much every cop show ever, and I'm sure you don't go hide in your closet when you see it.