It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Former Marine Brandon Raub NOT put in psych ward for posting on FB - Calm down everyone.
page: 2share:
Originally posted by Hefficide
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.
Unless they think you're an immediate threat.
Then all bets are off.
reply to post by longlostbrother
Well...you are assuming I watch TV cop shows. I don't. I prefer to not make my judgements on LEO behavior based on reality TV shows.
Des
Well...you are assuming I watch TV cop shows. I don't. I prefer to not make my judgements on LEO behavior based on reality TV shows.
Des
reply to post by longlostbrother
By "they" you mean who exactly?
A teacher, counselor, therapist, doctor, priest, or anybody else can seek a commitment order - but they've got as much chance at receiving one as any family member does.
Now there are things one can say to invoke other laws. But those things have nothing to do with involuntary commitment in this regard - nor evaluation. It is a crime, for example, to email a political leader threats, etc.
Psych hold is different.
~Heff
By "they" you mean who exactly?
A teacher, counselor, therapist, doctor, priest, or anybody else can seek a commitment order - but they've got as much chance at receiving one as any family member does.
Now there are things one can say to invoke other laws. But those things have nothing to do with involuntary commitment in this regard - nor evaluation. It is a crime, for example, to email a political leader threats, etc.
Psych hold is different.
~Heff
Doesn't matter what the LAW says, they are known for breaking it!!
And where's your proof he's NOT locked up? And where's your explanation for why the FBI and Secret Service are involved?
Also, legally they can only hold you for 72 hours.
He wasn't read his rights, and i'll bet my life on the fact he didn't resist arrest in any form other than verballly.
How do you know what he done in the interview?
YOUR ENTIRE OP IS BASED ON YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS, YOU'RE EITHER DEBATING THE OTHER SIDE FOR DEBATES SAKE, OR YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
(raised eyebrow @ you)
And where's your proof he's NOT locked up? And where's your explanation for why the FBI and Secret Service are involved?
Also, legally they can only hold you for 72 hours.
He wasn't read his rights, and i'll bet my life on the fact he didn't resist arrest in any form other than verballly.
How do you know what he done in the interview?
YOUR ENTIRE OP IS BASED ON YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS, YOU'RE EITHER DEBATING THE OTHER SIDE FOR DEBATES SAKE, OR YOU ARE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
(raised eyebrow @ you)
edit on 22-8-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Destinyone
You've never seen a TV cop show?
If your whole perception of law enforcement and constitutional law, is all based on what you watch on reality TV cop shows, I can only assume you are very young. You lack real life experience in these maters. JMOHO
Des
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by longlostbrother
By "they" you mean who exactly?
A teacher, counselor, therapist, doctor, priest, or anybody else can seek a commitment order - but they've got as much chance at receiving one as any family member does.
Now there are things one can say to invoke other laws. But those things have nothing to do with involuntary commitment in this regard - nor evaluation. It is a crime, for example, to email a political leader threats, etc.
Psych hold is different.
~Heff
They = the police that were questioning him. It's in the Virginia statute.
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
More here: jlarc.state.va.us...
Cops have a lot of leeway and are given a lot of credit by courts, in situations where cops, or the FBI, thinks someone is an immediate threat.
The important thing is: we don't know all the facts.
We do know there are legal ways that he can be detained and evaluated and committed, and we do know that you aren't gonna get locked up for posting something on the internet, without an interview.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
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.
Why is that 'obvious' again?
Originally posted by longlostbrother
The important thing is: we don't know all the facts.
Exactly! And we may never know them.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
We do know there are legal ways that he can be detained and evaluated and committed, and we do know that you aren't gonna get locked up for posting something on the internet, without an interview.
Caveat: Before any apples/oranges attacks begin... You can be arrested for how you use the Internet. Change your FB status to say you are going to harm a specific person - even a famous person - and you might find yourself talking to cops or doctors. Engage in piracy and you might get a knock on the door. And we all know there are more things that will get you nailed. These are all separate issues from involuntary commitment.
Originally posted by Sinny
Also, legally they can only hold you for 72 hours.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)
They have 72 hours to evaluate you - but this can legally be extended if their evaluation concludes that you are a danger to yourself or others.
The rest of your post was hyperbolic opinion that I simply can't rationally address without getting sucked into the game of scenarios and "what ifs"... It's about as productive as me saying that Raub is actually a terminator robot and that the state of Virginia is building Skynet now - based upon his circuit architecture. It's a fun post that will farm tons of stars - but it's impossible to prove or disprove.
~Heff
People should read this from Virginia.gov. They did away with imminent danger and made it easier by saying poses a possible danger. Poses a possible
danger now or in the future. No more timeline. And a threat no longer has to be aimed at a person or structure. Just a general statement you will do
something. And they even said you have 72 hours before you go in front of a judge but that judge can make you stay up to 180 days without proof.
www.dbhds.virginia.gov...
www.dbhds.virginia.gov...
Originally posted by khimbar
Originally posted by longlostbrother
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.
Why is that 'obvious' again?
Because you can't lock people up for what they write on Facebook.
Originally posted by JBA2848
People should read this from Virginia.gov. They did away with imminent danger and made it easier by saying poses a possible danger. Poses a possible danger now or in the future. No more timeline. And a threat no longer has to be aimed at a person or structure. Just a general statement you will do something. And they even said you have 72 hours before you go in front of a judge but that judge can make you stay up to 180 days without proof.
www.dbhds.virginia.gov...
Exactly...
Originally posted by Hefficide
Originally posted by longlostbrother
The important thing is: we don't know all the facts.
Exactly! And we may never know them.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
We do know there are legal ways that he can be detained and evaluated and committed, and we do know that you aren't gonna get locked up for posting something on the internet, without an interview.
Caveat: Before any apples/oranges attacks begin... You can be arrested for how you use the Internet. Change your FB status to say you are going to harm a specific person - even a famous person - and you might find yourself talking to cops or doctors. Engage in piracy and you might get a knock on the door. And we all know there are more things that will get you nailed. These are all separate issues from involuntary commitment.
Yeah, but...
Piracy isn't protected speech..
And all the other things will get you questioned, but not really arrested, barring a few examples. If you say, "I'm going to kill John Travolta [sorry John]" they MAY question you, but saying it isn't enough to get arrested... in 99% of the cases... because they'll interview you first... and based on that they'll make a decision.... someone could be posting as you on FB anyway.. they have to verify via interview, so fact, to get evidence for a warrant,. etc.
“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?
reply to post by de_Genova
It could be his military retirement health benefits are only through a VA facility. Just guessing here....
Des
It could be his military retirement health benefits are only through a VA facility. Just guessing here....
Des
Originally posted by de_Genova
“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?
Typically, you get access to VA facilities as ex-MIL... if this is all (total speculation here, but e.g.) due to something like PTSD the state may think the MIL is best placed to help him, etc.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
Originally posted by WildWorld
Handcuffed !=! arrested
Handcuffed does not equal arrested. It equals detainment. Those are two different things. You can be detained for questioning without being arrested. You can also be detained for transport to a psych ward for evaluation. The handcuffs would be for the protection of the officers.
I'm not saying what is what here. I don't know the case well enough. Just corrected some misinformation.
edit on 22-8-2012 by MikeNice81
because: too add an f
reply to post by de_Genova
He could be military reserve, could have a history of PTSD while in the military, or have some form of disability from the military.
The shipment across state could be because of the facilities available at the VA. Not all hospitals have a PEU (Psychiatric Evaluation Unit) for housing people more than 24 hours. Some have nothing more than glorified recliners and a basic "half bath" for several people. It may very well be that the hospital across the state has a PEU set up to handle the longer 72 hour stay and access to a in house or near by "psychiatric ward" that can house a person long term.
There are a lot of rational reasons that things happen. Unfortunately if you've never been around these situations or places you don't know the small detail and logistic aspects. That means family, friends, and well wishers often feel confused and suspicious because of a lack of understanding and communication. Unfortunately the police aren't usually great in communicating during these situations. A lot of times they aren't 100% sure of what they can and can't say because of federal and state privacy laws. They also don't want to say anything that may jeopardize the investigation or harm others involved in the investigation.
Again, I don't know the case well. I'm just putting information out there based on my experiences and knowledge.
He could be military reserve, could have a history of PTSD while in the military, or have some form of disability from the military.
The shipment across state could be because of the facilities available at the VA. Not all hospitals have a PEU (Psychiatric Evaluation Unit) for housing people more than 24 hours. Some have nothing more than glorified recliners and a basic "half bath" for several people. It may very well be that the hospital across the state has a PEU set up to handle the longer 72 hour stay and access to a in house or near by "psychiatric ward" that can house a person long term.
There are a lot of rational reasons that things happen. Unfortunately if you've never been around these situations or places you don't know the small detail and logistic aspects. That means family, friends, and well wishers often feel confused and suspicious because of a lack of understanding and communication. Unfortunately the police aren't usually great in communicating during these situations. A lot of times they aren't 100% sure of what they can and can't say because of federal and state privacy laws. They also don't want to say anything that may jeopardize the investigation or harm others involved in the investigation.
Again, I don't know the case well. I'm just putting information out there based on my experiences and knowledge.
edit on 22-8-2012 by
MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by longlostbrother
You know, cop shows also imply that getting a phone call is a right. "I want my phone call!" "Right this way, sir."
They also tell you things like if a police officer neglects to read you your rights, you'll go free.
There are plenty of other examples of things cop shows and movies tell us that are plot devices and myths.
I wouldn't make any legal arguments on the basis of "Haven't you ever seen a cop show?"
You know, cop shows also imply that getting a phone call is a right. "I want my phone call!" "Right this way, sir."
They also tell you things like if a police officer neglects to read you your rights, you'll go free.
There are plenty of other examples of things cop shows and movies tell us that are plot devices and myths.
I wouldn't make any legal arguments on the basis of "Haven't you ever seen a cop show?"