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

Originally posted by Wanders
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?"

No. You're confusing yourself.

You get a phone call if you're under arrest, in the police's custody. You can however be briefly detained and interviewed, and your rights are different.

You don't have to be mirandized to be questioned, but you would be to be in an custodial interrogation... it's pretty complex and hard to know the real truth as we're only really hearing his side, which... well, he has a bias I'm sure... as we all do..

The fact is that you have no proof of what your saying.
I think you should go and check out the links on this previous thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There were a few things i missed in the story myself like the fact that it was not the state that detained but it seems that feds are behind this.That could account for alot of the misunderstandings that i have bad over this situation.
If it turns out to be fact that feds are behind this it paves the way for a new era in detention.That along with the fact the guidelines of the apa have changed recently to include just about everyone.
www.nytimes.com... /us/dsm-revisions-may-sharply-increase-addiction-diagnoses.html?pagewanted=all

The revision to the manual, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M., would expand the list of recognized symptoms for drug and alcohol addiction, while also reducing the number of symptoms required for a diagnosis, according to proposed changes posted on the Web site of the American Psychiatric Association, which produces the book.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
The fact is that you have no proof of what your saying.
I think you should go and check out the links on this previous thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There were a few things i missed in the story myself like the fact that it was not the state that detained but it seems that feds are behind this.That could account for alot of the misunderstandings that i have bad over this situation.
If it turns out to be fact that feds are behind this it paves the way for a new era in detention.That along with the fact the guidelines of the apa have changed recently to include just about everyone.
www.nytimes.com... /us/dsm-revisions-may-sharply-increase-addiction-diagnoses.html?pagewanted=all

The revision to the manual, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M., would expand the list of recognized symptoms for drug and alcohol addiction, while also reducing the number of symptoms required for a diagnosis, according to proposed changes posted on the Web site of the American Psychiatric Association, which produces the book.

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

First off, the Rutherford Institute statement is TOTAL BS.

Law enforcement officials have stated in press reports that Raub was not arrested. However, as attorney John Whitehead points out, if the police have put handcuffs on you and you're being held against your will, that qualifies as an arrest.

That's just factually inaccurate. You can be moved for interview, in handcuffs, against your will, for a variety of reasons, without being arrested.

In fact you can be in custody. or not, when your interviewed, without being arrested.

So, when you see a statement like that, that's factually inaccurate, you gotta question the whole thing.

They also claim:

Without providing any explanation, levying any charges against Raub or reading him his rights, law enforcement officials then handcuffed Raub and transported him first to the police headquarters, then to John Randolph Medical Center, where he was held against his will.

But one can only assume, as their lawyers, they are taking his word for it... Do we need to dig up the thousands of examples of lawyers lying for defendants, to the press?

If you watch that video, the people around him are being argumentative, and being pretty OTT about filming and whatnot... they have a right too, but at the same time, if they were acting like that when the questioning was happening, the cops may have felt they couldn't conduct a proper interview... who knows...

You and I don't know, that's for sure.

As for him being transferred to the police station... was he ever actually inside the police station? How was he transported to the medical facility, etc.,etc. etc.

There's WAY to many unanswered questions to claim to know if any law was broken in his detention.

reply to post by longlostbrother


I was referring to cops shows where as soon as the person being detained asks for a phone call, everything is dropped and he's taken to make his call. As if they have no right to delay you. While that might be true if you ask for a lawyer, it isn't if you want to call anyone else.

Originally posted by Wanders
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

I was referring to cops shows where as soon as the person being detained asks for a phone call, everything is dropped and he's taken to make his call. As if they have no right to delay you. While that might be true if you ask for a lawyer, it isn't if you want to call anyone else.

I agree with you.. not sure where the confusion lies... but sure, ^^ is def true!

reply to post by longlostbrother

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.

OP cracks me up telling everyone else they don't know what really went on then giving his own speculation about what went on and why he was arrested. And then using his posts on FB as the reason the cops were called but saying it wasn't because of face book... Sigh

The fact is you do not know anymore then anyone else and this man is being illegally held against his will period. There is video of him being taken in and he was not resisting in any way. The Local police did not have any crime they could arrest him for they were doing the bidding of the feds who have no jurisdiction in the states. He has not been charged with any crime yet has been committed to a hospital for 30 days that is false imprisonment and a violation of his rights there is nothing on his FB page or writings old or new that could be construed as him being dangerous. They are simply making an example of him to strike fear into others about speaking against the government. Anyone who is actually planning to do violence to government or anyone else is not going to post their plans on their FB page before they do it.

That's just factually inaccurate. You can be moved for interview, in handcuffs, against your will, for a variety of reasons, without being arrested.

You simply have no clue what you are talking about. if you are being forcefully detained against your will that is an arrest no matter what spin you put on it.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

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.

OP cracks me up telling everyone else they don't know what really went on then giving his own speculation about what went on and why he was arrested. And then using his posts on FB as the reason the cops were called but saying it wasn't because of face book... Sigh

The fact is you do not know anymore then anyone else and this man is being illegally held against his will period. There is video of him being taken in and he was not resisting in any way. The Local police did not have any crime they could arrest him for they were doing the bidding of the feds who have no jurisdiction in the states. He has not been charged with any crime yet has been committed to a hospital for 30 days that is false imprisonment and a violation of his rights there is nothing on his FB page or writings old or new that could be construed as him being dangerous. They are simply making an example of him to strike fear into others about speaking against the government. Anyone who is actually planning to do violence to government or anyone else is not going to post their plans on their FB page before they do it.

That's just factually inaccurate. You can be moved for interview, in handcuffs, against your will, for a variety of reasons, without being arrested.

You simply have no clue what you are talking about. if you are being forcefully detained against your will that is an arrest no matter what spin you put on it.

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

I'm not going to sit here and attempt to disagree with your opinion or anything like that, but this:

"You simply have no clue what you are talking about. If you are being forcefully detained against your will that is an arrest no matter what spin you put on it."

You are absolutely incorrect on this, sir. He is correct in saying that you can be detained for a period of time, including transport in handcuffs, without being arrested. Being detained involuntarily for a period (I wont place a time frame on it because I dont have 100% certainty what the lawful amount of time is) does not mean you've been arrested. If its not an arrest, it's not going to go on your record as such. I dont really know how much simpler it can be put for you.

You can see the detainment however you wish, and you can call it what you want. That is your right. But you just need to come to the realization that the technical term "arrest" might not apply and that what you are calling it is simply incorrect.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

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.

Yet that is exactly the scenario you painted for us in your opening post!

-Guy posts "threats" on FB (which btw he did not)
-People see "threats", get concerned and call cops
-Cops "investigate" and then take alleged terrorist into custody
-Alleged terrorist gets put into the nut-klink for no good reason

How exactly is that not being "locked up" for posting on FB?

If you're going to play devils advocate, especially in a case like this which is HIGHLY suspicious in more than one way, you had best get your ducks in a row.

peace

Originally posted by HIWATT

Originally posted by longlostbrother

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.

Yet that is exactly the scenario you painted for us in your opening post!

-Guy posts "threats" on FB (which btw he did not)
-People see "threats", get concerned and call cops
-Cops "investigate" and then take alleged terrorist into custody
-Alleged terrorist gets put into the nut-klink for no good reason

How exactly is that not being "locked up" for posting on FB?

If you're going to play devils advocate, especially in a case like this which is HIGHLY suspicious in more than one way, you had best get your ducks in a row.

peace

No.

Getting locked up for posting on FB would have just two steps:

1. Post something on FB
2. Get arrested

So... no.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Wow and all this time I thought the Virginia thing was about getting rid of guns, now maybe it is relaxing State rules on Bakeracting people for reasons other than imminent danger to themselves or another. In other words, the guy may not be out on a ledge about to jump but he posts pics of himself on fb holding a gun so the pre-crime people come in now and oh you posted this stuff and we can put you in the mental ward. Of course the Raub guy apparently was talking about more violent things but since the last massacre, the guy had sent materials to his pyschiatrist. But if he already had enough of a history that he had a psychiatrist....
Maybe this is NDAA in operation? Because now there's nothing to stop them from holding any of us on suspicion.


Feels like the Gulags
enemies of the state are dealt with
And people tell me communism is dead

Originally posted by Wanders
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

I was referring to cops shows where as soon as the person being detained asks for a phone call, everything is dropped and he's taken to make his call. As if they have no right to delay you. While that might be true if you ask for a lawyer, it isn't if you want to call anyone else.

And that's also assuming everyone has an attorney in retainer( or at least maybe somewhere around the 250,000 mark). You have to be rich to have a retainer. How does 2500 sound? The very minute you call, they are counting the minutes. So if no attorney, then you call Mom or your best friend and say hey can you get out the Yellow Pages?

reply to post by flyswatter

I'm not going to sit here and attempt to disagree with your opinion or anything like that, but this:

"You simply have no clue what you are talking about. If you are being forcefully detained against your will that is an arrest no matter what spin you put on it."

You are absolutely incorrect on this, sir. He is correct in saying that you can be detained for a period of time, including transport in handcuffs, without being arrested. Being detained involuntarily for a period (I wont place a time frame on it because I dont have 100% certainty what the lawful amount of time is) does not mean you've been arrested. If its not an arrest, it's not going to go on your record as such. I dont really know how much simpler it can be put for you.

You have no clue what your talking about. Detainment against your will is arrest. People are so damn ignorant. It doesn't matter what your corporate legislative policy statute calls it that is still being under arrest.
_____________________________________________________________________
Definition of arrest: Blacks Law De Lux 4th pg 140

"To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real OR ASSUMED authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or DETAINING him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officers authority and control is necessary to constitute an arrest.

It is the taking , seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention of arrest."
______________________________________________________________________

Tell me what part of any of the above does not apply to Mr Raub?

And by the way most if not all the states have statutes that you cannot hold anyone more the 72 hours without charging him with a crime or declaring him mentally incompetent.

Why do they not tell us under what authority or statute he is being held without charge etc? This is complete BS and those defending it will be in for a rude awakening as this becomes more openly prevalent. I say more openly because they have been doing this for decades just not so openly and blatant.

An arrest is an arrest no matter what BS the legislature tries to pass justifying it including the 72 hour BS. If you are in custody against your will you are under arrest period!!!

reply to post by kennylee


No one would be held for supporting the current regime.
As a side note, those pics of Brandon remind me of the pics of the Aurora guy.

Are the Feds picking on truthers and setting them up?

reply to post by longlostbrother


It is likely they took him right to the psych ward, as they had predetermined him to be a threat to society due to mental instability. It's possible they took him to the police station first to be viewed by a staff psychiatrist but I have a feeling he wasn't.

Bakeract is 72 hours observation,
oh wait a judge ordered the 30 days extension

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


They got the 30 days because they took him to a Bain Mental Hospital. A for profit hospital who gets rich with a forced customer. Now that is something that should be debated. Should a for profit mental health hospital be allowed to determine if your sane? But they are moving him to the VA mental hospital. If they continue to hold him at a not for profit Veterans Hospital theres probly something wrong with him.

reply to post by hawkiye

Taking, under real OR ASSUMED authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or DETAINING him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand.

Has he been charged with a crime or civil demand? If not, he is not under arrest. He is being detained to under go psychological evaluation as part of an on going investigation. Raub isn't the first person to have this has happen. It happens many times every day across the country. Someone is found to be behaving in a way that seems threatening or dangerous and they are involuntarily committed for investigation as to their mental stability and threat. They are usually out in a reasonable amount of time with medication and orders for therapy.

I've dealt with people that have had this happen to them on many occasions. I can honestly say that 60% were truly mentally unhinged, 35% of them were under the influence of strong drugs. The rest were suicidal or homicidal because of life circumstances and would see great improvement if certain people left their life. Not once have I met one of these people and said to myself, "they really screwed up this time." From personal experience I would say we wait this one out.

Raub made a lot of statements that would seem to be out of the mainstream, but not indicative of a mental break down. There may be much more going on that we don't know about. All it takes is saying you have thought about suicide "recently." So, it may be something big or something small.

The thing is, if they left the guy alone and something happened everybody would ask, "where were the authorities and family beforehand?" Now that they acted before hand without spilling the beans of what they know it is assumed they are being heavy handed and attacking him for speech. My advice is to monitor the situation and see what happens.

ETA:

Police -- acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional -- took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was not charged with any crime...

Col. Thierry Dupuis, the county police chief, said Raub was taken into custody upon the recommendation of mental health crisis intervention workers.

Fox News

From the above link and others I have seen it would seem that Raub's detention came at the recommendation of a mental health professional. It also appears that the FBI reportedly received complaints about some of his messages. In other words he scared somebody and got turned in. Because of the totality of the circumstances he was taken in to custody and detained for evaluation.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

They got the 30 days because they took him to a Bain Mental Hospital. A for profit hospital who gets rich with a forced customer. Now that is something that should be debated. Should a for profit mental health hospital be allowed to determine if your sane? But they are moving him to the VA mental hospital. If they continue to hold him at a not for profit Veterans Hospital theres probly something wrong with him.

edit on 22-8-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

I don't believe this is about hospitals being "for profit" or not. Unless you like the idea of the State picking up the tab for someone put there against his will? I mean some people have no problem with illegals getting their bills paid for. At least this guy is a citizen.
VA hospitals are notorious for not being as nice as others. Would you rather he had the better care?
In any case I don't think this is about evil for-profit hospitals as most hospitals these days are in hot water due to the high costs of care. I think this is more about the State declaring war on dissidents.

But one can see who's on what side of the fence with statements like this. Bain? You are making this about Romney and Bain? That's some serious media spin there brother.

From another blog I found some more of his fb postings which sound a lot more like the rants we see here, rants about our liberties being taken away, rants about free energy and so on.

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.

Actually, a member of the public with "specific first hand knowledge" of how Raub is an imminent danger to himself or others would have to file a mental hygiene petition. Then, one of the mental hygiene commissioners in the county would hold a hearing where the defendant and complaining witness are both present. The defendant (Raub) would be assigned an attorney on the spot for representation. The mental hygiene commissioner would make the decision to involuntarily commit (or not) the defendant based upon the testimony of the defendant, the complaining witness, any other witnesses and a clinical psychologist who is also present at the hearing and who has interviewed the defendant.

It's hard to get people involuntarily committed. I used to do this for a living. The mental hygine commissioner is only concerned with : Is the defendant an IMMEDIATE danger to himself or others? Or, to put it another way, Is the defendant ACTIVELY (with a plan) suicidal and/or homicidal? OR, is the defendant hopelessly addicted to drugs/alcohol in a clearly self-endangering way?

Remember that the mental hygiene commissioner MUST justify his/her ruling. It's not something that is taken lightly.

Now, with all that said, I have absolutely no idea what the details of this case are. Due to confidentiality laws, there can be no disclosure of any threats or behavior by the defendant unless the defendant voluntarily releases that specific information.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Well I think Romney is safe from Bain and the mental hospitals because they were bought in 2006. But you should skip the BS of Romney/Obama and just look at what Bain has been doing with and to mental hospitals. Most of these strange stories of a teen dying in a mental hospital or a boot camp of some sort goes back to the cookie cutter mental health Bain has created. And if your town does not want them there to bad the will sue you until you submit to them.

Heres a thread on some of the Bain mental hospital stories.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Better care when people die at Bain ran mental hospitals all the time?

reply to post by SimultaneousFinal


The way they used to do it does not mean much when Virginia changed the laws after the Virginia Tech shootings. And the lawyers interpretation of the law means a lot to. We found that out with Waterboarding. So here is some of those lawyers from Virginia explaining how they can use the laws to do what they did to Brandon.

www.dbhds.virginia.gov...