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.
II. Remove unwarranted impediments to needed treatment for people in crisis who fail to seek treatment on their own while assuring adequate screening and respecting individual rights:
1. Examine proposals to modify criteria for emergency custody, evaluation and treatment (e.g., by eliminating the “imminence” requirement, by allowing civil intervention for acutely psychotic individuals whose impaired functioning is manifested by non-violent criminal conduct, or other modifications).
2. Examine proposals to elongate the total period of evaluation (ECO and TDO) to 4 or 5 days, accompanied by a “preliminary hearing” by an independent clinical evaluator.
3. Examine proposals to permit outpatient treatment orders in cases involving demonstrable deterioration in persons with prior history of hospitalization and deterioration.
II. Remove unwarranted impediments to needed treatment for people in crisis who fail to seek treatment on their own while assuring adequate screening and respecting individual rights:
1. Examine proposals to modify criteria for emergency custody, evaluation and treatment (e.g., by eliminating the “imminence” requirement, by allowing civil intervention for acutely psychotic individuals whose impaired functioning is manifested by non-violent criminal conduct, or other modifications).
2. Examine proposals to elongate the total period of evaluation (ECO and TDO) to 4 or 5 days, accompanied by a “preliminary hearing” by an independent clinical evaluator.
3. Examine proposals to permit outpatient treatment orders in cases involving demonstrable deterioration in persons with prior history of hospitalization and deterioration.
Originally posted by MojaveBurning
I found the motion to suspend the involuntary admission document an interesting read. It can be found here. It seems to explain a little about why this whole thing is unconstitutional. Basically that the involuntary admission for mental health care occurred outside of the time frame that a detention order can be filed. At least, that's what I get from reading this document, I may be mistaken.
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?
Originally posted by longlostbrother
Originally posted by MojaveBurning
I found the motion to suspend the involuntary admission document an interesting read. It can be found here. It seems to explain a little about why this whole thing is unconstitutional. Basically that the involuntary admission for mental health care occurred outside of the time frame that a detention order can be filed. At least, that's what I get from reading this document, I may be mistaken.
I don't know man... if you look at that, in the end they're just trying to get him moved closer to home... As has been repeatedly shown in this thread, the cops have a lot of leeway in these sorts of situations... he hasn't been illegally detained as far as I can make out, he certainly wasn't kidnapped...
He's fully accessible, more or less, just inconveniently located...
HOPEWELL, Va. (WTVR) – A Hopewell circuit court judge has ordered that a Marine veteran detained over anti-government Facebook posts be released from a psychiatric hospital.
CBS 6 News’ Catie Beck said the judge dismissed the case Thursday against Brandon Raub. The judge said the original petition for Raub’s detention contained no facts. In other words, there was no information on why Raub was being held — and the judge deemed this violated his civil liberties.
As a result, the judge ruled law enforcement has no grounds to hold Raub.
Beck said the judge is in the process of writing an order for Raub’s release. He is expected to be released from a the hospital in Salem, Virginia Thursday afternoon.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
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.
Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
Originally posted by longlostbrother
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.
You are so wrong!
There must be a specific reason why he was committed. That is one reason why he was released because there was NO CAUSE. This is determined by the questioning of the person. They must show irrational behavior as evidence so the order to commit can be started and the person put under so called protective order....
He was locked up! and another Judge wanted him to be confined for 30 days yet another judge read the order and said it was invalid because "no specific charge or action was listed on it"
Raub was questioned because of his facebook posts....
What you are missing is that he was detained and then was supposed to be committed for 30 days if another judge would have agreed.....