Southern_Man 0 #26 August 22, 2012 Quote I am a retired mental health/crisis intervention/substance use disorder counselor in FL and therefore a mandated reporter. I see nothing in his Facebook page that would require police action. There must be more to the story. I have had clients threaten much worse in my office or in group and for me that meant an opportunity for therapeutic dialogue. OTOH, I am very, very careful what I post or state on the Internet. I do not think there are enough facts known to really make any judgements. Here are some speculations based on what is known, however: I have no idea what the threshold is to investigate somebody off of their facebook page. I can't actually see the facebook page. It was serious enough to warrant a talking to from local police and federal agents, whether they were tipped off by friends and neighbors as they claim or not. Whatever it was, it was not serious enough for any sort of charges to be brought. I believe, but cannot prove, that he acted pretty erratically at the initial contact with officers. He could have simply declined to speak with them and that would have been the end of it (never talk to the cops). I say this based on the threshold for police bringing people to our agency for evaluation. At this point he has been ordered detained for 30 days. That means he not only had a temporary detention order signed by a magistrate (good for 48 hours) but he also had a full hearing in front of a judge, with a human rights advocate, etc. Again, I don't know the content of that hearing but I will guess that it is based on further erratic behavior and statements since the TDO was ordered. He has a right to an attorney at that hearing as well, although it is unclear if he had one or not."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #27 August 22, 2012 "Detached from reality" is one thing. Threats that indicate an immediate danger to oneself or others are another thing entirely. I wasn't seeing the latter. Maybe I didn't go back far enough, but I wasn't seeing it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 August 22, 2012 Are we sure this decision was based solely on his Facebook postings? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #29 August 22, 2012 Based on the most recent article in todays washington times......it appears the answer is, yes! http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/22/can-government-detain-you-over-facebook-posts/ ...but it's ok. In violating his rights we are being protected...maybe...kinda...sorta...not really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #30 August 22, 2012 > In violating his rights we are being protected... No one has the right to threaten mass murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 August 22, 2012 Quote Based on the most recent article in todays washington times......it appears the answer is, yes! http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/22/can-government-detain-you-over-facebook-posts/ ...but it's ok. In violating his rights we are being protected...maybe...kinda...sorta...not really. Right, but we often bash the media for not reporting correctly or simply being wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jinlee 0 #32 August 22, 2012 Quote> In violating his rights we are being protected... No one has the right to threaten mass murder. Your purposefully being obtuse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #33 August 22, 2012 Quote> The guy never made a threat of mass murder. “Sharpen my axe; I’m here to sever heads.” Maybe he was looking for a job at a poultry processing plant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #34 August 22, 2012 Quote Quote Based on the most recent article in todays washington times......it appears the answer is, yes! http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/22/can-government-detain-you-over-facebook-posts/ ...but it's ok. In violating his rights we are being protected...maybe...kinda...sorta...not really. Right, but we often bash the media for not reporting correctly or simply being wrong. Agreed. However, with the amount of time that has lapsed since this first became a story and the current exposure the story is receiving I would expect that all pertinent facts would be out by now or out shortly. With this story going viral I would fully expect the authorities to have released any additional details that would color this guy as more of a nutter. Seems the masses are quite content with him sitting in a psych ward for any of the following: 1. Being a trained deadly weapon. Apparently, vets, since they've been trained to kill, don't have the the same rights to free speech. 2. Suggesting that the govt was complicit in 9/11 3. Suggesting there might be a civil war in the united states. 4. The most egregious of all....quoting shit rap lyrics that reference axes and severed heads. Oh my! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #35 August 22, 2012 >Agreed. However, with the amount of time that has lapsed since this first became a >story and the current exposure the story is receiving I would expect that all pertinent >facts would be out by now or out shortly. ?? As I am sure you are aware, there are laws that specifically prohibit authorities and health care facilities from releasing medical information on patients. >Seems the masses are quite content with him sitting in a psych ward for any of the following: I am content with only one reason - he is a danger to himself or others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #36 August 22, 2012 Quote quoting shit rap lyrics At least Pussy Riot got a trail. Three years sounds about right. egregious.. I love that word.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #37 August 22, 2012 Quote>Agreed. However, with the amount of time that has lapsed since this first became a >story and the current exposure the story is receiving I would expect that all pertinent >facts would be out by now or out shortly. ?? As I am sure you are aware, there are laws that specifically prohibit authorities and health care facilities from releasing medical information on patients. >Seems the masses are quite content with him sitting in a psych ward for any of the following: I am content with only one reason - he is a danger to himself or others. Yes. I'm aware of medical privacy laws. Those laws would not stop a reporter from contacting everyone that knows an individual looking for someone to confirm, "yes. He's a real nut. Hope he get's help." Apparently, no friends or family feel that way...or at least have not gone on record with thier opinions...seems to be the contrary. By what measure is he a danger to himself and others? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #38 August 22, 2012 > Those laws would not stop a reporter from contacting everyone that knows an > individual looking for someone to confirm, "yes. He's a real nut. Hope he get's help." > Apparently, no friends or family feel that way...or at least have not gone on record > with thier opinions... Agreed. >By what measure is he a danger to himself and others? The original worry came from a threat of mass murder. The more important measures are the evaluations of psychiatrists who examined him and a judge they presented their findings to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #39 August 22, 2012 Quote The original worry came from a threat of mass murder. Can you put quotes around that threat? Quote The more important measures are the evaluations of psychiatrists who examined him and a judge they presented their findings to Don't be naive. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/nyregion/officer-adrian-schoolcraft-forcibly-hospitalized-got-no-apology-just-a-bill.html Claire Swinney of New Zealand was also held in a psychiatric ward and called “delusional” for criticizing the government. Susan Lindauer was held under the Patriot Act for a year at Carswell Air Force Base - where psychiatric drugs were pushed on her - after she alleged government corruption. (Note. Can't readily find any "good" references for this one) A few traits that can earn you a delusional diagnosis: frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/05/26/the-inner-worlds-of-conspiracy-believers I remember a quote from one of my favorite press secretaries reminding ""all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." I'm wondering if you are just so blindly partisan that you have a knee jerk reaction to this particular bit of news because you perceive it being championed by "the other side". I'm probably wrong, but you seem to have a strong opinion, but are lacking a demonstrated desire to support it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #40 August 23, 2012 >frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, >taking a cynical stance toward politics, feeling generally suspicious toward others Any of those things might suggest a psych evaluation was in order if taken to an extreme. Talking about those things AND threatening to kill people might result in a visit by police and THEN a psych evaluation. >displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook Bullshit. >I'm wondering if you are just so blindly partisan Nope, but if it helps you to think in partisan terms, go for it. Many people can't think any other way. Some people are mentally ill. Some people are so mentally ill that they are a danger to themselves or others. A doctor who releases such a person back into society is failing in his duty to care for his patient. It doesn't matter if that person is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, a veteran, a religious leader, a community organizer or a garbage collector. What matters is whether he has a mental illness that causes them to be a danger to themselves or others. BTW has his facebook page been deleted by the feds? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #41 August 23, 2012 QuoteNope, but if it helps you to think in partisan terms, go for it. Many people can't think any other way. Well....we agree there. You probably are right. He probably is a nutter. However, despite all the reporting...there's no evidence. There lies the rub. FB page still up and running.... https://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub?sk=wall Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #42 August 23, 2012 >You probably are right. He probably is a nutter. However, despite all the >reporting...there's no evidence. There lies the rub. If he really is a "nutter" we may not ever see any evidence - unless the results of his hearing are made public. HIPPA may make it illegal for them to release his test results (and indicated mental state) to anyone, even his family if he refuses to sign the consent form. However if he is declared incompetent generally a guardian can be appointed and they can decide to release the information. Also please note that I am _not_ claiming this guy is nuts. I have no idea if he's sane or not, and if the psychiatrist who evaluated him (and/or the court who provided the court order to detain him) is found to be incompetent or biased then he should be released and they should be penalized for abusing their positions. But up until now, what has happened to him is what I'd expect to happen to someone who has a somewhat serious mental problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jinlee 0 #43 August 23, 2012 At least were not quite there where they've begun to arrest his Facebook friends. I'm not saying he is sane, but maybe they really need to look very closely at all of the Facebook friends of this guy, the pages he's liked, who has liked those same pages. Who liked the comment about the axe, they all need to be looked at very very closely. It may need to be classified as a terroristic network and roll-up everyone involved, there are probably dozens of wiretaps now. he's a mastermind. It could be mass insanity, lock them all up. The Chinese think their dissidents are dangerous also. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #44 August 23, 2012 > but maybe they really need to look very closely at all of the Facebook friends of this guy If they threaten publicly to kill people - yes, they should. I doubt that they did, though. >The Chinese think their dissidents are dangerous also. Fortunately we don't think dissidents are dangerous - but we do think that mass killers are dangerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #45 August 23, 2012 Fuck hippa. Once your in the public forum it's all free game. That is in fact, i believe, the moral of the story. He's nutty. He has some valid concerns, but presentation suggests a little unhinged. But, that's a lot of people...and they are not in the system. The question begging to be answered is why is he? The threatening mass murder arguement is bullshit. He did not...he kept posting about impending armed insurrection in between his posts about various conspiracies. I've got fb contacts that make very similar posts. They are not locked up for evaluation. Should they be? Should i report them? I'm serious. They have guns. They seem to have this shared idea of civil war round two. They talk of banking and government conspiracies. I even suspect a few of being racist. I don't want anyone to be murdered. I especially don't want to see a mass murder. Should i report? See something, say somwthing, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #46 August 23, 2012 >Fuck hippa. Once your in the public forum it's all free game. Are you serious? If you were some day evaluated for mental health problems (which you would no doubt be cleared of) would you want the hospital to announce that you were being held for mental health issues? >I've got fb contacts that make very similar posts. They are not locked up for >evaluation. Should they be? If a psychiatrist determines that they are a threat to themselves or others - yes, they should be. >I don't want anyone to be murdered. I especially don't want to see a mass murder. >Should i report? Only if you honestly think that they might be mentally disturbed enough to do it. (And if you DO think someone is actually unbalanced enough to kill, and you don't do anything - shame on you.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #47 August 23, 2012 Perhaps if the authorities just had a way to turn on the camera on your computer and observe you. We could have a special government agency to watch people. I know! We can call them "Thought Police". Seriously, that story was scant on details. Maybe by design. Maybe because there aren't enough to justify the reaction. Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to recent events unless there are facts about the guy's posts that aren't in evidence. Very concerning.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #48 August 23, 2012 >Seriously, that story was scant on details. Maybe by design. Maybe because there >aren't enough to justify the reaction. Or because he really HAS lost it and they want to allow a veteran a little bit of privacy. Like you said, there is very little in the story to go on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManagingPrime 0 #49 August 23, 2012 Appears that a judge felt this guy got railroaded.... http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Va-judge-orders-release-of-detained-veteran-3810234.php Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #50 August 23, 2012 "The petition is so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy," the order says. Wow. That's pretty condemning of the process. I guess that answers the question of why the article lacked factual foundation for the actions of the authorities. Pretty ugly.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
