View Full Version : Marine Vet Detained for Facebook Posts- WTF?
I would have liked a little more backstory, but if this is as it reads, it appears the thought police have arrived.
http://www.wric.com/story/19314603/chesterfield-man-marine-veteran-detained-for-online-posts
Of course, without more info, for all I know this guy could be a complete nut (that likes puppies....:p)
But on a broader note, maybe I'm reading more into a few news stories than there really is to it, but is it me or does there seem to be a good bit of anti-military-vet (dare I say) conditioning and gov. endorsed paranoia going around?
Seems to be a decent bit of squawking about how all these enraged super-elite everything-killer mentally-volatile military vets are going to come steamrolling back from wherever-iraqistan and overthrow everything, and they need to be disarmed and/or institutionalized for everyones safety. Seems that TPTB are getting awful jittery about something.
Maybe one could assume this simply means our vet's 'hearts and minds' are still in the right place?
Or maybe these guys ARE just nuts?
Commence entertaining me with a robust discussion. :D
Cincinnatus
08-20-12, 03:00
The comments quoted in your link do not seem that alarming or crazy. Either things are becoming much more Orwellian faster than I thought they had, or there was more posted that was not shown in cited story.
To lock a guy up just for saying the goverment perpetrates evil is a grievous violation of the first amendment. That he said "a day of reckoning" was coming soon is only threatening only if meant as a direct threat of some sort of unlawful action or violence. The books of Amos, Isaiah, and Jeramiah are full of words saying the Hebrews were doing evil and that a day of reckoning was coming soon, but it was meant in the sense of judgment from God, not meaning that Isaiah or another prophet was going to open a can on anyone. He could have even meant a political reckoning in the form of the Fall Elections.
Bottom line: unless there's more to the story that we're not seeing, then this is an outrage and he should sue in court.
The article said he posted "a series of controversial messages" including the one statement. I wonder how inflammatory the other statements were or were they as innocuous or vague as the one given? With the media's tendency to blow things out of proportion just for a juicy headline I wouldn't be surprised if this is an otherwise non-story.
montanadave
08-20-12, 07:30
Law enforcement is stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Somebody calls in and reports "Joe is posting crazy shit on FB and spouting off to guys at the local watering hole." And the authorities let it slide because it's a free country and guys can say all sorts of shit, right?
Then Joe shoots up the local Hardees or IHOP and all hell breaks loose because somebody had warned the local gendarmes and they sat on their hands. And out come all the FB comments, the co-workers, pictures of the guy holding a semi-auto, and all the usual public post-mortem by the press.
I don't know how it's all going to shake out, but I'm guessing the guy that spoke with the Aurora shooter's shrink and didn't bother to check the guy out is experiencing some pretty sleepless nights.
I don't like the whole "big brother thought police" bullshit either, but there are a lot of loose cannons wandering around. And the internet hasn't helped the cause, in that it just makes it that much easier for anyone, anywhere, to seek out folks of like mind who willingly nurture and reinforce their rage, delusion, sense of alienation, and desire to exact some form of retribution.
I don't know the particulars of the case cited in the OP so my comments are generalized and not specific to this vet's situation. But the larger issue creates a real fine line for law enforcement to try to walk and there are very vocal groups (with legitimate arguments) to rip them apart regardless of what they do.
Littlelebowski
08-20-12, 07:35
He did not commit a crime.
LE are terrified of military veterans, it seems.
He did not commit a crime.
LE administrators are terrified of military veterans, it seems.
FIFY.
montanadave
08-20-12, 08:10
He did not commit a crime.
LE are terrified of military veterans, it seems.
I hear ya and it's a bad situation.
But let's face it. We've been at war for over a decade. I don't want this discussion to devolve into a debate over this country's military interventions, but we've sent hundreds of thousands of young men halfway across the globe to fight and die in shitholes where the very people who were supposed to "welcome us as liberators" decided to start shooting at them or blowing them to pieces.
Many were reservists called up and deployed, leaving families and jobs that weren't there when they got home. Many have suffered traumatic brain injuries and/or PTSD. And many are not getting the medical services they need and deserve from the VA.
And the military recruited more than a few folks that wouldn't ever have been enlisted had it not been for relaxed standards adopted to keep up the numbers.
So we've got a fair number of folks coming home who have been trained, deployed, and returned home to a country bitterly divided over a host of political and social issues during a prolonged economic downturn with high, chronic unemployment.
To not be concerned about the potential for a limited subset of that population to have the potential to commit a violent act is sheer folly.
This is not meant as a slam against vets. Those who have sacrificed and served deserve this nation's continued respect and support. The vast majority of returning vets resume their lives and step back into their civilian roles with only minor adjustments.
But there are going to be some problematic individuals who are going to garner some additional scrutiny. And, in some cases, deservedly so. Unfortunately, that scrutiny is going to draw unwanted and undeserved attention to all veterans.
OK as a vet and LEO I got a coue things......
1. At least on my dept there is a huge population of vets. Half my squad is vets. To say that the police are "terrified of vets" is just plain wrong.
2. It says in the article, which I find to be shitty journalism since it has hardly any useful info, that he A) made some sort of comments and B) he was taken to a hospital.
We get called by the mental health community to pick up mentally dispturbed/ill people every day. Many of them can and are violent so they ask us to bring them to the hospitals.
These pick up orders happen when friends and/or family of the person fills out forms detailing reasons why the person needs a mental health assessment. The police can do it if the person makes threats to kill themselves or others.
3) there are a large number of vets out there who are in bad places mentally. I myself have seen less than stellar service from the VA in the past.
CarlosDJackal
08-20-12, 10:47
He did not commit a crime.
LE are terrified of military veterans, it seems.
I guess the official DHS stance has bled down to some of the local agencies. IMHO, any Veteran who re-elects Janet Napolitano as head of DHS deserves this type of treatment (if God forbid, they end up as such).
Just think of the irony in play here. An ILLEGAL Alien is not only given preferential treatment as dictated by DHS and BHO; they are going to be allowed to apply for a Green Card. But a Combat Veteran and US Citizen can be arrested because they are a Combat Veteran and a US Citizen.
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, over?
VooDoo6Actual
08-20-12, 12:37
Here's some insights from a person who has some email exchanges w/ him before he went off the reservation. Sad to see him not being able to cope w/ it. Many, many more to follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoVHno4GWes&feature=g-user-c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSJuKlFuotA&feature=g-user-c
That guy is local here.
The way I just heard it on the radio is that some of that stuff was song lyrics.... ??
But apparently what happened was the local LEOs went to assist the Feds ( FBI and possibly CIA ).
They decided to detain him for psych eval. When they tried to cuff him, he resisted.
http://www.1140wrva.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=128979&article=10355070
Also for those of you that may not know. He lives just minutes from Ft Lee and the Defense General Supply Center had he decided to attack the Generals or whatever he said.
If all of these Facebook postings are true it seems the guy really needs mental help. Song lyrics or not, he made them his own mantra by posting them. Then resisting arrest...
Does anyone here not agree? Where does the line need to be drawn allowing him access to firearms or taking them away? Does he need to be involuntarily committed?
xrayoneone
08-20-12, 17:14
But apparently what happened was the local LEOs went to assist the Feds ( FBI and possibly CIA ).
Why would the CIA be involved with this?
QuietShootr
08-20-12, 18:39
If all of these Facebook postings are true it seems the guy really needs mental help. Song lyrics or not, he made them his own mantra by posting them. Then resisting arrest...
Does anyone here not agree? Where does the line need to be drawn allowing him access to firearms or taking them away? Does he need to be involuntarily committed?
http://images1.pcgamesn.com/seinfeld.gif
Here is an article that covers his posts. Concerning? Perhaps.
http://list.lewrockwell.com/t/2578189/52742357/163470/36/
Littlelebowski
08-20-12, 18:45
That guy is local here.
The way I just heard it on the radio is that some of that stuff was song lyrics.... ??
But apparently what happened was the local LEOs went to assist the Feds ( FBI and possibly CIA ).
They decided to detain him for psych eval. When they tried to cuff him, he resisted.
http://www.1140wrva.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=128979&article=10355070
Also for those of you that may not know. He lives just minutes from Ft Lee and the Defense General Supply Center had he decided to attack the Generals or whatever he said.
Resisting equals guilt and preemptive arrests monitoring via the Internet seems be what you just said.
Littlelebowski
08-20-12, 18:46
Why would the CIA be involved with this?
I sincerely doubt they were. As in no ****ing way.
Resisting equals guilt and preemptive arrests monitoring via the Internet seems be what you just said.
That's why I mentioned the bases nearby.... I didn't read everything he wrote but apparently he was saying I'm going to do it now type thing and then something about going after the "Generals".
The CIA thing is just what the radio guy said. I think the deal was no one really knew exactly who was there and why.
But yeah.... I mean what do you do? I'm not a LEO.... but what do you do in that case. Someone is publishing to the world that the time has come and they are going to act now type situation.....
Do you leave them alone because it's a free county? Do you go have a chat with them and see what's up? What's the right thing to do?
If all of these Facebook postings are true it seems the guy really needs mental help. Song lyrics or not, he made them his own mantra by posting them. Then resisting arrest...
Does anyone here not agree? Where does the line need to be drawn allowing him access to firearms or taking them away? Does he need to be involuntarily committed?
Until he's convicted of a felony or "Pre-Crime" becomes the law of the land, the answer is yes. Absolutely the guy may need help and there's nothing wrong with questioning him. Until they've develop probable cause that a crime has been committed or they have the statutorily required information/documentation to involuntarily commit him to a psych eval, they need to stay hands off. Hopefully they have their I's dotted and T's crossed, and we simply don't have all the necessary info to make an informed decision on the circumstances of his particular case.
We need to be VERY careful that we don't begin doing things that cause our vets to shy away from help with their mental health needs.
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/37.2-808.HTM
It looks like they are doing it by the book.
That's a touchy situation for sure.
His lawyer is now saying that because he was put in handcuffs that constitutes arrest. That seems like a stretch to me. Of course they had about 8 or 9 guys there. I guess they each could have grabbed an arm and leg and walked him to the doctor. I assume locking him in the back seat of a patrol car would be arrest too by that definition.
We need to be VERY careful that we don't begin doing things that cause our vets to shy away from help with their mental health needs.
For sure. Especially after situations like this Vets that could already be paranoid start to fear the worst that the thought police will commit them.
There's no doubt a significant number of vets are needing mental help. I just heard on the radio a few days ago but haven't verified the stats that there's a major issue with suicide among Vets. If that's true, we are either failing them or they have a mindset that nothing will change their feelings no matter how hard someone tries. To top it off, people with depression and suicidal issues tend to hide it very well or they act so fast it's too late.
However, expressing thoughts of depression are different than overt threats of physical harm. People are freaking out such as the guy in the blog above that "pre- crime" and just posting some thoughts on Facebook gets you jail time. Postings are no different than spoken words. People have a hard time understanding that. There is no litmus test to determine that postings are more or less harmless than words.
If done by the book as it appears I have absolutely no problem hauling his ass in. Then the problem becomes how long should he be committed and is he ever really 'cured' or no longer a threat. Is he good enough to convince them he's fine and be released just to go nuts?
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/37.2-808.HTM
It looks like they are doing it by the book.
That's a touchy situation for sure.
His lawyer is now saying that because he was put in handcuffs that constitutes arrest. That seems like a stretch to me. Of course they had about 8 or 9 guys there. I guess they each could have grabbed an arm and leg and walked him to the doctor. I assume locking him in the back seat of a patrol car would be arrest too by that definition.
His lawyers will turn a scratch into a gash and damn near bleeding to death. While it is touchy as in the police playing it by the book, I have no doubt they made the right call and shouldn't be second guessed unless a rogue element is exposed which I strongly doubt.
Mauser KAR98K
08-21-12, 00:18
I think a bit of the problem is not finding a counselor that a soldier/vet can connect with. That whole thing of "you weren't there; you haven't seen what I have," is something I have noticed that others don't. I would love to help our vets push past this, but I wasn't there. I fact, I would probably be the wrong person to talk with. because Uncle Sam threw a war I wasn't invited to and I would go in a heart beat of called upon. Thus, it really makes me the wrong person to talk to.
There are programs out there that put troopers out at ranches to "reconnect" with things they love and help them push past the horrors of combat.
Some how this Marine got alienated through fears and he quit, thus preventing him in some way (either actually, or in his mind) to talk to someone. My fear is: how many others are out there like him.
By the time the psych ward gets done pumping him with "drool" drugs no one will ever know what his true state of mind is. 30 days might as well be life.
I have a hard time with the idea if committing him solely based on his posts. Behavior should be the over riding factor. Had he exhibited ANY behavior other than posts/speech that indicated violence?
How many terrorists such as Black Panthers spew much worse threats and are never taken in for psych eval. I hope he manages to get out and the sue the crap out of the city, PD and shrink for kidnapping and false imprisonment since he never acted on or toward any supposed threats.
By the time the psych ward gets done pumping him with "drool" drugs no one will ever know what his true state of mind is. 30 days might as well be life.
I have a hard time with the idea if committing him solely based on his posts. Behavior should be the over riding factor. Had he exhibited ANY behavior other than posts/speech that indicated violence?
How many terrorists such as Black Panthers spew much worse threats and are never taken in for psych eval. I hope he manages to get out and the sue the crap out of the city, PD and shrink for kidnapping and false imprisonment since he never acted on or toward any supposed threats.
By the time words come to fruition it's usually too late. Had you rather him snap and beat or kill somebody before anything is done? The letter the Aurora shooter wrote to his shrink was just words, right?
Black Panthers saying they're going to kill a bunch of crackers is different than threatening generals at a nearby base. Threaten government officials with axe murder and see what happens.
Psych wards aren't normally the drooling drug straight jacket padded rooms you see in the movies.
.........How many terrorists such as Black Panthers spew much worse threats and are never taken in for psych eval....
By the time words come to fruition it's usually too late. Had you rather him snap and beat or kill somebody before anything is done? The letter the Aurora shooter wrote to his shrink was just words, right?
Black Panthers saying they're going to kill a bunch of crackers is different than threatening generals at a nearby base. Threaten government officials with axe murder and see what happens.
Psych wards aren't normally the drooling drug straight jacket padded rooms you see in the movies.
Well, in all fairness, I really don't see a difference in potential distance between the "nearby" generals or the BP's threats against people that could be anywhere- same thing.
I understand the point about the Aurora thing, but at the same time, if you apply that reasoning to everyone that says anything that could be construed to make them seem to have even the slightest possibility of violent actions, than they'd have to start hauling in half the country. I mean, quite a few folks here post enough to expect a house call any day now by those standards, let alone some of the bloggers out there posting WAY more inflammatory things than even the guy in the story, yet they're not being hustled off to a psych evaluation....
That was kind of my point originally.
Over that past year with stories like these that have come around, I'm not getting a vibe of well-reasoned preventative measures to get the vets whatever help they need, I'm getting a vibe of irrational paranoia. Kind of like the way vietnam vets were/are always portrayed as craaaaaazy.
**** Facebook.
You want to keep in touch with friends and family? Get emails and phone #s.
You want to reach new people with your views and commentary? Start a blog or a YouTube channel or join a forum.
You're a complete narcissist who needs to tell people where you are at all times and what mundane errand you're on? Get twitter.
Facebook serves no purpose other than to compile info about you to help marketing and police.
OK as a vet and LEO I got a coue things......
1. At least on my dept there is a huge population of vets. Half my squad is vets. To say that the police are "terrified of vets" is just plain wrong.
2. It says in the article, which I find to be shitty journalism since it has hardly any useful info, that he A) made some sort of comments and B) he was taken to a hospital.
We get called by the mental health community to pick up mentally dispturbed/ill people every day. Many of them can and are violent so they ask us to bring them to the hospitals.
These pick up orders happen when friends and/or family of the person fills out forms detailing reasons why the person needs a mental health assessment. The police can do it if the person makes threats to kill themselves or others.
3) there are a large number of vets out there who are in bad places mentally. I myself have seen less than stellar service from the VA in the past.
Well said. The thought of us being "terrified" is just silly....
For LE, it has been and will be damned if you do and damned if you don't.
[QUOTE=Littlelebowski;1374128]He did not commit a crime.
He may have. All info is never released to the media. There is likely more. Though what I read in the articles are typical "black helicopter-ish", and not directly threatening, direct threats may have been discovered by other means and sources
Third party reports of threatening and dangerouse acts via electronic means that cross state lines IS a federal offense.
Littlelebowski
08-21-12, 06:47
Interesting interview from the committed....
Law enforcement officials said they did not arrest Brandon Raub for his anti-governmentFacebook postings, even though they slapped handcuffs on him and forced him into a car before transporting him to a psychiatric hospital where he will remain for at least 30 days.
No, they merely went to “interview him” last Thursday, the FBI told the*Richmond Times-Dispatch.
“Our office had received a complaint about threatening posts,” said Dee Rybiski, spokeswoman for the Richmond FBI office. “As we would do in any circumstance such as this, our office along with Chesterfield Police (Department) officers went to interview Mr. Raub.
“The FBI did not arrest him,” Rybiski said. “We are not commenting any further.
Meanwhile, Raub is locked away in a psychiatric ward in John Randolph Medical Center outside Richmond, Virginia where he was allowed to be interviewed by the Richmond Times-Dispatch via telephone.
“I’m currently in John Randolph in the psychiatric ward being held against my will,” Raub said in a telephone interview.
Raub said Secret Service, FBI and Chesterfield police officers came to his home Thursday. “They were concerned about me calling for the arrest of government officials,” he said.
He was taken to the Chesterfield police station and then to the hospital, he said.
“I talked to a Secret Service gentleman for 20, 30 minutes,” Raub said. “I was very cooperative and answered everything honestly.
“I really love America, and I think that idea that you can be detained and sent somewhere without due process and a lawyer … is crazy.”
Raub said he has been raising questions about 9/11 and signed a petition to reopen investigation of the terrorist attacks.
The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil rights organization, has come to the defense of Raub, a retired U.S. Marine who served from 2005 to 2011, including stints in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to a statement the Rutherford Institute sent to*Cop Block:
The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a former Marine, 26-year-old Brandon Raub, who was arrested, detained indefinitely in a psych ward and forced to undergo psychological evaluations based solely on the controversial nature of lines from song lyrics, political messages and virtual card games which he posted to his private Facebook page. Although the FBI and Chesterfield County police have not charged Brandon Raub, a resident of Chesterfield County, Va., with committing any crime, they arrested Raub on Thursday, August 16, 2012, and transported him to John Randolph Medical Center, where he was held against his will due to alleged concerns that his Facebook (FB) posts were controversial and terrorist in nature. In a hearing held at the hospital, government officials disregarded Raub’s explanation that the Facebook posts were being interpreted out of context, sentencing him up to 30 days further confinement in a VA psych ward. In coming to Raub’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys are challenging Raub’s arrest and forcible detention, as well as the government’s overt Facebook surveillance and violation of Raub’s First Amendment rights.
Littlelebowski
08-21-12, 07:30
NYPD cop Adrian Schoolcraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft) might have a thing or two to say about involuntary commitments.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/19324653/marine-detained-for-facebook-posts
@LL, I think that quote you have above meant to say "up to 30 days" not "at least 30 days".
Not that that makes a lot of difference in the grand scheme....
Maybe everything that's happening is wrong. Maybe it's all a big mistake. Maybe he is now owed. ... or Maybe someone is actually saving a persons life while it actually can be saved.
Interesting interview from the committed....
Interesting indeed.
Law enforcement officials said they did not arrest Brandon Raub for his anti-governmentFacebook postings, even though they slapped handcuffs on him and forced him into a car before transporting him to a psychiatric hospital where he will remain for at least 30 days.
No, they merely went to “interview him” last Thursday, the FBI told the*Richmond Times-Dispatch.
“Our office had received a complaint about threatening posts,” said Dee Rybiski, spokeswoman for the Richmond FBI office. “As we would do in any circumstance such as this, our office along with Chesterfield Police (Department) officers went to interview Mr. Raub.
“The FBI did not arrest him,” Rybiski said. “We are not commenting any further.
Meanwhile, Raub is locked away in a psychiatric ward in John Randolph Medical Center outside Richmond, Virginia where he was allowed to be interviewed by the Richmond Times-Dispatch via telephone.
“I’m currently in John Randolph in the psychiatric ward being held against my will,” Raub said in a telephone interview.
Raub said Secret Service, FBI and Chesterfield police officers came to his home Thursday. “They were concerned about me calling for the arrest of government officials,”he said.
Umm...I think it was a little more than that.
The 1st step to recovery is admitting what ya did. If you did nothing wrong and are proud of it then why try to downplay it?
He was taken to the Chesterfield police station and then to the hospital, he said.
“I talked to a Secret Service gentleman for 20, 30 minutes,” Raub said. “I was very cooperative and answered everything honestly.
“I really love America, and I think that idea that you can be detained and sent somewhere without due process and a lawyer … is crazy.”
Raub said he has been raising questions about 9/11 and signed a petition to reopen investigation of the terrorist attacks.
The Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based civil rights organization, has come to the defense of Raub, a retired U.S. Marine who served from 2005 to 2011, including stints in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to a statement the Rutherford Institute sent to*Cop Block:
The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a former Marine, 26-year-old Brandon Raub, who was arrested, detained indefinitely in a psych ward and forced to undergo psychological evaluations based solely on the controversial nature of lines from song lyrics, political messages and virtual card games which he posted to his private Facebook page. Although the FBI and Chesterfield County police have not charged Brandon Raub, a resident of Chesterfield County, Va., with committing any crime, they arrested Raub on Thursday, August 16, 2012, and transported him to John Randolph Medical Center, where he was held against his will due to alleged concerns that his Facebook (FB) posts were controversial and terrorist in nature. In a hearing held at the hospital, government officials disregarded Raub’s explanation that the Facebook posts were being interpreted out of context, sentencing him up to 30 days further confinement in a VA psych ward. In coming to Raub’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys are challenging Raub’s arrest and forcible detention, as well as the government’s overt Facebook surveillance and violation of Raub’s First Amendment rights.
Apparently they're confused about how Facebook technology actually works because anyone can view his rants. His page reads like a paranoid schizophrenic's diary.
This life can be free and beautiful. There are enough resources on this earth to support the world's population. There are enough resources on this earth to feed everyone. There is enough land for everyone to own their own land and farm, and produce their own energy.
-------
These people have been hiding technology. There are ways to create power easily. There is technology that can provide free cheap power for everyone. There are farming techniques that can feed the entire world.
------
They want to put computer chips in you.
montanadave
08-21-12, 10:20
Most of us are guilty of flying off the handle once in a while and making statements which, if taken entirely out of context, might be construed as alarming and/or potentially threatening.
But this young man repeatedly posted comments to a public website which demonstrated a pattern of escalating frustration, alienation, and, ultimately, rage towards the government and the military. Coupled with references to violent acts and imminent action, I think the authorities were justified in giving this guy a closer look.
I can't speak to the manner in which he was detained, as I'm not privy to all the facts and was not present when he had his initial interaction with law enforcement.
But it seems pretty evident this veteran was in a bad place and needed some help. Hopefully, he'll get the assistance he needs before he hurts himself or someone else.
To be clear, this former Marine was not detained because of the Facebook posts. He was interviewed because of the nature of the Facebook posts and as a result of that interview, and the things he said during that interview that got him detained.
Most of us are guilty of flying off the handle once in a while and making statements which, if taken entirely out of context, might be construed as alarming and/or potentially threatening.
But this young man repeatedly posted comments to a public website which demonstrated a pattern of escalating frustration, alienation, and, ultimately, rage towards the government and the military. Coupled with references to violent acts and imminent action, I think the authorities were justified in giving this guy a closer look.
I can't speak to the manner in which he was detained, as I'm not privy to all the facts and was not present when he had his initial interaction with law enforcement.
But it seems pretty evident this veteran was in a bad place and needed some help. Hopefully, he'll get the assistance he needs before he hurts himself or someone else.
Not if his attorneys and the Rutherford Institute can help it. Where's the ACLU when you need 'em? :rolleyes:
QuietShootr
08-21-12, 10:32
For sure. Especially after situations like this Vets that could already be paranoid start to fear the worst that the thought police will commit them.
There's no doubt a significant number of vets are needing mental help. I just heard on the radio a few days ago but haven't verified the stats that there's a major issue with suicide among Vets. If that's true, we are either failing them or they have a mindset that nothing will change their feelings no matter how hard someone tries. To top it off, people with depression and suicidal issues tend to hide it very well or they act so fast it's too late.
However, expressing thoughts of depression are different than overt threats of physical harm. People are freaking out such as the guy in the blog above that "pre- crime" and just posting some thoughts on Facebook gets you jail time. Postings are no different than spoken words. People have a hard time understanding that. There is no litmus test to determine that postings are more or less harmless than words.
If done by the book as it appears I have absolutely no problem hauling his ass in. Then the problem becomes how long should he be committed and is he ever really 'cured' or no longer a threat. Is he good enough to convince them he's fine and be released just to go nuts?
His lawyers will turn a scratch into a gash and damn near bleeding to death. While it is touchy as in the police playing it by the book, I have no doubt they made the right call and shouldn't be second guessed unless a rogue element is exposed which I strongly doubt.
Jesus ****ing Christ. If a cop ASKS me to go somewhere, and I decline, and I'm then put in handcuffs and hauled off, that's a goddamn arrest regardless of what you, the Supreme Court, or God want to call it. And if I decline to be put in handcuffs, it can't be "resisting arrest" if there was no legal arrest to begin with. You can't have it both ways.
And if there was no legal reason for the cops to be there, then they're only trespassers.
QuietShootr
08-21-12, 10:34
By the time words come to fruition it's usually too late. Had you rather him snap and beat or kill somebody before anything is done?
Yes. That's the way the law is supposed to work. You CANNOT start locking people up because you THINK they might do something. That's a big, black line - and if you cross it, you are crossing a pretty serious Rubicon.
montanadave
08-21-12, 10:40
Yes. That's the way the law is supposed to work. You CANNOT start locking people up because you THINK they might do something. That's a big, black line - and if you cross it, you are crossing a pretty serious Rubicon.
Making public and credible threats is an overt act and constitutes a crime.
We can argue about the definition of "credible" or who gets to make the call, but this guy crossed the line from thinking to acting when he started posting delusional and threatening rants on FB. And now he's in the jackpot.
Littlelebowski
08-21-12, 11:02
Odd how this guy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585807,00.html) was never detained nor committed.
Odd how this guy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585807,00.html) was never detained nor committed.
Please post for us each and every case of hypocrisy in every other city in the U.S. besides CHESTERFIELD, VA and tell me how they relate to the individuals involved in this particular incident.
Littlelebowski
08-21-12, 11:25
Please post for us each and every case of hypocrisy in every other city in the U.S. besides CHESTERFIELD, VA and tell me how they relate to the individuals involved in this particular incident.
I'm just happy you see the hypocrisy.
And if I decline to be put in handcuffs, it can't be "resisting arrest" if there was no legal arrest to begin with. You can't have it both ways.
And if there was no legal reason for the cops to be there, then they're only trespassers.
He was not resisting arrest. He was resisting a voluntary psych. eval. The he resisted an involuntary evel. Then he was placed in cuffs for safety.
I posted the code of VA above.
He was not resisting arrest. He was resisting a voluntary psych. eval. The he resisted an involuntary evel. Then he was placed in cuffs for safety.
I posted the code of VA above.
LEOs enforcing a law...how dare they.
I'm sure some of the guys here will be marching to the VA Capital first thing to have this unjust law overturned.
While they're at it, visit NYC and East Palo Alto CA to demand change based off the two cases in 2010 of widespread hypocrisy in their law enforcement.
So some of you guys are just fine for hauling in a guy for a 30 day psych eval based on FB postings alone, with no behavioral problems? Wow.
30 days probably means loss of job in these hard times. If he had any guns (which he says he does not) then those would have been confiscated and who knows when if ever he would get them back. If the Rutherford group did not jump in he would be faced with large attorney fees even if found sane.
The FBI and SS found no reason to arrest or detain him. The local PD calls a psych hospital for a recommendation. OF COURSE they say bring him in so we can run up a bill! Self-fulfilling detention cause.
Sorry, the black panthers offering a reward for killing of Zimmerman seems far more serious a terrorist threat. If the feds were not concerned about the former Marine then why is the PD pressing it?
Again, committing someone for 30 days solely on FB postings and no behavior reasons is evil. Sue them high and low.
QuietShootr
08-21-12, 13:49
Odd how this guy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585807,00.html) was never detained nor committed.
Or the thousands of left-wing moonbats who were screaming for President Bush to be killed. I don't remember any incidents of them being locked up. Funny how this works.
Left-wing rants=protected by the First Amendment
Right-wing rants=Dangerous lunatic that needs to be locked up.
Get it now?
QuietShootr
08-21-12, 13:50
He was not resisting arrest. He was resisting a voluntary psych. eval. The he resisted an involuntary evel. Then he was placed in cuffs for safety.
I posted the code of VA above.
If he could be physically forced into it, there was nothing "voluntary" about it.
You're a cop, aren't you?
Littlelebowski
08-21-12, 13:53
So some of you guys are just fine for hauling in a guy for a 30 day psych eval based on FB postings alone, with no behavioral problems? Wow.
30 days probably means loss of job in these hard times. If he had any guns (which he says he does not) then those would have been confiscated and who knows when if ever he would get them back. If the Rutherford group did not jump in he would be faced with large attorney fees even if found sane.
The FBI and SS found no reason to arrest or detain him. The local PD calls a psych hospital for a recommendation. OF COURSE they say bring him in so we can run up a bill! Self-fulfilling detention cause.
Sorry, the black panthers offering a reward for killing of Zimmerman seems far more serious a terrorist threat. If the feds were not concerned about the former Marine then why is the PD pressing it?
Again, committing someone for 30 days solely on FB postings and no behavior reasons is evil. Sue them high and low.
You nailed it. Well said. Remember the Battle of Athens!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Making public and credible threats is an overt act and constitutes a crime.
We can argue about the definition of "credible" or who gets to make the call, but this guy crossed the line from thinking to acting when he started posting delusional and threatening rants on FB. And now he's in the jackpot.
Thought put to media is not action, it's still thought. If he said "I'm going to kill the generals at the base", that is a direct threat and is actionable. Did he post that? Or did he instead post "delusional and threatening rants" that lacked specificity? Did he have motive, intent and opportunity? If so, then they can charge him with a crime. I'd say that by committing him to an involuntary inpatient evaluation, they did not have the elements required for a crime. So, who signed the detainer for evaluation? The police? Mental health authority? A relative?
His detention boils down to one thing, he talked to them. If he wanted to remain free, he should've shut his trap and asked for an attorney. Everything he says in the evaluation will probably work against his release. He has a right to legal representation and said representation should tell him to not cooperate. That might work against him in the short term, but it's going to give his captors less ammunition to use against him in the long run.
It sucks that it winds up an adversarial process, but I've been seeing a lot of VERY unsettling trends regarding mental health and individual rights. The primary concern of everyone but the subject is the community. It's up to the subject to cover their own concerns. Many of them are not going to be capable of doing that. They should have an advocate that is fair and impartial. That is NOT someone the government or medical facility assigns. :(
So some of you guys are just fine for hauling in a guy for a 30 day psych eval based on FB postings alone, with no behavioral problems? Wow.
30 days probably means loss of job in these hard times. If he had any guns (which he says he does not) then those would have been confiscated and who knows when if ever he would get them back. If the Rutherford group did not jump in he would be faced with large attorney fees even if found sane.
The FBI and SS found no reason to arrest or detain him. The local PD calls a psych hospital for a recommendation. OF COURSE they say bring him in so we can run up a bill! Self-fulfilling detention cause.
Sorry, the black panthers offering a reward for killing of Zimmerman seems far more serious a terrorist threat. If the feds were not concerned about the former Marine then why is the PD pressing it?
Again, committing someone for 30 days solely on FB postings and no behavior reasons is evil. Sue them high and low.
Bullseye
VooDoo6Actual
08-21-12, 14:55
"See something, say something" is/will manifest into the nightmare is was designed to become.
FUD at it's finest.
Fomenting & promulgating fear, not only leads to oppression & tyranny but stagnates creativity & productivity.
Fair & just Gubbermints would never do that.
theblackknight
08-21-12, 15:20
Should we call this the Aurora Mandate or the Oklahoma City Mandate?
So arresting detaining people for things they could or might do is now ok(preemptive war)? I don't want it both ways. While this guys speech was gay and all infowars derp and paranoid, we typically cut off free speech when it's -bomb on a airplane- or -fire! in a crowded theater-, something that poses a direct threat to the safety of others. This dosent fit that. It's just some vet,his fb and a tinfoil hat. The whole "like Timmy McVay!" sounds like profiling. Where are the civil rights groups? Until we reach this, its a no go.
http://suckerpunchcinema.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/minority-report-ui.jpg
All societal circumstances considered, this man decided to draw attention to himself in a negative way while portraying himself as hostile and ready to kill. I feel much of his pain due to the fact that the current state of our union is indeed unsettling, but his particular path is not the one I would have chosen.
So some of you guys are just fine for hauling in a guy for a 30 day psych eval based on FB postings alone, with no behavioral problems? Wow.
30 days probably means loss of job in these hard times. If he had any guns (which he says he does not) then those would have been confiscated and who knows when if ever he would get them back. If the Rutherford group did not jump in he would be faced with large attorney fees even if found sane.
The FBI and SS found no reason to arrest or detain him. The local PD calls a psych hospital for a recommendation. OF COURSE they say bring him in so we can run up a bill! Self-fulfilling detention cause.
Sorry, the black panthers offering a reward for killing of Zimmerman seems far more serious a terrorist threat. If the feds were not concerned about the former Marine then why is the PD pressing it?
Again, committing someone for 30 days solely on FB postings and no behavior reasons is evil. Sue them high and low.
This post is full of win.
This stinks; thought crime is starting to be reality and we should do all we can to stop it from becomming the norm. Seriously.
Putting the pieces of the larger puzzle together; the sociopolitical climate of the world/here at home at the moment- I am becomming less and less optomistic we can turn things around anytime soon.:mad:
The times they are a changing...
So, who signed the detainer for evaluation? The police? Mental health authority? A relative?
I want to know this.
If he could be physically forced into it, there was nothing "voluntary" about it.
You're a cop, aren't you?
No.... as I already mentioned above... I am not a LEO.
Here is the code again as well.
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/37.2-808.HTM
The reason the Secret Service nor FBI took him to custody is because the code specifies that the primary jurisdiction do so.
I live here. This is very unusual. Usually people that get placed in that type custody are drug addict type situations.
I honestly believe the authorities know something that we don't. I also think someone is trying to help him and not punish him.
I've had 3 close friends and family members that life got to them. All dead by age 45. Mental illness, even when it's fairly mild can go real wrong real quick.
Sometimes a guy talking crazy really is a guy going crazy and not just talking shit on the Internet.
--------
Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, said there was no Facebook snooping by her agency.
“We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts,” she said. “Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints.”
--------
So, if history repeats itself.... what if this were Hinkley again? That turned out well.
I want to know this.
It would be signed by a Judge or Magistrate to allow the eval. I think they have 4 hours to act on that approval. Then the doctor or health official would decide what to do. Release or detain.
That's how I understand it.
I would like to know how he got 6 years service. 2005 - 2011. I thought you had to be in for 8 years. He's 26 and just got back last year. do you serve less time if you are in the war zone?
Moose-Knuckle
08-21-12, 20:32
I know I feel safer . . .:rolleyes:
NWPilgrim, you hit the X-ring. ;)
Littlelebowski
08-21-12, 20:46
LEOs enforcing a law...how dare they.
I'm sure some of the guys here will be marching to the VA Capital first thing to have this unjust law overturned.
While they're at it, visit NYC and East Palo Alto CA to demand change based off the two cases in 2010 of widespread hypocrisy in their law enforcement.
Well, I did contact Senator James Webb; a guy who's personal definition of "combat" might be slightly different than that of Cooder County SWAT serving no knock warrants on non violent drug users.
I've asked once but since several of you think this is wrong.
What's your solution? I don't like that it's happened.
How would you guys have handled it?
ETA:
Just found this.................. http://www.examiner.com/video/kidnapped-marine-vet-brandon-raub-speaks-out-from-psych-ward
Does it strike anyone as odd that he sounds perfectly normal yet says people ought to know the Government is reading their Facebook pages...... is he serious? ... he just figured that out?
He is now being transferred to Salem, VA to a VA hospital
http://www.examiner.com/article/update-on-brandon-raub-s-detention
something is really wrong with this picture..... I don't know what it is... but there has to be more to this story than anyone is telling.
Littlelebowski
08-21-12, 20:50
I've asked once but since several of you think this is wrong.
What's your solution? I don't like that it's happened.
How would you guys have handled it?
Leave the him the **** alone.
Magic_Salad0892
08-21-12, 21:15
Leave the him the **** alone.
Exactly.
It starts with dudes talking about how the government is doing wrong. It ends with guys who post in the AR/handgun pic threads here getting detained for having weapons, and showcasing their terrorist arsenal.
Thought policing is the true ''age of deterrance''....
Moose-Knuckle
08-21-12, 21:35
How would you guys have handled it?
Considering he was exercising his 1st Amendment rights, nothing.
ETA:
Just found this.................. http://www.examiner.com/video/kidnapped-marine-vet-brandon-raub-speaks-out-from-psych-ward
Does it strike anyone as odd that he sounds perfectly normal yet says people ought to know the Government is reading their Facebook pages...... is he serious? ... he just figured that out?
He is now being transferred to Salem, VA to a VA hospital
http://www.examiner.com/article/update-on-brandon-raub-s-detention
something is really wrong with this picture..... I don't know what it is... but there has to be more to this story than anyone is telling.
Well it's either this or he shoots himself in the back with a mismatched handgun.
Considering he was exercising his 1st Amendment rights, nothing.
.
Fair enough. Doesn't that also mean then that when something does go wrong and there were "warning signs", we simply have to be prepared to say that's the price we pay for freedom?
QuietShootr
08-21-12, 21:53
Fair enough. Doesn't that also mean then that when something does go wrong and there were "warning signs", we simply have to be prepared to say that's the price we pay for freedom?
Yes, goddamn it. Freedom is dangerous. That's the nature of it.
Considering he was exercising his 1st Amendment rights, nothing.
Well it's either this or he shoots himself in the back with a mismatched handgun.
Your First Amendment rights are not absolute. The Founding Fathers never intended that and that has never been the case. Some things that you say have consequences, that is the way it is, has always been, and should be. Say threatening things, say things that make professionals think that you are a threat, or have the potential for threat then expect a short sojourn at a facility so that other professionals can evaluate the degree and veracity of your threat.
Now for those saying that LCpl Verbosity should have been released because the USSS and/or the FBI didn't charge the guy, well, that just demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the law and jurisdiction. If LCpl Talkstoomuch had threatened the President, or the Vice President then the USSS could have taken the guy immediately on a 72 eval and hold, but only if the Executives were threatened. The FBI had even less power in this regard as there is no federal code under Title 18 for threatening anyone else; thus, not a federal matter. This makes the matter a state or local issue and it appears to me that the locals did their thing, as they should have, under their applicable laws.
The locals here received a complaint about the Facebook posts, They went to interview and this tool apparently acted the fool and spouted off inappropriately because based on that meeting and interview he earned an appointment with mental health pros. He is the one who put himself in this predicament, no one else did.
NCPatrolAR
08-21-12, 22:27
Some of you guys need to slide back from the keyboard and let your blood pressure return to normal.
His Facebook wall is public and the posts he made are still there. He makes some pretty overt and unambiguous statements. You have to be an idiot to post shit like this to Facebook and expect it to go unnoticed by authorities, particularly in light of recent events.
https://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub#!/brandon.raub?sk=wall
Now *these* are something to be concerned about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/15/new-totalitarianism-surveillance-technology
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-patriot-act
Yes, goddamn it. Freedom is dangerous. That's the nature of it.
Absolutely YES! Our first priority should be individual life and liberty. Then ownership of personal property. Pre-emptive detention for public safety should not be on the radar.
His Facebook wall is public and the posts he made are still there. He makes some pretty overt and unambiguous statements. You have to be an idiot to post shit like this to Facebook and expect it to go unnoticed by authorities, particularly in light of recent events.
https://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub#!/brandon.raub?sk=wall
I don't do facebook. Can you post some examples of the clear and specific threats that rise above what I hear from the left about killing Bush, Cheney, Zimmerman?
Your First Amendment rights are not absolute. The Founding Fathers never intended that and that has never been the case. Some things that you say have consequences, that is the way it is, has always been, and should be. Say threatening things, say things that make professionals think that you are a threat, or have the potential for threat then expect a short sojourn at a facility so that other professionals can evaluate the degree and veracity of your threat.
Now for those saying that LCpl Verbosity should have been released because the USSS and/or the FBI didn't charge the guy, well, that just demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the law and jurisdiction. If LCpl Talkstoomuch had threatened the President, or the Vice President then the USSS could have taken the guy immediately on a 72 eval and hold, but only if the Executives were threatened. The FBI had even less power in this regard as there is no federal code under Title 18 for threatening anyone else; thus, not a federal matter. This makes the matter a state or local issue and it appears to me that the locals did their thing, as they should have, under their applicable laws.
The locals here received a complaint about the Facebook posts, They went to interview and this tool apparently acted the fool and spouted off inappropriately because based on that meeting and interview he earned an appointment with mental health pros. He is the one who put himself in this predicament, no one else did.
I'm going to attempt a disclaimer. I am calm and not here to hurt anybody. I do not intend to offend anyone.
Really? Please tell me more about what the forefathers intended? Highly unlikely that they intended it to mean free speech. You cannot have it both ways. Its a contradiction that wouldn't make sense. Ea i have the freedom of speech but only what the gov thinks is ok to say? Hard to believe that the same men who told Britton where to shove their gov are the same men that intend to write a law about free speech and put limitations on it. That is exactly what us wrong with stupid ****ing lawyers. They didn't leave the thing vague. Its got a period so you know exactly what it means. Freedom of speech. Nothing follows period.
Yes, goddamn it. Freedom is dangerous. That's the nature of it.
Yes!
Being alive is dangerous. If I thought about it hard, I bet I could list 50 different ways that I might have died today. At least 50. The alternative? Sit inside a padded room at home wearing a Kevlar vest?
Life is dangerous. Live it free, and pursue your happiness. If you die by some quirk of fate, no regrets!
Your First Amendment rights are not absolute. The Founding Fathers never intended that and that has never been the case. Some things that you say have consequences, that is the way it is, has always been, and should be. Say threatening things, say things that make professionals think that you are a threat, or have the potential for threat then expect a short sojourn at a facility so that other professionals can evaluate the degree and veracity of your threat.
That sounds a little too statist to me. But I do agree with you, in part.
Obviously no one should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre, that old standard example. Free speech doesn't extend to starting a panic, or to private property.
But revolutionary speech must be protected, because men are born with unalienable Rights and:
" . . . . to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it . . . . . "
Now how could they go about abolishing a destructive government without the right to engage in revolutionary or seditious speech?
???????
When the state threatens the citizens, the citizens have the right to discuss threatening the state right back. Because they should be one and the same, the people and their government, operating through consent.
You want to know what this all boils down to? 11 words:
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
I'm going to attempt a disclaimer. I am calm and not here to hurt anybody. I do not intend to offend anyone.
Really? Please tell me more about what the forefathers intended? Highly unlikely that they intended it to mean free speech. You cannot have it both ways. Its a contradiction that wouldn't make sense. Ea i have the freedom of speech but only what the gov thinks is ok to say? Hard to believe that the same men who told Britton where to shove their gov are the same men that intend to write a law about free speech and put limitations on it. That is exactly what us wrong with stupid ****ing lawyers. They didn't leave the thing vague. Its got a period so you know exactly what it means. Freedom of speech. Nothing follows period.
You might want to bone up a bit, these are good places to start.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#2
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/07.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/10.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/11.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/12.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/13.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/14.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/17.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/18.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/20.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/21.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/21.html#2
You might want to bone up a bit, these are good places to start.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#2
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/07.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/10.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/11.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/12.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/13.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/14.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/17.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/18.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/20.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/21.html#1
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/21.html#2
That's my bad for wording wrong. I wasn't emotional toward your response. Moreso that the people have taken something and interpreted it completely wrong. I know what and how the judiciary branch defines the 1st amendment. That's what i don't agree with and not your post.
Eta: Thanks for putting all if that together tho. I feel bad if you were looking for an argument but you have none from me. I was merely stating what the law can only be interpreted as. Not what the judicial butchers have turned it into to. Thoughts are not crimes.
Eta2: also just because a judge rules one way or another doesn't make it constitutional. Hence my stupid ****ing lawyers comment. If your picking up what I'm putting down.
That's my bad for wording wrong. I wasn't emotional toward your response. Moreso that the people have taken something and interpreted it completely wrong. I know what and how the judiciary branch defines the 1st amendment. That's what i don't agree with and not your post.
Copy. Because someone else will post that "the Constitution is not open to interpretation, and must be read as written", that is yet another fallacy. When going back to the Framers' intent, Federalist #78, written by Alexander Hamilton contains this nugget,
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law."
The entire #78 can be read here,
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
Federalists. :rolleyes:
http://guerrillamerica.com/2012/08/five-reasons-to-hate-alexander-hamilton/
Moose-Knuckle
08-22-12, 01:29
Your First Amendment rights are not absolute. The Founding Fathers never intended that and that has never been the case.
Well now this speaks volumes.
Say threatening things, say things that make professionals think that you are a threat, or have the potential for threat then expect a short sojourn at a facility so that other professionals can evaluate the degree and veracity of your threat.
This is the same ideology of every jack booted thug throughout recorded history from the Pontiff's Inquisitors to Hitler's Gestapo.
davidjinks
08-22-12, 08:33
I'm going to agree with this 100%.
I stopped reading after the whole; world leaders sacrifice children in robes and rape children...
Bottom line; you don't want the attention don't post stupid shit. If you do post stupid shit, set your account to private so no one can read your stupid shit.
His Facebook wall is public and the posts he made are still there. He makes some pretty overt and unambiguous statements. You have to be an idiot to post shit like this to Facebook and expect it to go unnoticed by authorities, particularly in light of recent events.
https://www.facebook.com/brandon.raub#!/brandon.raub?sk=wall
davidjinks
08-22-12, 08:47
I agree with this Safetyhit. Very well put.
All societal circumstances considered, this man decided to draw attention to himself in a negative way while portraying himself as hostile and ready to kill. I feel much of his pain due to the fact that the current state of our union is indeed unsettling, but his particular path is not the one I would have chosen.
As some one who fills out a couple commitment petitions every day, I'll give you guys a little perspective on what it takes in NC (probably similar in VA) to get swept-up in the process. First, anyone can petition a magistrate for commitment of a subject, and family members or ER doctors are probably the most common petitioners in NC.
For a magistrate to sign-off on the paperwork, the petitioner must demonstrate that the person represents an imminent danger to themselves or others, and cannot reasonably survive without being committed. The most common situation that I see are people who make suicide threats or gestures, but another common reason is that someone is so decompensated in their mental illness that they cannot perform the basic functions of life (i.e. procure food, shelter, etc.). An example of the latter is someone with schizophrenia who will not cook food because the "colonel brings them chicken," or someone with bipolar who runs naked in a thunderstorm because they "can ride the lightning." Substance abuse alone is generally not sufficient for commitment unless it is coupled with other imminently dangerous activity.
This initial commitment petition authorizes law enforcement to detain then subject and bring them to a mental health professional for evaluation - usually the local ER. While in the ER, the subject will be screened for potential medical complications of the condition, and the ER doctor will also attempt to verify the content of the commitment and document their findings. If the initial commitment is verified by the ER doctor, the subject will usually be held at a psychiatric facility for up to 72-hours for further evaluation. Due to overcrowding issues, this often involves the subject being transferred to a nearby psychiatric hospital. In EVERY case that I've seen, this transfer is conducted by local law enforcement, and the subject is cuffed according to departmental policy while being transported. In addition, EVERY subject that has been brought to my ED by the police under petition has been cuffed according to department policy. Basically, the police NEVER transport committed subjects without cuffs due to officer safety concerns in my neck of the woods. On the other hand, I have released plenty of people from commitment due to insufficient findings, and the police take them back to their home without cuffs to go about their day.
The complicated part comes if the subject is still deemed to be a credible threat by a psychiatrist after the 72-hour period. In most states, the commitment can be extended, but the subject is authorized an hearing before a judge and will be provided legal representation. However, this varies from state to state and I'm not sure of VA's laws when it comes to extending this 72-hour initial period. However, a fairly consistent aspect of this process across the nation is that the police and criminal justice system have no role in this hearing - it is all determined by a judge, the subject, and the treating facility. Thus, it appears that this guy said something to the doctors during the course of his initial evaluation that caused them to seek a longer commitment. We will likely never know the doctor's side of the story due to HIPPA constraints. In addition, I've never known a doctor to seek a longer commitment to drive-up a bill (like someone suggested). Most of the pressure is on doctors to turn-over these very scarce beds, and most of these cases are uninsured money losers for the healthcare system.
There is one part of this story that seems to highlight a common theme that I encounter in my daily practice - people who are petitioned for making threats against someone else. This can also get tricky since threats against someone else are often not a manifestation of mental illness. For example, an angry husband who states that he wants to kill his bitch wife is more of a sociopath who belongs in the criminal justice system rather than being treated in a hospital. On the other hand, someone who hears voices telling them to kill their children would be in need of commitment.
I hope this helps the conversation. I have no real opinion on the case since I have no idea what he told the doctors when he got to the hospital.
montanadave
08-22-12, 09:34
Thus, it appears that this guy said something to the doctors during the course of his initial evaluation that caused them to seek a longer commitment. We will likely never know the doctor's side of the story due to HIPPA constraints.
And that's the missing piece that puts us all in the dark. Making generalized statements about a specific case without knowing the facts is a waste of time.
I hope this helps the conversation. I have no real opinion on the case since I have no idea what he told the doctors when he got to the hospital.
Thanks for your insights. And I agree, we don't know what he said or his behavior at the time he was assessed.
I'm going to agree with this 100%.
I stopped reading after the whole; world leaders sacrifice children in robes and rape children...
Bottom line; you don't want the attention don't post stupid shit. If you do post stupid shit, set your account to private so no one can read your stupid shit.
No kidding! The guy is either batshit or maybe just posting a bunch of conspiratorial garbage to get attention.
If you aren't batshit, don't post threats and stuff that makes you look batshit.
As some one who fills out a couple commitment petitions every day, I'll give you guys a little perspective on what it takes in NC (probably similar in VA) to get swept-up in the process. First, anyone can petition a magistrate for commitment of a subject, and family members or ER doctors are probably the most common petitioners in NC.
For a magistrate to sign-off on the paperwork, the petitioner must demonstrate that the person represents an imminent danger to themselves or others, and cannot reasonably survive without being committed. The most common situation that I see are people who make suicide threats or gestures, but another common reason is that someone is so decompensated in their mental illness that they cannot perform the basic functions of life (i.e. procure food, shelter, etc.). An example of the latter is someone with schizophrenia who will not cook food because the "colonel brings them chicken," or someone with bipolar who runs naked in a thunderstorm because they "can ride the lightning." Substance abuse alone is generally not sufficient for commitment unless it is coupled with other imminently dangerous activity.
This initial commitment petition authorizes law enforcement to detain then subject and bring them to a mental health professional for evaluation - usually the local ER. While in the ER, the subject will be screened for potential medical complications of the condition, and the ER doctor will also attempt to verify the content of the commitment and document their findings. If the initial commitment is verified by the ER doctor, the subject will usually be held at a psychiatric facility for up to 72-hours for further evaluation. Due to overcrowding issues, this often involves the subject being transferred to a nearby psychiatric hospital. In EVERY case that I've seen, this transfer is conducted by local law enforcement, and the subject is cuffed according to departmental policy while being transported. In addition, EVERY subject that has been brought to my ED by the police under petition has been cuffed according to department policy. Basically, the police NEVER transport committed subjects without cuffs due to officer safety concerns in my neck of the woods. On the other hand, I have released plenty of people from commitment due to insufficient findings, and the police take them back to their home without cuffs to go about their day.
The complicated part comes if the subject is still deemed to be a credible threat by a psychiatrist after the 72-hour period. In most states, the commitment can be extended, but the subject is authorized an hearing before a judge and will be provided legal representation. However, this varies from state to state and I'm not sure of VA's laws when it comes to extending this 72-hour initial period. However, a fairly consistent aspect of this process across the nations is that the police and criminal justice system have no role in this hearing - it is all determined by a judge, the subject, and the treating facility. Thus, it appears that this guy said something to the doctors during the course of his initial evaluation that caused them to seek a longer commitment. We will likely never know the doctor's side of the story due to HIPPA constraints. In addition, I've never known a doctor to seek a longer commitment to drive-up a bill (like someone suggested). Most of the pressure is on doctors to turn-over these very scarce beds, and most of these cases are uninsured money losers for the healthcare system.
There is one part of this story that seems to highlight a common theme that I encounter in my daily practice - people who are petitioned for making threats against someone else. This can also get tricky since threats against someone else are often not a manifestation of mental illness. For example, an angry husband who states that he wants to kill his bitch wife is more of a sociopath who belongs in the criminal justice system rather than being treated in a hospital. On the other hand, someone who hears voices telling them to kill their children would be in need of commitment.
I hope this helps the conversation. I have no real opinion on the case since I have no idea what he told the doctors when he got to the hospital.
Thanks for the insight from a medical perspective. Evidently he said something or did something that lead the examining physician to put him under observation. I'm guessing he was still pissed off as he was in the video of him being arrested and may have said some dumb things. Maybe it was a little knee-jerkish of the Police to detain and commit him but my guess is he wouldn't cooperate with them from the beginning and may have been standoffish. Well within his rights to do that but if he was saying some of the same crazy shit to the cops and getting all beside himself maybe it was warranted. We really don't know at this point. His family and his advocates are making this out to be a "kidnapping" so FWIW it's all been blown out of proportion by everyone involved.
I don't understand conspiratorial people that assume all doctors/psychiatrists and hospitals are just money hungry and are itching to commit people and dope them up on drugs. They don't think the VA is doing enough to help Vets but they also don't think psychotherapy is legit. So what do you do with people coming back with probable PTSD and the suicide rate is higher than the combat death rate?
BTW, from his own words in a telephone interview he isn't on any medication.
If there were grounds for an arrest, they'd have arrested him and called it an arrest. A judge could have ordered an evaluation while he was in custody. However, the various agencies involved are being adamant that it was not an arrest. Perhaps too much, methinks. The whole involuntary commitment matter sounds to me like an end-run around the inability to make an arrest. Don't think for a minute that with the USSS, FBI, and locals involved, when faced with the inability to make an arrest, someone didn't get creative and come up with this.
If there were grounds for an arrest, they'd have arrested him and called it an arrest. A judge could have ordered an evaluation while he was in custody. However, the various agencies involved are being adamant that it was not an arrest. Perhaps too much, methinks. The whole involuntary commitment matter sounds to me like an end-run around the inability to make an arrest. Don't think for a minute that with the USSS, FBI, and locals involved, when faced with the inability to make an arrest, someone didn't get creative and come up with this.
Or maybe they already had a pickup order on him? Or he said something along the lines of killing himself or someone else?
We dont really know anything about this case as the mental health aspect is covered under medical HIPPA laws.
@RWK
Why?
What is it about him or the Government's agenda that the SS, FBI, Local PD, Doctors, Judges,,,, all got together and said yep, we need to draw national attention to ourselves in this manner. He's perfect, he's got the FB thing going so it will go international too. He's a basic white guy, former Mil, flag waving, from a basic little town and there is absolutely nothing going on out of the ordinary.
Why?
Yes, goddamn it. Freedom is dangerous. That's the nature of it.
Yep. One of the problems it too many people confuse freedom with freedom from worry.
The_War_Wagon
08-22-12, 12:09
UNLESS one is a reservist, don't you revert to "gentleman civilian" upon discharge?
If he was posting classified material on-line, that would be ONE thing, but don't you get your own opinions and free speech BACK after leaving the service? :confused:
If there were grounds for an arrest, they'd have arrested him and called it an arrest. A judge could have ordered an evaluation while he was in custody. However, the various agencies involved are being adamant that it was not an arrest. Perhaps too much, methinks. The whole involuntary commitment matter sounds to me like an end-run around the inability to make an arrest. Don't think for a minute that with the USSS, FBI, and locals involved, when faced with the inability to make an arrest, someone didn't get creative and come up with this.
I don't think that you understand the commitment process if you are implying that the FBI, USSS, and local police conspired to get him placed in a psychiatric hospital. The cops can only deliver the subject to the medical facility for evaluation. It takes a psychiatrist to get the initial psych hold extended for 30 days (at least in the state of NC).
Personally, I've never seen commitment paperwork that has been initiated by the police, FBI, or USSS. Every case that I see happens one of 2 ways: 1) family members complete the paperwork that is signed off by a magistrate, or 2) the subject is brought to the hospital by EMS/POV and the ER physician initiates the commitment. In the first instance, the police are simply complying with a court order to deliver the subject to a mental health profession (i.e. ER doctor) who will either validate the commitment for the 72-hour hold or terminate the proceedings and release the subject.
The second way is a little more shady in that police are involved, but it is always the EMS or a family that brings the person to the ER. Almost every one of these people tell me that the police gave them them the option of going to the ER with the paramedics or going to jail with them. The common example is a drug abuser who threatens his family and tears up their house. The cops really don't want to the deal with the guy, and the family wants him to get substance abuse treatment. So, the cops threaten the guy with jail if he does not go to the ED for help with this various "problems." Once the subject agrees to go to the ER, the paramedics are called for transportation and the cops go back to eating doughnuts. Inevitably, the ER either commits the subject if there is some element of mental illness, or release them once sober to terrorize their neighbors the next time the coke is cut too strong.
Bottom line, there is really no place in NC law for the police to shaft someone with a psychiatric commitment instead of an arrest since the final determiner after 72-hours is a judge and the physician. The cops have no role beyond delivering the person to an ER. I'd be very surprised if VA is much different.
I don't think that you understand the commitment process if you are implying that the FBI, USSS, and local police conspired to get him placed in a psychiatric hospital. The cops can only deliver the subject to the medical facility for evaluation. It takes a psychiatrist to get the initial psych hold extended for 30 days (at least in the state of NC).
Personally, I've never seen commitment paperwork that has been initiated by the police, FBI, or USSS. Every case that I see happens one of 2 ways: 1) family members complete the paperwork that is signed off by a magistrate, or 2) the subject is brought to the hospital by EMS/POV and the ER physician initiates the commitment. In the first instance, the police are simply complying with a court order to deliver the subject to a mental health profession (i.e. ER doctor) who will either validate the commitment for the 72-hour hold or terminate the proceedings and release the subject.
The second way is a little more shady in that police are involved, but it is always the EMS or a family that brings the person to the ER. Almost every one of these people tell me that the police gave them them the option of going to the ER with the paramedics or going to jail with them. The common example is a drug abuser who threatens his family and tears up their house. The cops really don't want to the deal with the guy, and the family wants him to get substance abuse treatment. So, the cops threaten the guy with jail if he does not go to the ED for help with this various "problems." Once the subject agrees to go to the ER, the paramedics are called for transportation and the cops go back to eating doughnuts. Inevitably, the ER either commits the subject if there is some element of mental illness, or release them once sober to terrorize their neighbors the next time the coke is cut too strong.
Bottom line, there is really no place in NC law for the police to shaft someone with a psychiatric commitment instead of an arrest since the final determiner after 72-hours is a judge and the physician. The cops have no role beyond delivering the person to an ER. I'd be very surprised if VA is much different.
Im a LEO in Az and I have committed a couple people before. But those were times where people had either attempted suicide or told me they were going to kill themselves.
ETA: I should say I filled out the commitment petition.
I certainly feel for the man. He's VERY pissed about the state of things. I don't blame him a bit for that.
It must be an unknown as to why he's still under commitment. As Sensei said, we don't know what he did offline, only online.
Im a LEO in Az and I have committed a couple people before. But those were times where people had either attempted suicide or told me they were going to kill themselves.
ETA: I should say I filled out the commitment petition.
i'm sure it happens at times. LOE initiated commitments are very very rare in my neck of the woods. in fact, I can't recall a single instance during my 6 years in NC. I recall 1 instance when a Columbus, GA cop initiated a proceeding against a Ft. Benning soldier who tried to jump off a ridge and brought him to Martin Army Hospital. That was last year when I got deployed to Ft. Benning and spent most of my time sifting through recruits who were sent to the ER because hey could not handle basic training.
i'm sure it happens at times. LOE initiated commitments are very very rare in my neck of the woods. in fact, I can't recall a single instance during my 6 years in NC. I recall 1 instance when a Columbus, GA cop initiated a proceeding against a Ft. Benning soldier who tried to jump off a ridge and brought him to Martin Army Hospital. That was last year when I got deployed to Ft. Benning and spent most of my time sifting through recruits who were sent to the ER because hey could not handle basic training.
Im sorry you had to work there. I was stationed at Benning and have bad experiences with that hospital. Also didnt care for Columbus much either.
Im sorry you had to work there. I was stationed at Benning and have bad experiences with that hospital. Also didnt care for Columbus much either.
C-Grunt, PM sent my friend ;)
Or maybe they already had a pickup order on him? Or he said something along the lines of killing himself or someone else?
My understanding of the timeline is that the commitment order came last in a series of events, and that the agencies involved had already determined that they had nothing over which to arrest him. Is there something I missed?
I suppose we'll all know more about this as the the coming lawsuit plays out.
What is it about him or the Government's agenda that the SS, FBI, Local PD, Doctors, Judges,,,, all got together and said yep, we need to draw national attention to ourselves in this manner. He's perfect, he's got the FB thing going so it will go international too. He's a basic white guy, former Mil, flag waving, from a basic little town and there is absolutely nothing going on out of the ordinary.
Nobody ever intends for these things to blow up in their face. It just happens sometimes. It's a safe bet that none of the persons at any of the agencies involved ever thought this would go national.
I don't think there's any grand conspiracy at work. I do however, think that based upon what's out there to date, there's a high likelihood that at least one of the persons from at least one of the agencies, when faced with the inability to make an arrest, said "hey, I've got an idea...". Some of the agencies trying to create space by saying "it wasn't us" and "we didn't arrest him, he was detained", raises eyebrows. Usually they're falling all over themselves racing to the podium to take ownership.
I don't think that you understand the commitment process if you are implying that the FBI, USSS, and local police conspired to get him placed in a psychiatric hospital. The cops can only deliver the subject to the medical facility for evaluation. It takes a psychiatrist to get the initial psych hold extended for 30 days (at least in the state of NC).
Part of my job involves threat and violence risk assessment. I'm familiar with the commitment process, or lack thereof in some cases, in quite a few jurisdictions.
Bottom line, there is really no place in NC law for the police to shaft someone with a psychiatric commitment instead of an arrest since the final determiner after 72-hours is a judge and the physician.
Back up a step though, and look through a wider-angle lens. It only takes a magistrate to issue an order for an emergency detention and, as you said, "get swept-up in the process". In the current boogeyman climate in the wake of the Aurora shootings, with your typical magistrate having absolutely zero training or experience in threat or violence risk assessment, I say you'd have a hard time finding a magistrate who wouldn't have signed the order. Once someone is in the system, the counselors and administrators are so paranoid over liability that again, I say you'd have a hard time finding someone who wouldn't say he needed to be held onto for 30 days. Now that he has been ordered held, his ability to legally own firearms is gone. So, is the end result not "mission accomplished" as far as the investigators are concerned? He's in custody and he's disarmed simply by getting him into the system. And all without having to meet any standard of proof required for an arrest.
i'm sure it happens at times. LOE initiated commitments are very very rare in my neck of the woods. in fact, I can't recall a single instance during my 6 years in NC.
Exactly. Which is why this immediately raises an eyebrow. Normally they tend to come up with any excuse to not get involved.
Well, I understand that but some of this is still ongoing even after it has gone International... He was just sent to VA hospital yesterday.
The Judge could have just said.... guys... you really ****ed this up... send that man home... and Mr. Raub... think about what you are posting on FB next time and how it might be mis-read.
But.... he didn't. It's like others have said we can only hear a biased one sided view from him, his mother and lawyer, because the other side is protected medical information.
That's why I think the answer to the "why?" is indeed legitimate medical in nature.
Again his lawyer is being interviewed sometime today on...
http://www.1140wrva.com/main.html
Sometime between 3:00 - 6:00 eastern. They are kicking off it with it now at 3:00.
That was quick.....
Question - what went wrong.
Lawyer - they should have called me first... I would have read the FB postings and told them to get a search warrant and do this right. It was all shoddy police work.
Lawyer - They should have showed up with a psychologist on site. But he was detained and had some 15 minute interview ( even though Raub himself said it was 20 -25 minutes )
Question - do you know who interviewed him for this initial 15 minute eval.
Lawyer - No.
Lawyer also admitted he doesn't know how a lot of that FB stuff works.
Lawyer - We live in a surveillance society. All your emails, tweets, FB go to the government.
I have paraphrased above but that's basically what he said.
I don't see this one going away any time soon.....
Apparently Vet's especially 911 Truthers across the country are having this happen-- again according to Lawyer.
The Judge could have just said.... guys... you really ****ed this up... send that man home... and Mr. Raub... think about what you are posting on FB next time and how it might be mis-read.
It's important to note that, in Virginia, an emergency commitment order is issued by a magistrate, not a judge. A magistrate is what's often referred to in other places as a justice of the peace.
Here's this tidbit: "Chesterfield police said in a statement Monday that county mental health crisis intervention workers had recommended that police take Raub into emergency custody so that he could be evaluated.
A county mental health official determined Raub should be held under a temporary detention order, and he was transported to the Hopewell center."
So, how did they become involved if the family didn't contact them?
It's important to note that, in Virginia, an emergency commitment order is issued by a magistrate, not a judge. A magistrate is what's often referred to in other places as a justice of the peace.
Here's this tidbit: "Chesterfield police said in a statement Monday that county mental health crisis intervention workers had recommended that police take Raub into emergency custody so that he could be evaluated.
A county mental health official determined Raub should be held under a temporary detention order, and he was transported to the Hopewell center."
So, how did they become involved if the family didn't contact them?
It's my understanding that concerned citizens reported the Facebook posts.
The family seems to have done no contacting of anyone and believes he was "kidnapped."
@RWK
I'm talking about what this Judge did yesterday.
I agree with you. Let's say everybody ****ed up on the 16th.
How do you explain this?
"A judge has refused a request to stop a Virginia veteran detained for radical anti-government Facebook posts from being moved to a psychiatric ward three hours from his home."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-refuses-stop-transfer-detained-va-vet-17053712
Why didn't he set the record straight and send everyone on their way?
@RWK
I'm talking about what this Judge did yesterday.
I agree with you. Let's say everybody ****ed up on the 16th.
How do you explain this?
"A judge has refused a request to stop a Virginia veteran detained for radical anti-government Facebook posts from being moved to a psychiatric ward three hours from his home."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-refuses-stop-transfer-detained-va-vet-17053712
Why didn't he set the record straight and send everyone on their way?
Despite our most idealistic wishes, that's not how the court system works. The judge heard a motion filed by Raub's lawyer to keep him locally and not be sent across the state. That's all. The judge would not have heard anything about the merits of the detention. Raub is now, as Sensei put it "swept-up in the process". The argument presented by the other side is that they don't have the facilities locally to hold him unless he voluntarily commits himself and that he would receive better care in the other facility. You can interpret that however you like.
I see... ok.... I was under the impression this Judge was reviewing the whole ordeal.
From Salem VA Hospital
"Confidentiality
Mental health services are confidential. We will not talk to anyone about information you share unless you give written consent. Under federal law, a few exceptions to this rule exist. If you have questions, please ask your mental health consultant."
Haven't seen this posted yet.....
"The Richmond Times Dispatch quoted an Internet posting by a former platoon commander, Sean Lawlor, who served with Raub in Iraq. The paper said that Lawlor called Raub an “excellent Marine” but quoted Lawlor as also saying, “Knowing the man that he is, I believe that he fully intended to act on the threats he was posting…We may never know, but the fact that law enforcement intervened may have kept Brandon from doing something extremely destructive.”"
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/former-marine-detained-after-alleged-facebook-threats/
So we have a former Marine Reservist saying the time is here, I know you think I'm crazy, but I'm going to do this.
Then we have a former Marine Platoon Commander saying yep, I know him, he would do it.
Other reports state Lawlor was indeed Raub's commander.
Haven't seen this posted yet.....
"The Richmond Times Dispatch quoted an Internet posting by a former platoon commander, Sean Lawlor, who served with Raub in Iraq. The paper said that Lawlor called Raub an “excellent Marine” but quoted Lawlor as also saying, “Knowing the man that he is, I believe that he fully intended to act on the threats he was posting…We may never know, but the fact that law enforcement intervened may have kept Brandon from doing something extremely destructive.”"
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/former-marine-detained-after-alleged-facebook-threats/
So we have a former Marine Reservist saying the time is here, I know you think I'm crazy, but I'm going to do this.
Then we have a former Marine Platoon Commander saying yep, I know him, he would do it.
Other reports state Lawlor was indeed Raub's commander.
They'll say he's bought and paid for and has an agenda :rolleyes:
I know the paranoia that exists here about the govt. being able to trump up charges and take your guns away but how many of you would be comfortable with a neighbor that is saying 911 was a nano-thermite inside job, a missile hit the Pentagon - not a plane, the government and the Bush's are baby rapers, have white robe child sacrifices, and they intend to implant microchips in all of us?
Then we have a former Marine Platoon Commander saying yep, I know him, he would do it.
Well, if a former platoon commander says it, it must be true, right? Being a Marine platoon commander makes him no more qualified to give a professional opinion on the matter than the kid at your local supermarket checkout. Maybe he has useful information to contribute; maybe he doesn't. That would be for a professional to determine based upon interviews with him. Until then what you have is the media generating background noise.
If this case has sparked an interest in you learning more about threat and violence risk assessment, I recommend you buy and read Violence Assessment and Intervention: The Practitioner's Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Assessment-Intervention-Practitioners-Handbook/dp/1420071122) for starters.
...how many of you would be comfortable with a neighbor that is saying 911 was a nano-thermite inside job, a missile hit the Pentagon - not a plane, the government and the Bush's are baby rapers, have white robe child sacrifices, and they intend to implant microchips in all of us?
Since when is a discomforted neighbor grounds for arrest and involuntary commitment?
Despite our most idealistic wishes, that's not how the court system works. The judge heard a motion filed by Raub's lawyer to keep him locally and not be sent across the state. That's all. The judge would not have heard anything about the merits of the detention. Raub is now, as Sensei put it "swept-up in the process". The argument presented by the other side is that they don't have the facilities locally to hold him unless he voluntarily commits himself and that he would receive better care in the other facility. You can interpret that however you like.
This is actually very common. I live in Charlotte and we routinely send people to Asheville and Greensboro for in-patient psychiatric treatment. It all depends on the availability of psych beds at the time. Complicating the process, not all psych beds are equal as some facilities are not able to handle violent individuals or flight risks.
At times, it is so bad that we hold people in the ED for 24-48 hours while we look for a facility to begin their treatment. Occasionally, we have a psychiatrist come to the ED if we are approaching the 48-hr mark. As you can imagine, this is a huge risk to everyone as manifested by this incident:
http://www.gastongazette.com/articles/hospital-71885-woman-gillespie.html
Fortunately, I was not working that day :eek:
Since when is a discomforted neighbor grounds for arrest and involuntary commitment?
I never suggested it was. I just asked if you would be comfortable with such a neighbor or would it concern you?
Would you possibly consider reporting it to someone who is qualified to make a threat assessment?
Since when is a discomforted neighbor grounds for arrest and involuntary commitment?
Actually being a 9/11-Truther is not grounds for commitment. This line of thinking is called a personality disorder. Specifically, it is mostly the paranoid type of disorder with a touch of schizotypal for added flavor (both in the Cluster A category). We all have some elements of various personality disorders, but only the most severe get the diagnosis since in significantly impacts their life.
It does not really become committable until there is such delusions or disorganized thinking that acute psychosis can be diagnosed. Even then, you have to show that the psychosis prevents the subject for caring for themselves or represents a danger to others in order to commitment a subject. That is to say, there are plenty of psychotic people walking around the US, but they are not committable because they are stable in their psychosis and able to meet their own basic care needs.
Based on what I've seen from his FB page, most of it his pathology is personality disorder that needs treatment, but not involuntary commitment. However, some of it (vapor trails being govt poison) are clearly delusions and may represent an acute psychosis. This, coupled with threats towards others, especially govt officials (the commonality between the delusions and the threats is significant and important), is probably enough to get your average ER doc to sign the clinician portion of a 72-hr hold. This is especially true if there is some evidence that the subject is preparing to act on those threats.
This is actually very common. I live in Charlotte and we routinely send people to Asheville and Greensboro for in-patient psychiatric treatment.
We have 3 VA hospitals. The one he's going to in Salem. McGuire in Richmond ( which if he escaped from that one at night he would probably get killed trying to get home ) Not a great part of town. ,...and Hampton.
It's possible.. because of UVA that there are some better doctors up there. I think there are a few psych type facilities up there. I have no idea what the one in Hampton is like but if you asked me if I wanted to go to McGuire or Salem.... I would take Salem sight unseen in a heartbeat.
Would you possibly consider reporting it to someone who is qualified to make a threat assessment?
From what I've read so far, probably not. I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that he's an imminent danger.
This, coupled with threats towards others, especially govt officials (the commonality between the delusions and the threats is significant and important), is probably enough to get your average ER doc to sign the clinician portion of a 72-hr hold. This is especially true if there is some evidence that the subject is preparing to act on those threats.
Absolutely. If a person is taking steps to further the goal of their threats, then they have crossed a threshold and are quite potentially dangerous; where thought begins turning to action, so to speak. The idea that a threat against a public official in and of itself automatically elevates the level of risk is way overblown. In fact, it's the opposite. Threats against a spouse, co-worker, classmate, etc. are much more likely to be acted upon than threats against distant, anonymous, largely inaccessible public figures. There is an observed correlation between interpersonal relationships and the credibility (likelihood of violence) of threats. Likewise, there is an observed lack where there is no relationship.
If any of the three agencies involved had information that he was an imminent threat to someone, why didn't they take him into custody right then, call it an arrest, and take him in front of a judge to have an eval ordered? He apparently didn't make the cut for them to send a SWAT team to pick him up. They also apparently had time to go consult with someone and then obtain an emergency commitment order. I'm just not picking up on the imminence vibe here. Given the insistence that it wasn't an arrest (again nobody rushed to the podium to take ownership of thwarting another potential massacre), the current boogeyman climate (again passing up an opportunity for podium-time), and coupled with being admittedly jaded through professional experience, I just have to question whether or not this was a case of doing anything to "get their man". Not making accusations but, there are questions.
They'll say he's bought and paid for and has an agenda :rolleyes:
I know the paranoia that exists here about the govt. being able to trump up charges and take your guns away but how many of you would be comfortable with a neighbor that is saying 911 was a nano-thermite inside job, a missile hit the Pentagon - not a plane, the government and the Bush's are baby rapers, have white robe child sacrifices, and they intend to implant microchips in all of us?
NONE of that would bother me any more than those who believe everything on TV.
Why would it scare you that people are trying to draw their own conclusions even of they are incorrect?
As long as they aren't stockpiling weapons and threatening anyone tell me WHY should I be at all concerned?
QuietShootr
08-22-12, 18:48
Haven't seen this posted yet.....
"The Richmond Times Dispatch quoted an Internet posting by a former platoon commander, Sean Lawlor, who served with Raub in Iraq. The paper said that Lawlor called Raub an “excellent Marine” but quoted Lawlor as also saying, “Knowing the man that he is, I believe that he fully intended to act on the threats he was posting…We may never know, but the fact that law enforcement intervened may have kept Brandon from doing something extremely destructive.”"
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/former-marine-detained-after-alleged-facebook-threats/
So we have a former Marine Reservist saying the time is here, I know you think I'm crazy, but I'm going to do this.
Then we have a former Marine Platoon Commander saying yep, I know him, he would do it.
Other reports state Lawlor was indeed Raub's commander.
http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-50863389838911_2224_108694850
QuietShootr
08-22-12, 18:49
I never suggested it was. I just asked if you would be comfortable with such a neighbor or would it concern you?
Would you possibly consider reporting it to someone who is qualified to make a threat assessment?
If he didn't disturb my peace, I'd mind my own ****ing business. And I bet a guy like that would leave me completely alone in return.
QuietShootr
08-22-12, 18:51
NONE of that would bother me any more than those who believe everything on TV.
Why would it scare you that people are trying to draw their own conclusions even of they are incorrect?
As long as they aren't stockpiling weapons and threatening anyone tell me WHY should I be at all concerned?
Exactly, except I couldn't give a shit less if they ARE "stockpiling weapons". Most of us here "stockpile weapons". The thing the media and everyone else seems to forget is who gives a shit if I own one AR15 or 100 AR15s? I can only shoot one of them at a time.
QuietShootr
08-22-12, 18:54
Actually being a 9/11-Truther is not grounds for commitment. This line of thinking is called a personality disorder. Specifically, it is mostly the paranoid type of disorder with a touch of schizotypal for added flavor (both in the Cluster A category). We all have some elements of various personality disorders, but only the most severe get the diagnosis since in significantly impacts their life.
It does not really become committable until there is such delusions or disorganized thinking that acute psychosis can be diagnosed. Even then, you have to show that the psychosis prevents the subject for caring for themselves or represents a danger to others in order to commitment a subject. That is to say, there are plenty of psychotic people walking around the US, but they are not committable because they are stable in their psychosis and able to meet their own basic care needs.
Based on what I've seen from his FB page, most of it his pathology is personality disorder that needs treatment, but not involuntary commitment. However, some of it (vapor trails being govt poison) are clearly delusions and may represent an acute psychosis. This, coupled with threats towards others, especially govt officials (the commonality between the delusions and the threats is significant and important), is probably enough to get your average ER doc to sign the clinician portion of a 72-hr hold. This is especially true if there is some evidence that the subject is preparing to act on those threats.
And, let's not forget, the definition of a mental illness is often very subjective and depends on the observer. For example, there are a lot of people who think that anyone who carries a loaded gun with them 24/7 is paranoid and possibly delusional. If you didn't like guns, Doctor, you could certainly make that case long enough to cause somebody some trouble.
Exactly, except I couldn't give a shit less if they ARE "stockpiling weapons". Most of us here "stockpile weapons". The thing the media and everyone else seems to forget is who gives a shit if I own one AR15 or 100 AR15s? I can only shoot one of them at a time.
If they are making threats with the means to back them up only then am I concerned. Perhaps I should have used better prose.
I agree with you.
I read his post and i got the impression he was talking about the ordeal of getting people out to Vote....right?
It is all how you look at it. The lib-tards are going to use everything to further their agenda. Hell, if he said he loved puppies they would say he was into bestiality. They are just emotional ass clowns.
http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-50863389838911_2224_108694850
****ing cracks me up. Buddy ****er alright. For what its worth all of my army buddies would talk about murdering someone too. I'm sure alot was going on when Congress took a month of undated of paying a defense budget. Do they talk about it. You betcha would they actively pursue or put in the work to murder someone? No easy unless it was defense. In conclusion we've all said something like this at some point. Not so much the cracked out tinfoil hat stuff but that's not what this is about anyway. I had a squad ldr that would come up with the most ****ed up elaborate ways he wished a person would die. He did it to be funny. He would pass an evall in a heartbeat. This guy said something else to the doc to get an extended stay.
Actually being a 9/11-Truther is not grounds for commitment. This line of thinking is called a personality disorder. Specifically, it is mostly the paranoid type of disorder with a touch of schizotypal for added flavor (both in the Cluster A category). We all have some elements of various personality disorders, but only the most severe get the diagnosis since in significantly impacts their life.
It does not really become committable until there is such delusions or disorganized thinking that acute psychosis can be diagnosed. Even then, you have to show that the psychosis prevents the subject for caring for themselves or represents a danger to others in order to commitment a subject. That is to say, there are plenty of psychotic people walking around the US, but they are not committable because they are stable in their psychosis and able to meet their own basic care needs.
Based on what I've seen from his FB page, most of it his pathology is personality disorder that needs treatment, but not involuntary commitment. However, some of it (vapor trails being govt poison) are clearly delusions and may represent an acute psychosis. This, coupled with threats towards others, especially govt officials (the commonality between the delusions and the threats is significant and important), is probably enough to get your average ER doc to sign the clinician portion of a 72-hr hold. This is especially true if there is some evidence that the subject is preparing to act on those threats.
I realize many different factors are at play in the mind of someone that's potentially mentally ill but what scale if any would you guess his delusions are a manifestation of PTSD or other illness?
NONE of that would bother me any more than those who believe everything on TV.
Why would it scare you that people are trying to draw their own conclusions even of they are incorrect?
As long as they aren't stockpiling weapons and threatening anyone tell me WHY should I be at all concerned?
I see what you're saying about crazy shit people say all the time especially the large group of truthers. I could've perhaps worded my statement better to show that I meant he's shown an escalating pattern of delusions beginning with 911 and at some point the Bush's or whomever in white robes raping and sacrificing children and to top it off the govt. is poisoning us with vapor trails. All that combined with his threats to act on government officials seems to me to be possible mental illness escalating to action. Like I said, maybe he's ready to act or is just an internet tough guy...we'll never know.
We have 3 VA hospitals. The one he's going to in Salem. McGuire in Richmond ( which if he escaped from that one at night he would probably get killed trying to get home ) Not a great part of town...
Yea, I went to MVC in Richmond and rotated through McGuire for my 3rd year internal medicine and neurology clerkships. I'd hold my G22 close when I drove back to Tobacco Row on Hull St. every night. I always considered stopping at red lights to be...shall we say - optional :secret:
And, let's not forget, the definition of a mental illness is often very subjective and depends on the observer. For example, there are a lot of people who think that anyone who carries a loaded gun with them 24/7 is paranoid and possibly delusional. If you didn't like guns, Doctor, you could certainly make that case long enough to cause somebody some trouble.
As for this case, I suspect that Raub is mentally ill at the time he was committed. He appears to be the right age for an initial psychotic break, and some of his FB postings are delusional. His labeling of plane vapor trails being government poison is a classic paranoid delusions. Only time will tell if he meets the criteria for an affective disorder (i.e. schizoprenia), a mood disorder with psychotic features, or perhaps he recovers without ever having a recurrance. However, I'm not sure that his illness is such that it requires commitment since I'm not privy to the medical record.
I realize many different factors are at play in the mind of someone that's potentially mentally ill but what scale if any would you guess his delusions are a manifestation of PTSD or other illness?
There is no way to know this while armchair quarterbacking this from afar. However, delusions and other forms of psychosis are not a common manefistation of PTSD or traumatic brain injury. Hyper-vigilance, reliving traumatic experiences, poor sleep, substance abuse, etc. are more common manifestations of PTSD.
VooDoo6Actual
08-22-12, 19:56
Action Figure Therapy might be in order for him...
Why I became a Marine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSvmWZZv4k&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXQnl_99FuI&feature=em-share_video_user
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/teehee321/blue-falcon.jpg
Ok, somebody tell what the eagle means.... :confused:
It's a Blue Falcon which stands for Buddy ****er. Someone who screws over another person for personal gain or gets them in trouble for something that wasn't their fault. Common term in the military.
Damn... ok..... man... the plot thickens....
Man if this keeps going on, we may indeed never see this guy again.... holy cow.
Yea, I went to MVC in Richmond and rotated through McGuire for my 3rd year internal medicine and neurology clerkships. I'd hold my G22 close when I drove back to Tobacco Row on Hull St. every night. I always considered stopping at red lights to be...shall we say - optional :secret:
And yet there always seems to be some young coed jogging across the bridge to Church Hill after dark. :blink:
As for this case, I suspect that Raub is mentally ill at the time he was committed. He appears to be the right age for an initial psychotic break, and some of his FB postings are delusional. His labeling of plane vapor trails being government poison is a classic paranoid delusions. Only time will tell if he meets the criteria for an affective disorder (i.e. schizoprenia), a mood disorder with psychotic features, or perhaps he recovers without ever having a recurrance. However, I'm not sure that his illness is such that it requires commitment since I'm not privy to the medical record.
This I totally agree with. We can only guess about whether the involuntary part was warranted or not. However, the problem I have with the situation is his family and friends should have known, assuming they were following his posts, that he needed at least a little mental help. Based on interviews with them, his thoughts weren't a secret.
Correct me if I'm wrong but voluntary admission and release wouldn't affect his gun rights unless he was found to have a severe psychosis or debilitation. However, AFAIK his friends and family seem to be implying if not stating directly nothing's wrong with him and the police should've never bothered him. Just based off his delusions alone, it appears they're not the most impartial judges of his well being and maybe the involuntary commitment was warranted.
Threats to generals, while I think it would be overcharging in this case, could be prosecuted as at least a federal class D felony. If the feds wanted to trump up some charges why didn't they say "yep, you threatened generals. You're going down buddy."
There is no way to know this while armchair quarterbacking this from afar. However, delusions and other forms of psychosis are not a common manefistation of PTSD or traumatic brain injury. Hyper-vigilance, reliving traumatic experiences, poor sleep, substance abuse, etc. are more common manifestations of PTSD.
Plus from what I understand he wanted to reenlist not too terribly long after he got back. I'd think that would be the last thing he'd want to do if he is so anti government and awakened by the wars which leads me to believe if true something else isn't quite right with him. Maybe he could've been planning something while deployed. Wild speculation of course.
...delusions and other forms of psychosis are not a common manefistation of PTSD or traumatic brain injury.
There is, however, research and observation that supports a correlation between traumatic head/brain injuries and violence committed by persons who make threats. A question that an investigator should always ask is whether or not the subject has suffered a traumatic head/brain injury. It's a contributing factor that should be taken into consideration along with everything else that goes into conducting a risk assessment.
Moose-Knuckle
08-22-12, 21:19
And, let's not forget, the definition of a mental illness is often very subjective and depends on the observer. For example, there are a lot of people who think that anyone who carries a loaded gun with them 24/7 is paranoid and possibly delusional. If you didn't like guns, Doctor, you could certainly make that case long enough to cause somebody some trouble.
"Most people with major mental illness don't believe in conspiracy theories," said Dr. Ken Duckworth, medical director of the National Alliance of Mental Illness.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=6443988&page=1
However the likes of Obama and Holder would have us believe that if you question the status que you are in fact mentally ill. This as they say is a clue. ;)
Correct me if I'm wrong but voluntary admission and release wouldn't affect his gun rights unless he was found to have a severe psychosis or debilitation.
That's generally correct. However, that ship sailed the minute he was involuntarily committed.
Threats to generals, while I think it would be overcharging in this case, could be prosecuted as at least a federal class D felony. If the feds wanted to trump up some charges why didn't they say "yep, you threatened generals. You're going down buddy."
I'd be very surprised if they didn't cover everything they could think of with the AUSA and Commonwealth's Attorney (Virginia's version of a DA). According to their own statements, nobody had anything they could charge him with.
From his Mother
He knew that when he spoke up something like this could happen. He sensed it was coming, and yet he knew he had not just a First Amendment protected right, but also a DUTY to speak out.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48981
If they are making threats with the means to back them up only then am I concerned. Perhaps I should have used better prose.
I agree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_%28law%29
Somewhere along the way, particularly since 9/11, we seem to have forgotten this formula. It's not iron clad, but it's certainly not as abstract and archaic as some would have us believe. :(
I don't get the drumbeat label of "delusional" regarding his posts if vapor trails and 9/11, etc. There are a lot of people who believe in weird stuff like ghosts, aliens, reincarnation, bigfoot, etc and they get along just fine. I've just never heard of someone committed for interwebz postings with no behavior problems. What freaking behavior other than speech is this guy a danger?
I don't get the drumbeat label of "delusional" regarding his posts if vapor trails and 9/11, etc. There are a lot of people who believe in weird stuff like ghosts, aliens, reincarnation, bigfoot, etc and they get along just fine. I've just never heard of someone committed for interwebz postings with no behavior problems. What freaking behavior other than speech is this guy a danger?
Basic chain of events,
Former jarhead makes spurious posts.
Someone sees posts, does not like posts, reports posts.
Police/USSS/FBI go to talk to former jarhead about the posts.
Former jarhead says something that trips the "mental" flag.
Police call mental health professionals, MHPs say, "bring him in", police do so.
Magistrate listens to MHPs, then says you need/get 30 days to evaluate jarhead.
The FB Posts didn't get jarhead the 30 day mental health stay, the subsequent encounter/interview did.
I know the paranoia that exists here about the govt. being able to trump up charges and take your guns away but how many of you would be comfortable with a neighbor that is saying 911 was a nano-thermite inside job, a missile hit the Pentagon - not a plane, the government and the Bush's are baby rapers, have white robe child sacrifices, and they intend to implant microchips in all of us?
I'm sorry, but compared to the legions of certified moon-bats that infest the "lunatic fringed tinged" loon sites, such as Alex Jones Prison Planet.com, Art Bell, or the fairy that took over for Art Bell, and the Democratic Underground, I'm left fairly comfortable with Mr Raub....:dance3:
Alex jones/ infowars talks about everything Raub was saying. 9/11 conspiracy, Chemtrails, mock human sacrifice in the woods at Bohemian grove (this one is actually true)
It's pretty apparent Raub was an infowarrior
I'm sorry, but compared to the legions of certified moon-bats that infest the "lunatic fringed tinged" loon sites, such as Alex Jones Prison Planet.com, Art Bell, or the fairy that took over for Art Bell, and the Democratic Underground, I'm left fairly comfortable with Mr Raub....:dance3:
Alex jones/ infowars talks about everything Raub was saying. 9/11 conspiracy, Chemtrails, mock human sacrifice in the woods at Bohemian grove (this one is actually true)
It's pretty apparent Raub was an infowarrior
Yep he's parroted line for line things Alex Jones has said so actually he is one of those "certified moon-bats"
If those rich white guys didn't rape and kill children in ritual sacrifices...where's the proof! :lol:
QuietShootr
08-23-12, 10:04
****ing cracks me up. Buddy ****er alright. For what its worth all of my army buddies would talk about murdering someone too. I'm sure alot was going on when Congress took a month of undated of paying a defense budget. Do they talk about it. You betcha would they actively pursue or put in the work to murder someone? No easy unless it was defense. In conclusion we've all said something like this at some point. Not so much the cracked out tinfoil hat stuff but that's not what this is about anyway. I had a squad ldr that would come up with the most ****ed up elaborate ways he wished a person would die. He did it to be funny. He would pass an evall in a heartbeat.
****in' A right. Raise your hand if you're an 11B and NEVER participated in a "you know how ****in' easy it would be for us to knock off a bank?" conversation in the field?
****in' A right. Raise your hand if you're an 11B and NEVER participated in a "you know how ****in' easy it would be for us to knock off a bank?" conversation in the field?
This guy would literally take an hr to describe how he wishes someone who pisses him off would die. For example "i hope that mother ****er gets drug by a pack if mangy wolves through a field of pig shit hitting every fence post on the line seriously cutting his nut sack open on barbed wire which attract vultures to chew his balls and gets a sliver in his ass from a post and dies of staff infection. That kinda shit. He was out there. I've robbed many a bank in my head. Haha
Released
http://wtvr.com/2012/08/23/brandon-raub-judge-orders-release-of-detained-marine-veteran-freed/
Good to hear. It restores my faith in our government a hair. Sounds like the feds were jumping the gun a little too fast to avoid any fallout if he were to actually be that. Sucks that LE is in between that rock and hard place but at the end of the day you gotta be able to live with yourself.
QuietShootr
08-23-12, 12:44
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/aug/23/10/judge-says-he-will-order-release-marine-veteran-he-ar-2151347/
Read what the judge wrote.
Maybe (though I doubt it) the statist cocksuckers that were behind this will stop and think for a second before they try this again.
http://wtvr.com/2012/08/21/full-text-brandon-raubs-proclamation-take-our-republic-back/
Okay... though I'm not a "truther" as they're called, aside from that the ****in' guy is spot on with most of it. Probably why they locked him up. He showed signs of independent thought.
Sounds like the feds were jumping the gun a little too fast to avoid any fallout if he were to actually be that. Sucks that LE is in between that rock and hard place but at the end of the day you gotta be able to live with yourself.
+1 I think we can all agree on that.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/aug/23/10/judge-says-he-will-order-release-marine-veteran-he-ar-2151347/
Read what the judge wrote.
Maybe (though I doubt it) the statist cocksuckers that were behind this will stop and think for a second before they try this again.
http://wtvr.com/2012/08/21/full-text-brandon-raubs-proclamation-take-our-republic-back/
Okay... though I'm not a "truther" as they're called, aside from that the ****in' guy is spot on with most of it. Probably why they locked him up. He showed signs of independent thought.
Hmm...funny how neither of those articles and another I've read don't mention his threats about coming for generals or the comment about sharpening axes and severing heads. I know it's supposedly song lyrics from some lame rap group but are they scared to mention them now or just conveniently leaving them out?
Circuit Judge W. Allan Sharrett said an involuntary commitment order issued against Brandon J. Raub was invalid because it contained no allegation or basis to holding him.
That may be true but we aren't privy to what events transpired or what he said between the time he refused to go for a voluntary evaluation and the time the LE decided to take him involuntarily. I know part of that's covered by HIPPA but I would think the LE can disclose their reasoning if they choose to.
Hmm...funny how neither of those articles and another I've read don't mention his threats about coming for generals or the comment about sharpening axes and severing heads. I know it's supposedly song lyrics from some lame rap group but are they scared to mention them now or just conveniently leaving them out?
I have read another post somewhere, I think it was 12news, they looked up the song lyrics and apparently his words are actually -kinda like- the actual lyrics..........
I suppose in the end you can say the system worked. It went wrong and corrected itself. Seems like maybe the VA Code needs a little tweaking.
"Have you ever been confined in a hospital for a mental illness within the past twelve (12) months by order of a probate court?"
That's the question he has to answer yes or no to... as someone asked above.
I would say the answer is.. No. He was mistakenly detained to determine if he was indeed mentally ill.
QuietShootr
08-23-12, 14:12
+1 I think we can all agree on that.
Hmm...funny how neither of those articles and another I've read don't mention his threats about coming for generals or the comment about sharpening axes and severing heads. I know it's supposedly song lyrics from some lame rap group but are they scared to mention them now or just conveniently leaving them out?
You guys will defend anything the state does to the bitter end, won't you?
Hmm...funny how neither of those articles and another I've read don't mention his threats about coming for generals or the comment about sharpening axes and severing heads. I know it's supposedly song lyrics from some lame rap group but are they scared to mention them now or just conveniently leaving them out?
Or maybe they left it out because it doesn't matter? I'm sure your not calling fort this guys head but you have to admit its really silly to hold song lyrics against a guy and not question the artist whom sang the song isn't it? And we all know that that is stupid.
You guys will defend anything the state does to the bitter end, won't you?
No but it seems like you're intent on defending anything and everything this guy says and does. That contradicts the +1 to the post above that I agreed with.
Sounds like the feds were jumping the gun a little too fast to avoid any fallout if he were to actually be that. Sucks that LE is in between that rock and hard place but at the end of the day you gotta be able to live with yourself.
I think you have me all wrong. They had a knee jerk reaction. We can agree to disagree that he should have even been visited due to questionable mental health.
Or maybe they left it out because it doesn't matter? I'm sure your not calling fort this guys head but you have to admit its really silly to hold song lyrics against a guy and not question the artist whom sang the song isn't it? And we all know that that is stupid.
Perhaps.
It was really more the statement that he was coming for generals that I was speaking toward.
The point I was trying to make (while not very effectively) is even though those are song lyrics, I believe they may have been altered a little...but he made them his own when he didn't state they were song lyrics or at least quote them AFAIK. I could say "187 on a motherf*ckin' cop" which if I don't say it's lyrics by whatever dumb ass rap group it was (Bodycount I think) who knows what I meant by it? While I do think the idea musicians can hide behind artistic license (knowing some of them are violent criminals) is stupid. On the same note, you can't go arresting people because they make a movie about cop killers either.
I'm not saying he meant to incite violence, per se, but I just don't think you can say any crazy shit (in public) without some consequences. Shit spoken about the intricate and painful ways to murder somebody between whoever and their platoon isn't public speech. It's common knowledge between a group that it's hyperbole and what not.
My main concern was when he started talking about chemtrails and ritual rape and sacrifices what kind of guy are they dealing with?
Let me give you a side example I see of hypocrisy. Pat Tillman.
He was speaking out against the war in Iraq (which I agreed with him) and many of the free thinkers on here would or should agree with him in principle.
I believe there are still too many unanswered and suspicious questions behind his death with most of the military up to Rummy saying "I don't recall" about a thousand times during the inquiry.
I used his photo as my avatar for a while and got a few PMs about me 'idolizing the great Ranger...LOL' sarcastic type comments of course...for one simple reason. His family are Democrats and atheists.
I was encouraged to read more to find more out about his background as if it's alright or funny that he died simply because he was a liberal. I assume I would agree with very little his family believes in so people take one thing and turn you into something you are not. I simply wasn't satisfied with the official report on his death. I'm not some rabid fanboy but I do respect him. I searched this forum and only found two or three basic posts about him by fair minded people. Maybe it was that he died quite a few years ago. Maybe not.
"The petition is so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy". That theory about an attempted end-run becomes more solid with every news update.
...we aren't privy to what events transpired or what he said between the time he refused to go for a voluntary evaluation and the time the LE decided to take him involuntarily. I know part of that's covered by HIPPA but I would think the LE can disclose their reasoning if they choose to.
Safe bet that every agency and entity that was involved is in "duck and cover" mode; which likely includes a "STFU, you've done quite enough already" directive from their attorneys, who I'm pretty sure are right now scrambling to find out who knew what, and when. Info will probably come out from Raub's attorneys as a civil claim takes shape.
I think you have me all wrong. They had a knee jerk reaction. We can agree to disagree that he should have even been visited due to questionable mental health.
I honestly don't think that anyone but his family was able to make that call and they have denied it.
While I do think the idea musicians can hide behind artistic license (knowing some of them are violent criminals) is stupid. On the same note, you can't go arresting people because they make a movie about cop killers either.
I'm not saying he meant to incite violence, per se, but I just don't think you can say any crazy shit (in public) without some consequences.
You're two statements here contradict themselves.
My main concern was when he started talking about chemtrails and ritual rape and sacrifices what kind of guy are they dealing with?
So we're back to this. He is somehow in need of mental health doctors simply because the guys who spot this shit to the masses aren't as nuts or because the media attention one has lessens ones nuttiness?
Perhaps.
It was really more the statement that he was coming for generals that I was speaking toward.
The point I was trying to make (while not very effectively) is even though those are song lyrics, I believe they may have been altered a little...but he made them his own when he didn't state they were song lyrics or at least quote them AFAIK. I could say "187 on a motherf*ckin' cop" which if I don't say it's lyrics by whatever dumb ass rap group it was (Bodycount I think) who knows what I meant by it? While I do think the idea musicians can hide behind artistic license (knowing some of them are violent criminals) is stupid. On the same note, you can't go arresting people because they make a movie about cop killers either.
I'm not saying he meant to incite violence, per se, but I just don't think you can say any crazy shit (in public) without some consequences. Shit spoken about the intricate and painful ways to murder somebody between whoever and their platoon isn't public speech. It's common knowledge between a group that it's hyperbole and what not.
My main concern was when he started talking about chemtrails and ritual rape and sacrifices what kind of guy are they dealing with?
When it came time to exercise their authority to detain him, I again fall back on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_%28law%29
Somewhere along the way, particularly since 9/11, we seem to have forgotten this formula. It's not iron clad, but it's certainly not as abstract and archaic as some would have us believe. :(
:(
Basic chain of events,
Former jarhead makes spurious posts.
Someone sees posts, does not like posts, reports posts.
Police/USSS/FBI go to talk to former jarhead about the posts.
Former jarhead says something that trips the "mental" flag.
Police call mental health professionals, MHPs say, "bring him in", police do so.
Magistrate listens to MHPs, then says you need/get 30 days to evaluate jarhead.
The FB Posts didn't get jarhead the 30 day mental health stay, the subsequent encounter/interview did.
Thanks for your lecture. The circuit court judge disagrees with your opinion.
"CBS 6 News’ Catie Beck said the Judge Allan Sharrett 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."
No facts in the petition. That would suggest he was detained merely for his FB posts and there were no additional actions to be cause for detention.
When it came time to exercise their authority to detain him, I again fall back on this:
Did you read the entire Wiki article you linked to? Setting aside that "means, motive, and opportunity" is a legal theory used in trial proceedings and not probable cause, read: "Contrary to popular depictions in the fictional media, the court cannot convict merely on these three famous elements, but must provide convincing proof of means used, and opportunity actually acted upon by the defendant charged."
The judge observed that there was an egregious lack of facts (as in none) and thus no probable cause for his detention. They couldn't even meet any standard for probable cause, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you realize how absolutely damning this is to everyone connected to that part of the "investigation"? This is bad. Very bad.
Good to hear. It restores my faith in our government a hair.
Now that it's done, I actually think I have less faith. I was really leaning to the side that Raub must certainly have said something stupid while they were at his house.
I just can't believe that if there really was no evidence, no words... that 10 LEOs from all manner of branches and training collectively screwed this up that badly.
If it were 1 or 2 responding, I could see someone making a dumb mistake..... but all 10! Not a one had clear vision?
That just boggles my mind. I honestly would have bet money on this one that Raub did something.
Dirk Williams
08-23-12, 17:29
Was watching GBTV and they did a exposé on this. Scary scary shit. I watched a tv video of then taking this guy in his underwear the FBI was present?.
Similar note TSA showed up at a Paul Ryan rally earlier this week.
Beck was pointing out that the People are being challenged to see what the tolerance levels are for this kind of enforcement.
I don't know if I agree, but it is food for thought.
DW
Now that it's done, I actually think I have less faith. I was really leaning to the side that Raub must certainly have said something stupid while they were at his house.
I just can't believe that if there really was no evidence, no words... that 10 LEOs from all manner of branches and training collectively screwed this up that badly.
If it were 1 or 2 responding, I could see someone making a dumb mistake..... but all 10! Not a one had clear vision?
That just boggles my mind. I honestly would have bet money on this one that Raub did something.
Its actually easier to believe when you put yourself there and think of recent events. None of them wanted to be the guys that had information about him possibly hurting someone and not doing anything and have this guy kill a bunch of people in a movie theater. No one wants to be "That Guy".
Dirk Williams
08-23-12, 17:36
RWK, in most states the po clearly have the right to detain a person if he is clearly a danger to themselves or others. PC. Has nothing to do with it.
In most instances at least for the police it's a liability issue. Lots of agency's policy's simply say when in doubt lock me up. The down side is if they don't and the person goes postal there will be hell to pay.
Not saying I agree , just trying to provide a legal definition.
DW
Did you read the entire Wiki article you linked to? Setting aside that "means, motive, and opportunity" is a legal theory used in trial proceedings and not probable cause, read: "Contrary to popular depictions in the fictional media, the court cannot convict merely on these three famous elements, but must provide convincing proof of means used, and opportunity actually acted upon by the defendant charged."
The judge observed that there was an egregious lack of facts (as in none) and thus no probable cause for his detention. They couldn't even meet any standard for probable cause, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you realize how absolutely damning this is to everyone connected to that part of the "investigation"? This is bad. Very bad.
Yes it is. When establishing probable cause for a detention or arrest, perhaps it would behoove them to consider those three elements. Oh, you might have missed the part where I qualified my referral to the link. :)
Somewhere along the way, particularly since 9/11, we seem to have forgotten this formula. It's not iron clad, but it's certainly not as abstract and archaic as some would have us believe.
Now that it's done, I actually think I have less faith. I was really leaning to the side that Raub must certainly have said something stupid while they were at his house.
I just can't believe that if there really was no evidence, no words... that 10 LEOs from all manner of branches and training collectively screwed this up that badly.
If it were 1 or 2 responding, I could see someone making a dumb mistake..... but all 10! Not a one had clear vision?
That just boggles my mind. I honestly would have bet money on this one that Raub did something.
You'd be surprised. I was present once when several trained "authorities" wanted to detain a woman for what would've been a misdemeanor. The problem was that the elements of the crime hadn't been met. I was the lone voice in the wilderness that said "I'd drop this and walk away right now, before it goes very bad". They didn't and it turned into a furball. Outcome? Official apology letters, narrowly avoided lawsuit, severe ass chewings in the Major's office and notices to personnel files.
Occasionally even professionals let their moral outrage or concerns outweigh their training. In the immediate aftermath of Aurora and Oak Creek, I think it's understandable, even if it's not excusable.
Its actually easier to believe when you put yourself there and think of recent events. None of them wanted to be the guys that had information about him possibly hurting someone and not doing anything and have this guy kill a bunch of people in a movie theater. No one wants to be "That Guy".
Yeah, I guess it's a roll of the dice these days.
You know what else I have been wondering.... what if when asked if he would volunteer for a psych eval. What if he said yes... That's the other option of that code. The person can opt to volunteer. Would they then have left and set up a doctor appointment for maybe the next day or two. That would at least given him time to call a lawyer or the news or whatever.
The whole thing is screwed up no matter how you look at it. They need to change that code. Or I should say We need to change it.
Moose-Knuckle
08-23-12, 18:42
"CBS 6 News’ Catie Beck said the Judge Allan Sharrett 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."
No facts in the petition. That would suggest he was detained merely for his FB posts and there were no additional actions to be cause for detention.
Out f***ing standing!
Not saying I agree , just trying to provide a legal definition.
Understood.
RWK, in most states the po clearly have the right to detain a person if he is clearly a danger to themselves or others. PC. Has nothing to do with it.
My point was simply that they appear to not have been able to meet any standard of evidence. I called shenanigans on this already. And there is still a probable cause standard that must be met when articulating the reason one would believe someone is a danger to themselves or others. The has to be some factual basis to support it.
In most instances at least for the police it's a liability issue. Lots of agency's policy's simply say when in doubt lock me up. The down side is if they don't and the person goes postal there will be hell to pay.
An irrational fear of liability in no way excuses that attitude. That's a cop out (no pun intended...), and too often an excuse for laziness or shoddy police work. Risk management in much of the law enforcement community is completely twisted. The real downside is a case like the one at hand. You may incur some measure of liability if you miss a good call. You will incur liability if you make a bad call, especially if someone's civil rights are violated in the process. And it's difficult to make a bad call without violating someone's civil rights.
Yeah, I guess it's a roll of the dice these days.
No. No. NO! Absolutely unacceptable. There's either a case, or there isn't.
You know what else I have been wondering.... what if when asked if he would volunteer for a psych eval. What if he said yes... That's the other option of that code. The person can opt to volunteer. Would they then have left and set up a doctor appointment for maybe the next day or two. That would at least given him time to call a lawyer or the news or whatever.
Generally, they (the individual) would call and schedule an appointment with a counselor who would determine whether or not they should refer the person for clinical evaluation. There may be a release signed in order to allow specific persons to receive limited information from the counselor/doc. What an investigator should be after are the magic words: "they do/do not pose a danger to themselves or others".
The whole thing is screwed up no matter how you look at it. They need to change that code. Or I should say We need to change it.
The code itself is fine. It's when it's abused that it's not. This may be an egregious case of abuse where there was collusion (conspiracy) to abuse it. If that does turn out to be the case, some people might be on their way to jail. Or it could be a case where shoddy police work met an incompetent magistrate.
Now that it's done, I actually think I have less faith. I was really leaning to the side that Raub must certainly have said something stupid while they were at his house.
I just can't believe that if there really was no evidence, no words... that 10 LEOs from all manner of branches and training collectively screwed this up that badly.
If it were 1 or 2 responding, I could see someone making a dumb mistake..... but all 10! Not a one had clear vision?
That just boggles my mind. I honestly would have bet money on this one that Raub did something.
I appreciate your honesty, it is shocking to realize the govt can be so arbitrary and outside the law. Your assumption though is based on private industry not govt which in Bizarro fashion. I will guarantee that if only two govt LEOs showed up this would have been dismissed and "thanks for your time, sorry to bother you.". When you have ten LEOs gathered from multiple agencies you are guaranteed a screw up.
In one of the videos linked to you can see several plainclothes guys acting as perimeter and very actively involved in the illegal arrest. While the feds cry they dud not press the issue I think it obvious they egged on the local PD, who are now left holding the bag of turds. I doubt the PD will be so anxious to please their fed masters next time.
RWK, in most states the po clearly have the right to detain a person if he is clearly a danger to themselves or others. PC. Has nothing to do with it.
In most instances at least for the police it's a liability issue. Lots of agency's policy's simply say when in doubt lock me up. The down side is if they don't and the person goes postal there will be hell to pay.
Not saying I agree , just trying to provide a legal definition.
DW
The down side should be if they detain someone forcibly with no supporting facts their collective butts should be dragged through the civil liberties ringer.
When you have ten LEOs gathered from multiple agencies you are guaranteed a screw up.
Funny, this has been my experience, too; although I wouldn't go so far as to say that problems are guaranteed. One or two agencies and things are usually very smooth. I have a "rule of three": three or more agencies involved and I know I'm going to have to take a much more hands-on approach than usual in case management or we're highly likely to have a problem. The mix of agencies hasn't seemed to have mattered much. I wonder if some organizational psychologist has looked into this...
The code itself is fine. It's when it's abused that it's not. This may be an egregious case of abuse where there was collusion (conspiracy) to abuse it. If that does turn out to be the case, some people might be on their way to jail. Or it could be a case where shoddy police work met an incompetent magistrate.
But if the code were good it would provide that those scenarios would be very difficult to occur.
Think about it... you had 10 people on the scene and at least 3 more or so at a desk. Plus, magistrate, and medical. That's approaching 15 + people.
When a code that specifically deals with locking people up in the nut house for 30 days and it allows 20 people to fail at carrying it out. It's bad code. I'm not saying get rid of it but it needs to be fixed. I sure wouldn't pay for software or hardware that worked that poorly.
This has put people's livelihoods in danger, not to mention what it did to Raub.
The law is meant to protect. As you said, it has -easily- allowed for people to possibly conspire.
But if the code were good it would provide that those scenarios would be very difficult to occur
...
The law is meant to protect. As you said, it has -easily- allowed for people to possibly conspire.
There may have been collusion. In this case, I think it's something that should be specifically looked into. Collusion can be difficult to guard against, and many systems can be compromised by it. Systems are by necessity made up of trust models. When two or more trusted persons conspire to abuse a system, it can be very difficult to protect against. The safeguards in this case were some quick-thinking lawyers getting this in front of a judge.
This has put people's livelihoods in danger, not to mention what it did to Raub.
If anyone put their careers in danger, they did it to themselves. The lizard-men did not use the Code of Virginia to mind-control anyone into doing something they shouldn't have. Or did they...? :secret:
Dirk Williams
08-23-12, 23:11
Yo, I was just sharing the info, didn't write, don't like it, however that is how it is in some places.
Take the person to the hospital two drs review person for l
Stability, if both agree he stays, if they both don't agree the persons gone.
Either way the liability is now on the drs and the hospital. It's a chicken shit way of doing business. That's what lawyers have contributed to the system
Your local PD has a rules/regs book at least 6 inches thick to hid the admin behind and to hang out the guys on the streets doing the work.
DW
Documents are starting to filter out from court files. The Richmond Times-Dispatch (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2012/aug/23/23/judge-says-he-will-order-release-marine-veteran-he-ar-2151347/) has been updating their coverage pretty regularly.
A timeline is starting to take shape: "The crisis employee saw Raub on Aug. 16 after he was picked up by Chesterfield police and transferred under an emergency custody order to John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell." [emphasis mine]
Link to an interview with Raub's attorney: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/aug/23/1/marines-attorney-speaks-out-after-judge-22644-vi-40604/
This is apparently the form they submitted blank according to that video. No boxes checked.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/forms/district/dc4001.pdf
This is apparently the form they submitted blank according to that video. No boxes checked.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/forms/district/dc4001.pdf
This is very similar to the form that we use in NC. Every year, we have to teach the new hire docs how to properly fill one out if they did not train in NC. The most common problem that we have is that people will list their conclusions in the supporting evidence section instead of statements of fact. An example of this would be a petitioner stating that a subject is "suicidal" which is a conclusion vs. stating that the subject "claims he wants to shoot himself" which is a statement of fact. It seems like a technicality, but we have had multiple instances were a judges released a suicidal person because the new doc filled the paperwork out in an incorrect manner. There is usually a scramble that involves hospital legal to get it done right.
When I read that form, I don't see how they could have checked any boxes.
There are a lot of "and"s in there qualifying those statements.
I don;t see how a magistrate could be qualified to speak to these statements.....
has a mental illness and is in need of hospitalization or treatment, and that there exists a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the respondent will, in the near future:
Those are the qualifiers before you can even pick the sub-categories. He might not have filled it out for that reason. Be interesting to know if wrote anything in the comment section at bottom. But it reads to me that you have to fill out one of those three main sections for it to be valid.
I'm really confused on this chain of action.
A. Get complaint
B. Interview
C. Go to magistrate
D. Magistrate files petition stating person is mentally ill
E. Send them to doctor to determine if they are mentally ill.
Now here is the code and where I believe it is broken......
----
A. Any magistrate shall issue, upon the sworn petition of any responsible person, treating physician, or upon his own motion, an emergency custody order when he has probable cause to believe that any person (i) has a mental illness and that there exists a substantial likelihood that, as a result of mental illness, the person will, in the near future, (a) cause serious physical harm to himself or others as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening harm and other relevant information, if any, or......
-----
I believe the part I bolded is the spirit of the code. Where it is broken is the underlined which should be reserved for someone holding a gun to someone's head or standing a bridge getting ready to jump off.
This code should state that some medically qualified person assist in completion of the form and co-sign unless the situation is so dire and timely that doing otherwise may endanger someone.
I heard someone on the radio say they do 20K of these a year in VA...... that's 55 people a day! I don't know how accurate that is but I believe the lady was lawyer that get's called to represent these people. that sounds like a massive amount.
Well they are showing new documents now.
Raub's friends turned him in. I didn't want to say it but I thought that was going to be the case. No one else would have had access to the private stuff where apparently the "crazy stuff" was posted.
There are mental evals that state delusions and paranoia. So basically he is out on a technicality and can't be returned unless he does something else to warrant it. No word yet why the form wasn't filled out. somebody might have done him a favor.......
They now have a sign on the door to the effect of No Tresspass / No Comment.
I think we are getting closer to the "why?" in all this though.
http://www.nbc12.com/story/19371225/court-documents-provide-insight-on-detained-marines-mental-state
OK, I see how it happened now....
A. Get complaint
B. Interview
---B_1 - Call Crisis Intervention -
"Chesterfield officers at the scene contacted Chesterfield Mental Health Crisis Intervention. Crisis workers recommended that police take Raub into custody and bring him in for evaluation."
C. Go to magistrate
D. Magistrate files petition stating person is mentally ill
E. Send them to doctor to determine if they are mentally ill.
Also found this from another of his friends.....
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august232012/raub-reality-.php
Well they are showing new documents now.
Raub's friends turned him in. I didn't want to say it but I thought that was going to be the case. No one else would have had access to the private stuff where apparently the "crazy stuff" was posted.
There are mental evals that state delusions and paranoia. So basically he is out on a technicality and can't be returned unless he does something else to warrant it. No word yet why the form wasn't filled out. somebody might have done him a favor.......
Like I said in an earlier post, it is not uncommon for people to get released due to improperly completed paperwork. I'm sure that having a lawyer helps.
FWIW, it looks like the USSS got involved because he made threats towards President Bush to one of his friends.
I guess that time will tell if he is simply misunderstood or a real threat.
montanadave
08-24-12, 20:58
I guess that time will tell if he is simply misunderstood or a real threat.
All things being equal, if I see this guy in the ticket line at the local cineplex, I'm going to a different show.
Perhaps the ones here that were complaining about the USSS letting the ones go free that threatened Bush before will be glad if the same hypocrisy led to Raub not being charged.
Meanwhile threatening Obama gets you convicted and on probation.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-Facebook-threat-gets-Fla-student-probation-3807209.php
@jay35 did you read this post in the link you posted....
This Article is BS… Sorry… I have Copies of Police reports from Miami County and from Logan County. He was given a CPO (Civil Protection Order). It was filed in Logan County and served in Miami County. It has nothing to do with his Facebook posts…
Also according to the police report, the weapons confiscated were 1 LLAMA .45 Semi Auto, 1 Bersa .380 Semi Auto, 1 Charles Davis 12 Gauge Pump action Shotgun, and 1 Savage Arms .22 Semi Auto (note this may be a .223 Semi auto). No where on the report did it say Assault Rifle. Sorry…
PS If this A$$ wasn’t threatening his Spouse (separated) then he would still have his Firearms…. Just Saying (PS Name is MCCONNELL, DONALD R and only 1 Deputy served this notice.)
Meanwhile threatening Obama gets you convicted and on probation.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-Facebook-threat-gets-Fla-student-probation-3807209.php
The fact that he was sentenced to home confinement and probation indicates that he was not found to pose a credible threat and was just yet another jackass with an Internet connection. Communicating threats is a misdemeanor in every state that I'm aware of. However, communicating threats against certain Federal officials is a felony, in spite of the fact that threats against public officials have the lowest incidence of violence of any group.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Raub posts all this stuff knowing the feds will come to investigate him hoping the feds would take him into custody.
He made a showy arrest while Air Force vet Kristen Meighan was conveniently there to film. She claims she's seen chemtrail tanks being loaded onto planes at the VA base she was stationed at.
The feds had another idea. He didn't make quite credible enough threats so we'll let the local cops **** this one up all on their own and mop this shit up.
Meanwhile we are all talking about this.
Alex Jones, inforwars.com, and before its news.com are getting lit up, YouTube, etc. ads are being clicked, and products are being bought.
Jones is making money from the peddlers of the snake oil (gravity water filtration systems) he has ads for and is personally promoting on his site. The filters are needed to kill the "brain-eating amoeba" in our water.
http://www.infowars.com/brain-eating-amoeba-fatal-in-99-of-cases-could-come-from-your-own-faucet/
"Raub" and chemtrail searches go up leading to beforeitsnews.com where anybody can post "news" without any sort of credibilty or editorial review.
Among some of the snake oil being peddled on that site is "NutraSilver" a cure for many common ailments including chemtrail poisoning.
http://beforeitsnews.com/chemtrails/2012/08/chemtrails-air-force-pilot-admits-spraying-2430100.html
The truthers have hit paydirt at the expense of vets and they know it.
Raub may have been complicit with Jones (he claims Raub was a loyal listener of his program) or maybe is just gullible and didn't realize what he was getting into.
Maybe the wool was pulled down over his eyes just like it's been done to us. Mission accomplished.
Littlelebowski
08-25-12, 21:58
Maybe it was idiots getting an idiot unlawfully committed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.