Posted on 08/23/2012 5:49:29 AM PDT by lward99
As my wife pointed out, Raub and the Special Ops laid their lives on the line so EVERYONE would have the right to free speech. And that includes themselves.
You’d think the Army Chief of Staff would realize that. But liberals think people fought and died just for those who agree with them.
GG, wideawake sounds crazy as hell to me. SOMEBODY LOCK HIM UP! He’s lucky I’m not the government. sarc/
Most people have no idea how powerful an accusation of mental illness is. Any so-called mental health provider can get you thirty days in lock up. That gives them thirty days to fill you with drugs and make you really crazy.
I also think this is a test case to see if anyone will stand up. So far they’ve gotten away with it.
Pretty sad breach of FR etiquette to mention someone in a post and not ping them.
Again, you seem to be missing a key distinction here: Raub got into trouble not because his posts "sounded crazy" but because he posted a threat.
He was committed because when the threat was investigated, the investigating officers thought he was not all there, and they brought in an independent medical professional to verify.
Most people have no idea how powerful an accusation of mental illness is.
It ius quite serious. Most people are well aware of this.
Any so-called mental health provider can get you thirty days in lock up.
Absolutely incorrect. There needs to be a hearing and a court order.
That gives them thirty days to fill you with drugs and make you really crazy.
Again, it is counterproductive to medicate someone before you know what the diagnosis is. That's why people are held, instead of just given a scrip.
I also think this is a test case to see if anyone will stand up. So far they’ve gotten away with it.
A test case for what?
Threatening people has been illegal for centuries. This is not a new concept.
Involuntarily committing people has been legal since the introduction of modern psychiatric care.
It is also not a new concept.
The spin here seems to be: "Dude was just harmlessly expressing his personal opinions on the Internet and some government spy thought he sounded crazy and put him in a hospital."
The more we learn about this case, the more deluded that analysis looks.
Just wondering what happens to your life after 30 days of "evaluation?" If one is self-employed, is your business still viable" If you work for someone, does that company want you back? What do your aunts, uncles and cousins say to you at the next family reunion? Do old neighbors, once friendly to you, begin crossing the street to avoid conversations?
Someone who knows a person (family, long, long time friend, etc) might be able to pick out signs of instability, but...for the obama "administration" to read the residue of social sites and come to this conclusion stretches credulity.
Didn’t the Russian KGB used to send their political opponents, enemies and dissidents to mental institutions in Siberia? Hmmm.....
“Three military retirees in this family think the Special Ops folks are “AWESOME!”,”
So do I.
But. . . is Brandon a Special Ops guy?
NDAA?
You mean the National Defense Authorization Act. . .the entire military budget. . .or select parts?
If select parts, what section(s) of the NDAA are you talking about.
I ask you for this info because your write strongly about what the bill says so that tells me you are well-informed and read the bill yourself.
I also want to read the bill, like you did. Always good to know exactly what the bill said.
I thank you in advance for providing links to the paragraph and section numbers.
Again, thanks for providing the information.
Oh really?:
A Hopewell circuit court judge has ordered that a Marine veteran detained over anti-government Facebook posts be released from a psychiatric hospital. CBS 6 News’ Catie Beck said the judge dismissed the case Thursday against Brandon Raub. The judge said the original petition for Raub’s detention contained no facts. In other words, there was no information on why Raub was being held
So you think it’s okay for cops to come to your door and determine you’re “not all there” and haul you away.
I say “most” people aren’t aware. You say “most” people are aware. A difference of oppinon.
When I say “health care provider” I’m talking about a shrink who stands before a judge and says “This guy needs to be evaluated for 30 days.” That’s a hearing. This “independent professional” was not “independent”. Who selected him to testify? Who’s paying him? He’s going to make a diagnosis based on FB posts the cops TOLD him about? Come on!
Counterproductive? That’s my point. And if you don’t think these places won’t fill you up with drugs, you’re naive. I KNOW people who had this happen to them.
I’m glad they found a judge who saw through this crap.
And for those who think the local cops will be on your side if there’s a CWII, these cops won’t.
“You mean the National Defense Authorization Act?”
Yep thats the one.
“I also want to read the bill, like you did.”
Good its easy to find all over the internet.
Or you can call Senator Rand Paul’s office and his aide will be happy to exlain it to you.
So much for all the paranoia and hysteria.
Only because a public service lawyer agreed to represent him pro bono and appeal the baseless, horrible decision of the trial judge. But for that he'd still be locked up. Looks to me like "paranoia and hysteria" are why he is now a free man.
I thought you read the bill. Are you saying you did not? Why should I call Paul’s office when you clearly know what is in the bill and have a copy, after all, you read the bill and would be able to cite specific sections and paragraphs.
Unless you didn’t read the bill.
When posting something it is up to the poster to provide link and source. You are the one making declarative statements regarding the entire defense bill, therefore, it is up to you to provide facts to support your claims.
All I asked for was information as to the relevant section and paragraphs of the defense bill. You provide nothing.
Since you provided neither source nor fact, it is clear you didn’t read the bill.
Interesting.
They cannot haul you away unless an independent medical observer agrees with them.
This “independent professional” was not “independent”.
That's a serious claim.
Who selected him to testify?
He didn't testify. He gave a preliminary diagnosis. He was probably the psychiatric resident on call at the local hospital.
Who’s paying him?
Are you suggesting that he was bribed?
He’s going to make a diagnosis based on FB posts the cops TOLD him about?
He is required to speak with the subject in person.
I KNOW people who had this happen to them.
You know people who had never been previously diagnosed with mental illness who were brought in for an involuntary psych hold and then were given psychotropic medications?
Really?
How much did the jury award them?
BTW, due process was followed and the judge decided to vacate the psych hold and release Raub on his own recognizance.
So much for the vast conspiracy.
But 99% of us are more concerned about Joe Biden gaffes and the other side on “you know what”, so really, there is no hope.
Family and friends should have been involved, not just the government. That is not a good precedent and should be illegal.
He was hauled away BEFORE he went before a judge. Geez, man. Do you argue just for the sake of argueing?
He was lucky that his lawyers got before a judge who follows the constitution.
Finally, if they ever come after me I’ll know whose side you’re on.
I don’t know why I get suckered into argueing with someone who either can’t read or reads the article then re-writes it to suit his oppinion.
This isn’t directed at you.
So much disinformation here.
If the Rutherford Institute attorney had not represented him, the ACLU was willing to. If these nonprofits hadn't, he would have received a court-appointed attorney. The only circumstances under which he would have been left without representation would be if he had insisted on it. This is very basic stuff.
There was no "trial judge" - there were two hearings and no trial since this was not presented as a criminal matter but as a civil one - i.e. commitment, not indictment.
Even if it had been a criminal matter, there would have been no trial at this stage but a remand hearing.
Looks to me like "paranoia and hysteria" are why he is now a free man.
Do you think the judge who rejected the involuntary commitment was swayed by any internet furor?
Or is it more likely that he reviewed the evidence prooffered to him by both sides and found in Raub's favor?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.