Posted on 04/18/2007 1:55:30 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
A Virginia court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and dangerous. Then it let him go.
Back in 2005, the District Court in Christiansburg said that Cho was a danger to himself but not others. He was ordered to undergo outpatient care.
The ruling came after Cho was taken to a nearby psychiatric hospital for evaluation in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.
That information came to light two days after Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, killed 32 people and then himself in a shooting rampage on the university's campus.
Police obtained the order from a local magistrate after it was determined by a state certified employee that Cho met legal criteria for temporary detention that includes being a threat to others and being unable to care for himself.
Under Virginia law, "A magistrate has the authority to issue a detention order upon a finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment.
"The magistrate also must find that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others," says the guideline from Virginia's state court system.
Wendell Flinchum, the chief of the Virginia Tech police department, said that it's common for police to work with mental health facilities
"We normally go through access [appealing to the state's legal system for help] because they have the power to commit people if they need to be committed," said Wendell Flinchum, chief of the Virginia Tech police department.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Yes and no. If the mental evaluation was collateral to a criminal or civil proceeding, then HIIPA wouldn't apply. It might apply, however, when the very purpose of the proceeding is to adjudicate mental competence.
It could be the simple mistake of improperly rendering his Korean name in the court records.
Cho Seung-Hui instead of Seung-Hui Cho.
Unless you can find a Class A Heath Certification issued by doctor recognized by the State Department, you have no case.
Bottom line, he was not executable at entry and he was not deportable later when diagnosed with mental illness.
His Social Security or UPIN, which you MUST read to the NICS operator, should have eliminated any chance of that.
IIRC, his court paperwork and filing should have included such data and even if the clerk misspelt the name, the number should have sent up a flag.
I don’t think a temporary detention order for evaluation is the same as an involuntary commitment, so it doesn’t get entered into the database.
Speeding or Reckless driving is not a deportable offense.
Cho was arrested for stalking some woman. The woman had pressed charges. The police and the court noted the guy was nuts. Cho must have refused a voluntary exam and the court had to force it, by committing him to a psych ward for observation and exam. That court committment should have been on his record and caused the FBI to flag the transaction as not allowed.
Evidently it was 2 women that pressed charges.
Yes. You're correct.
Didn’t they deport some of the Cambodians a few years back for public urination?
The baseline is simply a court adjudication of mental illness or incompetence.
We were discussing if he was deportable.
These are legal records. Note the form, the DL, the arrest and court records should have all followed the same last name/first name protocol. THe PD enters it as on the DL, and that should have been the court records and the FFL would have done the same check. The ATF noted no descrepancies when they checked the FFL's paperwork.
No LPR has ever been deported for public urination.
Exactly - and even if they didn’t, the numbers on the IDs he was using should have matched and sent up flags. So clerical error is right out.
Also, he *had* to have been in the database - otherwise, how would ABC have been able to verify this?
Something went very, very, very wrong with the instant check systems. And it went wrong *twice*.
A temporary order of detention for evaluation does not meet the baseline adjudication of mental illness. It’s the step before that. Just like an arrest warrant is not a conviction.
I think the article is poorly written and the headline is misleading. To be adjudicated mentally ill requires a court hearing with legal representation. From the article, it doesn’t appear to have happened.
It's not clear if he was convicted of stalking. The court certainly had to follow up. They may have given him some form of superviison. IOWs take your meds and behaive for a year and the case is forgotten. A traffic offense would be NG. They really should have looked at him for the arson. Anyone that does that needs a going over and an arrest if there's an indication that he did it.
“After Dr. Crouse’s psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering followup treatment on an outpatient basis.”
Guess what? That’s an adjudicated finding for the purposes of the 4473.
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.