Va. Tech Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit

ABC News ^ | April 18, 2007 | NED POTTER and DAVID SCHOETZ

[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.

[spunkets]

219...

[Valpal1]

A finding of mental incapicitation requires the assigning of a ward or guardian. Cho was not found mentally incapacitated.

The real problem is the grey area created by the fact the ATF definitions and regulations to not address orders for outpatient treatment and that is what they need to fix.

VA is a voluntary submitter and Cho’s information would have been submitted if orders for outpatient treatment were understood to be the same as inpatient treatment for the purposes of NICS.

My understanding is that in spite of the judge’s order, the treating physician or psychologist did NOT mark “danger to himself or others” in the relevant paperwork, so this may have been why it remained unsubmitted.

[Valpal1]

Clarification. The temporary order was marked “danger to self or others” but the subsequent evaluation the judge based his orders on wansn’t.

The ATF rules are not either/or, they are AND so he had to be adjudicated BOTH mentally ill and a danger to himself or others.

[spunkets]

"A finding of mental incapicitation requires the assigning of a ward or guardian. Cho was not found mentally incapacitated.

Irrelevant. The law says a danger to self, or others due to mental defect.

"The real problem is the grey area created by the fact the ATF definitions and regulations to not address orders for outpatient treatment and that is what they need to fix."

They are not ATF regs. They are law that was passed by Congress. The plain English of the law is simply recorded where it belongs. DOJ is 28CFR, Crimes are 18USC, ATF is 27CFR, ect... 18USC922(g)(4) entered the law as written in the '68 gun control act. All it takes is the court finding. The rest is irrelevant, unless the person committs themselves. The IA case acknowledged that. The IA State court ruled according to their own law, not fed law.

"VA is a voluntary submitter and Cho’s information would have been submitted if orders for outpatient treatment were understood to be the same as inpatient treatment for the purposes of NICS."

No. Treatment is irrelevant. The court finding regarding danger to self, or others due to mental defect is the key. 27CFR178.11 says:
" Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

Note committed to a mental institution does not include voluntary committment.

27CFR178.11:
Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

"My understanding is that in spite of the judge’s order, the treating physician or psychologist did NOT mark “danger to himself or others” in the relevant paperwork, so this may have been why it remained unsubmitted."

The court doc http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/04/18/cho.pdf) is on this thread in post #178. VA and other States simply do not volunteer this info, as per 28CFR25.4. No one had a clue what fed law involved, nor where they interested. See the court doc. Judge "Godbly" and Justice Williams sent Cho for the temp. per the allegations. Judge Barnett and doc Crouse affirmed the allegations as true. Dr Crouse specifically and explicitly testified, that Cho was a danger to himself, due to mental illness, by applying his signature to the court finding. The same goes for Judge Barnett. That resulted in Barnett ordering treatment.

"Clarification. The temporary order was marked “danger to self or others” but the subsequent evaluation the judge based his orders on wansn’t."

No. The temp signed by Judge "godbly" and Justice Williams concerned the allegation of mental illness raised by the VA Tech PD and others. That is completely different from the findings of Dr Crouse and Judge Barnett.

"The ATF rules are not either/or, they are AND so he had to be adjudicated BOTH mentally ill and a danger to himself or others."

Of course! The danger to self, or others requires the cause to be mental illness. Danger to self, or others is otherwise considered under the felony disability.