Actually it wasn't that specific. He was adjudicated, by a "Special Court" judge (no jury) as : "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
But he was specifically not adjudicated as:"Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness."
It sounds from this ABC News article (from where the quotes above came), as if the Special Court is pretty much a rubber stamp for the findings of the shrinks.
What's to stop a similar "Special Court" from reviewing the records of Veterans diagnosed as having PTSD and issuing similar findings? (Only maybe adding "and others" to the "danger to self")
The fed disqualifier is an or thing.
"the Special Court is pretty much a rubber stamp for the findings of the shrinks."
No. The court conducts competency hearings. It's quite difficult to get a negative ruling, unless hte evidence clearly shows there's a mental defect. Cho was entitled to his own counsel and docs, but didn't go that route and he was a no show for all follow up and treatment. form my experience, most psychiatrists would have picked up on Cho being a paranoid schiz. Psychologists wouldn't. Regardless, there is nothing sinister about the process. It begins with the defendant being arrested and charged with criminal behavior. Usually it's perverted criminal behavior, like Cho's stalking of strange women that did not know him and did not want to know him.
"What's to stop a similar "Special Court" from reviewing the records of Veterans diagnosed as having PTSD and issuing similar findings?"
The law. The vet records involve voluntary treatment and such, where there's been no criminal activity. The fed disqual does not include any voluntary treatment, or commitment. It's only involuntary commitment, or an entry into the system through criminal activity that gets one disqualified. Fed law excludes responsible folks that seek help for their problems, and that certainly excludes vets, unless they're committing crimes.