Yup, it was for her own good. The road paved with good intentions . . . .
1 posted on
05/14/2014 9:55:15 AM PDT by
aimhigh
To: aimhigh
This is how the Soviet Union did it, declared dissidents mentally deficient.
2 posted on
05/14/2014 9:56:14 AM PDT by
GeronL
(Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
To: aimhigh
The intent of the officers has no bearing on the law in this case.
If she appeals, she'll win.
5 posted on
05/14/2014 9:59:26 AM PDT by
Mariner
(War Criminal #18)
To: aimhigh
Wow! Must be a DimoKKKRAT judge.
To: All
9 posted on
05/14/2014 10:03:23 AM PDT by
musicman
(Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
To: aimhigh
I hate that I notice this, and I HATE that it’s true, but women judges are one of our worst enemies.
10 posted on
05/14/2014 10:07:42 AM PDT by
Shimmer1
To: aimhigh
Rovners parents came here from Latvia to escape Nazism. And shes been working to bring Nazism here since 1992? Some of the worst RINOs are in the federal court system, and this Bush 41 appointee is more than exemplary of same.
11 posted on
05/14/2014 10:08:06 AM PDT by
Olog-hai
To: aimhigh
Psychiatrist Office
Enter At Your Own Risk
To: aimhigh
If you value your right to posess a firearm you can’t seek medical advise for any mental issues, including depression. That’s just the way it is right now.
To: aimhigh
The facts as presented in this article indicate that she is nuts.
When the cops are at your door to take you for a psyche eval - do not call 911. It really won’t help.
15 posted on
05/14/2014 10:12:22 AM PDT by
Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
To: aimhigh
"How were the officers to know that Sutterfield was competent to assess the state of her own mental health or that, regardless of what she herself said, there was no longer any risk that she might harm herself?" the court wrote. That is one way to see it.
Here is another way.
"How were the officers to know that Sutterfield (fill in this blank with the name of who concerns you for the moment) was competent to assess the state of her his own mental health or that, regardless of what she herself he said, there was no longer any risk that she he might harm herself himself?" the court wrote.
16 posted on
05/14/2014 10:12:57 AM PDT by
MosesKnows
(Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
To: aimhigh
The Left’s War on Women continues unabated.
17 posted on
05/14/2014 10:13:10 AM PDT by
Yo-Yo
(Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
To: aimhigh; null and void
"But the court also found, that on the other hand, "There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm." I'm pretty sure the local Peasants of Liberty group would argue that the arrival of police put Sutterfield directly in harm's way.
And her little dog, too. And her 93-year-old grandmother...
19 posted on
05/14/2014 10:14:12 AM PDT by
kiryandil
(turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
To: aimhigh
So let me see if I understand this, if the government thinks people who own a gun are a danger to themselves, the government can force entry in to your home without a warrant, seize your gun, Damn. These people are so caring!
23 posted on
05/14/2014 10:48:08 AM PDT by
stockpirate
(Only a tidal wave of tyrants blood will return our tree of liberty......)
To: aimhigh
If I recall, Nazi Germany relied more on word of mouth than on their own investigations when it came to throwing people in jail. It would seem the door to that happening in America is now open.
40 posted on
05/15/2014 3:45:46 AM PDT by
RWB Patriot
("My ability is a value that must be earned and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
To: All
41 posted on
05/19/2014 8:41:04 PM PDT by
Altariel
("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson