Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Dealing with Mental Health
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 4055624" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>You’re confused about what a temporary psych evaluation hold is and calling it an involuntary commitment. You can’t involuntary commit people within 72 hours.</p><p></p><p>The topic is confusing because you’re mixing medical and legal systems together, in both criminal and civil proceedings. Police powers of arrest are often involved, but are not strictly required. It’s the same for criminal law violations and charges, often involved but not strictly required.</p><p></p><p>It’s easier if you look at it this way. A person is interviewed because someone either filed a complaint to LE, or to another government agency of an unsafe condition (criminal or civil). They come and interview the subject, while observing other plain view evidence to support or refute the claims.</p><p></p><p>If a mental health condition is observed, and it appears to rise to the level of unsafe to self or others, then the legal process is begun to officially evaluate the subject. In California that’s a 5150 hold, which iirc, a LEO can initiate? Here in Oklahoma, unless the subject becomes violent and is arrested on charges, they call a certified crisis team like COPES to do an on-site evaluation as to whether the subject needs to be placed on an emergency evaluation hold.</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.fcsok.org/services/crisis-services/[/URL]</p><p></p><p>It’s only when the evaluation hold is complete and a report generated that official involuntary commitment process begins, if deemed necessary. </p><p></p><p>He tried to give an example of an activist LE, but admitted a judge and medical provider were involved in the process. That process is critically important because the entire Red Flag issue is lack of Due Process.</p><p></p><p>It’s not impossible, but it’s far more difficult to abuse the involuntary commitment process, specifically because there is Due Process and the subject has a right to legal counsel, independent evaluations, hearings where they or their lawyer are present, and all the other civil and constitutional rights they deserve to have considered.</p><p></p><p>Red Flag laws as they’re all written, violate multiple constitutional rights and are ripe for abuse by activist LE, judges and prosecutors. They place almost all the burden on the citizen, and completely absolves the government of any liability. Red Flag laws are wrong on their face.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 4055624, member: 1132"] You’re confused about what a temporary psych evaluation hold is and calling it an involuntary commitment. You can’t involuntary commit people within 72 hours. The topic is confusing because you’re mixing medical and legal systems together, in both criminal and civil proceedings. Police powers of arrest are often involved, but are not strictly required. It’s the same for criminal law violations and charges, often involved but not strictly required. It’s easier if you look at it this way. A person is interviewed because someone either filed a complaint to LE, or to another government agency of an unsafe condition (criminal or civil). They come and interview the subject, while observing other plain view evidence to support or refute the claims. If a mental health condition is observed, and it appears to rise to the level of unsafe to self or others, then the legal process is begun to officially evaluate the subject. In California that’s a 5150 hold, which iirc, a LEO can initiate? Here in Oklahoma, unless the subject becomes violent and is arrested on charges, they call a certified crisis team like COPES to do an on-site evaluation as to whether the subject needs to be placed on an emergency evaluation hold. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.fcsok.org/services/crisis-services/[/URL] It’s only when the evaluation hold is complete and a report generated that official involuntary commitment process begins, if deemed necessary. He tried to give an example of an activist LE, but admitted a judge and medical provider were involved in the process. That process is critically important because the entire Red Flag issue is lack of Due Process. It’s not impossible, but it’s far more difficult to abuse the involuntary commitment process, specifically because there is Due Process and the subject has a right to legal counsel, independent evaluations, hearings where they or their lawyer are present, and all the other civil and constitutional rights they deserve to have considered. Red Flag laws as they’re all written, violate multiple constitutional rights and are ripe for abuse by activist LE, judges and prosecutors. They place almost all the burden on the citizen, and completely absolves the government of any liability. Red Flag laws are wrong on their face. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Dealing with Mental Health
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom