New laws, anyone?

[ATLDude]

Sorry fella, but that free **** ain't for us. Dream on.

Get your free stuff!!

 

[Bear44]

didn't say it was. however the burden to hold one for 72 hour evalulation has to be clear, posting on the internet doesnt meet that burden.

Why not? Wouldn't it depend on what was posted, just like if someone said something in any other venue?

 

[ATLcarry]

Liberal media will put out clickbait stories that show they have no clue about how guns work.
The NRA wants you to send them more money.
Silicone valley libs will try to censor Facebook, YouTube and Google and eBay.
Blue states will pass guns laws that don’t prevent any crime but make law abiding citizens criminals. Red states will go to constitution carry.
So really not squat will change because the partisan divide in our government is so wide going into the 2020 presidential race there is no common ground to base any legislation on.

 

[Bear44]

Not just based on someones word, The person had to have commited signs of harming themselves or others. not just someone calling and saying "Hey joe said he was going to shoot up the 4 h club today."

Where are you getting these standards? Who says a person has to have actually acted on their statements? Isn't that too late?

 

[summer44]

Why not?

Because that not what's allowed. If you post on the internet you going to kill yourself, The sheriff can't just come and pick you for a hold for seventy-two hour evaluation without some extenuating circumstances or some more evidence that you're going to kill yourself.

 

[Bear44]

If someone posts on FB that they are going to go to a school and kill as many children as they can, isn't it appropriate for that person to be taken into custody for a mental evaluation immediately? Or should we wait for the actually shooting to start?

 

[summer44]

Where are you getting these standards? Who says a person has to have actually acted on their statements? Isn't that too late?

I didn't say acted on their statement, if your wife calls and says you said you were going to kill yourself, law enforcement arrives at your house, you have cut marks on your arms are you still threatening to kill yourself then that would be justified taking you in for a 72-hour evaluation. If your wife calls and says you going to kill yourself, law enforcement arrives and you say she's lying and there's isn't more evidence to the contrary they can't take you in

 

[Bear44]

Because that not what's allowed. If you post on the internet you going to kill yourself, The sheriff can't just come and pick you for a hold for seventy-two hour evaluation without some extenuating circumstances or some more evidence that you're going to kill yourself.

If that's true, then that's where the law needs to be changed, isn't it?

 

[Bear44]

I didn't say acted on their statement, if your wife calls and says you said you were going to kill yourself, law enforcement arrives at your house, you have cut marks on your arms are you still threatening to kill yourself then that would be justified taking you in for a 72-hour evaluation. If your wife calls and says you going to kill yourself, law enforcement arrives and you say she's lying and there's isn't more evidence to the contrary they can't take you in

There is a huge area between these two extremes and most of the mass shooters have been in it.

 

[summer44]

If someone posts on FB that they are going to go to a school and kill as many children as they can, isn't it appropriate for that person to be taken into custody for a mental evaluation immediately? Or should we wait for the actually shooting to start?

I'm not staying here what we should or shouldn't do I'm stating what the current rules are.

At that point an investigation should be started and the person that posted would be questioned, they would not automatically be sent for an evaluation based on what they posted.