New laws, anyone?

[summer44]

I disagree. Once people realize that making threats is being taken seriously, only the real crazies will keep making them.

If someone walks up to you on the street and threatens to kill you, that's assault. Why would saying it on the internet be different?

Because it's not imminent and the law recognizes that, factors such as do you know this person do you know where you can find this person. There are circumstances where you can make threats on the Internet and you could be arrested or held for evaluation but just a basic statement doesn't get you there

The laws do need to be changed. Right now the liability for taking someone into custody for a suspected mental disorder is much too great, so it doesn't happen when it should.

Hmm, more mass killings and loss of 2A rights v expenditure of more resources. That's a no brainer for me.

I'm not for forfeiting any rights firearm or otherwise

 

[Bear44]

Someone says they're going to kill a bunch of kids at a school and it can be verified that they actually said that they need to be arrested for terroristic threats

The burden for an arrest warrant should be much greater than for a mental evaluation.

I also don't think that's what defines a terroristic threat. I think it needs to be directed at a person that knows about it and is legitimately fearful due to it.

 

[Bear44]

Most of the people involved in these shootings had several prior warnings and people knew what they were planning to do. Had a thorough investigation been performed some of these shootings could have been prevented

Exactly my point and that investigation should start with a mental evaluation.

 

[Bear44]

I am a firm believe that people can snap when they hit rock bottom. I'm talking people who are perfectly fine from a mental-health standpoint, and then something just happens. Could be a variety of reasons. But mental health screening and background checks aren't gonna do you any good with those kinds of folks...

But these shooters are not those folks. Most have a clear history of indicating a serious problem well before they started shooting people.

 

[summer44]

Yes and they're the ones doing a lot of the shooting, so...

The burden for an arrest warrant should be much greater than for a mental evaluation.

I also don't think that's what defines a terroristic threat. I think it needs to be directed at a person that knows about it and is legitimately fearful due to it.

Threatening to shoot up a school or blow up a police station qualifies for the terroristic threat statute. It doesn't have to be a specific person it can be on a crowd of people, any of whom you may or may not know

 

[summer44]

Threatening to shoot up a school or blow up a police station qualifies for the terroristic threat statute. It doesn't have to be a specific person it can be on a crowd of people, any of whom you may or may not know

If you think I'm wrong call your local police department and make such a threat and see what happens

 

[Bear44]

Because it's not imminent and the law recognizes that, factors such as do you know this person do you know where you can find this person. There are circumstances where you can make threats on the Internet and you could be arrested or held for evaluation but just a basic statement doesn't get you there

I'm not for forfeiting any rights firearm or otherwise

Define "basic statement". Anything said on the internet is just a statement.

Do you think that if a person is injured in an accident and needs medical attention, but is disoriented and does not want to go to the hospital, should be allowed to die rather than be sedated and forced into the ambulance? This is just an example of a person with a metal disorder being a danger to themselves.

Now consider a person with a mental disorder possibly being a danger to others. Why should that person not be forced to get professional help just like the accident victim is?

 

[Bear44]

If you think I'm wrong call your local police department and make such a threat and see what happens

Then why aren't we seeing the same response when it's posted on the internet?

 

[summer44]

Define "basic statement". Anything said on the internet is just a statement.

Do you think that if a person is injured in an accident and needs medical attention, but is disoriented and does not want to go to the hospital, should be allowed to die rather than be sedated and forced into the ambulance? This is just an example of a person with a metal disorder being a danger to themselves.

Now consider a person with a mental disorder possibly being a danger to others. Why should that person not be forced to get professional help just like the accident victim is?

A conscious adult person refusing medical treatment cant be forced to recieve said treatment unless it is to prevent a suicde. There are a few other expections. But the person and entity doing the forcing better be damn sure they have the case law to back them up.

Your "mental disorder possible danger" is the issue, You could be a possible danger in someone else's view, Possible isn't good enough. You need a credible danger to self or others not possible

 

[summer44]

Then why aren't we seeing the same response when it's posted on the internet?

Depends if you post on face book or whatever that you are going to blow up the Sandy springs PD you might get arrested, If you living in Sandy springs post you are going to blow up the LAPD tonight and you don't have a plane booked you are likely to get a visit but no immediate arrest. The threat needs to be credible Why do you think Madonna wasn't arrested for saying she thought a lot about blowing up the white house. because it wasnt credible, now if it had been found she had ordered a lot of fertilizer and diesel fuel she might have a cell to sleep in tonight