A former Marine involuntarily detained for psychiatric evaluation for posting strident anti-government messages on Facebook has received an outpouring of support from people who say authorities are trampling on his First Amendment rights.
Brandon J. Raub, 26, has been in custody since FBI, Secret Service agents and police in Virginia’s Chesterfield County questioned him Thursday evening about what they said were ominous posts talking about a coming revolution. In one message earlier this month according to authorities, Raub wrote: “Sharpen my axe; I’m here to sever heads.”
Police — acting under a state law that allows emergency, temporary psychiatric commitments upon the recommendation of a mental health professional — took Raub to the John Randolph Medical Center in Hopewell. He was not charged with any crime.
He didn’t harm anybody, and didn’t direct threats at any individual. He was talking politics, and support his views or not, that’s what the 1st Amendment is all about. And he’s now in government custody.
This reminds me of my statements about the Ruby Ridge Massacre: “They don’t sound so crazy when the government executed their family.” Given that he’s been detained, maybe he’s dead-on right!
This is shameful, and illegal!
I actually don’t have any comment on this case. IANAL But, folks reading this should know that if you are involuntarily committed or (in most cases) spend 14 or more days in observation, you lose your legal rKBA.
Stories like this are why I get very concerned when people like Clayton Cramer start talking about how it’s “too hard” to get people involuntarily committed these days. Heck, fifty years ago the fact that I’m gay would have been enough to get me forcibly committed (assuming the person making the decision didn’t want to go the criminal route), yet gays are not a threat to anyone. It’s a system that is very easily abused without strict safeguards, and those safeguards should be relaxed only with extreme caution and forethought.
Psychology, in its current form, is barely a science, highly subject to the personal, religious, and political biases of its practitioners. Why do we want to use it to lock someone up indefinitely and remove their rights forever, except in the most extreme of cases?
Wow. Looking at his Facebook page, he’s certainly a bit of a kook (9/11 truther, chemtrails, frequent mentions of “the Revolution”). Nothing that I think should justify an involuntary psych hold, but he definitely bears watching.
A couple of good examples:
That last one could be viewed as a threat against specific people, too. My previous statement still stands, but I’m wondering now if this is a good example or not. Maybe they found something indicating that he’s an immediate danger, but that’s not being released to the press.
I see nothing wrong with the government WATCHING people who make vague threats. Heck I’d be DISAPPOINTED if the Secret Service didn’t have moles or listening devices at Tea Party or Anti-War rallies just to make sure people were just protesting and not fixing to riot, or plotting something violent.
Same goes with nuts like this, or maybe some of the more extremist milita-type groups.
Still there’s a huge gulf between talking crazy (oddly enough there are still lots of crazies sleeping on park benches and holding signs that haven’t been gobbled up by these same people) and having a plot, motive, and opportunity.
You’ll notice I don’t spend much time defending this guy’s principals. Still this REEKS of selective enforcement.
The .gov has a quota of “Crazy Vet” stories they need to peddle.
At least this case seems to be free of the undercover informer egging the guy on.
Well, like I said, my previous statement still stands. I don’t think it’s right that someone can be imprisoned without there being criminal charges. On the other hand, I think it’s a good thing that someone who may be an imminent danger to himself or others due to psychiatric issues (rather than actual criminal intent) can be evaluated – even against his will – without turning it into a criminal matter that could destroy his life if the person reporting him is wrong.
The tricky part is where the line is drawn, and what kind of protections there are for the person under suspicion. Personally, I think the usual 72-hour hold, or anything less, should not show up anywhere except a person’s medical records and should not be usable for anything else at all, possibly even subsequent involuntary holds (and that’s 72 hours at minimum – I’d be comfortable with all such “evaluations” being invisible regardless of length). There also has to be a procedure for full restoration of any rights that are impacted if someone is determined to be a danger after such an evaluation.
If he’s actually dangerous, he needs to be locked away. But if he’s dangerous because there’s something medically wrong with him, it doesn’t need to be a criminal matter that will hurt him if the problem can be fixed.
Is he an active duty Marine? Didn’t he sign a contract?
I’ll say First Amendment,but in the back of my mind..one of his higher ups should have seen that guy’s thoughts on FB and had a polite,behind closed doors conversation with him.
Okay,he’s not current enlisted..and because he has a military background,he has what the leftist media refers to as “training”..so in the leftist minds..he’s a threat.
I’d call the guy a kook..but we’re all “weird” to some point.
Bottom line (in my opinion):
Release him. Advise him he should speak with a therapist or a psychiatrist.
Pingback: Stupid Games, Stupid Prizes | Weer'd World
He’s here in my neck of the woods. On the unreasonable seizure side, he was released today after his appeal was heard by a judge. The judge even went on to have some … intense … comments for the local police who did all the paperwork. It seems that they kind of … left out reasons for the commitment on the paperwork. None of the allegations that were the claimed basis of the hold made it on to the petition. It was a blank petition, according to the news update I saw earlier.