Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is There Ever a Right Time?

Don't know what the formal process is nowadays or is in other areas, but in this area it used to be when the police were called over someone with probable mental illness issues causing a disturbance, they were first taken into custody and usually locked up until two MDs (general practitioner met the legal requirement) visited and conducted a brief interview with that person. If deemed mentally ill by MDs, transported to a mental institution and medicated for a specific amount of time, then released.

Red Flag = BS

A person can do more harm with a gallon of gas and a lighter, both available at any convenience store. Without a background check. People get angry for a bazillion reasons, it does not mean they are a threat. A person determined to be deranged should be put in protective custody after professional diagnosis, not the lay opinion.

Agreed, but that is the problem. Nuts cannot be "imprisoned" , meaning held without their consent, anymore. At least not until it too late.

Living in liberty can be a dangerous thing but, to keep things in perspective, you're many times more likely to be bludgeoned to death than shot down by a mass shooter.

No I didn't miss the point, I merely pointed out two that were misstated.

No, actually it has not.


Is a mental health Dr. standing before a judge, making his/her case to confine their patient for two more weeks, against their will, though no crime has been committed, considered “due process?”

How do you define due process with the mentally ill, when it is decided to confine them with no crime being committed? When doctors stand before judges, usually the mentally ill are not represented by or issued legal representation.
So yes, you need to explain due process one more time, because I’m seeing confinement with no crime and no legal representation.

Disorderly conduct is an arrestable offense. Psychotic behavior (which is typically disorderly) is usually why psychotic folks are arrested, then (if they show signs of psychotic behavior) transferred to a facility for evaluation. Were it not for such facilities, they'd be charged with conventional disorderly conduct and housed in a jail cell awaiting arraignment with legal representation (should they request it). Assuming they meet certain criteria, instead of awaiting arraignment in a jail cell, they're doing so in a facility qualified to evaluate psychosis. They can request an attorney any time they like. Their legal status while being evaluated is that of being under arrest and being held for arraignment, pending evaluation.

Same as being arrested for public drunkenness, except they add the factor of being evaluated for mental illness. You don't send an attorney in to talk to a falling down drunk person, and you don't do that for someone who's floridly psychotic, for reasons that shouldn't require explanation. Same same.

As to the legal process, they are treated alike, i.e., when apparently capable (lucid), they are brought before a judge with their legal representative (should they request it), to determine their future situation, confinement or release. They may demand a jury trial at that point, regardless, if they protest their further confinement. Some states don't offer a jury trial for commitment, and this, in my view, is a violation of due process, and ought to change.

Actually, most people are committed to mental health observation because they're doing crazy things, like running around Walmart nekid with a rat trap on their dick. 24 hours and a couple of pills and they're back to the overpass.

Call me old fashioned but I don't like a penalty for crime to be imposed until an actual crime is committed