So you are saying that he got off on a technicality. Had the police added the FACTS of his FB posts he might still be held. Kind of like when the police don't read you your Miranda Rights. Justice prevailed... the system worked. Raub can now possibly sue in a civil suit for damages... as the law allows.
Justice prevailed? The system worked? FOR WHO? The guy held against his will for the words on a FB page. So the guy files a civil lawsuit and wins, and the taxpayers of Chesterfield will be force to pay for the police ignorance of the law or blatant disregard for the law, and Brandon can never get those days back. Is anybody going to lose their job over this? NO! Just another minor mistake by the government thugs - SORRY! Pay up taxpayer, oh yeah, by the way, our union contract says we get a 4% raise this year.
Your passion for defending the state is unmatched. You out do yourself each post. You actually said "had the police added the facts" before having him detained he might still be detained. As if it is optional for police to give the probable cause to detain a person. This is good stuff box.
Cic is a great defender of the Holy STATES RIGHTS to make their own laws... He rants on this issue at least weekly.
When the State of Virginia makes a law and the law allows for special situations like this one, all of a sudden that STATE LAW is OUTRAGEOUS!
Well Cic... read it yourself below... It allows for the detention of a person in just this sort of situation. You may not like it but your STATES RIGHTS argument applies here. If the State law is challenged and found to be unconstitutional, then it will be changed or eliminated. Otherwise, it's legal.
Quoted Text
a civil procedure allowing for the preemptive incarceration of individuals deemed a threat to public safety, despite the accused not being formally charged with a crime. Virginia law requires that people subject to involuntary mental health treatment be guaranteed a legal hearing within 72 hours of incarceration.
I may have misspoke above when I said that the police didn't fill out the form correctly. I'm not sure but as I understand it, the police may detain a person under this statute, then since the police are not qualified to make a judgement of sanity, they turn it over to a mental health professional for a determination. At that point, the mental health personnel fills out the required form... not the police.
The law: Understanding and Applying Virginia’s New Statutory Civil Commitment Criteria
On another issue... had the man not resisted the police attempt to bring him for psych evaluation, there would have been no need for handcuffs. He was never arrested and was never charged with a crime, so no Maranda rights laws were violated. IMO, the detention was legal based on what I've read of Virginia law.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero, Back to post 137 which is off topic but left unanswered...
Quoted Text
How many American citizens were killed in Drone strikes? How many American citizens were killed in SWAT strikes? Both are rarely used and only used when other means will likely not succeed.
Do you have any information about how many American citizens were killed in drone strikes or in SWAT strikes??? My guess... about a thousand times more are killed in SWAT than in Drone... but that's only a guess.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cicero, Back to post 137 which is off topic but left unanswered...
Do you have any information about how many American citizens were killed in drone strikes or in SWAT strikes??? My guess... about a thousand times more are killed in SWAT than in Drone... but that's only a guess.
Do you think I agree with SWAT teams killing citizens? Since we are throwing around red herrings, how about this, how many SWAT teams put a suspect on a kll list without a warrant for arrest, then hunt that person down and execute them from approximately 10K miles away?
On another issue... had the man not resisted the police attempt to bring him for psych evaluation, there would have been no need for handcuffs. He was never arrested and was never charged with a crime, so no Maranda rights laws were violated.
When cops, FBI and secret service come to your door and DON"T tell you why you are being "taken in" hell I'd resist too. Well actually knowing what I know first of all I wouldn't say anything except I am calling my lawyer.
Box as the the state law you keep quoting, the judge must of looked at the evidence and found he was held for NO reason, he must have "passed" his pschye evaluation, but I'm sure the hospital was pressured into keeping him.
Released! That's terrible! This rant could have gone on for months... and now it's all been ruined!
He was NEVER accused with a crime, and has sufficiently passed his Psych evaluation... just like the Virginia law allows, he's been found to be sane enough to rejoin society. The system worked!
Do you think I agree with SWAT teams killing citizens? Since we are throwing around red herrings, how about this, how many SWAT teams put a suspect on a kll list without a warrant for arrest, then hunt that person down and execute them from approximately 10K miles away?
The SWAT Team kills, (Like the Drone attacks), are spontaneous actions that happen in real time. Most often in SWAT kills, the responsibility to shoot or not isn't in the hands of a judge, but in the hands of a mid or upper level police official. Occasionally the protocol in SWAT hits is already defined, as in the case of saving the life of hostages. In some SWAT attacks, (like some Drone attacks) the target is known to the SWAT team in advance, but his location is fluid and ever changing. (Like Drone attacks) they may only have a few minutes to complete the task, before the intended target is no longer present, in some hostage cases, SWAT teams will sit aimed at most likely view of a target... if the target steps into view, even briefly, they will shoot. Like SWAT team kills, Drone attacks are the last preferred way to eliminate the target... if at all possible the target is to be captured but that option seldom presents itself.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cic is a great defender of the Holy STATES RIGHTS to make their own laws... He rants on this issue at least weekly.
When the State of Virginia makes a law and the law allows for special situations like this one, all of a sudden that STATE LAW is OUTRAGEOUS!
Well Cic... read it yourself below... It allows for the detention of a person in just this sort of situation. You may not like it but your STATES RIGHTS argument applies here. If the State law is challenged and found to be unconstitutional, then it will be changed or eliminated. Otherwise, it's legal.
You keep on saying "states rights", you never answered MY question, did you see the FBI and Secret Service in the video? Did you read the article justifying the detention based on concerns of "terrorist threats" on Baum's FB page? Is terrorism prosecuted by state of federal courts?
And please stop it with the "unconstitutional" BS...The Constitution was ripped up decades ago. We fight offensive wars without declarations, we mint money through a private bank, we fine individuals for not purchasing insurance. We are a land of arbitrary laws with no constitutional restrictions. It has been that way for a LONG time. I now laugh when people say, "is it Constitutional". Like it matters. These judges interpret the Constitution to fit their ideological desires.
The Constitution is the law of the land. Laws that ignore it are invalid and should be resisted.
By 'resisted' I assume you mean that they should be challenged in court to be determined if they are constitutional. If not, they are eliminated or changed.
To disregard a law, simply because your "opinion" is that it may be unconstitutional is not a valid excuse for disobeying the law.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The SWAT Team kills, (Like the Drone attacks), are spontaneous actions that happen in real time. Most often in SWAT kills, the responsibility to shoot or not isn't in the hands of a judge, but in the hands of a mid or upper level police official. Occasionally the protocol in SWAT hits is already defined, as in the case of saving the life of hostages. In some SWAT attacks, (like some Drone attacks) the target is known to the SWAT team in advance, but his location is fluid and ever changing. (Like Drone attacks) they may only have a few minutes to complete the task, before the intended target is no longer present, in some hostage cases, SWAT teams will sit aimed at most likely view of a target... if the target steps into view, even briefly, they will shoot. Like SWAT team kills, Drone attacks are the last preferred way to eliminate the target... if at all possible the target is to be captured but that option seldom presents itself.
If you truly believe that this is how the land of freedom should be run, then Brandon Raub is right.
And please stop it with the "unconstitutional" BS... I now laugh when people say, "is it Constitutional". Like it matters.
Note to other posters: Cic no longer believes in the US Constitution.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Like SWAT team kills, Drone attacks are the last preferred way to eliminate the target... if at all possible the target is to be captured but that option seldom presents itself.
What were the first methods the Obama Administrations use to capture Al Awlaki and his 16 year old son before using the "last resort" missile strike?
Let me guess, it was too dangerous to send in a special force unit to capture Al Awlaki to give him his day in court. It was too risky. BUT, we can justify sacrificing 1 soldier a day in Afghanistan...And for what?
By 'resisted' I assume you mean that they should be challenged in court to be determined if they are constitutional. If not, they are eliminated or changed.
To disregard a law, simply because your "opinion" is that it may be unconstitutional is not a valid excuse for disobeying the law.
Nope. I don't mean in court.
I mean that you have the right to exist.
You have Constitutional rights.
Any law that attempts to violate these right may be resisted.
Logged
