VA Tech Shooter Involuntarily Committed to Mental Institution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tmg19103

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
37
OK, the news says Cho was involuntarily committed to a mental institution two years ago by a judge for being a clear and present danger to himself.

What is the law in VA on this? I know in PA this prevents you from EVER buying a firearm (18 P.S. § 6105(c)4).

Since he was involuntarily committed in VA, was it legal for him to buy a gun per VA law? If not, Cho never should have been able to buy this gun, he bought it illegally, and the NIC's system did NOT work - even when he was involuntarily committed by a judge and it should have been reported to NICS.

While this is still a terrible tragedy, this would be welcome news in that the gun was purchased illegally. If VA allows those who have been involuntarily committed to buy a firearm, I'd say changing the law to the way it is in PA is the only "gun control" needed.
 
It's a federal law, actually.

If you've been adjudicated as mentally defective or involuntarily committed, you are federally prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

Now, what the mechanism is for the hospital, etc. to do this, perhaps should be examined.
 
There is some confusion over whether he was voluntarily or involuntarily committed. That would be a critical distinction.
 
According to ABC news - a court found Cho mentally ill and committed him. However, it was a "temporary detention order", so that might not meet the criteria of legally being committed, BUT the court declared him to be "mentally ill" and a "danger to himself or others" which are the criteria for involuntary committment and would prevent you from ever legally buying a gun. I'd say a temporary detention order is an involuntary committment and it was illegal for Cho to buy a gun after that - which we now know he did.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
 
"What does the law have to do with deranged people owning guns?"

If you have been involuntarily committed in the past, the law says you can't buy or possess a gun, so Cho illegally bought at least the 9mm and he broke the law in doing so - and what needs to be fixed is NICS - NOT more gun control.
 
No, No, No. From MSNBC
However, after the second incident, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho’s, who was concerned that he might be suicidal, Flinchum said. Police obtained a temporary detention order from a local magistrate, and in December of that year, Cho was voluntarily but briefly admitted to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, NBC News’ Jim Popkin reported.
Click to expand...
 
What does the law have to do with deranged people owning guns?
Click to expand...

If Cho was involuntarily committed to a mental institution, then that fact should have come up when his info was submitted to NICS, and he should have been denied.

Denied by NICS = no G17 with which to kill 32 innocents.

...

I'd say a temporary detention order is an involuntary committment...
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter what you say. What counts is what the federal law says, and that remains to be seen.

From Fox News:
According to court papers, on Dec. 13, 2005, a magistrate ordered Cho to undergo an evaluation at Carilion St. Albans Hospital.

<snip>

It is unclear how long Cho stayed at Carilion, though court papers indicate he was free to leave as of Dec. 14.
Click to expand...

An overnight stay for an evaluation doesn't seem too much like being committed.
 
No, he was not involuntarily committed to a mental institution. A judge issued a temporary restraining order. He underwent a mental evaluation the next day and was released and told to receive outpatient counseling. That's far from being involuntarily committed.

Should he have been involuntarily committed? Obviously, but hindsight is always 20/20. As always, the mental healthcare system in the US is reactive and not proactive.


Cho posed 'imminent danger'
BY BILL MCKELWAY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The Times-Dispatch has obtained court records that Cho Seung-Hui posed "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness" in December 2005 but was released to receive outpatient treatment.

A Montgomery County magistrate issued a temporary detention order Dec. 13, 2005.Cho was "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization and present an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment," the order states.

Cho, who was listed as 5-foot-8 and 150 pounds, was brought in by Virginia Tech authorities and was examined the next day by a licensed clinical psychologist.

The doctor, who works for a private practice in Blacksburg, reported that Cho's "affect is flat and is depressed," but "he denies suicidal ideations. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."

Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum today said campus authorities had contact with Cho on several occasions in the fall of 2005.

Cho has been identified by authorities as the student responsible for killing 32 people on campus Monday before taking his own life.

Speaking at a news conference this morning, Flinchum said that on two occasions, female students called campus police about what they described as annoying contact made by Cho. In both cases, the women said there were no threats, and they did not want to press charges, Flinchum said.

After the December 2005 psychological examination of Cho, a special justice in Montgomery County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court found that Cho presented "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," but that he "the alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and were deemed suitable."

Cho was ordered by Paul M. Barnett, a special justice in Christiansburg, to receive outpatient treatment.

For more, see TimesDispatch.com.
Click to expand...
 
<Quote>"What does the law have to do with deranged people owning guns?"

If you have been involuntarily committed in the past, the law says you can't buy or possess a gun, so Cho illegally bought at least the 9mm and he broke the law in doing so - and what needs to be fixed is NICS - NOT more gun control.</Quote>

Actually he broke law not once. But it isn't important to me.
He broke life not 33 people but + wounded + relatives + other students who waited at that time and do not have a choice to run.
 
Even if he was not legally "involuntarily" committed, he was ordered to undergo evaluation and the judge declared him "mentally ill", I'd say this is where there was a break down in the system, as opposed to the need for a new AWB or other gun control. The pro-rights argument should be that this has nothing to due with needing more gun control, but better mental health services to properly address mentally ill people so they either recover or are prohibited from owning guns.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

According to a doctor’s report accompanying the order, which was first reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Cho was “depressed,” but “his insight and judgment are normal.” The doctor, a clinical psychologist who was not identified, noted that Cho “denies suicidal ideations.”
Click to expand...

He was not declared mentally defective.
 
Even if he was not legally "involuntarily" committed, he was ordered to undergo evaluation and the judge declared him "mentally ill"
Click to expand...

As far as I understand, a person is entitled to a trial in front of a judge before being involuntarily held for more than a 72-hour evaluation period. He was held for the evaluation, he was evaluated and released. There is a firm process one must go through before one's rights are taken away in these instances.

The state must provide compelling evidence to go beyond the initial 72-hour evaluation period and the person has the right to provide evidence in his/her favor.

If the judge says "you're whacked man" and says go get an evaluation and you do so willingly, the state still must go to court if they want to hold you against your will.
 
Jerry,

No they did not, please read the above posts. He was voluntarily commited for an EVALUATION to which he was not found mentally ill.
 
Denied by NICS = no G17 with which to kill 32 innocents.
Click to expand...

BS.

Once again, the anti-freedom crowd has even gun forum posters thinking that NICS (or any form of gun control) is the answer. I guess that means that they have won the propaganda war. :barf:

Denied by NICS does NOT equal no firearm. Guess what, crazies and criminals obtain weapons all day long. Since Cho didn't let the laws against murder stop him why would we even begin to think that laws against obtaining weapons would even slow him down?
 
The point of my last comment is laws and background checks don't keep guns out of criminals hands.

Lets say someone is on probation for a felony or was formerly committed to a mental institution. They go get their lil background check and it denies them their new gun. Is their probation officer contacted, are the police involved? Not that I ever heard of. Even though the person is breaking the law nothing happens.

I very seriously doubt the NICS system has access to mental health history because there is a whole different set of laws protecting your medical information.

The answer is to allow people to protect themselves wherever they go.
 
I was going to point out that he was found not to be mentally ill, which would possibly clear him to buy a gun, but that was stated.

Also I have heard that after a certain lapse of time and with notes from both a psychologist and psychiatrist that you can have your right to bear arms reinstated. Add to this that mental health documents (as well as other medical documents) are considered private, and that hospitals are not necessarily properly linked up to the system, and what it comes down to is that it is very rare that people are turned down from purchasing firearms for reasons other than a felony conviction (which is easily put into the system), I heard a statistic today that they only catch the mentally ill a few percent of the time on these checks.

And I just wanted to add that one thing this student was, by all acounts, very bright. Had he not used a gun he could have very easily built explosives, a flamethrower, etc. which may have actually resulted in a higher body count. One professor of chemistry explained how easy it is to build high power explosives and chemical weapons, and these could be even deadlier. When it comes to mounting an offense against civilians it is done very easily, in the civilian setting firearms give the greatest benefit on the defense.
 
I agree criminals will always get guns illegally and NICS is unwarrented, but it is the legal gun control system in place and "should have been denied by NICS" works in our favor.

As JWarren posted in a thread he just started, it is not the availability of guns or lack of gun control that failed us, but rather the COURT SYSTEM and the HEALTH CARE SYSTEM for not having this nutjob involuntarily committed so he could not buy a gun.

This is the argument that has to be made.
 
BS
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read what I am literally saying instead of projecting your feelings on to it. If he had been denied by NICS, he would not have gotten that G19. Would he have gotten a gun a different way? Certainly possible. But we don't know because he didn't have to.

A NICS inquiry gone wrong would certainly be "easier" and less painful for gun owners than the possible alternatives.
 
Last edited:
There have to be revisions to the NCIS (instant background check system) to include questions of mental stability for the purchase of firearms. You have school counselors with Psychological training, or private practice, institutional Psychologists/Psychiatrists who should be required to otherwise send in information about dangerous anti-social people that they are treating. That is, send information into a gun purchase database. As part of that NCIS background check, this potential gun owner's name would be checked against the names in that database and if their names comes up, they should not take posession of any firearm. Restrictions just on felons, are not good enough. Sure the legal basis and criteria for getting on such a database it kinda touchy.......but it jackasses like this Cho that give responsible gun owners a bad name. I'm a member of the NRA and I can tell you exactly what they would say to this suggestion,......but they need to learn to pick their battles. We don't need nutcases owning guns.
 
tmg, was not the ruling vacated???

red, just who will decide who is a "nutcase" and who is not?

Suppose my school counselor, or police chief, or ex-girlfriend disapproves of me owning guns and "sends in a report" about me claiming I am mentally unbalanced (heck, I love guns therefore I am unbalanced, according to the antis). What if someone gets ahold of the NRA membership list and sends that in?

Please keep opinion and hearsay out of my right to purchase firearms. A background check is prior restraint and as such is unconstitutional.

As Cho so aptly demonstrated, background checks are worthless and do absolutely nothing to stop criminals and mad men. Stop interferring with my rights to mitigate your fears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Va. Gov proposes gun show background checks
Replies
20
Views
722
JohnBT
J
O
  • Locked
CNN Article Legal Loophole
Replies
13
Views
614
another okie
A
D
  • Locked
(PA) Revoking gun permits not easy
Replies
3
Views
725
scout26
S
C
  • Locked
Some help?
Replies
7
Views
368
NavyLCDR
N
Neo-Luddite
  • Locked
Chicago Tribune Editorial: Guns and the mentally ill
Replies
15
Views
715
NeoSpud
N
Back
Top