VA Tech Shooter Involuntarily Committed to Mental Institution?

[SteveS]

As a gunowner, I am worried that this incident will cause the legislatures to enact more stringent laws to deny our basic rights.

As someone who worked in the mental health field, I am now worried that people are going to demand that mentally ill people be detained and restricted from exercising their basic rights. I have done involuntary admissions before and it is a difficult and lengthy process, which is as it should be. You are depriving someone of their freedom based on a potential danger to themselves or others. In many cases they have not done anything serious, but may have indicated that they want to do something.

I have no idea what Cho's records indicate, so I certainly can't speak with any kind of authority. That being said, I would wait before assuming that he fell through the cracks and that someone released him when they shouldn't have. I hope that this incident isn't used as an excuse to open up everyone's medical records to governmental scrutiny to determine who is mentally able to own guns. Do we really want to go there?

 

[tmg19103]

El Tejon,

I agree. I'm just quoting the law - not saying I agree with it.

The fact is you have to have probable cause to be brought to a detention hearing and you are allowed legal representation - and the law is pretty specific that you have to be a threat to yourself or others and proof must be provided of this for you to be found mentally deficient. That proof is generally provided by witnesses who will testify you threatened suicide or to blow up a building, or if there is proof you wrote as much. You are entitled to bring your own witnesses to counter a trumped up government charge and present your own evidence, and if you ever find yourself in this situation you better get the best lawyer possible.

But, I agree this could be abused. I'm just making a point that can quickly and simply be made to the anti's - under the law Cho never should have been able to buy that firearm as a judge ruled he was a danger to himself or others and mentally ill.

The mantra for now should be the COURT SYSTEM and HEALTH CARE SYSTEM failed us in Cho's case - not current gun control laws.

Now, if the anti's want to try and pass future legislation that makes it easier to prove you mentally ill, then we will have to fight that battle, but since I'm not concerned about myself and mental illness, I want to make sure we don't get another AWB or other inane gun control that goes against ALL citizens - not just the mentaly ill.

 

[Zen21Tao]

On "Special Report" with Brit Hume Fox News is reporting that the Judge's decision that he felt Cho was mentally ill and a danger to himself was an initial legal requirement to remand Cho over for evaluation. Based on the outcome of that evaluation the judge allowed Cho to voluntarily admit himself to the mental facility. Since this was voluntary, there was nothing to report to NICS.

On "The Fox Report" Sheppard Smith reported that, in an interview with the judge that remanded Cho for treatment, the judge says that after the evaluation of Cho he did in fact allow Cho to voluntarily commit himself to the institution and that had he (the judge) made this commitment involuntarily it would have shown up on the NICS background check and prevented him from legally buying the guns.

So it looks like the question become whether or not to make voluntary commission to be grounds for denial of ones 2nd Amendment right and/or whether the initial decision to remand someone to a facility for evaluation should be enough for denying 2nd Amendment rights.

A problem I have with expanding the laws determining what constitutes "mental illness" is that it creates a slipper slope for possible cases of abuse. For example, I could call the police and claim that just about anyone has been exhibiting "strange" behavior and based on this (under Florida's Baker Act) that person could be involuntarily committed to a treatment facility for examination.

Also, making voluntary admittance to treatment sufficient to deny ones rights could discourage some people from seeking help for problems they may have.

 

[El Tejon]

tmg, I was under the impression that Cho's ruling had been vacated. Is this not correct?

Was Cho ruled mentally incompetent? As Zen says, was not the committment voluntary?

If Cho was not ruled mentally incompetent, this was voluntary or if his ruling was vacated, then "the system" did not fail.

 

[RNB65]

Guys, it doesn't matter. An NICS check has never stopped anyone from getting a gun if they want it bad enough.

 

[redrover]

You know, basic rights have nothing to do with an emotionally disturbed person buying a handgun. This nut was soo anti-social he never spoke more than one word at a time to his own roommate (that means they slept in the same room). This guy was seriously disturbed and everyone knew it. There may already be in place a database of mentally ill "veterans?" that gets referred to as part of the NCIS process. As I indicated before, the specifics of who would be placed on a "no gun Psy. database" is very touchy (from a 2nd amendment rights and general legal POV)....and I think I mentioned Psychologically trained professionals, who are actually treating the person should be the only ones who can put someone on a list (no police or ex-girlfriends). This has nothing to do with mitigating my fears......this has everything to do with saving lives.

Point'em down range gentlemen.

 

[tmg19103]

Well, here is my take as an argument to the anti's - a judge RULED he was a danger to himself or others AND mentally ill - FACT.

If it was vacated, then either the court system or the healthcare system failed us because look what this nutjob ended up doing!

We do need to be careful about laws that will make it easier to be railroaded as mentally ill, but we have our consitutional rights and the right to legal representation if found in that siutation and we can fight bad legislation as it comes up.

If Cho's case was vacated after a judge ruled he was a danger and mentally ill, my talking point to anti's is either the judge or the healthcare system dropped the ball with this guy.

I'm not saying this is a national legislative point the NRA should make at all, but rather my talking point as I talk to friends who know I am into hunting and shooting sports and ask me about this when they themselves are not into firearms.

 

[NM234]

And like I said before, when someone is planning an attack on innocent civilians they don't need a gun. Explosives etc. that may have been even more devestating are very easy to make, and Cho was not stupid according to any accounts.

Had he been denied the gun he may have just leveled the building with a bomb or something else equally destructive. I feel in the civilian setting guns are most useful for defense, when an offense is attempted there is a plan and other weapons can be used just as, if not more, effeciently. I mean the 9/11 hijackers used no guns in their attack. Cho could have used a number of weapons.

I also have to agree with the previous post on who decides who is mentally ill. I feel that guns should be denied to felons, and temporarily taken away from someone who is ill. People do get better and it depends what their illness is, if someone is depressed and makes one stupid remark they could be committed (happened to a neighbor a few houses down) when in reality they are not dangerous people, also we shouldn't be protecting people from themselves to the point of stopping them from owning guns. My dad's uncle committed suicide when you could just stop at the store and grab one w/o any trouble, and he chose another method. Only people that are CONVICTED should be denied their 2nd ammendment right.

 

[junyo]

It's a fairly slippery slope when you allow rights to be removed based on someone's guess as to someone else's state of mind or probable future actions. And in a world where CYA is a religion of it's own, pushing this will result in every mopey teenager being judged "unstable".

What was once keeping kids from bringing deadly weapons to school has morphed into expelling someone who uses real scissors instead of safety scissors. Because no one wants to risk liability. It's a dangerous thing finding fault with people who, with the info they had, were in all likelihood acting in good faith.

 

[tmg19103]

And as I said - I'm just referring to talking points to friends.

I understand this could be a slippery slope, but I don't think my talking points to the small circle I deal with will affect the national outlook.

Earlier I did post this should be an overall mantra, but with further thought and after other posts I take that back.

This will just be my personal talking points to those who ask me about it.

 

[lamazza]

crap. looks like this one fell through the NICS cracks.

I seriously doubt it. A few fishy points are popping up already. Filed serial numbers and a reciept found for a GLOCK purchase are 2 that jump right out at me.

 

[SteveS]

and I think I mentioned Psychologically trained professionals, who are actually treating the person should be the only ones who can put someone on a list (no police or ex-girlfriends). This has nothing to do with mitigating my fears......this has everything to do with saving lives.

I worked as a 'psychologically trained professional' for 15 years and still hold my licensure and I can say I am not comfortable with these people putting people on a list. I would prefer it stay the way it is now where you can only be placed on a list following a court proceeding where you are entitled to representation and due process.

Serious violent acts among the mentally ill are very rare. One study said that 3 % of schizophrenics commit violent acts, compared with about 2 % of the general non-mentally ill population committing violent acts.

 

[redrover]

I don't have a problem with due process as a prelude to a list. That will essentially be a my Medical experts versus your Medical experts hearing (gov. vs. accused). Make the standards high.....but some of these nuts are going to get redflagged and will be kept from getting handguns.

It's not always a slippery slope....we need to keep angry mental cases from buying guns legally, or these dam socialists are going to find a way to really take our rights away. This guy (Cho) didn't say boo to anyone, I seriously doubt he had the connections to buy a .380 out of trunk of someone's car. It's like buying weed or cocaine...you gotta know people....this guy didn't know anyone. So my guess is, a legal purchase of a gun was the only way he was going to get one.

 

[adobewalls]

What about the stalking charges that were not pursued?

What would have happened if the girls would have followed through and filed those?

 

[FMJMIKE]

You know, basic rights have nothing to do with an emotionally disturbed person buying a handgun. This nut was soo anti-social he never spoke more than one word at a time to his own roommate (that means they slept in the same room). This guy was seriously disturbed and everyone knew it. There may already be in place a database of mentally ill "veterans?" that gets referred to as part of the NCIS process. As I indicated before, the specifics of who would be placed on a "no gun Psy. database" is very touchy (from a 2nd amendment rights and general legal POV)....and I think I mentioned Psychologically trained professionals, who are actually treating the person should be the only ones who can put someone on a list (no police or ex-girlfriends). This has nothing to do with mitigating my fears......this has everything to do with saving lives.

I agree with you redrover.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

What about the stalking charges that were not pursued?

What would have happened if the girls would have followed through and filed those?

The point is rather moot since they didn't. However, things would then depend on how far the process progressed and if he was actually ever convicted of a crime.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Was Cho ruled mentally incompetent? As Zen says, was not the committment voluntary?

There is actually two commitment instances. The first is commitment for mental evaluation then, based on the outcome of the evaluation, there is a possible commitment for treatment. Any determination of 'mental incompetence' comes after the evaluation and if the commitment for treatment is involunbary.

Cho was committed involuntarily to a facility to receive the evaluation then based on that evaluation the judge felt he may be a danger to himself and others. Rather than involuntarily commit him for treatment, which would be required to be preclude him from owning a firearm, the judge allowed him to be voluntarily committed.

 

[JohnBT]

The initial 72-hour evaluation is a temporary detention order - what used to be called a green warrant. Do something like go to the police station and try to swear out a warrant on the devil and you might just get a 3-day vacation. (True story, I know the guy. When he sobered up they let him go after the hearing.)

Then you get your hearing. You might be set free, or you might be allowed to voluntarily admit yourself for treatment, or you might be involuntarily commited. The involuntary commitment is the one most people try to avoid by being agreeable to compromise. And being agreeable is a big step in the direction of convincing the powers that be that you're not completely off your rocker and a danger.

Sounds like they decided he was a bit of a mess, but was enough in touch with reality to agree to be treated on an outpatient basis.

How in touch is in touch einough? Reminds me of a legal board I follow and the typical answer to the question of how with-it does someone need to be to sign a Power of Attorney. The answer they usually give is one step above a mushroom. I suppose a cooperative mushroom.

John

 

[Sage of Seattle]

redrover, I'm honestly confused reading your posts.

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.

There already IS such a system in place, known as "the Brady list" which prohibits firearm ownership -- NOT just firearm purchase -- based on mental illness.

I don't have a problem with due process as a prelude to a list. That will essentially be a my Medical experts versus your Medical experts hearing (gov. vs. accused). Make the standards high.....but some of these nuts are going to get redflagged and will be kept from getting handguns.

Again, for the umpteenth time stated by me and others on THR, there already is a system in place which can prohibit people from legally obtaining firearms. Cho apparently went through this process and was deemed safe. Whether or not it was an accurate assessment is not the point I wish to make now, just the fact that you seem to be calling for a law or procedure which already exists.

If I'm mistaken, please tell me.

 

[redrover]

SAGE - my acronym was wrong..it's NICS, not NCIS. NICS replaced the Brady wait period in 1998.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=instantcheck&menu=pro

I indicated REVISIONS to the NICS system. I stand by my statement.

The system in place doesn't seem to work too well if this guy could buy a gun. We need to have School counselors (the people who actually talk to the professors), talking to Psychiatrists and talking to the Court System. Maybe they need to expand what they mean by "mental defective." This guy should have been on a list.