Posted on 04/18/2007 1:55:30 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
A Virginia court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and dangerous. Then it let him go.
Back in 2005, the District Court in Christiansburg said that Cho was a danger to himself but not others. He was ordered to undergo outpatient care.
The ruling came after Cho was taken to a nearby psychiatric hospital for evaluation in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.
That information came to light two days after Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, killed 32 people and then himself in a shooting rampage on the university's campus.
Police obtained the order from a local magistrate after it was determined by a state certified employee that Cho met legal criteria for temporary detention that includes being a threat to others and being unable to care for himself.
Under Virginia law, "A magistrate has the authority to issue a detention order upon a finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment.
"The magistrate also must find that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others," says the guideline from Virginia's state court system.
Wendell Flinchum, the chief of the Virginia Tech police department, said that it's common for police to work with mental health facilities
"We normally go through access [appealing to the state's legal system for help] because they have the power to commit people if they need to be committed," said Wendell Flinchum, chief of the Virginia Tech police department.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I admit, I couldn’t make heads or tales of that WND article either. A garbled mishmash.
Still, I’m with Valpal1 that it should not be easy to have someone committed. This is and has been abused in many countries. And it was once abused here.
In this country, it used to be possible for a wily and powerful person to have a spouse wrongly committed in order to get rid of him/her and keep the kids. Parents who had mental problems themselves used to get their teens locked up when they couldn’t deal with them or wanted someone to blame (other than themselves) for having a dysfunctional family. Adult children who couldn’t wait for their inheritance used to have elderly parents committed.
This stuff really happened. I would not want to see it happening again. Would you?
No. It's very difficult to get someone committed, unless the person provides their own evidence. Like a suicide attempt, or manifest mental illness. I'll have to answer the other post later... time.
You still don’t know what you are talking about, either legally or psychiatrically, but hey, you had fun with spreading disinformation.
LOL.
The ATF confirmed what I said, regarding the judge's ruling. The other claim stands w/o evidence, or comment.
"hey, you had fun with spreading disinformation."
Whatever.
The ATF and the FBI say Cho’s gun purchases were legal, period, your interpretation of the law notwithstanding.
MASSACRE AT VIRGINIA TECH: FIREARMS
Cho was under the gun sales radar
His behavior before the shootings did not raise loud enough alarms with either law enforcement or the mental health system.
By Maura Reynolds and Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writers
April 20, 2007
BLACKSBURG, VA. — One question many people are asking after the shootings at Virginia Tech is how someone so deranged could have legally purchased firearms.
The answer is twofold: Although the gunman, Seung-hui Cho, had been accused of harassing women, he had not been convicted of a crime. And although he was considered mentally ill, he had not been committed to a mental institution or declared mentally incapacitated.
In other words, his behavior before the shootings did not raise loud enough alarms with either law enforcement or the mental health system, the two institutions that might have kept him from buying weapons.
In Virginia, a person can be denied the right to purchase a firearm if he or she has been convicted of a felony, judged mentally incapacitated or hospitalized involuntarily for mental illness.
In Cho’s case, his criminal record is believed to have been clean. Although he was taken into custody by campus police in December 2005 in part on suspicion of harassing two female classmates, neither woman pressed charges.
Cho’s mental health history is murkier. At the same time that he was accused of harassment, an acquaintance alerted authorities that Cho was suicidal. Campus police brought him to a mental health clinic in Blacksburg for evaluation, and on the basis of a preliminary screening he was involuntarily held overnight at a mental health facility in Christiansburg.
Gun control advocates argue that his temporary detention under a legal order meant that he had been judged mentally incapacitated and should have been refused the right to buy guns.
“We believe there is clear evidence that since a Virginia judicial officer found that [Cho] presented ‘an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness’ that he … should have failed his background checks,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
But Virginia officials argue that they followed the law to the letter. State and federal law enforcement authorities confirmed Thursday that they had no record in their respective criminal background check systems to indicate that Cho had been involuntarily committed, or that he had been declared mentally incapacitated by a judge.
Lt. W.J. Reed Jr., assistant division commander of Virginia’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, said he could not comment on the specifics of the Cho case.
But he said that if a judge had committed Cho involuntarily, or declared him mentally incapacitated, the clerk of the court would have been legally required to send the order to the State Police for incorporation into the Virginia Criminal Information Network.
Donna K. Tate, manager of the State Police office that reviews gun purchase applications, said there was nothing in the database to block the sale of a weapon to Cho.
Similarly, federal officials said they had no reports of crimes or mental illness in their system that would have barred Cho from buying guns.
About 35 states rely solely on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, the federal background check system. The rest, including Virginia, also check their own system because they have more stringent controls on the purchase of guns than the federal government, said Stephen G. Fischer Jr., the FBI spokesman for the Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, W.V.
The question then becomes whether mental health officials and local court officers failed to properly notify state and federal authorities of Cho’s mental health issues.
According to court records, Cho was declared mentally ill by the intake officer who evaluated him on Dec. 13, 2005, at New River Valley Community Services, a public provider of mental health services.
On the basis of that evaluation, a court magistrate issued a “temporary detention order” and Cho spent the night at Carilion Saint Albans Behavioral Health Center in Christiansburg.
The next day Cho was evaluated more fully by a psychiatrist, and met with a special justice. According to court records, the psychiatrist also declared the future gunman mentally ill but determined that Cho “did not present an imminent threat” to himself and others, and did not require hospitalization.
On that basis, the justice issued a certificate saying that Cho “presents an imminent danger to himself” but ordered him to receive outpatient treatment instead of hospitalization.
A temporary detention alone does not qualify as an “involuntary hospitalization,” state officials said.
Dr. James Reinhard, Virginia commissioner for mental health, said that a temporary detention order was meant primarily to permit a patient to be evaluated and should not be considered a final determination of a person’s mental state.
As for determining that a person is “mentally incapacitated,” Virginia law sets a high bar: that a person cannot meet his own basic needs without the help of a guardian. It does not appear that officials ever considered such a declaration for Cho.
“A finding that the individual displays poor judgment alone shall not be considered sufficient evidence that the individual is an incapacitated person within the meaning of this definition,” the law states.
There is nothing in the court record to explain why the examining psychiatrist decided that outpatient treatment would be adequate to treat Cho. Reinhard said that was not unusual. Some suicidal patients are more chronic than acute, and violent tendencies can be hard to discern.
“Behaviors like this can be masked and difficult to pick up. Clinicians don’t have a good record of predicting violence,” Reinhard said. “Especially if it’s not a psychotic illness, it can go undetected for long periods of time.”
The diagnosis the examining physician made is not clear. Officials have not released Cho’s records, citing privacy laws. The intake officer, the special justice and the lawyer who represented Cho during his hearing did not return calls Thursday.
"In the case of the Virginia Tech gunman, Cho Seung Hui, a background check did not reveal a 2005 court ruling ordering him into treatment for mental illness. The order should have made him ineligible to buy the two handguns he used in the shootings."
I'm looking for the explicit quote from the AFT regarding this matter, that confirms what I said above. I didn't bookmark it.
Dr. James Reinhard, Virginia commissioner for mental health, said that a temporary detention order was meant primarily to permit a patient to be evaluated and should not be considered a final determination of a person’s mental state.
Your interpretation merely carries water for the gun grabbers and opens the door for psychiatric abuse. Anyone can claim you are behaving "aberrantly" and should they convince a cop or judge you could find yourself hauled off for an evaluation by temporary order.
Should that be the determining factor in your ability to purchase a gun? That you were once required by a court to be evaluated.
I thought it was 11f.
“We believe there is clear evidence that since a Virginia judicial officer found that [Cho] presented ‘an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness’ that he … should have failed his background checks,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
But Virginia officials argue that they followed the law to the letter. State and federal law enforcement authorities confirmed Thursday that they had no record in their respective criminal background check systems to indicate that Cho had been involuntarily committed, or that he had been declared mentally incapacitated by a judge.
Your arguments are straight off of DU.
COuld be.....I guess I need to fill out more than 20 a year! LOL!
Doesn't matter what Rhienhart says about intention, because it refers only to spending Cho in before the ruling. Fed law cares about the court ruling, which was made post evaluation. THe court ruling was signed by Dr. Crouse, who examined Cho.
"Anyone can claim you are behaving "aberrantly" and should they convince a cop or judge you could find yourself hauled off for an evaluation by temporary order."
No, as per above. I already went over this. A court ruling requires legal representation, a docs cert. and evidence. That must be obtained first. In order to get htat info one must be evaluated before the judge makes his decision. Burketts ruling was made to force Cho to get treatment, which includes a more thorough eval. Had Cho refused, the court would have held the next hearing in the VA process to have Cho involuntarily committed.
Re: "State and federal law enforcement authorities confirmed Thursday that they had no record in their respective criminal background check systems to indicate that Cho had been involuntarily committed, or that he had been declared mentally incapacitated by a judge."
I gave you 28CFR25.4 above. Submission of the info regarding fed law by a State is voluntary. The law should read MUST SUBMIT.
Wouldn’t haven’t mattered a bit. Cho had not been involuntarily committed, nor had he had been declared mentally incapacitated by a judge.
The action taken against Cho did not culminate in either and so nothing was available to submit. VA is considered a leader in submitting mental health info to NICS.
from the NYT:
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Read the court ruling on the thread. Judge Kathy M "Godbly" signed the order for the initial exam on the 13th of Dec, 2005. Both Crouse and Judge Barnett made and signed the Court's ruling(which was their findings, not something they had yet to discover), that said Cho was a danger to himself and others, due to mental defect on the 14th of Dec 2005. That is enough for a fed disqualifier. Doc Crouse and judge Burnett reviewed the evidence and both concluded what they did, and made a ruling on it. COmmittment was not necessary according to fed law, just hte ruling.
Pure BS!
Cho’s atty, who was present on the 14th when the ruling was issued was Jerry “Jeel”.
Well, here is an interesting court case dilineating some of the problems, one being the court didn’t agree with the ATF’s definintion of “mentally defective”, but interestingly that being committed to outpatient treatment was the same as involuntary commitment (under Iowa law anyway). Just points out the fact that the law and interpretation of it is in flux and that the ATF is not the controlling legal authority on legal definitions, the courts are.
Selected Developments from January / February 2007 Issue
Civil Mental Disability Law
Seizure of Firearms; Outpatient Treatment
An Iowa federal court granted the U.S. government’s motion to destroy the firearms and ammunition of a man with a long history of mental illness, finding as a matter of first impression that outpatient treatment constitutes “commitment to a mental institution” for purposes of the federal firearms statute, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). United States v. B.H., 2006 WL 3531418.
B.H., a 63-year-old man with a long history of schizophrenia, collects firearms and ammunition. In September 2002, B.H. was involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment. State law enforcement officers executed a search warrant and seized 12 handguns, eight long guns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from B.H.’s home. In April 2003, B.H. was discharged from outpatient commitment. In November, a state court ordered the law enforcement officials to return the firearms and ammunition to B.H. The federal government filed a complaint in district court, asking the court to declare the seized items contraband as to B.H., pursuant to §922(g)(4), which prohibits a person who was been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution” from possessing firearms or ammunition.
The district court granted the government’s motion. First, the court found that B.H. was not “adjudicated as a mental defective.” The Eighth Circuit has defined a “mental defective” as “a person who has never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity.” United States v. Hansel, 474 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir. 1973). The state referee’s finding that B.H. was “seriously mentally impaired” at the time of the commitment hearing did not amount to a finding that B.H. “never possessed a normal degree of intellectual capacity.” Rather, the treating physician’s report indicated that B.H. had developed schizophrenia in the 1960s and has intermittently battled the condition since that time.
The government urged the court to adopt a broader definition of “mental defective,” relying on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulation that defines “adjudicated as a mental defective” as “a determination by a court that a person, as a result of a mental illness, condition or disease (1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.” 27 C.F.R. §478.11. A Michigan federal court had declined to follow Hansel and, instead, adopted the ATF’s regulation. United States v. Vertz, 102 F. Supp. 2d 787 (W.D. Mich. 2000), aff’d on other grounds, 40 Fed. Appx. 69 (6th Cir. 2002), 26 MPDLR 795. Unlike the district court in Vertz, the court here is bound to follow Hansel, so long as it is not inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The court recognized some tension between Hansel and the Supreme Court’s holding in Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (1983), but did not find the two cases inconsistent. In Dickerson, the Court stated that 18 U.S.C. §921 et seq. has a “broad prophylactic purpose.” The court here noted that the Court’s reference was a general remark about the statute, and that the Court did not define “mental defective.”
Second, the court ruled that outpatient treatment may constitute “commitment to a mental institution” for purposes of the federal firearms statute. Turning to the plain meaning of the statutory language, the court noted that the statute only requires commitment to, not in, a mental institution. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(4). Under Iowa law, a formal order of commitment is a prerequisite to outpatient treatment, outpatient treatment continues only while the patient is under such an order, and the treatment does not end absent a court order terminating the commitment. See Iowa Code §229.13.
http://www.abanet.org/disability/publications/lawreporter/caselaw.shtml
Both Dr Crouse and Judge Banett found that, "Cho Presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." That's a quote of the findings. The court ordered outpatient treatment, because of the findings.
The process began when Judge "Godbly" and Justice Williams signed the docs sending Cho to Crouse, on the 13th dec, 2005, on the allegations of the PD and whoever else made them. Barnett's ruling was post exam and was a affirmative finding. That means the court found the allegations to be true and Cho did in fact, "present an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." That resulted in the court ordering treatment, not an exam.
Thanks. State law is different, but that case shows how the ATF considers it. If you just go in yourself, w/o the court’s involvemnet, fed law explicitly says that is not a disability for purposes of the fed firearms law. Sorry about post 19. I couldn’t read “Godbly”, even when she was told to print her name, and left that dangling as “God”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.