Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should hose identified as mentally Ill be involuntary committed; when they have committed mo crime?
Topic Started: Dec 24 2013, 10:46 AM (618 Views)
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
What Colo did was quote and attack the wrong person and then he of course had to back track. LOL
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
Ignored post by Neutral · View Post · End Ignoring


Another post by Neutral. Another immediate rush to cover. Hide, Neut, hide.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
That makes sense, not. lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neutral
Dec 24 2013, 11:06 PM
What Colo did was quote and attack the wrong person and then he of course had to back track. LOL
Nah! He intended that post for me. You aren't that important.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
In CA it's covered by 5150 of the Welfare and Institution Code


A person can be committed for up to a 72 hour mental health observation if a law enforcement officer believes that he is either:

1. Gravely disabled
2. A Danger to himself
3. A danger to others

At the mental health institute he is examined by a mental health professional and can be released prior to 72 hours. Keeping the person beyond 72 hrs. requires a court hearing (I can't recall if an extension is allowed prior to the court intervention).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Dec 24 2013, 11:17 PM
Neutral
Dec 24 2013, 11:06 PM
What Colo did was quote and attack the wrong person and then he of course had to back track. LOL
Nah! He intended that post for me. You aren't that important.
Nah, he never attacks you, he does me even though he promised Pat he wouldn't. :cool:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Neutral
Dec 24 2013, 11:21 PM
Mountainrivers
Dec 24 2013, 11:17 PM
Neutral
Dec 24 2013, 11:06 PM
What Colo did was quote and attack the wrong person and then he of course had to back track. LOL
Nah! He intended that post for me. You aren't that important.
Nah, he never attacks you, he does me even though he promised Pat he wouldn't. :cool:
Colo and I disagree from time to time. The difference is that he isn't an asshole like you. Merry Christmas! :teeth:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
campingken
Dec 24 2013, 11:20 PM
In CA it's covered by 5150 of the Welfare and Institution Code


A person can be committed for up to a 72 hour mental health observation if a law enforcement officer believes that he is either:

1. Gravely disabled
2. A Danger to himself
3. A danger to others

At the mental health institute he is examined by a mental health professional and can be released prior to 72 hours. Keeping the person beyond 72 hrs. requires a court hearing (I can't recall if an extension is allowed prior to the court intervention).
Ken,

I can agree with that. My question really was meant to concern itself with long term incarceration. I am not certain a court should involuntarily commit a person who has committd no crime for a long period of time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Now Colo will throw an insult me way too, following your lead. lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I don't think anybody should be involuntarily incarcerated for longer than 72 hours, provided there is no solid evidence that makes it probable that they will be convicted of the crime in trial. The example that comes to mind is the holding of people in Cuba by our federal government.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis