Doomsday Prepper has his guns confiscated by the state of TN...

[mikegideon]

I have met David and talked with some friends of his. His guns were not siezed, he was just determined to be "mentally defective" and therefore cannot own a firearm. He transferred his firearms to another individual, the state did not take them. I'm still confused how you can be forced into a mental hospital, get released without a diagnosis, and it's assumed you are mentally defective because you were evaluated. If they thought he was a danger he would have spent more than a few days for observation.

If your interested in helping David you can sign a petition for Haslam to overturn the ruling. http://www.change.or...-defective#sign

This is starting to make sense now. Like i said... more of the story makes the fishy smell go away.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I am a licensed mental health professional in TN and NC, and in that capacity, if one of my clients hints at suicide, I have to assess them because of their suicidal ideation. If, from my assessment, I believe them to be serious about suicide, I have to get them to a hospital ASAP. The person will again be evaluated for possible commitment.

If I assess someone as suicidal, both ethically and legally, I cannot ignore it.

While it was regretful what happened went to the point of the court taking his firearms, there was undoubtedly enough concern on the part of the person who originally assessed him to feel that suicide was a high possibility.

So, if a patient jokes around and uses a word, kinda tongue-in-cheek, like suicide, you're

going to assess him how? That's one of the main reasons I hate anyone with that kind of power

over another, mental health notwithstanding.

Go to Saturday Night Live or some other comedy show and see all the tongue-in-cheek that

goes on.

The physician(cardiologist) who did this should be the one having his own damned head

examined. If I were going to that fool, it would definitely be my last visit.

See what happens when "good" people do things that go wrong?

This is also the kind of use, or abuse, our veterans may be getting subjected to, if I recall

correctly from a previous thread some time ago.

Screw it! Proletariats of the world unite!

No Mike, you're damned right. It's ridiculous.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

One more thing. Our judicial system is almost a slam dunk liberal monopoly.

Add that to a few well meaning doctors and other health care providers and your

local police. See where that goes. A big, dark hole.

[Guest ThePunisher]

The .gov knows whats best for us.

LOL!

[Guest ThePunisher]

This is really sad as to what our Country has become!

You ain't seen nothing yet as to what it is gonna be like if it is 4 more years.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

Trust no one. Can't even trust your doctors anymore. Everyone thinks they know what's best for the next guy.

It's about the only way these days. Sad.

[Mike.357]

I got a right to life and a got a right to death.

and I got a right for no one to tell me when it all should happen.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It may be bad, but it ain't as bad as it used to be. A few decades ago it was truly bad but has moderated somewhat (see quoted explanations below).

Folks can be conflicted and of two minds about it. For instance a person might be scared spitless at the possiblity of himself getting locked up for perfectly legal but odd behavior, and demand that involuntary commitment be abolished. Then the same fellow might get offended by hordes of the mentally ill homeless swarming downtown like the walking dead, and demand that all crazies be permanently locked up "for their own good".

I see the need for some involuntary commitments, but have always felt that it should be vanishingly rare, and the "danger to oneself" clause should be removed. There is no ethical way to protect a person from himself. Life is inherently dangerous. Any time you decide to use a table saw, shoot a gun, go swimming, drive a car, or heavens forbid go parachuting, you present a clear danger to yourself.

All ya gotta do to lock up more people is to rewrite a few pieces of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and you are good to go. You don't have to rewrite any law that ain't on the books already.

http://en.wikipedia....tary_commitment

Commitment proceedings often follow a period of emergency hospitalization during which an individual with acute psychiatric symptoms is confined for a relatively short duration (e.g. 72 hours) in a treatment facility for evaluation and stabilization by mental health professionals - who may then determine whether further civil commitment is appropriate or necessary. If civil commitment proceedings follow, the evaluation is presented in a formal court hearing where testimony and other evidence may also be submitted. The subject of the hearing typically is entitled to legal counsel and may challenge a commitment order through habeas corpus rules.

...

Starting in the 1960s, there has been a worldwide trend toward moving psychiatric patients from hospital settings to less restricting settings in the community, a shift known as "deinstitutionalization." Because the shift typically was not accompanied by a commensurate development of community-based services, critics say that deinstitutionalization has led to large numbers of people who would once have been inpatients being incarcerated in jails and prisons or becoming homeless when outpatient services are not available or they choose not adhere to treatment outside the hospital

...

In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights in O'Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the U.S. In the U.S. the specifics of the relevant statutes vary from state to state.

This was the case in a famous United States Supreme Court decision in 1975, O'Connor v. Donaldson, when Kenneth Donaldson, a patient committed to Florida State Hospital, sued the hospital and staff for confining him for 15 years against his will. The decision means that it is unconstitutional to commit for treatment a person who is not imminently a danger to himself or others and is capable to a minimal degree of surviving on his own.

...

The impact of involuntary commitment on the right of self-determination has been a cause of concern. Critics of involuntary commitment have advocated that "the due process protections... provided to criminal defendants" be extended to them. The Libertarian Party opposes the practice in its platform. Thomas Szasz and the anti-psychiatry movement has also been prominent in challenging involuntary commitment.

A small number of individuals in the U.S. have opposed involuntary commitment in those cases in which the diagnosis forming the justification for the involuntary commitment rests, or the individuals say it rests, on the speech or writings of the person committed, saying that to deprive him of liberty based in whole or part on such speech and writings violates the First Amendment. Other individuals have opposed involuntary commitment on the bases that they claim (despite the amendment generally being held to apply only to criminal cases) it violates the Fifth Amendment in a number of ways, particularly its privilege against self-incrimination, as the psychiatrically examined individual may not be free to remain silent, and such silence may actually be used as "proof" of his "mental illness".

Although patients involuntarily committed theoretically have a legal right to refuse treatment, refusal to take medications or participate in other treatments is noted by hospital staff. Court reviews usually are heavily weighted toward the hospital staff, with the patient input during such hearings minimal. In Kansas v. Hendricks, the US Supreme Court found that civil commitment is constitutional regardless of whether any treatment is provided.

...

At certain places and times, the practice of involuntary commitment has been used for the suppression of dissent, or in a punitive way. In the former Soviet Union, psychiatric hospitals were used as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners from the rest of society. The official explanation was that no sane person would declaim the Soviet government and Communism.

[Caster]

Wow, I could really go off here, but I won't. Luckyforward, the last thing I want to do is disrespect you or start an argument but I have nothing good to say about that post brother. If I decide I'm ready to go, on what bum authority do you have the right to say otherwise? Likewise, how does one conclude that that would make me a danger to others?

The bulk of the worlds problems are directly related to over population. If people want out, by god let them out! Anything else and you may as well incarcerate them .............Oh wait! That's exactly what you,re doing!

[Timestepper]

I got a right to life and a got a right to death.

and I got a right for no one to tell me when it all should happen.

Hell, I already know when I'm gonna' die because my birth certificate has an expiration date!

[TripleDigitRide]

Should we be surprised that John Harris — the attorney who's most qualified to handle such a case — has backed away from representing this gentleman? Based on my own observations, it appears quite obvious to me that Mr. Harris isn't interested in such cases if the potential client is outspoken about the .gov, or at all makes the cookie cutter NRA member/firearms owner appear slightly cooky. Even if no laws have been broken.

Edited February 12, 2012 by TripleDigitRide

[Luckyforward]

I offered a general informational comment about how mental health professionals assess persons who are possibly at danger to themselves - to keep them from harming themselves or others - and the thread turns into something about the government and one's rights.

My comments have not been taken out of context as much since my first marriage! LOL

Good luck, all . . .

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I offered a general informational comment about how mental health professionals assess persons who are possibly at danger to themselves - to keep them from harming themselves or others - and the thread turns into something about the government and one's rights.

My comments have not been taken out of context as much since my first marriage! LOL

Good luck, all . . .

Hi Luckyforward

Hope you didn't think I was dinging you. In my opinion it is wrapped up together with government and one's rights, but it is obvious that people in the field either have to follow the rules or get out of the field. Otherwise they can potentially get in bad trouble. So it isn't right to blame folks in the field even if one believes the law should be changed.

I wasn't cut out for it. Wasn't the only reason I got out, but one thing really bugging me when I quit, was an old senile man I was almost certainly gonna be forced to initiate commitment proceedings on "for his own good". He was cogent enough to refuse to go to a nursing home, and posed no danger to anyone except himself. If I'd stuck around long enough, would either have had to get the old man comitted or possibly get in trouble for not doing so.

[mikegideon]

I offered a general informational comment about how mental health professionals assess persons who are possibly at danger to themselves - to keep them from harming themselves or others - and the thread turns into something about the government and one's rights.

My comments have not been taken out of context as much since my first marriage! LOL

Good luck, all . . .

The thread started out about the government and ones rights. I know you have to stick with the rules of your profession. Doesn't mean we all have to like it.

[Hershmeister]

Surely there is a TGO attorney who would be willing to do some pro bono work for David?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The thread started out about the government and ones rights. I know you have to stick with the rules of your profession. Doesn't mean we all have to like it.

Hi Mike

Our boastful pontification on valid system flaws aside, it is quite possible that the survivalist fellow really was behaving convincingly crazy in order to get a referral. Unless the physician just happens to be a dilweed of first magnitude.

Have noticed over the years that physicians tend to hand out anti-depressants like candy to women, even when women don't ask for anything. But the physicians I've seen tend to ignore symptoms in men unless quite severe.

When I was about 19 and dropped out of college and was not too happy about life, was getting treated for tonsilitis by a crusty old ex-army doc working in a falling-down and not obsessively clean working class walk-in clinic. Didn't know anything about psychology and had been told that it really is good for something or the other. Asked that old doc about counseling options. The gruff old army doc said, "Son, unless you are bat-guano crazy, don't go get counseling. They will put it in your record and it will hurt your employment options later in life. You don't look crazy enough to me. Forget about it." So that seemed like decent-enough advice. At least to remember it more than forty years later.

So anyway I have always had a melancholic non-optimistic temperament and a case could be made for at least a mild Depressive Personality Disorder. As far as I've been able to determine, reading and observing clinical outcomes, medication or counseling is rarely beneficial for depression except possible medication benefits for the most seriously screwed-up psychotic depressives or manic-depressives. So it seems a total waste of time to look for any medical solution. Just keep on truckin. Doesn't keep me from getting up every day.

It is just funny-- Nowadays just about every routine doctor appt, either the nurse or doctor ask the typical symptom questions including, "do you have feelings of depression?". And I always honestly reply, "no more than usual." They always think I'm making a funny joke. They get a kick out of it! If I was a middle-aged woman they'd have had me on 20 different psychotropic drugs by now! Everything from valium thru lithium to elavil. (kinda sorta joking)

Ain't complainin. If offered drugs or counseling I'd decline. It is just interesting that they are almost universally so oblivious.

Just sayin, it is quite possible that the survivalist dude might have been acting a little more bizzarre than "run of the mill bizarre" for a doctor to have noticed anything at all.

[DaveTN]

Some general observations….

As a cop in Illinois I had to try to have a couple of people committed. It was no easy task and usually ended with them voluntarily committing themselves. Even when we were called out on attempted suicides; we couldn’t act until the person made some kind of attempt. We couldn’t haul them off to the ER or Psych Ward of the hospital just because they were threatening to kill themselves. Do they allow Tennessee cops to haul you off because you talk about suicide?

On here, some really don’t care if he has mental problems; they only care that someone wants to take his guns. (He says his guns have not been confiscated.) If you are crazy you will get a lot of people’s attention; if you are crazy and openly carrying deadly weapons you will get everyone’s attention.

Maybe this guy is crazy. I went to his YouTube channel and watched some of his videos; I think he is as crazy as a loon. I saw him pull a gun, wave it around and make threats, and his talk of killing children is not that of a sane person. (And I didn’t watch but parts of a few videos) Just like someone else we all know; his internet ramblings and his videos will probably be his downfall.

He doesn’t show what that letter is that he is waving around and carrying on about. Is it a response to a firearms purchase denial appeal? If so it could be as simple as having some incorrect information changed; happened to me.

But as I said before the only information we are going to get is going to come from him. I doubt Harris is going to tell us why he refused the case. The Doctors and the Cops can’t make any statements about medical or mental health issues. He doesn’t appear to be a reliable source for what’s going on.

Surely there is a TGO attorney who would be willing to do some pro bono work for David?

Why pro bono? He has people from all over the country making comments and he has asked for donations for a legal defense fund. It sounds like he may have (or will have) the money to get a good lawyer.

.

[TripleDigitRide]

I finally had the chance to watch more of his videos. Although his delivery is a little unorthodox, I think his biggest mistake was/is being so vocal about certain subjects in such a public forum. So many choose to march in lockstep with the "normal" crowd for fear of something like this happening to them, when we see someone being so vocal about such topics (especially when they're not the most articulate), they appear a little on the crazy side.

Sadly, as firearms owners, we cannot be open and honest, or even joke about suffering from any sort of mental illness. So many of our servicemen and servicewomen have been struggling with this for a very long time. Even if they know they are in need of help, many are afraid to seek assistance because of the likely consequences. Stories like this only reaffirm such a thought process.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep. People who need psychiatric services, REALLY NEED psychiatric services. In many cases it doesn't require a rocket surgeon to notice which people need it. IMO the state of the art isn't especially effective except that anti-psychotic drugs have been surprisingly effective, but its all we got and most likely better than nothing.

People on the borderline of needing services, sometimes go "down the rabbit hole" getting involved with the system at all, IMO. I don't have any clue which side of the borderline this survivalist dude happens to be on.

People having acute psychotic episodes, especially the first instance when nobody knows what is going on, can sometimes be quite hazardous even if they don't have an arsenal around.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Pain103]

Some general observations….

As a cop in Illinois I had to try to have a couple of people committed. It was no easy task and usually ended with them voluntarily committing themselves. Even when we were called out on attempted suicides; we couldn’t act until the person made some kind of attempt. We couldn’t haul them off to the ER or Psych Ward of the hospital just because they were threatening to kill themselves. Do they allow Tennessee cops to haul you off because you talk about suicide?

Yes Tennessee allows LE to make a detention/committal for mental health issues. They typically just transport you to the appropriate facility for evaluation or are called to transport to the final institution. This sucks by the way. You are almost guaranteed to spend an entire shift watching someone who is being committed. I haven't had too many in years but typically they were people threatening suicide on the spot or mental issues that resulted into drastic situations due not taking medication and resulted into armed conflicts.

Nobody reallys knows this guy's true story. It involves medical information which isn't public record so people will jump to conclusisions. I would dare say something was there to put the doctor in belief about his mental state. I have only seen one hospital over zelous with the emergency commmital the rest usually reserve it for it's needed and intended purposes.

[Guest mustangdave]

Unless he was adjucated by a judge, then he can get his guns back. That's my understanding anyway.

When you say you're nuts and want to OFF yerself to a "doctor" and has you "involuntarily" committed...all kinds of "legal stuff" just goes out the window...sometimes no judge is needed...and IF one is...its usually after the fact...and once they gotcha...fuhgedaboudit.

[Caster]

When you say you're nuts and want to OFF yerself to a "doctor" and has you "involuntarily" committed...all kinds of "legal stuff" just goes out the window...sometimes no judge is needed...and IF one is...its usually after the fact...and once they gotcha...fuhgedaboudit.

........SO, don't let them take you alive. It seems to me, this situation is much like we tell our wives about abduction: Make your stand then and there because what they do to you once they take you away is MUCH worse. Better to go down swinging on the spot.

[DaveTN]

........SO, don't let them take you alive. It seems to me, this situation is much like we tell our wives about abduction: Make your stand then and there because what they do to you once they take you away is MUCH worse. Better to go down swinging on the spot.

“Going down swinging†is suicide by cop. You would have to mentally defective to pick that option. No one here… let me start over… almost no one here believes that they are going to grab you and hurt you, or that you are going to be locked away.

That doesn’t sound remotely like any discussion my wife and I have had about what to do if someone tries to grab her.

[Caster]

It would only be suicide by cop if you let it get that far. That's what's so nice about talking about it here and now. Don't tell your doctors anything except where it hurts and if they wanna talk feelings or thoughts, get up and leave. Immediately.

[Guest mustangdave]

Don't tell your doctors anything except where it hurts and if they wanna talk feelings or thoughts, get up and leave. Immediately.

BINGO...we have a WINNER