ManagingPrime

Yes. I'm aware of medical privacy laws. Those laws would not stop a reporter from contacting everyone that knows an individual looking for someone to confirm, "yes. He's a real nut. Hope he get's help." Apparently, no friends or family feel that way...or at least have not gone on record with thier opinions...seems to be the contrary. By what measure is he a danger to himself and others?

Right, but we often bash the media for not reporting correctly or simply being wrong. Agreed. However, with the amount of time that has lapsed since this first became a story and the current exposure the story is receiving I would expect that all pertinent facts would be out by now or out shortly. With this story going viral I would fully expect the authorities to have released any additional details that would color this guy as more of a nutter. Seems the masses are quite content with him sitting in a psych ward for any of the following: 1. Being a trained deadly weapon. Apparently, vets, since they've been trained to kill, don't have the the same rights to free speech. 2. Suggesting that the govt was complicit in 9/11 3. Suggesting there might be a civil war in the united states. 4. The most egregious of all....quoting shit rap lyrics that reference axes and severed heads. Oh my!

Based on the most recent article in todays washington times......it appears the answer is, yes! http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/22/can-government-detain-you-over-facebook-posts/ ...but it's ok. In violating his rights we are being protected...maybe...kinda...sorta...not really.

Song lyrics Most people do not listen to inmature bands and their silly lyrics. Our constitution protects bad taste. Most people would not run around saying they were a decorated war veteran. Most people would find those type individuals disgusting and would support a law (passed in 2006) that made it a crime..... ....The supreme court upheld these peoples right to free speech. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/scotus-stolen-valor-ruling

It might. And the police investigating could be a very reasonable reaction. I appears (from news reports) that the police did not come for an investigation. He's not sitting in a jail cell and I'm sure that if the FBI or the Police had evidence of a crime committed or evidence of intent to commit a crime he would in a jail cell not a psych ward. Should we limit our ability to free speech because it could be construed as a threat? Should this just be limited to our online communications on sites like this and facebook or should it extend to painters, musicians, writers and movie producers? Where is the line? There is a very good reason we have a 1st amendment right. There have been numerous cases where speech that can seem threatening in some contexts and considered offensive by many is protected by out supreme court. This is how our system was designed. View this as a supreme court case. Read his FB posts. Do you think the supreme court would rule that some of the speech is not protected?

I work in a community mental health center here in VA. It was probably a peer in a different center in that area who is the "mental health crisis intervention worker" who assessed the person. Here's how the process works--there is an interview and an assessment. Based on that the evaluation work can petition the magistrate for a Temporary detention order. At that point the person can be detained for, I believe, 48 hours, until a more complete hearing before a judge is held. Here is the relevant statute in VA: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+37.2-809 After the Cho shooting the state of Virginia made it easier to have a temporary detaining order issued. Nice to put a "face" on those intervention workers. In the news reports I read, there was no mention of an assessment prior to being detained.Otherwise, it seems established procedures are being followed. Is it possible for a person to be assessed in absentia?

Agreed. I would hope that if someone (myself included) is threatening mass murder online the authorities would get involved. However, the scenario you listed does not jive with the facts of this particular case. The guy never made a threat of mass murder. No crime was commited. Some "intervention workers" decided that he may be a threat and the police (along with the FBI) showed up to escort him to the hospital for evaluation. If you read the FB posts it's almost as if the guy knew it would play out this way.

True, but I find it hard to believe that he could be sectioned based purely on his online account. How do we know that someone didn't have concerns and contacted mental health workers or the FBI (if he was making crazy comments and threatening to 'sever heads with his axe'. I'm sure at some point all the information will come out, but one would think that with the story going viral the "authorities" (I use the quotes, because I'm unsure who they would be in this case, local police, state police, FBI, Secret Service) would make a stronger case to the public. So far the case is, this guy COULD be one of those crazy movie theater shooter types...better safe than sorry. Note. He has not been charged with a crime. He made no direct threats to himself or others. The "sharpen axe" comment that seems to be the center of the stir is actually a lyric from a rap group, one that he was a fan of as evidenced by other FB posts. I don't agree or disagree with the guy on all points, but I find this case very interesting. Where is the line? Was there due process? Do I only need to offend one of my facebook friends with my posts and one "intervention" worker to be classified as a potential threat and locked up in a psych ward?

I read the posts....the situation still has an odor to it. I've seen where some people think that he knew his account was being monitored and provoked the response we see. or....he could have been having a mental breakdown. In that case I'm still a little confused about who these "mental health crisis intervention workers" that can decide if we need to be locked up for evaluation based solely off of our online positings? That has a chilling effect.

Considering the type material and opinions expressed in this section of DZ.COM I'm curious what others think of this bit of news. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/08/21/military-vet-detained-for-psych-evaluation-over-anti-government-facebook-posts/

Using those criteria a photo journalist would fail to pass the test of "journalist" as well. Indeed, a photo journalist is the closest comparison to what he is. He came into information and without much editing sent it out on the "wires" to the major news networks. This information did in-fact paint a picture of American diplomacy in action. For better or worse the world has a little bit better understanding of how our government apparatus works after his "leak". Not only did the world gain some insight from these cables, there is also now an ongoing debate as to what journalism is.

No, but once that information is disseminated with the intent of it reaching the masses he becomes a journalist. Look at merriam-websters definitions for Journalist and Journalism and some of the synonyms.

how "big" do you reckon a 266 UL Flick packs ? compared to let's say a Safire or Sabre ? What would be the 9cell equivalent in volume ? I find interesting the general shape of the main tray

Don't do it. I know someone first hand who can no longer jump due to the damage done.

Please take note of the last statement before the thread was locked: "Shutting this one down before the inevitable."...sexual content and innuendo.

Shhhhh...Complaints will decrease new submissions. I'll throw out this quote: Life's not a bitch! Life is a beautiful woman You only call her a bitch because she won't let you get that pussy. Please continue with new submissions.....

I vote fullmoon based on the 's

Welcome to the new age of skydiving. If you want, there are numerous low-jump-number w/ small-format-camera threads to vent on. Don't really see it changing what's happening on the ground though. Just need to be B qualified to jump a balloon. Nothing to crazy about a balloon jump, it's dead air so body position is kind of key...but then again kind of not, because you have plenty of altitude. There is the likely hood that it may be an off DZ landing...but at 50 jumps most jumpers have already been in a situation where they landed somewhere other than intended LZ....and I doubt a balloon operator would put out a group over a heavely populated area. With some wits about you and some basic skills it's very fun jump with not much increased risk. That's my 2 pesos. Other opinions may differ, I'm sure.

You rock and so does this thread. Beer owed for sure!

I'm willing to bet that an argument could be made that more and more laws are added to the books every year that turn more and more americans into criminals. Would also be willing to submit that there is selective enforcement of those laws.

In most agencies any use of force, be it as simple as handcuffing with out arrest (releasing an individual) to something higher as pointing a weapon at someone is reviewed due to being a use of force. Upon review if it violated police or law then it is turned into a full investigation. You did not really answer the question. I know there are different levels of review dependent upon the situation. My specific question was about the use of tasers being on par with the use of guns. Also, no one with any sort of professional experience and training calls a taser a "stun gun," those are two different type of devices and they would know the difference. I never represented that I had professional experience or training with tasers. I know the difference between a taser and a stun gun, after all, I was born before 1990, But for the lay person they are pretty much the same. I'm not the one the used the appeal to authority argument. Here is a question....open to anyone. Where is the report that shows less people have been shot and killed by law enforcement because of the introduction of tasers? More importantly, since those "people" being killed are just criminals and less important than others, show me the report that shows less injury and or death to law enforcement officers because of the introduction of tasers. I would assume these reports would be easy to obtain because, well, the manufactures would make sure of it.

screw it, 4:1 probably wont do any more damage than 3:1 and there is always the weekend. I do like working with appeals to authority. I have had experiences OC and and stun guns. One experience with each and I have zero desire to repeat those experiences...particularly at someone elses hands. I agree, I would take the taser over the OC anyday. I assume you are or have affiliations with LEOs. Im not going to argue that there are policies and procedures in place for the various uses of force, well, because I fancy myself as someone with half a brain. What I will argue is that a taser is a dangerous weapon and those policies and procedures governing the use of this particular weapon ar more likely to be broken by some because of the "less than lethal" tag. Question: Would you be opposed to a very similar level of scrutiny applied to officer involved "tasers" as officer involved shootings? If not, why?

Ok. I thought this might be a fun exchange...it's not and I'm in serious danger of having 3X more posts than jumps at this juncture and that kind of hurts me inside a little. I'm done with it. Pot meet spoon....carry on. EDIT: FUCK. The last post put me at 3X.

What's a normal electrocution? Electrocution simply means to kill with electricity. I don't even know that electrocution is listed as a cause of death in most "normal" electrocutions....probably something more like...cardiac arrest? As far as percentages....I doubt that information is available at this time. Better question. What if someone attacked you with one? If your attacker was charged with aggravated assault using a deadly weapon would you argue "actually the total deaths as a perctage of uses is really low...poor fellow should not be charged with such a serious crime...."? If you had the ability to defend yourself would you use deadly force? I'm curious to know what your view is one stun guns. I personally, don't think they should be made illegal...just like I don't think guns should be illegal. However, I do think they are deadly weapons and I do think they are being abused largely because of the "less-than-lethal" perception.

I believe the term used is "less-than lethal" and that term is used by the jack ass cops quick to taze the shit out of somebody for "non-compliance". I was hoping this thread was about banning cops from using these devices. Much better to be shot, I'm sure. Not at all. There can be, and often are, severe consequences if a police officer goes off half-cocked and shoots someone with a gun. All this "less-than lethal" and "non-lethal" talk has resulted in good knows how many instances of people being electrocuted for "offenses" like "not STFU when told too". Electrocuted? The cops are plugging extension cords into their Tasers now before using them? Must make it a bit difficult to patrol dragging those around.... or maybe you're being just a *bit* I don't understand why you would use that limited definition of electrocution or the being a *bit* comment. I do understand that more and more deaths and serious injuries are being reported as a result of their use. I do know that if I was attacked with one I would be in fear for my life and rightfully so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Deaths_and_injuries_related_to_Taser_use