Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I
If the goal is to get him forced help, which it should have been, it seems like you could do that with less evidence.

Maybe, but having him actually attempt to detonate the fake device probably makes it easier to now argue that his schiziphrenic episodes can result in violence. That would probably make more of a case for him needing to be incarcerated whilst he is treated.

They now got direct evidence as to the fact he is a danger.

Likely a mental health professional could have asked relevant questions about this gentleman's state of mind without the FBI opening a major investigation and operation in order to stop a 'terrorist incident'.

Of course, that is determined by level of care and awareness of those involved in the well being of this individual.

If no one flagged it prior to going to a full FBI level investigation, no one warned the lesser steps.

This was all reliant on the fact the relevant parties where informed early before FBI start up a full counter terror oporation. Once that level starts, then we'll it ain't getting kicked down.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I
If the goal is to get him forced help, which it should have been, it seems like you could do that with less evidence.

Maybe, but having him actually attempt to detonate the fake device probably makes it easier to now argue that his schiziphrenic episodes can result in violence. That would probably make more of a case for him needing to be incarcerated whilst he is treated.

They now got direct evidence as to the fact he is a danger.

Likely a mental health professional could have asked relevant questions about this gentleman's state of mind without the FBI opening a major investigation and operation in order to stop a 'terrorist incident'.

Of course, that is determined by level of care and awareness of those involved in the well being of this individual.

If no one flagged it prior to going to a full FBI level investigation, no one warned the lesser steps.

This was all reliant on the fact the relevant parties where informed early before FBI start up a full counter terror oporation. Once that level starts, then we'll it ain't getting kicked down.

I reckon the FBI will be found to have known about the mental health issues. Or they could have made simple checks.

They got a relatively easy collar. After an expense of manpower and money of course.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I
If the goal is to get him forced help, which it should have been, it seems like you could do that with less evidence.

Maybe, but having him actually attempt to detonate the fake device probably makes it easier to now argue that his schiziphrenic episodes can result in violence. That would probably make more of a case for him needing to be incarcerated whilst he is treated.

They now got direct evidence as to the fact he is a danger.

Likely a mental health professional could have asked relevant questions about this gentleman's state of mind without the FBI opening a major investigation and operation in order to stop a 'terrorist incident'.

Of course, that is determined by level of care and awareness of those involved in the well being of this individual.

Once someone is an adult, the "level of care and awareness of those involved in the well being of this individual" becomes less relevant.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I
If the goal is to get him forced help, which it should have been, it seems like you could do that with less evidence.

Maybe, but having him actually attempt to detonate the fake device probably makes it easier to now argue that his schiziphrenic episodes can result in violence. That would probably make more of a case for him needing to be incarcerated whilst he is treated.

They now got direct evidence as to the fact he is a danger.

Likely a mental health professional could have asked relevant questions about this gentleman's state of mind without the FBI opening a major investigation and operation in order to stop a 'terrorist incident'.

Of course, that is determined by level of care and awareness of those involved in the well being of this individual.

If no one flagged it prior to going to a full FBI level investigation, no one warned the lesser steps.

This was all reliant on the fact the relevant parties where informed early before FBI start up a full counter terror oporation. Once that level starts, then we'll it ain't getting kicked down.

I reckon the FBI will be found to have known about the mental health issues. Or they could have made simple checks.

They got a relatively easy collar. After an expense of manpower and money of course.

They snagged him.
They never said how many they managed to also watch or ass to watch lists.

All the time they where on him they penetrated deeper into the rather isolated patriot communities.

They where winning entire time.

Yeah, let's also not forget that raising mental health and psychiatric issues is pretty SOP in defending serious cases. Competency evaluations are par for the course in cases of extreme behavior (arsons and bombing attempts in particular) for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

 d-usa wrote:
His lawyer has requested a mental competency hearing due to his schizophrenia. Appears he has been declared incompetent previously and the courts appointed his parents as guardians. Which seems like something the FBI should have been able to figure out easily.

They possibly knew it, but went ahead anyway as even if he's declared mentally unfit, he'll be institutionalised and will therefore still be off the street and not able to blow anybody up.

But there's likely a lot of important details we're not getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Likely a mental health professional could have asked relevant questions about this gentleman's state of mind without the FBI opening a major investigation and operation in order to stop a 'terrorist incident'.

Of course, that is determined by level of care and awareness of those involved in the well being of this individual.

For lots of good reasons it is very hard to get someone institutionalised when they don't want to be. Even if they are recognised as having diminished capacity, it's very hard to get them held in a mental care facility for any length of time, unless they agree. That changes with a conviction, or a successful plea of diminished capacity.

It is possible that what the FBI did wasn't necessary, but it is also possible it was the best way to make sure this guy gets off the streets, so he gets the help he needs while no-one else gets blown up. We don't have all the facts.

I'd hope that the FBI as a psychologist or psychiatrist involved in these operations at all times, to get a different viewpoint on how stable or deranged their suspect is at any time.

Sebster is right about the difficulties of institutionalizing people, though I guess there are quite a few differences between countries, even Western countries, and their states. I'm not sure how exactly it works in the US, is there a federal law covering this or is this state-dependent?

Just as a quick example of how different these things can go: In one of the German states, I think it was Hessen, a psychiatrist just needs to give his expert opinion that somebody is an immediate danger t himself OR others and that guy is off the streets for now. Doctors have quite some power in their hands there.

In my state, Schleswig-Holstein, though, a psychiatrist told me he was once trying to get a patient institutionalized (temporarily for treatment, not forever of course!) because the guy was claiming to "prepare for the war with Atlantis" and trying to "get some weapons and explosives for the war from the army". He had to directly involve a judge in this state, though, and the judge deemed it rather improbable that this guy would actually pose a direct danger to anyone. The psychiatrist responded: "Yes, well...this guy is also on record for recently killing a cat. With a sword."

...still wasn't enough to get him admitted.

So I can understand the FBI wanting all the evidence that this guy was willing to destroy and/or kill, even if it is just to make sure the guy can receive proper stationary psychiatric care.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I'd hope that the FBI as a psychologist or psychiatrist involved in these operations at all times, to get a different viewpoint on how stable or deranged their suspect is at any time.

Sebster is right about the difficulties of institutionalizing people, though I guess there are quite a few differences between countries, even Western countries, and their states. I'm not sure how exactly it works in the US, is there a federal law covering this or is this state-dependent?

Just as a quick example of how different these things can go: In one of the German states, I think it was Hessen, a psychiatrist just needs to give his expert opinion that somebody is an immediate danger t himself OR others and that guy is off the streets for now. Doctors have quite some power in their hands there.

In my state, Schleswig-Holstein, though, a psychiatrist told me he was once trying to get a patient institutionalized (temporarily for treatment, not forever of course!) because the guy was claiming to "prepare for the war with Atlantis" and trying to "get some weapons and explosives for the war from the army". He had to directly involve a judge in this state, though, and the judge deemed it rather improbable that this guy would actually pose a direct danger to anyone. The psychiatrist responded: "Yes, well...this guy is also on record for recently killing a cat. With a sword."

...still wasn't enough to get him admitted.

So I can understand the FBI wanting all the evidence that this guy was willing to destroy and/or kill, even if it is just to make sure the guy can receive proper stationary psychiatric care.

Said before but jail or secure hospital.
FBI took a dangerous man off the streets.

 d-usa wrote:
Considering men can march on federal buildings, aim at federal law enforcement with various weapons, and threaten to kill them, and still manage to avoid convictions...it's getting hard to blame the FBI for wanting as much of a case as possible.

I'd say that has a lot to do with the backlash from Waco and Ruby Ridge, a couple of great cases that demonstrate what not to do, as anything.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering men can march on federal buildings, aim at federal law enforcement with various weapons, and threaten to kill them, and still manage to avoid convictions...it's getting hard to blame the FBI for wanting as much of a case as possible.

I'd say that has a lot to do with the backlash from Waco and Ruby Ridge, a couple of great cases that demonstrate what not to do, as anything.

Backlash from two events that happened over a decade prior?

I actually work for that bank. That was a surprise email in my box Monday morning 0.0 .

 Goliath wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering men can march on federal buildings, aim at federal law enforcement with various weapons, and threaten to kill them, and still manage to avoid convictions...it's getting hard to blame the FBI for wanting as much of a case as possible.

I'd say that has a lot to do with the backlash from Waco and Ruby Ridge, a couple of great cases that demonstrate what not to do, as anything.

Backlash from two events that happened over a decade prior?

There are claims that the government was "heavy-handed" in dealing with heavily armed individuals who said they wouldn't be taken alive and had their families present with them.

Funnily enough, it's the same reason why many of the Bundy Support Group at their ranch brought families with them. They know the federal agencies won't take action when their families are present because of the "backlash" that might occur if kids are injured/killed.
Waco and Ruby Ridge were, for the right-wing militia groups, a kind of "rallying cry" that the federal government couldn't be trusted yadda yadda yadda etc etc. It's also become a de facto deflective talking point from the right and gunjunkies whenever someone brings up the fact that those kinds of groups currently get away with a ton of nonsense because of the inability of agencies like the ATF and FBI to get successful convictions with meaningful sentences(see the Malheur Wildlife Refuge "occupation" by the Branch Dildonians and the punishments incurred) thanks to juries in some localities being 'sympathetic' to these causes, with the idea being that because the ATF and FBI were heavy handed then they're now worried about being seen doing similar.

In reality, it's because the tactical doctrines have changed. Deescalation is a thing that the FBI and ATF practice in situations like that now.

 Goliath wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Considering men can march on federal buildings, aim at federal law enforcement with various weapons, and threaten to kill them, and still manage to avoid convictions...it's getting hard to blame the FBI for wanting as much of a case as possible.

I'd say that has a lot to do with the backlash from Waco and Ruby Ridge, a couple of great cases that demonstrate what not to do, as anything.

Backlash from two events that happened over a decade prior?

Being involved in events where 50 children or so get killed in a fire or having one of your snipers deliberately shoot a woman holding a baby tends to provoke a public opinion that leads to changes.
They just had a documentary about Ruby Ridge on Netflix or Amazon that shows how stupidly the FBI handled the affair.

Judge ruled him competent today.

 Kanluwen wrote:
In reality, it's because the tactical doctrines have changed. Deescalation is a thing that the FBI and ATF practice in situations like that now.

Yeah, after those events the FBI did some really good work on recognising that not every heavily armed cult is the same. Some are looking to impose their view on the world, and those groups will likely commit violent crimes and need to be actively engaged. But most groups of armed crazies are actually seperatists who just want to be left along, and will only move to violence when threatened.

 sebster wrote:
Yeah, after those events the FBI did some really good work on recognising that not every heavily armed cult is the same..

That and, right or wrong, 'Shoot to Kill' orders and driving tanks over people on live TV is bad PR when you're supposed to be policemen.

Yeah, but both have become rallying cries for extremists, especially Ruby Ridge and white supremacists (Weaver was a white supremacist). And let's not forget that that Ruby Ridge also ignited when Weaver and Harris started a firefight with federal agents, killing one and resulting in the death of Weaver's nearby son. Both missions went to great lengths to prevent endangering children, but the results were still tragic. Vicki Weaver's death, for example, was a missed shot on Randy (the ROEs had specifically excluded her as a target) as he ran for the door. It was a messy, reckless shot (and definitely something Horiuchi should have been seriously punished for, including prosecution), but hardly the planned targeting of a woman holding a baby white supremacists like to claim.

Even more ironic is that these groups like to point to a 25 year old outlier but then paint BLM as a "terrorist" group despite their grievances related to law enforcement violence.

 jmurph wrote:

Even more ironic is that these groups like to point to a 25 year old outlier but then paint BLM as a "terrorist" group despite their grievances related to law enforcement violence.

No, irony is BLM people calling the Terry's Texas Ranger memorial 'racist'. Maybe they're unaware of this, but Terry's Texas Rangers (Wharton) and the Georgia rangers (Morrison) were specifically singled out in AARs at Battle of Murfreesboro for the large number of blacks 'who were armed and equipped, and took part in several engagements with my forces during the day" -Lieutenant Colonel John G. Parkhurst of the 9th Michigan Infantry

None of which is on topic.

 d-usa wrote:
None of which is on topic.

Due to Moderator fiat, we have to dance around what some of us would actually LIKE to talk about in relation to this incident, but due to a promise ot lock all threads that even mention that thing that we cannot speak of, instead we write horrid posts like this one where that Civil War Thing must be spoken of in oblique ways.

I feel like Old Fritz if he were to have tried writing about a military maneuver or position in the same manner he conducted them.

 jmurph wrote:
Yeah, but both have become rallying cries for extremists, especially Ruby Ridge and white supremacists (Weaver was a white supremacist). And let's not forget that that Ruby Ridge also ignited when Weaver and Harris started a firefight with federal agents, killing one and resulting in the death of Weaver's nearby son. Both missions went to great lengths to prevent endangering children, but the results were still tragic. Vicki Weaver's death, for example, was a missed shot on Randy (the ROEs had specifically excluded her as a target) as he ran for the door. It was a messy, reckless shot (and definitely something Horiuchi should have been seriously punished for, including prosecution), but hardly the planned targeting of a woman holding a baby white supremacists like to claim.

Even more ironic is that these groups like to point to a 25 year old outlier but then paint BLM as a "terrorist" group despite their grievances related to law enforcement violence.

Actually, it was the agents which started the firefight, by shooting the Weavers dog as the 14 year old was walking nearby.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

From the Wikipedie article:

"On about August 24, 1992, the fourth day of the siege on the Weaver family, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Danny Coulson, who was unaware that Vicki Weaver had been killed,[109] wrote a memo with the following content:

Something to Consider

1. Charge against Weaver is Bull gak.
2. No one saw Weaver do any shooting.
3. Vicki has no charges against her.
4. Weaver's defense. He ran down the hill to see what dog was barking at. Some guys in camys shot his dog. Started shooting at him. Killed his son. Harris did the shooting [of Degan]. He [Weaver] is in pretty strong legal position."


The PBS documentary on Ruby Ridge:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GacdHN97ECI

The whole point being, that things like this would naturally lead to changes in the rules of handling these type of situations since the government came off looking extremely bad.

Another one to the slammer. He was a terrorist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
I'd hope that the FBI as a psychologist or psychiatrist involved in these operations at all times, to get a different viewpoint on how stable or deranged their suspect is at any time.

Sebster is right about the difficulties of institutionalizing people, though I guess there are quite a few differences between countries, even Western countries, and their states. I'm not sure how exactly it works in the US, is there a federal law covering this or is this state-dependent?

Just as a quick example of how different these things can go: In one of the German states, I think it was Hessen, a psychiatrist just needs to give his expert opinion that somebody is an immediate danger t himself OR others and that guy is off the streets for now. Doctors have quite some power in their hands there.

In my state, Schleswig-Holstein, though, a psychiatrist told me he was once trying to get a patient institutionalized (temporarily for treatment, not forever of course!) because the guy was claiming to "prepare for the war with Atlantis" and trying to "get some weapons and explosives for the war from the army". He had to directly involve a judge in this state, though, and the judge deemed it rather improbable that this guy would actually pose a direct danger to anyone. The psychiatrist responded: "Yes, well...this guy is also on record for recently killing a cat. With a sword."

...still wasn't enough to get him admitted.

So I can understand the FBI wanting all the evidence that this guy was willing to destroy and/or kill, even if it is just to make sure the guy can receive proper stationary psychiatric care.

There is a fine line with that German stuff.

There is a fine line with that German stuff.

Oh, I'm sure the states in the US have more or less similar laws. As long as a person is not a danger for others or himself, it's basically impossible to force someone into treatment in most Western countries, as far as I'm aware. However, as soon as that (other) fine line is crossed, every country (or state of a country) will have a process in place to evaluate whether or not detention or forcible (short term) treatment would be in order.

If you were mainly referring to the Hessen situation, it seems that there's been recent changes in law due to valid criticism on the details and powers of the law. It was apparently the oldest state law concerning psychiatric commitment in Germany, from 1952.

Edit: Yeah, seems to be rather similar in basics.

However, there is a body of case law governing the civil commitment of individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment through Supreme Court rulings beginning in 1975 with the ruling 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 exhibit behavior that poses 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.[17] In the U.S. the specifics of the relevant statutes vary from state to state.

Totally unrelated: I'm in Denmark right now, but my flag shows as Armenian? What's up with that?

 Witzkatz wrote:

Totally unrelated: I'm in Denmark right now, but my flag shows as Armenian? What's up with that?

I've been asking questions like that a long time around here. I think it's because the IP address that Dakka sees is in a US range. Cap is in Crimea, and it shows him in Netherlands, so questionable flags all around. Remember folks, before you diss someone as nationality X, it might be just Dakka making an oopsie.