The government is watching you
By John Long
I’d never heard of Brandon Raub until a few days ago. I’ve never met him, and frankly don’t know that I’d like him if I did. But what he’s gone through the last few weeks should be of concern to all Americans, of whatever political persuasion.
Raub is a Chesterfield County resident and veteran of the Marine Corps, having served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. After his hitch in uniform, he seemed to adopt — and express — some political views that most of us would find distasteful, to say the least. Some of his Internet posts were clearly anti-government, and he displayed a keen interest in the “truther” conspiracy theory that the U.S. government planned the Sept. 11 attacks.
Long is director of the Salem Museum and a Roanoke Times columnist.
August 30, 2012 - 7:35 AM
Mr. Long, thank you very much. I have been talking about this for a long time. Big Brother is watching you.
Oh my yes, how dare they harass or detain some poor citizen so lucid he “says at least one doctor threatened to brainwash him and put him on psych drugs against his will“!
2 – But what did he do to be “detained” in the first place? The man broke no laws whatsoever.
The fact that the government was able to do this in the first place is very disturbing, to say the least. It’s downright scary.
I had heard something about this story about a week ago and had meant to look into it. Thanks Mr. Long for writing this.
I think several of his statements would cause concern for his mental acuity and if they had done nothing and waited till he shot up some place to further his cause, then people would question why no one noticed or did anything.
The area of mental illness is a terrible slippery slope and this nation has no real, good or helpful infrastructure to handle it. No doubt the people who interviewed him felt he was not “all there” for some reason. I do not believe that the police just cuffed and detained and committed a calm, rational, lucid man.
I am sure he will get millions for an ordeal he brought on himself, but the fact remains that he sounds more than a little ‘off’ and that is worth notice and even inspection in these troubled times of shootings and military suicides.
Law enforcement is not equipped to handle, judge or decide such things. I admit that freely. The mental health community is too quick to think zebras, I admit that as well. I would really like to muster some pity for him, but the truth is that the jails and prisons of this nation are teeming with folks just like him and few, including John Whitehead have ever given a damn. This is an opportunity to use a deranged thinker as a political tool IMO.
Instead of thinking of this as America’s “rapid transition to a police state”, think of it as being pro-active against mass killings by discontented, agenda driven maniacs who think they can make a difference.
#4 Another example of those who claim to be “liberal” & “progressive” writing prescriptions for tyrany.
Detaining people without charges & holding them without due process may be your idea of “pro-active”, but thank goodness you don’t get to decide.
Some of your ideas sound pretty looney to me. Perhaps “we” should pick you up (just in case).
#5 Amen. Well said. Exactly what I was thinking.
Are you perhaps under some delusion that it is not a routine practice of “Detaining people without charges & holding them without due process”? I think sometimes those who claim to know so much, really have no clue how things in this nation work on a daily basis, or why.
Unlike others here, I KNOW what I am talking about on this subject. If there is no system to detain, question, or evaluate someone until AFTER they have harmed themselves or others, there is little purpose for having the mental health facilities in this nation. Veteran mental health issues, anti-social behavior and militant ideas have led to bloodshed and suicide and it is crazy NOT to look at it and them. No one plucks people off the street and detains them for no reason and YOU arm chair doctors who think you know all there is to know about how to address and combat mental illness, need to learn a thing or two about how it works. It might be in your favor someday.
No doubt, you would like me silenced, but not him!
Just as a gentle reminder…
…while Obama and his CPUSA/Dem Party comrades signed into law the hideous NDAA, it was done with a lot of support from the GOP. And it was the GOP – with a good bit of support from the CPUSA/Dem Party – that rammed the PATRIOT Act down Americans’ throats.
Hypocrites, liars and thieves, all of them.
Typically I find Mr. Long’s observations to be logical and grounded in common sense. I tend to disagree with him on this one though. The signs he notes are exactly the kinds of things the public always criticizes the “authorities” for missing in the aftermath of mass casualty tragedies. If they don’t do anything when these behaviors are brought to their attention, the headline reads something like “Police Aware of Shooter’s Extreme Beliefs but Took No Action.” The problem is, these are typically the kind of things you know about an active shooter before he goes on his killing spree. Seldom does the shooter post something like “I plan on going to the local theater for the midnight Batman movie and shooting a bunch of people”. Instead you get these disjointed, rambling diatribes that demonstrate anti-social or anti-government beliefs. Many, if not most , mass killers have very little prior interaction with the police. They are often described as quiet, solitary figures. They are not known criminals. If they choose to publish there ideology on the internet, I say more power to them, but they should do so knowing and fully expecting that the government will see what they choose to disclose in a public forum.
For those claiming these types of detentions are conducted absent due process, plain and simply, you are wrong. Typically this comes from the mistaken belief that “due process” is a specific, quantitative standard that is the same in all cases. People tend to think due process means a trial. That is not the case. The Constitution does require due process before depriving a person of life, liberty or property, but the question is, how much process is due in a given situation. For temporary detentions for the purpose of mental evaluations, that means a clinician from community services has to interview the person and then present the results to a magistrate. If the magistrate determines probable cause exists that the person presents a treat to himself or others, then the magistrate can order the person detained for a 72 hour evaluation. Some may think more process is due, but under the current state of the law, that is adequate due process.
Got my parargraphs mixed up above. Please consider below instead. Thanks.
#4 “I think several of his statements would cause concern for his mental acuity and if they had done nothing and waited till he shot up some place to further his cause, then people would question why no one noticed or did anything.”
With one rambling, unfounded pious statement you trash the first, second, fourth, fifth & sixth Amendments. What is your fetish with people you find unorthodox shooting “up some place”?
How many guaranteed freedoms are you willing to throw out with the bath water to support your sanitized baby?
Sounds “more than a little “‘off’”. Not ‘”all there”‘. This is your criteria?
“Instead of thinking of this as America’s “rapid transition to a police state”, think of it as being pro-active against mass killings by discontented, agenda driven maniacs who think they can make a difference.”
First, how does/did Raub fit your definition of a “discontented, agenda driven maniac”, about to manifest “mass killings”? Second, what is wrong with someone thinking “they can make a difference”?
#7 “Unlike others here, I KNOW what I am talking about on this subject. If there is no system to detain, question, or evaluate someone until AFTER they have harmed themselves or others, there is little purpose for having the mental health facilities in this nation.”
Again, how does Raub fit/fill such criteria? Your “arguement” seems to be, detain anyone remotely questionable because of what they might do. Who gets to make these decisions?
Mrs. Saunders I prefer to err on the side of individual rights, rather than “profiling” what someone might do. You are entitled to your opinion. Be careful what you wish for, you are getting it.
If a family member or someone from the community goes to a magistrate and claims someone is a danger to themselves or others, the police will pick them up and take them to that “clinician” which might be “in the morning”. There is scant “due process” in the magistrate system that I have seen. If someone swears out a warrant you will be arrested and processed and given a court date at minimum.
Having been through this process, you do not feel like there is any “due process” and what process there is, is not on your side. Just as, if a police officer stops you there will be a ticket, if he chooses to give you one, when they respond to your scene, there will be an arrest or detention if they decide to make one.
You may “err” anyway you like, I know what happens.
#9 “Instead you get these disjointed, rambling diatribes that demonstrate anti-social or anti-government beliefs. Many, if not most , mass killers….”.
Again this obsession with anyone not (your definition of) orthodox being a “mass killer”. Since when are “anti-social or anti-government beliefs” evidence of one’s legal sanity? As to “disjointed, rambling diatribes”, hell, everyone on this blog would have padded stalls.
As to your example of “probable cause”, where did/does it exist reference Raub?
I didn’t say it did relate to this guy in particular. The disjointed, rambling diatribes I was thinking of were those written by Cho at VT and Holmes in Colorado. My point was that the behavior of the dangerous psychos often doesn’t distinguish itself from the harmless people you reference. I understand your position and I did not say that having anti-social or anti-government beliefs make one insane. I am saying there is often no way to distinguish the harmful from the harmless until after the gunfire stops. I understand you think it better to err on the side of individual freedom instead of public safety. I’m okay with that as long as you aren’t going to be there after the fact whining about how “somebody should have done something”.
Sandi, you seem to be arguing both sides. You want the potential shooters picked up and evaluated, but you don’t want the police or magistrates exercising any discretion or decision-making in the process. Who do you want to decide and who should bring them in?