The FBI had an insane man in their office saying he heard voices from ISIS and they let him go...

Watching the news conference now. Case closed. He is in the hospital for mental health evaluation and treatment.
 

Did the man break any laws or present himself as a danger?

Because contrary to your fantasies, you can't just lock people up because you think they are crazy. They have to actually BREAK THE LAW.

Now, there was a time when you COULD put someone away if they presented as too crazy. But Reagan did away with that shit.


So spare me the "The FBI let him go, that is why those 5 people died". The FBI has to have an actual reason to hold someone.
 

Did the man break any laws or present himself as a danger?

Because contrary to your fantasies, you can't just lock people up because you think they are crazy. They have to actually BREAK THE LAW.

Now, there was a time when you COULD put someone away if they presented as too crazy. But Reagan did away with that shit.


So spare me the "The FBI let him go, that is why those 5 people died". The FBI has to have an actual reason to hold someone.

He was a clear danger to society. Mentally unstable and pledging himself to terrorist cause. He should had been locked up or committed into a mental ward.
 
How can you predict what an insane person will do?

Most are not violent.

So what are you going to do?
 
He was a clear danger to society. Mentally unstable and pledging himself to terrorist cause. He should had been locked up or committed into a mental ward.
Mentally unstable, yes, but I haven't seen evidence of him "pledging himself to terrorist cause".

From the OP link:
In November, he visited an FBI office in Anchorage and told agents that his mind was being controlled by a U.S. intelligence agency, according to a senior federal law enforcement official. The FBI contacted local authorities, who took Santiago to undergo a mental-health evaluation, a senior law enforcement official said.

After interviewing Santiago’s relatives and conducting other reviews and checking with other agencies, the bureau closed its assessment of Santiago, the official said.
 
The law should be changed so that mentally ill people can be committed and treated BEFORE they act out and kill people. At least half of these mass shootings are mentally ill people who didn't get help because the law doesn't allow their families to commit them.
 

Did the man break any laws or present himself as a danger?

Because contrary to your fantasies, you can't just lock people up because you think they are crazy. They have to actually BREAK THE LAW.

Now, there was a time when you COULD put someone away if they presented as too crazy. But Reagan did away with that shit.


So spare me the "The FBI let him go, that is why those 5 people died". The FBI has to have an actual reason to hold someone.

He was a clear danger to society. Mentally unstable and pledging himself to terrorist cause. He should had been locked up or committed into a mental ward.

Really? He was "pledging himself to ISIS"? Do you have a link for that?

Oh, and he was taken into custody for a mental health evaluation. The medical professionals didn't see him as a threat.

Unless a person is an eminent threat to himself or others, you can't just lock them up.
 
The law should be changed so that mentally ill people can be committed and treated BEFORE they act out and kill people. At least half of these mass shootings are mentally ill people who didn't get help because the law doesn't allow their families to commit them.

The Reagan administration is responsible for hamstringing the mental health laws in this country.
 
The law should be changed so that mentally ill people can be committed and treated BEFORE they act out and kill people. At least half of these mass shootings are mentally ill people who didn't get help because the law doesn't allow their families to commit them.
A dicey proposition in a country that strongly supports individualism and Constitutional rights. What if I and 2 others decided you needed to be locked up, have all your guns taken away and given electro-shock treatment due to your posts on this forum? That wouldn't be right, would it?

I agreed the laws need to be changed, but it will be a long and convoluted process in order to protect the rights of citizens and to restore those rights once a person successfully completes treatment.

The LW anti-gun mob wanted to take away the guns of anyone with depression. If that person was cured of their depression, there was no mechanism to restore their rights.

Remember how the Obama administration wanted to take guns away from veterans for life if they had a head injury due to an IED?
 
The law should be changed so that mentally ill people can be committed and treated BEFORE they act out and kill people. At least half of these mass shootings are mentally ill people who didn't get help because the law doesn't allow their families to commit them.

The Reagan administration is responsible for hamstringing the mental health laws in this country.
IIRC, all he did was defund it and kicked the patients to the streets. Most homeless are mentally ill. No changes in the law AFAIK
 

Did the man break any laws or present himself as a danger?

Because contrary to your fantasies, you can't just lock people up because you think they are crazy. They have to actually BREAK THE LAW.

Now, there was a time when you COULD put someone away if they presented as too crazy. But Reagan did away with that shit.


So spare me the "The FBI let him go, that is why those 5 people died". The FBI has to have an actual reason to hold someone.

He was a clear danger to society. Mentally unstable and pledging himself to terrorist cause. He should had been locked up or committed into a mental ward.

Really? He was "pledging himself to ISIS"? Do you have a link for that?

Oh, and he was taken into custody for a mental health evaluation. The medical professionals didn't see him as a threat.

Unless a person is an eminent threat to himself or others, you can't just lock them up.


He said voices were telling him to fight for ISIS.
 
The law should be changed so that mentally ill people can be committed and treated BEFORE they act out and kill people. At least half of these mass shootings are mentally ill people who didn't get help because the law doesn't allow their families to commit them.

The Reagan administration is responsible for hamstringing the mental health laws in this country.
IIRC, all he did was defund it and kicked the patients to the streets. Most homeless are mentally ill. No changes in the law AFAIK

Defunding is a pretty effective way to hamstring mental health laws, wouldn't you say?
 

Did the man break any laws or present himself as a danger?

Because contrary to your fantasies, you can't just lock people up because you think they are crazy. They have to actually BREAK THE LAW.

Now, there was a time when you COULD put someone away if they presented as too crazy. But Reagan did away with that shit.


So spare me the "The FBI let him go, that is why those 5 people died". The FBI has to have an actual reason to hold someone.

He was a clear danger to society. Mentally unstable and pledging himself to terrorist cause. He should had been locked up or committed into a mental ward.

Really? He was "pledging himself to ISIS"? Do you have a link for that?

Oh, and he was taken into custody for a mental health evaluation. The medical professionals didn't see him as a threat.

Unless a person is an eminent threat to himself or others, you can't just lock them up.


He said voices were telling him to fight for ISIS.

The article linked in the OP does not say that.

Once again, do you have a link for that?
 
The law should be changed so that mentally ill people can be committed and treated BEFORE they act out and kill people. At least half of these mass shootings are mentally ill people who didn't get help because the law doesn't allow their families to commit them.
A dicey proposition in a country that strongly supports individualism and Constitutional rights. What if I and 2 others decided you needed to be locked up, have all your guns taken away and given electro-shock treatment due to your posts on this forum? That wouldn't be right, would it?

I agreed the laws need to be changed, but it will be a long and convoluted process in order to protect the rights of citizens and to restore those rights once a person successfully completes treatment.

The LW anti-gun mob wanted to take away the guns of anyone with depression. If that person was cured of their depression, there was no mechanism to restore their rights.

Remember how the Obama administration wanted to take guns away from veterans for life if they had a head injury due to an IED?

Thank you. The same people who want all the crazy people locked up, are often the same ones screaming about the gov't taking away freedoms.
 
The law should be changed so that mentally ill people can be committed and treated BEFORE they act out and kill people. At least half of these mass shootings are mentally ill people who didn't get help because the law doesn't allow their families to commit them.

The Reagan administration is responsible for hamstringing the mental health laws in this country.
IIRC, all he did was defund it and kicked the patients to the streets. Most homeless are mentally ill. No changes in the law AFAIK

Defunding is a pretty effective way to hamstring mental health laws, wouldn't you say?
The facilities, yes. The laws, no. Congress can still pass legislation on how to handle mentally ill patients and devise a mechanism for restoration of their rights after treatment.
 
The law should be changed so that mentally ill people can be committed and treated BEFORE they act out and kill people. At least half of these mass shootings are mentally ill people who didn't get help because the law doesn't allow their families to commit them.
A dicey proposition in a country that strongly supports individualism and Constitutional rights. What if I and 2 others decided you needed to be locked up, have all your guns taken away and given electro-shock treatment due to your posts on this forum? That wouldn't be right, would it?

I agreed the laws need to be changed, but it will be a long and convoluted process in order to protect the rights of citizens and to restore those rights once a person successfully completes treatment.

The LW anti-gun mob wanted to take away the guns of anyone with depression. If that person was cured of their depression, there was no mechanism to restore their rights.

Remember how the Obama administration wanted to take guns away from veterans for life if they had a head injury due to an IED?

Thank you. The same people who want all the crazy people locked up, are often the same ones screaming about the gov't taking away freedoms.
Agreed.

Personally, I don't like giving government that much power without there being solid methods of appeal and oversight.
 
Extremely unfair to blame the FBI for this. They cannot hold people if they haven't committed a crime. Being insane isn't a crime until they actually do something illegal.
 

Forum List

Back
Top