NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #81
I can't believe you're still insisting Cruz was/is an NRA member. As far as your responses to my questionTell me you're not stating that Cruz was/is an NRA member? And gun control legislation generally does not apply to law enforcement so you're 2 untruths in thus far.
The NRA owns our government, and that's the problem. If we left it up to the people, Premium Members like Cruz wouldn't be able to buy weapons.
So tell me exactly the reason in your opinion why Cruz should not have been allowed to legally acquire a weapon.
1) He was crazy.
2) He wasn't a police officer or a soldier (a member of a well-regulated militia).
Those are the two reasons he shouldn't have had a weapon.
1) He was crazy - I agree that he was exhibiting symptoms and behaviors that should have resulted in a a course of action that should have protected him from himself and everyone else from him. It has been reported that Petersen at least made an attempt in this area
2) He wasn't a police officer/soldier - irrelevent but on the other hand, how many mass killers were military vets or LEOs (current or former) - too many
2) He wasn't a police officer/soldier - irrelevent but on the other hand, how many mass killers were military vets or LEOs (current or former) - too many
I don't have access to his criminal history at the moment but a pattern of violence and a history of making threats of violence should have allowed them to arrest him. There is no guarantee that this would have been enough to change the trajectory he was on but the one thing that we know for sure is that it doesn't appear that anyone even tried, other than Petersen, at least he's the only one that I'm aware of.Tell me you're not stating that Cruz was/is an NRA member? And gun control legislation generally does not apply to law enforcement so you're 2 untruths in thus far.
Also if any of those reasons have to do with behavior, threats, etc that were known to law enforcement, why are they (FBI, local law enforcement) not being held criminally liable for not heeding the warnings they were aware of and doing something about the situation before it escalated to that point?
Why should they be?
We work on the assumption that every American has the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to own as many guns as they want, because 200 years ago, a bunch of barely literate slave rapists couldn't write a militia amendment clearly.
So they would have had to have arrested him for what, facebook posts?
And Florida's Baker Act does allow people to be temporarily committed without their consent under certain circumstances
The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891[1] [2009 rev.]), commonly known as the "Baker Act," allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.
The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment), which can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:
Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.[2]
There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. These include the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement), a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (often called civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect as part of the Baker Act reform in 2005.
The legislation was nicknamed the "Baker Act" after Florida Democratic state representative from Miami, Maxine Baker,[3] who served from 1963 to 1972. She had a strong interest in mental health issues, served as chair of the House Committee on Mental Health, and was the sponsor of the bill.
The nickname has led to the term "Baker Act" as a transitive verb, and "Baker Acted" as a passive-voice verb, for invoking the Act to force an individual's commitment. Although the Baker Act is a statute only for the state of Florida, use of "Baker Acting" as a verb has become prevalent as a slang term for involuntary commitment in other regions of the United States
Florida Mental Health Act - Wikipedia
The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment), which can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:
- possibly has a mental illness.
- is in danger of becoming a harm to self, harm to others, or is self neglectful.
Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.[2]
There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. These include the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement), a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (often called civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect as part of the Baker Act reform in 2005.
The legislation was nicknamed the "Baker Act" after Florida Democratic state representative from Miami, Maxine Baker,[3] who served from 1963 to 1972. She had a strong interest in mental health issues, served as chair of the House Committee on Mental Health, and was the sponsor of the bill.
The nickname has led to the term "Baker Act" as a transitive verb, and "Baker Acted" as a passive-voice verb, for invoking the Act to force an individual's commitment. Although the Baker Act is a statute only for the state of Florida, use of "Baker Acting" as a verb has become prevalent as a slang term for involuntary commitment in other regions of the United States
Florida Mental Health Act - Wikipedia