PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #41
The gibberish in this case is yours, and it was entirely expected.Now you're spewing gibberish. There is no more need to interact with you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The gibberish in this case is yours, and it was entirely expected.Now you're spewing gibberish. There is no more need to interact with you.
Well played Sir! you gave both lickspittles a sound yet erudite lesson in the art of the classic retort.The gibberish in this case is yours, and it was entirely expected.Now you're spewing gibberish. There is no more need to interact with you.
this is a little bit more grey than you want it to be Windbag. had she not made that comment about blowing her brains out you would have a solid point. The cops would have violated her 4th amendment right.
Then again i can see the otherside and ask, where would this lead? But you have a doctor reporting it and not some person with a grudge..
I think i have to side on the cops overstepping. She wants to blow her head off, thats her issue.
But that being said if there is a state law that says the cops must send her to a psych ward then....I know California has one where if you claim the person is harming themselves, you get three 3 minimum.
She denies she made the comment. Frankly, given the innocent until proven guilty way the law is supposed to work, I am forced to actually believe her unless that doctor can produce something besides his claim that she said it.
Even if she did make the comment she obviously did not actually go home to blow her brains out, it took the cops nine fucking hours to find her, she clearly articulated that she was fine, and insisted that they not enter her home. On top of that, the gun was in a locked box when they did. If you think that justifies ignoring the Constitution you have a serious misunderstanding of how this is supposed to work.
As for the state law, it says no such fucking thing. What it says is that, if a cop fills out a form, they can ignore everything and force a person into medical lockup. If you are going to use a stupid law to defend the assholes who enforce it, at least get the fucking justification right. Getting it wrong just makes your authoritarian streak obvious.
In other words, you are a fucking asshole who is going out of his way to lie in order to defend the actions of power mad cops.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
Yep. And the reason he doesn't understand what happened, and why I approve of it for the most part, along with the courts, is because he is irrational and childish.LOL. PMH.
And what does his being irrational or childish have to do with this debate? Do you even know what your original point was?
this is a little bit more grey than you want it to be Windbag. had she not made that comment about blowing her brains out you would have a solid point. The cops would have violated her 4th amendment right.
Then again i can see the otherside and ask, where would this lead? But you have a doctor reporting it and not some person with a grudge..
I think i have to side on the cops overstepping. She wants to blow her head off, thats her issue.
But that being said if there is a state law that says the cops must send her to a psych ward then....I know California has one where if you claim the person is harming themselves, you get three 3 minimum.
She denies she made the comment. Frankly, given the innocent until proven guilty way the law is supposed to work, I am forced to actually believe her unless that doctor can produce something besides his claim that she said it.
Even if she did make the comment she obviously did not actually go home to blow her brains out, it took the cops nine fucking hours to find her, she clearly articulated that she was fine, and insisted that they not enter her home. On top of that, the gun was in a locked box when they did. If you think that justifies ignoring the Constitution you have a serious misunderstanding of how this is supposed to work.
As for the state law, it says no such fucking thing. What it says is that, if a cop fills out a form, they can ignore everything and force a person into medical lockup. If you are going to use a stupid law to defend the assholes who enforce it, at least get the fucking justification right. Getting it wrong just makes your authoritarian streak obvious.
In other words, you are a fucking asshole who is going out of his way to lie in order to defend the actions of power mad cops.
Well no...laws mean things and if there is a law on the books that says the cops have to go, they have to go.
It would seem a judge disagrees with you since they saw all the evidence.
My personal opinion is I'm on the fence about this..The legal opinion says that to me the cops may of had the right once the phone call was made.
Is this evidence for a gun grab? No...it's an isolated issue and nothing more.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
A judgment call, yes. Shouldn't that be made by a judge, not the police?
No reason the police couldn't make a call on the house to make sure she was okay. But to break into her house after 9 hours and detain her after the her doctor said she was okay and not a threat to herself and others. The police went overboard and the law of Wisconsin allowed them to. Bad law.
And she was pretty stupid for wearing an empty holster to that session.
At 2:45 p.m., Dr. Bentle telephoned the officers to advise
them that Sutterfield had called her some minutes earlier
stating that she was not in need of assistance and that the
doctor should “call off” the police search for her. According to
the officers, Dr. Bentle did not indicate that Sutterfield no
longer posed a danger to herself.
Thus by filling out the paperwork.Statement of Emergency Detention by Law Enforcement Officer
1. A substantial probability of physical harm to himself or herself as manifested by evidence of recent threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
A judgment call, yes. Shouldn't that be made by a judge, not the police?
No reason the police couldn't make a call on the house to make sure she was okay. But to break into her house after 9 hours and detain her after the her doctor said she was okay and not a threat to herself and others. The police went overboard and the law of Wisconsin allowed them to. Bad law.
And she was pretty stupid for wearing an empty holster to that session.
Because exercising your rights is always stupid, right?
and if she had gone postal
the cops would have been castigated because after all, "the threat was reported to them."
The cops had the right under this law:At 2:45 p.m., Dr. Bentle telephoned the officers to advise
them that Sutterfield had called her some minutes earlier
stating that she was not in need of assistance and that the
doctor should call off the police search for her. According to
the officers, Dr. Bentle did not indicate that Sutterfield no
longer posed a danger to herself.
Thus by filling out the paperwork.Statement of Emergency Detention by Law Enforcement Officer
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/51/15
So regardless if you disagree with the law or not, the Police had the right to do this, because well the law says they can.1. A substantial probability of physical harm to himself or herself as manifested by evidence of recent threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm.
Like i said Laws mean things and if you dont like it, change the law. And yes Windbag im skipping your dumb rant
A judgment call, yes. Shouldn't that be made by a judge, not the police?
No reason the police couldn't make a call on the house to make sure she was okay. But to break into her house after 9 hours and detain her after the her doctor said she was okay and not a threat to herself and others. The police went overboard and the law of Wisconsin allowed them to. Bad law.
And she was pretty stupid for wearing an empty holster to that session.
Because exercising your rights is always stupid, right?
Always is always too definitive. I would say sometimes. Imo, wearing an empty holster anytime is stupid but, apparently in Wisconsin doing that while talking to your psychiatrist and mentioning blowing your brains out is even more so.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
A judgment call, yes. Shouldn't that be made by a judge, not the police?
No reason the police couldn't make a call on the house to make sure she was okay. But to break into her house after 9 hours and detain her after the her doctor said she was okay and not a threat to herself and others. The police went overboard and the law of Wisconsin allowed them to. Bad law.
And she was pretty stupid for wearing an empty holster to that session.
The cops had the right under this law:At 2:45 p.m., Dr. Bentle telephoned the officers to advise
them that Sutterfield had called her some minutes earlier
stating that she was not in need of assistance and that the
doctor should call off the police search for her. According to
the officers, Dr. Bentle did not indicate that Sutterfield no
longer posed a danger to herself.
Thus by filling out the paperwork.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/51/15
So regardless if you disagree with the law or not, the Police had the right to do this, because well the law says they can.1. A substantial probability of physical harm to himself or herself as manifested by evidence of recent threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm.
Like i said Laws mean things and if you dont like it, change the law. And yes Windbag im skipping your dumb rant
Let me spell this out for you, cops do not have a right to violate people's rights. You can search every single law, and every single court decision, and you will never find any proof that cops have the right to ignore the Constitution.
What they have is a bunch of idiots, like Plasmaball, who facilitate tyranny in the name of government power. Stop pretending you are on the fence when every single post you have made is 100% in favor of the cops ignoring the law and the Constitution.
The cops had the right under this law:
Thus by filling out the paperwork.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/51/15
So regardless if you disagree with the law or not, the Police had the right to do this, because well the law says they can.
Like i said Laws mean things and if you dont like it, change the law. And yes Windbag im skipping your dumb rant
Let me spell this out for you, cops do not have a right to violate people's rights. You can search every single law, and every single court decision, and you will never find any proof that cops have the right to ignore the Constitution.
What they have is a bunch of idiots, like Plasmaball, who facilitate tyranny in the name of government power. Stop pretending you are on the fence when every single post you have made is 100% in favor of the cops ignoring the law and the Constitution.
well, i already did post it, so again you fail...Thats two......
Im sorry you are too stupid to separate my real opinion from the fact of what the laws are. Oh thats three!
Good luck on the thread, Im out since this is no longer interesting, because you want to ignore reality.
(8) Evaluation, diagnosis and treatment. When an individual is detained under this section, the director and staff of the treatment facility may evaluate, diagnose and treat the individual during detention, if the individual consents. The individual has a right to refuse medication and treatment as provided in s. 51.61 (1) (g) and (h). The individual shall be advised of that right by the director of the facility or his or her designee, and a report of any evaluation and diagnosis and of all treatment provided shall be filed by that person with the court. (9) Notice of rights. At the time of arrival at the facility, under sub. (2), the individual shall be informed by the director of the facility or such person's designee, both orally and in writing, of his or her right to contact an attorney and a member of his or her immediate family, the right to have an attorney provided at public expense, as provided under s. 51.60, and the right to remain silent and that the individual's statements may be used as a basis for commitment. The individual shall also be provided with a copy of the statement of emergency detention.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
Freudian slip shorty? I can see you in puceA judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
Did you miss this part, PantyHose?