So, two weeks ago a mentally ill ex-soldier walks into an FBI office to

[Baitball Blogger]

complain that he's hearing voices that instruct him to join ISIS...and then he shows up in Ft. Lauderdale with a gun, which I presume was a permitted weapon, and he goes on a gun rage, killing people...taking over the newsday on the day that Russia's interference with the election was about to be revealed.

No question here, I just wanted to see how far I could take my run on sentence.

I lied. I have a question. Why didn't the FBI take his guns away from him? The guy was asking for help and they sat back and did nothing.

[raclarke0715]

1. Human Brain Project and the petition of 500 scientists to the European Commission to make changes

Check out this sarcastic twitter moment I made 5 days before the event happened. It has links to Scientific American articles on the Human Brain Project. It has links to the petition of 500 scientists to the European Commission to make major changes to the HBP, a collaborative initiative to “simulate the brain” in the next 10 years.

⚡️ “The #FBI and the #CIA is reading my brain” by @RobertC31344949
https://twitter.com/i/moments/815741586369875968

[ManiacJoe]

2. His gun was taken away, then returned to him.

He went to the FBI.
The FBI turned him over to the local police.
The police sent him to a hospital for a psych eval, removing his gun.
At the end of the eval, the hospital released him, and his gun was returned to him.

It would seem that the psych eval did not find any problems warranting the permanent removal of his gun(s).

[Baitball Blogger]

3. How about now?

[ManiacJoe]

4. The cops again took the gun away when they arrested him.

Or is that not the question you are asking?

[Hoyt]

8. It was given back probably because of laws you gunners and the NRA have helped enact.

Fact is, the guy says he's hearing voices, he straightens up for a few hours, and the police felt compelled to give him his guns back.

[ManiacJoe]

10. An interesting assumption about the return of the gun.

Care to actually add anything constructive to the conversation?

[Hoyt]

11. Point should be clear, Maniac. Sometimes the authorities need to keep gunners' weapons. This is one.

[ManiacJoe]

12. That point was clear starting from the OP.

[Hoyt]

13. Apparently you missed that point initially.

[ManiacJoe]

25. You are always good for comic relief.

[NutmegYankee]

15. It was given back to him because of laws created hundreds of years ago.

Namely common law - which was the basis for the US legal system.

[Hoyt]

16. And because authorities are afraid NRA or local gun promoting organizations will show up to demand

his guns back. I suspect the deads' families would have preferred his guns were kept for awhile, even if our gunners are standing up for his right to get them back.

[hack89]

19. So authorities should be able to ignore laws

In the name of public safety? Or just gun laws?

[NutmegYankee]

21. It's not because some organization demands it - it's the law and upheld by courts.

A judge has to order the firearms held, and if he passed the psych eval, there is no legal basis to hold them. The government isn't all powerful in a Democracy, it has rules and limitations to follow. If you think it should be all powerful, you're going to love the Trump administration and the soon to be named 4th Reich.

[Hoyt]

22. Glad you guys got his guns back, preserving his so-called 2nd Amendment "rights." What rights did

he take from those he shot with the guns you guys want every sick person to get back quickly. I suspect a lot of gun fanciers were glad to see Trump elected. Their guns are more important than anything else.

[NutmegYankee]

24. No offense, but you are the one arguing against the rules of our Democracy.

Crack open a civics textbook sometime.

[Hoyt]

29. You and the NRA are hiding behind democracy to protect your guns.

[NutmegYankee]

31. You try to tag anyone who disagrees with you as "NRA". It's a fallacy - Association fallacy.

[HoneyBadger]

28. The Chicago PD can identify 87% of the people involved in gun violence, 125 days before they are

They do not hold these people, even though to do so would save their lives and others. Even though this would save hundreds of lives.

Why?

Laws.

[Hoyt]

30. They could take their guns, and they darn sure wouldn't call them up and say, hey come

get your guns.

[uponit7771]

23. what the fuck!!??!

[ManiacJoe]

26. One does need to question the quality of that psych eval.

[world wide wally]

5. They didn't take his gun away sooner because he had to fight against the tyranny of

Affordable health care and equal rights under the law.

[malaise]

6. They took it away and then called him and told

him to come for his gun. Guess what - it was his only luggage.

[Horse with no Name]

7. as a nation, we do not know how to have the RIGHT conversation

this was a mentally ill veteran.
Why was he not taken to a VA facility to get him some help? Those types of facilities do exist.

Fuck the rest of it.
There was no need to hand him over to police and FBI.

He.was.a.veteran.

[Hoyt]

9. I hear you, but he did go to the FBI first.

[Horse with no Name]

17. and once they found out he was not an immediate danger

he should have been deposited into the care of the VA Mental Health system

[atreides1]

33. It would depend on his type of discharge!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/airport-gunman-sent-panicked-passengers-fleeing-lives-073325727.html

"Santiago had been discharged from the National Guard last year after being demoted for unsatisfactory performance."

Anything less the an honorable or general discharge under honorable conditions, and the service member begins to lose access to certain benefits!

[Horse with no Name]

35. from what I understand he had a General Discharge n/t

[Runningdawg]

14. It would be interesting to know

if he HAD contacted VA. So many are turned away or become critical the longer service is delayed. We send our soldiers into battle with an average of 12 weeks training. Vets should get 12 weeks of training/counseling and medical treatment as needed, before returning to society. IMO not only might it prevent a situation such as this it, it could also help prevent unemployment, divorce, homelessness and suicide.

[Caliman73]

20. The simple answer is, because there are laws that dictate what can and can't be done.

The conversation is more complex. Where would you start?

Here is what I know from my experience in my jurisdiction:

He may be a veteran but we do not know that he was enrolled in the VA health care system. Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions, law enforcement are the first response to a mental health crisis. You cannot just take a person to a facility when they are not doing well. He certainly could have gone to the local hospital, police station, or County mental health facility to ask for help. Unless he meets criteria for involuntary treatment, which is set up by each jurisdiction, then he cannot be held involuntarily. Even when a person meets the criteria, the compelling legal point is to determine when the person is no longer an immediate threat and when that condition is met, they are to be released and have their civil liberties restored as soon as possible.

Mental health services are completely voluntary until very specific criteria are met and they can be delivered involuntarily.

It is a difficult situation but it is the way it is to prevent the lives of the vast majority of people from being intruded upon by the government.

Where would you draw the line in terms of voluntary v. involuntary treatment?

[kudzu22]

18. All we need

are a lot of officers who can see the future. Tom Cruise, call your agent...

[MrPurple]

27. If the incident was exactly the same, but his last name was Hussein instead of Santiago

Trump would be using the incident to gear up talk about banning/monitoring all Moslems in the US.

[NutmegYankee]

32. He may still use it to vilify Hispanics.

I put nothing past the Fuehrer 2.0.

[ck4829]

34. The FBI was too busy chasing Hillary's emails

Five people died, this is the Benghazi of the emailists.