General Discussion

backscatter712

(26,357 posts)

12. This would be the part I would support.

Fri Mar 8, 2013, 04:38 PM

Mar 2013

In order to get involuntarily committed, there's a rather high legal bar to pass - you have to be behaving in such a way that authorities, your family, or doctors can convince a judge that you're an imminent danger to yourself or others. And ideally, the judge isn't going to sign off on locking a person up just because he visited a shrink and got a prescription for prozac, or even if he checked himself into a hospital and got treatment voluntarily. You have to be pretty messed up.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gee, I can't see anything bad ever coming from this. At all. [View all] Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 OP

Looks like checking records of any INVOLUNTARY treatment Eleanors38 Mar 2013 #1

If we were talking about the right to vote, sure. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 #2

Seems like a 5 yr. back search is a better way to go, Eleanors38 Mar 2013 #5

This would be the part I would support. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #12

There is the problem with stigmatization. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #3

It's not a list being freely disseminated to the general public. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2013 #4

Hey, Bob, let's go dove hunting... Eleanors38 Mar 2013 #6

I'm glad I waited to see how this thread went. Good point. randome Mar 2013 #8

Thanks. Upstream, the more salient point was implied: Eleanors38 Mar 2013 #9

Especially since as you posted above, getting listed could cost you more than your guns. backscatter712 Mar 2013 #11

Touche! n/t backscatter712 Mar 2013 #10

Nope. Not at all. Seems like a good idea. talkingmime Mar 2013 #7