-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Molon Labe: BANG!
- Thread starter hoosierdoc
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
If we are there for a suicide attempt. Dangerous behavior, trying to hurt someone else. Person in the midst of a psychosis. Recordings of threats to life. Statements made to the officer by the mentally ill person. There are just too many specifics to even list them all.
Did you read the link I posted? Because it's pretty clear that something substantial is required. Like actual, verifiable threats, and/or evidence that you've stopped taking your anti-psychotic medication.
"hey, my neighbor's crazy - take away his guns!" would only yield a wellness check, not a warrant. IANAL, IANALEO
If that. It is not illegal to be "crazy" and we need something more than that. We come across this ALL THE TIME.
I missed the link and just read it. This is the pertinent IC
[FONT="]IC 12-7-2-130"Mental illness"
[/FONT]
[FONT="] Sec. 130. "Mental illness" means the following:[/FONT]
[FONT="](1) For purposes of IC 12-23-5, IC 12-24, and IC 12-26, a psychiatric disorder that:[/FONT]
[FONT="](A) substantially disturbs an individual's thinking, feeling, or behavior; and[/FONT]
[FONT="](B) impairs the individual's ability to function.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The term includes intellectual disability, alcoholism, and addiction to narcotics or dangerous drugs.[/FONT]
[FONT="](2) For purposes of IC 12-28-4 and IC 12-28-5, a psychiatric disorder that:[/FONT]
[FONT="](A) substantially disturbs an individual's thinking, feeling, or behavior; and[/FONT]
[FONT="](B) impairs the individual's ability to function.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The term does not include developmental disability.[/FONT]
[FONT="][Pre-1992 Revision Citations: subdivision (1) formerly 16-14-9.1-1(a); subdivision (2) formerly 16-13-21-1.][/FONT]
[FONT="]As added by P.L.2-1992, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.117-2015, SEC.11.[/FONT]
It seems that you can only Laird (SWAT) someone that is already in the system.
Or if you tell social workers you do not want them to come by unless they have an appointment.
If THEY go before a Judge to get a warrant? They still have the same burden of proof as I do.
It seems clear that most agree that there could be a good reason to remove someones firearms. The question is simply how high or low that bar is set.
More specifically, how high was that bar set in this particular case? In this case we really cannot speak intelligently to the topic as we don't know what dear olde sister said to cause the events to be set in motion.
I do hope the Baltimore Sun pursues this information as a citizen is now dead due to this interaction. He would be alive today if his sister had not started the ball rolling. The members of that community have a right to know how high the bar is in order to get that ball rolling in the first place.
Until we know for certain then we're all just shooting in the dark.
While I do put the blame on the gentleman for not cooperating and suing everyone later, I can sympathize with being caught off guard and not thinking clearly.
Regards,
Doug
EDIT - I just sent an email to the reporter to learn if/what is being done to pursue the details of the complaint against Mr. Willis.
More specifically, how high was that bar set in this particular case? In this case we really cannot speak intelligently to the topic as we don't know what dear olde sister said to cause the events to be set in motion.
I do hope the Baltimore Sun pursues this information as a citizen is now dead due to this interaction. He would be alive today if his sister had not started the ball rolling. The members of that community have a right to know how high the bar is in order to get that ball rolling in the first place.
Until we know for certain then we're all just shooting in the dark.
While I do put the blame on the gentleman for not cooperating and suing everyone later, I can sympathize with being caught off guard and not thinking clearly.
Regards,
Doug
EDIT - I just sent an email to the reporter to learn if/what is being done to pursue the details of the complaint against Mr. Willis.
Last edited:
I got a response back from Rick Hutzell at The Capitol Gazette. He says that "[FONT=&] [/FONT] We have reported on the incident and the public information about the red flag order. Maryland law limits public access to this under HIPPA, because mental health factors are sometimes involved."
I have thanked him for his response. I did push back a bit wondering if an allegation of problems is protected under HIPPA. If I go to the judge claiming that my sister is crazy, surely that is not the same as a member of the medical community giving a professional diagnosis, is it?
Regards,
Doug
I have thanked him for his response. I did push back a bit wondering if an allegation of problems is protected under HIPPA. If I go to the judge claiming that my sister is crazy, surely that is not the same as a member of the medical community giving a professional diagnosis, is it?
Regards,
Doug
If the person is, pretty much yeah. From my experience in uni, I've got myself a kitchen knive (old hickory, 11 in) and a LBE which I use for camping trips, some libtard reported me to public safety then they invited themselves into my room and demanded my knife collection. I gave in, to not give them any reason to search my room and handed them 3 old hickory knives I had.
Key thing to note is that the school rules specifically states that Kitchen Knives are fully legit to have and are not considered "weapons", but the person at Student Affairs and Public Safety claimed ignorance of the rules and took them for safekeeping with my Remington model 11.
Key thing to take away with this is that, especially in a pampered environment, anything and everything is considered as "threatening behavior".
Last edited:
hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
I don’t believe HIPAA applies here but maybe houghmade will be by. They are not covered entities.
Maybe ask the Baltimore sun if they ever publish classified or confidential info. I thought reporters LOVED Leaking
if you are my brother and you tell a reporter I had depression, that is not a hipaa violation. Just absurd.
if a sister tells a police officer that Johnny is psychotic, how is that different? This was a judicial action to take guns, they were not there to serve a medical hold
Last edited:
If Mental health issues are already present then HIPPA would apply. It seems according to the actual IC there would need to be history for a warrant. In the case of a police officer considering you dangerous this seems to be a type of catch all lwa.
This is an explanation of Lairds Law. Not a Clarification
https://www.in.gov/isp/files/Jake_Laird_Law_Slides.pdf
hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
I still don’t believe HIPAA applies regarding something a third party (non covered entity) told the police (another non-covered entity) regarding someone.
it certainly applies to covered entities disclosing information about someone TO law enforcement
again, 911 from neighbor says “my neighbor has schizophrenia and is afraid aliens are attacking him. He’s in the front yard shooting things!”
if dispatch puts out on the radio “caller advises individual has schizophrenia and believes aliens are attacking him” are you saying that’s a HIPAA violation?
it certainly applies to covered entities disclosing information about someone TO law enforcement
again, 911 from neighbor says “my neighbor has schizophrenia and is afraid aliens are attacking him. He’s in the front yard shooting things!”
if dispatch puts out on the radio “caller advises individual has schizophrenia and believes aliens are attacking him” are you saying that’s a HIPAA violation?
No, I am saying that a request for a warrant (according to the law) should necessarily contain information about the subjects diagnosed mental illness, medications and institutionalization.
[FONT="]IC 35-47-14-1"Dangerous"
[/FONT]
[FONT="] Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:[/FONT]
[FONT="](1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or[/FONT]
[FONT="](2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:[/FONT]
[FONT="](A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or[/FONT]
[FONT="](B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.[/FONT]
[FONT="] (b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.[/FONT]
[FONT="]As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.[/FONT]
[FONT="]IC 35-47-14-1"Dangerous"
[/FONT]
[FONT="] Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:[/FONT]
[FONT="](1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or[/FONT]
[FONT="](2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:[/FONT]
[FONT="](A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or[/FONT]
[FONT="](B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.[/FONT]
[FONT="] (b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.[/FONT]
[FONT="]As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.[/FONT]
I believe all of the references to law are in Indiana. As this happened in Maryland none of this would apply. However, I am sure their law is similar.
I would respectfully argue that the public interest in understanding how one of its citizens died outweighs that now deceased citizens right to privacy. I certainly wouldn't want a bad doctor to do a botched surgery on me and get to hide behind HIPPA to avoid prosecution. Or, perhaps more analogous, a bad psychiatrist to treat me poorly and when I commit suicide hide behind HIPPA in order to cover up his/her misdeeds.
I do not blame law enforcement. It seems these officers went above and beyond the call of duty to treat him well by struggling instead of just opening fire. I also do not necessarily blame the judge, as I am giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot make a judgement nor can anyone else without understanding exactly what the judge was told in order to set these events in motion.
To me, it seems like a swatting. Who now can legally represent the deceased when the system hides behind HIPPA and the family member keeps quiet? While I still blame him for his actions at the moment of interaction with LE I cannot determine whether or not that interaction was justified in the first place, and this will never be known unless someone representing his interests waives the HIPPA protection or someone else breaks it.
Regards,
Doug
I would respectfully argue that the public interest in understanding how one of its citizens died outweighs that now deceased citizens right to privacy. I certainly wouldn't want a bad doctor to do a botched surgery on me and get to hide behind HIPPA to avoid prosecution. Or, perhaps more analogous, a bad psychiatrist to treat me poorly and when I commit suicide hide behind HIPPA in order to cover up his/her misdeeds.
I do not blame law enforcement. It seems these officers went above and beyond the call of duty to treat him well by struggling instead of just opening fire. I also do not necessarily blame the judge, as I am giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot make a judgement nor can anyone else without understanding exactly what the judge was told in order to set these events in motion.
To me, it seems like a swatting. Who now can legally represent the deceased when the system hides behind HIPPA and the family member keeps quiet? While I still blame him for his actions at the moment of interaction with LE I cannot determine whether or not that interaction was justified in the first place, and this will never be known unless someone representing his interests waives the HIPPA protection or someone else breaks it.
Regards,
Doug
hoosierdoc
Freed prisoner
OK, but that doesn't mean that it's covered by HIPAA. As I've said, just because it's medical information doesn't mean the entity is covered by HIPAA.
If the warrant contained medical records there were released by a covered entity it's possible that's covered by HIPAA, but even then I'm not sure. If it's just some person telling the court that the guy has psych issues and has been inpatient for homicidal ideation in the past that's not covered IMO. And I suspect it's the latter.
Likely a report was made to an officer, who typed something up and brought it to a judge who issued the warrant. I highly doubt a request was made to a medical facility/practitioner and those records included in the request for a warrant. But maybe
alabasterjar
Sharpshooter
I've thought about this situation quite a bit... I'm still working through this, but here are my current thoughts, for what it's worth...
The bar for a judge to issue an order for an leo to remove guns should be VERY HIGH... And by VERY HIGH, I mean it almost NEVER happens. I would prefer to see 10 guys who in all likelyhood should have their guns removed, but the judge refuses to make that order, than one 'legit' good guy's guns removed for 'safety'. Those who would give up liberty to gain safety deserve neither (paraphrasing B. Franklin).
I can hear the responses now..."so you don't think that the Leo was in the right, here?" That's not at all what I'm thinking. From what seems to be available to us, the leo acted "lawfully", but the million dollar question is: is the code lawful? Should the officer have pushed back? Without the information about what was claimed by a family member, I don't see how we can get there.
The bar for a judge to issue an order for an leo to remove guns should be VERY HIGH... And by VERY HIGH, I mean it almost NEVER happens. I would prefer to see 10 guys who in all likelyhood should have their guns removed, but the judge refuses to make that order, than one 'legit' good guy's guns removed for 'safety'. Those who would give up liberty to gain safety deserve neither (paraphrasing B. Franklin).
I can hear the responses now..."so you don't think that the Leo was in the right, here?" That's not at all what I'm thinking. From what seems to be available to us, the leo acted "lawfully", but the million dollar question is: is the code lawful? Should the officer have pushed back? Without the information about what was claimed by a family member, I don't see how we can get there.
Last edited:
My point is even if there was threatening, there is a law to cover that. Yeah if the guy is armed and you take him into custody you disarm and secure weapons.
It seems that we are in the realm of precrime. If the person has been determined to be "Dangerous" according to IC 12-7-2-130 his/her weapons should have already been removed and he/she should be in the NICS system.
In the case of someone is medicated to the point that they are not dangerous to themselves or others, do they retain their 2A rights.
If they do retain their rights and are medicated and not considered dangerous, would it take more than a relative stating that they are OFF THEIR MEDS to get a judge to sign off.
Another question for Denny or other police. When you confiscate all of their weapons, will this include all knives i the house?
It seems to me if someone is dangerous to themselves or others they could do a lot od damage with almost anything.
When someone is on suicide watch they have their belts and shoelaces taken away.
The only safe place for someone who is actually dangerous is in a strait jacket locked in a padded room.
It seems that we are in the realm of precrime. If the person has been determined to be "Dangerous" according to IC 12-7-2-130 his/her weapons should have already been removed and he/she should be in the NICS system.
In the case of someone is medicated to the point that they are not dangerous to themselves or others, do they retain their 2A rights.
If they do retain their rights and are medicated and not considered dangerous, would it take more than a relative stating that they are OFF THEIR MEDS to get a judge to sign off.
Another question for Denny or other police. When you confiscate all of their weapons, will this include all knives i the house?
It seems to me if someone is dangerous to themselves or others they could do a lot od damage with almost anything.
When someone is on suicide watch they have their belts and shoelaces taken away.
The only safe place for someone who is actually dangerous is in a strait jacket locked in a padded room.
