100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Abuse of authority or exaggeration? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I can just imagine how this all went down. Her: Don't you know who I am? I'm a banker/Rapper in Astoria and you're in big trouble mister Police because the President and I are friends on FB  still wouldnt add up ,,,,,,if Im picking up a towed car, I can make whatever grandiose claim I wish to,,,,especially if its true,,lol the only concern they s hould have is verifying the car is mine,, period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 2003 BMW?
 Can't wait to hear the police version of events. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is an inflammatory story and i would appreciate knowing the whole story not just one persons statement as its not possible to ascertain anything without knowing the whole story from both sides as medication is administered in psy hospitals when folks are acting out violently and i am not accusing just would like to know the entire story before the typical rush to judgment .This type of reporting is manipulative as various motives of racism, aggression are all presented with out context leading others to be emotionally stimulated for a myriad of purposes least of which being the truth... I agree. thats the reason for the title will the evidence prove or refute the claim?,,,, That will be for a judge and jury to decide. 'If', during the stop, the woman behaved in a bizarre manner, or, behaved in such a way, as to lead the officers to believe she posed a threat to herself and/or others. They were within their rights, to have her committed involuntarily, for a psych eval. Given that she claims to have been held for eight days, the medical professionals must have seen some issue with her. Individual states, regulate how long a person can be held involuntarily, for a psych eval, ranging from 24 to 72 hours. The police, can't mandate a longer stay. 'If', the mental health professionals had deemed there not to be an issue, they could have released her at any time during the eval. On the other hand, 'IF', she was singled out for driving/owning a BMW while black... in that case, it would have been a violation of her rights. 'But', unless we're chosen for jury duty in this issue... and even then, I doubt any one of us, will ever know what 'really' happened. but she wasnt detained at the stop the stop lead to her being taken to the statino and RELEASED it was something between that time and the time of her picking up her vehicle that needs to justify their actions in institutinalizing her |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can just imagine how this all went down. Her: Don't you know who I am? I'm a banker/Rapper in Astoria and you're in big trouble mister Police because the President and I are friends on FB Something smells fishey here...... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is an inflammatory story and i would appreciate knowing the whole story not just one persons statement as its not possible to ascertain anything without knowing the whole story from both sides as medication is administered in psy hospitals when folks are acting out violently and i am not accusing just would like to know the entire story before the typical rush to judgment .This type of reporting is manipulative as various motives of racism, aggression are all presented with out context leading others to be emotionally stimulated for a myriad of purposes least of which being the truth... I agree. thats the reason for the title will the evidence prove or refute the claim?,,,, That will be for a judge and jury to decide. 'If', during the stop, the woman behaved in a bizarre manner, or, behaved in such a way, as to lead the officers to believe she posed a threat to herself and/or others. They were within their rights, to have her committed involuntarily, for a psych eval. Given that she claims to have been held for eight days, the medical professionals must have seen some issue with her. Individual states, regulate how long a person can be held involuntarily, for a psych eval, ranging from 24 to 72 hours. The police, can't mandate a longer stay. 'If', the mental health professionals had deemed there not to be an issue, they could have released her at any time during the eval. On the other hand, 'IF', she was singled out for driving/owning a BMW while black... in that case, it would have been a violation of her rights. 'But', unless we're chosen for jury duty in this issue... and even then, I doubt any one of us, will ever know what 'really' happened. but she wasnt detained at the stop the stop lead to her being taken to the statino and RELEASED it was something between that time and the time of her picking up her vehicle that needs to justify their actions in institutinalizing her According to one of your posts on page 1, of this very thread. "She was behaving erratically and running into traffic" That statement shows, that the woman posed a danger to herself and others. Grounds enough in any state, to have her involuntarily committed for a psych eval. That the mental health professionals chose to keep her hospitalised, for a period longer than the standard 72 hours, indicates even they believe the woman to be bat5hit cray cray. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 09/13/15 09:47 PM
|
|
this is an inflammatory story and i would appreciate knowing the whole story not just one persons statement as its not possible to ascertain anything without knowing the whole story from both sides as medication is administered in psy hospitals when folks are acting out violently and i am not accusing just would like to know the entire story before the typical rush to judgment .This type of reporting is manipulative as various motives of racism, aggression are all presented with out context leading others to be emotionally stimulated for a myriad of purposes least of which being the truth... I agree. thats the reason for the title will the evidence prove or refute the claim?,,,, That will be for a judge and jury to decide. 'If', during the stop, the woman behaved in a bizarre manner, or, behaved in such a way, as to lead the officers to believe she posed a threat to herself and/or others. They were within their rights, to have her committed involuntarily, for a psych eval. Given that she claims to have been held for eight days, the medical professionals must have seen some issue with her. Individual states, regulate how long a person can be held involuntarily, for a psych eval, ranging from 24 to 72 hours. The police, can't mandate a longer stay. 'If', the mental health professionals had deemed there not to be an issue, they could have released her at any time during the eval. On the other hand, 'IF', she was singled out for driving/owning a BMW while black... in that case, it would have been a violation of her rights. 'But', unless we're chosen for jury duty in this issue... and even then, I doubt any one of us, will ever know what 'really' happened. but she wasnt detained at the stop the stop lead to her being taken to the statino and RELEASED it was something between that time and the time of her picking up her vehicle that needs to justify their actions in institutinalizing her According to one of your posts on page 1, of this very thread. "She was behaving erratically and running into traffic" That statement shows, that the woman posed a danger to herself and others. Grounds enough in any state, to have her involuntarily committed for a psych eval. That the mental health professionals chose to keep her hospitalised, for a period longer than the standard 72 hours, indicates even they believe the woman to be bat5hit cray cray. if that were the grounds for institutionalization , she would not have been released you dont release them and then decide that their behavior should cause them to be admitted,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my t hought is there could be alot more to them taking her from the location and there could be a totally seperate second incident at the site of the car pickup that cited the mental detention however, I cant figure out why medical RECORDS would indicate a requierment for her to refute three facts that actually WERE easily researchable and documented FACTS namely, the ownership of the car, her occupation, and her twitter followers,,, such a medical record would need to indicate much better rationale for injecting someone with drugs and committing them,,, Worth noting^^ Worth checking and are similar incidents like this? Worth repeating: facts that actually WERE easily researchable and documented FACTS namely, the ownership of the car, her occupation, and her twitter followers,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is an inflammatory story and i would appreciate knowing the whole story not just one persons statement as its not possible to ascertain anything without knowing the whole story from both sides as medication is administered in psy hospitals when folks are acting out violently and i am not accusing just would like to know the entire story before the typical rush to judgment .This type of reporting is manipulative as various motives of racism, aggression are all presented with out context leading others to be emotionally stimulated for a myriad of purposes least of which being the truth... I agree. thats the reason for the title will the evidence prove or refute the claim?,,,, That will be for a judge and jury to decide. 'If', during the stop, the woman behaved in a bizarre manner, or, behaved in such a way, as to lead the officers to believe she posed a threat to herself and/or others. They were within their rights, to have her committed involuntarily, for a psych eval. Given that she claims to have been held for eight days, the medical professionals must have seen some issue with her. Individual states, regulate how long a person can be held involuntarily, for a psych eval, ranging from 24 to 72 hours. The police, can't mandate a longer stay. 'If', the mental health professionals had deemed there not to be an issue, they could have released her at any time during the eval. On the other hand, 'IF', she was singled out for driving/owning a BMW while black... in that case, it would have been a violation of her rights. 'But', unless we're chosen for jury duty in this issue... and even then, I doubt any one of us, will ever know what 'really' happened. but she wasnt detained at the stop the stop lead to her being taken to the statino and RELEASED it was something between that time and the time of her picking up her vehicle that needs to justify their actions in institutinalizing her According to one of your posts on page 1, of this very thread. "She was behaving erratically and running into traffic" That statement shows, that the woman posed a danger to herself and others. Grounds enough in any state, to have her involuntarily committed for a psych eval. That the mental health professionals chose to keep her hospitalised, for a period longer than the standard 72 hours, indicates even they believe the woman to be bat5hit cray cray. if that were the grounds for institutionalization , she would not have been released you dont release them and then decide that their behavior should cause them to be admitted,,, Released from police custody, and admitted to a hospital/clinic for psych eval, is pretty much S.O.P.. Police detainment and committal to the nut ward, aren't synonymous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is an inflammatory story and i would appreciate knowing the whole story not just one persons statement as its not possible to ascertain anything without knowing the whole story from both sides as medication is administered in psy hospitals when folks are acting out violently and i am not accusing just would like to know the entire story before the typical rush to judgment .This type of reporting is manipulative as various motives of racism, aggression are all presented with out context leading others to be emotionally stimulated for a myriad of purposes least of which being the truth... I agree. thats the reason for the title will the evidence prove or refute the claim?,,,, That will be for a judge and jury to decide. 'If', during the stop, the woman behaved in a bizarre manner, or, behaved in such a way, as to lead the officers to believe she posed a threat to herself and/or others. They were within their rights, to have her committed involuntarily, for a psych eval. Given that she claims to have been held for eight days, the medical professionals must have seen some issue with her. Individual states, regulate how long a person can be held involuntarily, for a psych eval, ranging from 24 to 72 hours. The police, can't mandate a longer stay. 'If', the mental health professionals had deemed there not to be an issue, they could have released her at any time during the eval. On the other hand, 'IF', she was singled out for driving/owning a BMW while black... in that case, it would have been a violation of her rights. 'But', unless we're chosen for jury duty in this issue... and even then, I doubt any one of us, will ever know what 'really' happened. but she wasnt detained at the stop the stop lead to her being taken to the statino and RELEASED it was something between that time and the time of her picking up her vehicle that needs to justify their actions in institutinalizing her According to one of your posts on page 1, of this very thread. "She was behaving erratically and running into traffic" That statement shows, that the woman posed a danger to herself and others. Grounds enough in any state, to have her involuntarily committed for a psych eval. That the mental health professionals chose to keep her hospitalised, for a period longer than the standard 72 hours, indicates even they believe the woman to be bat5hit cray cray. if that were the grounds for institutionalization , she would not have been released you dont release them and then decide that their behavior should cause them to be admitted,,, Released from police custody, and admitted to a hospital/clinic for psych eval, is pretty much S.O.P.. Police detainment and committal to the nut ward, aren't synonymous. it is if it is the result of behavior prior to being detained,,, how many lawsuits would they have if they just RELEASED people they had reason to believe to be a threat? |
|
|
|
|
