Judge orders release of Marine veteran

I quickly skimmed over the piece. I see nowhere where he advocated the use of force verbally to overthrow the government. He said take our republic back. From his blog he was implying by legal means not by use of arms. I don't agree with his 9/11 jibberjaba but saw no reason for the FBI to what it did just from the blog. Which leads to the question is there something we don't know about?
 
The fact that this occured at all is disturbing. We cant throw people we disagree with or even agree with in the looney bin for simple speech alone.
 
Without knowing what went on during he FBI interview, it is impossible to evaluate whether he should have been taken into custody and hauled off to the psych ward.
 
Thought crime.
Click to expand...
We don't have enough information to say that. We have one side of the story, which may be selective or redacted.

I'll wait until court documents are released before jumping to conclusions.
 
Tom has it right. His visit to the looney bin may be under codes existing in every state for observation of persons deemed an imminent danger to themselves or others.
 
Last edited:
We seem to lack some information.

The judge, who theoretically has heard both sides, does not seem to believe the detention was justified, nor that the Feds nor state showed any reasonable cause whatsoever.
 
The judge did not rule that the detention was or was not justied per se, but that the affidavit was void of facts justifying the same.

Whether facts existed that would have justified the issuance of an arrest warrant was not before the court. They probably did not exist, else they would have been included but it could simply be a poorly drafted application for a warrant.

Added by edit: As I guessed, his arrest wasn't for a crime, per se, but for psychiatric evaluation. https://www.rutherford.org/publicat..._facebook_posts_now_released_but_who_could_be

The order involved wasn't an arrest warrant but an order committing him to 30 days for phsych eval. The problem was that he had been held for days based on probable cause before the order issued and the same law only permits 4 hours of incarceration for evaluation without such an order.

I agree that this is an awesome power that needs to be carefully regulated by the courts. Virginia's 4 hour limit is much better imo than states that permit observation without court authorization for as much as 3 days.

This has nothing to do with whether or not Raub commited a crime.
 
Last edited:
once a marine always a marine

however, I believe he can be held up to 72hrs for health reasons(speaking of engaging in rebellions as an example if it is possible he can harm others to say the least). therefore, he might've been released, but his rights might not have been violated.
 
But have they now made it so that he falls into the "mentally ill" class of prohibited persons? Will he be able to obtain a fire arm if he walked into his local LGS and tried to purchase one today?

Even if he was able to be detained for evaluation, have they inadvertently stepped on some of his other rights? And if so is there any recourse?
 
Reading the directions for ATF Form 4473, it sounds like he can still honestly answer "no" to question 11. The instructions specifically say that being remanded to a mental institution for observation isn't the same as being "committed", and there's even a specific exemption that says that being committed by an agency of the federal government (as opposed to being committed by the court system) doesn't make you a prohibited person after you've been released or the agency decides not to pursue the committal.
 
Last edited:
Iirc, the Virginia Supreme Court report I read a month ago said that the state issued about 6000 green warrants in 2011. That's the number of people picked up, not the number that had a hearing within 72 hours and were sent for more evaluation like Mr. Raub.

If you would like to know the regulations in your state, click on this link and then use the drop-down box on the right side to find your state.

www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/get-help/know-the-laws-in-your-state

From a local tv station, a quote from someone who worked with him overseas:

"In a recent article, the Richmond-Times Dispatch quotes Sean Lawlor -- a vet who says he was Raub's platoon commander in Iraq, as saying quote:

"knowing the man that he is, I believe that he fully intended to act on the threats he was posting.""

www.nbc12.com/story/19347360/marine-to-contend-mental-commitment-in-hearing-thursday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top