This came up in my health care forum.

Right now, you can legally detain someone medically when they are a danger to themselves or others for up to 72hrs. The details vary by state, but this is how we lock down individuals trying to suicide or someone mentally off the rails making threats of violence.

This variation on that law would also make opposition to Trump qualify.

Civil commitment can follow as with individuals who have profound mental illness and are not safe to be out in the world.

This is the loudest scream that democracy is dead short of hauling people out into the street and shooting them.

It’s important to note the police are currently the people who bring individuals in for the 72hr mental health holds.

    • badelf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      You’re not scared because your great grandmother wasn’t thrown out a 4th floor window by Nazis. You really don’t understand a dictatorship, do you?

      • pinheadednightmare@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        My grandmother was a German citizen. My blood runs deep and I fully understand how you put these people in their place.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          To be clear, screaming on rooftops didn’t put the nazis in their place, communists with guns did.

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              It is an observation of historical facts, I am not prescribing any particular action.

              Running in the woods and trying to wage a protracted people’s war against the local police didn’t put the nazis in their place either, so who exactly would I be calling to arms?

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      American asylums weren’t exactly shining beacons of human rights during that period either. JFK’s sister had her frontal lobe scraped until she could no longer repeat the lyrics of a song because she said problematic things as a woman.

    • GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Red Flag laws are used to remove guns from Trans, Latino, and Black people in red states too. It’s not the solution to gun violence that people think it is. It was a good idea, but it ends up falling to paradox of the false positive and even being weaponized against minorities more often than not. It violates due process as well.

      More comprehensive care for people with severe mental health issues and arresting and jailing domestic violence offenders their first time is more effective. Unfortunately, we just defunded public mental health, so…

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          How are laws stating “If you’ve beaten your spouse, you cannot own guns” geared towards conservatives? Or, is that a slip of some sort?

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          How are red flag laws geared towards conservatives? Are they more likely to have someone report them as suicidal?

          Also how would removing a gun from a suicidal person be comparable to taking a person against their will and more than likely getting them fired from work and thrown in poverty?

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Assuming it passed, that’s what the bill said. Any disagreement with Trump is a clear sign of a mental disorder.

            • ubergeek@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              No, it does not say any disagreement with Trump

              It literally does. That’s how it defines “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

              But yes, Walz will veto it, thankfully.

    • tischbier@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I graduated from multiple private schools, I don’t understand what you mean? Is reading legislation and sharing news not taught at your private schools?

    • zephorah@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Do I think it will pass? No. But the fact that it’s even within the social psych of any lawmakers right now is worth a look. The link is a .gov for bills.

      Breaking things means the guard rails we are used to no longer exist, we need to stay cognizant of that bit.