gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 01:36:35 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 83 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?  (Read 489740 times)
The Shift
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7427


Biding time


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: December 14, 2015, 02:47:19 PM »

No offence Rocky - if it is indeed Rocky posting above - but I hope you have a good, kind and patient editor helping you with the draft for the book.
Logged

“We live in divisive times.”
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: December 14, 2015, 02:50:06 PM »

Gosh, in order to generate exposure for the potential publication of his book, perhaps Rocky would like to join the Smiley Smile board so as to engage in dialogue with the members here.  Evil Evil


    Smiley
8)It would be remiss of me not to thank you for inviting me to join this website...THANK YOU... whomever you are? Did you create this website? You can email me personally if you like!  Smiley  I did'nt find out about this website until last week...A young  lady, from technical support at T.W.C., googled me while I was on the line with her and informed me of Smiley Smile. I called Stephen Love, my favorite person, and told him of it. He discovered that someone from the website "Man vs Clown" (Why I hate Mike Love) has posted a couple of his posts on this site... we would like to thank him as well...Good on ya mate. Before closing... I would like to say... There sure are some opinionated  uninformed people in this world. Just for the record I would like to say that Stephen Love saved Brian Wilson's life... when Brian's wife Marylin found  Brian in bed ... offering his seven year old daughter, Wendy, heroin... she absolutely freaked out and called Stephen, then Beach Boys manager, threatening to have Brian committed! Stephen pleaded with her to give him a chance to save Brian! He always took an extreme hard stand against DRUGS!!! He said he knew the exact right persons to keep DRUGS OUT OF BRIAN'S LIFE!!! An enormously CHALLENGING task... given Brian's fame and fortune... and addiction to drugs. Not to mention Dennis and Carl...who thought drugs were all fun and games!!!   Smiley
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 01:32:58 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: December 14, 2015, 02:52:45 PM »


Nowadays, when there is an addicted person, who needs help and is always jonesing for another fix, there is the option of having a family member or friend or police officer, doctor, etc., who can petition the court to get a civil committment in a hospital or other detox facility and there is no criminal penalty.  It is a civil matter and does not affect the criminal record of an individual.  I do not think that there was that option at that time.  The person is arrested, (for their own protection) and the family  and a court doctor has to go to court and testify that the person has lost control of themselves and personal health, etc., and the judge has to believe and have a detox bed to put that person into.  

It seems that in many ways the "bouncers" (private police) (and I have little knowledge of this whole era) who took the law into their own hands to keep a lid (dysfunctional as it was over 30 years ago) and perhaps keep the bad BB news out of the papers.  That kind of civil commitment that a family or other member could push for (and doesn't ever happen automatically because you are depriving a person of their civil liberties, and judges don't always order treatment.  It was harder back then.  It was a value judgment system.  Addicts were treated as criminals, rather than patients who needed medical intervention.  Even now there is no guarantee that you can get treatment as a friend or family member.  There was no narcan to bring someone out of an overdose.  

So addicts (as they do now) did everything they could to exploit a money source they had a "source of dough" (Brian) even if they were "sharing" the goods.  I can only imagine the bad headlines which would be bad all the way around. They were barely out of the woods with regard the bad media post-Manson.  
.    
This is incorrect regarding the law. Civil commitments are, in most states, harder to obtain now than they were in the 1970's. At the time we are discussing, had someone sought a decent psychologist, BW could easily have been civilly committed for psychiatric reasons.
It's also possible that, had he received decent treatment from a decent psychologist, a civil commitment would not have been needed, because he would have been receiving treatment and would have been able to make better choices for himself.

Further, the idea that, in order to avoid bad press, one incarcerates one's brother, spouse, cousin, friend, colleague in a private jail run by Rocky Pamplin is completely barbaric: that it's more important to avoid bad press than to give your loved one in great need proper medical care.
Also, it wouldn't be bad press. The world already knew that BW had psychiatric and addiction problems. I was a child and I knew BW had psychiatric and addiction problems. The news that he was getting proper professional treatment would not have been bad press.

Frankly, I wonder what the statute of limitations is for involuntary confinement and torture.

The whole "ah, it was the seventies, there was no medicine! there was no law! there was no intelligent life on earth! we were running with the wolves!" stuff is garbage.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: December 14, 2015, 03:05:49 PM »


Nowadays, when there is an addicted person, who needs help and is always jonesing for another fix, there is the option of having a family member or friend or police officer, doctor, etc., who can petition the court to get a civil committment in a hospital or other detox facility and there is no criminal penalty.  It is a civil matter and does not affect the criminal record of an individual.  I do not think that there was that option at that time.  The person is arrested, (for their own protection) and the family  and a court doctor has to go to court and testify that the person has lost control of themselves and personal health, etc., and the judge has to believe and have a detox bed to put that person into.  

It seems that in many ways the "bouncers" (private police) (and I have little knowledge of this whole era) who took the law into their own hands to keep a lid (dysfunctional as it was over 30 years ago) and perhaps keep the bad BB news out of the papers.  That kind of civil commitment that a family or other member could push for (and doesn't ever happen automatically because you are depriving a person of their civil liberties, and judges don't always order treatment.  It was harder back then.  It was a value judgment system.  Addicts were treated as criminals, rather than patients who needed medical intervention.  Even now there is no guarantee that you can get treatment as a friend or family member.  There was no narcan to bring someone out of an overdose.  

So addicts (as they do now) did everything they could to exploit a money source they had a "source of dough" (Brian) even if they were "sharing" the goods.  I can only imagine the bad headlines which would be bad all the way around. They were barely out of the woods with regard the bad media post-Manson.  
.    
This is incorrect regarding the law. Civil commitments are, in most states, harder to obtain now than they were in the 1970's. At the time we are discussing, had someone sought a decent psychologist, BW could easily have been civilly committed for psychiatric reasons.
It's also possible that, had he received decent treatment from a decent psychologist, a civil commitment would not have been needed, because he would have been receiving treatment and would have been able to make better choices for himself.

Further, the idea that, in order to avoid bad press, one incarcerates one's brother, spouse, cousin, friend, colleague in a private jail run by Rocky Pamplin is completely barbaric: that it's more important to avoid bad press than to give your loved one in great need proper medical care.
Also, it wouldn't be bad press. The world already knew that BW had psychiatric and addiction problems. I was a child and I knew BW had psychiatric and addiction problems. The news that he was getting proper professional treatment would not have been bad press.

Frankly, I wonder what the statute of limitations is for involuntary confinement and torture.

The whole "ah, it was the seventies, there was no medicine! there was no law! there was no intelligent life on earth! we were running with the wolves!" stuff is garbage.

Emily - That is not incorrect. I am quite familiar with at least the law in my own state and both alcohol/drug/ mental health commitments. It is more progressive.  I was talking about Dennis being committed.  (Perhaps treatment, rather than getting a beating.)  If you can't or could not convince an addict to get treatment, voluntarily, then you go to get the help of the court.

And, I am not apologizing for Rocky or anyone else.   Bad press?  What was worse than being involved, even tangentially than Manson.  And at least during the 60's and 70's what went on with the BB was carefully scripted and released by a press agent, unless they made the news by being a conscientious objector. 

It is called "false imprisonment." Dennis would have to have brought those charges, alongside whatever else is alleged to have taken place.  I certainly don't know because I was not there. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: December 14, 2015, 03:17:11 PM »


Emily - That is not incorrect. I am quite familiar with at least the law in my own state and both alcohol/drug/ mental health commitments. It is more progressive.  I was talking about Dennis being committed.  (Perhaps treatment, rather than getting a beating.)  If you can't or could not convince an addict to get treatment, voluntarily, then you go to get the help of the court.

And, I am not apologizing for Rocky or anyone else.   Bad press?  What was worse than being involved, even tangentially than Manson.  And at least during the 60's and 70's what went on with the BB was carefully scripted and released by a press agent, unless they made the news by being a conscientious objector.  

It is called "false imprisonment." Dennis would have to have brought those charges, alongside whatever else is alleged to have taken place.  I certainly don't know because I was not there.  

Correct about "involuntary confinement" vs. "false imprisonment." The former is on my mind of course due to the topic and came out.
Regarding false imprisonment, I'm referring to BW. Not DW.
And, as it pertains to mental health, you are incorrect regarding the law. Involuntary hospitalization for mental health has a much more rigorous standard in almost all states than it used to.
You brought up bad press in your first post, intimating that it may be a motive for not following proper medical or legal channels. I responded that that's a poor excuse for imprisoning someone extra-judicially (regarding BW). Regarding DW, I would add that it's a poor excuse for battery.  I don't understand your comments regarding bad press in your most recent post.
Regarding Dennis Wilson - following legal procedures to get him help may have saved his life. Bashing his head in sure didn't.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 03:19:28 PM by Emily » Logged
Doo Dah
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 590


One man's troll is another man's freedom fighter.


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: December 14, 2015, 03:36:35 PM »

This book, if it ever comes out, will be another in a long line of 'tell alls', such as Tony Sanchez's Up and Down with the Rolling Stones. One of those salacious, disturbing and somewhat fascinating car wrecks.

The real cha-ching generated won't be book sales. It'll be legal fees.
Logged

AGD is gone.
AGD is gone.
Heigh ho the derry-o
AGD is gone
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: December 14, 2015, 03:51:43 PM »


Emily - That is not incorrect. I am quite familiar with at least the law in my own state and both alcohol/drug/ mental health commitments. It is more progressive.  I was talking about Dennis being committed.  (Perhaps treatment, rather than getting a beating.)  If you can't or could not convince an addict to get treatment, voluntarily, then you go to get the help of the court.

And, I am not apologizing for Rocky or anyone else.   Bad press?  What was worse than being involved, even tangentially than Manson.  And at least during the 60's and 70's what went on with the BB was carefully scripted and released by a press agent, unless they made the news by being a conscientious objector.  

It is called "false imprisonment." Dennis would have to have brought those charges, alongside whatever else is alleged to have taken place.  I certainly don't know because I was not there.  
Correct about "involuntary confinement" vs. "false imprisonment." The former is on my mind of course due to the topic and came out.
Regarding false imprisonment, I'm referring to BW. Not DW.
And, as it pertains to mental health, you are incorrect regarding the law. Involuntary hospitalization for mental health has a much more rigorous standard in almost all states than it used to.
You brought up bad press in your first post, intimating that it may be a motive for not following proper medical or legal channels. I responded that that's a poor excuse for imprisoning someone extra-judicially (regarding BW). Regarding DW, I would add that it's a poor excuse for battery.  I don't understand your comments regarding bad press in your most recent post.
Regarding Dennis Wilson - following legal procedures to get him help may have saved his life. Bashing his head in sure didn't.
Dennis was the one in question.  That is about whom I was speaking.  This article traces the history of involuntary commitment and the standards involved along with the conflict of depriving a person of their personal freedom without a trial.  There were huge ethical issues for doctors. There were no drug courts on HBO back then.  

The process of the court is called "parens patrie." This is the "parent of the country" coming from English common law where the government has a responsibility to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, which is coupled with the "police power"of the state to protect the interest of its citizens. The state has a duty to consider the welfare of all the people, sometimes at the cost of certain individuals.

Substance abuse, anorexia, alcohol, all are factored into this and are found after footnote 41.  In California in 1961, narcotics issues and treatment were connected to crimes.  Yes, that is back-in-the-day.   Then in 1966, the NARA Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act was passed to offer treatment instead of jail.  But there was an underlying crime.  

That was the beginning of the "diversion program" - and and now we have civil commitment "without a crime committed" is a newer concept.  And it requires a person who has "standing" (legal standing, like a parent, child, spouse, or close friend who has actual knowledge of the continuing drug or alcohol use and the failure of the person to eat, wash or take care of their personal affairs. Also, mandated people like police can file a Petition for Commitment.)

No criminal record comes from more modern civil commitment which in my state is only about ten years old. In 2001, 11 of the 50 states had commitment statutes that called for involuntary hospitalization of individuals with drug dependency problems. At that time (2001) only 20% of psychiatrists felt that substance abuse was criterial for civil commitment.   It was the medical people who had to catch up with the laws, not the other way around.   Wink

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176

Dennis died in 1983.  I think he did not live long enough to benefit from changed attitudes.  Frankly, I feel that many of those doctors felt that dealing with drug addiction was beneath them. It wasn't recognized as a disease until fairly recently with brain scans and neuro science.  It wasn't "sexy" enough for them.  JMHO
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 03:56:40 PM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: December 14, 2015, 04:02:44 PM »


Dennis was the one in question.  That is about whom I was speaking.  This article traces the history of involuntary commitment and the standards involved along with the conflict of depriving a person of their personal freedom without a trial.  There were huge ethical issues for doctors. There were no drug courts on HBO back then.  

The process of the court is called "parens patrie." This is the "parent of the country" coming from English common law where the government has a responsibility to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, which is coupled with the "police power"of the state to protect the interest of its citizens. The state has a duty to consider the welfare of all the people, sometimes at the cost of certain individuals.

Substance abuse, anorexia, alcohol, all are factored into this and are found after footnote 41.  In California in 1961, narcotics issues and treatment were connected to crimes.  Yes, that is back-in-the-day.   Then in 1966, the NARA Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act was passed to offer treatment instead of jail.  But there was an underlying crime.  

That was the beginning of the "diversion program" - and and now we have civil commitment "without a crime committed" is a newer concept.  And it requires a person who has "standing" (legal standing, like a parent, child, spouse, or close friend who has actual knowledge of the continuing drug or alcohol use and the failure of the person to eat, wash or take care of their personal affairs. Also, mandated people like police can file a Petition for Commitment.)

No criminal record comes from more modern civil commitment which in my state is only about ten years old. In 2001, 11 of the 50 states had commitment statutes that called for involuntary hospitalization of individuals with drug dependency problems. At that time (2001) only 20% of psychiatrists felt that substance abuse was criterial for civil commitment.   It was the medical people who had to catch up with the laws, not the other way around.   Wink

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176
"Dennis was the one in question" - your first reply was to this: "So your way of dealing with two severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions wasn't to get them medical help, or even to involve the police (which might have led to court-ordered rehab), but to beat one of them up, doing permanent physical damage."
So, I figured both "severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions" were the ones in question. But now it's clear.

Regarding your article, I read the same one earlier today, and http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=llr

Both support my point -  that it was easier then to get a commitment than it is now. As Andrew Hickey implies, in the post to which you initially responded, it would've been better to deal with the law and mental health professionals than to hire thugs to imprison and abuse them.

this article is more pertinent and concise than the other two:
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/component/content/article/360
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 04:27:09 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: December 14, 2015, 06:07:29 PM »


Dennis was the one in question.  That is about whom I was speaking.  This article traces the history of involuntary commitment and the standards involved along with the conflict of depriving a person of their personal freedom without a trial.  There were huge ethical issues for doctors. There were no drug courts on HBO back then.  

The process of the court is called "parens patrie." This is the "parent of the country" coming from English common law where the government has a responsibility to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, which is coupled with the "police power"of the state to protect the interest of its citizens. The state has a duty to consider the welfare of all the people, sometimes at the cost of certain individuals.

Substance abuse, anorexia, alcohol, all are factored into this and are found after footnote 41.  In California in 1961, narcotics issues and treatment were connected to crimes.  Yes, that is back-in-the-day.   Then in 1966, the NARA Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act was passed to offer treatment instead of jail.  But there was an underlying crime.  

That was the beginning of the "diversion program" - and and now we have civil commitment "without a crime committed" is a newer concept.  And it requires a person who has "standing" (legal standing, like a parent, child, spouse, or close friend who has actual knowledge of the continuing drug or alcohol use and the failure of the person to eat, wash or take care of their personal affairs. Also, mandated people like police can file a Petition for Commitment.)

No criminal record comes from more modern civil commitment which in my state is only about ten years old. In 2001, 11 of the 50 states had commitment statutes that called for involuntary hospitalization of individuals with drug dependency problems. At that time (2001) only 20% of psychiatrists felt that substance abuse was criterial for civil commitment.   It was the medical people who had to catch up with the laws, not the other way around.   Wink

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392176
"Dennis was the one in question" - your first reply was to this: "So your way of dealing with two severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions wasn't to get them medical help, or even to involve the police (which might have led to court-ordered rehab), but to beat one of them up, doing permanent physical damage."
So, I figured both "severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions" were the ones in question. But now it's clear.

Regarding your article, I read the same one earlier today, and http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=llr

Both support my point -  that it was easier then to get a commitment than it is now. As Andrew Hickey implies, in the post to which you initially responded, it would've been better to deal with the law and mental health professionals than to hire thugs to imprison and abuse them.

this article is more pertinent and concise than the other two:
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/component/content/article/360
We are on different pages.  One of the reasons that the "civil commitment" arose so strongly, as a direct result of addiction is because of the "mandatory minimums" and people locked up to the rate of over 50% incarceration for drug and alcohol addiction and activism among the bar associations not to imprison those who need treatment.  Civil commitment without having committed a crime, is that alternative.  It is working.  It requires persistence on the part of family, friends and others to make sure a civil commitment happens before worse happens.  It was not easy to get one for drug addiction without having an open criminal case.  This newer kind of civil commitment is independent of crime and that is what distinguishes it.   

You are looking at historical and scandalous, inhuman incarceration which might not have been that difficult to "write the papers" to get someone "inconvenient"  out of circulation, as done in many countries  to political enemies. Political gulags. 
 
And, I am looking only at the legal standards and shift of public policy in the last 20 years.   We can't change whatever happened with the band.  Maybe some in the "sphere" want to set the record as it relates to "them" and it doesn't really matter.  Dennis is unfortunately gone.   Dennis was apparently the injured party.  Is there a resolution?  I have no idea. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: December 14, 2015, 06:46:22 PM »


We are on different pages.  One of the reasons that the "civil commitment" arose so strongly, as a direct result of addiction is because of the "mandatory minimums" and people locked up to the rate of over 50% incarceration for drug and alcohol addiction and activism among the bar associations not to imprison those who need treatment.  Civil commitment without having committed a crime, is that alternative.  It is working.  It requires persistence on the part of family, friends and others to make sure a civil commitment happens before worse happens.  It was not easy to get one for drug addiction without having an open criminal case.  This newer kind of civil commitment is independent of crime and that is what distinguishes it.    

You are looking at historical and scandalous, inhuman incarceration which might not have been that difficult to "write the papers" to get someone "inconvenient"  out of circulation, as done in many countries  to political enemies. Political gulags.  
 
And, I am looking only at the legal standards and shift of public policy in the last 20 years.   We can't change whatever happened with the band.  Maybe some in the "sphere" want to set the record as it relates to "them" and it doesn't really matter.  Dennis is unfortunately gone.   Dennis was apparently the injured party.  Is there a resolution?  I have no idea.  
Certainly involuntary hospitalization has been abused. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be beneficial if used appropriately. We're talking about Brian and Dennis Wilson. Their family could have arranged for a comfortable and safe private residential facility with reputable physicians and psychologists. It's not like the only option was to throw them in a state institution.
No, we can't change what happened to the band, but when someone shows up and says
Yes...the "ONE  and  ONLY" reason Stan and I beat up Dennis...is because Carolyn Williams, Brian's live in nurse, called Stephen Loves former personal assistant Janet Nelson in a "PANIC" crying out for "HELP" because Dennis was showing up at Brian's house,in the Palisades, on a regular basis and borrowing money to buy COCAINE and then sharing the COCAINE with Brian... (brotherly love) UNTIL Brian had a "SEIZURE"... and she had to stick a rolled up washcloth in his mouth to keep Brian from swallowing his tongue!!! IS THAT REASON ENOUGH FOR Y'ALL ?
, it doesn't seem unwarranted for Andrew Hickey to reply with
So your way of dealing with two severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions wasn't to get them medical help, or even to involve the police (which might have led to court-ordered rehab), but to beat one of them up, doing permanent physical damage.
When you replied to him, I took your reply to mean that they didn't really have valid useful options in the seventies, and they wanted to avoid bad press, so it wasn't unreasonable for them to hire thugs.
Thinking that that was what you meant, I replied as I did. If I mistook your meaning, I apologize.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 06:48:43 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: December 14, 2015, 07:18:05 PM »


We are on different pages.  One of the reasons that the "civil commitment" arose so strongly, as a direct result of addiction is because of the "mandatory minimums" and people locked up to the rate of over 50% incarceration for drug and alcohol addiction and activism among the bar associations not to imprison those who need treatment.  Civil commitment without having committed a crime, is that alternative.  It is working.  It requires persistence on the part of family, friends and others to make sure a civil commitment happens before worse happens.  It was not easy to get one for drug addiction without having an open criminal case.  This newer kind of civil commitment is independent of crime and that is what distinguishes it.    

You are looking at historical and scandalous, inhuman incarceration which might not have been that difficult to "write the papers" to get someone "inconvenient"  out of circulation, as done in many countries  to political enemies. Political gulags.  
 
And, I am looking only at the legal standards and shift of public policy in the last 20 years.   We can't change whatever happened with the band.  Maybe some in the "sphere" want to set the record as it relates to "them" and it doesn't really matter.  Dennis is unfortunately gone.   Dennis was apparently the injured party.  Is there a resolution?  I have no idea.  
Certainly involuntary hospitalization has been abused. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be beneficial if used appropriately. We're talking about Brian and Dennis Wilson. Their family could have arranged for a comfortable and safe private residential facility with reputable physicians and psychologists. It's not like the only option was to throw them in a state institution.
No, we can't change what happened to the band, but when someone shows up and says
Yes...the "ONE  and  ONLY" reason Stan and I beat up Dennis...is because Carolyn Williams, Brian's live in nurse, called Stephen Loves former personal assistant Janet Nelson in a "PANIC" crying out for "HELP" because Dennis was showing up at Brian's house,in the Palisades, on a regular basis and borrowing money to buy COCAINE and then sharing the COCAINE with Brian... (brotherly love) UNTIL Brian had a "SEIZURE"... and she had to stick a rolled up washcloth in his mouth to keep Brian from swallowing his tongue!!! IS THAT REASON ENOUGH FOR Y'ALL ?
, it doesn't seem unwarranted for Andrew Hickey to reply with
So your way of dealing with two severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions wasn't to get them medical help, or even to involve the police (which might have led to court-ordered rehab), but to beat one of them up, doing permanent physical damage.
When you replied to him, I took your reply to mean that they didn't really have valid useful options in the seventies, and they wanted to avoid bad press, so it wasn't unreasonable for them to hire thugs.
Thinking that that was what you meant, I replied as I did. If I mistook your meaning, I apologize.
Emily - you know the meaning of "red tape." Cutting "red tape" to get a civil commitment has been very difficult.   Medicine didn't have very good treatment that was available to anyone if the best was Landy.   

Who do you call?  We can't blame families.  it puts the burden on them for an issue that defied doctors in those days.  They did their best.  I cannot comment on this guy writing a book because first, I don't know him, and second, I was not there. 

People are opining all over the place about stuff that they were not privy to, and about guys they don't know personally (for the majority of us) about standards that didn't exist at the time.  It is ridiculous.   I don't disagree with Andrew Hickey, but the UK and the US have very different treatment standards and treatment was "diversion based" in the US and connected to a crime.  People don't go to the police and the courts, unless they are desperate.

So, for anyone, even Dennis to get this type of "civil commitment," he would have had to commit a crime.   Were there places he could private pay?  Of course.  I think the band did everything they could, whenever they could for anyone in trouble. 

Likely there was no "talking any sense into anyone" while under the influence to commit themselves voluntarily and hiring a bodyguard looked like the best alternative.  I can't be the judge.   They made decisions for reasons that are unknown to me.  It is water over the bridge. 

What this guy Rocky said that whatever happened (Dennis getting decked) was that he never went back to Brian with drugs.  That seemed to the point of the post.   We weren't there.  And, if there was something that could have been done, I think it would have been done.  That is my position.   Not condoning anything and not judging.   
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: December 14, 2015, 07:38:08 PM »


Emily - you know the meaning of "red tape." Cutting "red tape" to get a civil commitment has been very difficult.   Medicine didn't have very good treatment that was available to anyone if the best was Landy.   

Who do you call?  We can't blame families.  it puts the burden on them for an issue that defied doctors in those days.  They did their best.  I cannot comment on this guy writing a book because first, I don't know him, and second, I was not there. 

People are opining all over the place about stuff that they were not privy to, and about guys they don't know personally (for the majority of us) about standards that didn't exist at the time.  It is ridiculous.   I don't disagree with Andrew Hickey, but the UK and the US have very different treatment standards and treatment was "diversion based" in the US and connected to a crime.  People don't go to the police and the courts, unless they are desperate.

So, for anyone, even Dennis to get this type of "civil commitment," he would have had to commit a crime.   Were there places he could private pay?  Of course.  I think the band did everything they could, whenever they could for anyone in trouble. 

Likely there was no "talking any sense into anyone" while under the influence to commit themselves voluntarily and hiring a bodyguard looked like the best alternative.  I can't be the judge.   They made decisions for reasons that are unknown to me.  It is water over the bridge. 

What this guy Rocky said that whatever happened (Dennis getting decked) was that he never went back to Brian with drugs.  That seemed to the point of the post.   We weren't there.  And, if there was something that could have been done, I think it would have been done.  That is my position.   Not condoning anything and not judging.   
We weren't there, but I feel no discomfort saying that beating people up is not the solution to drug addiction and mental illness. I also feel no discomfort reacting to a direct personal statement. People are opining about what they've read and what people have said. I'm not opining about what I don't know. I'm not saying Mr. Pamplin's dinner sucked. I'm saying that what he said above sucks.
McLean's and Silver Hill and many other residential psychiatric treatment centers were active and had (of course not 100%) success treating people with mental health and addiction issues. One did not need a criminal case to have a family member committed to care.
You say: "Medicine didn't have very good treatment that was available to anyone if the best was Landy."
The best was not Landy. Part of the problem is that the people who you say "did their best" hired thugs and some "therapist to the stars" dude with his own made up methodology that had not been put through trials, had not been reviewed by peers, had no professional support or reputation what-so-ever. He was a renegade gold-digger. He was not a reputable psychologist and there is no reason to think he was the "best." 
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: December 14, 2015, 08:15:28 PM »


Emily - you know the meaning of "red tape." Cutting "red tape" to get a civil commitment has been very difficult.   Medicine didn't have very good treatment that was available to anyone if the best was Landy.   

Who do you call?  We can't blame families.  it puts the burden on them for an issue that defied doctors in those days.  They did their best.  I cannot comment on this guy writing a book because first, I don't know him, and second, I was not there. 

People are opining all over the place about stuff that they were not privy to, and about guys they don't know personally (for the majority of us) about standards that didn't exist at the time.  It is ridiculous.   I don't disagree with Andrew Hickey, but the UK and the US have very different treatment standards and treatment was "diversion based" in the US and connected to a crime.  People don't go to the police and the courts, unless they are desperate.

So, for anyone, even Dennis to get this type of "civil commitment," he would have had to commit a crime.   Were there places he could private pay?  Of course.  I think the band did everything they could, whenever they could for anyone in trouble. 

Likely there was no "talking any sense into anyone" while under the influence to commit themselves voluntarily and hiring a bodyguard looked like the best alternative.  I can't be the judge.   They made decisions for reasons that are unknown to me.  It is water over the bridge. 

What this guy Rocky said that whatever happened (Dennis getting decked) was that he never went back to Brian with drugs.  That seemed to the point of the post.   We weren't there.  And, if there was something that could have been done, I think it would have been done.  That is my position.   Not condoning anything and not judging.   
We weren't there, but I feel no discomfort saying that beating people up is not the solution to drug addiction and mental illness. I also feel no discomfort reacting to a direct personal statement. People are opining about what they've read and what people have said. I'm not opining about what I don't know. I'm not saying Mr. Pamplin's dinner sucked. I'm saying that what he said above sucks.
McLean's and Silver Hill and many other residential psychiatric treatment centers were active and had (of course not 100%) success treating people with mental health and addiction issues. One did not need a criminal case to have a family member committed to care.
You say: "Medicine didn't have very good treatment that was available to anyone if the best was Landy."
The best was not Landy. Part of the problem is that the people who you say "did their best" hired thugs and some "therapist to the stars" dude with his own made up methodology that had not been put through trials, had not been reviewed by peers, had no professional support or reputation what-so-ever. He was a renegade gold-digger. He was not a reputable psychologist and there is no reason to think he was the "best." 
Emily - Landy had a client list including Alice Cooper, Richard Harris, Rod Steiger and Gig Young.  He was the therapist to the stars.  It looked good.  Better than it was.  "If we knew then what we know now" - well who knew?  Landy convinced a judge to get exclusive control. 

What he said may be offensive to you.  I can't help that.  I am uncomfortable not knowing the totality of the circumstances and opining.  And I am not familiar with Silver Spring.  McLean's does have a certain reputation that has fallen off lately as regards detox and follow up treatment for "the commoner." 

All patients are not created equally.  If you private pay, there might be a different level of care and aggressive treatment and length of care.  Not so much for those who can't. They get the three-day "spin dry" detox, and get tossed out into many questionable follow up "sober houses" that are unregulated. 

Over 90 of my former students and friends  of my children have died of drug overdoses, and know the pattern of detoxes, relapses, commitments and readmissions.  I don't know what happened with the band members.  It is a world of hell.  I have another OD funeral in three days.  A 30 year old who left two kids and I dread seeing my friend bury her oldest child after being on the detox-rehab roller coaster.       

Were the people involved interested in out of state care?  And, in order to commit a person to care you do need court approval or the  cooperation of the patient.  You are depriving a person of a liberty interest. And the patient is not on-board. It used to be that the philosophy was that the addict had some control of self-determination and choice.  Now, if it is deemed that you are unfit (by a court or other doctor) to take care of yourself and won't come off drugs, then you lose your freedom to protect yourself.   Now a judge decides.

If you come in with a private pay plan, you get to pick the provider.  If you don't have those resources the court helps you get a bed.  Most addicts cannot get a bed and are on waitlists. There are more who need treatment than available and some OD before they get a bed.  The court can expedite that process, by using court resources.  Another night on the streets could result in death.

But, if you have a problem with what that poster said, you might address him or send him a personal message.     
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: December 14, 2015, 08:48:22 PM »


Emily - Landy had a client list including Alice Cooper, Richard Harris, Rod Steiger and Gig Young.  He was the therapist to the stars.  It looked good.  Better than it was.  "If we knew then what we know now" - well who knew?  Landy convinced a judge to get exclusive control.
What does treating Alice Cooper have to do with one's credentials? I know Melinda Ledbetter got flack for wondering why no one sought reputable care, why no one consulted people who work within the profession, but it's a good question. Why didn't they? Everyone knows you go to two different reputable institutions for opinions before you get surgery. How about before signing your spouse/brother/son's entire life over to someone? It's not a 20/20 hindsight thing. It's just: have the sense and the willingness to do a modicum of research before you dump someone you supposedly care about into the power of a renegade. And in any case, don't dump them into the power of hired hoods.
Landy convinced a judge to get exclusive control because the family requested it. The judge could not have acted without the family's request. Indeed, thanks for the reminder that the family actually did go through the red tape and did get a civil commitment, so our previous volley is moot. Even though it was the dark ages, the family had BW civilly committed to Landy.  Unfortunately, they couldn't be bothered to find decent care for his commitment. They had him committed to a wolf.

What he said may be offensive to you.  I can't help that.  I am uncomfortable not knowing the totality of the circumstances and opining.  And I am not familiar with Silver Spring.  McLean's does have a certain reputation that has fallen off lately as regards detox and follow up treatment for "the commoner." 

Silver Spring is a lovely song. Silver Hill is a psychiatric care institution.


All patients are not created equally.  If you private pay, there might be a different level of care and aggressive treatment and length of care.  Not so much for those who can't. They get the three-day "spin dry" detox, and get tossed out into many questionable follow up "sober houses" that are unregulated. 
I suspect Brian and Dennis Wilson's family could have afforded the former.

Were the people involved interested in out of state care?  And, in order to commit a person to care you do need court approval or the  cooperation of the patient.  You are depriving a person of a liberty interest. And the patient is not on-board. It used to be that the philosophy was that the addict had some control of self-determination and choice.  Now, if it is deemed that you are unfit (by a court or other doctor) to take care of yourself and won't come off drugs, then you lose your freedom to protect yourself.   Now a judge decides.
Regarding out-of-state care: I expect there were decent facilities in CA. I just mentioned ones in the Northeast because that's where I'm from so it's what I know. But, if CA strangely had no decent care available, the choice between good out-of-state care and a jail run by Rocky Pamplin or Eugene Landy should be easy to make, if you are actually interested in the well-being of your family member.
They got court approval for Landy. They went through the red tape. Again, thank you for reminding me. They'd decided to deprive BW of his liberty. The judge made a decision. Unfortunately, the family didn't bother to find decent care.


If you come in with a private pay plan, you get to pick the provider.  If you don't have those resources the court helps you get a bed.  Most addicts cannot get a bed and are on waitlists. There are more who need treatment than available and some OD before they get a bed.  The court can expedite that process, by using court resources.  Another night on the streets could result in death.

But, if you have a problem with what that poster said, you might address him or send him a personal message.     
We're talking about Brian and Dennis Wilson. I don't think private care was beyond their means. They paid for Landy. From what I've read he charged, probably both B & D could've been in private care for the same cost.

I did address the poster.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: December 15, 2015, 06:36:12 AM »


Emily - Landy had a client list including Alice Cooper, Richard Harris, Rod Steiger and Gig Young.  He was the therapist to the stars.  It looked good.  Better than it was.  "If we knew then what we know now" - well who knew?  Landy convinced a judge to get exclusive control. (That was the client list. It is like an endorsement. It means something like the old Good Housekeeping seal of approval.)
I know Melinda Ledbetter got flack for wondering why no one sought reputable care, why no one consulted people who work within the profession...How about before signing your spouse/brother/son's entire life over to someone? It's not a 20/20 hindsight thing. It's just: have the sense and the willingness to do a modicum of research before you dump someone you supposedly care about into the power of a renegade. And in any case, don't dump them into the power of hired hoods.
 Unfortunately, they couldn't be bothered to find decent care for his commitment. They had him committed to a wolf.
Silver Spring is a lovely song. (Silver Spring is the equivalent of the BB's Leaving This Town) My bad LOL
[/quote]
I suspect Brian and Dennis Wilson's family could have afforded the former.
[/quote]
if you are actually interested in the well-being of your family member.
[/quote]
Emily - blaming people is pointless and without context. In the 1970's there was little "methadone maintenance" in the US and a bad attitude towards it. I taught adult ed (my first teaching job) next door to a newly opened Methadone clinic, in an urban setting in the 70's.  And some of my students "got their dose" at lunchtime.   It didn't come to the fore until AIDS was related to IV drug users and Methadone was an orally prepared drink that addicted people had to get daily, under medical supervision without needle sharing to transmit HIV.  I never saw Brian not in control because I didn't see him during those reported tumultuous years.

And, I am not talking about Brian but Dennis because I saw him hauled off a stage in the late 70's with my own two eyes. Hunky-dunky bright-eyed surfer-drummer god, whom you can hear girls screaming for in the 1967ish Youtubes. Dennis! Your father would have told you about how the girls screamed for Dennis.  He went though his money and lost or sold off his BRI shares for debt. Fired multiple times by the band.  His boat was gone.  Who was in charge of him? What a question! Saying that no one cared enough to get him (or them) what they needed is just wrong.  It seemed all those who loved him found he was "beyond their reach" despite many attempts to pull him off the edge of the cliff.

In mentioning Melinda's looking for help with a "fresh set of eyes" as compared to a teenaged wife (Marilyn) - that is a huge and unfair comparison, as a "fresh perspective" is empowering.  There were at least 20 years between those two eras.  Melinda took another "less traveled road - that made all the difference." (Robert Frost) Addiction has been made to be a shameful burden on addicts.  It was widely thought that they had poor willpower.  There was no NA network - as is now.  And plenty of undiagnosed or wrongly diagnosed behavioral illness.

The doctors were ignorant. Some still are.  Now you have high profile docs and HBO drug court specials, and those who can pay, do.  Or their parents mortgage their homes to try to save their kids with private care that costs upwards of at least $500 a day.  That era had little to nothing.  It was the Dark Ages. Even for the rich.  And this is almost the Age of Enlightenment.  Almost. A lot of this in my opinion is a function of luck and/or timing.  

Luck - if a family would have Narcan in hand, as is routinely given to families now to stop an OD.

Timing - if the EMT gets to an addict's house in time to give CPR and Narcan.

Luck - if an addict can have a support system that can help them get back and stay on their feet.  

Timing - getting to the hotline in time to get an open bed for detox.

Brian, luckily ended up with both. Dennis, unfortunately had neither.  Brian had a guardian angel.  Dennis is a guardian angel.  
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 06:43:57 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 627



View Profile
« Reply #140 on: December 15, 2015, 06:45:09 AM »

I never understood the full accreditation of 'stars' on this board. Brian gets 10*, Honoured Guests 6* Mods 5*. Should we upgrade Rocky to a 2* Azn
Logged
wantsomecorn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 580



View Profile
« Reply #141 on: December 15, 2015, 10:35:18 AM »

Gosh, in order to generate exposure for the potential publication of his book, perhaps Rocky would like to join the Smiley Smile board so as to engage in dialogue with the members here.  Evil Evil


8)It would be remiss of me not to thank you for inviting me to join this website...THANK YOU... whomever you are? Did you create this website? You can email me personally if you like!  Cool Guy I did'nt find out about this website until last week...A young  lady, from technical support at T.W.C., googled me while I was on the line with her and informed me of Smiley Smile. I called Stephen Love, my favorite person, and told him of it. He discovered that someone from the website "Man vs Clown" (Why I hate Mike Love) has posted a couple of his posts on this site... we would like to thank him as well...Good on ya mate. Before closing... I would like to say... There sure are some opinionated  uninformed people in this world. Just for the record I would like to say that Stephen Love saved Brian Wilson's life... when Brian's wife Marylin found  Brian in bed ... offering his seven year old daughter, Wendy, heroin... she absolutely freaked out and called Stephen, then Beach Boys manager, threatening to have Brian committed! Stephen pleaded with her to give him a chance to save Brian! He always took an extreme hard stand against DRUGS!!! He said he knew the exact right persons to keep DRUGS OUT OF BRIAN'S LIFE!!! An enormously CHALLENGING task... given Brian's fame and fortune... and addiction to drugs. Not to mention Dennis and Carl...who though drugs were all fun and games!!!

Rocky, do you still talk to Mike, Steve, or Brian?

Logged

On our way through this "backstage" maze, Bruce joined up with the group and said hello, singing "It Never Rains in Southern California" and joking with some of the older ladies. I'm not sure if they knew he was a Beach Boy or simply an enthusiastic elderly gay gentleman.
Jay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5985



View Profile
« Reply #142 on: December 15, 2015, 10:39:53 AM »

I only have one question for rocky pamplin. If it had been Brian giving Dennis drugs, what, if anything, would you have done?
Logged

A son of anarchy surrounded by the hierarchy.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: December 15, 2015, 10:46:55 AM »

I only have one question for rocky pamplin. If it had been Brian giving Dennis drugs, what, if anything, would you have done?
Actually, it was, according to Rocky's story above. Brian was buying. Dennis was the delivery boy, paid in kind.
Logged
Jay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5985



View Profile
« Reply #144 on: December 15, 2015, 10:56:14 AM »

I only have one question for rocky pamplin. If it had been Brian giving Dennis drugs, what, if anything, would you have done?
Actually, it was, according to Rocky's story above. Brian was buying. Dennis was the delivery boy, paid in kind.
Ok, I'll rephrase the question. If it had been Brian being the one continually giving Dennis drugs, making him sick and unable to do his job in the group, risking his health and his life, etc. What would Rocky have done?
Logged

A son of anarchy surrounded by the hierarchy.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #145 on: December 15, 2015, 11:04:00 AM »


I only have one question for rocky pamplin. If it had been Brian giving Dennis drugs, what, if anything, would you have done?
Actually, it was, according to Rocky's story above. Brian was buying. Dennis was the delivery boy, paid in kind.
I don't mean to be facetious, and I'll leave your question at the bottom so it's not buried by my response, what you are describing in your question could well be what was happening. I mean, do we have any information about who was giving it to whom? Brian paid; Dennis picked it up; they both used. If one wants an "evil Brian" spin, one applies it, and vice versa. Which, I think, kind of answers the question. They chose to spin that it's Dennis' fault and would have done in any case.

Ognir Rrats asks: Ok, I'll rephrase the question. If it had been Brian being the one continually giving Dennis drugs, making him sick and unable to do his job in the group, risking his health and his life, etc. What would Rocky have done?
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: December 15, 2015, 12:30:37 PM »

I had a read on the 'Man vs Clown" (Why I hate Mike Love)' site mentioned by RockRush3. Wow, if that is the Steve Love posting there definitely is no love lost with Mike.

On a lighter note, I found this gem from 2012 that shows it wasn't all bad between Mike and Brian that year. Smiley

in part...

250Disappointed at y'all on July 24, 2012 said

 I got tickets, and thanks to having a dear friend that worked at a local concert venue, I actually got backstage and met them.

It was the thrill of my life. When I first approached them, Brian Wilson was in conversation with his cousin Mike Love. Upon approaching, Mike (who was finishing up some kind of story) left his cousin Brian in hysterics. Brian Wilson was laughing so hard that he was almost in tears. It was intense because I hadn’t seen Brian Wilson show any signs of emotion in any interview I had seen in nearly 20 years. But there he was hamming it up with his cousin and having the time of his life. I approached Brian and asked him for an autograph. I told him what a great singer he was and he let out a strange loud laugh and exclaimed, “Well, I’ve had 50 years of practice!” Mike, who was speaking with another fan, called out to his cousin, “Settle down over there Wilson!” To which Brian went into hysterics again. I got to meet Mike thenafter and found him to be a truly engaging and seemingly decent fellow. We spoke about his time in India with the Beatles, and he told me it changed his life and continues to effect him to this very day. These were two guys who seemed to have completely come to peace with each other and clearly were enjoying each other’s company.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 12:31:45 PM by Pretty Funky » Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: December 15, 2015, 12:32:06 PM »

 Smiley   Emily, first of all I got cut off before I could finish my email to you. The last thing I was trying to convey was that after diving and drinking for several hour's...Dennis ate a turkey sandwich and took a nap and started drinking and diving again... at "FIVE FIFTEEN" in the afternoon... on his second drunk of the day...when he Drowned... his BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL was point 26.Three times the legal limit to drive...as I'm sure you know! You ask WHY someone didn't go through legal channels to get Dennis involuntarily hospitalized... To be perfectly honest with you... I don't know!  Dennis had personal managers... they all did... but Dennis would FIRE anyone who tried to do anything to him he didn't want to do! I understand the term "involuntarily" but I can only guess "in those times" it wasn't as easy as one might think! These guys were RICH and FAMOUS at an early age... Dennis was 16 years old and didn't even finish High School when Brian's Music exploded on the scene.They were living the California Dream...the California  Myth  as I refer to it... that turned into the CALIFORNIA NIGHTMARE   In the sixties, as I'm sure you know, Drugs were prevalent...and THE THING TO DO!!! Nobody was stopping Elvis...Jim Morrison...Jimmy Hendrix...or Janis Joplin either... and countless others! IF YOU CAN TELL the readers the answer...I'm sure they would all like to know. And I don't just mean the technical aspect of involuntary action...But how do you prevent the client who's paying you...From stopping paying you... and have a restraining order SERVED on them?   Smiley
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 01:33:58 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: December 15, 2015, 12:47:50 PM »

I'm just about to get on the road, so this will be briefer than I'd like (but probably everyone else will be pleased), but I guess I was thinking of family members getting a civil commitment rather than employees.
It is untrue that it was more difficult at that time.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: December 15, 2015, 01:14:28 PM »

I'm just about to get on the road, so this will be briefer than I'd like (but probably everyone else will be pleased), but I guess I was thinking of family members getting a civil commitment rather than employees.
It is untrue that it was more difficult at that time.
Emily - do you have a specific legal standard you are asserting?  

As far as civil commitments, I can tell you that they are divided "roughly" thusly.

So, I will paraphrase...for a mental health commitment, in my state, a psychiatrist has to sign off (or a hospital on their own authority) can sign off on a 72 hour "hold" for an assessment.  Three days unless there is a further finding that requires further hospitalization and commitment.  

Now for drugs or alcohol, if the "patient" or substance abuser (drugs or alcohol) presents him or herself "voluntarily" they can get "up to 17 days" in patient, if a family or friend petitions a court for "involuntary commitment" for treatment.  There are some people who have "seen the light" and cannot get a detox bed, because there is always a shortage, and the court can help make that happen.

That means, "before" the hearing (where the alleged substance abuser gets a court-appointed lawyer (because it is a liberty interest) if they ask for one) the judge asks that person (who would have been "arrested" to be brought in front of the judge for the hearing.  So before anything happens, the judge asks if they want to go in "voluntarily," and if they don't, they have their official but (non criminal) hearing, to determine if they have no control over their use of drugs or alcohol and are a danger to themselves and/or others.  

At that point, the doctor (court psychiatrist) speaks to the court.  S/he has already spoken to the arrestee, the petitioner/s and has written a report.  If, after the hearing, the judge believes that the person is "not actively using" or a danger to him/herself then they are released.  If the judge finds the respondent (the arrested person) is using drugs or alcohol they get 30 days at the maximum, and are brought back after that time before the judge before they are released.  

There is no penalty.  This does not affect anything criminal.   I have seen these hearings go either way.  
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 02:31:38 PM by filledeplage » Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 83 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.602 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!