Florida passed somewhat interesting legislation in the aftermath of the MSD High School shootings. Although I and my reader would both have preferred dramatic restrictions on private gun ownership and access and hate crazy-blaming, there still could be some utility in the statutory provisions which allow police to assume that when one makes threats that one is at least potentially a danger to others. To that end, the law allows police to deliver those who make what appear to be serious threats (and some others who give indications of being a danger to the public) into the hands of mental health professionals.
The law has complex ramifications for a number of aspects of civil society, including the operation of the First Amendment’s protections of expression generally and the media specifically. Until I see more about how the courts interpret the state legislation and how local authorities mis/use its provisions, I’m going to have trouble determining whether I find it a net positive or not. Still, the first person they picked up under the law was probably a reasonable choice and doesn’t foreshadow abuse. That person is Christian Nicholas Velasquez.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, cops initially keyed on Velasquez
after getting reports from the [University of Central Florida] community about a user on the online social media platform Reddit called “TheRealUCFChris” who called Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz and Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock heroes.
In an interview with police which happened either immediately before (more likely) or immediately after (it’s not entirely clear) a relatively short evaluation confinement in a mental health institution, Velasquez was clear that although he did make those comments, he couldn’t really see himself following in their footsteps:
“I can’t imagine myself ever doing that. It would take a lot to push me over the edge.”
Still, despite that and similar statements as well as not being found dangerous to the point of requiring confinement by the evaluating doctor, cops felt concerned enough that they applied under a new provision of the law to ban Velasquez from owning a gun for a period of one year. The civil order also prevents or penalizes certain other behaviors, and amounts to a new type of restraining order sought not by a victim but by a law enforcement agency. This new type of restraining order is known as a “risk protection order”.
The Florida judge responsible for deciding whether the emergency order authorizing the hospital say and other very short term measures thought Velasquez’s initial detention was well in-line with the wording and intent of the new law, saying (according to the Sentinel):
“I don’t disagree with the issuing of the initial temporary injunction. I think that’s exactly what the statute provides for.”
Nonetheless, the judge did not believe that the state met the legally required burden for a longer term injunction and declined to convert the emergency order into the new risk protection order with a duration of one year.
People will have different feelings about the law, though I think it’s pretty clear in this case that the authorities acting under the law were interpreting it reasonably and not abusively exploiting the margins of the power granted under statute. It was being used as intended, whatever you think about the intent. I don’t know if the judge had the law right, though it’s likely he did. So the first attempt at use of the law probably went about as well as anyone could hope.
After the hearing was concluded and the decision rendered, Velasquez’s attorney expressed disappointment with the law and its use against her client. Why would the government even want to take away – even temporarily – her client’s right to access guns? After all, she said, quoting her client, he just
wanted to look like a badass on Reddit.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- says
Of course actually paying attention will get a lot of false positives.
And of course the usual suspects will be all out and about claiming “but it’s just the internet”.
But almost always after a massacre happens we will hear about that person’s social media and how they told the world exactly what they’re going to do. And then the same people complain why authorities didn’t do anything.
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says
Depends on how you define “false positives”.
If you mean anyone flagged who would not, in fact, later commit murder, then yes. The rate is very high. If you mean anyone flagged who deserves the active trust of the community in how they would handle a gun? Then no. The rate, absent abuse of the law, is zero.
I’d trust far fewer people with guns than this law.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- says
Yes, that’s what I mean. Only a very tiny amount of those who threaten such violence or glorify it will actually commit any, but almost all people who commit such violence threatened to do so before. And I think it’s good if for once authorities do their job (without shooting first) and investigate.