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.

      • sfu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Red flag laws were geared more towards conservatives, this TDS bill would be geared more towards liberals.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days 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?

      • sfu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        No. You don’t have to agree with everything Trump. This bill won’t pass anyway.

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

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

          • sfu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            No, it does not say any disagreement with Trump. That alone would not qualify.

            Don’t worry though, with walz as gov, it won’t pass.

            • ubergeek@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 days 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.

              • sfu@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Its only part of what defines it. Disagreeing alone would not qualify.