in this post I hope to share a few thoughts on Minnesota ofp law, civil commitment and emergency medical holds. more than thoughts maybe arguments on how and why Minnesota can do better and how mn can avoid instutionalized victim blaming.
I think it's important to have this discussion because public oppinion is really the only limit on any governments power.
but that said when systems and laws are predicated on the assumption that police will at least act to stop threats to life and nothing in the form of penalties for not doing so exists... the reality is that assumption often fails
moving away/relocating is not free. just walk away is a non answer. it also doesn't cover the fact that when one party has significant advantages in disposable income and free time they are likely more able to follow than the other is to afford a move.
mns non solution is first to court to claim abused is granted a non restrictions on them no follow up to check legitimicy one sided restraining order while the other potentially becomes criminal for answering a call from the accuser.
this also suffers a related issue. even if the partition is free to file getting to a court or even discovering this possibility let alone hiring a lawyer to help is far easier for the party with disposable time and income.
further more it's well known that ofp and similar are often applied or saught aggressively in things like divorce where custody is involved. indicating its used outside its stated purpose at very least.
it's also known to med sci that people with npd employ a walking on egg shells tactic. ie attack because a neurotypical does not want another to feel hurt and usualy acts to make it up to the person claiming. esp if family and or romantic relation.
or in other words mns ofp law is ripe for cadering to the mentaly Ill and Predatory subset of the population. the part mentioned before should give indication the courts should see an issue at least with its missuse if not how it applies to pathology.
one can argue its not my place to have or voice an oppinion on this. or even I lack the prereq knowlege to have one. that said how can you maintain a free society when citizens are kept in the dark on purpose of law or when stated purpose doesn't match known actualities?
when if comes to parents able to apply against adult offspring it's the pintical of potential abuse and victim blaming.
the desire and cultural norm is trust and respect your parents through out life. most parents also have an 18 year life experiance lead on their children (at min) what mn should be teaching in hs is the moment you turn 18 you need to know every type of lawyer and have enough stored on you to 4 days notice hire defence possibly after an abuser drains your bank account while police refuse to act.
parents by virtue of even just being a alive longer are more likely to know these options offered by courts exist.
the research also indicates that social norms are the reality of what mostly equals protecting your children and its followed by working sympathy empathy and conscience.
research with out a doubt has shown people with cluster b disorders lack or only weakly feel sympathy empathy and concience. Sigmund Freud over a century ago described how parents of the narcissistic inclination can be devistating to their offspring. several since have further detailed the ways they are. one such includes sabotage into adult hood.
Yet despite on average demanding attendance and most of a minors time from 6 to 16 and in reality given untill 18, the state doesn't seem to see much need to recognize these realities let alone I general inform one of the law. even if one seeks the legal knowlege they may be worse off. read the state revisors site and it's easy to get a false impression of what protections you should have. yet the reality is nothing stops police from selectively non enforcing life threatening escape hindering crimes.
infact they are unlikely to face charges even for directly and needlessly taking a life.
also mn has made it a potential crime to try to report police misconduct. the investigation falls on the potential purpotrators and if found to be a false claim by the org that generated the reason to claim..
one might face misdomeaner charges.
this isn't freedom. this isn't sane. at the same time police may force one to a not before met doc who determines paranoid is reason to detain 3 to 5 days.
said doc has no obligation to see let alone review evidence to your side. worse yet doc now made jailer is not prohibited from rx kickbacks during this hold. ie your jailer might get a monitary bonus for perscribing psych meds.. ie jailer gets paid more for drugging prisoner
all that stops that is medical ethics. maybe all that claims it might stop that would be more accurate
worse yet, positions of power over others are known to attract the npd aspd bpd individuals and boards of ethics also often have no filter for conflicts of intrest. aka little precived or actual consiqense for breaking these ethical standards exist. monitary incentive to do so exists.
the odds it's not abused? up to you. the reality is on these holds your med record may also be updated. you don't chose them or nesicarly have the ability to have expert testimony viewed/considered in deciding what is real as far as doc is concerned. it's also incredibly hard to have records modified as a patient.
it's also known that 100k to 250k Americans die each year due to mistakes on medical charts. why is mn allowing mom voluntary visits with the risks described above?
Seems to me if I choose to see a doc and a bad record is created at least some of the onus is on me. when forced Infront of one who gets to chose if I can leave and what's at my disposal to advocate sanity let alone suggest possible danger most if not all of the onus is on them and the medical institution. yet the mn bar help line is telling people no one touches these cases.
little known fact and or why police may violate Law to force somone to a emergency medical hold. (rather than the legal peace officer hold) if you end up at a clinic or hospital you've been to before and signed an e release waiver at, the police have access to the records created.
they might even rub your pockets after ordering you to step out of the vehicle
the case of Dan Markingson should have and infact did bring some of this to light but it apears any changes made were limited to only the orgs where he was held. the circumstances and his behavior apear to be slightly more justifying of where he ended up but it's still disgusting what the system then responsible for him allowed.
be it ofp emergency medical hold or civil commitment any action by the gov that for goes modern standards of evidence and also wants to skirt any liability should be viewed as a danger to a free people.
power with out accountability is never a good combo.