Is it legally ethical to force a fellow into confinement of any kind, especially as one ‘deemed insane’ by civil finding prior to a legal diagnosis, wherein there is no public presence at the hearing and no jury, or meaning-full appeal practice, and then bill his estate to pay for it? Or is it the ethical standard that a judge can with no "worth" of his / her own can simply order the institutions that wish to stay open under his / her watch do his or her bidding and without any of the protections of the jury system jail in a farcical institution with doors more securely locked than many prisons warehouse all of his political opponents or those of differing race, ethnicity, religions and or etc. likely to vote against him until such time as the imprisoned are so dope dependent they will not likely vote against him / her, whilst telling the rest of the country that the so jailed are to pay for their own incarceration? Or is it legally ethical standard for any court to deem the mentally ill "found" can be asked to loose assets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and thus go into debt, and thus be both stigmatized, humiliated and face federal or extra state extradition to face charges with real and unavoidable jail time for non-payment of debts that would have been covered by forfeit assets, formerly held, but lost due to such confinement, whereas the States have no protocol that protects the assets of renters at all over a barely minimal amount?
I’m specifically speaking of an individual arrested as he was in the process of physically leaving his home, that was being "closed" by the landlord. Thus all of his assets were in the form of hard assets, transportable by a single fellow traveling on a bicycle and thus easily stolen away while he was confined.
I’m reminding the answering public that most banks deal with those in control of a 5.11 trillion dollar illicit drug trade, and a 5.11 trillion dollar illicit sex trade, knowingly or not at upper management levels. But certainly most of those laundering money from this illicit at least believe they have "pull" at some level in said banks; they believe they can control the actions of such banks or would not leave money there. Thus the more honest people do not leave money there, as it only serves to aid dishonest folk hide illicit gains.
These figures are extrapolations of Carter era FBI estimates, the last President we’ve had I’d trust walk my dog, with the sole exception perhaps of President Obama, as I don’t know enough about him one way or another but trust him anyway.
The police simply do not secure ones assets, when they confine one. Period. Even or especially when they know you’ve gathered the resources to pay off debts and are traveling to the States that lent your ex money to pay them off, and would then be able to hire attorneys to fight for some degree of civil rights.
Instead they do the best they can not to shoot one outright. Given the pressures the mobs can place on the finger triggers.
Yes, they sometimes fail at this ~ this person has been shot at least three times by the police, four if you count the informant the police let while listening into the wire forcibly participate in a rape against and then shoot ~ but hey, they do try, I guess, especially given this had been a cop himself, once or three times.
But for now, lets only concern ourselves with the ethics of property loss in "mental illness" "observation situations". Where the fellow has committed no crime, but is assumed perhaps with little to no reason other than more than one person’s say so, that he’s "nuts". Cause, I guess, more people from away are crazy than robbed ~ and nobody robs by date rape drug and call to the police to force confinement whilst the victim’s estate is taken.
Most states allow for brief (perhaps 72 hour) confinement upon an allegation before a magistrate or the local community services board that someone is a danger to themselves or others. Generally there is a hearing with a court-appointed attorney pretty quickly. The exact procedures vary from state-to-state.
