14 ms·

> One estimate that every 10-20 seizures saves one suicide. So clearly not living up to the more likely than not standard, or we would expect to see a closer to

> One estimate that every 10-20 seizures saves one suicide. So clearly not living up to the more likely than not standard, or we would expect to see a closer to 50% result. But that's not the standard. The thing you're trying to prove generally isn't "is going to kill themself with 100% probability," but "is at risk to kill themself or other people", an unquantified metric but one for which a 10% chance isn't entirely unjustifiable for an intervention. It's that level of risk for which you would want a "more likely than not" scenario to reach 50% probability of demonstrating; if you multiply the two numbers together, your expected avoidance should be far lower than 1 suicide per 2 seizures.

giantg2 3y ago
'But that's not the standard. The thing you're trying to prove generally isn't "is going to kill themself with 100% probability," but "is at risk to kill themself or other people",' Can you please link to that standard in law? The ones I have seen are all using the more likely than not standard. Yes, they are evaluating the risk - the risk of it being more likely than not that they would do something to harm themselves or others. I understand you multiplying those numbers, but that's not how any of the laws are written or work. What we can see from the numbers I posted earlier about PFAs, is that the vast majority are rubber stamped at first and then rejected or abandoned when met with a 2 party hearing at which evidence for both sides can be presented. To me, this seems to support that a large number of individuals have been subject to restrictions in liberties without any real risk of being a threat at all. It would be far better to have these take place in a criminal court with protections such as the right to an attorney, the right to be present, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise it's just a slippery slope of "for the children" mentality resulting in farces like civil asset forfeiture to get around the protections in the system.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  The exact wording in my state for the red flag law is: > If after the hearing pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b), the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk of causing bodily injury to self or others by having in the respondent's control, ownership or possession a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, weapon or ammunition, the court shall grant the petition. If the respondent does not appear at the hearing pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b), the court shall grant the petition upon a determination that the petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses such a risk. The key operative words are "a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk". It doesn't give any specific wording as to how likely the risk is, but a plain reading would expect that it could be less than 100% and perhaps as low as 10%. Also note that, at least in my state, the respondent is afforded the opportunity to be present at the hearing determining whether or not they pose a risk.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "and perhaps as low as 10%." And why stop there? Why not .01%? "a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk" Preponderance of the evidence is more likely than not. I would assume there is case law on what a risk is, or a definition somewhere in the text. If not, this is overly vague as the general definition is just a possibility of loss, which would include any level of risk, even .01%. "Also note that, at least in my state, the respondent is afforded the opportunity to be present at the hearing determining whether or not they pose a risk." Really, I thought that all states that had red flag laws had ex-parte initial hearings and that respondants were only allowed at the final hearings, after things likes having property seized and being forced out of thier home, etc. I wasn't able to find that text in a Google search, so I'm not sure which state that is for me to look into it further.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      "Preponderance of evidence" does mean "more likely to be true than not" (there are jury instructions that read that way). But the court isn't tasked with proving that harm is more likely than not, but rather that posing a risk of harm is more likely than not. There's not much I can find on litigating "posing a risk of harm", but because of the constitutional issues, there's a lot out there about "flight risk", another risk-based judicial determination. There, the court doesn't have to find that you're "likely to flee", but rather that you have statutory risk factors, like an incentive to flee and the means to do so.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        "But the court isn't tasked with proving that harm is more likely than not, but rather that posing a risk of harm is more likely than not." The probability of harm occurring is the risk of posing harm. If we use your logic, everyone should be found to be a risk, because everyone is capable of harm, and there's no cutoff so .01% chance of harm is enough. "There, the court doesn't have to find that you're "likely to flee", but rather that you have statutory risk factors, like an incentive to flee and the means to do so." Yeah, but those are defined in statute or case law. That isn't the case for the law you point out. In some cases, traditional PFAs do have statutory lists of actions that can justify issuing them. If it's really so vague that it logically includes anyone because everyone is a risk to some degree, one could argue on a combination of strict construction and unfair trial (result is predetermined if following the law the way it is written).

giantg2 3y ago

'But that's not the standard. The thing you're trying to prove generally isn't "is going to kill themself with 100% probability," but "is at risk to kill themself or other people",' Can you please link to that standard in law? The ones I have seen are all using the more likely than not standard. Yes, they are evaluating the risk - the risk of it being more likely than not that they would do something to harm themselves or others. I understand you multiplying those numbers, but that's not how any of the laws are written or work. What we can see from the numbers I posted earlier about PFAs, is that the vast majority are rubber stamped at first and then rejected or abandoned when met with a 2 party hearing at which evidence for both sides can be presented. To me, this seems to support that a large number of individuals have been subject to restrictions in liberties without any real risk of being a threat at all. It would be far better to have these take place in a criminal court with protections such as the right to an attorney, the right to be present, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise it's just a slippery slope of "for the children" mentality resulting in farces like civil asset forfeiture to get around the protections in the system.

jcranmer 3y ago
The exact wording in my state for the red flag law is: > If after the hearing pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b), the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk of causing bodily injury to self or others by having in the respondent's control, ownership or possession a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, weapon or ammunition, the court shall grant the petition. If the respondent does not appear at the hearing pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b), the court shall grant the petition upon a determination that the petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses such a risk. The key operative words are "a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk". It doesn't give any specific wording as to how likely the risk is, but a plain reading would expect that it could be less than 100% and perhaps as low as 10%. Also note that, at least in my state, the respondent is afforded the opportunity to be present at the hearing determining whether or not they pose a risk.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "and perhaps as low as 10%." And why stop there? Why not .01%? "a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk" Preponderance of the evidence is more likely than not. I would assume there is case law on what a risk is, or a definition somewhere in the text. If not, this is overly vague as the general definition is just a possibility of loss, which would include any level of risk, even .01%. "Also note that, at least in my state, the respondent is afforded the opportunity to be present at the hearing determining whether or not they pose a risk." Really, I thought that all states that had red flag laws had ex-parte initial hearings and that respondants were only allowed at the final hearings, after things likes having property seized and being forced out of thier home, etc. I wasn't able to find that text in a Google search, so I'm not sure which state that is for me to look into it further.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    "Preponderance of evidence" does mean "more likely to be true than not" (there are jury instructions that read that way). But the court isn't tasked with proving that harm is more likely than not, but rather that posing a risk of harm is more likely than not. There's not much I can find on litigating "posing a risk of harm", but because of the constitutional issues, there's a lot out there about "flight risk", another risk-based judicial determination. There, the court doesn't have to find that you're "likely to flee", but rather that you have statutory risk factors, like an incentive to flee and the means to do so.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "But the court isn't tasked with proving that harm is more likely than not, but rather that posing a risk of harm is more likely than not." The probability of harm occurring is the risk of posing harm. If we use your logic, everyone should be found to be a risk, because everyone is capable of harm, and there's no cutoff so .01% chance of harm is enough. "There, the court doesn't have to find that you're "likely to flee", but rather that you have statutory risk factors, like an incentive to flee and the means to do so." Yeah, but those are defined in statute or case law. That isn't the case for the law you point out. In some cases, traditional PFAs do have statutory lists of actions that can justify issuing them. If it's really so vague that it logically includes anyone because everyone is a risk to some degree, one could argue on a combination of strict construction and unfair trial (result is predetermined if following the law the way it is written).