Jump to content

Police at Home of Everson Griffen


Chiefer

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, minutemancl said:

Griffen tends to have some really deep valleys. He had a situation like this a little while ago right? It sounds like he didn't get the right level of care he needed then. I really hope he does now.

He could have gotten the right help. Ive heard things like this dont just get solved, they reoccur. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, WheatieMan said:

CTE strikes again. Time to go to a Flag Football league.

I mean - theres no proof thats the cause. Plenty of people have mental breakdowns that dont play football. Obviously he is at higher risk for that being the root, but there is really no way to know if this is just a regular mental health issue (common) or a football induced one (exceedingly rare). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

He probably got help, but not all he needs. I know very well how these things can reoccur; the right help includes having a plan for when they do.

Very solid point. I wonder if that included his family/team/agent - - because they all seemed to be johnny on the spot within hours of this incident. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Trojan said:

Griffen had issues dealing with stress and grief. This video is him saying people are trying to kill him and he is armed and ready. The video is somewhat similar to Arnette's video. Griffen's earlier issues, as they were reported, aren't the same as thinking people are coming to kill you.

From April 10, 2020 SI article:

"Griffen's struggles in 2018 were widely publicized. There were verbal outbursts, multiple incidents with police – including one after he showed up, shirtless and unprompted, to teammate Trae Waynes' house – and an escape from an ambulance. Eventually, he was checked into a hospital for treatment, and didn't face any criminal charges."

Everson Griffen is not a mentally stable person, and his history with mental health concerns goes a lot deeper than an inability to properly cope with stress and grief. He was eventually placed in a sobriety house. It got to a point the Vikings wouldn't allow him in the building until he got help. He doesn't otherwise have a checkered past off the field. 

Arnette is an *** hole and total tool. 

The only thing similar between the two videos is a guy holding a gun. Griffen is clearly distraught and paranoid, hunkering down in his home. Arnette was just flat out rambling about how he was going to "for real kill you" like he's some legit banger with an "army" (his words). 

Griffen thinks he's in some sort of trouble. 

Arnette has a history of making trouble. 

There's a huge difference. 

 

Edited by ronjon1990
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Very solid point. I wonder if that included his family/team/agent - - because they all seemed to be johnny on the spot within hours of this incident. 

He was also very quick to include them (or, at least his agent) to get help. Tells me there's a support structure that's been built up specifically for these kind of occurrences. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

He was also very quick to include them (or, at least his agent) to get help. Tells me there's a support structure that's been built up specifically for these kind of occurrences. 

Yeah it feels like everyone involved is well versed in the steps to take when he is struggling. Big kudos to the team, police, everyone really. From the outside looking in - it feels very well handled. With one exception. 

 

Why the F is anyone allowing him to own a firearm? That is such a huge, scary, misstep in all of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Yeah it feels like everyone involved is well versed in the steps to take when he is struggling. Big kudos to the team, police, everyone really. From the outside looking in - it feels very well handled. With one exception. 

 

Why the F is anyone allowing him to own a firearm? That is such a huge, scary, misstep in all of this. 

I was wondering that myself. He said it is registered to him but he also said Dalvin Cook helped him get it?  

Not really versed in Minnesota's laws, but that whole bit didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You're rich and you're an adult. Why do you need help from someone else in getting a gun? Typically, unless it's a case of money, if you need help procuring a firearm, there's a reason. But again, not versed in their state law so I don't want to opine too much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

I was wondering that myself. He said it is registered to him but he also said Dalvin Cook helped him get it?  

Not really versed in Minnesota's laws, but that whole bit didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. You're rich and you're an adult. Why do you need help from someone else in getting a gun? Typically, unless it's a case of money, if you need help procuring a firearm, there's a reason. But again, not versed in their state law so I don't want to opine too much. 

Im not a gun guy, but my understanding is that if you have been checked in for any mental health issues, you are barred from gun ownership for 5 years. I thought that was federal, but maybe thats just Texas? Or maybe I am dumb and just thought that was a rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

§ 624.713

The following persons shall not be entitled to possess ammunition or a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or any other firearm:

A person who is or has ever been committed in Minnesota or elsewhere by a judicial determination that the person is mentally ill, to a treatment facility, or who has ever been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental illness, unless the person’s ability to possess a firearm and ammunition has been restored.

That is what I found for Minnesota.

I don't recall if a Judge ever declared him mentally ill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kael said:

§ 624.713

The following persons shall not be entitled to possess ammunition or a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or any other firearm:

A person who is or has ever been committed in Minnesota or elsewhere by a judicial determination that the person is mentally ill, to a treatment facility, or who has ever been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental illness, unless the person’s ability to possess a firearm and ammunition has been restored.

That is what I found for Minnesota.

I don't recall if a Judge ever declared him mentally ill. 

Preface this with, I am not a lawyer.  But it looks to me like he would have had to have been ordered into rehab or a treatment facility by a court ruling, correct? So while he did go to some kind of treatment, as stated earlier in the thread, if it was voluntary, which it seemed to be, he is legally allowed to possess firearms, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Preface this with, I am not a lawyer.  But it looks to me like he would have had to have been ordered into rehab or a treatment facility by a court ruling, correct? So while he did go to some kind of treatment, as stated earlier in the thread, if it was voluntary, which it seemed to be, he is legally allowed to possess firearms, correct?

That is what I am thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kael said:

§ 624.713

The following persons shall not be entitled to possess ammunition or a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or any other firearm:

A person who is or has ever been committed in Minnesota or elsewhere by a judicial determination that the person is mentally ill, to a treatment facility, or who has ever been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental illness, unless the person’s ability to possess a firearm and ammunition has been restored.

That is what I found for Minnesota.

I don't recall if a Judge ever declared him mentally ill. 

 

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Preface this with, I am not a lawyer.  But it looks to me like he would have had to have been ordered into rehab or a treatment facility by a court ruling, correct? So while he did go to some kind of treatment, as stated earlier in the thread, if it was voluntary, which it seemed to be, he is legally allowed to possess firearms, correct?

I dont think Minnesota laws are the ones we need to worry about here. I think there is a federal law being broken. To me, it reads "committed to an institution" *or* "a danger to himself or others". But I am also not a lawyer. 

Prohibitions

Federal law prohibits a person from transporting, receiving, possessing, or shipping firearms or ammunition if he or she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” It also prohibits anyone from knowingly selling or otherwise providing any firearm or ammunition to these people if the provider knows or has reasonable cause to believe that they are ineligible (18 USC §§ 922(d)(4), (g)(4)). According to federal regulations, a person has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court, board, commission or other lawful authority has determined that he or she, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

1. is a danger to himself, herself, or others, or

2. lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs (27 CFR § 478.11).

The term “adjudicated as a mental defective” includes a finding of (1) not guilty by reason of insanity in a criminal case or (2) incompetence to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental responsibility in a military court martial (id.).

Federal regulations define a person as “committed to a mental institution” if a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has formally committed him or her to a mental institution. The term is defined to include involuntary commitments for “mental defectiveness or mental illness.” It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as drug use, but does not include people admitted to a mental institution voluntarily or for observation (id.). (The Department of Justice has proposed amending the regulations to include people ordered to receive outpatient treatment—see 79 Fed. Reg. 774 at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2014-01-07/2014-00039.)

Federal law contains a court procedure for restoring privileges lost because of a federal adjudication or commitment (P.L. 110-108). State law contains a similar court procedure for restoring such privileges lost because of a state adjudication or commitment (CGS § 45a-100).

(Since October 1992, ATF's annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals (see https://www.atf.gov/content/how-can-person-apply-relief-federal-firearms-disabilities)).

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/2014-R-0253.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...