First, OC, please stop bringing up Missouri law. This isn't Missouri's forum and isn't about Missouri.
My apologies. I will confine myself to the CRS.
You have the power to have a cop arrest a citizen for a minimum of 72 hours based only on your opinion (the term affidavit is used in CRS).
C.R.S. § 27-65-105.(4) If the seventy-two-hour treatment and evaluation facility admits the person, it may detain him or her for evaluation and treatment for a period not to exceed seventy-two hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays if evaluation and treatment services are not available on those days.
Due process considerations do not require an in-person evaluation by an intervening professional prior to placement on an involuntary hold. Tracz v. Centennial Peaks, 9 P.3d 1168 (Colo. App. 2000).
C.R.S. § 27-65-105. Emergency procedure. - ANNOTATION, paragraph two.
I suspect that you too are shielded from criminal penalties for any "unethical" acts if I read the CRS correctly.
In COLORADO (the forum you're in), doctors (MDs, DOs, etc), mental health professionals (Licensed Psychologists, Licensed Social Workers, Licensed Professional Counselors, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists), and law enforcement officers can all sign a 72 hour hold in the state of Colorado. So no, you aren't going to just be SWATTED for a few hours if a police officer picks you up for threatening a life, you'll be held for the same 72 hours. You don't have to prove your innocence. You'll be evaluated to determine if there is a mental illness and be released if they can't find sufficient cause for a court to continue to detain you.
You have the power to falsely affirm that I am a threat. The falsity of your affidavit will not be discovered in a manner of a few hours or less as would cops if they were SWATTed into harming a law abiding citizen. Cops are pretty good at figuring out what's before their very eyes. CRS does not place a burden on a MH professional. Nor does CRS place a burden on a cop to use the facts before him to determine if the affidavit is valid. Nope, he arrests me and lets the shrinks and judges work it out later. QI comes to mind.
Less restrictive alternatives need not be considered as a condition precedent to certification. Civil commitment constitutes a severe infringement of liberty requiring due process protection. However, the statutory scheme set forth in this article contains a number of procedural safeguards that greatly reduce the inherent risk of erroneous deprivation. Therefore, due process does not require a mandatory hearing at the time of certification since the statute provides for a hearing on request. People v. Stevens, 761 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1988).
C.R.S. § 27-65-107. Certification for short-term treatment. - ANNOTATION - I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION., paragraph 3.
Now, you may read this differently, but it sure does read to me that all you need to do is tell a cop that you affirm, fill out the proper form and off the cop goes.
Of course I have to prove my innocence I have no 5A right under CRS as can be seen below.
Privilege against self-incrimination is inapplicable to civil commitment proceedings. Due process does not require that the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination be extended to this state's civil commitment proceedings. People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d 1127 (Colo. 1980).
C.R.S. § 27-65-107. Certification for short-term treatment. - ANNOTATION - II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS., paragraph 14.
Either I convince the petitioner that I am not a threat and then might be released, or I keep silent and remain jailed indefinitely. Ironic, the fella who falsely claimed I am a threat may likely be the very person I have to convince that I am not a threat.
You keep saying I am dodging your point. So here I am addressing it directly. Yes, some people have the authority to detain others legally. ...
Unfortunately legality will only be determined after a law abiding citizen's liberty has been harmed.
What I expect from a citizen who wields great power under the laws of their state is to be held to accountable under the criminal laws of their state, as cops can be and are, if they deprive a law abiding citizen of his liberty unjustly. A cop's opinion is never sufficient to deprive a citizen of his liberty yet CRS does not extend this requirement to MH professionals.
And as for the money back guarantee, no, I don't. ...
I submit that the outcome is totally dependent on your efforts not the clients. The client has only your advice to act upon.
If he follows your advice and the outcome is not satisfactory to him what then? Do you contend that it is your clients fault that your advice, that he followed, did not result in the outcome you implied and he expected?
If this has or does happen to you and you feel it was done improperly, file a complaint with their licensing board. ...
Losing their license? Is individual liberty so easily dismissed by those in your profession?
The CRS is clear in its abcense of any accountability for malice on the part of a MH professional. There is a burden for a MH professional to provide evidence that his "petition" is based on. How do you document this evidence that is required under CRS to justify your opinion?