Thoughts on mental illness & involuntary commitment

[IronMom]

Per this sight, I cannot post a URL until I have made 15 posts...if you Google MIddle District Court of Pennsyllvania along with the name Estate of Ryan Schoor, you should be able to find it.

[DeltaV]

That case was a settlement. There was no finding of fault by any court, as nothing ever went to a jury. The department looked at the cost of defending the case and compared that to what the plaintiffs were asking for. They then made an undisclosed agreement and settled the case. That's common practice in pretty much every case involving lawsuits against government no matter what the lawsuit is over.

My department had a similar case about a decade ago where an officer was stabbed in the eye and the mentally ill subject was then shot and killed. The settlement in that case involved providing training to officers. There was no monetary judgment awarded, and it was unlikely that one would have been awarded had the case ever gone to a jury.

It's obvious in the case that you posted that the family was simply out for money. That officer could have received all the training in the world, but you treat a gun wielding schizophrenic the same as you treat a gun wielding person who does not have a mental illness. They both pose the exact same threat. The plaintiffs simply just seized on a perceived weakness and attempted to exploit it so they could get some money.

The job of the police is simple. We arrest criminals. We don't play judge on the street and attempt to determine if the criminal is mentally incompetent. That's an affirmative defense that their attorney can use after they are charged. If no crime is committed and the mentally ill person is a danger to themselves or someone else, then we take them into custody for an involuntary commitment. What happens after that is not our problem, and if they are let out the very next day and do the same thing again (as they many times do), then we go through the motions again. The system, both the justice system in general and the system involving mental commitments, is simply a revolving door.

[IronMom]

For clarification: "In 2001, a Cumberland County grand jury concluded police were justified in shooting Schorr. But it also concluded that more could be done to prevent such situations." "Susan Schorr, who won a civil lawsuit over her son’s death, said her goal was to force police departments to train officers to handle situations involving people with mental illness." David Wenner, Patriot News Thanks for your input Delta V!!!!

[JeffW]

I really thought long and hard about getting involved in this post. First let me start off and say that I have been an Active Hostage Negotiator in a major city police department. We normally get anywhere from 35-50 calls a year. Most are for high risk suicides or some other situation that places someone in fear of their life. Now mind you that we also have crisis intervention teams to handle most of these, but we get called when all else fails.

Our job is to get everyone out safely and then turn it over to others to deal with it. We get in and we get out. We do not follow up on treatment issues. Not our job. Violations of law gets the person booked. Otherwise it is a trip to the hospital for an involuntary commitment. By the way, we hardly ever negotiate without the presence of SWAT. They are the hammer. Gives bad/crazy people the option of who do they want to talk to. Also protects us and they have.

There are times when we suggest to command to just walk away from the situation. Never had one go bad yet. All officers in the state get crisis intervention training. But we are cops first and foremost. Get in get out and get back to work locking up bad guys and protecting citizens. It is as simple as that.

[mcsap]

That case was a settlement. There was no finding of fault by any court, as nothing ever went to a jury. The department looked at the cost of defending the case and compared that to what the plaintiffs were asking for. They then made an undisclosed agreement and settled the case. That's common practice in pretty much every case involving lawsuits against government no matter what the lawsuit is over.

My department had a similar case about a decade ago where an officer was stabbed in the eye and the mentally ill subject was then shot and killed. The settlement in that case involved providing training to officers. There was no monetary judgment awarded, and it was unlikely that one would have been awarded had the case ever gone to a jury.

It's obvious in the case that you posted that the family was simply out for money. That officer could have received all the training in the world, but you treat a gun wielding schizophrenic the same as you treat a gun wielding person who does not have a mental illness. They both pose the exact same threat. The plaintiffs simply just seized on a perceived weakness and attempted to exploit it so they could get some money.

The job of the police is simple. We arrest criminals. We don't play judge on the street and attempt to determine if the criminal is mentally incompetent. That's an affirmative defense that their attorney can use after they are charged. If no crime is committed and the mentally ill person is a danger to themselves or someone else, then we take them into custody for an involuntary commitment. What happens after that is not our problem, and if they are let out the very next day and do the same thing again (as they many times do), then we go through the motions again. The system, both the justice system in general and the system involving mental commitments, is simply a revolving door.

" That officer could have received all the training in the world, but you treat a gun wielding schizophrenic the same as you treat a gun wielding person who does not have a mental illness. They both pose the exact same threat. "

THAT is the single BEST reply you got on this thread Ironmom. We can't be a case/social worker to someone who is not of sound mind and yet is a clear and present danger to us !!

[IronMom]

THANKS SO VERY MUCH TO ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR EXCELLENT FEEDBACK! I DEFINITELY CAME AWAY WITH A CLEARER PERSPECTIVE. A COPS FIRST PRIORITY IS TO PROTECT...ENFORCING THE LAW AS THE IMMEDIATE NEED REQUIRES..IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE LARGER BURDEN OF LIABILITY LIES IN BETTER MH INTERVENTION, LONG BEFORE SOMEONE GETS ENTANGLED WITH POLICE. I get that you appreciate what MH folks do, but it has its limitations and you see the result everyday...your job duties and demands remain a constant, regardless....no time for who and why, but focus is WHAT & WHERE! My hats off to your bravery and commitment to keeping the peace! I can only imagine the stress of dealing with all that you do in the line of duty...thank you. Signing Off on this Thread for good!