TX - Dallas police shoot mentally ill man armed with screwdriver: old case, new video

[al66pine]

from my earlier post:
"Pls, a link w copy and paste re Mother's concrete actions in'trying to get him into a mental institute' (in addition to calling 911 for LE ~100x and saying she tried to get him in). Thx in adv."

She called 911 and said that her son needed to be hospitalized because he was suffering from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. What more would you want her to do? Thats the way you would normally start the process for something like that.http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...ice-kill-man-outside-his-home-in-red-bird.ece

IDK what she said the other ~100x when 911 was called, or even exactly what was said this time.
She was (or others) were being threatened by son this time? What were the other~100 calls? Same?

In vid clips, by her actions at doorway, she stood w her back to son, a few feet behind her.
No signs I recognized as threat-victim, hurry, panic. Seems inconsistent w being afraid of son's purported threats or menacing.
Do people being physically threatened and taking those threats seriously stand w their backs to the threatener?
Q1. Puzzled about seeming inconsistency between purported threats and her casual actions that day.
Q2. Was it like that other times too?

I am not familiar w admission procedures into facilities for mental illnesses.
IIUC, sometimes fam calls 911 in emergency situations attempting to get MI person admitted to MI facility.
From ^KaaBoom^ "Thatsthe way you would normally start the process for something like that."
Q3. Is calling 911 normally the route to placement or commitment?
Or usually, commonly, often virtually always, or always the route to placement? Or rarely?

Anyone, thx in adv.

 

[daisytrail]

from my earlier post:
"Pls, a link w copy and paste re Mother's concrete actions in'trying to get him into a mental institute' (in addition to calling 911 for LE ~100x and saying she tried to get him in). Thx in adv."




IDK what she said the other ~100x when 911 was called, or even exactly what was said this time.
She was (or others) were being threatened by son this time? What were the other~100 calls? Same?

In vid clips, by her actions at doorway, she stood w her back to son, a few feet behind her.
No signs I recognized as threat-victim, hurry, panic. Seems inconsistent w being afraid of son's purported threats or menacing.
Do people being physically threatened and taking those threats seriously stand w their backs to the threatener?
Q1. Puzzled about seeming inconsistency between purported threats and her casual actions that day.
Q2. Was it like that other times too?

I am not familiar w admission procedures into facilities for mental illnesses.
IIUC, sometimes fam calls 911 in emergency situations attempting to get MI person admitted to MI facility.
From ^KaaBoom^ "Thatsthe way you would normally start the process for something like that."
Q3. Is calling 911 normally the route to placement or commitment?
Or usually, commonly, often virtually always, or always the route to placement? Or rarely?

Anyone, thx in adv.

Yes, that is the route for admission for someone who will not go willingly. In the first link that I posted in this thread, the link details a lawyers advice for getting someone admitted but more important to obtain more power and guardianship over the MI person. However, if these people cannot afford an attorney they would be force to fall back on the police to try to get him out of the house and into treatment. The reason I mentioned the possible liability of Green Oaks is that they were recently investigated by the State of Texas for illegally "streeting" or "dumping" patients. This occurs when they see the situation/patients illness as serious enough to request a bed at a longer term hospital. In this instance, that would most likely be Terrell. They have to wait for the bed to become available. However, the usual legal hold on the patient at Green Oaks is two weeks. After that, they would have to legally support keeping the patient until the bed at Terrell became available. However, cynically -- for bottom line reasons, they were accused to not doing this. Streeting involves hand the patient a bus pass without determining if they have a place to go to or looking for another hospital placement. If the patient needs continuing treatment is at risk, then just giving them a bus pass and kicking them out is against Medicaid rules. Why would they do this? There prefer privately insured patients because most private insurer pay more than Medicaid.

I am sorry to be so complicated, but I think it is important for people to understand how few choices families often have.

 

[al66pine]

Yes, that is the route for admission for someone who will not go willingly. In the first link that I posted in this thread, the link details a lawyers advice for getting someone admitted but more important to obtain more power and guardianship over the MI person. However, if these people cannot afford an attorney they would be force to fall back on the police to try to get him out of the house and into treatment. The reason I mentioned the possible liability of Green Oaks is that they were recently investigated by the State of Texas for illegally "streeting" or "dumping" patients. This occurs when they see the situation/patients illness as serious enough to request a bed at a longer term hospital. In this instance, that would most likely be Terrell. They have to wait for the bed to become available. However, the usual legal hold on the patient at Green Oaks is two weeks. After that, they would have to legally support keeping the patient until the bed at Terrell became available. However, cynically -- for bottom line reasons, they were accused to not doing this. Streeting involves hand the patient a bus pass without determining if they have a place to go to or looking for another hospital placement. If the patient needs continuing treatment is at risk, then just giving them a bus pass and kicking them out is against Medicaid rules. Why would they do this? There prefer privately insured patients because most private insurer pay more than Medicaid.
I am sorry to be so complicated, but I think it is important for people to understand how few choices families often ha

ve.

Noooooo, no apologies needed, not ^so complicated. Just wondering about other routes to commitment/placement.

You posted: "important to obtain more power and guardianship over the MI person" but is expensive etc.
IIUC, Legal Aid orgs provide free or sliding scale legal services for fam & MI person to accomplish this ^
whether done in judicial proceedings or otherwise.
If so, then seems like legal fees should not be serious impediment. So why call 911 100x? (IDK whether that was over 2 yrs or 10, regardless)
Thx for response.

Any suggestions for good sources to read on CIT online?

 

[daisytrail]

Noooooo, no apologies needed, not ^so complicated. Just wondering about other routes to commitment/placement.

You posted: "important to obtain more power and guardianship over the MI person" but is expensive etc.
IIUC, Legal Aid orgs provide free or sliding scale legal services for fam & MI person to accomplish this ^
whether done in judicial proceedings or otherwise.
If so, then seems like legal fees should not be serious impediment. So why call 911 100x? (IDK whether that was over 2 yrs or 10, regardless)
Thx for response.

Any suggestions for good sources to read on CIT online?

Upthread, I posted links on CIT. Perhaps you missed that post.

Not to get too personal, but I would qualify for legal aid and did contact them. Apparently, the legal aid that I contacted did not feel that was something they could help me to do, under my current circumstances. Yes, I did briefly explore the possibility of getting someone committed.

ETA: It was post #57, replying to you.

 

[al66pine]

Apology accepted of course...
www.en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_intervention_training

I do not blame any family who has a seriously mentally ill family member for trying to secure all available resources. That is what families should do. LE is just one resource. One of the main problems is that years ago, Congress (yes, those guys in Washington, D.C.) passed a law that mandated parity in the treatment of physically and mentally ill people. That bill has yet to be properly implemented or fully funded. It is partly a societal problem, partly a medical problem (HIPPA laws as they are interpreted being part of the problem), partly an insurance problem, partly a law enforcement problem. I never said it should be all on LE. It is too large of a problem to be solved by LE alone.

Thank you for the courteous debate.

bbm. sbm

Thank YOU for courteous discussion.
Not trying to 'win' a 'debate' but trying to pick up this issue - LE & MI persons - to view it from diff angles:
various ppl involved, poss treatments, avail resources, what works & does not work, etc.

re ^BBM^ Thank you for noting the other ppl/orgs/institutions involved in potential solutions. Not just LE's to blame.
Lots of contributory factors and factions.

As another poster (katydid123?) said, w this fam calling LE 100x, seems like LE dealt w this successfully 99 times, but not the 100th.

Thx for pointing me back to your post w links re CITs, which I had previously missed.

Lastly thank you for sharing your exp w Legal Aid. Sorry you had to deal w considering invol commitment for someone. Sounds heartbreaking.

 

[daisytrail]

Lastly thank you for sharing your exp w Legal Aid. Sorry you had to deal w considering invol commitment for someone. Sounds heartbreaking.

snipped for focus

I just wanted to add because legal aid might actually be helpful to some people, that the situation for which I contacted them is much more complicated than most legal guardianship case would be. Also, not everyone is able to take on the responsibilities for a mentally ill person. Many family's try help their MI person and just give up. It can just be so exhausting.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The cop pushed him against the wall. The cop was pushing him. He was not advancing.

Seems pretty obvious to me. I see nothing aggressive about a person twiddling a screwdriver in their fingers.

He was shot two times in the back. How do you justify that?

Until they turn and lunge. A screw driver can be a deadly implement. They have a call that says he is dangerous and threatening. No matter what his mental condition they can not set aside danger and just assume he won't hurt them.

I still don't think you can tell for sure what was going on here. If he was not responding to them and he has a weapon, they have to get him disarmed.

I am still on the fence about this one.

 

[Lulu14]

Right. That is why we have courts, trials, and an insanity defense. An insanity defense, I might add, that is not easily applicable to most cases.

Those are just a type of possible consequences. Being shot to death while assaulting someone else truly qualifies as another possible outcome.

Let it be said that I don't know if his mental issues also meant he didn't know that being aggressive is wrong or that hurting others is malicious. At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter that much if you planned to kill your mother because she is a *****, to steal her money or because you think she is the devil's wife. You are still planning and carrying out a murder, imo. The intent to kill is the same, no matter the justification.

 

[daisytrail]

Those are just a type of possible consequences. Being shot to death while assaulting someone else truly qualifies as another possible outcome.

Let it be said that I don't know if his mental issues also meant he didn't know that being aggressive is wrong or that hurting others is malicious. At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter that much if you planned to kill your mother because she is a *****, to steal her money or because you think she is the devil's wife. You are still planning and carrying out a murder, imo. The intent to kill is the same, no matter the justification.

Under our system of justice, it would matter if you planned to kill your mother because you thought she was the devil's wife and then your attorneys could prove this, and also establish that you lacked the capacity to understand right from wrong and conform your behavior to the law. Andrea Yates is a rare textbook example of an insanity plea that succeeded and should have. A horrific case and she was horrifically insane. Legally insane, which is a really different standard than just bipolar or schizophrenic. Many people have the mistaken idea that the medical standard of insanity and the legal one are the same. They are not.

The keyword is planning. Generally, if you are capable of a high degree of planning and premeditation, you are not going to meet the legal standard of insanity.

As to the case at hand, we cannot know what was going on in the man's mind (especially since he is dead now) but even if he were alive and could communicate his mental state and purpose, we likely still would not understand. If he was in the grip of psychosis (not just mania), it is very possible that he was hearing competing voices in his head. This may have made it difficult to react appropriately to the commands of the police. We will never know. To me, it is just a tragic situation all around.

There are very few people copping insanity pleas and getting away with it or getting off. Long term commitment in an institution for the criminally insane is not getting away with anything. And when it comes to prisons, few are more terrible than the disease of schizophrenia over time. It is a progressive disease and the treatments have serious side effects.

 

[shadowraiths]

Grand jury decides not to indict officers in Dallas shooting

(CNN)A grand jury in Dallas County, Texas, has decided not to indict two officers in the fatal shooting of Jason Harrison, a schizophrenic man whose mother had called police for help getting him to the hospital.

"This particular case was reported out as a 'no bill,' from the grand jury," said Cristal Retana, a spokeswoman for the Dallas County District Attorney's Office.

The grand jury's decision not to indict means Officers John Rogers and Andrew Hutchins won't face criminal prosecution in the case. But the officers are still facing a wrongful death lawsuit from Harrison's family.​

CNN

 

[al66pine]

Grand jury decides not to indict officers in Dallas shooting
CNN

Clipped from shadowwraith post: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/us/dallas-jason-harrison-shooting-grand-jury-decision/ April 23
"...video from one of the officer's body cameras .... Harrison's mother answers the door for police and nonchalantly walks outside."Oh, he's just off the chain," she says. "You can hear him, talking about chopping up people."
It was a fairly routine occurrence for her to call the police for assistance with her son.
An officer asks who she's talking about, and she replies, "My son, bipolar, schizo," ...." bbm sbm

In reviewing vid before now, I'd never understood what she said. Oh my.

 

[jjenny]

So what is a family supposed to do if they have a mentally ill violent family member who they can't control, and they can't call the police for fear that the cops will shoot him?

They have to take a chance either on family member hurting them or police hurting the family member.
Being mentally ill doesn't make someone harmless.