Rights of the mentally ill, disabled in confrontations with police

[Jazzy]

The police shooting in Georgia earlier this month of a naked, unarmed man with bipolar disorder spotlights the growing number of violent confrontations between police and the mentally ill — an issue that goes before the Supreme Court this coming week.

At least half the people police kill each year have mental health problems, according to a 2013 report from the Treatment Advocacy Center and the National Sheriffs' Association. On Monday, the nation's highest court will consider how police must comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act when dealing with armed or violent people who have psychiatric problems or other disabilities.

The case involves a 2008 incident in San Francisco in which police responded to a call from a group home for the mentally ill. A resident who suffers from schizophrenia, Teresa Sheehan, threatened to kill her social worker with a knife and locked herself in her room. The social worker asked the police to help restrain Sheehan and get her to a hospital where she could be treated.

The incident ended with officers forcing their way into Sheehan's room and shooting after she charged them with the knife. She survived and filed a lawsuit, claiming police had a duty under the ADA to consider her mental illness and take more steps to avoid a violent confrontation.

The ADA generally requires public officials to make "reasonable accommodations" to avoid discriminating against people with disabilities. But lower courts have split on how the law should apply to police conduct when public safety is at risk.

San Francisco officials argue the law does not require police to make accommodations for an armed and violent suspect who is mentally ill.

"When mental illness manifests in unpredictable, violent behavior as it did in this case, officers must make split-second decisions that protect the public and themselves from harm," the city said in legal papers.

The Georgia incident on March 9 was the latest high-profile police killing of a mentally unstable suspect. Anthony Hill, a U.S. Air Force veteran had stopped taking medication for bipolar disorder. An officer, responding to calls about a naked man acting erratically outside an apartment complex, fatally shot Hill when police say Hill ran toward him and didn't heed orders to stop.

Other shootings have prompted federal investigations. Between 2012 and 2014, the Justice Department found that police departments in Cleveland; Portland, Oregon; and Albuquerque, New Mexico; used excessive force against the mentally ill. Those police departments were required to improve training, protocols and policies for dealing with mentally ill suspects.

Law enforcement groups are keeping a close eye on the Supreme Court case, which they say could undermine police tactics, place officers and bystanders at risk, force departments to spend thousands in new training and open them to additional liability.

The ADA was designed to regulate institutional policies, not an individual officer's behavior, said Darrel W. Stephens, executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which filed a brief supporting San Francisco.

Stephens said that while departments around the country receive training to de-escalate and avoid using force in a situation with an unstable person, it's not always possible to do so.

But mental health advocates say the ADA requires police to act less aggressively when arresting or detaining people with disabilities. Claudia Center, a senior staff attorney in the American Civil Liberties Union's disability rights program, said the ADA should apply to all situations, especially emergencies when the disabled most need to be accommodated.

Source

Do you think police should act less aggressively when arresting or detaining people with disabilities? Why / Why not?

 

[mrldii]

How can the police know, upfront, that someone has a mental disability and therefore should be treated differently?

By the way, the mere fact that someone's engaging in an illegal act (thus inviting/requiring police intervention) can be indicative of a "mental disorder", since one criteria is "the inability to abide by societal norms"; this means EVERY suspect has a mental disability and should be handled with kid gloves by the police.


Nope. If someone has a "mental disability" to the extent that they'd require special treatment from the police, they shouldn't be free to come-and-go in an open society without qualified adult supervision. If one IS free to come-and-go in an open society, then they're capable of accepting the consequences of their actions, whether 'the voices in their head' made them do it, or not.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Mentally ill or not if you attack a police officer or anyone for that matter you should have every right to use deadly force and not worry about there state of mind.