Portland Mercury


 
 

Geek Out
Film

Geek Out

More speed! More racing!


Once More With Feeling
Music

Once More With Feeling

Tender Loving Empire



 

« New Britney "Japanimation" Video! | Main | 2008 Tournament of Books »

Thursday, March 13, 2008

News Alleged Mentally Ill Person At Risk Of Being “Beaten To Death” By Cops, Said Commitment Court

Posted by Matt Davis on Thu, Mar 13 at 2:56 PM

Multnomah County’s commitment court ruled two years ago an alleged mentally ill person should be locked in a psychiatric hospital because there was a risk she might be “beaten to death” by cops like James Chasse, if she were left to wander the streets, it was revealed yesterday.

copdangers.jpg
DANGER TO YOURSELF: SOME OTHERS…

The appeals court yesterday overturned the woman’s involuntary commitment, saying the conclusion that she “was a danger to herself because some officer, at some unknown point in the future, might kill or harm her is unduly speculative and does not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that appelant is a danger to herself.”

The woman had fought with police when she was originally taken into custody on a mental health hold. So the commitment court said that “fighting with police…is certainly something that puts mentally ill people at risk of death or serious physical injury,” according to the appeals court verdict.

The court commented on the then-recent death of James Chasse, stating that Chasse, an unarmed mentally ill person, “was confronted by police, and he was beaten to death.”,” the appeals court verdict continues.

Nevertheless, that’s not her fault, according to the appeals court.

It’s significant that the commitment court took “absolute judicial notice” of the fact that “fighting with the police” is “certainly something that puts mentally ill people at risk of death or serious physical injury,” because in legal terms, a judge would only take judicial notice of a fact when it is obvious and undisputed.

For example, a judge might take judicial notice of the fact that the Mercury is an alternative weekly newspaper, or of the fact that the sun set yesterday just after 7pm. For a judge to take “absolute judicial notice” of the fact that mentally ill people are at risk of being beaten to death by police is a strong position.

More after the jump.

Usually, a person is ruled a danger to themselves or others because of, for example: repeated suicide attempts, or thinking bleach is a magic drink sent from heaven, or for carrying a knife around and believing they are on a divine quest, or believing they are impervious to gunfire. Simply having a tendency to fight with police isn't sufficient, says the appeals court. You can read more about the commitment process here.

The appeals court verdict is unlikely to help the person who was committed, however. She has already spent up to 180 days in the psychiatric hospital, and has no legal recourse. 23 commitments in Multnomah County have been overturned by the appeals court since December 2006, either because the Commitment Court had insufficient evidence to commit the person, or simply because procedures weren't followed. In one case, a commitment was overturned because it was held "in the hallway of a hospital while appellant was naked in a hospital room, in the midst of a medical crisis, and unable to hear or participate meaningfully in the entire proceeding."

Critics of the system say civil commitment should not be used as a dumping ground for a failed public safety or mental health system. They argue that you can't just lock people up because society doesn't want to take care of them, or because it doesn't know how to.

Comments

ORS 40.065 [which is Oregon Rule of Evidence 201(b)]:

"A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either:

(1) Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or

(2) Capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. "

see: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/040.html

So does the fact that the appeals court overturned the commitment mean the judicial notice wasn't right?

No, the court of appeals doesn't address the facts found by the trial court. The trial court decided the facts, including the judicially noticed facts. Given those facts, the trial court made a legal decision and determined that the facts shown proved to a clear and convincing standard that the defendant's mental illness made her a danger to herself.

The court of appeals overturned the trial court's legal decision, not the facts. The court of appeals indicated that just because you are mentally ill and just because that makes you resistant to police officers and just because cops might injure you that is not enough clear and convincing evidence that you are a danger to yourself [given the history and technical meaning of that phrase]. The court of appeals says that the trial court made too great a leap from the available facts.

wonder if this makes Ossifers Humphreys & Nice,
and their co-kicker, Deputy Barton all feel as
they're still the "good guys" and they didn't
do anything wrong??? wonder if they're just
too thick to "get it"??????

Someday soon I hope Steve Lord gives the word
and you know what they are...BOOK 'EM DANO!

Post a Comment





Please click Post only once.

or
Blogtown End Hits: The Merc's Music Blog MOD: Merc on Design 2008: Merc Election Coverage Mercury Eat and Drink Guide  

Our Friends

Our Enemies

 
portland mercury classifieds

/images/adoftheweek.gif

ad of the day

Fast affordable Computer repair & problem solving professional advice, service, training, for the home or business We also custom design Spreadsheets and Databases 25+ years of professional experience PC’s & MAC’s go


post an ad

Tea Cozies
go

Pop driven experimental glam waltzes to make you dance...