NYC gives NYPD power to involuntarily commit people to mental hospitals

[Grimscale]

Who is complaining that they are in jail?

Democrats who need votes?

 

[Truebeliever]

Yea, you *should* wait till he drives off.

For all you know he's planning to sleep it off in the back seat until he actually starts rolling.

The foundation of *any* reasonable justice system is "innocent until proven guilty". It doesn't matter how strongly you think someone is about to commit a crime, until they do you have to treat them as innocent.

You freely admit that cops are arresting people and locking them up for days on a psych hold and *most* of them are found not to be dangerous ?

That means it's not even probable cause. If you send 5 guys to a psych evaluation and 3 of them are just turned loose after evaluation, then *you* are a greater danger to the public than the crazies.

No, that’s not what I said. The doctor gives them medication then declared no longer a danger to themselves and released. This includes people who attempted suicide, attacked people etc. They are routinely released once medicated .

 

[spat]

No, that’s not what I said. The doctor gives them medication then declared no longer a danger to themselves and released. This includes people who attempted suicide, attacked people etc. They are routinely released once medicated .

If they committed a crime, they should be incarcerated for the duration of the requisite sentence. If some meds got them to behave, that will certainly help them serve that sentence more comfortably.

So, if you assaulted someone you should be locked up for a fair bit of time. If it was only because you weren't taking the pill that kept you sane, then it's your fault for stopping it, so serve the sentence.

If they didn't commit a crime, then they shouldn't be locked up at all.

It really is that simple.

 

[Truebeliever]

If they committed a crime, they should be incarcerated for the duration of the requisite sentence. If some meds got them to behave, that will certainly help them serve that sentence more comfortably.

So, if you assaulted someone you should be locked up for a fair bit of time. If it was only because you weren't taking the pill that kept you sane, then it's your fault for stopping it, so serve the sentence.

If they didn't commit a crime, then they shouldn't be locked up at all.

It really is that simple.

Not quite. The insanity defense is still present in their actions while crazy. And by forcing the medication, the state is admitting an issue . Sometimes crazy is just clear cut,
What do you do with people who are suicidal? Or hallucinating?

 

[spat]

Not quite. The insanity defense is still present in their actions while crazy. And by forcing the medication, the state is admitting an issue . Sometimes crazy is just clear cut,
What do you do with people who are suicidal? Or hallucinating?

If they invoke the insanity defense, then the standard for "cured" needs to be a lot higher than "we gave him a couple pills and watched him for 24 hours".

I'm not sure why "suicidal" is considered a crime. The state should butt right out of that issue. Talk about the ultimate individual rights issue.

Hallucinating? If they can do that without hurting anyone, let them.

 

[GOPerfect]

Not quite. The insanity defense is still present in their actions while crazy. And by forcing the medication, the state is admitting an issue . Sometimes crazy is just clear cut,
What do you do with people who are suicidal? Or hallucinating?

Let them commit suicide.

 

[Truebeliever]

If they invoke the insanity defense, then the standard for "cured" needs to be a lot higher than "we gave him a couple pills and watched him for 24 hours".

I'm not sure why "suicidal" is considered a crime. The state should butt right out of that issue. Talk about the ultimate individual rights issue.

Hallucinating? If they can do that without hurting anyone, let them.

We can agree on just letting them back out so quickly but it’s a safeguard that SCOTUS created to prevent the misuse of such powers .

 

[Parzival]

I used to work at an ER/CPEP (Binghamton General).

9.39s and 22.09s were abused by LEOs when they didn't want to be bothered by someone. Especially if they had multiple calls on them in a night. This was admitted to me many many times by locals and troopers (rarely sheriff's). Since most didn't have insurance or were on medicaid, the cost is picked up by tax payers.

"Yeah, we just don't want to deal with them anymore."

 

[spat]

We can agree on just letting them back out so quickly but it’s a safeguard that SCOTUS created to prevent the misuse of such powers .

Get rid of the powers and you no longer need the safeguard.

Same due process for everyone.

 

[Truebeliever]

I used to work at a ER/CPEP (Binghamton General).

9.39s and 22.09s were abused by LEOs when they didn't want to be bothered by someone. Especially if they had multiple calls on them in a night. This was admitted to many many times by locals and troopers (rarely sheriff's). Since moat didn't have insurance or were on medicaid, the cost is picked up by tax payers.

"Yeah, we just don't want to deal with them anymore.

The cost is picked up by taxpayers if they go to the hospital or jail. Now, the multiple calls. Why were there multiple calls? It’s not the callers going to the hospital right?
Yes, a pain in the butt can be psyched because of why there are multiple calls. And it is causing a hazard

Get rid of the powers and you no longer need the safeguard.

Same due process for everyone.

Come deal with the crazy out there or have a family member who is psychotic. You might change your position . The cop is not making the decision if the person is kept or not. It’s the doctors . Is it scary? Sure but the police are out of the decision making process once they reach the hospital. Some are released in less than hour.

 

[spat]

The cost is picked up by taxpayers if they go to the hospital or jail. Now, the multiple calls. Why were there multiple calls? It’s not the callers going to the hospital right?
Yes, a pain in the butt can be psyched because of why there are multiple calls. And it is causing a hazard

Come deal with the crazy out there or have a family member who is psychotic. You might change your position . The cop is not making the decision if the person is kept or not. It’s the doctors . Is it scary? Sure but the police are out of the decision making process once they reach the hospital. Some are released in less than hour.

It's impressive how much cops have convinced themselves they are not responsible for what they do.

Sure, let's just let everyone do that then. If some guy is pissing me off, I can wrestle him into handcuffs, drag his ass to the nearest hospital then say "it's no big deal, the doctors let him go right away".

I guess I couldn't be charged with anything, since I'm not responsible for doing that, right ?

 

[Truebeliever]

It's impressive how much cops have convinced themselves they are not responsible for what they do.

Sure, let's just let everyone do that then. If some guy is pissing me off, I can wrestle him into handcuffs, drag his ass to the nearest hospital then say "it's no big deal, the doctors let him go right away".

I guess I couldn't be charged with anything, since I'm not responsible for doing that, right ?

Either you aren’t getting it or I’m not explaining it right.
It’s not that he is pissing off the cop but is doing so to multiple people.
Example,
An emotionally disturbed person keeps knocking on the glass at a restaurant, screaming nonsense and obscenities and verbally accosting the patrons as they leave. Even taking off his clothes expect his shorts in the middle of winter . Scaring the owner and customers. You arrive as a police officer and tell him to stop , he says okay., you leave. He does this repeatedly and you kept getting called. Do you arrest him for disorderly conduct ? No. You take him to the hospital. He has pissed off the cop because the cop has to keep returning so the cop acts on it.
Is he crazy? Sure. Is he a danger to himself? If he did such an act to your wife or daughter, I think you would agree he is putting himself in great danger.

Crazy people can act sane for moments and control their compulsive behavior for awhile. The Above example shows he could not. He goes to the hospital, gets his medication and is back home.
Or would you rather arrest him, start the court process but still have to take him to the hospital for the psych eval, have him released to your custody ( ie jail) and then have him go thru the system just to have the court case dismissed because he was crazy at the time of the incident.

 

[spat]

Either you aren’t getting it or I’m not explaining it right.
It’s not that he is pissing off the cop but is doing so to multiple people.
Example,
An emotionally disturbed person keeps knocking on the glass at a restaurant, screaming nonsense and obscenities and verbally accosting the patrons as they leave. Even taking off his clothes expect his shorts in the middle of winter . Scaring the owner and customers. You arrive as a police officer and tell him to stop , he says okay., you leave. He does this repeatedly and you kept getting called. Do you arrest him for disorderly conduct ? No. You take him to the hospital. He has pissed off the cop because the cop has to keep returning so the cop acts on it.
Is he crazy? Sure. Is he a danger to himself? If he did such an act to your wife or daughter, I think you would agree he is putting himself in great danger.

Crazy people can act sane for moments and control their compulsive behavior for awhile. The Above example shows he could not. He goes to the hospital, gets his medication and is back home.
Or would you rather arrest him, start the court process but still have to take him to the hospital for the psych eval, have him released to your custody ( ie jail) and then have him go thru the system just to have the court case dismissed because he was crazy at the time of the incident.

"Pissing people off" is not a crime.

If he *is* committing a crime, he should be arrested and tried for it.

If he is *not* committing a crime, then "law" enforcement should have as much to do about it as the dog catcher.

Law enforcement should be limited to enforcing laws. They should absolutely *not* be the catch all for whatever someone thinks society needs.

If he is doing something that is causing a problem for society at large, but there is no law against it, then law enforcement should just stand by and watch until the legislature gets it's shit together.

 

[Truebeliever]

"Pissing people off" is not a crime.

If he *is* committing a crime, he should be arrested and tried for it.

If he is *not* committing a crime, then "law" enforcement should have as much to do about it as the dog catcher.

Law enforcement should be limited to enforcing laws. They should absolutely *not* be the catch all for whatever someone thinks society needs.

If he is doing something that is causing a problem for society at large, but there is no law against it, then law enforcement should just stand by and watch until the legislature gets it's shit together.

Pissing people off can be an offense of which one can be arrested for:
S 240.20 Disorderly conduct.
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk
thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening
behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or
meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act
which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation.
S 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
legitimate purpose.
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to
activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended,
the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor
management act, as amended.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.

A violation is punishable up to 15 days in jail.
In the example I gave, the person could be arrested instead of being sent to the hospital.l, or in addition to.

 

[spat]

Pissing people off can be an offense of which one can be arrested for:
S 240.20 Disorderly conduct.
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk
thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening
behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or
meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act
which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation.
S 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
legitimate purpose.
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to
activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended,
the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor
management act, as amended.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.

A violation is punishable up to 15 days in jail.
In the example I gave, the person could be arrested instead of being sent to the hospital.

Yea, disorderly conduct is the most ridiculously overbroad charge on the books.

It should have been thrown out for vagueness ages ago.

"He makes an unreasonable noise" LOL. No chance that could be enforced capriciously.

Also, any law you need to exempt the railroads from should be struck down for that alone.


The fact that the legislature can't or won't do their job does not justify giving cops the power to make things up as they go.

Let things fall apart if necessary until people force the legislature to write decent laws.

 

[Truebeliever]

Yea, disorderly conduct is the most ridiculously overbroad charge on the books.

It should have been thrown out for vagueness ages ago.

"He makes an unreasonable noise" LOL. No chance that could be enforced capriciously.

Also, any law you need to exempt the railroads from should be struck down for that alone.


The fact that the legislature can't or won't do their job does not justify giving cops the power to make things up as they go.

Let things fall apart if necessary until people force the legislature to write decent laws.

Yet it’s been upheld in many cases . And one has to know the standards set by case law on the subject to know what is and isn’t Good to go. It’s not a simple charge. OGA is an easier one to articulate.
Think of it this way, contempt of court can be very vague too.

 

[spat]

Yet it’s been upheld in many cases . And one has to know the standards set by case law on the subject to know what is and isn’t Good to go. It’s not a simple charge. OGA is an easier one to articulate.
Think of it this way, contempt of court can be very vague too.

Yes, vague is bad.

"It's been upheld in many cases" is not very strong evidence that it doesn't violate the constitution.

Anything that 2 different officers could interpret differently is unconstitutionally vague, regardless of what the courts say.

One of the most important things in a justice system is determinism. The same set of facts should always lead to the same outcome. Anything less isn't justice. That's obviously impossible with such undefined laws.

 

[Truebeliever]

Yes, vague is bad.

"It's been upheld in many cases" is not very strong evidence that it doesn't violate the constitution.

Anything that 2 different officers could interpret differently is unconstitutionally vague, regardless of what the courts say.

One of the most important things in a justice system is determinism. The same set of facts should always lead to the same outcome. Anything less isn't justice. That's obviously impossible with such undefined laws.

It’s been to the SCOTUS and NYS Court of Apoeals . A disorderly conduct charge is pretty much in every state . It’s these court cases that define the limits of the law.

 

[Acer-m14]

2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
obscene gesture; or

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

them are unconstitutional .... see 1A ..

 

[Truebeliever]

them are unconstitutional .... see 1A ..

Not completely true. They are limited by case law but not necessarily unconstitutional.

 

[Acer-m14]

i think they tried that disorderly and some other stuff on this kid .. obscene language .. but the let him go in the end .. wonder why ..

 

[Truebeliever]

i think they tried that disorderly and some other stuff on this kid .. obscene language .. but the let him go in the end .. wonder why ..

Audit the audit is not good source. He is often wrong and misinterprets the law .
But in this case he is correct .
But that’s not the fact pattern example I gave.

 

[Acer-m14]

there's a lady outside on the side walk walking with her tits out yelling free the titties .. you going to arrest her ?

 

[spat]

It’s been to the SCOTUS and NYS Court of Apoeals . A disorderly conduct charge is pretty much in every state . It’s these court cases that define the limits of the law.

Yes, I am aware of that.

They are obviously wrong. This is at least as wrong as Dred Scott was.

If *any* law can be unconstitutional for vagueness, certainly one outlawing "an annoying noise" should be.

 

[Grimscale]

there's a lady outside on the side walk walking with her tits out yelling free the titties .. you going to arrest her ?

In NY, other than local city ordinances, I believe it was decided it is legal for women to be topless.

Ironic that none of them seem willing to partake of that "right" now that they won it, nor push back on the cities that are still banning it.

If *any* law can be unconstitutional for vagueness, certainly one outlawing "an annoying noise" should be.

I know of an "annoying noise" coming out of albany. Can we get it arrested for disorderly conduct?