Police force open a door

[thebishopp]

There's suicide and there's suicide...it is not a one size fits all scenario.

SNIP

I feel more sorry for the loss of the captain you describe than many who decide to kill themselves.

HOWEVER


You decided that their right to death was not as great as your former Captains was. You decided that they had a mental disease and needed protecting from themselves.

Heck you may even have been right in your assumptions but you made these decision and then used force to carry out what you decided needed to happen. No you did not protect their rights, you interfered with them deciding that your judgement was better than theirs. AND it very well may have been, but my point is that it is not for us to decide.

Let's go back to the Captain. Perhaps he was suffering from severe depression brought upon him by what he was suffering with the cancer. Based upon your rational for "protecting" people from themselves, there is no "logical" reason for why you allowed the Captain to commit suicide.

The only difference I can see is that you respected him. Because of that you allowed him to make his own choice. However when looking upon others making that same choice (for whatever reasons) you do not respect them, their choices, or the reasons behind their choices, and have decided that your judgement is better.

You compare these people, who may or may not be as deserving of the respect you gave to your Captain, to being "toddlers" and what do you do when a "toddler" wants to run out into speeding automobiles? You intervene.

Let me take from you your liberties today, so that you may be able to enjoy them later. So where is the line?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is that how it works if someone does of a heart attack in their home?

How do you figure? Suicide is a voluntary choice, as in "I want to die," a heart attack while typically due to poor health decisions is not in any way a preferred action in which one purposefully chooses.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I feel more sorry for the loss of the captain you describe than many who decide to kill themselves.

HOWEVER


You decided that their right to death was not as great as your former Captains was. You decided that they had a mental disease and needed protecting from themselves.

Heck you may even have been right in your assumptions but you made these decision and then used force to carry out what you decided needed to happen. No you did not protect their rights, you interfered with them deciding that your judgement was better than theirs. AND it very well may have been, but my point is that it is not for us to decide.

Let's go back to the Captain. Perhaps he was suffering from severe depression brought upon him by what he was suffering with the cancer. Based upon your rational for "protecting" people from themselves, there is no "logical" reason for why you allowed the Captain to commit suicide.

The only difference I can see is that you respected him. Because of that you allowed him to make his own choice. However when looking upon others making that same choice (for whatever reasons) you do not respect them, their choices, or the reasons behind their choices, and have decided that your judgement is better.

You compare these people, who may or may not be as deserving of the respect you gave to your Captain, "toddlers" after all and what do you do when a "toddler" wants to run out into speeding automobiles? You intervene.

Let me take from you your liberties today, so that you may be able to enjoy them later. So where is the line?

Let me make sure I understand this....

A call comes in and I go to investigate. I find a man locked in his bedroom. He's crying and screaming and has a big knife. He says the space aliens have finally caught up with him, and he's going to cut his throat rather than let them take him away and do experiments on him. I try to reason with him and get nowhere.

What you're saying is, he has a RIGHT to believe this and to kill himself, and that I have no right to interfere because my judgement is no better than his? I will VIOLATE his 4th Amendment rights if I force entry and disarm him, and I'll do this because I don't RESPECT him??? I should tell his family to call me back after he does it and we'll come and get his corpse?

Are you SERIOUS???

 

[thebishopp]

Let me make sure I understand this....

A call comes in and I go to investigate. I find a man locked in his bedroom. He's crying and screaming and has a big knife. He says the space aliens have finally caught up with him, and he's going to cut his throat rather than let them take him away and do experiments on him. I try to reason with him and get nowhere.

What you're saying is, he has a RIGHT to believe this and to kill himself, and that I have no right to interfere because my judgement is no better than his? I will VIOLATE his 4th Amendment rights if I force entry and disarm him, and I'll do this because I don't RESPECT him??? I should tell his family to call me back after he does it and we'll come and get his corpse?

Are you SERIOUS???

What I am saying is that there needs to be a lot of caution used when deciding to violate someone's individual liberties.

"Mental illness" can manifest itself in many ways. There are many different types. There is that which is brought upon by physical trauma (actual damaged sections of the brain) or those brought upon my disease (virus/bacteria/tumors/etc.). Then there is that which is brought upon by more transitory situations and are more emotionally and environmentally based (divorce, loss of position, money, etc.).

When does the government have the right to decide what is best for you? Where is the line? Keep in mind the Constitution was set in place to restrict the governments ability to interfere with our individual liberties. A law enforcement officer is a representative of that government. Your "powers" when acting as a law enforcement officer are limited by that (or supposed to be anyway).

It may not be an ideal situation but just like there is a price to pay for giving up your individual liberties, there is a price to pay for wanting to keep them.

Personally I'll take my chances with the inconveniences of having too much liberty than not enough.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

What I am saying is that there needs to be a lot of caution used when deciding to violate someone's individual liberties.

"Mental illness" can manifest itself in many ways. There are many different types. There is that which is brought upon by physical trauma (actual damaged sections of the brain) or those brought upon my disease (virus/bacteria/tumors/etc.). Then there is that which is brought upon by more transitory situations and are more emotionally and environmentally based (divorce, loss of position, money, etc.).

When does the government have the right to decide what is best for you? Where is the line? Keep in mind the Constitution was set in place to restrict the governments ability to interfere with our individual liberties. A law enforcement officer is a representative of that government. Your "powers" when acting as a law enforcement officer are limited by that (or supposed to be anyway).

It may not be an ideal situation but just like there is a price to pay for giving up your individual liberties, there is a price to pay for wanting to keep them.

Personally I'll take my chances with the inconveniences of having too much liberty than not enough.

Where is the line?

It's drawn at common sense and compassion, that's where the line is.

LEO's are sworn to enforce the law at all times. That doesn't mean that they actually ARE enforcing the law all the time.

Those times that I was contemplating forcible entry to a home, either because I thought a person was ill or injured, or because I KNEW that a seriously mental person was inside who needed help, I never gave a thought to the 4th Amendment, exigent circumstances, probable cause or any of that stuff...it didn't apply. Of course I knew that the exigent circs thing applied, but I didn't care. I was going to go in because it was the right thing to do, the common sense, compassionate thing to do.

Nothing I was about to do was going to place anyone in legal jeopardy. No one was accused of a crime. No one was even SUSPECTED of a crime. I wasn't there to do a search in furtherance of charging anyone with a crime in the future. All I was there to do was help someone badly in need of it.

In short, although I WAS a LEO at the time, I wasn't ACTING as one.

In any case, forcing entry into a home to assist an injured, incapacitated person does not "violate someone's individual liberties."

Forcing entry to a person's home because that person's life is in grave danger from their own mental illness does not "violate someone's individual liberties."

You say there needs to be a "lot of caution used" when dealing with these situations.

Do you think cops don't KNOW that???

 

[thebishopp]

Where is the line?

It's drawn at common sense and compassion, that's where the line is.

LEO's are sworn to enforce the law at all times. That doesn't mean that they actually ARE enforcing the law all the time.

Those times that I was contemplating forcible entry to a home, either because I thought a person was ill or injured, or because I KNEW that a seriously mental person was inside who needed help, I never gave a thought to the 4th Amendment, exigent circumstances, probable cause or any of that stuff...it didn't apply. Of course I knew that the exigent circs thing applied, but I didn't care. I was going to go in because it was the right thing to do, the common sense, compassionate thing to do.

Lots of dangerous phrases there.

Nothing I was about to do was going to place anyone in legal jeopardy. No one was accused of a crime. No one was even SUSPECTED of a crime. I wasn't there to do a search in furtherance of charging anyone with a crime in the future. All I was there to do was help someone badly in need of it.

In short, although I WAS a LEO at the time, I wasn't ACTING as one.

You receive the protections and powers granted as an LEO under color of law and yet you were not acting as one? That must be great. To have all the power and trappings of an LEO but to be able to "step out" of that role at whim and act, still with all the benefits of the LEO position, as a non-leo? Got to love it when you can have your "cake and eat it too".

In any case, forcing entry into a home to assist an injured, incapacitated person does not "violate someone's individual liberties."

Forcing entry to a person's home because that person's life is in grave danger from their own mental illness does not "violate someone's individual liberties."

I can say the moon is made of blue cheese, doesn't mean it is. No matter how much I want to believe it.

You say there needs to be a "lot of caution used" when dealing with these situations.

Do you think cops don't KNOW that???

Seriously? I have seen my fair share of "I smell smoke", "I thought I heard someone in distress" justifications for warrantless entry in my time on the job. Even had a detective tell me when I asked if we had PC "don't worry, if we find anything we'll have PC" wink wink nudge nudge.

Some "know" and actually care and some "know" just flat out do not give two licks. When left up to the whim of the individual officer you will have more problems then not. At least that's what our founding fathers believed but what the hell did they know, bunch of pot smoking, philandering, hippies.

Fact is it's not the job of the government to protect people from themselves.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

(sigh) I used no phrases that represent a danger to anyone who has a lick of sense.

I give up. Nothing more I can say.

 

[jbombelli]

All I can say is...

if for some bizarre reason I ever decide to off myself, you better stay out of my way unless you want to come with me.

 

[JamieQ]

Is an occupant of a home legally bound to answer the door if a LEO knocks? If i am home and can be seen/heard inside my house and don't respond to a knock on the door does that then mean my house can be entered?

 

[Libertarian01]

To TheBishop & Liberty,

I believe you may be talking past one another.

Does a mentally ill person have the "right" to kill themselves? This is with a broad brush the question you are both trying to answer, and doing a good job of emphasizing certain points of this issue.

I believe you are both correct - to a certain point.

The question behind the question is: Is a person who is mentally ill exercising "free will" in their drive to self terminate?

In this we must determine whether someone of defective mind has "rights." As our rights come from nature/God only nature/God can take them away. However, others may oppress those rights. We have our rights oppressed every single day in subtle and not so subtle ways.

So, if we acknowledge that our rights may be oppressed without malice for positive reasons we can proceed. For example, my right to hunt for food is oppressed at your doorway. Your right to own private property is oppressed by my already owning it - as acknowledged by the government we both live under. My right to go shooting is oppressed by your location downrange. On and on we go.

These oppressions are not only minor but extremely necessary for a society to function. Our overarching concern is to balance the rights of human beings with the need for an orderly and lawful society where each person is aware of exactly where they may exercise their rights and where their rights end.

Returning to Mr. Mental, can we oppress his right to self terminate? The answer is YES, we physically can. Now, should we? I would argue on moral grounds that "Yes, we should - with limits." If we can temporarily oppress his right to self determination and self termination long enough to treat him to a point of rational, normal thought and he still wants to self terminate that is where the oppression should end. If he is medically treated and wants to live then we have done a good thing and he will probably be thankful that his life was saved while he was "out of it."

The true dilemma occurs: IF we oppress his rights and save him BUT in so doing he has no quality of life THEN we have substituted death with meaningless life. Fortunately I believe this is a rare occurrence.

Just because someone has rights does NOT remove from us as human beings our moral drive to help someone who is suffering a loss of free will through mental disease and/or defect.

So, I believe that we (society) can interfere with someones self destructive action ONLY TO THE EXTENT that their desire is caused by malfunction, such as mental disease and/or defect. Should a person who logically, cogently of sound mind decides to suicide through rational thinking then we should respect their decision and allow them to exercise their choice painlessly and with dignity.

You are both correct to a point, in my opinion.

Regards,

Doug

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Because in our society, suicide is breaking the law.
And the authorities know what's best for you.

Fling purple where you need it.

In before Kutnupe and his 'duty to intervene' doctrine.

Or after.

He should have simply should have stayed silent and killed himself. If it was "his business," he shouldn't have been texting anyone else. It's ridiculous to think that if a person calls another and states that he is going to kill himself, that they won't call the police to stop it.

So what's the difference between this and police tazing a man fighting a fire?

Specifically, the man fighting the fire even (presumably) had the intention not to die, but merely to rescue and conserve his own property, a mindset not particularly indicative of (intentional) self-destruction.

Why should police intervene in matters of the self?

If you restrict yourself to a duty to serve merely the general public and not the individual, I really do not understand how one can justify State intervention with individuals in self-incidents. If I put my throat on a bear trap, whose fault is it? And who should be responsible for where I place my throat?

 

[rmabrey]

Every once in a while, someone will post a thread that brings me out of hiding. I work on an Ambulance, And I deal will suicidal people every day. I work 16 days a month and average 1 suicidal transport a shift, so I have a great deal of experience with them.

If you express intent to harm yourself, at least where I work, the police will enter, and you will be going to the hospital, either willing with me, or in handcuffs(generally that means still with me, but hand cuffed to the cot). I have NEVER seen any charges brought against a suicidal individual because of something in plain site or otherwise admitted illegal drug use. In my experience the police are concerned with helping and nothing more.

I have been to all kinds of calls with suicidal individuals, Cooperative, Uncooperative, boarded up in the house with guns, successful. The one time I witness full on cops, with AR's for supposed man with guns, it was a BS call. But they didn't go in guns blazing with tear gas, much more methodical methods to it.

And as was mentioned earlier, Police go because suicidal people are unpredictable and dangerous till proven otherwise. I don't carry a gun, and i don't wear a vest. I do not get paid enough to risk my life being stupid.

 

[Echelon]

That is exactly what typically happens. I've had to force entry twice recently for a suicide and welfare check. On involved a 90 year old WWII vet who, when found, was on the brink of death, and had been laying in his own excrement for 2 days after falling in his basement. His son was too lazy to come check on his father, and lived minutes away.

The other involved a man who was estranged from his wife, who she suspected was going to kill himself. She told us the guy hated police and had a lot of guns, but she wanted "us" to go in and check on him. Due to SB1, there was no way we were going to enter that home by breaking down a door. We made the wife respond and give us a key. The husband had changed the locks, that day, so we had to force entry. The guy was upstairs, and had expired due to sealing off an upstairs room, bringing a firepit inside, and lighting it (CO2 poisoning). We worked on the guy, vomit and all, but to no avail. I'm not sure if that hour we waited outside whould have made a difference, but it may have. The woman blamed us for not making entry prior to her arrival. And I spent the next 2 hours sitting next to an ambulance waiting for my CO2 levels to go down.

It's CO, not CO2. Carbon Monoxide vs Carbon Dioxide.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's CO, not CO2. Carbon Monoxide vs Carbon Dioxide.

At least he does well at what he does unlike too many others. I, for one, can forgive him for a science glitch.

 

[Echelon]

At least he does well at what he does unlike too many others. I, for one, can forgive him for a science glitch.

This is an internet forum, people are not allowed to be wrong without ridicule!

 

[thebishopp]

Why should police intervene in matters of the self?

Because you are but a toddler needing to be kept from running into traffic.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Is an occupant of a home legally bound to answer the door if a LEO knocks? If i am home and can be seen/heard inside my house and don't respond to a knock on the door does that then mean my house can be entered?

That depends entirely on WHY the LEO is knocking on your door.

 

[public servant]

This is an internet forum, people are not allowed to be wrong without ridicule!

 

[JamieQ]

That depends entirely on WHY the LEO is knocking on your door.

No warrants. How about this scenario, It's Sunday morning and I'm in my living room cleaning guns and stuffing mags for that days three gun event. Lets say a vengefull woman ,knowing my routine, and in an effort to harass me calls 911 stating that I made a suicide threat to her minutes earlier. Now being as it's early sunday morning and as to not wake the nieghbors with my thunderous stereo I have my noise cancelling earbuds in when the LEO knocks on my door. He can hear me inside, I'm not responding, and he breaks down my door....




Or maybe knowing that I'm a law abiding citizen and that I don't have any warrants to be served I just don't feel like talking to a police officer. He can't make me open the door.

 

[public servant]

Suicide by earphones.