I would say the bother is trying to find someone to blame besides himself. He should have taken his brother in for treatment..
The Police are not baby sitters..

Posted by: RTF99

February 2, 2012 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

From the article, the suit is without merit. The brother perhaps should be held accountable.

Posted by: Oldearkie

February 2, 2012 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

If the actions of the police department regarding Mr. Vice were consistent with the legality of behavior he exhibited, regardless of the underlying cause of the behavior, then they did what they were supposed to do. His actions subsequent to his release from jail were not illegal from a police standpoint, though they might have been a cause for a complaint with the code enforcement or health department.

RE "The suit claims Undiano attempted to release Vice into the care of his brother."
"Attempted?" Why didn't that succeed? It seems to me the police acted responsibly in attempting to release Mr. Vice into his brother's care. It's the family's job to take care of their kinfolk.

RE "The suit contends Burkhart and Cizerle went inside the home and found it in disarray. They also observed a gallon jug of motor oil in the living room."
I kept a lawnmower in my living room for six years. Since it was buried for five of those years, it wasn't a problem.

RE "The suit claims Vice made delusional statements to the officers, but they left without taking Vice for any mental evaluation treatment."
People make delusional statements in these forums all the time. Should the police take care of it? Unless his statements constituted assault, terroristic threatening or imminent threat of danger to self or others, the police probably made a reasonable decision.

MrD--
Once again we find ourselves, basically, in agreement.

jdriverrn--
RE #1-- Surely Mr. Vice had relatives other than his brother. Was it made clear to the police that nobody in the family was able or willing to take care of him? What about friends, or his clergyperson? Were the police made aware of his history? Were the police asked specifically to send him for an evaluation? If so, was there really enough first-hand evidence available to justify an evaluation?
RE #2-- It might not have been obvious at the time that he was a danger to himself or others. The police could act only on what was observable at the time; you have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Of course it would be useful to know the nature of Mr. Vice's "delusional statements".
RE "I can assure you this is not a $-grabbing/ambulance chasing situation!"
It sounds more like an attempt to assuage feelings of guilt.

This is reminiscent of the case in Fayetteville last year in which a knife-wielding woman was shot by police in a convenience store. Where was the family? Where was her support network? Why did her boyfriend let her out of the car with a knife?

I have a friend whose daughter almost succeeded in burning herself to death-- twice. She will probably try again. But even though it sometimes turns out badly, it's not necessarily against the law to be weird-- or crazy-- and the police don't always have any recourse.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 2, 2012 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )