Anybody who knows anything about Berkeley knows that mentally ill people have been dumped on the street for many years. That is not news, that there is nothing done to fix this situation. The Occupy have NOTHING to do with this, the police always ready to do their thing, do. They should be doing their real job, not used for political purpose. To drag in the protestors into this is ridiculous.

“Occupy supporters have said the marchers didn’t have anything to do with the murder since they didn’t even get to Berkeley until 15 minutes after the attack.”

While I don’t blame Occupy for this tragedy, this argument doesn’t hold water. I’m sure that BPD needed to be fully engaged more than 15 minutes prior to Occupy arriving.

When you take into account that victim walked to the station and back 259 feet, according to Google maps, it starts to raise very interesting time issues. I’ve maintained that if the victim was killed less than 25-30 minutes after his call, the BPD wouldn’t have made it in time, even if they were following protocol.

However, the decision to go back outside, the walk to the station, and the walk back from the station, all took time, stretching out the period between the call and the killing. The killing was approximately 8:45.

Question: Has BPD released the time of the first call?

I’d like to get the discussion off the BPD’s response time for a minute, and think about how many people we encounter “on the street” in Berkeley every day who we try to assure ourselves are not psychotic to the point of potential violence. If you walk our streets at all — and I do — you run into such folks daily. If you just drive everywhere, you may not notice it so much. I think it’s a given that our system cannot provide appropriate care and shelter for them in our lifetime, so perhaps this tragic event will encourage BPD and social services to think of ways to educate us on how to respond/engage/not engage with someone acting erratically.

We have a family friend who developed paranoid schizophrenia later in life.  He’s a physically extremely strong and when in a psychotic state, very dangerous.  He walks the streets in Berkeley and his aging mother struggles to keep him on track with his medications.  I worry a lot about him and many others who need assistance.  I have given up taking my young kids downtown especially via public transit after a few too many encounters with people screaming obscenities and totally out of it on the bus.  We do go to the Berkeley Library but even that in areas other than the children’s room also doesn’t feel like a safe place to be (especially in the elevator when the person riding up with you is clearly in a psychotic state).  Berkeley always had hardcore homeless people in the 70′s and the drug casualties from the 60′s, but starting in the 80′s the situation just deteriorated so much.  My sympathy to Mr. Cukor’s family and also to the DeWitts.  Terrible all around.

Remember the “non-emergency” nature of the Cukors’ first call to BPD. If they had called on an emergency basis, I am quite confident that BPD would have reacted quickly.  But many of us have reported strangers in our neighborhoods to get it on the record but have no inkling of danger — it’s terrible that Mr. Cukor went for what he thought was . . . help.  What a tragedy all around.

To quote Candy Dewitt “our system has to change” while i agree Our system has to change it needs to start with parents taking responsibility why is it the “systems” responsibility for her son and not her own? They were fully aware including himself of his situation but only sat by while he self treated with “diet and exercise” REALLY?
once again it sounds like a mother desperate to save her son from the death penalty to bad she wasn’t desperate A LITTLE SOONER! she could have saved 3 lives i say 3 because this poor woman has to live through watching her poor husband being brutally murdered over and over again! where is the compassion for this poor woman?
all i read in these comment threads are people defending the poor mentally ill…so Berkeley!

Tragic story.  Should people suffering from severe paranoid schizophrenia really have the right to roam freely while refusing to take their medications?  If they want to stop all their medications, should they be confined?     Why is it that Berkeley is a magnet for people suffering from schizophrenia, and other severe mentally illness people from all over the country?  Why can’t we share more of these people with San Mateo, Contra Costa, Marin and Santa Clara counties?  Should dangerous seriously mentally ill people really have the right to stop all medications, terrorize our city, and murder our residents? Have we become too comfortable with our status as an open air mental ward?  I was randomly attacked a few years back by a deranged individual in downtown Berkeley for no reason at all while surrounded by people in broad daylight.  Something needs to happen to reduce the impact of schizophrenia on our community and improve public safety.

I continue to be appalled by the unconscionable opportunism of these conservative pundits and even some of our own Berkeley residents and Berkeleyside commenters. Using a tragic, unrelated death to scapegoat a group exercising their right to free speech is detestable—no matter how much you disagree with the group. Though no less horrible for it, this was a freak event that could just have easily happened during an anti Iraq War protest, a pride march, a Tea Party rally, an evangelical protest at a Planned Parenthood, or a KKK rally. And for that matter, it could have happened virtually anywhere.

When tragedy strikes, people seek out someone to blame, and in this case, the Occupy protesters make an easy target. I myself don’t like what the Occupy Movement has become, but they are not the crux of this situation. It is now all but confirmed that this man was indeed mentally ill and utterly failed by our mental health system. Less as a city, but as a state and country we have turned our backs on the twin problems of homelessness and mental illness. To the extent we have discussions of this issue, it often spirals into a question of who was a right to sleep here or panhandle there, and now we’ve spiraled into a debate about the merits of the Occupy movement.

It seems almost cosmic irony that this tragic event, which should be prompting us to consider how we operate our society, has instead prompted misplaced criticism of a movement whose original aim was to get us to do just that.

Yes, parents should be responsible for their children, but this man was a 23-year-old adult who lived apart from his mother.  It’s offensive and ridiculous to claim she could have stopped this tragedy. 

The answer to your question is clearly No. The mentally ill need to get treatment in humane and compassionate conditions. Especially if there is a super-majority request coming from their kinsmen, whether they themselves consent or not. They should have the right to appeal to a jury of neighbors or townspeople, but in cases where it is clear to essentially everyone that illness is involved, their own consent shouldn’t be a barrier to treatment. 

Individuals probably have an absolute right to refuse taking medication for any non-contagious disease and should be able to choose confinement or exile (leave the community and go to any other community that will accept them) as an alternative. And treatment should be available at every level of seriousness  — start families out with office visits, if those don’t work, add house calls by therapists, if those don’t work, follow up with in-patient treatment.

 Eric,

This comment is hyperbolic nonsense. 

Read the Oakland Tribune to get out of bubble and learn about how the local Occupy movement is straining police and city resources.

Nor is this tragedy a result of any failure of the mental health system.

I suggest that regarding the real debate,  involuntary medications, you are likely to land on the side of individual human rights and against this mother’s right to petition the courts for involuntary treatment for her adult son. She has the resources to assist him, just not the legal right.

I know, that made me laugh too. Clearly he tragically under estimated the situation. However expecting the police to be mind readers and/or blaming occupy for daring to exercise their free speech rights is ludicrous.

Laura’s Law faces battle with supervisors

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/19/BATB1EGNHI.DTL#ixzz1n2k6gikN

Jean Quan, Oakland’s progressive mayor, has been quoted in the paper saying  “the east bay Occupy movement needs to stop using Oakland as its playground.”   Oakland  cannot afford the cost.

BPD staffing is down to 161 officers as reported here on B-Side,  a steady decline since 1995 when the city manager authorized BPD to maintain staffing level around 220 officers, that was a constant for decades.

It is a simple fact that protests take officers off the street and that the city does not have the $$$ to hire more cops.

What does this have to do with anything? There’s no reference anywhere in the news articles about Dewitt using marijuana. 

As to the ridiculousness of this study, my only comment is that you could find any number of “studies” to support just about any argument possible. Correlation does not equal causation, but that doesn’t stop people with political agendas from insinuating that it does.

 No… what is ridiculous is for Candy Dewitt To Blame the “system” for not doing anything for her “victim” son!

occupy oakland are the real terrorists

My experience with BPD has been consistently good and so I’m disappointed in their public comments about this tragedy.

I’ve made both non-emergency and emergency calls.  I’ve found the dispatchers to be good.  (Pro tip:  When the dispatcher starts asking their programmed questions, don’t argue and don’t volunteer long explanations — just listen carefully and answer concisely; try to remain calm.)

Here’s an example that illustrates my experience and expectation with non-emergency calls:  The last time I called the non-emergency number it was to give a heads up.   A loud argument had broken out when a neighbor confronted a would-be squatter.    The neighbor was trying to impress upon the squatter that, no, he would not help the squatter install a mailbox and invent a street address for the utility building.   The neighbor insisted that, no, the squat would not be allowed to proceed.   The squatter eventually took his point and moved on but not before several neighbors gathered and there was a shared concern that a (physical) fight might break out.  I called the non-emergency number in case an officer was handy nearby to help diffuse the situation, knowing that the presence of other neighbors contributed a measure of safety and that 911 was available should the situation deteriorate.    There were no protests that day.   It was, I was later told, a “busy day” for BPD anyway.   The response time my call got was over six hours — when an apologetic officer finally called back to ask if there was still a problem.   I was not disappointed.  That’s an extreme example but its within the realm of normality for non-emergency calls:

The non-emergency response times I’ve observed range from very quick (rarely)  to 20-30 minutes for incidents where they get lots of calls about the same incident or location or persons, to an hour or more,  to, well, never.   The 20-30 minute response times are far from being the normal rule.   911 is there when you need it.

So it seems to me disingenous and a cheap shot for BPD to all but blame this tragedy on Occupy.  I can sympathize with why they might do so, but it’s still a cheap shot.   Non-emergency responses are significantly delayed (or even not made) all the time, protest or no protest.   Perhaps this fact isn’t as publicly known as it should be but that isn’t the fault of Occupy.

I’m no fan of the militant subgroups in Occupy Oakland whose presence characterized the Move In Day event (with its 400+ arrests and infamous city hall vandalism) and some of the F- The Police marches.   Those are costly, anti-social tactics in search of any realistic objective and strategy.   Among the problems they create is, indeed, the diversion of police resources.   In some circles, for holding these views, I’ve been labeled a “cop-lover”, “fascist”, and so on.   I therefore think it is even reasonable in some contexts to name and shame these groups, pointing out the high civic costs they impose for no apparent productive reason.  Maybe some of that will sink in.   Maybe some of it is sinking in.

But the potency of naming and shaming is undermined when the finger-pointing is misdirected:  it emboldens rather than discourages militants whose unifying view seems to me to be simply that the police are a corrupt and brutally repressive force in society.   One fellow quipped “I’m surprised they aren’t blaming Iran.” 

It seems unrealistic and cheaply exploitative to try to make this about militant Occupy.   Non-emergency call responses are regularly delayed for all kinds of reasons.   And there is no a priori reason to believe that, even if an officer had not been held back, the outcome would have been different.

As others have pointed out there are other public policy issues, such as the status of the severely mentally ill, reasonably implicated here.   Sadly, there may be a lesson here about when it is best personal policy to call 911.   Occupy is low on the list of suspect factors, in this instance.   BPD should be able to voice their concerns about Occupy militancy without having to unconvincingly exploit this tragedy, and the larger and more directly relevant issues it raises.

Because psychiatric medication is extremely unpleasant and people don’t usually think they could be capable of such violence, even if they know it’s a possibility with their illness. People are hopeful that they’ll find one magical thing that makes them better without side effects.

Re “why don’t scientist just stop doing studies:” Often because industry groups with an agenda “fund” the study, or because they’re just really smart people trying to discover new and interesting things about the world. Unfortunately there’s less and less of the latter these days.

Re: “People like you.” Wait, you know me?? You know my opinion on marijuana?? That’s amazing because I’ve never met you or voice my opinion on the matter to you.
Re: “there’s a pretty good chance…” Wow, just wow, no comment necessary! 

Perhaps this was a situation that no amount of money could fix, and truly was a patient who refused treatment.

But it’s not just about individual spending. Perhaps there could have been more voluntary options available for this patient if there was more budget. Perhaps there could have been more outreach to bring him into care.

Regardless of this particular case, mental health budget cuts are a big problem, and there have been other incidents like this nationally with mentally ill people.

The “system” here refers to the constitutional guarantees, laws, and institutions surrounding the autonomy of adults who, though observably suffering mental illness, have nevertheless committed no crime that sustains their incarceration, involuntary commitment, or other involuntary intervention.   The legal protections and institutions in force here came to be as they are in reaction against decades of horrific abuse of the mental health “system”, along with a generalized failure of the social safety net.

The parent of a 23 year old has no special rights that over-ride those legal protections.  They may be close enough to the situation to try to help, sure, but they simply have no legal standing to force (say) medication and/or involuntary commitment.

Surely the alleged killer can be both guilty of the crime and himself a victim of tragic circumstance.

There is a real public policy issue there:  When and in what way do we, as a civil society, impose involuntary interventions and how?   The system we have now demonstrably creates homelessness and other suffering and crime.   The systems this evolved out of demonstrably created false and essentially unadjudicated imprisonment and other suffering and crime.   It’s not only reasonable but appropriate to observe that our civic arrangements (“the system”) systematically create the risk of tragedies like this one, letting down in this instance not only the slain man but his alleged killer.

Yep, however it’s much worse and more insidious than that, as they ( many old school Berkeley folk ) enjoy it and get a secret buzz off of having others do their dirty work for them ( chaos ).  I do not expect this to change anytime soon and is one of the many reasons I am leaving Berkeley and returning to the Ice and Nordic Europe. We could rebuilding our mental health system nation-wide in America *if* we had grounded and sane as well as wise and thoughtful leaders ( we don’t and never had ).  

I do remember one woman changing her perspective on the underclass in Berkeley, many years ago.  She lived on Telegraph Ave with her family in a brown shingle.  One night there was a knock at the door.  All of her doors of her home were now blocked by big street thugs from the ghetto with shotguns, who proceeded to pillage her entire home of everything of value, down to the smallest radio and TV set in front of her small children no less.

 She somehow magically believed that if she had done work to help those in the ghetto that all would be magically well ( white guilt ).  Major “thinking error” and simple minded self-deception along with zero street smarts.  She did talk ( In the paper ) about how her beliefs and thinking had been elevated and transformed as per her ugly and *very* dangerous experience.  No more running, denial or rationalization.  As far as rebuilding our mental health system in America at this time?  No.

I doubt she has ever given up.

 Read the entire quotation carefully:

Daniel Jordan Dewitt has never been committed to long-term
psychiatric care, which his family felt he needed, according a family
friend who asked not to be named. State laws make it very difficult for
anyone to be institutionalized against their will.“I can’t tell you how many times he has been in and out of the hospital,” Candy Dewitt told the Oakland Tribune. “I don’t know what happened but our system has to change or else this will keep happening.”

She means that state laws should be changed to make it easier to institutionalize (or medicate) the insane against their will.  That is how the system could do something.