You can't just go around shooting unarmed mentally ill innocent criminals...

In any event, it is hard to applaud shooting an unarmed, non-violent person. Well, unless the shooter is one of those gunsters who would never waste a chance to shoot someone and be a hero to those who believe guns are the answer.

What is wrong with this picture?

To quote Cameron Poe (played by Nicolas Cage): "My first thought would be... a lot."

...he needs to be released into the care of a responsible person. That person is now responsible for his actions. By the third incident (the second time that the 'responsible' third party failed their obligation) the courts should have learned their lesson. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

"mentally incompetent to stand trial" and "need to be under constant supervision" are two very different standards with a huge gap between them. A recent court case in WA resulted in similar questions which lead to some interviews with lawyers who tried to explain how the two systems don't necessarily work together.

...in the ideological sense is greater than the difference in their social impact. The legal sense of these both needs adjustment.

During the course of a burglary, someone got shot. Seems like they could put him in a mental health facility now.

He was doing the best he could, under the circumstances.

You're comment hurts my feelings. If I were another poster I'd whine and report this. you'd get an infraction and I'd post it somewhere and brag how great a person I was.

Did you also know they now have their own message board (with FOUR members) and an enemies list? The first thing that came to mind when I read it
was Bob Woodward's "The Final Days"...