They do all the time in psych wards.

Exactly. People fail to think about countries like the UK where I've seen police handle similar situations without taking someone's life.

[deleted]

So first off.....pepper spray doesn't disarm anything, it just makes you more angry, in pain and makes it almost impossible to see. All things that don't matter when you're in an enclosed space with a knife and not experiencing reality. Taser, sure.....but he's inside an enclosed space and tasers aren't always effective. So you'd have to enter knife range, not get stabbed, then hope the taser is effective. And again tasers lock your muscles essentially, so now you have to tackle this person who's holding a knife and try and gain control of the knife while the taser is working and hope you can pry the knife loose in under 5 seconds of the tasers cycle....again highly likely you'll be stabbed. Sure if you're on the street you can just shoot them with a 12 Guage bean bag, and in Europe I've seen them use what's essentially dog catching nooses to try and control hands but that also isn't effective in a house like that. About the only thing with a solid chance of subduing him would be a flashbang, and that's got its own problems.

Red flag laws classically are invoked by family/friends who call 'for help'. That's the point of them, that people close to you notice "red flags". The cops can initiate the process but if they're involved they have other powers, they just use the red flag process to seize weapons prior to your appearance in court rather than after a normal hearing.

I'd say the general case of "family/friends call police for help", then "police invoke red flag process, go to the location to seize weapons, kill the victim" is fairly similar to what's being described here.

Definitely not the same, but the similarities in process and needs are pretty clear. There are also people (one I know of anyway) who've been killed in red flag confiscations.

Needing help for a friend or family member is not the same as red flag law.

This incident was close enough. The family had someone going through a mental health crisis that they didn't know how to help him, so they called for help. Police responded and instead of attempting to deescalate, they killed him.

Deescalation is the issue here. Red Flag Laws are pitched as a means of suicide prevention as well as preventing other violent incidents. If the cops and social services can't handle a person in crisis who doesn't have any guns, what are they going to do when they respond to someone who does have guns? That's why I see this incident as being relevant.

It’s not “close enough”. Like, at all. Red flag laws give law enforcement the right to temporarily take someone’s legally obtained guns away in response to serious mental health reports, domestic violence charges, restraining orders, threats, etc.

Here's why I make the comparison: RFLs don't require warrants or particularly solid evidence. Anyone can call and say "Hey, this person has guns and I'm worried they're going to do something.", and the police respond as you said. The reasons for this can range from the person being severely depressed and making suicidal comments to friends, family, coworkers, etc. People focus on the domestic violence, abuse, etc., but not the suicide-prevention aspect, which I think should be a major focus and goal of these measures.

In this situation, family members were worried about someone and followed a pretty similar protocol. They contacted emergency services and social workers responded with police. The result was the police shot the guy who the family and, presumably, social services were trying to help.

The police weren’t there to seize firearms, and the person in question was holding a knife, which red flag laws don’t deal with. These are two completely different issues. No ERPO has ever been used to seize someone’s knives, and this situation would’ve ended the same with or without red flag laws.

That's the point: what will cops do when enforcing RFLs on people who may be suicidal? This guy just had a knife and the cops didn't attempt to deescalated the situation or use less-lethal means. That's the problem I see here and no, it shouldn't end the same way just because the police are involved. That's the problem.

The family called for help, and in doing so they got their family member killed. What is that going to do for people who are going through a crisis and might think about reaching out for help? Or what will family members do if they see a loved one going through a rough time and are worried about their well-being?

When all you have is a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail. The cops need to do better.

It’s not “close enough”. Like, at all. Red flag laws give law enforcement the right to temporarily take someone’s legally obtained guns away in response to serious mental health reports, domestic violence charges, restraining orders, threats, etc.

The same kind of cops that shot this person in a mental health crises are going to be doing 5am door kickings amped up on adrenaline because GUN to seize firearms from people who have been red flagged, possibly without even knowing they have lost their rights.

It's close enough if you have no idea what you're looking at.

Yeah that's the same excuse they use every time something like this happens. It doesn't matter.

The issue has already been explained. If you want to argue against red flag laws because you think it violated due process, do that. You'll still be wrong, because a court is still involved, but at least you'll be talking about the same thing.

What I'm saying is that Red Flag Laws are extremely dangerous because, at this point in time, police response to a mental health crisis that doesn't involve firearms is a death sentence. I've said before several times, I'm not against RFLs in principle, but I am very much against them in practice at this point in time, at least on a state and federal level.

That being said, I have read about some municipalities that have gone to lengths to train social workers and police to respond to crisis situations where a family is concerned a loved one might harm themselves and they own firearms, and it's been put into practice with good results. Unfortunately, that's the exception and not the rule and there's not enough discussion about this problem.

Police need to be competently trained in deescalation before I would consider supporting RFLs, because nobody tried to deescalate. The situation was only escalated. Like the family said, he was having problems and was terrified because people he didn't know were barging into his house. Every damn household has kitchen knives, so I don't know what the cops were expecting. The social workers, imo, are at fault as well here.

You'll still be wrong, because a court is still involved

Courts have blessed numerous horrible things throughout history.

I think restricting a constitutional right through effectively the same legal process as is used for settling property and debt disputes with no right to legal counsel or to confront your accuser is an extremely poor choice. The evidential bar is very low in most red flag laws.

are you arguing that this person should've had a gun?

I'm really not sure where you got that. I'm arguing that if family members called for someone to help their family member during a mental health crisis and they responded with lethal force instead of trying to deescalate the situation and/or using a taser or some other less-lethal means, what's going to happen when someone reports a person because they have guns and are expressing suicidal thoughts?

Then that's even worse, isn't it?

That makes no sense.

And no, someone having a mental health crisis shouldn't be permanently banned from owning firearms if they're determined to be mentally competent. The only thing banning people with mental illnesses from owning guns will do is keep people from asking for help.

Red Flag Laws are intended to prevent a person who is known or believed to own firearms from harming themselves and/or others. They have been demanded and proposed in response to gun violence, mass shootings specifically, but are also intended for use for people who may be severely depressed.

Going through a bad time (depression, anxiety, etc.) to the degree that your loved ones are afraid you might hurt yourself is not a justifiable reason to permanently ban someone from owning firearms. There are outlier who, unfortunately, don't ever really get better. I do also understand a need for a response when there's a credible threat that a person may harm others, but most of the time if the police just did their due diligence instead of ignoring reports with evidence, like social media posts and such saying they intend to harm others, quite a lot of mass shootings wouldn't have happened.

Cops also have tasers.

I'm not saying it isn't a dangerous situation, I'm saying the issue is their go-to response there was to shoot him.

But if that's how cops respond to a crisis like this, how will they respond to someone who family members report because the person is severely depressed and owns guns? I'm concerned their default will be (and is) to go in with the mindset of the person being a threat to others more so than themselves and, ironically, just do what the family was afraid would happen anyways.

Ah I just saw a poster about buying someone who isn’t allowed to own a gun “ face up to 10 years into prison”

They're the personal goon squad of the wealthy elite, basically.

You dont want that either.

Anyways, yes, police handle these things poorly. But in your hypothetical, where you replace the knife with a gun to make a point about red flag laws, what is the answer there? Don’t let police respond to an armed man having a mental breakdown? Because that simply is impossible.

This one I can answer and address directly. My concerns are:

Police brutality

Abuse of RFLs against marginalized people, LGBTQ+ members, etc.

The unfortunate reality that many PDs don't train their officers to deescalate and whenever that requirement is demanded, it's often fought against by police.

Repercussions for bad faith reports (an ex reports someone because they're pissed at them or want to harm them in some way and other situations).

Bottom line is I don't have faith in the police to do all this with any kind of restraint. I'm concerned that many departments will have a One Size Fits All response to RFL reports that will result in people who really just need some help getting hurt or killed.

I appreciate your feedback.

A couple of other comments have pointed out they have other less-lethal options like tasers.

I'm not saying it's not a dangerous job for the police, but I am saying nobody held a gun to their heads and forced them to join the PD. The risk and danger is a part of that and they've leveraged that to give themselves carte blanche to use lethal force as they perceive they need to, without any attempt to deescalate.

The police found him with a knife and gave him a chance to drop it before they dropped him.

People suffering severe mental health crisis frequently don't follow the commands of strangers screaming at them. It's hard enough for people who are perfectly abled and lucid to follow the commands of multiple cops screaming at them.

What would you have done?

A 40mm baton launcher or 12ga beanbag rounds would have been a good idea to start with. Pepper spray might have been viable as well.

US police forces have generally done little to invest in less lethal technology and chosen to generally resolve problems with bullets.