http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news ... Apr_9_2009



Ok... Fleeing police and assault with a knife... but not a danger to the public. ON A FIELD TRIP? He's an inmate at the St. Peter Mental Hospital ferchristsake.

If he is mentally ill, why didn't this issue/publicize a missing persons report on him.

This is based on a rigid interpretation of statute and what it obligates the treatment facility to do, not what some of us would label as common sense.

Per today's MN 253B, there are four types of reasons for civil commitment for a mental or health reasons:
<ul><li>1. Mentally Ill</li>
<li>2. Developmentally Disabled</li>
<li>3. Chemically Dependent </li>
<li>4. Mentally Ill and Dangerous to the Public (which includes sexual psychopathic personality and sexually dangerous persons)</li></ul>
All are generally regarded as a diagnosis deeming someone dangerous to self or others. However, only #4 is statutorily given the more rigorous type of treatment a lot of us might expect for a committed mentally ill person.

If you look at MN 253B.141, you'll see that if the person was initially committed for reasons #1, #2, or #3, that the absence doesn't need to be reported until the person is absent without explanation for 72 hours. For someone committed via reason #4, notification is warranted without the 72-hour period, i.e. right away.

However notification is to local law enforcement and the committing court. There is no stipulation about notification of the general public. In fact, the only clauses pertaining to victim notification for commitment via reason #4 seem to deal with a planned release whereby the county attorney and head of the treatment facilities make reasonable attempts to notify the victim when it appears that the commitment may be ending. I don't see anything that specifically says that either entity needs to make a reasonable attempt to notify the victim if they've gone missing. So either I've missed the relevant clauses, or the statutory obligations don't include victim and public notifications.

Since Grande seems to have been getting treated in a non secure part of the facility, I have to assume he is not considered Mentally Ill and Dangerous to Public. The only reason someone like that could be in an insecure area would be on a pass with is really limited to a "specific therapeutic purpose consistent with the treatment plan" and has fairly tight limitations. I'm pretty certain a field trip to Burnsville wouldn't be a reason for such a pass.

IMO, they're operating to the letter of the law. Perhaps they have used educated discretion and avoided widespread notification out of concern that people will become unduly alarmed. Perhaps, they've not considered it. Perhaps, they've decided not to do anything the law doesn't require of them. I'd like to think it's the first reason.

I sure am glad that the State thinks field trips to Burnsville Center are OK. I'm sure they won't mind if I carry there, then.

Burnsville Center's not posted, is it? I've always used the Sears entrance or the Dick's Sporting Goods entrance. Nary a sign to be seen.

Stories like this are just one reminder to carry often and carry everywhere.

It also reminds me of a scene from "Borat" where they're running down the sidewalk after the dinner party... "Why you call police!? Have the [INSERT NON-POLITICALLY CORRECT TERM FOR 'DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED' PERSON HERE] escaped!?"

[Edit to add:]
This is not gonna be recieved well among som on this board, but I'm saying it anyway...

This is the biggest problem with the "Special Needs Mainstreaming" of America. "He doesn't know any better." "The circumstances are different for them." "They can't be held responsible, they don't know right from wrong." These are quotes commonly used by people who advocate total equality, regardless of ability.

Let me ask the most hardcore "we're all the same" bleeding heart types among you...

If your house was being broken into, and you called 911, would you want a "developmentally disabled" dispatcher taking your 911 call and determining what aid was neccessary and what priority to assign to your problem?

If a family member had been seriously injured and you called 911; the ambulance has shown up and now the driver and the attending EMTs are "special needs" people... how are you gona feel about your loved ones odds?

What I guess I'm trying to say is either the laws need to apply UNIFORMLY to EVERYONE, regardless of disability or "special needs"; no passes given for "didn't know better", or "seeing the world differently", or "not understanding the way normal people do"---or the "special needs" gang needs to be segregated to a place where they don't pose a risk to others or themselves.

Because now you have someone who "thinks differently" and has a documented history of violence running around a mall where several elderly people like to walk, where several vulnerable teens and pre-teens hang out after class unescorted...

If this escaped "patient" blows a fuse again and assaults someone (either sexually or physically) whose head does the victim get to put on a pike, so to speak?

Either separation, or uniform (COMPLETELY uniform) punishment. No middle ground.

If he's not considered a danger to the public will he be able to own a firearm when he gets out? Or do they get it both ways?

It is posted at the main mall entrances.

You sure?? I was just there last weekend and entered the main mall entrance next to Applebees (I think it is), and I didn't see any sign anymore.

I ask are you sure, because to be honest I don't really look for them anymore.

They were a few weeks ago. And a couple before that I know for sure that the entrance by the Applebees was posted. They put their postings on the side walls in between the inner and outer sets of doors. Of course, they might have taken them down since or they might be missing for some other reason, but my guess is you just missed them.