> He keeps failing at doing so, and the cops say "Can't do anything, he hasn't actually thrown somebody off".
How does that play out such that they can't get him on some type of assault / harassment? Is he politely asking these women if they would like to be thrown off the overpass and politely walking off when they demur?
> Charges for the first three assaults were dismissed by the City of Seattle because of mental health concerns, prosecutors said in the charging papers.
Jesus, WTF? If he is attacking people because of mental illness, why isn't he locked up in a mental hospital? "Sorry, you attacked people but you're crazy, so have a nice day!" And why is trying to throw someone off an overpass charged with assault and not with attempted murder?
Does Seattle / Washington not have anything? I live in one of those "poor Red states", and we absolutely do. I know a few folks who have been forcefully committed, though the common denominator seemed self-harm as opposed to harming passerby.
Seems very odd Wilson managed to dodge both mental facilities and prisons.
Not odd at all in Seattle. Repeat homeless/junkie offenders around these parts have dozens of prior arrests or convictions. They have been arrested so many times that they know how to work the system. They are untouchable.
The guy who stabbed people at 10am in front of the Nordstroms downtown flagship store, took several steps to evade capture, hide weapons, etc. All indications that he knew he was committing a crime when he stabbed his victims.
Then when the jig was up (as police closed in on him) he stripped his clothes off so we get the "naked man" headline.
Why would he strip his clothes off? Sounds like he was taking deliberate steps to increase the likelihood of being found mentally incompetent knowing that local prosecutors tend to dismiss such cases.
Also, Seattle's city prosecutor and head public defender jointly and publicly admonished a judge that refused to release one of these career criminals when requested to by the prosecutor.
I know that in Vancouver our municipal and provincial government both repeatedly chose to de-fund and close long-term mental-health care facilities, effectively dumping the patients in them onto the street. It's a large part of our current homeless population.
> I know a few folks who have been forcefully committed
Long term? After the deinstitutionalization movement in the US, it's possible to get people forcibly committed for short term evaluations (a 72 hour "Baker Act" evaluation), but long term involuntary commitment is quite rare.
"An individual cannot legally be prosecuted in the criminal justice system if they are not competent because they will not be able to assist in their own defense. When a Mental Health Evaluation determines that an individual is not competent, prosecutors may move for competency restoration. In the three Seattle Municipal Court cases involving Mr. Wilson, the prosecutor did not request competency restoration."
> And why is trying to throw someone off an overpass charged with assault and not with attempted murder?
"The filed charge is Attempted Assault in the First Degree. That crime requires proof of intent to inflict great bodily harm. Attempted Murder in the Second Degree would require proof of intent to actually cause death. Because these are “attempted” crimes, the critical difference between them is the defendant’s actual intent. We are aware from indications in prior case dockets that the defendant has a history of mental health issues. Given that history, the fact that we are early in the investigation, and that the victim thankfully suffered only minor injuries, we chose to file the case conservatively. We can always consider adding Attempted Murder as the case proceeds towards trial. "
The short of it is that society mentally ill criminals are in the middle of a justice system that requires mental health, and a mental health system that refuses to hold people by force, and isn't funded to its expensive needs.
It's one of the many logical inconsistencies of law, and the cost of emphasizing compassion over general safety.
Before you say "emphasize safety more", realize that this leads to giving the State a long leash to use on citizens who might not be mentally nor criminal, but merely accused as such by the state.
In short, this is why we can't have nice things. The risk of harm from a mentally ill person on a bridge is the price society pays for not being able to field a trustworthy government.
Once you voluntarily make the claim, "I am too insane for the criminal justice system to apply to me," things seem more clear cut. If you feel you're innocent and sane, choose a different defense?
How does that play out such that they can't get him on some type of assault / harassment? Is he politely asking these women if they would like to be thrown off the overpass and politely walking off when they demur?