Tarasoff and mandated homicide reporting

[tranquility]

Beth Vieira wrote:
"2. Tarasoff was designed to specifically add the duty to report to the intended victim as well as to the authorities. The case was in fact reported to the police, yet the police did nothing. It was this fact and the fact that the eventual victim was not notified of the threat that lead to the ruling. Now in my situation, the same has occurred. The police were notified, but the intended victim was not. So I am left with an ethical dilemma perhaps more than an out and out legal one, namely, does our agency or do I have the duty to report this threat to the individual?"

It's a darn good thing the police don't have a duty like under Tarasoff. In fact, you find they fight toot and nail to avoid such liability. Why is that?

 

[Beth Vieira]

Tarasoff

I was hoping that my re-posting of the issues at stake would prevent further argumentation along these lines. Please. I know that people are trying to respond to the best of their ability, but could we stick to the issue at hand. I believe I have raised an issue that deserves attention.

 

[Beth Vieira]

Police?

It is not at all clear to me why it is a good thing that the police are not bound by a "duty to report" a death threat. Could you clarify?

 

[CdwJava]

What is "doing the right thing" according to the Bible and other guidelines followed in the case of a reletivly-untrained hotline counselor in this situation?

Not a heck of a lot. But doing the right thing (whatever it is that guides your ethical behavior) is what we should all be engaged in. I did not ask the poster to adhere to my principles, or even what they SHOULD do - only that they have to do the right thing based upon their set of values. I'm truly sorry if you don't see that.

My point was that the "right thing" was implied in your earlier comment and that the "right thing" is not always clear.

It's not clear when people choose to see it as such. It is usually very clear what the right thing is to do. However, most of what we do in our day to day actions is a matter of preference and not an issue of "right" or "wrong".

The paramaters of right/wrong is far more clear in the case of an admitted baby rapist.

Apparently not. I doubt we would agree on what should be done in that case. I could not see my way clear to help such a person get off. Others might.

Please. According to internet protocol of flame wars where the posts get outrageous and beyond the topic being discussed I now feel obligated to call you a ****.

Fortunately, the word you posted was obliterated by the sensoring software here.

I don't really mean it. But if we were to start taking things to the extremes, I believe that is the next, silly, step.

I didn't take that step.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

1. Some suicide prevention groups say that Tarasoff covers them, and some do not.

An organization is clearly able to set a policy holding themselves to the provisions under Tarasoff. But, depending on the organizationa dn the employees, there may be no legal REQUIREMENT that they must be.

The police were notified, but the intended victim was not. So I am left with an ethical dilemma perhaps more than an out and out legal one, namely, does our agency or do I have the duty to report this threat to the individual?

I don't see that you would have a duty to report anything to the individual. If your organization wants to hold themselves to that policy, they may go right ahead and do so.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

It's a darn good thing the police don't have a duty like under Tarasoff. In fact, you find they fight toot and nail to avoid such liability. Why is that?

There are a HOST of reasons why. Not the least of which is if there was a "duty to protect" by law enforcement, one could conceivably sue the police for damages after the commission of every crime.

Unless the taxpayers want to be paying out big bucks every year in lawsuits for failure to protect claims, this is something that will never change. And I don't know about where you live, but everywhere else in CA we do not have enough officers to prevent crime. The ONLY instance of almost zero crime in this state that I can recall was in the days after the 1992 riots when there was a cop or National Guardsman on almost every corner in parts of L.A. ... of course there wasn't much left to steal or burn, but the crime rate was real low.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

It is not at all clear to me why it is a good thing that the police are not bound by a "duty to report" a death threat. Could you clarify?

There is no "duty to protect" for law enforcement unless a "special relationship" has been developed. If the police had made a specific pledge that they would keep the victim from harm, and the victim was then harmed, one might be able to argue that they had established such a relationship. However, in general, this is not the case.

If the police could be held liable for every instance of harm - even when they had rumors of forewarning - then the government would find itself in litigation daily against these kinds of lawsuits.

This is one reason why we try to train officers to NEVER make specific promises regarding a specific problem or individual.

- Carl

 

[Beth Vieira]

Police?

I believe the phrase was "duty to report" not "duty to protect." I can see why the police could not possibly be held to a standard of absolute protection. But I do not see why the police can't be held responsible for not reporting. Isn't the intent to harm considered battery itself? Doesn't the intended victim have rights here? Doesn't the person who is presenting a harm to self or others require action to put him on at least a psychiatric hold?

So why was none of this done? and again is there anything that should have been done directly by our agency, that is me, to follow through?

 

[CdwJava]

I believe the phrase was "duty to report" not "duty to protect."

Correct. But who are the police going to "report" the threats to? Our liability in such situations comes from the establishment o a special relationship. Failure to notify someone of a rumored threat against their life is not likely to involve liability by the police as there is no duty to protect them.

But I do not see why the police can't be held responsible for not reporting.

Again, report it to whom? We can have a completely pointless circle-jerk of reporting but what would get done? The police received the information, digested it, and made a decision not to act upon it ... apparently. However, in all truth you cannot be sure they did NOT act upon the information. The police are neither required nor obligated to release that information.

Isn't the intent to harm considered battery itself?

No, it is not. Intent can be established by actions and not thought. If I intend to kill you but do not do so, I have committed no crime. However, if you and I talk about killing a third person, we intend to do it, and we take steps to carry out the plan (buy weapons, scout the location for a 'hit', etc.) then we can be guilty of a few crimes.

Doesn't the intended victim have rights here?

Legally? Not really.

Doesn't the person who is presenting a harm to self or others require action to put him on at least a psychiatric hold?

Not necessarily.

The criteria in CA is that "the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled." A mere statement in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for a detention pursuant to W&I 5150.

So why was none of this done? and again is there anything that should have been done directly by our agency, that is me, to follow through?

No one can say why the police did nothing about it. Perhaps there was insufficient information ... perhaps it fell through the cracks ... perhaps they DID do something about it and you just are not aware of WHAT they did.

The only thing you could really do to follow through would be to contact the police again and ask if anything was done, or, contact the possible victim yourself.

- Carl

 

[Beth Vieira]

thanks

Thanks for your time. It is still a burden on my conscious however. It seems frustrating, that nothing can be done or was done. I called the police to follow up: no case was filed and no one was called. I assumed, since the caller was at a payphone that he was not found. But the caller had a social worker who would be bound by Tarasoff to report to the named individual. The police could have easily investigated this fact and could have contacted both the caller and the named individual to complete the investigation.

This was not just any old statement, like I am so pissed, I want to strangle so and so. The man was clear in saying that he was very homicidal and had been for days. I asked if there was a target, and he gave me a full name instantly. There was no doubt in my mind that he was a danger to others and maybe to himself as well. In California, a statement can indeed get you held on a 5150, if you say you are suicidal, or even manic, the police can pick you up. I have seen it happen.

I don't want to sound thick. I am an intelligent person. I am just rather disturbed by all of this.

 

[CdwJava]

It is still a burden on my conscious however. It seems frustrating, that nothing can be done or was done. I called the police to follow up: no case was filed and no one was called.

No report does not mean that nothing was done. If nothing was found, then no report would likely be generated other than a record of the original call by you.

Plus, they would not be bound to advise you of anything they did.

I assumed, since the caller was at a payphone that he was not found. But the caller had a social worker who would be bound by Tarasoff to report to the named individual. The police could have easily investigated this fact and could have contacted both the caller and the named individual to complete the investigation.

Depending on what was reported to the police, they may not have done a whole lot to take action. In all honesty, it is not uncommon for the police to get reports of purported death threats here and there. Absent some other specific factors, they are not likely to spend a great deal of tiem and effort trying to track down someone calling a suicide hotline from a payphone making threats to harm someone. And if the alleged victim lived in another town or city where the likelihood of the threat being carried out was slim, it drops the priority down even further.

I'm not saying they should NOT have done more, only that they may not have been inclined to do so for a number of reasons.

In California, a statement can indeed get you held on a 5150, if you say you are suicidal, or even manic, the police can pick you up. I have seen it happen.

Sure - "CAN" being the operative word ... not, "must". And it is not the mere statement that will get you detained for an evaluation, but a totality and context of the statement. The details you provided might well have been sufficient. But they have to contact him first. And then there might be the issue of you proving that he was the one who made the call and the threat - especially if he denied ever making the call. But that issue is moot since he was not contacted.

And while I understand your frustration, you apparently did all that you could do and certainly all that you were legally required to do. What the police did afterwards, I could not say. Whether they were correct in taking whatever action they did, I cannot say. In any event they are not legally obligated to act on any of it.

Since police response is a political issue, this might be something that the police administration, the city manager, or the city council might be interested in looking in to as it could be an issue of concern, and it might be indicative of problems within the department.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

CdwJava wrote:
"Correct. But who are the police going to "report" the threats to? Our liability in such situations comes from the establishment o a special relationship. Failure to notify someone of a rumored threat against their life is not likely to involve liability by the police as there is no duty to protect them."

Report them to the possible victim. Again, Carl misses the point of Terasoff and why it's such a big deal. Everyone has a duty when there is a "special relationship" with the person to be protected. Here, the duty is extended to third parties when there is a specific and credible threat to them relayed to a professional by either the person or the family of the person who the professional has a special relationship. Apparently, Carl can see the clear right and wrong when it is a psychologist who hears the rumor but is unable to see the clear right and wrong when it is a police officer. I, on the other hand, believe the question is more one of balancing of the costs and benefits.

"Again, report it to whom? We can have a completely pointless circle-jerk of reporting but what would get done? The police received the information, digested it, and made a decision not to act upon it ... apparently. However, in all truth you cannot be sure they did NOT act upon the information. The police are neither required nor obligated to release that information."

To the victim. I would love to know if someone has threatened to kill me. I can take steps to protect myself. Silly me thinking I can help myself rather than rely on the government to decide whether they will help me or not. As to what we know, shall I go through the case law pointing out the number of times the police ignore specific and credible threats (i.e. do nothing) and the target is hurt? I've got my Rosenstock's Section 1983 Civil Rights Digest here, is it worth my time or shall we just agree it happens?

"No, it is not. Intent can be established by actions and not thought. If I intend to kill you but do not do so, I have committed no crime. However, if you and I talk about killing a third person, we intend to do it, and we take steps to carry out the plan (buy weapons, scout the location for a 'hit', etc.) then we can be guilty of a few crimes."

I don't think there is any accomplice liability with a hot-line staffer. And the things mentioned are too far to make out an attempt. While, if there isn't there should be, some crime in the situation, what are the few crimes you're talking about?

"Legally? Not really."

Morally?

"No one can say why the police did nothing about it. Perhaps there was insufficient information ... perhaps it fell through the cracks ... perhaps they DID do something about it and you just are not aware of WHAT they did.

The only thing you could really do to follow through would be to contact the police again and ask if anything was done, or, contact the possible victim yourself."

And then we get back to the "circle jerk" of comparing incompatible values. And, as a side note for Beth Vieira to consider. Let's say she get the police to do something. Officer tough guy goes to hot-line caller and says, "We know you've made a threat against Mr. Whippet. We'll be watching." (Said in an appropriately menacing tone.) Or, she goes to the possible victim and tells him, who then goes to the caller and says, "I know you want to kill me. I'm ready for you." (Or, I've got proof in a safe, etc.)

Now, hot-line caller thinks, "I didn't tell anyone---except that hot-line chick. (Rising anger about being betrayed) I wonder where their office is?"

But, don't worry Beth, the police will protect you....right?

 

[tranquility]

Interestingly to this discussion, at:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/8462973/detail.html

is an article from yesterday about an intimidation DVD put out by the bad guys. In it threats are made agains people who testify. (Not threats against specific persons, but threats against "snitching".)

The related part comes at the end where the state's spokesman tell of the problems of witness intimidation and how the state is not doing as good a job as the feds.

"We continue to see an escalation in the number of witnesses intimidated or threatened," Burns said. She said the problem is twofold. Prosecutors deal with cases in which victims and families prefer to handle disputes on the streets, rather than in the courts. And victims and witnesses who may be willing to cooperate ultimately refuse because the state's system of protecting witnesses is not as strong as the federal system, she said.

"There are people who are willing to cooperate if the state could provide an actual protection model,"

Hmm....maybe things would be better if the police *did* have a legal duty. But then maybe that would increase the victims and families preference for handling things on their own. Boy balancing the costs and benefits of things isn't so easy, even for a Christian like myself.

WWJD?

 

[Beth Vieira]

thanks again

Thanks again for your commentary. I have learned much more than I knew at the start and so am grateful.

It is still disturbing to me, but I am prepared to let it go for now.

I guess I am disappointed in the police response because I think that the caller was at the very least genuinely unstable and needed attention himself. I still think that the individual named by the caller should be notified.

One thing occurs to me that I don't know if I mentioned: the caller had a social worker. He was mumbling so I didn't catch the name. Had I asked for the name again, this whole thing would have been easily handled, for the case worker IS covered by Tarasoff and would have HAD to report BOTH to the police and to the intended victim. I regret that I didn't ask for it, but then everything happened so fast and was only 2 minutes into my shift so I was caught off guard. Now that I have learned more, I think I will be able to respond with more clarity and swiftness. (Also the fact that the caller had a social worker in the first place tells me that he was "in the system" for some reason, be it criminal, mental, or homelessness. He sounded unstable to me and I have had training in mental health issues.)

 

[CdwJava]

Report them to the possible victim. Again, Carl misses the point of Terasoff and why it's such a big deal.

Actually, I haven't "missed the point". Tarasoff doesn't apply to law enforcement any more than it applies to most such suicide hot lines.

Apparently, Carl can see the clear right and wrong when it is a psychologist who hears the rumor but is unable to see the clear right and wrong when it is a police officer. I, on the other hand, believe the question is more one of balancing of the costs and benefits.

Please show me where I made any claim that the actions or lack of actions taken by the police was correct.

To the victim. I would love to know if someone has threatened to kill me.

Once again, the police are under no legal obligation to report it. And, depending on the information, it may not be a good idea to pass it on ... and the information received may be useless to the police. It is also possible that they DID take action but the poster was not aware of it. We do NOT regulalrly pass on what we do to others - even to the party who called to report it.

As to what we know, shall I go through the case law pointing out the number of times the police ignore specific and credible threats (i.e. do nothing) and the target is hurt? I've got my Rosenstock's Section 1983 Civil Rights Digest here, is it worth my time or shall we just agree it happens?

Of course it happens. But, once again, cite me any law in CA that requires police notify a victim of a threat? There is NOT any. Once again, you were not privy to the nature of the information provided to the calltaker and then related to any law enforcement personnel. You were also not privy to what actions the police did or did not take regarding the threat. Not every threat can be dealt with. We know nothing hear about the details of the threat, where it was to take place, how far apart the parties were, how much detail was provided to them, etc. You are making an assumption that (a) nothing was done, and (b) that there was sufficient information provided to act on.

I don't think there is any accomplice liability with a hot-line staffer.

Of course not. And I never stated there would be.

And the things mentioned are too far to make out an attempt. While, if there isn't there should be, some crime in the situation, what are the few crimes you're talking about?

If two people were taking actions to further a plot to kill someone? How about conspiracy and attempted murder for starters. What COULD be charged would really depend on what actions were taken. Since I don't like to engage in "what if" games, suffice it to say that conspiracy to commit murder is likely to result in a variety of charges in the end.

"Legally? Not really."

Morally?

As you have pointed out, this is not a site to discuss the moral issues. As for my OPINION on the matter, I can honestly say I do not know what the police should have done. Not knowing what they were told or what they did I cannot say that the police acted appropriately or not. No one can.

Now, hot-line caller thinks, "I didn't tell anyone---except that hot-line chick. (Rising anger about being betrayed) I wonder where their office is?"

And how many times has THAT happened?



- Carl