NY - 10 dead, 3 critical after mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket, 14 May 2022 *Guilty*

[Kemug]

I'd have to read more about it, but from the little I saw, it seems this happened last year. The law states that unless someone is an "imminent" threat to themselves or others, they have to be discharged. Also, unless he is diagnosed with a legitimate mental health condition (that you can prove he has in court), he cannot be held. Making threats doesn't qualify since it isn't a mental health condition. A lot of people make threats, but generally, those people are criminals, not mentally ill. Jail is the place for them unless it's the context of a broader mental health condition, such as schizophrenia. It seems this kid belonged in jail rather than a hospital.

This is what I fail to understand - why on earth is someone who has threatened mass murder not deemed to be an imminent threat?!

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

This is what I fail to understand - why on earth is someone who has threatened mass murder not deemed to be an imminent threat?!

Well, imminent means right then, like within a day or two. This happened a year later, so that isn't imminent. When a person first says it, they may be considered to be an imminent threat and held, but you can't hold them forever. You hold them until the mental illness has improved. And if they don't actually have a mental illness, you can't hold them at all. You have to notify law enforcement.

I hope moderators will allow me to post examples even though they're not from this case. I just think this question is asked a lot, understandably, because the way the mental health system works can be confusing. So if mods will allow, check out the examples below:

Scenario A:
Patient: I'm going to kill my neighbor, John Doe!
Doctor: Why are you going to kill John Doe?
Patient: He's working with the CIA to tap my phone so they can transplant memories in my brain everytime I call someone. They even talk for me sometimes. It isn't even me talking. They also follow me around town so they can map out my movements because they're planning to abduct me and completely wipe out my memories.
Doctor: I see. So how do you plan to kill John Doe?
Patient: With the gun I just bought.

Scenario B:
Patient: I'm going to kill my neighbor, John Doe!
Doctor: Why are you going to kill John Doe?
Patient: I just don't like him. He's always got people over, they're very loud and I swear, he's the one who dented my car last week. The SOB didn't think I'd know it's him, but I do and he'll get his.
Doctor: How are you going to kill him?
Patient: With the gun I just bought.

Scenario C:
Patient: I'm going to kill my neighbor, John Doe!
Doctor: Why are you going to kill John Doe?
Patient: It's a personality conflict. I just hate him.
Doctor: How do you plan to kill him?
Patient: I don't know. I just want him to move out of the neighborhood that's all.
Doctor: Do you own a gun?
Patient: No!
Doctor: Have you ever harmed anyone before?
Patient: Of course not! I get mad sometimes and say things, but it's against my religion to every harm someone.
Doctor: Well, you just said you want to kill your neighbor.
Patient: I didn't mean actually kill. I just can't stand him. I need help to deal with it.

The patient in scenario A would be committed against their will and likely treated with medication. They'd be discharged once the delusions and paranoia improve and the homicidal thoughts have gone away. This is the only patient who can legally be held because the homicidality is directly related to mental illness.

The patient in scenario B would be referred to law enforcement and under something called the Tarasoff Law, the doctor would have to notify the neighbor since the neighbor was identified by name as being the target of this patient. This patient's homicidality is not going to improve with medicine. It's likely criminal rather than mental illness.

The patient in scenario C would not be committed, but would be encouraged to engage in therapy (and maybe medications) to work on distress tolerance and conflict resolution. This is different because the patient recognizes that he's not really going to kill the guy. He's being provocative and temperamental, but the factors protecting him from doing it is that he's asking for help, he has insight, he doesn't own a gun, and he's religious.

There's more that goes into it, but that's kind of a superficial gist of why some people are held against their will and some are discharged.

 

[Kemug]

Yes, well said and very informative. But I (not being an American) still feel that's nowhere near good enough. I feel that the definition of "imminent" should be changed, and also their guns and their right to buy guns removed forthwith. For God's sake, something has to really change!! Or do gun-owning people go on having their rights preferred over innocent people and children?!

 

[Laughing]

Yes, well said and very informative. But I (not being an American) still feel that's nowhere near good enough. I feel that the definition of "imminent" should be changed, and also their guns and their right to buy guns removed forthwith. For God's sake, something has to really change!! Or do gun-owning people go on having their rights preferred over innocent people and children?!

Not typing what I'd like to say, beyond pointing out that you are talking about MY rights and the rights of many other innocent people & our children.

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Sundog]

Yes, well said and very informative. But I (not being an American) still feel that's nowhere near good enough. I feel that the definition of "imminent" should be changed, and also their guns and their right to buy guns removed forthwith. For God's sake, something has to really change!! Or do gun-owning people go on having their rights preferred over innocent people and children?!

Individual rights in the U.S. have rights not to be held against their will unless it can proven they are a real danger against themselves or others, as the other member posted above, and this applies to both citizens who are gun owners and citizens who don't own guns.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Yes, well said and very informative. But I (not being an American) still feel that's nowhere near good enough. I feel that the definition of "imminent" should be changed, and also their guns and their right to buy guns removed forthwith. For God's sake, something has to really change!! Or do gun-owning people go on having their rights preferred over innocent people and children?!

Not typing what I'd like to say, beyond pointing out that you are talking about MY rights and the rights of many other innocent people & our children.

jmho ymmv lrr

Individual rights in the U.S. have rights not to be held against their will unless it can proven they are a real danger against themselves or others, as the other member posted above, and this applies to both citizens who are gun owners and citizens who don't own guns.

I agree, we cannot hold people in the absence of imminent threat and I like the current definition of imminent because it protects innocent and/or vulnerable people who could be victim of anything stricter.

On the gun issue, I kind of see both sides of this. I am in favor of some red flag laws and do believe people who are criminally dangerous should not own a firearm. But the vast majority of people with mental illness are NOT killers. They're much more likely to be victims, not perpetrators. So in the above example, I think the patient in scenario B should not be allowed to purchase a gun, but it's more murky on the other two patients. Full disclosure, as a doctor, I don't like guns (I see what they do to people all the time) and wish we weren't a society that got so defensive about them, but I try not to let that affect my opinion on guns among the mentally or criminally ill.

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Buffalo mass shooting: 911 dispatcher fired for allegedly hanging up on store worker

The dispatcher had been placed on administrative leave “pending a disciplinary hearing.”

www.fox7austin.com

 

[Kemug]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and nothing will change.

 

[sds71]

Federal criminal complaint details 26 counts against accused Tops shooter

Federal charges are being filed against the 18-year-old accused of fatally shooting 10 people at the Tops store on Jefferson Avenue.

www.wivb.com

In the criminal complaint, federal officials allege that his motive was to “prevent Black people from replacing white people and eliminating the white race, and to inspire others to commit similar attacks.”

“After Gendron killed Victim 7, he turned and aimed his rifle at a white male Tops employee (‘Victim 8’), who, at some point during the attack, had been shot in the leg and injured. Rather than shooting him, Gendron said, ‘Sorry,’ to Victim 8, before moving on through the rest of the store in search of more Black people to shoot and kill,” the complaint read.

 

[PrairieWind]

It will be interesting to see if the Federal Government will seek a death sentence.

 

[Sundog]

It will be interesting to see if the Federal Government will seek a death sentence.

Dylann Roof is on federal death-row for the murder of nine people in a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The federal government gave him the death sentence. So there is recent precedent in this kind of crime.

 

[PrairieWind]

Dylann Roof is on federal death-row for the murder of nine people in a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The federal government gave him the death sentence. So there is recent precedent in this kind of crime.

Yes, but this administration is anti-capital punishment and has put a moratorium on executions. So it would see odd if they now seek a death sentence when they also actively state they will never carry it out.

 

[Sundog]

Yes, but this administration is anti-capital punishment and has put a moratorium on executions. So it would see odd if they now seek a death sentence when they also actively state they will never carry it out.

The U.S. Attorney General's moratorium on the federal death penalty appears to be a very limited moratorium on executions, and states that there can be new cases that get federal death sentences, and also the U.S. Attorney General argued the case to uphold the federal death sentence for Dylann Roof at his appeal, and also the U.S. Attorney General argued the case to uphold the federal death sentence for the Boston Marathon bomber and not support the appeal in both of these cases.

Department of Justice Formally Pauses Federal Executions to Review Trump Death-Penalty Regulations

Garland’s directive does not prevent federal prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in new cases, pursuing the death penalty in cases in which the Trump administration authorized capital prosecution, opposing appeals brought by current federal death-row prisoners, or seeking to reinstate death sentences that have been overturned by federal appeals courts. Most recently, the Garland Department of Justice argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that the court should uphold the death sentences imposed on Dylann Roof for the murders of nine African-American worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina and filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to restore the death sentence imposed on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for his role in the Boston Marathon bombing.

 

[brazgal]

Buffalo gunman, 19, appears in court where judge refuses defense team request for a year to prepare a psychiatric evaluation: Teen could face death penalty for murdering ten black shoppers at grocery store​

• Payton Gendron, 19, is accused of killing 10 black people in a racist attack on a Buffalo supermarket on May 14
• Prosecutors said Gendron drove about three hours to Buffalo from his home in Conklin, New York, intending to kill as many black people as possible
• Shortly before the attack he posted documents that outlined his white supremacist views and revealed he had been planning the attack for months
• On Thursday Gendron appeared in court in Buffalo, and his attorneys asked for a one year stay to allow them to pursue psychiatric evidence
• Judge Susan Eagan of Erie County court refused their request, but granted them an additional 90 days to investigate documents relating to his mental health
• Gendron will next appear in court on October 9 in Buffalo

Judge denies Buffalo gunman's defense team a year for psych evaluation

The teenager accused of murdering 10 black people in a Buffalo, New York supermarket on May 14 in a racially-motivated attack appeared in court on Thursday, as his lawyers asked for more time.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[sds71]

@AaronKatersky

A federal grand jury in Buffalo has returned an indictment charging alleged supermarket shooter Payton Gendron with hate crimes. The securing of an indictment allows the Justice Department to begin considering whether to seek the death penalty

 

[sds71]

A Washington state man has been arrested after allegedly calling a Tops grocery store in Buffalo, New York threatening to shoot customers. In the second call, Joey David George allegedly ranted about a “race war.

Lynnwood, Washington, man arrested for allegedly making interstate threats of racially motivated violence

Seattle – A 37-year-old Lynnwood, Washington man was arrested yesterday afternoon and is charged in U.S. District Court in Seattle with making interstate threats, announced U.S. Attorney Nick Brown.

www.justice.gov

 

[JerseyGirl]

Man accused of Buffalo mass shooting slated to plead guilty, sources say

Payton Gendron, accused of the racist massacre of Black people at a Buffalo Tops, is scheduled to enter a guilty plea Monday, according to sources.

www.democratandchronicle.com

Payton Gendron, accused of the racist massacre of Black people at a Buffalo Tops, is scheduled to enter a guilty plea Monday, according to sources.

Sources knowledgeable of the discussions say Gendron will admit to fatally shooting 10 Black people at the supermarket on May 14 with a guilty plea to state charges. He also shot three other people who survived.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Buffalo supermarket shooting suspect's hearing adjourned Monday due to snow

Attorneys representing families of victims have also said they've been told to expect a guilty plea.

abcnews.go.com

 

[sds71]

@Phil_Lewis_


BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — White gunman who killed 10 Black shoppers and workers at Buffalo supermarket pleads guilty to murder, terror charges.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Buffalo shooting gunman pleads guilty to murder and hate crime charges

Payton Gendron, 19, pleaded guilty to murder charges for killing 10 Black people at Tops supermarket in Buffalo in May.

www.nbcnews.com

What you need to know about the racist mass shooting at the Buffalo supermarket​

• Suspect in racist Buffalo mass shooting pled guilty Monday to 25 counts, which means he'll spend the rest of his life in prison
• The 19-year-old was charged with murder, murder as a hate crime and hate-motivated domestic terrorism, which carries an automatic sentence of life without parol
• The suspect said he carried out attack "for the future of the White race," complaint says
• A community leader and a retired Buffalo officer are among the victims