Tl;dr: 75-yo old woman attacks the employees over a sandwich, rips hair from one of them, put that hair in her purse, calls the police and dies.
At that point, two other employees intervened, and as they were pulled apart, a “chunk of hair” was pulled from the shift lead’s head, “leaving a raw area.”
Once separated, the employees got behind the counter and Grayson sat down, taking a phone call. She was seen picking up the shift lead’s hair and putting it in her bag, police said.
I hate the death of empathy
Should we not have empathy for the children she assaulted? There is no evidence that she had a psychotic episode, there’s plenty of evidence that she violently assaulted a young woman for doing their job.
I thought there was evidence it was psychosis, sorry
I don’t doubt someone probably made that claim and popularized it for their own reasons, but anytime someone makes a similar claim about mental health and assault I am always dubious.
People having a mental health crisis are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrating it.
And even if it was psychosis, this just makes it a tragedy, not the fault of the employees she assaulted. Whether you’re out of your mind or not, if you attack people, they have a right to defend themselves.
People having a mental health crisis rarely physically attack random people, rather they are typically more likely to be the victims of abuse.
You can calm down the performative social justice stuff. While what you say is true, it is irrelevant to this discussion. We’re not discussing whether someone experiencing a mental health crisis might hypothetically attack someone. We’re talking about whether someone who did attack someone did so because of a mental health crisis. The attack is not in dispute. Their moral and legal culpability is.
Lol, facts are performative?
And the fact that people experiencing mental health crises aren’t likely to be randomly violent isn’t relevant?
Intent almost always influences legal culpability.