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.
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.