mustangdriver wrote:
If some one isn't willing to take their meds, and without the meds they are a hazzard to the rest of us, then I don't think they should be allowed out. They should have to be in a facility until they are well enough to function.
You've got all the answers, haven't you? If you want people to respect your opinion, rather than just putting up with it, try to back off a little and consider, maybe, that you aren't the judge, jury and executioner. As I said a number of posts back, we don't even KNOW if he's mentally ill or on drugs - or what. As Randy's pointed out, the system's there for a reason.
As for the 'old fashion punishment for crimes' you advocate, as I said (again) we know that shipping criminals halfway around the world, as the British used to do to the USA and later to Australia, or chopping off their hands, as still happens in some countries,
doesn't stop the crime. It gets some macho chortles about 'that guy won't do it again' from bloodthirsty armchair judges, but, sorry, it actually doesn't work as it doesn't stop the problem.
I absolutely agree appropriate punishment or restraint makes sense after trial (if criminal) or assessment (if mentally ill) is the best thing. Both systems need help - prepared to volunteer your labor? You might learn something.
Sadly museums need to legislate for and manage the risk to their staff and collections - but they (rightly) have no direct hand in punishment, anymore than we do here.
Regards,