billnewbie wins the Gazzie award for the best sarcastic, understatement of the week:

"It seems to me that beating your step father to death with a brick is strongly suggestive that Mr. Wood poses an immediate threat to anyone that may annoy him."

The state is always right because it's the state (i.e. might makes right, or when the President says it, it is the law).

MooShoo, your comment is so far from intelligent it needs no response.

Wow. Our Supreme Court not only decides that a finding of 'dangerousness' isn't necessary, but goes on to conclude that even though there wasn't a formal hearing on the matter, the hospital's 'policies' were sufficient as far as constitutional due process is concerned. Talk about 'close enough for government work'! Funny. We used to condemn the former Soviet Union for drugging dissidents, and referring to them as having a 'mental condition.' Now, in Wisconsin anyway, the State can force antipsychotic drugs into someone, against their will, when the person does not even pose a danger, and can do it, apparently, as long as they are following a 'policy.' Another display of judicial acumen.

When I worked at Jackson House, you could not force meds on anyone. It was up to them even though they all had mental issues, most of them very severe. Even if your life was at stake, you had to call the nurse on duty to come and do it or try to do it.

I say take him off his meds, release him, give him a brick, and move him in next door to AndrewJackson.

I have worked in mental health for several years. Most people with mental illnesses realize they need to take their meds. The ones who think they don't need it tend to be the ones that really do need the meds and/or places like Mendota.

The state ALWAYS knows best!

billnewbie, Abrahamson's dissent points out that there was no hearing on his dangerousness resulting in a judicial finding. At such a hearing, the state would be responsible for presenting evidence that he is dangerous now. Such evidence needs to be significant, but is not as stringent as "recently killing someone". The issue is due process under the law.
.
The majority opinion, however, goes on for several pages indicating their satisfaction that due process requirements were met short of a finding. It's very complex, but basically involves administrative steps that the DOC takes to ensure that mental commitment patients are safe before release.

All good questions, billnewbie, and had I been in the courtroom I might be able to answer them.

It seems to me that beating your step father to death with a brick is strongly suggestive that Mr. Wood poses an immediate threat to anyone that may annoy him. Justices Abrahamson and Bradley, just what kind of evidence do you need to find that Mr. Wood poses an immediate threat, another dead person? Does he have to kill someone on a regular basis to satisfy your requirements? How regularly would satisfy you that Mr. Wood needs his medication whether he wants it or not, I wonder, since once wasn't enough for you?

Not against the law to force someone to take a pill they do not want wether needed or not. but its a crime to provide a pill to someone who willingly takes it? I'm just stirring the pot.