The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove William was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., which requires a showing of “such impaired judgment, manifested by evidence of a pattern of recent acts or omissions, that there is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury to himself or herself.”
The evidence showed William engaged in multiple incidents of incoherent and disruptive behavior over two days and ignored a police officer’s requests to stop and instead walked quickly into a busy street. William resisted the officer’s attempt to keep him out of the road until officers were able to handcuff him, and William said he believed the officers were attempting to kill him and that, despite the fact that he was in the road, nothing could happen to him because his life was in the hand of the super power. (¶¶2-5). “These acts evidence incoherence, impaired judgment, and lack of orientation to the dangers of the highway, along with resistance to efforts to take protective measures. The pattern of disoriented behavior culminated in a roadway incident and encounter with police that involved resistance, which put both William and others at substantial probability of harm.” (¶13).