Rek-n

The school district, principal, and school resource officer can benefit by not losing their jobs if any harm results from a potentially violent situation they were aware of but ignored. If a student makes a threat of violence or self-harm, they have to take that very seriously regardless of the student's mental illness.

I think that a lot of people in this thread are overlooking the worst case scenarios that the Baker Act process is trying to prevent. Yes, there are mentally ill children that should not be Baker Acted and traumatized for life, but school resource officers and principals are wary to make exceptions to deal with threats of violence or self-harm.

I don't think this process will change much if liability is interpreted in the same way. From the principal or district superintendent's perspective, they have to err on the side of caution every time. After all, their job is on the line if any harm results from situations they were aware of.

At what age is threatening harm to oneself or others to be taken seriously? From your articles that seemed to be the major factor that would start the Baker Act process regardless of the student's mental capacity or age.

Is there any chance the government will allow humanitarian aid from NGOs?

Or would that just be considered an admission of failure on their part?