A System That Failed Her: The Murder of Iryna Zarutska and the Legal Wall That Let It Happen
By JJChronicles.com
September 10, 2025
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Iryna Zarutska fled war-torn Ukraine for safety. She found work at a pizzeria, dreamed of becoming a veterinary assistant, and rode the light rail home after her shift. On August 22, 2025, she was stabbed to death in a random, unprovoked attack by a man with schizophrenia and a long history of violence—someone the courts had repeatedly released despite clear warnings.
Her killer, 34-year-old Decarlos Brown Jr., had been arrested 14 times in Mecklenburg County. He had served prison time for armed robbery, been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and frightened his own family with violent outbursts. His mother had pleaded for an involuntary psychiatric commitment earlier this year. But the system said no.
Zarutska bled out on the train floor. Brown exited at the next stop. The surveillance footage, released days later, showed a calm, calculated attack. No words exchanged. No provocation. Just a knife, a neck, and a society that failed to act. Some claim Brown can be heard saying he killed “the white girl.”
A Legal Precedent That Still Governs Tragedy
The roots of this failure trace back to a 1975 Supreme Court decision: O’Connor v. Donaldson. The Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom—even if mentally ill.
This ruling enshrined the “imminent danger” standard: unless someone poses an immediate threat to themselves or others, they cannot be held against their will. Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, have long defended this threshold as a safeguard against abuse.
But critics say it’s become a barrier to intervention. “We’re not locking people up for being sick,” said forensic psychiatrist Dr. Lisa Gold. “We’re failing to act until they’re violent—and by then, someone’s already dead.”
A Pattern of Preventable Deaths
Zarutska’s murder is not an isolated case. In 2011, Kelly Thomas, a homeless man with schizophrenia, was beaten to death by police in Fullerton, California. His father had tried to get him help, but without guardianship or a clear threat, he was powerless.
In countless cities, families watch loved ones deteriorate—cycling through jails, hospitals, and the streets—unable to intervene until the law says it’s “dangerous enough.”
Brown’s mother told local reporters she had sought help after her son became violent at home. Doctors diagnosed him with schizophrenia. In January, he was arrested for repeatedly calling 911 from a hospital, claiming people were controlling him. A judge released him without bail.
“He needed help,” she said. “I tried. But they wouldn’t listen.”
Families Left Powerless
Families often seek help and work to help their loved ones, only to be stymied by law and policies designed to be obstacles to delivering help. For example, George Kaufmann, a member of the National Alliance of Mental Illness, and his wife spent years trying to help their adult son, who suffered from bipolar disorder and psychosis. “We didn’t know what to do,” Kaufmann has said. “We repeatedly did things that didn’t work or made things worse.”
Their son refused treatment and cycled through homelessness, arrests, and psychiatric holds that lasted only days. Each time, he was released because he didn’t meet the legal criteria for commitment.
“We were watching him die in slow motion,” Kaufmann said.
Ignorance in High Places
Despite decades of evidence, many reporters and public officials remain unaware of the legal constraints surrounding involuntary commitment. News coverage often focuses on police reform or mental health funding, but rarely addresses the root legal issue.
Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles condemned the attack as “senseless and tragic,” but also blamed the courts. “Our police officers arrest people only to have them quickly released,” she said. “We need a bipartisan solution to address repeat offenders who do not face consequences for their actions”.
Federal prosecutors have since charged Brown with causing death on a mass transportation system—a rare federal charge that carries the possibility of life in prison or the death penalty.
But for Zarutska’s family, it’s too late.
A System Designed to Wait
The “imminent danger” standard is designed to protect civil liberties. But it also forces families and communities to wait until someone is actively suicidal or violent. Mental illness alone is not enough.
Legal scholars argue that the system needs a middle ground—one that respects rights but allows for earlier intervention. “We need a new framework,” said legal analyst Mary Ann Bernard. “One that recognizes the complexity of mental illness and the reality of risk.”
California’s CARE Court program, launched in 2023, allows judges to mandate treatment plans for individuals with severe mental illness. But critics say it’s too limited and doesn’t override the “dangerousness” standard.
The Cost of Inaction
Zarutska’s death has become a flashpoint in national debates over crime, mental illness, and transit safety. President Donald Trump called Brown “a madman” and said the attack shows why cities need tougher policies. “Criminals like this need to be LOCKED UP,” he wrote on social media.
But beneath the politics lies a deeper truth: Zarutska was killed not just by a man, but by a system that refused to act.
She had survived bomb shelters in Ukraine. She had built a life in Charlotte. She was doing everything right.
And she died because the law said her killer wasn’t dangerous—until he was.
Footnotes
- MSN: Decarlos Brown’s mental health history and criminal record
- MSN: Details of the attack and political fallout
- MSN: Surveillance footage and victim background
- AP: Federal charges filed against Brown
- USA Today: Mayor’s response and federal implications
- Justia: Full text of O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975)
- Wikipedia: Killing of Kelly Thomas
DISCLOSURE:
This article was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and journalistic integrity, readers are encouraged to independently verify facts, consult original sources, and consider multiple perspectives—especially on complex legal, medical, and policy issues.