If there are other such clues, I'm not going to infer them out of nothingness. I think it pretty unfair to judge whether a person is 'balanced' or not - and I don't recall 'balance' being a requirement for one's basic rights - based on their behavior after someone has perfidiously taken their child away.
Neither would I. She said that her 2 yr old told her to put up the pic as a remedy to his bad behavior. That is substantial evidence ... of her deranged state of mind. She said he was "thumbing" through a magazine at the liquor store. That's a substantive statement which sounds so odd that a rational mind would call it into question. She made death threats in the presence of LEO witnesses. That is so substantive it bears enough weight to have her arrested which she was.
That is not nothingness. That's more than enough to infer her state of mind which is why she was charged with a misdemeaner for making threats. Nothing is said about why the landlord was there yet you infer wrongdoing on his part. Nothing was said about what the neighbors did or did not witness yet you infer wrongdoing on their part. You apparently will infer lots of things out of nothingness if it suits you yet ignore substantial clues about her state of mind.
I think it pretty unfair to judge whether a person is 'balanced' or not - and I don't recall 'balance' being a requirement for one's basic rights - based on their behavior after someone has perfidiously taken their child away.
No one has judged her. That's what the due process of court is for. For my part I suspect her not judge her and legally it was enough to be probable cause. There is no indication that her rights were denied. If the arrest was wrongful she can avail herself of due process like anyone else. It doesn't give her the right to break the law. Threatening people violates their rights.