Most mothers of mentally handicapped children would be happy that they survived through the night. Imagine how this situation could have gone if the cops hadnt shown up. How many houses would this kid have had to try to get into before a homeowner shot him?
Autistic Teenager Is Beaten by Deputies After Being Mistaken for a Prowler
- Thread starter 50 Freak
- Start date
- Status
Most mothers of mentally handicapped children would be happy that they survived through the night. Imagine how this situation could have gone if the cops hadnt shown up. How many houses would this kid have had to try to get into before a homeowner shot him?
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
only1asterisk, if I was one of the cops I'd do the same thing, I'd push the limits of everything I could get away with. That's why I said 'maybe it's time to possibly consider maybe re-examining the rules, maybe'. Not about them, about the rules they play by.
Like claiming you're afraid for your life when an unarmed, panicked witless boy runs past you and your 2 heavily armed and armored troops - after you move into his path so he has to run by you. Besides the whole procedure seems designed to escalate the violence. Who the hell isn't going to 'resist' being pummeled with sticks (that I'm sorry may as well be made out of steel)? And once you get a feel for how many people being 'detained' are killed or nearly killed by suffocation, you wonder who isn't going to 'resist' having heavy men knee you in the back? And who isn't going to resist pain and submission techniquse like joint locks and other martail arts stuff that is just there to cause as much pain as possible, or break bones?
On the bright side I bet the kid doesn't wander off ever again! Lol Pavlov couldn't have done it better.
As for shooting the handicapped kid outside one's door, I suggest not renting so many zombie movies.
P.S.
Lol, sorry but it was just a funny thought. "Ma'am, aren't you going to thank us for not killing him?"
Like claiming you're afraid for your life when an unarmed, panicked witless boy runs past you and your 2 heavily armed and armored troops - after you move into his path so he has to run by you. Besides the whole procedure seems designed to escalate the violence. Who the hell isn't going to 'resist' being pummeled with sticks (that I'm sorry may as well be made out of steel)? And once you get a feel for how many people being 'detained' are killed or nearly killed by suffocation, you wonder who isn't going to 'resist' having heavy men knee you in the back? And who isn't going to resist pain and submission techniquse like joint locks and other martail arts stuff that is just there to cause as much pain as possible, or break bones?
On the bright side I bet the kid doesn't wander off ever again! Lol Pavlov couldn't have done it better.
As for shooting the handicapped kid outside one's door, I suggest not renting so many zombie movies.
P.S.
Lol, sorry but it was just a funny thought. "Ma'am, aren't you going to thank us for not killing him?"
MLH
Member
In the dark at 2:00 in the morning they probably didn't
Know if he was armed or not! We just had a police officer killed here in Louisville when he stopped to check on two kids fighting after a report that's a truck was left in someone's yard at 7 a.m. in the morning when it was daylight. One just pulled a gun and shot him. Police officers don't have but a second to decide if someone is intent on harming them and sometimes a second is all it takes to get themselves killed! At 2 in the morning in the dark and running at the officers he is very lucky to be alive.
Know if he was armed or not! We just had a police officer killed here in Louisville when he stopped to check on two kids fighting after a report that's a truck was left in someone's yard at 7 a.m. in the morning when it was daylight. One just pulled a gun and shot him. Police officers don't have but a second to decide if someone is intent on harming them and sometimes a second is all it takes to get themselves killed! At 2 in the morning in the dark and running at the officers he is very lucky to be alive.
Cops rarely do that, especially with regard to use of force. The truth is most of the time cops hesitate to use the proper amount of force for a variety of reasons. Those reasons range from the way we were all raised to not hurt others, to fear of getting sued.
Fine, others have already asked, and I'll ask too, what would YOU do differently? Quit dodging the question. Since you're full of opinions tell us, knowing only that there is a prowler, and finding what appears to be an adult male who is trying to get into a house in the middle of the night, who is not complying with lawful commands, and attempts to flee, what would you do?
No the actions were designed to accomplish a certain objective, detain the SUSPECT, whom the officers have no way of knowing whether he is armed, or not, high or not, mentally handicapped or not, etc. etc. They are cops they aren't supposed to just let the SUSPECT go. If this had turned out to be a real prowler they let go you would be whining they didn't do their jobs because they're cowardly cops.
In a way it was escalating the force, but only as reasonable to accomplish the goal of detaining the NON-COMPLIANT SUSPECT.
Sorry why? I have two batons, one actually made of steel, and one out of titanium, I usually carry the latter as it's lighter. Actually most people don't resist when confronted with lawful authority, besides the resisting comes first not the use of the baton, spray, etc. If a SUSPECT is compliant when detained/arrested they don't have to worry about batons, spray, guns, etc.
I have an excellent "feel" for this issue, and the vast majority of detentions and arrests never have any more force than cuffs going on, search being conducted, and guiding the SUSPECT to the transport vehicle. The minority where there is more force is because of the actions of the SUSPECT. If this kid had stopped when told to, and not fought, then he wouldn't have gotten hurt. Keep in mind he was a prowling SUSPECT, and therefore they were authorized to detain him.
Again, you're getting it out of order, the SUSPECT has already resisted if any joint locks or strikes are being used.
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
I told you what I'd do: 2 in the chest and 1 in the head if he doesn't fall immediately. I'm afraid for my life, there is a person running towards me. If the rules say it's ok one must assume it will be done, you don't write rules and assume otherwise. It's already been posted many times that he was lucky to be alive.
I was suggesting a possible review of guidlines on how to deal with these situations. For instance, high speed chases. What else can you do but chase the car? You chase them where they go as fast as they go as far as they go until you detain them, right? Escaped animals from the zoo - what else can you do but open fire on sight, whenever and wherever you see them?
I just don't accept "Oh well, it was a ????ty situation, nothing to be done about it. I guess we'll blame the mother and that's that." That's not acceptable, it just isn't acceptable.
Tactic suggestion, maybe don't get out of the car so quickly.
Tool suggestion, maybe a 600+nm (green) laser with a very wide beam, so that it floods the vision and one cannot see anything but green when looking towards the one holding the laser.
Tactic suggestion, apply the 'innocent 'till proven guilty' concept to civilians possibly suspected of something - ie. they aren't fked up lowlife junkies until you prove they're fked up lowlife junkies.
Tool suggestion, radio tagging. Shoot them with special 'tag' bullet that tracks the suspect. Maybe radioactive ink, I dunno.
That's just off the top of my head. Possibly a room full of experts could do better, but that's conditional of anyone considering that possibly the status quo might not be ideal, and perhaps could be improved upon.
P.S.
Lol I thought they were just REALLY hard wood! Lol.
I was suggesting a possible review of guidlines on how to deal with these situations. For instance, high speed chases. What else can you do but chase the car? You chase them where they go as fast as they go as far as they go until you detain them, right? Escaped animals from the zoo - what else can you do but open fire on sight, whenever and wherever you see them?
I just don't accept "Oh well, it was a ????ty situation, nothing to be done about it. I guess we'll blame the mother and that's that." That's not acceptable, it just isn't acceptable.
Tactic suggestion, maybe don't get out of the car so quickly.
Tool suggestion, maybe a 600+nm (green) laser with a very wide beam, so that it floods the vision and one cannot see anything but green when looking towards the one holding the laser.
Tactic suggestion, apply the 'innocent 'till proven guilty' concept to civilians possibly suspected of something - ie. they aren't fked up lowlife junkies until you prove they're fked up lowlife junkies.
Tool suggestion, radio tagging. Shoot them with special 'tag' bullet that tracks the suspect. Maybe radioactive ink, I dunno.
That's just off the top of my head. Possibly a room full of experts could do better, but that's conditional of anyone considering that possibly the status quo might not be ideal, and perhaps could be improved upon.
P.S.
Lol I thought they were just REALLY hard wood! Lol.
one-shot-one
Member
Joejojoba111,
my question is if we change the rules how many dead cops do we allow before we change them back? as for most of your other sugestions i can guess what a criminal lawyer would do with a client shot with radio active dye
most folks who are oc/pepper spayed after using non-offensive noncompliance win money damages.
still think the cops did good by not killing this guy.
also i can accept that mom is not happy, the moms of confessed/convicted murders stand in front of the tv cameras and say that their child would never do such a thing!
my question is if we change the rules how many dead cops do we allow before we change them back? as for most of your other sugestions i can guess what a criminal lawyer would do with a client shot with radio active dye
most folks who are oc/pepper spayed after using non-offensive noncompliance win money damages.
still think the cops did good by not killing this guy.
also i can accept that mom is not happy, the moms of confessed/convicted murders stand in front of the tv cameras and say that their child would never do such a thing!
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
Joejojoba111,
Your carefully reasoned argument is too much for me. I bow to your superior intellect. To keep my fragile ego from total destruction I am forced to put you on my ignore list. Put before I cut off communication with you I must know why you have forsaken the great intellects at the Democratic Underground and chosen to spill your pearls before the swine assembled here?
David
Your carefully reasoned argument is too much for me. I bow to your superior intellect. To keep my fragile ego from total destruction I am forced to put you on my ignore list. Put before I cut off communication with you I must know why you have forsaken the great intellects at the Democratic Underground and chosen to spill your pearls before the swine assembled here?
David
Last edited:
Sure when faced with a violent suspect we'll all just wait to gather evidence and have a trial before using force. Meanwhile while we're waiting the supect can beat and kill us. Great tactical suggestion you have there.
Joejojoba111, I posted a link to a court case earlier, which I'll repost along with another. I suggest you pull your head out and read them before offering more suggestions on use of force. It might help prevent you from continuing to make foolish statements.
TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
GRAHAM v. CONNOR, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
If you take the time to read the decisions and opinions from the Justices, WITH AN OPEN MIND, you may start to get some real understanding of this issue.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Joejojoba, being the kind of person who finds tragedy befalling disabled children is, perhaps unfortunately, not against the rules here.
Profanity is, so please knock that off.
You and C Yeager are both making it very clear that you have no idea what is really involved here. You sound like a reporter asking why a cop didn't shoot a gun out of someone's hand. Your willful ignorance offends me.
This is not a warning from a moderator, nor is it a personal attack. You'll note that I have not strayed from demonstrable facts, to wit:
1. You keep insisting that you know that the 17-year-old only "nudged" the officers. You know absolutely nothing of the sort.
2. You keep making disgusting little chuckle noises and jokes about a situation that is purely tragic and in no way funny--but the people involved are bad guys.
C Yeager, the fact that you decry the mother's parenting because a fully-grown, autistic young man was able to get away without her knowledge does nothing but demonstrate that you don't know anything about autistic children or caring for them. If you've ever had a dog get loose, imagine that dog were as intelligent as your family doctor and you'll have some idea what this is like. And no matter how perfectly you watch the kid for years and years, you only have to lose him once for something horrible to happen.
Caring for an autistic child is not just parenting; it goes beyond that.
Profanity is, so please knock that off.
You and C Yeager are both making it very clear that you have no idea what is really involved here. You sound like a reporter asking why a cop didn't shoot a gun out of someone's hand. Your willful ignorance offends me.
This is not a warning from a moderator, nor is it a personal attack. You'll note that I have not strayed from demonstrable facts, to wit:
1. You keep insisting that you know that the 17-year-old only "nudged" the officers. You know absolutely nothing of the sort.
2. You keep making disgusting little chuckle noises and jokes about a situation that is purely tragic and in no way funny--but the people involved are bad guys.
C Yeager, the fact that you decry the mother's parenting because a fully-grown, autistic young man was able to get away without her knowledge does nothing but demonstrate that you don't know anything about autistic children or caring for them. If you've ever had a dog get loose, imagine that dog were as intelligent as your family doctor and you'll have some idea what this is like. And no matter how perfectly you watch the kid for years and years, you only have to lose him once for something horrible to happen.
Caring for an autistic child is not just parenting; it goes beyond that.
Oh yes of course, disagreeing with you obviously makes a person completely unqualified to state an opinion. I'm not even going to bother pointing out how off-base this coment is since it is clearly an unproductive excersize.
Obviously parents of autistic children have such a hard job that they should be excused of any responsiblity whatsoever and they should definatly be able to blame everyone else for the consequences.
Even by your own words this woman failed in her responsibility :
She didnt do this. SO how can you possibly state that I am ignorant for claiming that she acted irresponsibly when you said virtually the same thing yourself? Is this just a case where one particular group can do no wrong by virtue of their situation?
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
one-shot-one, how many dead handicapped kids before we consider changing the rules? I guess it is a bit of a dilemna.
"...supect can beat and kill us."
DMF, head and elbow wounds are not usual injuries of agression, maybe in the movies or martial arts competitions, but not amongst autistic kids. I could be wrong, I have no evidence to support that. Plus, your cases posted suggest that the beating was rather severe for the circumstances. 3 large strong men with multiple weapons and ballistic armor shouldn't *reasonably fear for their lives from an unarmed kid, especially one on the ground. Neither here nor there though, not much point in playing the blame gane, I was just thignking about reconsidering the rules of engagement, for the next time.
only1asterisk probably because your buddies at the DU would say that government should regulate and control these guys, for their own good.
Gwinn I totally understand. The way it bothers you that I find the situation horrible and absurd, that's how it sort of bothers me that you find it disinteresting with detachment. I care, you don't, no problem, different opinions welcome and I respect yours.
"1. You keep insisting that you know that the 17-year-old only "nudged" the officers. You know absolutely nothing of the sort."
See, I would have written a "lol" because of the absurdity of this statement, but I won't, for you. I'm going to do the open-minded thing instead, and assume you read the article quickly and missed a part.
"ran toward them and bumped one of them" If you believe the cheif of police.
DMF, those posted cases are great links, thx, though they took some time.
But in all seriousness, I think some people need to go back and re-read this thread. A)People stating that it was luck of the draw that a home-owner didn't shoot the kid. B)Did you see any of the things FederalistWeasel wrote? OMG I had to read it three times to be sure I read it right, and then to be sure he wasn't being sarcastic. Iirc he's actually a cop, seriously. --Don't respond, even if it's because you CAN'T, then nothing wrong with wrestling, beating, spraying, and shocking you. --Nothing wrong with assuming people are on drugs, guilty 'till proven innocent baby. --(Dry monotone) "Kid was beaten, ain't that a shame. BTW it's your fault, you're a bad parent."
Federaist Weasel
"
Quote:
As three deputies approached the house, Cowell ran toward them and bumped one of them, Bosenko said. When Cowell didn't respond to the officers' commands, they used a baton, stun gun and pepper spray to subdue him.
---Nothing wrong here,"
"Quote:
"The officers were very much concerned for their safety," Bosenko said, adding that the deputies thought Cowell was under the influence of drugs. He said that the officers did not know that an autistic teenager was missing at the time.
---Absolutely!!!"
"Quote:
Cynthia Cowell said she was unaware her son had left their home Friday until deputies came to her door.
"He doesn't understand anything to do with danger. He has to have someone constantly with him," she said.
---Then maybe you need to keep a better eye on him, I doubt this and I bet the truth be known, this was not the first time he did this, wander off that is."
"...supect can beat and kill us."
DMF, head and elbow wounds are not usual injuries of agression, maybe in the movies or martial arts competitions, but not amongst autistic kids. I could be wrong, I have no evidence to support that. Plus, your cases posted suggest that the beating was rather severe for the circumstances. 3 large strong men with multiple weapons and ballistic armor shouldn't *reasonably fear for their lives from an unarmed kid, especially one on the ground. Neither here nor there though, not much point in playing the blame gane, I was just thignking about reconsidering the rules of engagement, for the next time.
only1asterisk probably because your buddies at the DU would say that government should regulate and control these guys, for their own good.
Gwinn I totally understand. The way it bothers you that I find the situation horrible and absurd, that's how it sort of bothers me that you find it disinteresting with detachment. I care, you don't, no problem, different opinions welcome and I respect yours.
"1. You keep insisting that you know that the 17-year-old only "nudged" the officers. You know absolutely nothing of the sort."
See, I would have written a "lol" because of the absurdity of this statement, but I won't, for you. I'm going to do the open-minded thing instead, and assume you read the article quickly and missed a part.
"ran toward them and bumped one of them" If you believe the cheif of police.
DMF, those posted cases are great links, thx, though they took some time.
But in all seriousness, I think some people need to go back and re-read this thread. A)People stating that it was luck of the draw that a home-owner didn't shoot the kid. B)Did you see any of the things FederalistWeasel wrote? OMG I had to read it three times to be sure I read it right, and then to be sure he wasn't being sarcastic. Iirc he's actually a cop, seriously. --Don't respond, even if it's because you CAN'T, then nothing wrong with wrestling, beating, spraying, and shocking you. --Nothing wrong with assuming people are on drugs, guilty 'till proven innocent baby. --(Dry monotone) "Kid was beaten, ain't that a shame. BTW it's your fault, you're a bad parent."
Federaist Weasel
"
Quote:
As three deputies approached the house, Cowell ran toward them and bumped one of them, Bosenko said. When Cowell didn't respond to the officers' commands, they used a baton, stun gun and pepper spray to subdue him.
---Nothing wrong here,"
"Quote:
"The officers were very much concerned for their safety," Bosenko said, adding that the deputies thought Cowell was under the influence of drugs. He said that the officers did not know that an autistic teenager was missing at the time.
---Absolutely!!!"
"Quote:
Cynthia Cowell said she was unaware her son had left their home Friday until deputies came to her door.
"He doesn't understand anything to do with danger. He has to have someone constantly with him," she said.
---Then maybe you need to keep a better eye on him, I doubt this and I bet the truth be known, this was not the first time he did this, wander off that is."
With respect, you also have absolutley nothing to support the assertion that he did anything but "nudge" the officers. The article indicated that he bumped a cop as he ran past, correct? Well, you'd earlier stated that while the cops might have done something wrong, there wasn't sufficient information to indicate that yet. My whole point at the start of this thread was that there was no information by which the cops can be condemned, nor information by which they can be praised.
We don't know enough to say that the escalation of force was justified in this confrontation. If someone argues the cops were right or wrong, then that person is operating off a prejudice in favor or against the cops, and not the facts.
Bear Gulch, who's condemning them? I'm not! All I'm questioning is why the implicit praise of "they did the right thing" when the facts are completely up in the air on both sides.
Please specify the facts of this case which justify statements that they did the right thing. Not procedures (since I doubt anyone here knows the particular regulations of this agency) but how the escalation of force was justified in this matter. You see, I'm familiar with how escalation of force is allowed and required by standard procedures, but I just don't see the facts which support it here.
If the kid was combative, punched a cop, scratched another, whatever, I'd expect to see this level of force used, and would find it justified. But on a refusal to follow orders or communicate and a "bump," I start wondering how much procedure played a role in it versus some other matter.
Really? How many non-compliant/assaultive suspects have you tried to cuff up? When people don't want the cuffs put on it can be a mess. Which is why cops often get injured too. Unlike the movies and martial arts competitions you mention, there is no padding out on the street.
Also, I doubt you read Graham v. Conner based on what you've said in your most recent post.
Do you know why I keep bringing up Graham v. Conner? I think if you read that decision and the opinions you will understand.
Briefly the cops based on the facts they have at the time are justified to use force to detain the suspect. Granted all we have is the news article, based on what is contained there this situation is VERY similar to Graham.
jefnvk
Member
For not obeying police, and charging them. Had the police known that he was utistic, then yes, they would have been in the wrong. Do you want police to call every home in the area with a special needs child before they answer the call?
Look at the fact:
1) Its 2am
2) They get a call about a prowler
3) When they show up, he doesn't listen to orders
4) He charges them
At this point, I don't think many would stop and say 'hey, hes possibly autistic, lets let him have the benefit of the doubt'
JohnBT
Member
Of course not. I'd shout, "Hey boys, we got us a peeping pervert" and next thing you know I'd be getting my name in the paper too.
John
John
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
Presumption of innocence is missing. Assumption of unrelated crimes (drug use) prevalent. Assumptions are used to base threat asessments upon (he's on drugs, I'm unsafe). Blame for entire event placed on mother.
Just a few problems, to recap. I assume none of us here are autistic, but that means that we have to try all the harder to sypathize. NO system of government is acceptable when it is incapable of safely preserving minority rights. Minority rights are absolutely fundamental, absolutely fundamental.
So it's disconcerting to see the entire episode brushed off, worse yet to see it lionized by law enforcement. Hell if you look at Weasel's last line you see how easily it comes to arbitrarily assume guilt of other people, without any evidence he's already convicted the mother. Yet it is denounced as offensive for others to question the arresting officer's actions, when 3 men beat a hand-capped kid into the hospital.
Federaist Weasel
"
Quote:
As three deputies approached the house, Cowell ran toward them and bumped one of them, Bosenko said. When Cowell didn't respond to the officers' commands, they used a baton, stun gun and pepper spray to subdue him.
---Nothing wrong here,"
"Quote:
"The officers were very much concerned for their safety," Bosenko said, adding that the deputies thought Cowell was under the influence of drugs.
---Absolutely!!!"
"Quote:
Cynthia Cowell said she was unaware her son had left their home Friday until deputies came to her door. "He doesn't understand anything to do with danger. He has to have someone constantly with him," she said.
---Then maybe you need to keep a better eye on him, I doubt this and I bet the truth be known, this was not the first time he did this, wander off that is."
Just a few problems, to recap. I assume none of us here are autistic, but that means that we have to try all the harder to sypathize. NO system of government is acceptable when it is incapable of safely preserving minority rights. Minority rights are absolutely fundamental, absolutely fundamental.
So it's disconcerting to see the entire episode brushed off, worse yet to see it lionized by law enforcement. Hell if you look at Weasel's last line you see how easily it comes to arbitrarily assume guilt of other people, without any evidence he's already convicted the mother. Yet it is denounced as offensive for others to question the arresting officer's actions, when 3 men beat a hand-capped kid into the hospital.
Federaist Weasel
"
Quote:
As three deputies approached the house, Cowell ran toward them and bumped one of them, Bosenko said. When Cowell didn't respond to the officers' commands, they used a baton, stun gun and pepper spray to subdue him.
---Nothing wrong here,"
"Quote:
"The officers were very much concerned for their safety," Bosenko said, adding that the deputies thought Cowell was under the influence of drugs.
---Absolutely!!!"
"Quote:
Cynthia Cowell said she was unaware her son had left their home Friday until deputies came to her door. "He doesn't understand anything to do with danger. He has to have someone constantly with him," she said.
---Then maybe you need to keep a better eye on him, I doubt this and I bet the truth be known, this was not the first time he did this, wander off that is."
Whether you agree with or disagree with the LEO's actions. The point is:
The public is going to read about 3 heavily armed and armored LEO's tasering, macing and beating the crap out of some poor AUTISTIC TEEN (not rapist, not released child molester, not the boogeyman, but a 17 year old AUTISTIC TEEN) who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And right or wrong the vast majority will frown on such an event. If this trend continues I predict it will cause even more hatred and tension between the public and law enforcement. And it really will become an "us versus them" country. Its a no win situation if that happens.
Except for the mother of the autistic kid who will most likely win a truck load of money for her lawsuit against the city for police brutality.
The public is going to read about 3 heavily armed and armored LEO's tasering, macing and beating the crap out of some poor AUTISTIC TEEN (not rapist, not released child molester, not the boogeyman, but a 17 year old AUTISTIC TEEN) who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
And right or wrong the vast majority will frown on such an event. If this trend continues I predict it will cause even more hatred and tension between the public and law enforcement. And it really will become an "us versus them" country. Its a no win situation if that happens.
Except for the mother of the autistic kid who will most likely win a truck load of money for her lawsuit against the city for police brutality.
agricola
Member
I agree with the LEO's actions wholeheartedly, because a similar thing happened to me.
You can only act on what you find at a scene, not what the armchair LEO's / vampires want to add in hours, days or weeks after the event and suggest you should have known (all LEO's of course being experts in speed-diagnosis of mental illness).
One also wonders what the reaction would have been if the woman had, in fear (as she was) shot him as a suspected burglar?
You can only act on what you find at a scene, not what the armchair LEO's / vampires want to add in hours, days or weeks after the event and suggest you should have known (all LEO's of course being experts in speed-diagnosis of mental illness).
One also wonders what the reaction would have been if the woman had, in fear (as she was) shot him as a suspected burglar?
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
I'm pretty sure that would have gone to court. Aiui every shooting goes to court, and if a woman shoots a kid who jiggles her locked doorknob, I think she goes to jail.
P.S.
No offence, but I think it's against rules to call people like Federalist Weasel 'armchair leos and vampires', he's just expressing his opinions.
P.S.
No offence, but I think it's against rules to call people like Federalist Weasel 'armchair leos and vampires', he's just expressing his opinions.
agricola
Member
sorry, was not referring to anyone on this thread when i wrote that, but rather the cavalcade of "opinion formers" and lawyers who emerge post-event and offer guidance despite having zero experience of what happened.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, Joe, that's it. You care, and I don't. I'm just an uncaring SOB.
AGAIN. Neither you nor the chief was there. Neither of you know what the boy did.
AGAIN. Charging at officers who ask you to stop gets you hurt. He didn't know what he should do, but that doesn't mean the officers will not do their jobs. That doesn't mean I don't care. That means that I actually know what is involved here from firsthand experience, so I can see how this could happen with no ill will on either side at all. If you can't see how that could happen, you don't understand autism or the people who have it.
AGAIN. The mother certainly did fail in this case, which is akin to saying that a lion tamer fails when he gets bitten. Her entire day and night, every day and night, all the time, is one long series of infinite opportunities to fail, and she plays for higher stakes than 99% of parents. To compare her to them is ridiculous and, yes, betrays ignorance.
AGAIN. Neither you nor the chief was there. Neither of you know what the boy did.
AGAIN. Charging at officers who ask you to stop gets you hurt. He didn't know what he should do, but that doesn't mean the officers will not do their jobs. That doesn't mean I don't care. That means that I actually know what is involved here from firsthand experience, so I can see how this could happen with no ill will on either side at all. If you can't see how that could happen, you don't understand autism or the people who have it.
AGAIN. The mother certainly did fail in this case, which is akin to saying that a lion tamer fails when he gets bitten. Her entire day and night, every day and night, all the time, is one long series of infinite opportunities to fail, and she plays for higher stakes than 99% of parents. To compare her to them is ridiculous and, yes, betrays ignorance.
That doesn't bother me much because I never, ever made that assertion. Thus I don't feel bound to support it. I simply pointed out that we don't know what happened and there is a good possibility that he did a great deal more than nudge anyone. I'm not blaming the young man for this; he would not have understood what other people would think of his actions, and he probably never meant to frighten or worry anyone. But you CANNOT judge people with autism by the same standards as people with normal cognition. It is an error to do so.
Warbow
Member
You mean the trend of cops using force to restrain combative suspects? As others have already pointed out, to the cops he wasn't a "poor AUTISTIC TEEN," he was a suspect trying to get into a woman's house in the middle of the night who then charged toward them when they showed up. How were they supposed to know he wasn't a rapist, a child molester or the bogeyman?
I think it will only rile up those who already think every cop is a "JBT" and salivate at stories like this to spin. Reasonable people will realize it was an unfortunate incident that wasn't the teen's nor the cops' fault.
- Status
