Metropolitan Police officers assaulted autistic boy
The boy's solicitor, Tony Murphy: "It is every family's nightmare for this to happen to their child"
Metropolitan Police (Met) officers assaulted a 16-year-old boy with severe autism by forcing him into handcuffs and leg restraints during a school trip, the High Court has ruled.
The judge said the boy, now 19, also had his human rights breached.
The boy, who also has epilepsy, was subjected to disability discrimination and false imprisonment, it was ruled.
He was awarded £28,250 in damages following the incident at a swimming pool in Acton, west London, in 2008.
'Refusing to apologise'
The force was refused permission to appeal, although counsel for the Met Commissioner said the application would be pursued directly with the Court of Appeal.
Outside court, the teenager's solicitor Tony Murphy said: "The commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, is still refusing to apologise and has instead sought permission to appeal this judgement.
"He has used public money to defend the indefensible."
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
The case highlights the need for there to be an awareness of the disability of autism within the public services”
Sir Robert Nelson High Court judge
The boy, known only as ZH, was physically removed from the swimming pool and forcibly restrained after he jumped into the pool fully clothed.
The judge, Sir Robert Nelson, said although the officers attending the incident were acting as they genuinely thought best, their responses were "over-hasty and ill-informed".
Matters escalated to the point where a "wholly inappropriate" restraint of ZH, who cannot communicate by speech, took place.
By failing to consult his carers, the police failed to understand the potentially serious consequences of applying force and restraint to ZH, who was said to have suffered moderate post-traumatic stress disorder.
The judge said that ZH was at the pool for a familiarisation with four other pupils when he became fixated with the water and broke away from the group.
When the police arrived, they perceived it as a "life-and-death situation" as ZH, who could not swim but had no fear of the water nor indeed any knowledge of its danger, could have drowned.
When ZH moved closer to the pool, two officers took hold of his jacket as he began to gather momentum, but he was much too big and strong and ended up in the water, which was chest-deep.
Police van cage
ZH was moved to the shallow end and lifted out by lifeguards, with two police officers taking hold of his arms before handcuffs and leg restraints were applied.
Soaking wet, agitated and distressed, he was placed alone in a cage in the rear of a police van until calmed by carers and allowed to leave with them.
The judge said lawyers for ZH had established his claim for trespass to the person, assault and battery and false imprisonment under the Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act,
He said: "The case highlights the need for there to be an awareness of the disability of autism within the public services.
"It is to be hoped that this sad case will help bring that about."
The court heard it was the first time police in London had been found to have subjected a member of the public to inhuman or degrading treatment, and to disability discrimination.
A spokesman for the Met said they were giving the findings of the hearing "full and careful consideration".
He added: "We will be seeking legal advice and take forward any learning as appropriate.
"We are making an application for leave to appeal today."
More on This Story
Hey he got off lightly, you pull that gak anywhere near Cleveland Constabulary and you get put in the back of the van for a fething good kicking and then they tell the Judge you fell down the stairs in the station.
A sad story all around. The police obviously needed to do something to restrain him and I think they were clearly trying to act in his best interest. But, they should have done something less drastic.
I feel bad for the boy for having this terrible disease and for having to go through this incident, I feel bad for the police for being labeled as assaulting him when they were honestly trying to protect him, and I feel bad for the taxpayers that will end up paying for this.
My younger brother (14) is also both autistic and epileptic so this situation is very familiar to me as it sounds exactly like the kind of thing he'd do, the police were wise to remove him from the water but should have allowed his carers contact throughout the incident rather than after they had locked him up.
Metropolitan Police officers assaulted autistic boy
The boy's solicitor, Tony Murphy: "It is every family's nightmare for this to happen to their child"
Metropolitan Police (Met) officers assaulted a 16-year-old boy with severe autism by forcing him into handcuffs and leg restraints during a school trip, the High Court has ruled.
The judge said the boy, now 19, also had his human rights breached.
The boy, who also has epilepsy, was subjected to disability discrimination and false imprisonment, it was ruled.
He was awarded £28,250 in damages following the incident at a swimming pool in Acton, west London, in 2008.
'Refusing to apologise'
The force was refused permission to appeal, although counsel for the Met Commissioner said the application would be pursued directly with the Court of Appeal.
Outside court, the teenager's solicitor Tony Murphy said: "The commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, is still refusing to apologise and has instead sought permission to appeal this judgement.
"He has used public money to defend the indefensible."
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
The case highlights the need for there to be an awareness of the disability of autism within the public services”
Sir Robert Nelson High Court judge
The boy, known only as ZH, was physically removed from the swimming pool and forcibly restrained after he jumped into the pool fully clothed.
The judge, Sir Robert Nelson, said although the officers attending the incident were acting as they genuinely thought best, their responses were "over-hasty and ill-informed".
Matters escalated to the point where a "wholly inappropriate" restraint of ZH, who cannot communicate by speech, took place.
By failing to consult his carers, the police failed to understand the potentially serious consequences of applying force and restraint to ZH, who was said to have suffered moderate post-traumatic stress disorder.
The judge said that ZH was at the pool for a familiarisation with four other pupils when he became fixated with the water and broke away from the group.
When the police arrived, they perceived it as a "life-and-death situation" as ZH, who could not swim but had no fear of the water nor indeed any knowledge of its danger, could have drowned.
When ZH moved closer to the pool, two officers took hold of his jacket as he began to gather momentum, but he was much too big and strong and ended up in the water, which was chest-deep.
Police van cage
ZH was moved to the shallow end and lifted out by lifeguards, with two police officers taking hold of his arms before handcuffs and leg restraints were applied.
Soaking wet, agitated and distressed, he was placed alone in a cage in the rear of a police van until calmed by carers and allowed to leave with them.
The judge said lawyers for ZH had established his claim for trespass to the person, assault and battery and false imprisonment under the Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act,
He said: "The case highlights the need for there to be an awareness of the disability of autism within the public services.
"It is to be hoped that this sad case will help bring that about."
The court heard it was the first time police in London had been found to have subjected a member of the public to inhuman or degrading treatment, and to disability discrimination.
A spokesman for the Met said they were giving the findings of the hearing "full and careful consideration".
He added: "We will be seeking legal advice and take forward any learning as appropriate.
"We are making an application for leave to appeal today."
More on This Story
If I were the police, I wouold put out this public press release.
ONe line:
"In light of X, until such time as the officers in that case are cleared, if called we will no longer respond to these situations. You have been warned."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:A sad story all around. The police obviously needed to do something to restrain him and I think they were clearly trying to act in his best interest. But, they should have done something less drastic.
I feel bad for the boy for having this terrible disease and for having to go through this incident, I feel bad for the police for being labeled as assaulting him when they were honestly trying to protect him, and I feel bad for the taxpayers that will end up paying for this.
What could they do that was less drastic? Physically restraiing him would greatly increase the chance of physical injury the child or to them.
The police's actions seemed fairly okay to me...
I mean in that situation there isn't a lot you can do...
And they weren't really discriminating against him so using the disability discrimination act seems odd...
Grakmar wrote:A sad story all around. The police obviously needed to do something to restrain him and I think they were clearly trying to act in his best interest. But, they should have done something less drastic.
I feel bad for the boy for having this terrible disease and for having to go through this incident, I feel bad for the police for being labeled as assaulting him when they were honestly trying to protect him, and I feel bad for the taxpayers that will end up paying for this.
What could they do that was less drastic? Physically restraiing him would greatly increase the chance of physical injury the child or to them.
Physically restraining him was the right move. But, they didn't need to handcuff, leg restrain, AND lock him alone in a cage. In the heat of the moment, as they're trying to ensure his safety, I totally understand why they did. But, it must have been terribly traumatic for a child, especially an autistic one.
I don't know if I agree that he should be compensated. But, I think the underlying message is that Police forces should have more training in dealing with handicapped people so that they can better manage a situation. And, I'm in complete agreement with that. (I think Police typically do a pretty good job, but improvements are always welcome in my book.)
Joey wrote:Very strange story. That amount of money seems excessive, though. I'd happily be locked in the back of a van for 20 minutes for £20,000.
I'd like to know how they justified those kinds of damages. How does getting locked up for a couple of minutes get a larger reward than someone getting their face caved in?
I understand why the parents are upset but I sincerely hope that the appeal is allowed. It's ridiculous for officers to be labeled as monsters when they were sincerely acting in his best interests. How would it have looked if the headline "Police officers watched autistic boy drown"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:
I don't know if I agree that he should be compensated. But, I think the underlying message is that Police forces should have more training in dealing with handicapped people so that they can better manage a situation. And, I'm in complete agreement with that. (I think Police typically do a pretty good job, but improvements are always welcome in my book.)
There are officers that receive specialised training on how to deal with people suffering mental illnesses, but to ensure every officer working the street got sufficient training in that area would come with a huge cost.
Joey wrote:Very strange story. That amount of money seems excessive, though. I'd happily be locked in the back of a van for 20 minutes for £20,000.
I'd like to know how they justified those kinds of damages. How does getting locked up for a couple of minutes get a larger reward than someone getting their face caved in?
I understand why the parents are upset but I sincerely hope that the appeal is allowed. It's ridiculous for officers to be labeled as monsters when they were sincerely acting in his best interests. How would it have looked if the headline "Police officers watched autistic boy drown"?
After re-reading this I'm unsure of their definition of child, if he was too big and strong to be stopped from jumping into the pool he'd have to mid to late teens.
Grakmar wrote:A sad story all around. The police obviously needed to do something to restrain him and I think they were clearly trying to act in his best interest. But, they should have done something less drastic.
I feel bad for the boy for having this terrible disease and for having to go through this incident, I feel bad for the police for being labeled as assaulting him when they were honestly trying to protect him, and I feel bad for the taxpayers that will end up paying for this.
What could they do that was less drastic? Physically restraiing him would greatly increase the chance of physical injury the child or to them.
Physically restraining him was the right move. But, they didn't need to handcuff, leg restrain, AND lock him alone in a cage. In the heat of the moment, as they're trying to ensure his safety, I totally understand why they did. But, it must have been terribly traumatic for a child, especially an autistic one.
I don't know if I agree that he should be compensated. But, I think the underlying message is that Police forces should have more training in dealing with handicapped people so that they can better manage a situation. And, I'm in complete agreement with that. (I think Police typically do a pretty good job, but improvements are always welcome in my book.)
So its better to have four or five cops on a dogpile - remember the OP with the physical size of the kid. Someone's going to get hurt doing that and likely the kid when he's eating pavement. Thats better than passive restraint?
What they did is understandable if not correct. the boy was huge and physicaly quite powerful. that he was trying to throw himself into the pool when he couldnt swim prompted the officers responce. whilst leg restraints and handcuffs are undestandable the cageing wasnt. But in the officers defence the lad was strong enough to drag them both and they were not trained to deal with this sought of situation. They panicked and overreacted and that was it. AndA simple apology is what this needs not making some poor officers scapegoats for doing there job.
master of ordinance wrote:What they did is understandable if not correct. the boy was huge and physicaly quite powerful. that he was trying to throw himself into the pool when he couldnt swim prompted the officers responce. whilst leg restraints and handcuffs are undestandable the cageing wasnt. But in the officers defence the lad was strong enough to drag them both and they were not trained to deal with this sought of situation. They panicked and overreacted and that was it. AndA simple apology is what this needs not making some poor officers scapegoats for doing there job.
If I were the police I wouldn't apologize for . They did what they were supposed to do and potentially saved the life of that kid.
I restate, if I were the police I'd publicly announce ; "Thanks but don't call us any more. We will only respond to criminal complaints. Sorry but the court has tied our hands. You're on your own. Thank (whatever the judge's name is) for this. Here's his address. "
As others have said, I was confused as to what the police were supposed to do. I wish the article had talked about what more training would have taught them. I'm not saying that there isn't a better way to handle it, I'm just saying I don't know what that was. Leaving him alone, he would have drown, passive restraints is the only way to prevent him from jumping back in the pool. The problem with passive restraints is the patient can still thrash about and hurt themselves unless you strap them to the gurney, but the police don't have a gurney to strap him to. A wire "cage" sounds like a good/safe place as an alternative. For example, banging his head on the wire cage versus a concrete floor, it is much more difficult to injure yourself against the wire cage because it has some give versus the concrete floor.
Which step should they have not done? Trying to stop him from getting in the pool? Dragging him out of the pool? Restraining him so he couldn't jump back in the pool? Putting him in a safe location so that he didn't hurt himself on the concrete?
I understand that the restraints and the "cage" (as in the back of the police vehicle) could, and probably did, do mental damage but the physical damage he was doing to himself were immediate problems and could not be repaired later (either brain damage or death due to drowning). I think the bigger failure is taking a person like that to a swimming pool without proper precautions to prevent him from putting himself in danger. What were his care-givers thinking?
The police were supposed to do the things they were criticised by the court for not doing.
It wasn't their individual fault they didn't. They had not had sufficient training for such situations. The judgement was against the force rather than the individual officers.
The award was to compensate the victim. £28,000 is a trivial amount of money for a police force and would not act as a punishment.
Kilkrazy wrote:The police were supposed to do the things they were criticised by the court for not doing.
It wasn't their individual fault they didn't. They had not had sufficient training for such situations. The judgement was against the force rather than the individual officers.
The award was to compensate the victim. £28,000 is a trivial amount of money for a police force and would not act as a punishment.
What training is going to help? Again, courts are infamous for saying you did wrong without saying what else to do. What else could they have done?Hence, as its not a criminal issue I'd no longer respond to these calls and make it public.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's made clear in the court's findings.
For example, knowing how autistic people are likely to behave is useful when dealing with the behaviour of autistic people.
Thats great but blindingly unhelpful in the circumstance. the kid was trying to get into the pool and couldn't swim. Evidently plan A - offering him a cookie didn't work.
Is it up to the police to know the behaviors of all persons with all illness? They're cops not psychiatrists, and at the end of the day you still end up with the kid prone eating concrete unless they do what they did.
People have died while being arrested or in police custody because the police assumed their symptoms were drunkenness not a stroke, and things like that.
It's not asking too much for appropriate training to be given.
Also, get off our court system or I'll send you a Haggis.
People have died while being arrested or in police custody because the police assumed their symptoms were drunkenness not a stroke, and things like that.
It's not asking too much for appropriate training to be given.
Also, get off our court system or I'll send you a Haggis.
Your haggis threats have no effect on me. My AHMBWDP system is fully operational. (Anti Haggis Ballistic Missile Wiener Dog Protection - or "Iron Wiener: as we like to call it) I'm not impugning your court systems. I'm impugning judges in general.
I don't see how they can be trained for all that, especially as there is essentially no crime here.
master of ordinance wrote:What they did is understandable if not correct. the boy was huge and physicaly quite powerful. that he was trying to throw himself into the pool when he couldnt swim prompted the officers responce. whilst leg restraints and handcuffs are undestandable the cageing wasnt. But in the officers defence the lad was strong enough to drag them both and they were not trained to deal with this sought of situation. They panicked and overreacted and that was it. AndA simple apology is what this needs not making some poor officers scapegoats for doing there job.
A pity that the police chief refuses even the most meaningless of apologies.
Probably not something people usually like to admit to, but I'm with Frazzled on this one.
Personally, I see no fault with the actions of the police they did what they had to do to save someones life.
I don't agree with paying compensation to this "kid" with what is essentially taxpayers money. Just my opinion, anyway.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote:Probably not something people usually like to admit to, but I'm with Frazzled on this one.
Personally, I see no fault with the actions of the police they did what they had to do to save someones life.
I don't agree with paying compensation to this "kid" with what is essentially taxpayers money. Just my opinion, anyway.
They should apologize to the cops who saved his life.
master of ordinance wrote:What they did is understandable if not correct. the boy was huge and physicaly quite powerful. that he was trying to throw himself into the pool when he couldnt swim prompted the officers responce. whilst leg restraints and handcuffs are undestandable the cageing wasnt. But in the officers defence the lad was strong enough to drag them both and they were not trained to deal with this sought of situation. They panicked and overreacted and that was it. AndA simple apology is what this needs not making some poor officers scapegoats for doing there job.
A pity that the police chief refuses even the most meaningless of apologies.
Why the hell should he apologize?
Police departments cannot--and should not be expected to--train every single one of their officers to deal with the mentally illness. Most departments will have some form of training to at least recognize the signs of a mental illness, but until people start having RFID chips which tag them and all their illnesses/conditions for the police to see at a glance training is irrelevant.
Why?
Because people do not all react the same, and the outward physical symptoms of many mental illnesses overlap.
Because we're all human beings capable of feeling sympathy and regret even if we don't feel that we did something wrong?
He could easily come out and say: "Our officers did what they thought they needed to in the moment for the child's protection. The situation was an unfortunate one and the entire department is deeply sorry for any emotional or physical damage this poor child had to endure."
Because we're all human beings capable of feeling sympathy and regret even if we don't feel that we did something wrong?
He could easily come out and say: "Our officers did what they thought they needed to in the moment for the child's protection. The situation was an unfortunate one and the entire department is deeply sorry for any emotional or physical damage this poor child had to endure."
So maybe the parents and caretakers of the "child" should be apologizing to the owners of the pool, the taxpayers, and the police department for taking this situation to court?
This is an example of the ridiculous expectations placed upon police agencies in this day and age.
If the "child" drowned--they'd be facing a lawsuit.
The "child" sat in the back of a police van--likely for a few friggin' minutes. The caretakers were never out of sight, from the way the article reads.
This is just a payday, and the judge should be slapped upside his powdered wig.
Okay, so the police prevented an autistic boy from drowning and then placed him in the back of a van for a few minutes to calm him down and now they're in the wrong for saving a life because they did it too roughly?
Y'know, maybe the parents shouldn't have let their child near a pool in the first place since he was unable to swim and did not have a fear of drowning.
Because we're all human beings capable of feeling sympathy and regret even if we don't feel that we did something wrong?
He could easily come out and say: "Our officers did what they thought they needed to in the moment for the child's protection. The situation was an unfortunate one and the entire department is deeply sorry for any emotional or physical damage this poor child had to endure."
So maybe the parents and caretakers of the "child" should be apologizing to the owners of the pool, the taxpayers, and the police department for taking this situation to court?
This is an example of the ridiculous expectations placed upon police agencies in this day and age.
If the "child" drowned--they'd be facing a lawsuit.
The "child" sat in the back of a police van--likely for a few friggin' minutes. The caretakers were never out of sight, from the way the article reads.
This is just a payday, and the judge should be slapped upside his powdered wig.
I agree entirely, though I think this will (and most certainly should) be turned over on appeal. The police force cannot be expected to train every officer to deal with mental illnesses, largely becuase there is almost no way of knowing how most people with mental illnesses are going to react.
Amaya wrote:
Y'know, maybe the parents shouldn't have let their child near a pool in the first place since he was unable to swim and did not have a fear of drowning.
I think, from what the article states, the group he was with was planning some sort of activity. It's not like you can predict this sort of behaviour.
Some people in this thread clearly have no experience with autistic children, once they have their minds set on something it's very challenging to stop them without incident.
corpsesarefun wrote:Some people in this thread clearly have no experience with autistic children, once they have their minds set on something it's very challenging to stop them without incident.
Exactly. I don't fault the child, or the child. Sometimes life is just hard.
corpsesarefun wrote:Some people in this thread clearly have no experience with autistic children, once they have their minds set on something it's very challenging to stop them without incident.
And clearly the caregivers who were supposed to be supervising the group didn't have experience either.
The "child"(I use quotes because the "child" was 16 at the time of the incident) was part of a supervised group visit to the pool, with minders. The fact that police had to be called in at all is ridiculous and reflects poorly upon the agency which was supervising the group.
I should also add that the point of the posting regarding "mental illness" was to state that it's obscene to suggest that every single police officer be trained to deal with every single possible mental illness or be able to identify it at a glance.
I don't blame the police and the carers shouldn't really have allowed ZH to break away from the group although as I said earlier the carers should have been allowed contact with ZH throughout the ordeal.
I'm disappointed this has become such a big deal, the police AND the carers should have simply apologised and be done with it.
corpsesarefun wrote:I don't blame the police and the carers shouldn't really have allowed ZH to break away from the group although as I said earlier the carers should have been allowed contact with ZH throughout the ordeal.
They were, it's right there in the article.
I'm disappointed this has become such a big deal, the police AND the carers should have simply apologised and be done with it.
What exactly are the police apoligising for? This would be like having to apoligise for saving someone from drowning...oh wait!
Was this boy a danger to anyone once the lifeguards had saved from the water? It's a discrace by the Met. I'm glad he was awarded damages though, at least there was somekind of justice..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:A sad story all around. The police obviously needed to do something to restrain him and I think they were clearly trying to act in his best interest. But, they should have done something less drastic.
I feel bad for the boy for having this terrible disease and for having to go through this incident, I feel bad for the police for being labeled as assaulting him when they were honestly trying to protect him, and I feel bad for the taxpayers that will end up paying for this.
From the sounds of things he is at the more debilitating site of the Spectrum, but "terrible disease" is a bit harsh, isn't it?
Hazardous Harry wrote:I think, from what the article states, the group he was with was planning some sort of activity. It's not like you can predict this sort of behaviour.
Well, if the police are supposed to have training with how to deal with all mental illnesses in the world, you would think that carers of mentally ill people would at least have a clue as to the kind of behaviour mentally ill people under their care would express... not to mention actually knowing the person for more than a few minutes
SDFarsight wrote:Was this boy a danger to anyone once the lifeguards had saved from the water? It's a discrace by the Met. I'm glad he was awarded damages though, at least there was somekind of justice..
It wasn't implied that he was a danger to anyone else. But he had just bulled his way though a group of caretakers to jump into a pool even though he didn't know how to swim. Is it really that far-fetched that he would have done it again, this time with more tragic consequences?
SDFarsight wrote:Was this boy a danger to anyone once the lifeguards had saved from the water? It's a discrace by the Met. I'm glad he was awarded damages though, at least there was somekind of justice..
It wasn't implied that he was a danger to anyone else. But he had just bulled his way though a group of caretakers to jump into a pool even though he didn't know how to swim. Is it really that far-fetched that he would have done it again, this time with more tragic consequences?
It's not so much the saving I find strange it's why the police were there so early, and why they felt the need to handcuff him then cage him.
SDFarsight wrote:Was this boy a danger to anyone once the lifeguards had saved from the water? It's a discrace by the Met. I'm glad he was awarded damages though, at least there was somekind of justice..
It wasn't implied that he was a danger to anyone else. But he had just bulled his way though a group of caretakers to jump into a pool even though he didn't know how to swim. Is it really that far-fetched that he would have done it again, this time with more tragic consequences?
It's not so much the saving I find strange it's why the police were there so early, and why they felt the need to handcuff him then cage him.
Because they felt it was a life and death situation, which it very well could have been.
From what the article states the boy was still in the pool when the police arrived.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:
Good old British police, defending the public from the threat of the weak and disabled.
Go after the soft touch and feel like a big man. My respect for the Police ebbs away with every passing day.
You're being ridiculous, this wasn't an act of machismo but an on-the-spot reaction to what could have been a life-threatening situation.
Even if you could argue that they overreacted, you can't with any degree os seriousness suggest that they did this just to muck around with the kid.
I would argue that the Police grabbing the boy's jacket actually made him jump into the pool. He was just staring at the water until the Police came along.
Why were the Police even called?
Also, what right did the Police have to detain him?
Jumping clothed into a swimming pool while not knowing how to swim isn't against the law.
All that had to be done was to get him out the pool. They didn't even need the Police to be there for that.
The carers should have got their fingers out of their arse and actually handled the situation themselves, but that doesn't give the Police the right to break the law if they don't know exactly how to deal with a situation.
Medium of Death wrote:I would argue that the Police grabbing the boy's jacket actually made him jump into the pool. He was just staring at the water until the Police came along.
The officer grabbed the teen's jacket as he ran to jump into the pool.
Why were the Police even called?
Who knows? Maybe the police were nearby on an unrelated matter and someone asked them in person to assist.
Also, what right did the Police have to detain him?
Jumping clothed into a swimming pool while not knowing how to swim isn't against the law.
Yes, but if officers see a situation while on duty which could result in a situation of harm presenting itself--they're more than likely going to act to prevent that danger from occurring.
If they are aware of the circumstances resulting in a situation where someone will be harmed--they have a duty to act. If a "special relationship" can be established versus the standard "public duty doctrine" that the United States and United Kingdom tend towards, then the officers not acting will bite them so hard in the rump.
All that had to be done was to get him out the pool. They didn't even need the Police to be there for that.
The carers should have got their fingers out of their arse and actually handled the situation themselves, but that doesn't give the Police the right to break the law if they don't know exactly how to deal with a situation.
Medium of Death wrote:You didn't really explain exactly what right those Police had in detaining the boy.
Depending upon the circumstances, they could have detained him and committed him into the custodial care of a psychiatric facility.
Why? Because of a failure to provide adequate care on the part of the agency responsible for his care.
It's not a case of "they detained him because he broke the law", but a case of "they detained him because he was a danger to himself".
What rule did they break? I know you're not a stupid man Kan. So you must have overlooked this.
The boy, who also has epilepsy, was subjected to disability discrimination and false imprisonment, it was ruled.
Quite frankly, I don't think it's relevant.
Why?
Because the judge ruling on this case seems so blindingly incompetent that it's astonishing he's a judge. Unless there are circumstances which aren't being publicized(like the police screaming "YOU FETHING <Insulting term for a mentally handicapped individual>" while they detained him or claiming that he was a terrorist), this seems like a horrible ruling by a judge with an axe to grind against the police or some kind of sympathetic connection to the teen or some other prejudicial factor.
It's not a case of "they detained him because he broke the law", but a case of "they detained him because he was a danger to himself".
Bingo.
Unless there is a whole lot more to this story than is being let on the Judge has made a serious error in this ruling, and it's little wonder the police are seeking an appeal.
Medium of Death wrote:You didn't really explain exactly what right those Police had in detaining the boy.
What rule did they break? I know you're not a stupid man Kan. So you must have overlooked this.
The boy, who also has epilepsy, was subjected to disability discrimination and false imprisonment, it was ruled.
You also didn't explain what reason the police had to care? They have no duty. They should exercise that right. next time your rather nutjob wants to go swimming, don't call the police.
Frazzled wrote:Your haggis threats have no effect on me. My AHMBWDP system is fully operational. (Anti Haggis Ballistic Missile Wiener Dog Protection - or "Iron Wiener: as we like to call it)
Frazzled wrote:Your haggis threats have no effect on me. My AHMBWDP system is fully operational. (Anti Haggis Ballistic Missile Wiener Dog Protection - or "Iron Wiener: as we like to call it)
I thought AHMBWDP was banned under SALT II?
Best,
Common misconception. It was just limited to the capitals of the USSR, USA, and Wiener Dog Command.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:Police act poorly but it's not their fault because they shouldn't have been there?
Are you all high?
Are you?
Police acted just fine and saved the life of a child WHEN NO ONE ELSE COULD. They should get metals.
corpsesarefun wrote:Did the police remove the child from the water or did the lifeguards? I would have thought it would be the latter...
It was the lifeguards.
ZH was moved to the shallow end and lifted out by lifeguards, with two police officers taking hold of his arms before handcuffs and leg restraints were applied.
So Frazz. you're quite clearly speaking rectally with that last point.
corpsesarefun wrote:Did the police remove the child from the water or did the lifeguards? I would have thought it would be the latter...
It was the lifeguards.
ZH was moved to the shallow end and lifted out by lifeguards, with two police officers taking hold of his arms before handcuffs and leg restraints were applied.
So Frazz. you're quite clearly speaking rectally with that last point.
Nope. The kid was going back in.
Again. Make a news flash. Inform the public not to call the police any more. Use dancing police officers in tutus. Its the only way to be sure.
Where in the article does it tell you he was trying to get back in?
It doesn't.
Unless your definition of aggitated means to jump back into a swimming pool.
Maybe we should just keep all disabled people locked up, just incase the police can't figure out how to treat them with a modicum of respect/understanding.
Medium of Death wrote:Where in the article does it tell you he was trying to get back in?
It doesn't.
Unless your definition of aggitated means to jump back into a swimming pool.
Maybe we should just keep all disabled people locked up, just incase the police can't figure out how to treat them with a modicum of respect/understanding.
Do what you want, just don't call the police.
Edit: Here you go. Evidently you're the one with reading difficulties. By the way, you spelled "agitated" incorrectly.
When ZH moved closer to the pool, two officers took hold of his jacket as he began to gather momentum, but he was much too big and strong and ended up in the water, which was chest-deep. Police van cage
ZH was moved to the shallow end and lifted out by lifeguards, with two police officers taking hold of his arms before handcuffs and leg restraints were applied.
The fact that you were ever is a MOD is... surprising.
Also, the police took hold of him after he was out of the water. So no, I may have spelled agitated incorrectly, but it appears I can read perfectly well.
Medium of Death wrote:The fact that you were ever is a MOD is... surprising.
Also, the police took hold of him after he was out of the water. So no, I may have spelled agitated incorrectly, but it appears I can read perfectly well.
Is English your first or second language? If second, I congratulate you. If first, your teachers weep tears of blood. Read it again. He wrestled free from the police and everyone else.
I think we can move on from arguments about spelling and grammar, thanks.
.. and, whilst I appreciate t'was more a form of shorthand here, if we could recognise that people who have autism aren't really nut or whack jobs or similar it'd probably go some way towards a more civilised level of discourse.
Dont waste energy on that Frazz. You are clearly not going to win any debates against someone thinking the police are to be punished for saving a life.
Clearly, if anyone in here is autistic for real I have a good feeling of who that might be.
reds8n wrote:
.. and, whilst I appreciate t'was more a form of shorthand here, if we could recognise that people who have autism aren't really nut or whack jobs or similar it'd probably go some way towards a more civilised level of discourse. [/color]
Indeed, infact that's part of my objection to the police's actions. He was already saved by the lifeguard and yet, because he has Autism, because he's a "nut job", the police are apparently allowed to handcuff him, put on leg restraints and cage him. Even if the police were acting on good intentions, the boy deserves very penny he gets simply to make an example that it's not the done thing to do to treat the disabled in that way. It's disturbing that they were there so early, as if that's the normal response.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:
Never mind.
Dont waste energy on that Frazz. You are clearly not going to win any debates against someone thinking the police are to be punished for saving a life.
Clearly, if anyone in here is autistic for real I have a good feeling of who that might be.
I am Autistic. Assuming that you were talking about Medium of Death, please do tell me this- what traits do you think he shares with Autism?
reds8n wrote:
.. and, whilst I appreciate t'was more a form of shorthand here, if we could recognise that people who have autism aren't really nut or whack jobs or similar it'd probably go some way towards a more civilised level of discourse. [/color]
Indeed, infact that's part of my objection to the police's actions. He was already saved by the lifeguard and yet, because he has Autism, because he's a "nut job", the police are apparently allowed to handcuff him, put on leg restraints and cage him. Even if the police were acting on good intentions, the boy deserves very penny he getes simply to make an example that it's not the done thing to do to treat the disabled in that way.
That's not even remotely true.
He was "handcuffed and put in leg restraints" because the individual was not a child. He was 16 at the time of the incident, and able to bull his way past two police officers and his minders to jump into the pool. If he wanted to get back in, he was getting back in and the lifeguards/police officers might not be there next time.
Restraining the teen was, quite frankly, the best call for the situation. The judge's ruling is nothing more than a payday, and won't cause any real critical change in operating procedures.
All it will do is tell people that if X happens, I can get Y!
reds8n wrote:
.. and, whilst I appreciate t'was more a form of shorthand here, if we could recognise that people who have autism aren't really nut or whack jobs or similar it'd probably go some way towards a more civilised level of discourse. [/color]
Indeed, infact that's part of my objection to the police's actions. He was already saved by the lifeguard and yet, because he has Autism, because he's a "nut job", the police are apparently allowed to handcuff him, put on leg restraints and cage him. Even if the police were acting on good intentions, the boy deserves very penny he getes simply to make an example that it's not the done thing to do to treat the disabled in that way.
That's not even remotely true.
He was "handcuffed and put in leg restraints" because the individual was not a child. He was 16 at the time of the incident, and able to bull his way past two police officers and his minders to jump into the pool. If he wanted to get back in, he was getting back in and the lifeguards/police officers might not be there next time.
Restraining the teen was, quite frankly, the best call for the situation. The judge's ruling is nothing more than a payday, and won't cause any real critical change in operating procedures.
All it will do is tell people that if X happens, I can get Y!
The lifeguard(s) was already able to save him. Why were the police even there? Was he even drowning? It says that he doesn't know how to swim but it's not like he was in a dangerous current where the ability to swim is needed. Humans naturally float, and all mammals know how to doggy-paddle (no pun intended). Even if he was drowning, the lifeguard had shown himself to be able to save him, It's a discrace that the police were called so early. As I said- even if the police acted with good intentions, the judge was right to give compensation as a warning to others that Autistics shouldn't be treated like this. The very fact that some people here are calling the 16yr old as "child" and "nutjob" explains why this thread is anything more than "Aw that's sad...but at lest there was justice."
If he wasn't autistic, this would be a non-issue. But because he is it's suddenly a massive payout?
Bollocks.
Something was going on that caused the minders OR the facility's owners to get a pair of police officers there.
Police dealing with the mentally ill or disabled are at a massive disadvantage from the get-go. They don't have medical histories to access, they don't know how someone is going to react. They make a decision based upon the facts at hand---and quite often they make the decision that even if there is a mental illness in play, the individual could harm themselves or others and act accordingly.
Kanluwen wrote:If he wasn't autistic, this would be a non-issue. But because he is it's suddenly a massive payout?
Bollocks.
Something was going on that caused the minders OR the facility's owners to get a pair of police officers there.
Police dealing with the mentally ill or disabled are at a massive disadvantage from the get-go. They don't have medical histories to access, they don't know how someone is going to react. They make a decision based upon the facts at hand---and quite often they make the decision that even if there is a mental illness in play, the individual could harm themselves or others and act accordingly.
If they weren't autistic they should get compensation too. Just that the case carries more weight, more representation.
Did he look like he was going to harm someone? And if- if the careers decided that he was bent on going into the pool to..apparently, drown himself, then removing him from the building would have been a much more proportioned response. As I said before, the terms like "nutjob" used here confirms the bigotry that the judge was trying to fight against.
Kanluwen wrote:If he wasn't autistic, this would be a non-issue. But because he is it's suddenly a massive payout?
Bollocks.
Something was going on that caused the minders OR the facility's owners to get a pair of police officers there.
Police dealing with the mentally ill or disabled are at a massive disadvantage from the get-go. They don't have medical histories to access, they don't know how someone is going to react. They make a decision based upon the facts at hand---and quite often they make the decision that even if there is a mental illness in play, the individual could harm themselves or others and act accordingly.
If they weren't autistic they should get compensation too. Just that the case carries more weight, more representation.
No, they shouldn't get compensation period.
The police cannot be sued as they have qualified immunity when acting in the best interest of the public. If they break someone's arm while moving them out of the way of an oncoming bus, the officers cannot be sued for it.
Did he look like he was going to harm someone?
He doesn't have to "look like he was going to harm someone". The teen was part of a supervised group of mentally disabled children at the pool for--get this--swimming lessons.
With the attention focused upon him, one of the other children could have done something similar and not been noticed until it was too late.
And then the police very much would have been held responsible due to a "special relationship" between the officers on the scene and the group of children, whom they were informed were mentally disabled.
And if- if the careers decided that he was bent on going into the pool to..apparently, drown himself, then removing him from the building would have been a much more proportioned response.
Please reread the article. The individual had a "fixation" on the water, despite not knowing how to swim. The minders had attempted to remove him from the building, but he would not be removed.
As I said before, the terms like "nutjob" used here confirms the bigotry that the judge was trying to fight against.
One person here used the term nutjob.
The judge most certainly isn't "fighting against bigotry", unless as I said there is something not being said about the officers in question making disparaging remarks. And quite frankly, it would also have to be proven that they intended to use them as a derogatory insult rather than simply as the way the term is bandied about now as slang.
Grakmar wrote:A sad story all around. The police obviously needed to do something to restrain him and I think they were clearly trying to act in his best interest. But, they should have done something less drastic.
I feel bad for the boy for having this terrible disease and for having to go through this incident, I feel bad for the police for being labeled as assaulting him when they were honestly trying to protect him, and I feel bad for the taxpayers that will end up paying for this.
From the sounds of things he is at the more debilitating site of the Spectrum, but "terrible disease" is a bit harsh, isn't it?
I didn't mean anything negative by that. I apologize if it came across that way. I just meant that Autism is terrible in that it impacts millions of people, some of them to the point where they can't function. I would be overjoyed if we were able to cure it.
I am Autistic. Assuming that you were talking about Medium of Death, please do tell me this- what traits do you think he shares with Autism?
Like someone other in this thread already explained: when the mind is set on something it´s hard to change it.
Mediums insane stubborness in wanting the police to be punished for what they did.
And yes I have experience in dealing with autistic persons, both those who suffer greatly from it and those who you dont even notice have it.
So if you are trying to become insulted by this you might as well stop right here, aint gonna work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Humans naturally float, and all mammals know how to doggy-paddle (no pun intended).
You really expect to be taken the slightest serious after this?
Grakmar wrote:A sad story all around. The police obviously needed to do something to restrain him and I think they were clearly trying to act in his best interest. But, they should have done something less drastic.
I feel bad for the boy for having this terrible disease and for having to go through this incident, I feel bad for the police for being labeled as assaulting him when they were honestly trying to protect him, and I feel bad for the taxpayers that will end up paying for this.
From the sounds of things he is at the more debilitating site of the Spectrum, but "terrible disease" is a bit harsh, isn't it?
I didn't mean anything negative by that. I apologize if it came across that way. I just meant that Autism is terrible in that it impacts millions of people, some of them to the point where they can't function. I would be overjoyed if we were able to cure it.
Being part of a spectrum it is a difficult subject. For some it is very debilitating and they'd love to cure it, where as to others it is simply part of who they are- and to cure it is nothing less than genocide; like telling a ginger person "don't worry, every one of your type will be cured".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
SDFarsight wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:If he wasn't autistic, this would be a non-issue. But because he is it's suddenly a massive payout?
Bollocks.
Something was going on that caused the minders OR the facility's owners to get a pair of police officers there.
Police dealing with the mentally ill or disabled are at a massive disadvantage from the get-go. They don't have medical histories to access, they don't know how someone is going to react. They make a decision based upon the facts at hand---and quite often they make the decision that even if there is a mental illness in play, the individual could harm themselves or others and act accordingly.
If they weren't autistic they should get compensation too. Just that the case carries more weight, more representation.
No, they shouldn't get compensation period.
The police cannot be sued as they have qualified immunity when acting in the best interest of the public. If they break someone's arm while moving them out of the way of an oncoming bus, the officers cannot be sued for it.
Did he look like he was going to harm someone?
He doesn't have to "look like he was going to harm someone". The teen was part of a supervised group of mentally disabled children at the pool for--get this--swimming lessons.
With the attention focused upon him, one of the other children could have done something similar and not been noticed until it was too late.
And then the police very much would have been held responsible due to a "special relationship" between the officers on the scene and the group of children, whom they were informed were mentally disabled.
And if- if the careers decided that he was bent on going into the pool to..apparently, drown himself, then removing him from the building would have been a much more proportioned response.
Please reread the article. The individual had a "fixation" on the water, despite not knowing how to swim. The minders had attempted to remove him from the building, but he would not be removed.
As I said before, the terms like "nutjob" used here confirms the bigotry that the judge was trying to fight against.
One person here used the term nutjob.
The judge most certainly isn't "fighting against bigotry", unless as I said there is something not being said about the officers in question making disparaging remarks. And quite frankly, it would also have to be proven that they intended to use them as a derogatory insult rather than simply as the way the term is bandied about now as slang.
If I'm not mistaken, one of the charges was disability discrimination. Was the cage necessary? He was already unable to move his arms and legs. And I don't see why you think I'm surprised that they were having swimming lessons. It was-get his- a swimming pool afterwall.
like telling a ginger person "don't worry, every one of your type will be cured".
You are comparing autism, a disease that leads to degradation in social interaction, lack of empathy and in 80% of the cases an IQ below 80, all of which limit the way an individual can function in a normal society, to a genetic condition that makes your colour red???
Are you Sir, high?
Or maybe you just tried that theory of yours about persons not able to swim still being able to float in deep water and are suffering from a temporarily lack of oxygen?
I am Autistic. Assuming that you were talking about Medium of Death, please do tell me this- what traits do you think he shares with Autism?
Like someone other in this thread already explained: when the mind is set on something it´s hard to change it.
Mediums insane stubborness in wanting the police to be punished for what they did.
Goes both ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:
like telling a ginger person "don't worry, every one of your type will be cured".
You are comparing autism, a disease that leads to degradation in social interaction, lack of empathy and in 80% of the cases an IQ below 80, all of which limit the way an individual can function in a normal society, to a genetic condition that makes your colour red???
Are you Sir, high?
Or maybe you just tried that theory of yours about persons not able to swim still being able to float in deep water and are suffering from a temporarily lack of oxygen?
Haha, if you think I'm high then you'll have a fit over Aspies for Freedom and the large, milder aspects of the community who don't want a cure or are at least against the counter-productive efforts by Autism Speaks. But of course you already know that, as you've had experience with Autistics
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:
Humans naturally float, and all mammals know how to doggy-paddle (no pun intended).
You really expect to be taken the slightest serious after this?
We don't float like a cork of course, but we're not wearing concrete shoes either. It can depend on your body type. And many mammels do know how to doggy-paddel. Horses don't like to swim, but they can. Though of course people, humans can still drown- if that's the strawman you were going to put on me.
Haha, if you think I'm high then you'll have a fit over Aspies for Freedom and the large, milder aspects of the community who don't want a cure or are at least against the counter-productive efforts by Autism Speaks. But of course you already know that, as you've had experience with Autistics
Right. So my assumption was in fact correct.
You DO equal red hair with a genetic disease that makes people not function well in society.
Dont know why that IQ below 80 thing is foremost on my mind when talking to you, hmm.
And yes I do have experience with autistic persons. Both in private as in a friend and at work as in controlling violence.
We don't float like a cork of course, but we're not wearing concrete shoes either. It can depend on your body type. And many mammels do know how to doggy-paddel. Horses don't like to swim, but they can. Though of course people, humans can still drown- if that's the strawman you were going to put on me.
Wonderful.
Simply being able to float means not drowning now eh?
Right you are, if I ever see someone who cannot swim fall into deep water and that can very well happen in my line of work, I´ll think about your words.
Haha, if you think I'm high then you'll have a fit over Aspies for Freedom and the large, milder aspects of the community who don't want a cure or are at least against the counter-productive efforts by Autism Speaks. But of course you already know that, as you've had experience with Autistics
Right. So my assumption was in fact correct.
You DO equal red hair with a genetic disease that makes people not function well in society.
Dont know why that IQ below 80 thing is foremost on my mind when talking to you, hmm.
And yes I do have experience with autistic persons. Both in private as in a friend and at work as in controlling violence.
No I don't, as Autism is much more complex than that. It was just an example. But of course you already know this, you're clearly just resorting to flaming. With your experience with Autistic persons, I guess you are in touch with the Autistic community and values.
We don't float like a cork of course, but we're not wearing concrete shoes either. It can depend on your body type. And many mammels do know how to doggy-paddel. Horses don't like to swim, but they can. Though of course people, humans can still drown- if that's the strawman you were going to put on me.
Wonderful.
Simply being able to float means not drowning now eh?
Right you are, if I ever see someone who cannot swim fall into deep water and that can very well happen in my line of work, I´ll think about your words.
No but it helps. Again, don't do strawmen fallacies. My point was that swimming is something very easy to do though harder to master. If he really can't swim- as in he actually can't put in the motions of a smiple doggie-paddle, then fine, already I said in my other post what I think of the issue if it were the case that he can't swim.
Haha, if you think I'm high then you'll have a fit over Aspies for Freedom and the large, milder aspects of the community who don't want a cure or are at least against the counter-productive efforts by Autism Speaks. But of course you already know that, as you've had experience with Autistics
Right. So my assumption was in fact correct. You DO equal red hair with a genetic disease that makes people not function well in society. Dont know why that IQ below 80 thing is foremost on my mind when talking to you, hmm.
And yes I do have experience with autistic persons. Both in private as in a friend and at work as in controlling violence.
We don't float like a cork of course, but we're not wearing concrete shoes either. It can depend on your body type. And many mammels do know how to doggy-paddel. Horses don't like to swim, but they can. Though of course people, humans can still drown- if that's the strawman you were going to put on me.
Wonderful. Simply being able to float means not drowning now eh?
Right you are, if I ever see someone who cannot swim fall into deep water and that can very well happen in my line of work, I´ll think about your words.
Medium of Death wrote:Pyriel, have you been reading the thread? Caging an Autistic boy after the lifeguards got him out of the pool is not saving him.
"Caging" an Autistic teen is not saving him. You're certainly right. That does not, however, change the facts of the case. The teen bulled his way past the officers AND his minders, to jump into the pool when he had no experience swimming. The safest place to put him after that is in restraints and in an environment where he can be relatively easily controlled and prevented from injuring himself--in this case, it was the back of a police vehicle.
With that said:
Referring to the rear portion of a police vehicle as a "cage" is downright ridiculous. It's a prejudicial statement, intended to whip the reader into a furor and to make people like yourself leap to the conclusion that the judge was in the right and that the officers did in fact discriminate against the teen. This could not be any further from the truth.
Medium of Death wrote:Pyriel, have you been reading the thread? Caging an Autistic boy after the lifeguards got him out of the pool is not saving him.
I'm not sure why you're wading in to our argument with personal attacks and irrelevant bs.
Your posts directly target the intelligence of other posters, yet you cannot seem to read the basic facts present in the original article.
Preventing him from jumping in again.
What's wrong with removing him from the building or in a quiet room rather than wasting police time? And if the police really, really had to be called were the leg restraints not enough?
Stuff like this is why the British police are so limp wristed. Every time they do anything there's a compo claim (massively exaggerated) so they get told to be more and more cautious by the police. I wouldn't be a police officer in the UK for love nor money. You guys practically spit on your public servants.
Da Boss wrote:Stuff like this is why the British police are so limp wristed. Every time they do anything there's a compo claim (massively exaggerated) so they get told to be more and more cautious by the police. I wouldn't be a police officer in the UK for love nor money. You guys practically spit on your public servants.
I'm not a supporter of the compensation culture, or somekind of apologist for criminals. Indeed, I want the police to be out not wasting their time.
Da Boss wrote:Stuff like this is why the British police are so limp wristed. Every time they do anything there's a compo claim (massively exaggerated) so they get told to be more and more cautious by the police. I wouldn't be a police officer in the UK for love nor money. You guys practically spit on your public servants.
fething exactly. I was saying that months ago when the riots kicked off.
The same fethers whinging about the cops not doing enough would be the ones whinging about the coppers being "heavy handed"
The bobbies should be able to smash people, and this little gakker should have got £50 and a Wham bar and thought himself lucky.
Da Boss wrote:Stuff like this is why the British police are so limp wristed. Every time they do anything there's a compo claim (massively exaggerated) so they get told to be more and more cautious by the police. I wouldn't be a police officer in the UK for love nor money. You guys practically spit on your public servants.
I'm not a supporter of the compensation culture, or somekind of apologist for criminals. Indeed, I want the police to be out not wasting their time.
So would you have had a problem if the "bobbies" (is that what you call them) show, assess that there's no crime involved, and bail for more important things?
Da Boss wrote:Stuff like this is why the British police are so limp wristed. Every time they do anything there's a compo claim (massively exaggerated) so they get told to be more and more cautious by the police. I wouldn't be a police officer in the UK for love nor money. You guys practically spit on your public servants.
fething exactly. I was saying that months ago when the riots kicked off.
The same fethers whinging about the cops not doing enough would be the ones whinging about the coppers being "heavy handed"
The bobbies should be able to smash people, and this little gakker should have got £50 and a Wham bar and thought himself lucky.
As I said above, could we please not confuse the issue here? I thought you'd want the bobbies to be out doing proper police work rather than caging (sorry- temporarily detaining) people going into the deep end of a pool.
Define proper police work for me then, and I see if I agree with you. If the police didn't call this poor lad names and slap him around for being autistic, I can't see how they negatively discriminated against him. Since he had no fear of water or understanding of the risks, they had to discriminate against him to stop him from harming himself. However not all discrimination is bad. We don't let people who can't graduate medical school operate on burn victims, either.
Da Boss wrote:Stuff like this is why the British police are so limp wristed. Every time they do anything there's a compo claim (massively exaggerated) so they get told to be more and more cautious by the police. I wouldn't be a police officer in the UK for love nor money. You guys practically spit on your public servants.
I'm not a supporter of the compensation culture, or somekind of apologist for criminals. Indeed, I want the police to be out not wasting their time.
So would you have had a problem if the "bobbies" (is that what you call them) show, assess that there's no crime involved, and bail for more important things?
Yes, unless the Autistic person threatens anyone or removing him from the pool (as in the room, not just the pool itself) doesn't work.
And all the calls for more training, get a grip. It's impossible to train people for every kind of situation that comes up. You train them for the most likely or challenging ones, but really, "Autistic kid jumps in swimming pool" is a pretty rare goddamned event, training policemen to deal with it is a waste of resources. The proportion of people on the autistic spectrum is so low that it is just not feasible to train police to deal with them.
Da Boss wrote:Define proper police work for me then, and I see if I agree with you. If the police didn't call this poor lad names and slap him around for being autistic, I can't see how they negatively discriminated against him. Since he had no fear of water or understanding of the risks, they had to discriminate against him to stop him from harming himself. However not all discrimination is bad. We don't let people who can't graduate medical school operate on burn victims, either.
They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone? Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room? Was his death highly likely without police action?
Are you saying that not letting a failed medical student work on burn victims is the same as treating someone unfairly because of the colour of their skin or if they're neurotypical? I apologise if that's not what you're saying as I don't want to be hypocritical with the strawmen, I just want to make sure we're clear.
They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone?
****Yes, himself.
Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room?
****Sounds like they had to cuff him up to stop him, so yes.
Was his death highly likely without police action?
***Sounds like it was.
Again, if the police showed, laughed and went away, would you have a problem with that?
Da Boss wrote:And all the calls for more training, get a grip. It's impossible to train people for every kind of situation that comes up. You train them for the most likely or challenging ones, but really, "Autistic kid jumps in swimming pool" is a pretty rare goddamned event, training policemen to deal with it is a waste of resources. The proportion of people on the autistic spectrum is so low that it is just not feasible to train police to deal with them.
There are roughly 1 in 100 people on the Spectrum in the UK. Uncommon, but not rare. But you're right, the police shouldn't have to get extra training for it, just as police shouldn't need extra training for race or sexuality issues- they should already know it by being a member of society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone?
****Yes, himself.
Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room?
****Sounds like they had to cuff him up to stop him, so yes.
Was his death highly likely without police action?
***Sounds like it was.
Again, if the police showed, laughed and went away, would you have a problem with that?
But unless I'm mistaken, he was still next to the pool when he was cuffed. Removing him from the building or to a side-room wasn't even tried.
I think the big problem with the article is that it doesn't give enough details.
After being removed from the pool, did the boy attempt to re-enter the pool? Did he struggle with police? Was he doing something, even in restraints that was potentially harmful? When the article says "he had no fear of water" did that mean he wouldn't even try to prevent himself from drowning?
If he really wasn't doing anything to prevent drowning, and if he fought the police and lifeguards, trying to get back into the pool, then the police's actions are much more justified.
If he just jumped in and needed to be rescued, but wasn't fighting anyone or trying to jump back in, then the police were totally out of line.
We simply don't know the important details, and people are filling in the blanks with their own preconceptions about the police and autistic people.
Da Boss wrote:And all the calls for more training, get a grip. It's impossible to train people for every kind of situation that comes up. You train them for the most likely or challenging ones, but really, "Autistic kid jumps in swimming pool" is a pretty rare goddamned event, training policemen to deal with it is a waste of resources. The proportion of people on the autistic spectrum is so low that it is just not feasible to train police to deal with them.
There are roughly 1 in 100 people on the Spectrum in the UK. Uncommon, but not rare. But you're right, the police shouldn't have to get extra training for it, just as police shouldn't need extra training for race or sexuality issues- they should already know it by being a member of society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone?
****Yes, himself.
Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room?
****Sounds like they had to cuff him up to stop him, so yes.
Was his death highly likely without police action?
***Sounds like it was.
Again, if the police showed, laughed and went away, would you have a problem with that?
But unless I'm mistaken, he was still next to the pool when he was cuffed. Removing him from the building or to a side-room wasn't even tried.
Whats the difference. he's still wa wa I'm a victim!
Now answer the question. If the police show, look around, and then bail as there's nothing criminal going on, would you have an issue with that?
SDFarsight wrote:
What's wrong with removing him from the building or in a quiet room rather than wasting police time? And if the police really, really had to be called were the leg restraints not enough?
Because he was strong enough to bull rush past 2 grown men earlier.
There might not be a quiet room at that facility. It was a public pool, from what I gathered. My neighborhood pool doesn't have a quiet room, just a restroom.
If they had put leg restraints on him instead of putting him in the back of a squad car, the furor would be just as loud, I'd wager.
How many people have been a life guard and/or swim instructor with "kids" with Autism or Down Syndrome?
I have. Life guard for 1 summer, swim instructor for 3. That's not counting the 3 years where I volunteered as a helper to the instructors. "Kids" is a rough term, probably vulgar in this case. These were 18-65 year olds that lived in an assisted living facility. In most cases, their parents were eldar (70+) and could no longer care for them. I have seen a number of times where one of the larger residents refused to leave the pool with his class. In many cases, the day instructors would eventually talk them out of the pool. In some cases, we were forced to deal with them when they got aggitated/aggressive. I've seen a resident grab hold of another resident, not with any malice, just over-excited. Two grown men took all of their strength to prevent the other kid from drowning while the rest of us had to separate them. I've seen a resident grab hold of an instructor in the deep end and start pulling him down when the resident panicked.
After physically lifting the kid out of the pool, there were times that we'd have to lock the doors to the swimming area until they were calmed down by their minders. In those cases, the resident had grabbed someone else or was running for the deep end when he couldn't swim. Did this pool have a locking gate? I hope so. But if this kid can bull rush past 2 grown policemen, they'd still have to cuff him to get him out of the pool area, no?
I have personally had to pull a resident out of the deep end when he ran away from his class in the shallow end and jumped in. Thankfully, he was unharmed and I had assistance.
When a new doctor joined and changed the medication of a few of the patients, one of them put two nurses/orderlies into the hospital with broken jaws from 1 punch each.
If the officers hadn't restrained this 16 year old "kid", he could very well had run back into the pool. This time, injuring himself or someone else. I don't like that they had to do it. The "kid's" minders should have recognized the issue and left with him before it got to that point.
It's easy to throw stones here. As someone with first hand experience at dealing with mentally handicapped individuals around a swimming pool, I have zero issue with what the police did here.
Da Boss wrote:And all the calls for more training, get a grip. It's impossible to train people for every kind of situation that comes up. You train them for the most likely or challenging ones, but really, "Autistic kid jumps in swimming pool" is a pretty rare goddamned event, training policemen to deal with it is a waste of resources. The proportion of people on the autistic spectrum is so low that it is just not feasible to train police to deal with them.
There are roughly 1 in 100 people on the Spectrum in the UK. Uncommon, but not rare. But you're right, the police shouldn't have to get extra training for it, just as police shouldn't need extra training for race or sexuality issues- they should already know it by being a member of society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone?
****Yes, himself.
Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room?
****Sounds like they had to cuff him up to stop him, so yes.
Was his death highly likely without police action?
***Sounds like it was.
Again, if the police showed, laughed and went away, would you have a problem with that?
But unless I'm mistaken, he was still next to the pool when he was cuffed. Removing him from the building or to a side-room wasn't even tried.
Whats the difference. he's still wa wa I'm a victim!
Now answer the question. If the police show, look around, and then bail as there's nothing criminal going on, would you have an issue with that?
The difference is that it was a completely disproportionate response. Now if he forced himself into the building again despite being explicitly thrown out and then attempted to run back into the pool only to nearly drown again (if indeed that was the case in the first place) then sure, cuff him.
SDFarsight wrote:
The difference is that it was a completely disproportionate response. Now if he forced himself into the building again despite being explicitly thrown out and then attempted to run back into the pool only to nearly drown again (if indeed that was the case in the first place) then sure, cuff him.
He had already bull rushed past them once.
How many second chances do you give someone?
He could very easily have injured himself or someone else on the second attempt.
purplefood wrote:I would have a problem with that...
So the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't?
There's no crime, therefore no reason for the police to be there. They should act like that.
It's better that they did do something.
I vehemently disagree with people who argue otherwise.
He could have hurt himself or others if they hadn't done something...
SDFarsight wrote:
The difference is that it was a completely disproportionate response. Now if he forced himself into the building again despite being explicitly thrown out and then attempted to run back into the pool only to nearly drown again (if indeed that was the case in the first place) then sure, cuff him.
He had already bull rushed past them once.
How many second chances do you give someone?
He could very easily have injured himself or someone else on the second attempt.
Bull-rushed past who? The police? As I said before, he should have been removed from the building to settle down before calling the police on him. And even then were handcuffs, foot restraints and a car (van?) really necessary? Perhaps one of those if he was truely getting out of hand, but all? He was already saved- and not by the police.
I've personally known many people on the spectrum in my many years of being involved in the community and I am not at all surprised to see that the news isn't going down well, apart from the good news of the compensation.
SDFarsight wrote:Bull-rushed past who? The police? As I said before, he should have been removed from the building to settle down before calling the police on him.
By whom? If the kid is strong enough in his state of aggitation to bull rush past 2 policemen, is his nurse/minder going to be able to do it?
purplefood wrote:I would have a problem with that...
So the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't?
Yes they are.
I know police, I'm a military man, you want to know why the London riots happened? I can say this off the record (I'm not a serving copper)
The coppers in this country if they put a foot wrong get pilloried. They are terrified of kinetic responses to public order. If your a bobby and you swing your truncheon at a protester and it gets pictured, or filmed or whatever and it ends up in the press, you get a harsh trial by media, no support from your superiors, crucified.
They have baton guns and riot control measures, but the police are afraid to use them in case something goes wrong, if your unlucky enough to hit someone in the wrong place or a rubber bullet takes a ricochet or you rugby tackle a youth and he breaks something unluckily during the fall, your in serious serious gak.
The best thing to do?
Whistle and walk. "Sorry boss, I didn't see nothing" Your competence can be called into question "you were ten feet away and you didn't see anything?!" but you wont get fired. You wont get hounded, you wont get publicly destroyed.
You don't think the peelers are going to be talking about this case amongst themselves in the station? Or that they are constantly shaking their heads with this nonsense? If it was my station I would tell you what I would do if it happens again. Go as slow as possible. Screw dealing with it. Autism? Sounds dodgy that one lads.. delay, "sorry, what was that?" "can you repeat again despatch?" "hang on sarge my legs sore.."when you arrive.."Oh a poor kids drowned.. ah well.. not our fault.. we did our best"
SDFarsight wrote:Bull-rushed past who? The police? As I said before, he should have been removed from the building to settle down before calling the police on him.
By whom? If the kid is strong enough in his state of aggitation to bull rush past 2 policemen, is his nurse/minder going to be able to do it?
No. He/she isn't.
The lifeguards....which they did (at least out of the pool, not the building), and if.....if he was going to go in again, was the police van really necessary?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
purplefood wrote:I would have a problem with that...
So the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't?
Yes they are.
I know police, I'm a military man, you want to know why the London riots happened? I can say this off the record (I'm not a serving copper)
The coppers in this country if they put a foot wrong get pilloried. They are terrified of kinetic responses to public order. If your a bobby and you swing your truncheon at a protester and it gets pictured, or filmed or whatever and it ends up in the press, you get a harsh trial by media, no support from your superiors, crucified.
They have baton guns and riot control measures, but the police are afraid to use them in case something goes wrong, if your unlucky enough to hit someone in the wrong place or a rubber bullet takes a ricochet or you rugby tackle a youth and he breaks something unluckily during the fall, your in serious serious gak.
The best thing to do?
Whistle and walk. "Sorry boss, I didn't see nothing" Your competence can be called into question "you were ten feet away and you didn't see anything?!" but you wont get fired. You wont get hounded, you wont get publicly destroyed.
You don't think the peelers are going to be talking about this case amongst themselves in the station?
If it was my station I would tell you what I would do if it happens again.
Go as slow as possible, delay, "sorry, what was that?" "can you repeat again despatch?" "hang on sarge my legs sore.."when you arrive.."Oh a poor kids drowned.. ah well.. not our fault.. we did our best"
And we wonder why our police are hamstrung.
You want to start a thread about the london riots? Go ahead, I'll be right on your side; no really, I will.
The lifeguards were able to pull him out of the water the first time before he got himself or someone else injured. Lifeguards, trained to deal with people in the water, were able to get this kid to the side of the pool and out. I notice it doesn't say how long they struggled to remove him.
They would not have been able to keep the kid from jumping back in. I would tend to believe the police that the kid was fighting to get back in the pool and were forced to restrain him, having first hand experience with this.
The lifeguards were able to pull him out of the water the first time before he got himself or someone else injured. Lifeguards, trained to deal with people in the water, were able to get this kid to the side of the pool and out. I notice it doesn't say how long they struggled to remove him.
They would not have been able to keep the kid from jumping back in. I would tend to believe the police that the kid was fighting to get back in the pool and were forced to restrain him, having first hand experience with this.
Indeed.....it doesn't say how long they struggled to remove him. Lets just give the police the benefit of the doubt shall we?
Anyway, how can he fight with leg restrainers? As I said before, were all three detaining methods necessary?
Having a close friend who used to deal with autistic "kids" that had a decent chance with lots of work to be self sufficient I can tell you I don't see a thing wrong with what the cops did. If the kid was excited or angry then he could have done a lot of damage to himself or others. They didn't hurt the kid by putting him in the back of the car to calm down.
Christ I'd be pissed if I was a cop. The problem is most of the cops that are willing to put up with the bs are in it to help others and that's what they're being punished for.
Pyriel, have you been reading the thread? Caging an Autistic boy after the lifeguards got him out of the pool is not saving him.
I'm not sure why you're wading in to our argument with personal attacks and irrelevant bs.
Your posts directly target the intelligence of other posters, yet you cannot seem to read the basic facts present in the original article.
I certainly do challenge the intellect, or rather, lack of, of people who are so dense they try to excuse the punishment of police officers who saved a kids life while not doing anything wrong.
And since one of those accusers is autistic himself and constantly uses some sort of arrogant argumentation that I should know best since I have experience from handling autistic people then I can turn the tables on him just as well.
I clearly understand that SDFarsight has experience with violence, violent situations and the handling of troublesome handicapped people and what to do in order to safeguard life and limb of all parties on the scene. Naturally he knows best how to do in all situations.
It´s these kind of moronic judges and these kind of idiotic applications of the law, thanks to these dense always victimized people that screwed up our own juridical system over here.
There was a nice case a while ago when a mentally ill madman went berzerk in a small village. A passer by spotted a woman being strangled nearly to death in her own car on the parking lot by said man.
The passer by hit the guy in the back with a thick wooden stick to make him let go. He saved the womans life who in turn later on cried in the court room when the judge sentenced the guy that saved her life to prison since he hit the madman to hard and caused injury to his back.
The result? People are no longer certain they would actually save and/or intervene someone if they saw a person being hurt over here and I dont blame them, I wouldnt either, not if I risk going to prison over it myself.
So yes, when I see police get busted for saving a life because someones gakking sensibilities were a little hurt I get pissed off. Yeah naturally they should have treated him with silk gloves and utmost respect, no matter the stress level and danger at the situation at hand, they should have called a councilor and preferable a priest to before gently pulling the kid out of the water and leading him to a quiet comfy room with lots of pillows. But even then people like you would rage about the insensitive police who happened to use silk gloves of not the right softness.
So the kid was a little roughed up, boo gakking hoo, give him a nice weak at home and some milk and cookies, he´ll get over it and be happy that he didnt get water down his lungs or got hurt for "real" in any other way...but hey since people who cant swim float anyway
If you only knew how drivers for disabled people treat their passengers when no one is watching you would stop bitching about a police officer who saved his life. Now there is something worth looking into.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, how can he fight with leg restrainers? As I said before, were all three detaining methods necessary?
Well I have seen people trying to hurt their own eyes when agitated, seen is actually not the correct term, tried to prevent would be better (been there done that no fun).
But since you know everything best I am glad we have an expert like you who knows exactly what the officers did wrong and why, I can sleep well at night knowing citizens of your moral calibers are around.
Pyriel- wrote:[
There was a nice case a while ago when a mentally ill madman went berzerk in a small village. A passer by spotted a woman being strangled nearly to death in her own car on the parking lot by said man.
The passer by hit the guy in the back with a thick wooden stick to make him let go. He saved the womans life who in turn later on cried in the court room when the judge sentenced the guy that saved her life to prison since he hit the madman to hard and caused injury to his back.
The result? People are no longer certain they would actually save and/or intervene someone if they saw a person being hurt over here and I dont blame them, I wouldnt either, not if I risk going to prison over it myself.
And if this were simply an issue of "the police are too tied up, they can't do anything anymore..." then I'd agree with you...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, how can he fight with leg restrainers? As I said before, were all three detaining methods necessary?
Well I have seen people trying to hurt their own eyes when agitated, seen is actually not the correct term, tried to prevent would be better (been there done that no fun).
But since you know everything best I am glad we have an expert like you who knows exactly what the officers did wrong and why, I can sleep well at night knowing citizens of your moral calibers are around.
Do you want to play "Who's seen (oh sorry there- prevent) the most things" or do you want to take the issue on a case-by-case bases? As you well know, Autism is different for each person who has it.
Poster with just over 100 posts making a nonsensical argument that lacks a leg to stand on.
Nothing to see here.
Since no one else has said it, the police should have done nothing. If the kid drowned or injured someone whatever, at least the cops didn't violate his human rights. This case stinks of people making up BS in order to get a nice pay out.
One interesting thing my Dad (a retired bobby) said to me years ago is that the Police protect the public, but sometimes protect people from themselves (i think he meant suicide and self harm incidents). I never really understood what he meant but I think this example might be one of them.
Amaya, I see your logic but would you honestly allow a human being to die in front of you when you could do something to help them? I personally would think less of you if you did (and based on my experience in the military I think you would do the right thing and save him). Although I do agree with the Litigation piece on people making things up to make money.
No, I wouldn't. It's terrible, but apparently both England and the US have reached such a state of degeneration that saving someone's life is grounds for you to be sued.
Just google "man sued for saving life" and you can read about all sorts of wonderful cases where individuals get sued for an assortment of idiotic reasons.
I'm not going to help someone just to have them take me to the cleaners. If people want to be that selfish and ugly, let them reap their rewards.
Do you want to play "Who's seen (oh sorry there- prevent) the most things" or do you want to take the issue on a case-by-case bases? As you well know, Autism is different for each person who has it.
Ah I see, as not only the self proclaimed expert on autism but also all knowing in how to handle dangerous situations involving handicapped people as well as having a police officer training I certainly will bow to your expertise.
You were the one babbling about oh why did they have to cuff the hands of the poor little kiddo, I gave you a straight example taken right from my own line of work that I personally had dealt with and your reply to this is to throw some childish "whos-seen" comment?
I see now that you really are suffering from what 80% of autistsic people do.
Do keep it up though, if nothing else it is highly amusing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Their reward being that people like you would, in turn, behave in an ugly and selfish way towards them?
Two wrongs there, making a right. Well done.
I see your point and normally I would agree but he is unfortunately right. In some countries the law is so strict when it comes to these things and things like right to self defense and use self defense to help others that there is a real and tangible possibility that you will go to jail despite having your mind and to all sense of logic, done the right thing and helped somebody, maybe even saving their life.
My dads friend got a burgler in the house who tried to open his big safe, the safe fell cutting of the fingers of the burglar.
Guess who was sued and fined and had to pay the burglar for the loss of his fingers, mental trauma and what have you?
It´s just plain ridiculous and I feel people that say they dont want to help others in need arent selfish at all, they just are wary and scared by having to be fined or sent to jail for violating some rights of the perpetraitor.
Me I´m simply disgusted by it and wish nothing more then the people who came up with these laws would one day suffer themselves while nobody dared to help.
Well, such laws are intentionally strict because they are weighted towards protecting the innocent, not the guilty. It's the abuse of those laws that is the problem. People should have the right to work in a place that doesn't take undue risks with their safety, and people should have the right not to be subjected to unnecessary violence by police officers. In attempting to enforce these standards, unfortunately the wrong people are occasionally either protected or sued. I'm not happy about it, but it's preferable to the alternative.
Amaya wrote:Poster with just over 100 posts making a nonsensical argument that lacks a leg to stand on.
Nothing to see here.
Since no one else has said it, the police should have done nothing. If the kid drowned or injured someone whatever, at least the cops didn't violate his human rights. This case stinks of people making up BS in order to get a nice pay out.
I think I said it. Oh crap I agree with Amaya. Its the end times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:
Do you want to play "Who's seen (oh sorry there- prevent) the most things" or do you want to take the issue on a case-by-case bases? As you well know, Autism is different for each person who has it.
Ah I see, as not only the self proclaimed expert on autism but also all knowing in how to handle dangerous situations involving handicapped people as well as having a police officer training I certainly will bow to your expertise.
You were the one babbling about oh why did they have to cuff the hands of the poor little kiddo, I gave you a straight example taken right from my own line of work that I personally had dealt with and your reply to this is to throw some childish "whos-seen" comment?
I see now that you really are suffering from what 80% of autistsic people do.
Do keep it up though, if nothing else it is highly amusing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Their reward being that people like you would, in turn, behave in an ugly and selfish way towards them?
Two wrongs there, making a right. Well done.
I see your point and normally I would agree but he is unfortunately right. In some countries the law is so strict when it comes to these things and things like right to self defense and use self defense to help others that there is a real and tangible possibility that you will go to jail despite having your mind and to all sense of logic, done the right thing and helped somebody, maybe even saving their life.
My dads friend got a burgler in the house who tried to open his big safe, the safe fell cutting of the fingers of the burglar.
Guess who was sued and fined and had to pay the burglar for the loss of his fingers, mental trauma and what have you?
It´s just plain ridiculous and I feel people that say they dont want to help others in need arent selfish at all, they just are wary and scared by having to be fined or sent to jail for violating some rights of the perpetraitor.
Me I´m simply disgusted by it and wish nothing more then the people who came up with these laws would one day suffer themselves while nobody dared to help.
I find a thief in my house, they won't be capable of suing me after.
Amaya wrote:Poster with just over 100 posts making a nonsensical argument that lacks a leg to stand on.
Nothing to see here.
Since no one else has said it, the police should have done nothing. If the kid drowned or injured someone whatever, at least the cops didn't violate his human rights. This case stinks of people making up BS in order to get a nice pay out.
Because having 2400 forum posts is the equilivant to having years of experiance in the Autism community, right? And if you really want to get into the business of pulling rank: I've been here for longer than you!
And as I said before: Please don't confuse me with someone supporting the compenstion culture or trying to bury the police in political correctness and red tape. I'm just glad to see that the law is on the Autistic's side, being a minority.
SDFarsight wrote:I'm just glad to see that the law is on the Autistic's side, being a minority.
You've compared having autism to being a ginger. This is what makes it hard for people to take you seriously, not your post count.
It's not like being a ginger, it's a much more complicated condition than that. I just said ginger as an example. It was a bad example? sue me! (no pun indented)
SDFarsight wrote:I'm just glad to see that the law is on the Autistic's side, being a minority.
You've compared having autism to being a ginger. This is what makes it hard for people to take you seriously, not your post count.
It's not like being a ginger, it's a much more complicated condition than that. I just said ginger as an example. It was a bad example? sue me! (no pun indented)
Being a ginger is not a condition, chrissakes man.
SDFarsight wrote:I'm just glad to see that the law is on the Autistic's side, being a minority.
You've compared having autism to being a ginger. This is what makes it hard for people to take you seriously, not your post count.
It's not like being a ginger, it's a much more complicated condition than that. I just said ginger as an example. It was a bad example? sue me! (no pun indented)
Being a ginger is not a condition, chrissakes man.
Are you going to continue splitting hairs? What point are you trying to make here? I was simply saying that a large proportion of the Autistic community doesn't want to be cured.
Yeah, you've made it clear that some people are against a cure, but you haven't given a reason why anyone (in their right mind) would be against it.
I dont know exactly why but my guess is that some people are perfectly happy being stuck in whatever situation they are at the moment. You perhaps feel ok the way you are since you dont really know how it is being anything other.
If I would give a stupid and probably flawed comparison just to highlite this:
It´s like being happy with a black and white TV, you dot know anything other and new things and change are something that scares most people.
Kilkrazy wrote:The police were supposed to do the things they were criticised by the court for not doing.
It wasn't their individual fault they didn't. They had not had sufficient training for such situations. The judgement was against the force rather than the individual officers.
The award was to compensate the victim. £28,000 is a trivial amount of money for a police force and would not act as a punishment.
What training is going to help? Again, courts are infamous for saying you did wrong without saying what else to do. What else could they have done?Hence, as its not a criminal issue I'd no longer respond to these calls and make it public.
CPI training would have been adequate. With proper training two people could have restrained the person without submitting him to handcuffs, leg restraints, and the van. I know for a fact because I have to restrain autisistic students frequently. The CPI method is non-violent and does not harm the person if techniques are applied correctly.
Of course not everyone has the training. In my school district only special education teachers recieved the training. However starting this year, each school has to have four certified CPI team members. One has to be a Special Education Teacher, another a Principal, and a third has to be a General Education Teacher. The fourth can be some other faculty member.
Kilkrazy wrote:The police were supposed to do the things they were criticised by the court for not doing.
It wasn't their individual fault they didn't. They had not had sufficient training for such situations. The judgement was against the force rather than the individual officers.
The award was to compensate the victim. £28,000 is a trivial amount of money for a police force and would not act as a punishment.
What training is going to help? Again, courts are infamous for saying you did wrong without saying what else to do. What else could they have done?Hence, as its not a criminal issue I'd no longer respond to these calls and make it public.
CPI training would have been adequate. With proper training two people could have restrained the person without submitting him to handcuffs, leg restraints, and the van. I know for a fact because I have to restrain autisistic students frequently. The CPI method is non-violent and does not harm the person if techniques are applied correctly.
Of course not everyone has the training. In my school district only special education teachers recieved the training. However starting this year, each school has to have four certified CPI team members. One has to be a Special Education Teacher, another a Principal, and a third has to be a General Education Teacher. The fourth can be some other faculty member.
So you say. Do you know the size of the 16 year old?
How long do they have to restrain him? Whats the likelihood of injury to them while they are sitting around holding him? Whats the opportunity cost that they could be pursuing REAL crimes and not babysitting Jr.?
To post in the defense of the non-cuff crowd there are situations with mentally ill people going haywire where cuffs are a very bad choice.
Once we had such a person, was trying to hurt himself and others and the cuffs made it all worse since if you are wearing steel cuffs and are crazy enough not to care you can pretty much cut up your own wrists with them bu struggling violently against the cuffs.
In those situations you need to use a restraining bed with leather bands all over or a special wheel chair or restraint jacket. Lackign those as often is the case the only way is to be two and hold the person so that he cannot wave around any longer.
But unless you go completely bananas cuffs are perfectly ok.
Currently various local authorities are busy trying to train the Police because generally they have no idea how to handle any issues involving autism at all. (This came up today at a Multi-agency meeting about Autism, as it often does.) By all good practice they made a pigs ear of this one. Incidentally the original fault lies with the carers, but that doesn't excuse the Police screwing up. There are ways to handle autistic kids, and ways to make situations worse. This is the latter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
SDFarsight wrote: I was simply saying that a large proportion of the Autistic community doesn't want to be cured.
I honestly can think of no reasonable reason why anyone would be against a cure.
Because you aren't autistic...
Strange that the autistic people are the ones accused of lacking "Theory of Mind" though. Or empathy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:
And since one of those accusers is autistic himself and constantly uses some sort of arrogant argumentation that I should know best since I have experience from handling autistic people then I can turn the tables on him just as well.
I clearly understand that SDFarsight has experience with violence, violent situations and the handling of troublesome handicapped people and what to do in order to safeguard life and limb of all parties on the scene. Naturally he knows best how to do in all situations. .
It might just be poor word choice or a lacking vocabulary, but some of your phrasing leaves a lot to be desired. I do hope you recall that autistic people are not animals, even though you talk of them as though you were dealing with a badly-behaved dog?
It might just be poor word choice or a lacking vocabulary, but some of your phrasing leaves a lot to be desired. I do hope you recall that autistic people are not animals, even though you talk of them as though you were dealing with a badly-behaved dog?
Ah true, my bad. Better to treat police officers like dogs.
Otherwise thats like your opinion man and as such I just care sooo much about it. Woof woof.
Well I guess that puts a level on it then. So you do in fact think of autistic people as animals. It would rather explain your attitude and ideas about how to "handle them". Shock collars and spaying ok with you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:
It might just be poor word choice or a lacking vocabulary, but some of your phrasing leaves a lot to be desired. I do hope you recall that autistic people are not animals, even though you talk of them as though you were dealing with a badly-behaved dog?
Ah true, my bad. Better to treat police officers like dogs.
Otherwise thats like your opinion man and as such I just care sooo much about it. Woof woof.
You do realize that expecting officers of the law to carry out their roles correctly is not "treating them like dogs" by any stretch of the imagination, yes?
SDFarsight wrote: I'm just glad to see that the law is on the Autistic's side, being a minority.
See, nonsense like this is really unhelpful. The police are not there to be 'on the side' of minorities. They are there to apply the law in an even-handed manner. After all, autistic people are capable of atrocious crimes, such as the child-abusers my friend works with as a support-worker. You don't get to beat your wife because you're Muslim, or 'exorcise' your children (with torture implements) because you're Nigerian - the simple fact of being autistic doesn't mean you should be exempt from punishment for breaking the law, which is what you seem to be suggesting. It also doesn't mean that the police are automatically in the wrong for forcibly restraining someone who may present a danger to themselves or others if that person happens to be autistic. 'Autistic' doesn't mean 'blameless'.
SDFarsight wrote: I'm just glad to see that the law is on the Autistic's side, being a minority.
See, nonsense like this is really unhelpful. The police are not there to be 'on the side' of minorities. They are there to apply the law in an even-handed manner. After all, autistic people are capable of atrocious crimes, such as the child-abusers my friend works with as a support-worker. You don't get to beat your wife because you're Muslim, or 'exorcise' your children (with torture implements) because you're Nigerian - the simple fact of being autistic doesn't mean you should be exempt from punishment for breaking the law, which is what you seem to be suggesting. It also doesn't mean that the police are automatically in the wrong for forcibly restraining someone who may present a danger to themselves or others if that person happens to be autistic. 'Autistic' doesn't mean 'blameless'.
Indeed it doesn't mean blameless, I wasn't saying that. What I was saying is that all too often there is news of Autistic people being abused or discriminated against, and it's nice to see the judge's findings. Where did I say that you can break the law and get off scott-free just because you're Autistic? It's not like the judge said- "Well..The police were right to put him in a cage (sorry- temporary detainment) and in full restraints- good on them for not being negligant by only using handcuffs after he was saved by the lifeguard.....but I'm going to go with the Autistic person because he is Autistic."
Well I guess that puts a level on it then. So you do in fact think of autistic people as animals. It would rather explain your attitude and ideas about how to "handle them". Shock collars and spaying ok with you?
Your ranting assumptions are indeed highly amusing. Besdies I have no idea what "spaying" is, dunno, maybe something you do in your basement but I certainly dont.
Now keep assuming, please, why leave it at dogs? Do the classical thing and compare me to Hitler too.
Normal people find out things before assuming that level of crap about people but do continue, speaks loads about you IQ you self righteous hypocrite.
Well I guess that puts a level on it then. So you do in fact think of autistic people as animals. It would rather explain your attitude and ideas about how to "handle them". Shock collars and spaying ok with you?
Your ranting assumptions are indeed highly amusing. Besdies I have no idea what "spaying" is, dunno, maybe something you do in your basement but I certainly dont.
Now keep assuming, please, why leave it at dogs? Do the classical thing and compare me to Hitler too.
Normal people find out things before assuming that level of crap about people but do continue, speaks loads about you IQ you self righteous hypocrite.
Finding out things before assuming crap about people......that sounds familiar..and yet you have the nerve to call ArbeitsSchu a hypocrite.
But forget about that, how about we just stop "attacking the poster and not the issue"?
SDFarsight wrote: I'm just glad to see that the law is on the Autistic's side, being a minority.
See, nonsense like this is really unhelpful. The police are not there to be 'on the side' of minorities. They are there to apply the law in an even-handed manner. After all, autistic people are capable of atrocious crimes, such as the child-abusers my friend works with as a support-worker. You don't get to beat your wife because you're Muslim, or 'exorcise' your children (with torture implements) because you're Nigerian - the simple fact of being autistic doesn't mean you should be exempt from punishment for breaking the law, which is what you seem to be suggesting. It also doesn't mean that the police are automatically in the wrong for forcibly restraining someone who may present a danger to themselves or others if that person happens to be autistic. 'Autistic' doesn't mean 'blameless'.
Indeed it doesn't mean blameless, I wasn't saying that. What I was saying is that all too often there is news of Autistic people being abused or discriminated against, and it's nice to see the judge's findings.
Is it really that frequent of an occurrence? I hear far more prejudice against police officers than autistic people these days. Far more. Just look at this thread; the fact that the kid was autistic seems, in the minds of some, to indicate that the police were automatically in the wrong for restraining him. There are massive holes in this story. For example, no mention is made as to why the police were called in the first place, and all emphasis is placed upon the actions of the police officers in question, with very little mention of what the young autistic person's behaviour was like. For all we know, he could have been biting, scratching or gouging the police officers and members of the public. The officers may have had a reasonable expectation of violence given the kid's behaviour and demeanour. We just don't know. All we know is that the police magically appeared at the swimming pool apropos of nothing and proceeded to forcibly restrain an autistic teenager who had jumped into the pool fully clothed.
That doesn't sound right to me somehow. Coppers don't just restrain people for no reason, simply for laughs. This whole thing stinks of a politicised ruling - that the police had cause to restrain the kid, but because he happened to be autistic they should have cut him some slack, potentially endangering their safety, and the safety of the public. That's not the country I want to live in, man.
Where did I say that you can break the law and get off scott-free just because you're Autistic?
You said that it's nice to see the law on the side of the autistic, being a minority, which is the worst sort of liberal pc crap imaginable. Seriously, feth 'minorities'. The law is there to serve people, no matter what the creed, colour, or condition.
It's not like the judge said- "Well..The police were right to put him in a cage (sorry- temporary detainment) and in full restraints- good on them for not being negligant by only using handcuffs after he was saved by the lifeguard.....but I'm going to go with the Autistic person because he is Autistic."
Though you put it crudely, I'm willing to bet that you're not too far off the mark there.
but I'm going to go with the Autistic person because he is Autistic.
Now isnt that so unbiased of you.
Cheering on the subject because you share a trait with him.
Say I was black. Would it be ok for me to stand on the side of someone in a police case simply because that person is black too?
This is why I dont like jury trials, a criminal might share some traits with a jury member and sympathy takes over from logic and law.
But I agree with you, things like this should not be used as an excuse if crimes are committed...by any side although if a mental issue is to severe and a crime is committed it can be excused because the subject simply didnt know or was not aware abut what he was doing.
Finding out things before assuming crap about people......that sounds familiar..and yet you have the nerve to call ArbeitsSchu a hypocrite.
But forget about that, how about we just stop "attacking the poster and not the issue"?
I really thought you would refrain from bringing that up while yourself having the nerve to accuse police officers of things...pot calling kettle anyone?
But yes lets stop the attacks shall we. That arbiter character pissed me of way to much with his holier then thou assumptions. You see I never in the thread "assumed" anything about anybody on the level of comparing them to dogs. If he would act like a normal person he could simply you know...ask.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Albatross:
Confused? I reacted to this:
You said that it's nice to see the law on the side of the autistic, being a minority, which is the worst sort of liberal pc crap imaginable. Seriously, feth 'minorities'. The law is there to serve people, no matter what the creed, colour, or condition.
Plus he said he sides with the boy because he is autistic himself:
but I'm going to go with the Autistic person because he is Autistic.
And thus I said that doesnt seem unbiased and in some situations is outright wrong.
The police were called by pool staff to remove Josh, against his carer's advice, despite no suggestion of wrongdoing. Officers almost immediately took hold of him, causing the boy to jump into the pool. They then used high-level force to remove him without seeking advice from the carer, and he was restrained. Orders were shouted at Josh, before he was moved to a caged van, soaking wet, on a cold day.
The police failed to consider alternative, safer, more proportionate ways to remove Josh, nor did they make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities, the judge ruled.
Pyriel- wrote:
Albatross:
Confused? I reacted to this:
You said that it's nice to see the law on the side of the autistic, being a minority, which is the worst sort of liberal pc crap imaginable. Seriously, feth 'minorities'. The law is there to serve people, no matter what the creed, colour, or condition.
Yes, I posted that. I stand by it.
Plus he said he sides with the boy because he is autistic himself:
but I'm going to go with the Autistic person because he is Autistic.
No, that's not what that means. He was asking if I was suggesting that the judge thought that when handling the case.
The police were called by pool staff to remove Josh, against his carer's advice, despite no suggestion of wrongdoing. Officers almost immediately took hold of him, causing the boy to jump into the pool. They then used high-level force to remove him without seeking advice from the carer, and he was restrained. Orders were shouted at Josh, before he was moved to a caged van, soaking wet, on a cold day.
The police failed to consider alternative, safer, more proportionate ways to remove Josh, nor did they make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities, the judge ruled.
If there was no 'suggestion of wrongdoing' (is that the judge's words, the defence's words, or the Independent's words?), why did the pool staff feel it necessary to call the police?
Pyriel- wrote:
Albatross:
Confused? I reacted to this:
You said that it's nice to see the law on the side of the autistic, being a minority, which is the worst sort of liberal pc crap imaginable. Seriously, feth 'minorities'. The law is there to serve people, no matter what the creed, colour, or condition.
Yes, I posted that. I stand by it.
Plus he said he sides with the boy because he is autistic himself:
but I'm going to go with the Autistic person because he is Autistic.
No, that's not what that means. He was asking if I was suggesting that the judge thought that when handling the case.
The police were called by pool staff to remove Josh, against his carer's advice, despite no suggestion of wrongdoing. Officers almost immediately took hold of him, causing the boy to jump into the pool. They then used high-level force to remove him without seeking advice from the carer, and he was restrained. Orders were shouted at Josh, before he was moved to a caged van, soaking wet, on a cold day.
The police failed to consider alternative, safer, more proportionate ways to remove Josh, nor did they make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities, the judge ruled.
Why did the pool staff feel it necessary to call the police?
Of course there are. There isn't anywhere near the level of hatred and distrust of the Autistic as there is of the police force, though. In terms of the sympathy vote, Autistic 'child' VS Police is a no-win for the cops.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SDFarsight wrote:
Indeed, why did they?
Just off the top of my head, if the kid was refusing to leave the premises, that's tresspassing. A form of wrongdoing.
Albatross wrote:Of course there are. There isn't anywhere near the level of hatred and distrust of the Autistic as there is of the police force, though. In terms of the sympathy vote, Autistic 'child' VS Police is a no-win for the cops.
Really? I thought that the anti-police rhetoric and hatred which you and other posters are referring to is the- "The police stopped me in the street for no reason other than my huge string of criminal convictions...it's not fair!!" or "That policeman hit me when I was only going about my business looting..." kind. And thus, it's not related to this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Just off the top of my head, if the kid was refusing to leave the premises, that's tresspassing. A form of wrongdoing.
Or the water. And even then that doesn't cover the rest of the story.
No, I'm talking about the juvenile anti-authoritarian posturing of 'Yeah, feth the po-lice! Teenage rebellion is groovy, man!' that most people grow out of when they move out of student halls/mum and dad's house, but is still inexplicably retained by the the tragically 'right-on'. And yes, that is related to this thread.
Albatross wrote:No, I'm talking about the juvenile anti-authoritarian posturing of 'Yeah, feth the po-lice! Teenage rebellion is groovy, man!' that most people grow out of when they move out of student halls/mum and dad's house, but is still inexplicably retained by the the tragically 'right-on'. And yes, that is related to this thread.
Really? Please do explain how it is related; as, being someone who is against that sort of teenage BS, I would certainly agree with you that it should be stopped.
No, that's not what that means. He was asking if I was suggesting that the judge thought that when handling the case.
Ah, I missed that. Mea culpa and my appologies to SDF.
Why did the pool staff feel it necessary to call the police?
This is interesting.
Plus I will add, why did they lock him up to such extent. There must have been things going on there that we are not told about since I have a hard time seeing police officers go in against the advice of the carers and picking up a kid and then just for fun locking him in cuffed. Not that it never occurs, it is just v e are y rare in western countries.
If and I mean IF this is the case then I am indeed against the actions of the police but meanwhile I trust Occham enough not to believe it.
Of course there are. There isn't anywhere near the level of hatred and distrust of the Autistic as there is of the police force, though. In terms of the sympathy vote, Autistic 'child' VS Police is a no-win for the cops.
I would say private security firms top this but that is just my opinion but can you provide a source for this?
Albatross wrote:No, I'm talking about the juvenile anti-authoritarian posturing of 'Yeah, feth the po-lice! Teenage rebellion is groovy, man!' that most people grow out of when they move out of student halls/mum and dad's house, but is still inexplicably retained by the the tragically 'right-on'. And yes, that is related to this thread.
Really? Please do explain how it is related; as, being someone who is against that sort of teenage BS, I would certainly agree with you that it should be stopped.
You seriously don't think anti-authoritarian bias plays into some people's perceptions of this event? That there's no expectation that the police are pre-disposed to discriminate against minorities, even though incidents of discrimination are overwhelmingly the exception and not the rule?
You seriously don't think anti-authoritarian bias plays into some people's perceptions of this event? That there's no expectation that the police are pre-disposed to discriminate against minorities, even though incidents of discrimination are overwhelmingly the exception and not the rule?
I agree.
This IS a hard fact.
This very common phenomenon is actually even thought and explained in special courses for police and security groups since they are not allowed to work unless they have gone through this properly. There you learn how common this is, how people think and see different things and how to react to the public bias.
It IS a common thing and it IS a big problem and it DOES cost the society tons of money and resources since it clogs up the time of the courts to a high degree.
Of course there are. There isn't anywhere near the level of hatred and distrust of the Autistic as there is of the police force, though. In terms of the sympathy vote, Autistic 'child' VS Police is a no-win for the cops.
I would say private security firms top this but that is just my opinion but can you provide a source for this?
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Police-Distrust-Blamed-For-Riots_41811.html That's one of many articles on the subject. Obviously, there are no direct figures showing either/or preferences for Autistic people vs. the Police, but it seems pretty self-evident that people would be inclined to distrust and hate coppers, in their role as organs of the state.
Albatross wrote:No, I'm talking about the juvenile anti-authoritarian posturing of 'Yeah, feth the po-lice! Teenage rebellion is groovy, man!' that most people grow out of when they move out of student halls/mum and dad's house, but is still inexplicably retained by the the tragically 'right-on'. And yes, that is related to this thread.
Really? Please do explain how it is related; as, being someone who is against that sort of teenage BS, I would certainly agree with you that it should be stopped.
You seriously don't think anti-authoritarian bias plays into some people's perceptions of this event? That there's no expectation that the police are pre-disposed to discriminate against minorities, even though incidents of discrimination are overwhelmingly the exception and not the rule?
I think you're wasting my time, frankly.
Well some people might, but I don't hold that view. And I've seen much more discrimination (or at least, ignorance) in this thread against Autistic people than against the police. I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying anything along the lines of- "of course the police were in the wrong, they're always hunting out minorities for kicks....".
Hazardous Harry wrote:Yeah, you've made it clear that some people are against a cure, but you haven't given a reason why anyone (in their right mind) would be against it.
At least provide a link or something.
And my 2 cents: Why? Why else do you think minorities don't want to be sidelined or eradicated? It's a tiny wee bit offensive. The focus to detailed subjects it gives can benefit people greatly. (See BBC article)
Well I guess that puts a level on it then. So you do in fact think of autistic people as animals. It would rather explain your attitude and ideas about how to "handle them". Shock collars and spaying ok with you?
Your ranting assumptions are indeed highly amusing. Besdies I have no idea what "spaying" is, dunno, maybe something you do in your basement but I certainly dont.
Now keep assuming, please, why leave it at dogs? Do the classical thing and compare me to Hitler too.
Normal people find out things before assuming that level of crap about people but do continue, speaks loads about you IQ you self righteous hypocrite.
I said "animals". You said "dogs". Spaying is removing their nuts so they can't breed - a common operation for dogs and other similar pets.
Maybe you should read again what I wrote. Its your poor choice of language that gives the impression you perceive autistic people as animals. When this is pointed out, you do nothing to suggest otherwise. Thus, you still appear to think of them as animals.
It speaks volumes about your opinions that you try to insult my intelligence, and call me a self-righteous hypocrite. Hypocrite? Please do explain the hypocritical parts of my post? You obviously just tacked "self-righteous" on there because you thought it sounded clever, but where is the hypocrisy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:
Finding out things before assuming crap about people......that sounds familiar..and yet you have the nerve to call ArbeitsSchu a hypocrite.
But forget about that, how about we just stop "attacking the poster and not the issue"?
I really thought you would refrain from bringing that up while yourself having the nerve to accuse police officers of things...pot calling kettle anyone?
But yes lets stop the attacks shall we. That arbiter character pissed me of way to much with his holier then thou assumptions. You see I never in the thread "assumed" anything about anybody on the level of comparing them to dogs. If he would act like a normal person he could simply you know...ask.
.
I did ask. That;s why my question had a question mark, and was phrased as a question. Do you understand that autistic people are not animals? Yes or no? If you DO maybe you should think about how you phrase things when you discuss them, so it doesn't read as if you think they are animals.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is an overall assumption here that the Police will always act sensibly, correctly, and for good reason, and take into account any relevant factors at the time of their actions. Based on that assumption, its completely reasonable that people would look at the case and say "Oh well he must have etc etce"."They were only doing etc etec..".
This assumption is false. Very often the Police will ignore any and all information that is offered by carers or other related professional, dismissing them as "bystanders". Often once they have incarcerated someone with any sort of mental health issue (even Autism, which technically isn't) they have no real concept of what to do with them or how to act towards them. Its common for them to decide that someone "strange in manner" is drunk, and treat them as such. It is a common occurrence here to see Police cars cruising slowly around the local NHS Trust buildings looking for someone to take a "nutter" off their hands. They often turn up at the Infirmary trying to drop off the mentally ill because they have received no proper training in what to do when they find someone like that. This is not just autistic people, but anyone "mentally ill". Likewise, there is an overwhelming tendency to see invisible disabilities as a "get out of jail free" card, an extension of popular perceptions today about disability. Based on this (more accurate) summation of Police activities, it becomes more obvious why the Judge ruled against them. They acted in an inappropriate fashion, against good practice. I don't know about overseas, where they have some odd ideas about Autism, and Police activities but here, they acted wrongly.
Kilkrazy wrote:The police were supposed to do the things they were criticised by the court for not doing.
It wasn't their individual fault they didn't. They had not had sufficient training for such situations. The judgement was against the force rather than the individual officers.
The award was to compensate the victim. £28,000 is a trivial amount of money for a police force and would not act as a punishment.
What training is going to help? Again, courts are infamous for saying you did wrong without saying what else to do. What else could they have done?Hence, as its not a criminal issue I'd no longer respond to these calls and make it public.
CPI training would have been adequate. With proper training two people could have restrained the person without submitting him to handcuffs, leg restraints, and the van. I know for a fact because I have to restrain autisistic students frequently. The CPI method is non-violent and does not harm the person if techniques are applied correctly.
Of course not everyone has the training. In my school district only special education teachers recieved the training. However starting this year, each school has to have four certified CPI team members. One has to be a Special Education Teacher, another a Principal, and a third has to be a General Education Teacher. The fourth can be some other faculty member.
So you say. Do you know the size of the 16 year old?
How long do they have to restrain him? Whats the likelihood of injury to them while they are sitting around holding him? Whats the opportunity cost that they could be pursuing REAL crimes and not babysitting Jr.?
Well as for the real crimes I cannot say. However the size of the kid doesn't matter much if you know the proper techniques. A few years ago I had 5 autistic kids in my classroom with only one aide. One of the kids was over 6 foot (I am under 6 btw). He was 21 and a very big kid. When he had one of his fits it took everything we could to restrain him.
I had to restrain the kid several times a day for 5 years, (he started when he was 16). Truth be told this part of my job wore me down after a few years. I have since transfered to working with autistic children who are between the ages of 9-11.
Now I am acting like this is all easy, but I have to admit that first year was pretty rough. It took awhile for me to really get a hang of the of the techniques. I can't see the police officers having a lot of chances to practice these techniques in a real world situation.
And my 2 cents: Why? Why else do you think minorities don't want to be sidelined or eradicated? It's a tiny wee bit offensive. The focus to detailed subjects it gives can benefit people greatly. (See BBC article)
You dont think the answer to that might just as well be a very negative one for said minorities?
Dont go overboard with the victimization card.
I said "animals". You said "dogs"
I wasnt the one saying badly behaved dogs.
Its your poor choice of language that gives the impression you perceive autistic people as animals. When this is pointed out, you do nothing to suggest otherwise. Thus, you still appear to think of them as animals.
It is your own crappy over assumption and your own mind that let you to that.
To point out my disgust with your self righteous attitude I simply choosed not to respond to it other then with a blank to see if you would keep building on said assumptions that are based on your guesses only. And I was right.
To put it in other words, I am not bothered to defend some crap about myself that is not true. If I was some sort of hobby hitler like you assume I am I wouldnt have the job I have.
It speaks volumes about your opinions that you try to insult my intelligence, and call me a self-righteous hypocrite
Glad that you can at least speak. After your assumption antics I had my doubts.
The hypocricy is in someone assuming way to much about someone else without even asking and then being oh so insulted when cornered about this. If you dont like self righteous maybe holier then thou fits you better.
Do you understand that autistic people are not animals? Yes or no?
Do you understand that I didnt nor dont deign to even meet that s**t with a serious answer or was that to hard to swallow for your self esteem?
This assumption is false. Very often the Police will ignore any and all information that is offered by carers or other related professional, dismissing them as "bystanders".
Source on this?
Yes it does happen but far from as often as you want it to seem or let me ask you this: Do you personally have any dealings with the police on a professional level or are you just repeating things you heard or read in popular media?
Its common for them to decide that someone "strange in manner" is drunk, and treat them as such.
Not only common but they do it all the time and this is as they should!
IF there is no qualified person that can ID him/her self on spot to tell otherwise the police will work as if it a worst case. This is for their own and the public safety and you are not permitted to work unless you have gone through the very training that teaches you that this is the case.
They often turn up at the Infirmary trying to drop off the mentally ill because they have received no proper training in what to do when they find someone like that.
Not the fault of the police officers but in those cases it´s the fault of the people in charge of synchronizing different units. There are special staff trained to take care of mentally ill, special drug abusers etc, they all fall under law enforcement and special healthcare. In a perfect world staff from these sectors would accompany "normal" police officers at all times but this is not a perfect world.
In a perfect world the correct person will be left to the correct staff at the proper time but often this is not possible due to lack of personell and in those cases private contractors are often hired to fill in the spots.
Based on this (more accurate) summation of Police activities
And yet yo have absolutely no clue how or rather why, "normal" police activities are how they are.
You see I too was in a court room once with the lawyer of a druggie trying to pin crap on me, all the lame rethorics you try to use here were used against me, he was suffering abuse by me, he might have been ill, he did not have any blood disease so you are at fault for treating him to rough blablabla.
Judge cleared me of everything, even laughed and called the lawyer incompetent and explained that what I did was out of necessity and straight out of the manual that is written to safeguard me, the public and the perp.
To bad the public is so gakking stupid that they always "assume" things on the side of the underdog that is being "roughed up" by the police themselves since this is all they see and all they understand.
I don't know about overseas, where they have some odd ideas about Autism, and Police activities but here, they acted wrongly.
Unless they blatantly violated the rules of conduct there should be no special regard for people who act "funny", be it mentally ill, druggies etc and there are reasons for this.
You are taken down, restrained, screwing your sensitive feelings until proper staff can evaluate you and take proper actions (removing restraints, thoroughly checking up medical background etc).
It can take a few minutes or way longer depending on circumstances.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now I am acting like this is all easy, but I have to admit that first year was pretty rough. It took awhile for me to really get a hang of the of the techniques. I can't see the police officers having a lot of chances to practice these techniques in a real world situation.
Yeah, practice is everything!
Even specialist staff have it rough and "ease" comes after a long time of constant practice.
Police dont have the time nor budget to be super proficient in all and every special case so their MO is one that covers as much as possible while making safety be way more important then sensitivity.
And my 2 cents: Why? Why else do you think minorities don't want to be sidelined or eradicated? It's a tiny wee bit offensive. The focus to detailed subjects it gives can benefit people greatly. (See BBC article)
You dont think the answer to that might just as well be a very negative one for said minorities?
I thought that seeking equality was a positive thing, really.
Dont go overboard with the victimization card.
Were you replying to someone else, or does my simple act of showing examples of discrimination when prompted count as "going overboard with the victimization card"?
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I said "animals". You said "dogs". Spaying is removing their nuts so they can't breed - a common operation for dogs and other similar pets.
Strictly speaking, that's Neutering. Spaying is for female animals.
Pyriel : For someone who gets so bent out of shape about "assumptions", you make a hell of a lot of them. I don't see much point in giving you my credentials or experience, because with or without them you will 'assume' that you know better. Please don't assume to tell me what I do or do not know about mental health or the Police, TYVM. And you do need to work on your language skills as far as speaking about autistic people is concerned., and maybe not reinforce that apparent attitude with further comments?
Assuming that a person is drunk when they are not is ridiculous, harmful, and potentially fatal. There is no justification for it. I have no idea what you are trying to say about officers trying to dump people in the local infirmary, your grammar is too confused. But again, this is something that should not be happening, and does not require police to be accompanied by specially trained personnel or anything of the sort.
Regardless, these officers acted inappropriately, against good practice, and should be receiving proper training in the near future, as will all forces, as and when such training is correctly put in place and enforced. The actions to make that happen are occurring right now, along with a lot of other work based around the recent Autism Act.
(Autism training is available for free, so it doesn't affect Police budgets, by the way.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote:
ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I said "animals". You said "dogs". Spaying is removing their nuts so they can't breed - a common operation for dogs and other similar pets.
Strictly speaking, that's Neutering. Spaying is for female animals.
Some call it debollocking as well. My cat still hasn't forgiven me yet. Any which way, its not something one should be doing to Autistic People, and Pyriel suffers from terrible word choice if he wants people to assume he isn't talking about autistic people like animals.
I thought that seeking equality was a positive thing, really.
In most cases equality is a positive thing indeed, in some it is not.
Besides this is not what I asked you.
I asked if you dont consider cases where a minority, be it ethnic, religious or other, that wants to maintain its ways, could be a bad thing, a very bad thing actually.
Funny, coming from someone who fights for total equality.
Were you replying to someone else, or does my simple act of showing examples of discrimination when prompted count as "going overboard with the victimization card"?
Only when going overboard against one side all the time is it called victimization.
Pyriel : For someone who gets so bent out of shape about "assumptions", you make a hell of a lot of them.
Of course I do, after all I choose to play along side your own rules. Can you dish it out then dont complain if others do too.
I don't see much point in giving you my credentials or experience, because with or without them you will 'assume' that you know better.
Yet again you pretend to know me and assume to much and yet again you fail miserably.
So far with the information I have I am the one who knows better based on experience. Now I cant know what it is that you do for a living but do tell, if you have work experience that goes beyond mine I will grant you that. I might be stubborn but I am not stupid.
So, I´m waiting, the credentials please. If there are any relevant I will actually listen to you since although we dont share opinions I will do have respect for you contrary to currently.
Assuming that a person is drunk when they are not is ridiculous, harmful, and potentially fatal.
Drunk is just an example showing that assumptions must take place and gravitate towards worse things then in reality. This can also be the case with the police officers and the kid in the pool but we dont know the exact details from all sides.
Assuming anything other then the worst is what is really ridiculous, dangerous and harmful. We are talking generic cases also and not some overly obvious crap with police thinking someone with a bullet wound to the head is just slightly drunk.
I am often forced by law and written down MO to assume the absolutely worst in people I handle, both from a mental point as well as a strictly physical one, do you care to prove me wrong on this and if so what facts do you base it on?
Now: Did you or did you not actually participate and pass relevant courses held for police and security that teach normal MO? If not then what the hell are you babbling about, your feelings of how things should be done are completely irrelevant.
and does not require police to be accompanied by specially trained personnel or anything of the sort.
Again, what exactly do you k n o w about this?
(Autism training is available for free, so it doesn't affect Police budgets, by the way.)
Yes it does and this shows how detached from reality you are.
Courses take time and time is what police are paid for to do active job.
The budget will have to put said officer in an often over a week long course (just legal basics for low level security here takes 9 whole 8 hour days).
Do you even know what you are talking about or are these just your cozy should-be feelings?
I thought that seeking equality was a positive thing, really.
In most cases equality is a positive thing indeed, in some it is not.
Besides this is not what I asked you.
I asked if you dont consider cases where a minority, be it ethnic, religious or other, that wants to maintain its ways, could be a bad thing, a very bad thing actually.
Funny, coming from someone who fights for total equality.
Oh well in that case, it depends. I mean, letting people to conduct ritual killings just because it's their culture won't be a fair society.
Were you replying to someone else, or does my simple act of showing examples of discrimination when prompted count as "going overboard with the victimization card"?
Only when going overboard against one side all the time is it called victimization.
And? Are you suggesting that I was doing that? If so, how?
I thought that seeking equality was a positive thing, really.
In most cases equality is a positive thing indeed, in some it is not.
Besides this is not what I asked you.
I asked if you dont consider cases where a minority, be it ethnic, religious or other, that wants to maintain its ways, could be a bad thing, a very bad thing actually.
Funny, coming from someone who fights for total equality.
Were you replying to someone else, or does my simple act of showing examples of discrimination when prompted count as "going overboard with the victimization card"?
Only when going overboard against one side all the time is it called victimization.
Pyriel : For someone who gets so bent out of shape about "assumptions", you make a hell of a lot of them.
Of course I do, after all I choose to play along side your own rules. Can you dish it out then dont complain if others do too.
I don't see much point in giving you my credentials or experience, because with or without them you will 'assume' that you know better.
Yet again you pretend to know me and assume to much and yet again you fail miserably.
So far with the information I have I am the one who knows better based on experience. Now I cant know what it is that you do for a living but do tell, if you have work experience that goes beyond mine I will grant you that. I might be stubborn but I am not stupid.
So, I´m waiting, the credentials please. If there are any relevant I will actually listen to you since although we dont share opinions I will do have respect for you contrary to currently.
Assuming that a person is drunk when they are not is ridiculous, harmful, and potentially fatal.
Drunk is just an example showing that assumptions must take place and gravitate towards worse things then in reality. This can also be the case with the police officers and the kid in the pool but we dont know the exact details from all sides.
Assuming anything other then the worst is what is really ridiculous, dangerous and harmful. We are talking generic cases also and not some overly obvious crap with police thinking someone with a bullet wound to the head is just slightly drunk.
I am often forced by law and written down MO to assume the absolutely worst in people I handle, both from a mental point as well as a strictly physical one, do you care to prove me wrong on this and if so what facts do you base it on?
Now: Did you or did you not actually participate and pass relevant courses held for police and security that teach normal MO? If not then what the hell are you babbling about, your feelings of how things should be done are completely irrelevant.
and does not require police to be accompanied by specially trained personnel or anything of the sort.
Again, what exactly do you k n o w about this?
(Autism training is available for free, so it doesn't affect Police budgets, by the way.)
Yes it does and this shows how detached from reality you are.
Courses take time and time is what police are paid for to do active job.
The budget will have to put said officer in an often over a week long course (just legal basics for low level security here takes 9 whole 8 hour days).
Do you even know what you are talking about or are these just your cozy should-be feelings?
You were making assumptions long before I pointed out your poor choice of phrasing.
Also, I am not talking about my "feelings" or "wishes". Its merely a happy coincidence that my desire to see the Police properly trained to deal with situations involving Autism is also echoed by local and national authorities, Mental Health services, learning disability services, the NAS, Mind, autistic people in general, and quite probably the Metropolitan Police, on account of them having to now make a massive payout because their officers lacked the proper training. This might not be the case wherever you come from, but it is here.
Considering I spent a fair part of yesterday talking to the people who provide the FREE training then I think I can safely say that the FREE training is in fact FREE. Unless all of those representatives from the NAS and similar groups were just straight up lying to everyone in the room, including the Department of Health representative, and representatives from a dozen local authorities. The most pertinent question raised about the FREE training that costs NOTHING because it is FREE is whether there should be some kind of independent body funded by government but removed from it that can accredit the training to create some kind of universal standard for Autism Training in the UK. There is no current standard, and bad training can be more destructive than no training at all, even when it is FREE. Basic awareness training is relatively straightforward and does not take weeks or months to provide. Nobody is suggesting that Police officers should be DISCO trained diagnosticians. It's BASIC AWARENESS. A short concise program to make sure that they don't make a situation worse by diving in like a bunch of half-trained thugs. This is applicable to the UK. I can't tell what the tiny flag on your info is, and frankly I haven't bothered to look that hard, but I gather that you are not talking about experience in British policing or mental health. Thus i wonder how much your apparently massive experience is really valid to anything at all? (I am also assuming that English is not your first language, because some of what you are typing doesn't really make much sense.)
Incidentally, unless I missed the post where you explained it, I haven't seen your "credentials" beyond that "handling" comment. I only hope that your tone here isn't reflective of whatever "training" you might have had. If it involves making disparaging comments about people's intelligence then I can't imagine you make autistic people feel very safe having you around.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just looked closer at the flag. Its Swedish is it not? Sweden, which has come up with such interesting ideas as "lack of sunlight causes Autism" and "Vinyl flooring/smoking mothers cause Autism." I'm also fairly sure that Sweden is still subscribing to the otherwise discredited concept that the MMR jab causes Autism as well. OKydoky then.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Slight aside: SDFarsight, I haven't been on WP for ages. You might just have tickled my interest enough to go back and have a poke around again, see what's going on. Do they still have an IRC forum?
"The basis of the movement is the view that Autism is not a disorder but simply a different way of being."
"The movement is controversial and has been criticized by some parents of autistic children who disagree with its anti-cure and pro-neurodiversity views."
A funny play on words, but I doubt anyone but you would actually take it seriously.
The video won't load, but if I doubt it's any better than the rubbish you've been posting.
And my 2 cents: Why? Why else do you think minorities don't want to be sidelined or eradicated? It's a tiny wee bit offensive. The focus to detailed subjects it gives can benefit people greatly. (See BBC article)
Seeking a cure for autism is not the equivalent of seeking a 'cure' to red hair, black skin or judaism. Stop pretending it is, because that is insulting.
I really don't see why you're so hung-up on the fact that the Autistic Rights movement is real, supported and carries a moral message.
Yes, Aspergers syndrome is a form of Autism, on the Autistic Spectrum. And it's not like only dead people are said to have it.
Yes, some parents are against it; indeed, one of the points of the movement is to give adult Autistic people a say in charities and other establishments, rather than giving parents the monopoly. Not that the movement is against parents per se, indeed many parents support it. I say "movement", it's not like there's a club card or anything- the beautiful thing is that many people just take the values for granted rather than being actively involved in the cause.
While not being particularly anti-cure, the NAS (Britain's biggest authority on Autism) recognises the anti-cure Autistic Rights movement, advising parents to at least consider its views. The NAS also condemned Autism Speaks (their American counterpart) for their negative publicity, daemonising the condition to scare parents into giving donations for a cure.
There is a growing movement among activist adults with autism and Asperger syndrome who don't think in terms of 'curing' a disorder but instead of celebrating difference. Although this page has been written primarily for the parents of newly-diagnosed children, it may be helpful to note the viewpoints of some adults with autism spectrum disorders, who don't think in terms of 'curing' a disorder but instead of celebrating difference. (In fact, people with a desire to cure autism are sometimes known by adults on the spectrum as 'curebies'.) Please take time to read their viewpoints below.
Spoiler:
Aspies for Freedom
"We know that autism is not a disease, and we oppose any attempts to 'cure' someone of an autism spectrum condition, or any attempts to make them 'normal' against their will."
The Autistic Liberation Front
A posting on Althouse.
Autistic Liberation Front fights the 'oppressors searching for a cure'
By David Harrison and Tony Freinberg. From the Sunday Telegraph. Includes positive comment from Vernon Beauchamp, our Chief Executive.
autistics.org
"Resources by and for persons on the autism spectrum".
Don't mourn for us
by Jim Sinclair. Originally published in the Autism Network International newsletter, Our voice, Volume 1, Number 3, 1993.
Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical
Includes thoughts on treatment for neurotypicals (people who do not have an autism spectrum disorder [ASD]) and "What to do if you suspect your child has NT". A humorous site born of outrage at attitudes to ASDs.
neurodiversity.org
"Honouring the diversity of human wiring" This link takes you straight to their extensive collection of thoughts on 'curing' autism.
Sociological and cultural aspects of autism
An in-depth article about autistic culture in Wikipedia.
Is autism really a disorder?
Luke Beardon, Senior Lecturer in Autism, The Autism Centre, Sheffield Hallam University
You were making assumptions long before I pointed out your poor choice of phrasing.
I wasnt the one going overboard using badly behaved god analogues but nice try.
Also, I am not talking about my "feelings" or "wishes".
So you speak with "wishes" as a basis while I speak with personal experience. Leaving it at that is there anything you would like to ask me about these things so that you may learn how things in real life work?
I grant you that, in a perfect society with limitless police budgets officers would indeed have the training and time and backup and extra staff needed to handle all kinds of odd cases (and no, dont compare "odd" to badly behaved dogs again) with a perfect approach towards every ones feelings, safety and what have you but this is not the case and by applying "wishful thinking" you cast a lot of unrealistic crap on the police.
I would like you to try out that line of work with the training required to do it and then see what you think.
Considering I spent a fair part of yesterday talking to the people who provide the FREE training then I think I can safely say that the FREE training is in fact FREE.
The training s free but the time it takes is not free. What is so hard to understand about this? Who pays for the officers replacements while they are away for a weeks "free" training? And dont come with some "oh it just takes two hours" because then it´s not anything considered real training. The shortest training I have been to that is required for work took 3 days (and yes the employer had to budget this since during my paid 3 days I did not actually do any real work) and it didnt teach anything new but just some repetitions.
If you...as a historian is it (?) ever hire people to do work for you and of they go taking "free" courses while you still pay their monthly salary who the hell is going to fill in their places as your employees? Oh you have to hire replacements but that´s ok, after all its free. Last tiem I checked the state does not provide compensation to cover the loss of income/work caused by training courses but who knows, that might differ from country to country.
Incidentally, unless I missed the post where you explained it, I haven't seen your "credentials" beyond that "handling" comment. I only hope that your tone here isn't reflective of whatever "training" you might have had. If it involves making disparaging comments about people's intelligence then I can't imagine you make autistic people feel very safe having you around.
Indeed you missed more then you realize.
With your insulting assumptions I cant imagine anyone taking your historian "wish" experiences as anything other then a joke when it comes to police work.
But ok, wanna know why you pissed me of so much with your god comment? 3 years ago I actually got a collegue fired over abusing a mentally handicapped person in prison custody where I could just have let it be.
Damn, why did I do that, I clearly hate autistics and other "madly behaved dogs".
Now you know and next time you say anything degrading about my work ethics I will have your insulting a** reported!
I just looked closer at the flag. Its Swedish is it not? Sweden, which has come up with such interesting ideas as "lack of sunlight causes Autism" and "Vinyl flooring/smoking mothers cause Autism.
Sweden is still subscribing to the otherwise discredited concept that the MMR jab causes Autism as well. OKydoky then.
So? And what the hell does that have to do with me in person you condescending prick!
Did you her me pick your avatar flag and trash your country just to try and earn some cheap point against you in person?
I had just about enough of you. Reported!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, some parents are against it; indeed, one of the points of the movement is to give adult Autistic people a say in charities and other establishments, rather than giving parents the monopoly. Not that the movement is against parents per se, indeed many parents support it. I say "movement", it's not like there's a club card or anything- the beautiful thing is that many people just take the values for granted rather than being actively involved in the cause.
So? That doesnt prove a thing. Some parents are for it and some parents actually wish their autistic kids would have been born with cancer, at least that would be way more "simple" for them.
Not my words though. Read that on a forum for parents to autistic kids.
Wonder what new assumptions that arbeits joke will make out of this now.
Yes, some parents are against it; indeed, one of the points of the movement is to give adult Autistic people a say in charities and other establishments, rather than giving parents the monopoly. Not that the movement is against parents per se, indeed many parents support it. I say "movement", it's not like there's a club card or anything- the beautiful thing is that many people just take the values for granted rather than being actively involved in the cause.
So? That doesnt prove a thing. Some parents are for it and some parents actually wish their autistic kids would have been born with cancer, at least that would be way more "simple" for them.
Not my words though. Read that on a forum for parents to autistic kids.
Wonder what new assumptions that arbeits joke will make out of this now.
So it's a good thing that the National Autistic Society advertises the cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyriel- wrote:
So? And what the hell does that have to do with me in person you condescending prick!
Did you her me pick your avatar flag and trash your country just to try and earn some cheap point against you in person?
I had just about enough of you. Reported!
Reported? Did you just hand yourself to the moderators?
But yes, I hope that Sweden doesn't have those views on Autism. And I trust that the majority of them don't; no racism here. Though in ArbeitsSchu's defence, it doesn't look like you've strived to distance yourself from those bigoted, quack views of Autism. But I'm sure you don't need to distance yourself from those views; after what you said about your work 3 years ago, I fully expect that you don't agree with those views.
You were making assumptions long before I pointed out your poor choice of phrasing.
I wasnt the one going overboard using badly behaved god analogues but nice try.
Also, I am not talking about my "feelings" or "wishes".
So you speak with "wishes" as a basis while I speak with personal experience. Leaving it at that is there anything you would like to ask me about these things so that you may learn how things in real life work?
I grant you that, in a perfect society with limitless police budgets officers would indeed have the training and time and backup and extra staff needed to handle all kinds of odd cases (and no, dont compare "odd" to badly behaved dogs again) with a perfect approach towards every ones feelings, safety and what have you but this is not the case and by applying "wishful thinking" you cast a lot of unrealistic crap on the police.
I would like you to try out that line of work with the training required to do it and then see what you think.
Considering I spent a fair part of yesterday talking to the people who provide the FREE training then I think I can safely say that the FREE training is in fact FREE.
The training s free but the time it takes is not free. What is so hard to understand about this? Who pays for the officers replacements while they are away for a weeks "free" training? And dont come with some "oh it just takes two hours" because then it´s not anything considered real training. The shortest training I have been to that is required for work took 3 days (and yes the employer had to budget this since during my paid 3 days I did not actually do any real work) and it didnt teach anything new but just some repetitions.
If you...as a historian is it (?) ever hire people to do work for you and of they go taking "free" courses while you still pay their monthly salary who the hell is going to fill in their places as your employees? Oh you have to hire replacements but that´s ok, after all its free. Last tiem I checked the state does not provide compensation to cover the loss of income/work caused by training courses but who knows, that might differ from country to country.
Incidentally, unless I missed the post where you explained it, I haven't seen your "credentials" beyond that "handling" comment. I only hope that your tone here isn't reflective of whatever "training" you might have had. If it involves making disparaging comments about people's intelligence then I can't imagine you make autistic people feel very safe having you around.
Indeed you missed more then you realize.
With your insulting assumptions I cant imagine anyone taking your historian "wish" experiences as anything other then a joke when it comes to police work.
But ok, wanna know why you pissed me of so much with your god comment? 3 years ago I actually got a collegue fired over abusing a mentally handicapped person in prison custody where I could just have let it be.
Damn, why did I do that, I clearly hate autistics and other "madly behaved dogs".
Now you know and next time you say anything degrading about my work ethics I will have your insulting a** reported!
I just looked closer at the flag. Its Swedish is it not? Sweden, which has come up with such interesting ideas as "lack of sunlight causes Autism" and "Vinyl flooring/smoking mothers cause Autism.
Sweden is still subscribing to the otherwise discredited concept that the MMR jab causes Autism as well. OKydoky then.
So? And what the hell does that have to do with me in person you condescending prick!
Did you her me pick your avatar flag and trash your country just to try and earn some cheap point against you in person?
I had just about enough of you. Reported!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, some parents are against it; indeed, one of the points of the movement is to give adult Autistic people a say in charities and other establishments, rather than giving parents the monopoly. Not that the movement is against parents per se, indeed many parents support it. I say "movement", it's not like there's a club card or anything- the beautiful thing is that many people just take the values for granted rather than being actively involved in the cause.
So? That doesnt prove a thing. Some parents are for it and some parents actually wish their autistic kids would have been born with cancer, at least that would be way more "simple" for them.
Not my words though. Read that on a forum for parents to autistic kids.
Wonder what new assumptions that arbeits joke will make out of this now.
Badly behaved god analogues?
What part of "I am not talking about my personal; feelings or wishes" did you manage to translate into "I am talking about my personal feelings?" I merely said that my 'wishes' happen to coincide with recognised official good practice, and current officia efforts. Taking what I say and reversing it so you can argue with me is ridiculous.
So you now agree that the training is in fact available for free? You admitted that so graciously I almost missed it. You clearly have no idea how long this training takes, or what it involves, because you are wandering from days to weeks and back again. I might add that such awareness training could easily be factored into basic Police training at cadet level, before ever they hit the street, along side all the other things they have to train to do in order to do their job properly. Also, even if training did cost money, it would still be less expensive than losing court cases and paying out damages, and might even give the Met, (and the rest of the service) a positive image (something they sorely lack.)
If you are so concerned about handicapped people in your care, and such a "good samaritan", then maybe you should have answered my original query with something along the lines of "No, I don't think they are animals. Its just poor phrasing/translation." instead of taking the piss and just reinforcing the image of someone who thinks they are animals? Your choice of words did not support your apparent "work ethics". Nor does your position on this case. What it reminds me of is the attitudes of the staff at the 9now closed) Winterborne care home, who were filmed repeatedly abusing their disabled wards,whilst claiming that "sometimes you need to be 'firm' with these people, or they'll just take you for a ride".
Your flag is Swedish. I surmise from this you are in Sweden. I surmise from your grammar and word-choice that you are in fact Swedish. I can also surmise it from your beliefs about Autism and your "knowledge" of Policing and mental health. Sweden, which has a markedly different view on autism than those prevailing in the UK. Which is therefore relevant to your position on this case. As it is also relevant to your beliefs about what constitutes "proper training", amongst other things. Because Swedish Policing and "Mental Health" provision is not the same as it is here. Nor is the legal system, and so forth. Is anything I have surmised there incorrect?
For the record, two of my children were born autistic. Another of my children has cancer, but is not autistic. (He being the bald child in my avatar.) I know which is more 'simple', and it isn't having a baby with cancer. Two of my children are happy, healthy individuals with a great sense of humour, incredibly intelligent and great company. And autistic. The third is all those things except autistic and might not live to be five years old. I would much rather he be autistic than have cancer. Just to pop in a personal perspective on that debate.
Should I report you for being both rude and insulting, often in the same sentence? Any insult you draw from what I say is inferred wholly by yourself, including Godwin-ing yourself. But I'm not touchy enough to report someone for disagreeing with me.
So it's a good thing that the National Autistic Society advertises the cause.
Agree.
Reported? Did you just hand yourself to the moderators?
But yes, I hope that Sweden doesn't have those views on Autism. And I trust that the majority of them don't; no racism here. Though in ArbeitsSchu's defence, it doesn't look like you've strived to distance yourself from those bigoted, quack views of Autism. But I'm sure you don't need to distance yourself from those views; after what you said about your work 3 years ago, I fully expect that you don't agree with those views.
Obviously not but arbites has.
Taking crap shots about countries is not seen in a positive way by the mods, I once jokingly called UK boring and got my behind handled to by by the mods.
So imagine if arbeits trash talks my own country in a sarcastic way simply to invent some ridiculous point about myself.
1: I dont like to defend myself over things that are invented and assumed.
2: I did really not want to bring up the thing that happened at my work due to you know, the possibility that someone who knows me reads it and connects the dots and then the wrong people find out who that "a-hole" that got that guy fired over the abuse was and I maybe get my window smashed in or something.
Erm, did you just Godwin yourself?
Hehe, I rather see it as preventing being Godwinned by someone else
Should I report you for being both rude and insulting, often in the same sentence? Any insult you draw from what I say is inferred wholly by yourself, including Godwin-ing yourself. But I'm not touchy enough to report someone for disagreeing with me.
Yeah, let me list bad stuff your country does and then try to pin it together with your own character and we´ll talk but why am I saying this, it´s wasted on the likes of you.
For the record, two of my children were born autistic. Another of my children has cancer, but is not autistic. (He being the bald child in my avatar.) I know which is more 'simple', and it isn't having a baby with cancer.
So? Unless you missed it (deliberately I might add) I will repeat it again, just for you.
Those were not my words, those were words found on a forum about autistic kids by a parent to one. Have a problem with that go to the relevant forum and not to me.
As for my personal experience of autistic kids I dont know how to say it but I should charge people for dealing with troublesome kids. A friend of mine had a (back then) little kid that was totally hopeless and could never be calmed down...except when I came over. We always made bets that I could get the kid to willingly go to bed calm as a evening breeze and I always won.
Then again I have been fighting at work with an autistic gigant with a severe psychosis that was ultra violent, those I have no cozy feelings of understanding for by the way.
But that is not relevant to this thread.
Your flag is Swedish. I surmise from this you are in Sweden. I surmise from your grammar and word-choice that you are in fact Swedish.
Nice try there.
You didnt surmise anything. You made degrading comments about my country in a condescending and sarcastic way and then tried to link those to me by yet some more assumptions. Maybe that "special" tone gave you away, hmm. You sure as hell act the same way you accuse me of doing.
If that is your version of surmising then you really got me speachless here.
I can also surmise it from your beliefs about Autism and your "knowledge" of Policing and mental health.
Insted you could simply ask. There is a PM function you know.
Want me to follow you around and assume ridiculous crap about you? I can certainly find things that I can assume about you and then just assume those are correct because you choose not to dignify my crap with an answer. You are not so flawless after all it seems.
As it is also relevant to your beliefs about what constitutes "proper training"
1: Find out what proper training is when it comes to police/security MO. Come back and tell me what you find that is inhumane.
2: Dont compare my actual work experience to your historian wishful thinking thinking you are right. It´s as ridiculous as me not knowing jack about cars barging in to a car mechanic telling him I know best how to repair one.
If you are so concerned about handicapped people in your care, and such a "good samaritan", then maybe you should have answered my original query with something along the lines of "No, I don't think they are animals. Its just poor phrasing/translation
Maybe you should have asked me in a normal tone from the start?
Maybe you should not have used animals and badly behaved dogs in the first place then?
Maybe I didnt even want to dignify your idiotic assumptions in the first place and maybe I held you in as high a regard as I do a cockroach when you continued to pile up on your self invented assumptions?
Didnt think about that one did you while busy being 100% right.
How I am in real life has not necessarily everything to do in how I act online, especially when answering people who I am pissed at, I´m not a super good samaritan nor do I have 10 autistic kids that are all super happy like yours nor am I an inhumane psychopath like you try to paint me. Sort your own issues first, you seem to be the one who is intolerant here, having a fix idea and then sticking to it no matter what.
What it reminds me of is the attitudes of the staff at the 9now closed) Winterborne care home
I dont care what it reminds you about if you are not grown up enough to realize not everyone cant be put under the same blanket based on some memory.
You remind me of a bigot I once knew with an IQ of an eggplant, does that mean I automatically assume that you are? Does that mean I bring up condescending and dumb things your country has done and equal them with you?
If I said those things and if you wouldnt reply to them does that mean I now freely can "know" they are true and keep assuming more things?
Taking crap shots about countries is not seen in a positive way by the mods, I once jokingly called UK boring and got my behind handled to by by the mods.
So imagine if arbeits trash talks my own country in a sarcastic way simply to invent some ridiculous point about myself.
Erm, did you just Godwin yourself?
Hehe, I rather see it as preventing being Godwinned by someone else
Should I report you for being both rude and insulting, often in the same sentence? Any insult you draw from what I say is inferred wholly by yourself, including Godwin-ing yourself. But I'm not touchy enough to report someone for disagreeing with me.
Yeah, let me list bad stuff your country does and then try to pin it together with your own character and we´ll talk but why am I saying this, it´s wasted on the likes of you.
For the record, two of my children were born autistic. Another of my children has cancer, but is not autistic. (He being the bald child in my avatar.) I know which is more 'simple', and it isn't having a baby with cancer.
So? Unless you missed it (deliberately I might add) I will repeat it again, just for you.
Those were not my words, those were words found on a forum about autistic kids by a parent to one. Have a problem with that go to the relevant forum and not to me.
Your flag is Swedish. I surmise from this you are in Sweden. I surmise from your grammar and word-choice that you are in fact Swedish.
Nice try there.
You didnt surmise anything. You made degrading comments about my country in a condescending and sarcastic way and then tried to link those to me by yet some more assumptions. Maybe that "special" tone gave you away, hmm. You sure as hell act the same way you accuse me of doing.
If that is your version of surmising then you really got me speachless here.
I can also surmise it from your beliefs about Autism and your "knowledge" of Policing and mental health.
Insted you could simply ask. There is a PM function you know.
Want me to follow you around and assume ridiculous crap about you? I can certainly find things that I can assume about you and then just assume those are correct because you choose not to dignify my crap with an answer. You are not so flawless after all it seems.
As it is also relevant to your beliefs about what constitutes "proper training"
1: Find out what proper training is when it comes to police/security MO. Come back and tell me what you find that is inhumane.
2: Dont compare my actual work experience to your historian wishful thinking thinking you are right. It´s as ridiculous as me not knowing jack about cars barging in to a car mechanic telling him I know best how to repair one.
If you are so concerned about handicapped people in your care, and such a "good samaritan", then maybe you should have answered my original query with something along the lines of "No, I don't think they are animals. Its just poor phrasing/translation
Maybe you should have asked me in a normal tone from the start?
Maybe you should not have used animals and badly behaved dogs in the first place then?
Maybe I didnt even want to dignify your idiotic assumptions in the first place and maybe I held you in as high a regard as I do a cockroach when you continued to pile up on your self invented assumptions?
Didnt think about that one did you while busy being 100% right.
How I am in real life has not necessarily everything to do in how I act online, especially when answering people who I am pissed at, I´m not a super good samaritan nor do I have 10 autistic kids that are all super happy like yours nor am I an inhumane psychopath like you try to paint me. Sort your own issues first, you seem to be the one who is intolerant here, having a fix idea and then sticking to it no matter what.
What it reminds me of is the attitudes of the staff at the 9now closed) Winterborne care home
I dont care what it reminds you about if you are not grown up enough to realize not everyone cant be put under the same blanket based on some memory.
You remind me of a bigot I once knew with an IQ of an eggplant, does that mean I automatically assume that you are? Does that mean I bring up condescending and dumb things your country has done and equal them with you?
If I said those things and if you wouldnt reply to them does that mean I now freely can "know" they are true and keep assuming more things?
So the official attitudes of your nations health professionals towards Autism have absolutely NO bearing at all on any training about Autism that takes place in your country? Because that seems exceedingly odd on several levels. Who then is providing this training, and by what standard is it organised, if not by the standards of your own health profession? Is it based wholly on the medical opinions of other nations that are not Sweden? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. So the country in which you have been "trained" is in fact incredibly relevant to the standard of that training. To give you an example of this: Nation X does not recognise Autism as existing at all. A poster from Nation X waxes lyrical about how much knowledge he has about Autistic Spectrum Conditions based on his employment and training in Nation X. This is why your country of origin is relevant. Its not "racist' or "country-bashing' to point out that Sweden is not particularly forward-thinking about Autism when discussing Autism with a Swede who claims experience. I am calling into question how useful your 'experience' is in judging the way to 'handle' autistic people, based on where you have been taught to 'handle' them.
I'm quite aware of where you picked your comment about Autism vs Cancer. You didn't say it, but you chose to repeat it, to use that comment to reinforce your point about "curing" autism, I merely enlightened you as to the fact that the comment you chose is complete rubbish, based on my extensive experience of BOTH conditions/situations. The two are not comparable, and anyone who tries to make them so is misguided or just plain stupid. Its the kind of foolish throwaway comment that someone who has not experienced child-hood cancer would make, because they lack the understanding or common sense needed to avoid making such an offensive remark.
I'm thinking that its possible you don't actually understand what "surmise" means in this context, or at least your response suggests that you don't. Or perhaps it doesn't translate well in Swedish, or something. Its exactly what I did, its the right word. The fact that you just decided to interpret that as some kind of weird racist attack or something, just like you assumed that I was going to say you were as bad as Hitler, when i have done nothing of the sort, does not change the fact that I 'surmised' various things based on your apparent nationality. If you aren't Swedish, from Sweden, living in Sweden, and were not trained in Sweden by Swedes then feel free to tell me.
And for the umpteenth time.. This is not my 'wishful thinking'. What I have explained about training is part of ongoing policy by the NHS, the Department of Health, Local Authorities, Charities, Private companies, the Police and National Autistic Society, much of it based on the Autism Act. It is merely happy coincidence that what I desire to be the case is what the all of these groups and departments also desire to be the case. I really can't make this any clearer to you, short of contacting a Swedish friend and getting him to translate what I have written into Swedish. Its like a man taking his car in for repairs, saying "I think its the alternator". and the mechanic replying "Yes. It IS the alternator. We are in happy agreement." to use your own metaphor. (Hopefully by using your own metaphor you will better understand what I have already said to you more than once.)
Its TWO kids. Not 10. And I did ask you in a "normal" tone. I even opened the query with a 'get-out' clause, suggesting that it might simply be an accident of your word choice. Please observe how I have extended the same benefit of the doubt when discussing your apparent misunderstanding of the word 'surmise'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum: Your occupation is recorded as "Death from Above". Should I be using that to make comments about your 'experience' with Autism? No, that would be silly. So why are you so focused on part of mine, which has been there since god knows when, and is a response to a conversation I had with a friend and fellow Dakkite about the title of "Historian"? Another poster is an "Aspiring Galactic Overlord." Would we use that as the basis of an argument about the validity of his position? I re-iterate: for someone who complains about 'assumptions',, you make some pretty silly ones yourself.
. They did what they were supposed to do and potentially saved the life of that kid. 
Never mind.
