Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

I disagree Frazz, the police did the right thing here and upheld their responsibilities. It's the court that has mucked up by awarding damages.

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.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

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)

Whats a ginger?

SDFarsight wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:Whats a ginger?

An anagram.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Don't beleive me? Then try going onto Aspies for Freedom or perhaps a more moderate site* like Wrong Planet and say "I want to cure you all!!".

*not that my entire experience of the Autism community is online....if that's really the level of debate we're down to here.

You might want to do some research into the term 'Neurotypical', and the Autistic Rights movement.

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.

Whats a ginger?

Stuff you have to sushi I think

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

http://www.crisisprevention.com/

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.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

http://www.crisisprevention.com/

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'.

Albatross wrote:

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.

Pyriel- wrote:

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:

Albatross wrote:

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.

Pyriel-, I think you're a little confused...

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mets-restraint-on-autistic-boy-was-not-justified-7570357.html?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SDFarsight wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mets-restraint-on-autistic-boy-was-not-justified-7570357.html?

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?

Albatross wrote:*snip*

Yes, there are cases of discrimination and abuse:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/article421.html

http://www.care2.com/causes/montessori-academy-discriminated-against-autistic-child-says-doj.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/07/BAVR1NH8B4.DTL&tsp=1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7066436.stm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SDFarsight wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mets-restraint-on-autistic-boy-was-not-justified-7570357.html?

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?

Indeed, why did they?

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.