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.

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


Edit: Should read the next page before quoting

YEAH!

TAKE THEM DOWN A PEG OR TWO!

I disgust myself.

Anywho.
Sounds bad. Reminds me of the time with that guy and the tazer...

DON'T TAZE ME BRO! DON'T TAZE ME! DON'T--YOU--- DO UGGHH IT!

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?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

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.

Monster Rain wrote:I just feel bad that the cops got put in this situation in the first place.

From the jump this wasn't going to end well.

This case is certainly going to make a big splash in the policing community.

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.

They should apologize to the cops who saved his life.

Exactly. Frazz is, as always, spot on!

SDFarsight wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

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.

What law did they break again?

None.

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.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

Kanluwen wrote:


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".

Like the man says!

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.

Police act poorly but it's not their fault because they shouldn't have been there?

Are you all high?

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,

Phanatik wrote:

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.

Did the police remove the child from the water or did the lifeguards? I would have thought it would be the latter...

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.

Medium of Death wrote:

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.