(BBC) Police officers assaulted autistic boy

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.

**blood reaper**

Though I'd post this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17366756

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

**mattyrm**

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.

**Grakmar**

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.

**Corpsesarefun**

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.

**Frazzled**

blood reaper wrote:Though I'd post this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17366756

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."

**Joey**

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.

**purplefood**

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**

Frazzled wrote:
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.)

**Hazardous Harry**

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.

**purplefood**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
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"?

I was thinking this actually...

**Corpsesarefun**

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.

**Frazzled**

Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
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?

**master of ordinance**

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.

**Frazzled**

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. "

**Tye_Informer**

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?

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**Frazzled**

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**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

Essentially, yes.

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.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Essentially, yes.

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.

**Melissia**

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.

**Dark Apostle 666**

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**Kanluwen**

Melissia wrote:
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.

**Monster Rain**

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.

**Grakmar**

Kanluwen wrote:Why the hell should he apologize?

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."

**Kanluwen**

Grakmar wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Why the hell should he apologize?

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.

**Amaya**

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.

**Hazardous Harry**

Kanluwen wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Why the hell should he apologize?

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.