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.

Police go up to boy at edge of the pool.
Boy jumps in.
Lifeguards get boy out.
Police take boy when he is out of the pool.

When exactly did the police save the boy?

Medium of Death wrote:Police go up to boy at edge of the pool.
Boy jumps in.
Lifeguards get boy out.
Police take boy when he is out of the pool.

When exactly did the police save the boy?

Never mind.

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.

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.

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?

SDFarsight wrote:

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!

Kanluwen wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:

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.

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.

SDFarsight 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.

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:

SDFarsight 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.

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?

Pyriel- wrote:

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?

http://www.relaxnswim.com/physics/buoyancy.htm

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.

Pyriel- wrote:

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.

Pyriel- wrote:

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.

We all float down here.

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.

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.

I presume they did that so he wouldn't try to jump in... again...

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

SDFarsight wrote:

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?

mattyrm wrote:

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.

Frazzled wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:

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.