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.

And all the calls for more training, get a grip. It's impossible to train people for every kind of situation that comes up. You train them for the most likely or challenging ones, but really, "Autistic kid jumps in swimming pool" is a pretty rare goddamned event, training policemen to deal with it is a waste of resources. The proportion of people on the autistic spectrum is so low that it is just not feasible to train police to deal with them.

Da Boss wrote:Define proper police work for me then, and I see if I agree with you. If the police didn't call this poor lad names and slap him around for being autistic, I can't see how they negatively discriminated against him. Since he had no fear of water or understanding of the risks, they had to discriminate against him to stop him from harming himself. However not all discrimination is bad. We don't let people who can't graduate medical school operate on burn victims, either.

They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone? Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room? Was his death highly likely without police action?

Are you saying that not letting a failed medical student work on burn victims is the same as treating someone unfairly because of the colour of their skin or if they're neurotypical? I apologise if that's not what you're saying as I don't want to be hypocritical with the strawmen, I just want to make sure we're clear.

They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone?
****Yes, himself.

Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room?
****Sounds like they had to cuff him up to stop him, so yes.

Was his death highly likely without police action?
***Sounds like it was.

Again, if the police showed, laughed and went away, would you have a problem with that?

Discrimination is an action or decision based on a prejudice right?
Because that's not what this is...

Da Boss wrote:And all the calls for more training, get a grip. It's impossible to train people for every kind of situation that comes up. You train them for the most likely or challenging ones, but really, "Autistic kid jumps in swimming pool" is a pretty rare goddamned event, training policemen to deal with it is a waste of resources. The proportion of people on the autistic spectrum is so low that it is just not feasible to train police to deal with them.

There are roughly 1 in 100 people on the Spectrum in the UK. Uncommon, but not rare. But you're right, the police shouldn't have to get extra training for it, just as police shouldn't need extra training for race or sexuality issues- they should already know it by being a member of society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone?
****Yes, himself.

Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room?
****Sounds like they had to cuff him up to stop him, so yes.

Was his death highly likely without police action?
***Sounds like it was.

Again, if the police showed, laughed and went away, would you have a problem with that?

But unless I'm mistaken, he was still next to the pool when he was cuffed. Removing him from the building or to a side-room wasn't even tried.

I think the big problem with the article is that it doesn't give enough details.

After being removed from the pool, did the boy attempt to re-enter the pool? Did he struggle with police? Was he doing something, even in restraints that was potentially harmful? When the article says "he had no fear of water" did that mean he wouldn't even try to prevent himself from drowning?

If he really wasn't doing anything to prevent drowning, and if he fought the police and lifeguards, trying to get back into the pool, then the police's actions are much more justified.
If he just jumped in and needed to be rescued, but wasn't fighting anyone or trying to jump back in, then the police were totally out of line.

We simply don't know the important details, and people are filling in the blanks with their own preconceptions about the police and autistic people.

SDFarsight wrote:

Da Boss wrote:And all the calls for more training, get a grip. It's impossible to train people for every kind of situation that comes up. You train them for the most likely or challenging ones, but really, "Autistic kid jumps in swimming pool" is a pretty rare goddamned event, training policemen to deal with it is a waste of resources. The proportion of people on the autistic spectrum is so low that it is just not feasible to train police to deal with them.

There are roughly 1 in 100 people on the Spectrum in the UK. Uncommon, but not rare. But you're right, the police shouldn't have to get extra training for it, just as police shouldn't need extra training for race or sexuality issues- they should already know it by being a member of society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone?
****Yes, himself.

Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room?
****Sounds like they had to cuff him up to stop him, so yes.

Was his death highly likely without police action?
***Sounds like it was.

Again, if the police showed, laughed and went away, would you have a problem with that?

But unless I'm mistaken, he was still next to the pool when he was cuffed. Removing him from the building or to a side-room wasn't even tried.

Whats the difference. he's still wa wa I'm a victim!

Now answer the question. If the police show, look around, and then bail as there's nothing criminal going on, would you have an issue with that?

SDFarsight wrote:
What's wrong with removing him from the building or in a quiet room rather than wasting police time? And if the police really, really had to be called were the leg restraints not enough?

Because he was strong enough to bull rush past 2 grown men earlier.

There might not be a quiet room at that facility. It was a public pool, from what I gathered. My neighborhood pool doesn't have a quiet room, just a restroom.

If they had put leg restraints on him instead of putting him in the back of a squad car, the furor would be just as loud, I'd wager.

How many people have been a life guard and/or swim instructor with "kids" with Autism or Down Syndrome?

I have. Life guard for 1 summer, swim instructor for 3. That's not counting the 3 years where I volunteered as a helper to the instructors. "Kids" is a rough term, probably vulgar in this case. These were 18-65 year olds that lived in an assisted living facility. In most cases, their parents were eldar (70+) and could no longer care for them. I have seen a number of times where one of the larger residents refused to leave the pool with his class. In many cases, the day instructors would eventually talk them out of the pool. In some cases, we were forced to deal with them when they got aggitated/aggressive. I've seen a resident grab hold of another resident, not with any malice, just over-excited. Two grown men took all of their strength to prevent the other kid from drowning while the rest of us had to separate them. I've seen a resident grab hold of an instructor in the deep end and start pulling him down when the resident panicked.

After physically lifting the kid out of the pool, there were times that we'd have to lock the doors to the swimming area until they were calmed down by their minders. In those cases, the resident had grabbed someone else or was running for the deep end when he couldn't swim. Did this pool have a locking gate? I hope so. But if this kid can bull rush past 2 grown policemen, they'd still have to cuff him to get him out of the pool area, no?

I have personally had to pull a resident out of the deep end when he ran away from his class in the shallow end and jumped in. Thankfully, he was unharmed and I had assistance.

When a new doctor joined and changed the medication of a few of the patients, one of them put two nurses/orderlies into the hospital with broken jaws from 1 punch each.

If the officers hadn't restrained this 16 year old "kid", he could very well had run back into the pool. This time, injuring himself or someone else. I don't like that they had to do it. The "kid's" minders should have recognized the issue and left with him before it got to that point.

It's easy to throw stones here. As someone with first hand experience at dealing with mentally handicapped individuals around a swimming pool, I have zero issue with what the police did here.

I would have a problem with that...

Frazzled wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:

Da Boss wrote:And all the calls for more training, get a grip. It's impossible to train people for every kind of situation that comes up. You train them for the most likely or challenging ones, but really, "Autistic kid jumps in swimming pool" is a pretty rare goddamned event, training policemen to deal with it is a waste of resources. The proportion of people on the autistic spectrum is so low that it is just not feasible to train police to deal with them.

There are roughly 1 in 100 people on the Spectrum in the UK. Uncommon, but not rare. But you're right, the police shouldn't have to get extra training for it, just as police shouldn't need extra training for race or sexuality issues- they should already know it by being a member of society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:They detained him without reason. Was he going to hurt someone?
****Yes, himself.

Was he going to go back into the pool despite being removed from the building or side-room?
****Sounds like they had to cuff him up to stop him, so yes.

Was his death highly likely without police action?
***Sounds like it was.

Again, if the police showed, laughed and went away, would you have a problem with that?

But unless I'm mistaken, he was still next to the pool when he was cuffed. Removing him from the building or to a side-room wasn't even tried.

Whats the difference. he's still wa wa I'm a victim!

Now answer the question. If the police show, look around, and then bail as there's nothing criminal going on, would you have an issue with that?

The difference is that it was a completely disproportionate response. Now if he forced himself into the building again despite being explicitly thrown out and then attempted to run back into the pool only to nearly drown again (if indeed that was the case in the first place) then sure, cuff him.

purplefood wrote:I would have a problem with that...

So the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't?

There's no crime, therefore no reason for the police to be there. They should act like that.

SDFarsight wrote:
The difference is that it was a completely disproportionate response. Now if he forced himself into the building again despite being explicitly thrown out and then attempted to run back into the pool only to nearly drown again (if indeed that was the case in the first place) then sure, cuff him.

He had already bull rushed past them once.

How many second chances do you give someone?

He could very easily have injured himself or someone else on the second attempt.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:I would have a problem with that...

So the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't?

There's no crime, therefore no reason for the police to be there. They should act like that.

It's better that they did do something.
I vehemently disagree with people who argue otherwise.
He could have hurt himself or others if they hadn't done something...

kronk wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:
The difference is that it was a completely disproportionate response. Now if he forced himself into the building again despite being explicitly thrown out and then attempted to run back into the pool only to nearly drown again (if indeed that was the case in the first place) then sure, cuff him.

He had already bull rushed past them once.

How many second chances do you give someone?

He could very easily have injured himself or someone else on the second attempt.

Bull-rushed past who? The police? As I said before, he should have been removed from the building to settle down before calling the police on him. And even then were handcuffs, foot restraints and a car (van?) really necessary? Perhaps one of those if he was truely getting out of hand, but all? He was already saved- and not by the police.

I've personally known many people on the spectrum in my many years of being involved in the community and I am not at all surprised to see that the news isn't going down well, apart from the good news of the compensation.

SDFarsight wrote:Bull-rushed past who? The police? As I said before, he should have been removed from the building to settle down before calling the police on him.

By whom? If the kid is strong enough in his state of aggitation to bull rush past 2 policemen, is his nurse/minder going to be able to do it?

No. He/she isn't.

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:I would have a problem with that...

So the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't?

Yes they are.

I know police, I'm a military man, you want to know why the London riots happened? I can say this off the record (I'm not a serving copper)

The coppers in this country if they put a foot wrong get pilloried. They are terrified of kinetic responses to public order. If your a bobby and you swing your truncheon at a protester and it gets pictured, or filmed or whatever and it ends up in the press, you get a harsh trial by media, no support from your superiors, crucified.

They have baton guns and riot control measures, but the police are afraid to use them in case something goes wrong, if your unlucky enough to hit someone in the wrong place or a rubber bullet takes a ricochet or you rugby tackle a youth and he breaks something unluckily during the fall, your in serious serious gak.

The best thing to do?

Whistle and walk. "Sorry boss, I didn't see nothing" Your competence can be called into question "you were ten feet away and you didn't see anything?!" but you wont get fired. You wont get hounded, you wont get publicly destroyed.

You don't think the peelers are going to be talking about this case amongst themselves in the station? Or that they are constantly shaking their heads with this nonsense? If it was my station I would tell you what I would do if it happens again. Go as slow as possible. Screw dealing with it. Autism? Sounds dodgy that one lads.. delay, "sorry, what was that?" "can you repeat again despatch?" "hang on sarge my legs sore.."when you arrive.."Oh a poor kids drowned.. ah well.. not our fault.. we did our best"

And we wonder why our police are hamstrung.

kronk wrote:

SDFarsight wrote:Bull-rushed past who? The police? As I said before, he should have been removed from the building to settle down before calling the police on him.

By whom? If the kid is strong enough in his state of aggitation to bull rush past 2 policemen, is his nurse/minder going to be able to do it?

No. He/she isn't.

The lifeguards....which they did (at least out of the pool, not the building), and if.....if he was going to go in again, was the police van really necessary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

purplefood wrote:I would have a problem with that...

So the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't?

Yes they are.

I know police, I'm a military man, you want to know why the London riots happened? I can say this off the record (I'm not a serving copper)

The coppers in this country if they put a foot wrong get pilloried. They are terrified of kinetic responses to public order. If your a bobby and you swing your truncheon at a protester and it gets pictured, or filmed or whatever and it ends up in the press, you get a harsh trial by media, no support from your superiors, crucified.

They have baton guns and riot control measures, but the police are afraid to use them in case something goes wrong, if your unlucky enough to hit someone in the wrong place or a rubber bullet takes a ricochet or you rugby tackle a youth and he breaks something unluckily during the fall, your in serious serious gak.

The best thing to do?

Whistle and walk. "Sorry boss, I didn't see nothing" Your competence can be called into question "you were ten feet away and you didn't see anything?!" but you wont get fired. You wont get hounded, you wont get publicly destroyed.

You don't think the peelers are going to be talking about this case amongst themselves in the station?

If it was my station I would tell you what I would do if it happens again.

Go as slow as possible, delay, "sorry, what was that?" "can you repeat again despatch?" "hang on sarge my legs sore.."when you arrive.."Oh a poor kids drowned.. ah well.. not our fault.. we did our best"

And we wonder why our police are hamstrung.

You want to start a thread about the london riots? Go ahead, I'll be right on your side; no really, I will.

Sorry SDF, but your logic fails.

The lifeguards were able to pull him out of the water the first time before he got himself or someone else injured. Lifeguards, trained to deal with people in the water, were able to get this kid to the side of the pool and out. I notice it doesn't say how long they struggled to remove him.

They would not have been able to keep the kid from jumping back in. I would tend to believe the police that the kid was fighting to get back in the pool and were forced to restrain him, having first hand experience with this.

kronk wrote:Sorry SDF, but your logic fails.

The lifeguards were able to pull him out of the water the first time before he got himself or someone else injured. Lifeguards, trained to deal with people in the water, were able to get this kid to the side of the pool and out. I notice it doesn't say how long they struggled to remove him.

They would not have been able to keep the kid from jumping back in. I would tend to believe the police that the kid was fighting to get back in the pool and were forced to restrain him, having first hand experience with this.

Indeed.....it doesn't say how long they struggled to remove him. Lets just give the police the benefit of the doubt shall we?

Anyway, how can he fight with leg restrainers? As I said before, were all three detaining methods necessary?

SDFarsight wrote:Indeed.....it doesn't say how long they struggled to remove him. Lets just give the police the benefit of the doubt shall we?

Anyway, how can he fight with leg restrainers? As I said before, were all three detaining methods necessary?

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Having a close friend who used to deal with autistic "kids" that had a decent chance with lots of work to be self sufficient I can tell you I don't see a thing wrong with what the cops did. If the kid was excited or angry then he could have done a lot of damage to himself or others. They didn't hurt the kid by putting him in the back of the car to calm down.

Christ I'd be pissed if I was a cop. The problem is most of the cops that are willing to put up with the bs are in it to help others and that's what they're being punished for.

Pyriel, have you been reading the thread? Caging an Autistic boy after the lifeguards got him out of the pool is not saving him.

I'm not sure why you're wading in to our argument with personal attacks and irrelevant bs.

Your posts directly target the intelligence of other posters, yet you cannot seem to read the basic facts present in the original article.

I certainly do challenge the intellect, or rather, lack of, of people who are so dense they try to excuse the punishment of police officers who saved a kids life while not doing anything wrong.

And since one of those accusers is autistic himself and constantly uses some sort of arrogant argumentation that I should know best since I have experience from handling autistic people then I can turn the tables on him just as well.
I clearly understand that SDFarsight has experience with violence, violent situations and the handling of troublesome handicapped people and what to do in order to safeguard life and limb of all parties on the scene. Naturally he knows best how to do in all situations.


It´s these kind of moronic judges and these kind of idiotic applications of the law, thanks to these dense always victimized people that screwed up our own juridical system over here.
There was a nice case a while ago when a mentally ill madman went berzerk in a small village. A passer by spotted a woman being strangled nearly to death in her own car on the parking lot by said man.
The passer by hit the guy in the back with a thick wooden stick to make him let go. He saved the womans life who in turn later on cried in the court room when the judge sentenced the guy that saved her life to prison since he hit the madman to hard and caused injury to his back.
The result? People are no longer certain they would actually save and/or intervene someone if they saw a person being hurt over here and I dont blame them, I wouldnt either, not if I risk going to prison over it myself.

So yes, when I see police get busted for saving a life because someones gakking sensibilities were a little hurt I get pissed off. Yeah naturally they should have treated him with silk gloves and utmost respect, no matter the stress level and danger at the situation at hand, they should have called a councilor and preferable a priest to before gently pulling the kid out of the water and leading him to a quiet comfy room with lots of pillows. But even then people like you would rage about the insensitive police who happened to use silk gloves of not the right softness.

So the kid was a little roughed up, boo gakking hoo, give him a nice weak at home and some milk and cookies, he´ll get over it and be happy that he didnt get water down his lungs or got hurt for "real" in any other way...but hey since people who cant swim float anyway

If you only knew how drivers for disabled people treat their passengers when no one is watching you would stop bitching about a police officer who saved his life. Now there is something worth looking into.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anyway, how can he fight with leg restrainers? As I said before, were all three detaining methods necessary?

Well I have seen people trying to hurt their own eyes when agitated, seen is actually not the correct term, tried to prevent would be better (been there done that no fun).

But since you know everything best I am glad we have an expert like you who knows exactly what the officers did wrong and why, I can sleep well at night knowing citizens of your moral calibers are around.

Pyriel- wrote:[
There was a nice case a while ago when a mentally ill madman went berzerk in a small village. A passer by spotted a woman being strangled nearly to death in her own car on the parking lot by said man.
The passer by hit the guy in the back with a thick wooden stick to make him let go. He saved the womans life who in turn later on cried in the court room when the judge sentenced the guy that saved her life to prison since he hit the madman to hard and caused injury to his back.
The result? People are no longer certain they would actually save and/or intervene someone if they saw a person being hurt over here and I dont blame them, I wouldnt either, not if I risk going to prison over it myself.

And if this were simply an issue of "the police are too tied up, they can't do anything anymore..." then I'd agree with you...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anyway, how can he fight with leg restrainers? As I said before, were all three detaining methods necessary?

Well I have seen people trying to hurt their own eyes when agitated, seen is actually not the correct term, tried to prevent would be better (been there done that no fun).

But since you know everything best I am glad we have an expert like you who knows exactly what the officers did wrong and why, I can sleep well at night knowing citizens of your moral calibers are around.

Do you want to play "Who's seen (oh sorry there- prevent) the most things" or do you want to take the issue on a case-by-case bases? As you well know, Autism is different for each person who has it.

Poster with just over 100 posts making a nonsensical argument that lacks a leg to stand on.

Nothing to see here.

Since no one else has said it, the police should have done nothing. If the kid drowned or injured someone whatever, at least the cops didn't violate his human rights. This case stinks of people making up BS in order to get a nice pay out.

He isn't trolling, I know SDF personally.

You should also take note of his join date.

One interesting thing my Dad (a retired bobby) said to me years ago is that the Police protect the public, but sometimes protect people from themselves (i think he meant suicide and self harm incidents). I never really understood what he meant but I think this example might be one of them.

Amaya, I see your logic but would you honestly allow a human being to die in front of you when you could do something to help them? I personally would think less of you if you did (and based on my experience in the military I think you would do the right thing and save him). Although I do agree with the Litigation piece on people making things up to make money.

ninja'd DAMN IT THAT T-Word again....

No, I wouldn't. It's terrible, but apparently both England and the US have reached such a state of degeneration that saving someone's life is grounds for you to be sued.

Just google "man sued for saving life" and you can read about all sorts of wonderful cases where individuals get sued for an assortment of idiotic reasons.

I'm not going to help someone just to have them take me to the cleaners. If people want to be that selfish and ugly, let them reap their rewards.

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.

Do you want to play "Who's seen (oh sorry there- prevent) the most things" or do you want to take the issue on a case-by-case bases? As you well know, Autism is different for each person who has it.

Ah I see, as not only the self proclaimed expert on autism but also all knowing in how to handle dangerous situations involving handicapped people as well as having a police officer training I certainly will bow to your expertise.

You were the one babbling about oh why did they have to cuff the hands of the poor little kiddo, I gave you a straight example taken right from my own line of work that I personally had dealt with and your reply to this is to throw some childish "whos-seen" comment?

I see now that you really are suffering from what 80% of autistsic people do.
Do keep it up though, if nothing else it is highly amusing.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Their reward being that people like you would, in turn, behave in an ugly and selfish way towards them?

Two wrongs there, making a right. Well done.

I see your point and normally I would agree but he is unfortunately right. In some countries the law is so strict when it comes to these things and things like right to self defense and use self defense to help others that there is a real and tangible possibility that you will go to jail despite having your mind and to all sense of logic, done the right thing and helped somebody, maybe even saving their life.

My dads friend got a burgler in the house who tried to open his big safe, the safe fell cutting of the fingers of the burglar.
Guess who was sued and fined and had to pay the burglar for the loss of his fingers, mental trauma and what have you?
It´s just plain ridiculous and I feel people that say they dont want to help others in need arent selfish at all, they just are wary and scared by having to be fined or sent to jail for violating some rights of the perpetraitor.

Me I´m simply disgusted by it and wish nothing more then the people who came up with these laws would one day suffer themselves while nobody dared to help.

Well, such laws are intentionally strict because they are weighted towards protecting the innocent, not the guilty. It's the abuse of those laws that is the problem. People should have the right to work in a place that doesn't take undue risks with their safety, and people should have the right not to be subjected to unnecessary violence by police officers. In attempting to enforce these standards, unfortunately the wrong people are occasionally either protected or sued. I'm not happy about it, but it's preferable to the alternative.