Posted on 02/21/2013 9:13:55 PM PST by Altariel
If the officers did everything right, the young man would not have died.
It is known that restraining someone and leaving them prone for too long results in asphyxiation. By restraining this man and leaving him prone, they caused his death.
Anyone who looks at this man can tell he has Down Syndrome, which is a genetic abnormality, not a mental disorder.
Indeed, no evidence has been presented, other than the word of the government employees responsible for his death, that he was violent.
The word of a government employee should always be treated with due credulity unless it is verified with substantive evidence.
Indeed. Peace officers once held to the same standard-—keep the peace, work to diffuse situations, not escalate them.
Unfortunately, the remaining peace officers seem to have retired, been removed from the ranks, or have gone to other fields.
Being restrained and kept too long in a prone position will cause *anyone* to asphyxiate.
You are attempting to compare apples to pianos; your brother does not have down syndrome; this poor man had down syndrome.
Your further red herrings demonstrate your incapability to defend the practice of restraining a man and keeping him in a prone position over-long resulting in asphyxiation.
We’re you there? How long did they have him on the ground? Since you must have been there and know more information than all the thin, biased articles you can fill us all in.
The article posted by someone that shares your opinion says they were walking him out when things went bad.
I understand the emotional and tragic aspect of this. But when people start emoting rather than thinking, example, remember this: “We all know the police acted stupidly” you end up having to put on a beer summit to smooth things over when things were not as they seemed.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be the ones that thought with their brains rather than emote. I guess that’s not always the case.
I love it when people wax nostalgic about how ‘old time’ cops used to do things. I worked with those ‘old timers.’ They’d crack your skull open with a blackjack faster, and without reason before you could turn around and put your hands behind your back to be handcuffed.
Your first trip would be in the paddy wagon for booking, the next trip would be to the hospital to get stitched up.
It's also poor management by the theater. The VAST majority of their net revenue (ie, profit) comes from food and drink sales. The longer patrons stay, the more they will consume, and the more the theater will make. Unless he was driving away other patrons, or the theaters were full (that film was released over 2 months ago, so that isn't likely), it was a bone-headed move to try to remove him in the first place.
Long enough to assure his asphyxiation, clearly.
The unlawful death of a man who did nothing deserving of his fatal sentence is not adequately summarized by “things went bad”.
But thank you for posting here, and reminding Free Republic that there are still those who will literally defend murder.
When a government employee commits it.
Peace officers who follow Robert Peel's principles would not have escalated to unnecessary force.
Government employee thugs, then as now, would ignore Robert Peel's principles when it suited their ends.
For those unfamiliar with Robert Peel's principles (and those who are ignoring their application to this case, let's review:
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
Whoops. A crime was committed. First failure.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
This and other incidents decreases public approval of police actions. Second failure.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
This and other incidents fail to maintain the respect of the public. Third failure.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
Physical force is unnecessary to talk to a man who must have things explained to him at a child's level. Fourth failure.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
There are clear laws against causing another man's death, against assault, and against using unnecessary force. Fifth failure.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
Physical force used far beyond the extent necessary. Sixth failure.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Failure to maintain this relationship. Seventh failure.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
By ensuring his death, they effectively became this man's jury. Eighth failure.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Pretending that this test is not in effect, and that the "visible evidence" is what counts. Ninth failure.
Robert Peel? Really? hahahahaha. How many cops do you think have a clue who Robert Peel was?
You can quote and tout every nice maxim and writing about police work that you care to, it all goes out the window when the rubber meets the road.
You can do everything by the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules and STILL be Dr. Evil in the newspapers. Been there, done that.
Dollars to donuts, IN THIS CASE, the cops will not be charged. But, people will believe what they want to believe.
If there were credible witnesses of police brutality the newspapers would be citing them, including from the home health aid that was accompanying this young man. They wouldn’t have to make up lines like: “smothered by police.”
All you have to do is answer the question: Were you there?
It is a rhetorical question because you and I both know the answer: NO.
Since you were not there you do not know what happened. Falsely accusing someone of wrongdoing until you know EXACTLY what happened is irresponsible.
Rhetorical questions, by their nature, require no answer. Demanding an answer for one is rather silly.
Thank you again for reminding the posters herein the (albeit illogical) lengths to which you will go to defend government employees who commit murder.
Freegards,
I understand what you’re saying, and you’re right. Corroboration and facts are what is important, not individual biases.
So, accusing someone of murdering another human being without any proof, or what you read in the media is logical in your world?
OK.
Guilty by media.
If I may take some liberties, since you post here at FR the same media says that you are a lying, bitter clinger, gun toting terrorist, old white racist, Tea bagger, clinging to a fairy tale religion.
Guilty.
Thank you. I’m not defending the police, we screw up enough. But, guilty by media fiat shouldn’t get it. Especially the way they lie.
If I were shown something more concrete I’d be happy to say ‘fry ‘em.’
Your ignorance and dismissal of the wisdom of the Father of Modern Policing notwithstanding, his principles are as important to policing as Hippocrates’s oath is important to the practice of medicine.
Your failure to appreciate them is rather telling. Don’t be surprised when other Freepers notice.
Oh really? SO now the media lied about the death of Robert Saylor?
They lied about Robert Saylor asphyxiating to death?
They lied that the police were the ones responsible for handcuffing him?
Oh! They must have lied about the police’s very presence.
It must be the media, because government employees would never lie, or attempt to cast aspersion on other parties, to attempt to avoid assigning blame on fellow government employees.
And LEOs certainly don’t have a long and documented history of lying for LEOs or refusing to condemn LEOs.
However, if you and two of your buddies identify a man as having Down Syndrome, proceed to attack that individual, who is mentally incapable of reasoning at your level, restrain that individual, keep him restrained so that he is physically unable to breathe, knowing, per your training (and per the most basic knowledge of human biology), the certain risks of doing so, to the point that he dies of it, you have murdered that individual.
All of it was avoidable. But, one doesn't become Obama's Civilian Security Force "just as large, just as powerful, and just as well funded [as the military]" without taking advantage of an opportunity to assault the innocent.
Helps to ensure Der Fuhrer blesses one's precinct with more shiny new toys, I suppose.
How fascinating how consistently “the media lie” is asserted when an LEO is in the wrong.
But never brought up when the same LEO is praised for saving a man/woman/dog/cat/child/baby.
Your ignorance and dismissal of the wisdom of the Father of Modern Policing notwithstanding, his principles are as important to policing as Hippocrates’s oath is important to the practice of medicine.
Your failure to appreciate them is rather telling. Don’t be surprised when other Freepers notice.
*****
I’ve typed and deleted a few responses to this. I no longer feel the need to justify myself to anybody, FReepers included.
I’ve found that being a cop makes yourself a target for praise or scorn depending on the actions of other police officers. A bit like the catholic church, people throw mud and people throw flowers. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly.
My police work philosophy is not from the “Father of modern policing,” my philosophy is from Jesus Christ: “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me.”
In the end it’s between God and I. I keep that relationship in mind and it carries over into how I treat others. It is my firm foundation in this screwed up, falling apart world where any creed or belief is held to be legitimate.
People may think or do as they wish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.