The grand jury in Frederick County, Maryland returned no charges against Lt. Scott Jewell, Sgt. Rich Rochford and Deputy First Class James Harris, the cops who killed Robert Saylor for not leaving a movie theatre. Saylor had Downs Syndrome, but the cops claimed they couldn’t figure that out because they were too busy killing him.
At Cal State Monterey, a CSU Monterey Bay police officer was called to a dorm because a student was suicidal. He handled it all wrong. The student lived.
A union official said the officer did not feel it was necessary to use a Taser on the unarmed 150-pound victim who was distraught.
“Our officer did not believe he was any threat at all,” said Jeff Solomon, the union’s president.
Instead, the unnamed officer spoke with the student calmly, de-escalated the situation.
[T]he officer, who is a 20-year law enforcement veteran, was using “civilized methods to resolve a situation” . . .
So they fired him for it.
A CSU Monterey Bay police officer was given a notice of termination this week for choosing not to use a stun gun on a student in need of medical treatment following a suicide attempt in February, the officer’s union said Thursday.
Following the CSUMB officer’s failure to harm a distraught student, the Marina police showed up on the scene, where they immediately fixed the problem.
Marina Police Chief Edmundo Rodriguez said officers arrived at the scene to find a bloody room and an agitated victim in need of medical aid. The victim’s sweater, Rodriguez said, appeared to have been burned in an attempt to light himself on fire. A knife and hammer were also in the room, but the student was not holding the weapons when officers responded, Rodriguez said.
The situation needed to be controlled before paramedics could enter the room to assist.
“He was clearly a danger to himself and he was in crisis,” Rodriguez said. “We were trying to keep him from accessing the weapons or leave, to get him medical attention.”
By describing the infliction of pain in the most benign language, it allows us to appreciate what swell guys Rodriquez’s cops must be, saving a student suffering from an emotional collapse from the nightmare of surviving the experience unscathed. Whatever drove the student to the point of attempting suicide, it certainly would be helped by a needless tasing.
From the perspective of Cal State, not to mention the Marina police who might someday depend on a campus officer to back them up if confronted with a student upset, one officer’s failure to use force is a risk they won’t tolerate:
Instead of immediately resorting to violence, this officer was talking the student down and de-escalating the situation. The officer was successful in calming the student down and was going to get him a glass of water when the Marina police department showed up, and immediately began tasering the student.
The campus officer refused to taser the student, as he did not perceive a threat. Subsequently Rodriguez’s department later issued a “failure to act” complaint against the campus officer, accusing him of not engaging in a “highly agitated situation.”
This, of course, presents not merely the effort at de-escalation that is so often raised in opposition to the immediate resort to force without regard to need, but the fear within the ranks of law enforcement that a cop who is reluctant to use force, who attempts to employ a non-violent tactic, poses a risk to cops. They fear he won’t leap to violence as dictated by the First Rule of Policing, and that when another officer needs a cop to back him up when confronted by non-compliance, this type of cop will let him down.
You can’t trust a cop who will let you down.
Notwithstanding the obvious disincentive to the “unreliable” cop who doesn’t use violence because he doesn’t perceive any threat at all, both the death of Robert Saylor and the firing of the CSUMB officer who talked a suicidal kid off the ledge are critical reminders of the other path of individuals who come within police scrutiny, the ones who deserve to die for the putative excuse of selling “loosies” or need to die, like Michael Brown as Paul Cassell at Volokh Conspiracy has gone to such great lengths to explain.
Whether deaf or blind, intellectually challenged or psychologically compromised, even diabetic or an ADHD 5-year-old child, the refusal to resort immediately to force creates a level of risk that is unacceptable in law enforcement. It’s the risk to officers, who will not tolerate another of their own letting his perceptions stand in the way of use of force that could, in any other cop’s eyes, violate the First Rule of Policing.
It’s not all that difficult to understand how, through the eyes of a cop who is slightly less than absolutely certain that a person will under no circumstances do any harm, the immediate resort to force is by far the safer course of action to protect the police. But with the added incentive that failure to use force, even in the absence of a perceived threat, could result in the end of a career, there really is only one course of action for the reasonable police officer. The message is clear: we’re all threats, even if there isn’t any threat at all.
H/T Rick Horowitz
I’d like the address the specifics of the 2 cited incidents first, briefly if possible: In the CSU contempts, there are conflicting narratives. The one being published in that of the fired officer’s attorney, and is thus very sympathetic to that officer. The other, less known and from the Monterey Bay department, says that he left the room with distraught student and weapons together, then returned but failed to aid the other officers, and even left the room again while a fight was in progress, to take (or make) a phone call (or something equally inane). His lawyer claims these are false accusations to counter the improper actions of the other officers. Could be. Not enough info at this point. If everything as alleged is accurate, then forget all I just said, or something.
Maryland: Apparently the Down Syndrome victim was quite large, and refused to leave the theater. His aide had left him alone. The police only came in response to (again) calls from a business. The victim wasn’t brutalized or struck, but was left prone in the floor after being handcuffed (which needed 3 pair because of his size), and his death was caused by positional asphyxia, similar to some crib death, and possibly breathing and/or cardiac issues from hysteria. Whether there was some alternative is the real issue, so I would ask, what should the cops have done, given a man who refuses to leave the theater, management who wants him out, and another movie scheduled to start with patrons in the seats waiting? It’s not a case of Don’t pay = die. It is the police have an obligation to everyone, including business owners, to enforce rules, and that includes the mentally impaired who, correctly or incorrectly, don’t get a free pass. If the young man was obstreperous, perhaps the family or the aide should not have left him alone. I don’t know. But the police used no force from the published reports, other than handcuffing him. Should they have realized that his health was sufficiently fragile that merely putting him prone on the ground was a risk to life?
I think neither of these belong in the same narrative as Brown, or the Cleveland shooting, the first by dint of insufficent information, and the latter because of lack of force by the cops.
As to the larger point, that cops feel it better to use force just in case, I would argue that especially in light of the all of the recent publicity, you are going to find that (many? most?) cops will simply avoid any situation that may require using ANY force, even to the point of evading conflict no matter how critical to mission success.
It’s not like this cycle hasn’t happened before. We are, to a large degree, repeating the sins of the past, for all the same good and bad reasons, and repeating all of the same mistakes and cliches. We’re going to have the same (lack of) success, I fear, in correcting anything, because we’re pointing fingers in all the wrong directions.
The rationalization behind the use of force changes from case to case, and there is almost invariably a damn good explanation offered provided one ignores the most salient detail: someone gets harmed or killed by police who didn’t need to be harmed or killed by police. As noted in the post about not enacting any law you wouldn’t kill to enforce, which of these individuals, these non-cops, needed to die?
Did Saylor need to die because he was overweight? Was the offense worthy of death because a business wanted him to pay for a second movie ticket or leave? When you parse the “facts,” what you’re left with is death and trivial excuses.
-By the same coin, Chief Rodriguez’ commentary on his officers’ complaint should be expected to be very sympathetic to his officers’ version of events. And it is. Alleging bias for one source and glossing over it for another is poor form.
-Yes. Of course. If you’re going to “subdue” someone, i.e. drop him to the ground and cuff him – I won’t speculate on boots and heft, as SHG did in his original post on Saylor – you ought to take basic steps to ensure the person you’re cuffing survives the experience. Part of that is thinking about the conditions under which they might not, and how to prevent those states from occurring.
Even assuming cops are unfamiliar with Down syndrome, which seems implausible, because it gets a lot of publicity – even assuming you don’t get any training on how to arrest people without asphyxiating them – didn’t any of you guys wrestle in high school? Don’t you go to the gym? You are held to physical standards, aren’t you?
I’m not a cop. I was trained in basic, now outdated CPR for my driver’s license, and I do amateur powerlifting. That’s enough for me to know how easy it is to suffocate, and when I spot for someone, or roughhouse with a friend, I’m damn mindful. I make sure they survive to see another day. And I don’t even professionally “subdue” people! Yes. You should indeed be held to the following standard: don’t let overweight people with Down syndrome choke to death while you’re arresting them. As SHG says, was it worth 11 dollars?
While some cops I’ve met are dumber than dirt, most aren’t, and most are as smart and capable as anyone else. So are they unfamiliar with how not to harm or kill someone? I don’t think that’s the issue. The problem strikes me as more of a training and priority issue.
From the non-cop’s perspective, the question is: How does this interaction come to an acceptable end without anyone getting hurt?
From the cop’s perspective, the question is: How does this interaction come to an acceptable end without my getting hurt?
Of course, what constitutes an “acceptable end” also varies greatly.
Yes, I understand. To you and me, the First Rule of Policing explains the cops’ conduct. But JCC, in the middle of his comment, asked a different question – is it reasonable to ask cops to be mindful of the health of the people they arrest? (All the while implying no, it is not, at least if the arrest only involves “putting someone prone on the ground”.) In essence, not “why did the cops act that way?”, but “can we ask them to act otherwise in the first place?”.
That’s what I was looking to address. I agree, they’re not, or shouldn’t be, unfamiliar with how to bring the arrestees in alive. It’s a very low bar to clear, and yes, it is reasonable to ask cops to clear it.
Overall, a fairly grim situation. I don’t remember Orwell using the word “de-escalation”, but if he didn’t, he certainly should have.
The instinct to close ranks is strong, so I wouldn’t read too much into the union president’s comments, but still, it is interesting that the appearance is that other cops are saying that what he did was fine, and it’s the management that is troubled by the violation of the First Rule. If there is any kernel of truth to that appearance, it is simultaneously frightening and comforting.
I always seem to return to this, though: You’re the cop in the theater. The manager wants the man out. The man refuses to leave. You recognize him as mentally impaired, but he refuses to leave and you can’t seem to reason with him. He has no one around who seems to be responsible for him. The other customers are getting antsy. So, what do you do? Let him stay? Continue to argue with someone who has a diminished mental capacity? If you rule out any use of force, however minimal, that’s what’s left. And remember, generally – not always, and not in the high profile cases we read about, but generally in the thousands of interactions which occur daily – the level of force is determined by the civilian, not the cops.
BTW, let him stay. Let’s say the manager then decides to yell and curse you, for NOT doing your job. Let him get away with it? Or arrest him, for complaining that you didn’t do your job in the first place? Or better, when a half dozen customers from the current showing then decide they’ll stay at the end of their movie, what then? Arrest all six? Let them stay? Or what are you going to tell your supervisor when the complaint comes in from the theater? I didn’t arrest the man who refused to leave, because maybe I’d have to injure him accidentally if he resisted, or if he was in poor health, or if I had him lie on the floor rather than let him stand, where he could possibly try to run, or kick, or faint. The police actions in the theater strike me as so innocuous as to be beyond question. The man died, terrible tragedy, but where exactly did the police err? There has to be some fairly specific linkage between bad faith conduct or gross carelessness and the death.
I have already noted that the CSU incident has CYA written all over it. On its face, I tend to agree with the original cop’s conduct, but I wasn’t there.
Read this again, but this time with the mindset that the police aren’t the enforcement arm of commerce, nor directed in their actions by antsy customers (what it they started yelling, “just shoot him already”?). The answer is don’t kill him. How is up to you. That’s why you get the big pension. Life is full of petty annoyances for all of us, yet it’s not a good enough reason for anyone to die.
Most departments in this day and age have multiple officers trained in verbal de-escalation when dealing with the mentally ill. Many others have social workers or chaplains trained in the same. The officer has a radio, he can call for that specific backup. If the officer was instead confronted with a dangerous man in the room, they’d call for backup to protect their lives, why should it be any different to save another’s life.
As for the people waiting, so batman starts a little late. That isn’t worth a life. And the police would agree if that life was an offer’s life, why not someone with downs.
I’m sorry but I am afraid I have some disturbing news for you. There are no social workers, no chaplains, no experts in mental illness available to come out and resolve this. There is no taking half an hour, standing around debating what to do with someone with a diminished mental capacity, because while this is happening, traffic accidents are occurring, people are having hearts attacks, getting robbed, becoming lost, coming home and discovering their homes burglarized, and the like. Within the shopping center, stores are holding shoplifters and calling for officers to come get them, kids are running or skateboarding where they’re not supposed to be doing so, someone is outside yelling because a non-handicapped car is parked in the wheelchair spot. While you’re trying to reason with someone who is, by definition, unable to reason, the other customers are getting restive and complaining. Why can’t you cops just do your job? The radio dispatcher is raising you every two minutes. “When will you be able to clear?” Your supervisor wants to know the same thing.
So, again, I ask, what are you going to do?* And please don’t fantasize about the Dalai Lama showing up and resolving this for you. As the author of the OP says, you’re getting paid to make these decisions. Handle this. And remember, all you know is what they knew at the time. An obstreperous retarded adult, very large, refuses to leave the theater after his movie is over. The manager wants him out, or to pay for another ticket. Do something. There’s a hundred people (who knows how many? 100 makes my case sound better than if there were only 6) watching and some are demanding you do something too, since they paid for their tickets, they probably have babysitters at home and schedules, and one spoiled man-child in screwing up the evening out with the little woman.
If the cops or the manager of the theater had even a hint that the man would die over this, does anyone doubt they would have done something differently? But this was routine, nothing unusual.
Change the facts slightly: the retarded man is sitting on your front porch. He’s doing nothing scary or creepy, nothing threatening, but he refuses to leave. Your wife wants him gone. He says his mother is coming to get him and nothing else (which, of course, can’t be right). He’s unpredictable and obviously mentally challenged, and a large, physically mature man. Want the cops to remove him? How about if he’s in your office? Want him out because he’s scaring the secretaries? How different really would either of these be from the theater? It’s not really about the admission price. It’s about the rules. It about behavior outside the norm. No one asked the cops how they felt about it. it’s actually pretty straightforward. Pay or leave. You’re handicapped? We’ll try to be nice about it, but it’s still pay or leave. You have 5 or 10 minutes to handle this before the next mini-crisis.
If you don’t like that choice, then change the laws. If you’re mentally challenged, the laws don’t apply. Simple. (Referring to criminal statutes requiring specific intent, that’s may be true in some circumstances)
* Yes, you could reach into your own pocket and buy the guy a ticket, except maybe the guy just insulted you, or maybe you’ve done this before with the same guy, or maybe you just don’t have the money because you have 2 kids in parochial schools (because the public schools suck), you wife just got laid off, and your car needs work. Or maybe you’re just not in the mood to support the guy’s family’s failure to supervise him better. Or something. Maybe you’re Scrooge.
If we’re making up assumptions, we’re not playing by the same rules. He wasn’t obstreperous until the movie employees demanded he leave. Tell the manager to let the kid watch and send a car back when the movie is over, and the Downs Syndrome guy (who, in the real story, the cops claimed they didn’t realize had DS, despite his appearance being abundantly clear) leaves. Then do what? Arrest him for the theft of watching an $11 movie, after he paid for it the first time but not the second time?
What would you have done then? Would you arrest him? What if he resisted then? Use force? This is where you need to use that cop-ju at managing human beings and make it happen, because there are no good alternatives except tell the manager to sue the kid for his $11 and leave you alone so you can go solve a few murders. One thing still rankles: why do you see it as a police issue when a business has a beef with a customer? And if it is, like any other police issue, then it’s enforcement is worth a person’s life. Is it?
It’s not an easy job, for the reasons you made clear as well as others. But you know this. Part of what makes it difficult is that you have to handle situations like this, and not end up with anyone dead, especially a kid with Down Syndrome. If that’s too much for a cop to manage, then he shouldn’t be a cop. We don’t dumb down the job to match the talent, but find better talent to match the job.
Assuming the man was not too offensive or creating a disturbance, I would have paid for a ticket and left. Maybe I would have had a hot dog with him first, got his name and called his home. I usually had more important things to do than wrestle with a retarded guy who just wants to see a movie. I wasn’t so much non-violent as that I wanted to save all that violence for real sociopaths. I’d probably worry about leaving him there alone, without making some arrangements.
But I wasn’t there. Maybe he was already out of control or disrupting the theater when the cops arrived. So we shouldn’t be overly harsh judging cops who have to do this, all day, every day, usually without a problem. The family and the aide slipped up, left him alone and now he’s dead. The Grand Jury heard the facts – we didn’t – and decided it wasn’t even gross negligence (or however manslaughter is defined there).
SHG and I may never agree on the resolution of a specific incident, but we would probably agree in many respects on the solution to what leads to them. However, SHG and I have spent time (on opposite sides) in furtherance of the same thing. I suspect that many of the posters here have not that weight of experience, so I would urge them to go to the local criminal courts, and just sit and listen. Attend your local civilian police academy, and then go on some riding assignments, and experience all these things yourself. You know, don’t take my word for things; validate it.
You’re right. All those solutions are too inconvenient. Best just to kill the ‘tard so nobody has to be annoyed or unhappy.
JCC-
Your incorrect facts and lousy conclusions require correction:
– From published reports, Saylor’s caregiver didn’t desert him, she gave him distance and sought help from his family. She was back on scene when the mall security guards escalated the situation to physical violence, and had told the mall security guards that he was disabled, help was on the way, would react atypically to conventional cop dominance techniques, etc.
– From published reports, the guards used force in excess of merely handcuffing the guy. 3 on 1 wrestling, more like it. Maybe lawful, maybe even reasonable, but don’t describe it as a handcuffing.
– You say, “the police have an obligation to everyone, including business owners, to enforce rules.” No. The police enforce laws. They aren’t to use physical violence to enforce business rules, shouldn’t care what time the next show is scheduled to start, or how angry the business owner gets. They are paid to use judgment, perspective, and discretion, which ought to give little weight to the show schedule. How often do you get cuffed (or see people cuffed) for trespassing or other minor crimes? Of course, when the mall security guards are LEOs trading their public office for private gain (moonlighting), they may draw a wrongheaded conclusion about what their obligations are when their paymaster demands action. But they (and you) need to be challenged on this.
JPS
Good points. They could have offered to pay for his ticket creating a photo op and feel-good story in the same vein as those about cops buying boots for a homeless man and groceries for a granny.
That “solution” may be just a tad or two over the line of reasonable expectations. A nice idea, but not really a viable solution.
@ jamie –
From publishe reports, the man’s aide left him and went to get the car before the movie ended. She obviously didn’t bring the car back into the theater with her. She returned when the arrest was either over or nearly so, and apparently only when the man failed to come out to the parking lot where she was waiting when the picture show was over.
Once the arrest was under way, there is no stopping things. Are you suggesting that the cops should stop and let him go, once he started resisting? Great idea, then they could wrestle with him twice, and double the chance of injury to everyone.
Yes, I believe that the cops had to physically pull him from the seat and physically pull his arms behind him to handcuff him, which BTW, took three pair of handcuffs because of his large physical size. Whatever his mental capacity, he was a very large man with the physical capacity to hurt someone. There is nothing in the post mortem exam suggestive of injury other than positional asphyxia and morbid obesity as causes of death (from published reports, I have not seen the ME report itself), with the possibility that hysteria led to hypoxia (although, again, that may be a misnomer, as hyperventilation may actually lead to oxygen toxicity). But the more important findings would be that the man suffered no injuries as a result of force, save for the position that he was placed in. No trauma, no bleeding, etc.
Yes, the police were enforcing a law. A business owner can demand the removal of a person, resusal to leave resulting in a charge of trespassing or some equivalent. The theater rules follow the statute or code. If I left the impression the cops were arresting someone for violation of a movie theater rule, I apolgize.
I don’t know that any or all of the cops were working off-duty, but that’s common. They may have been on-duty at the mall, which is also a common assignment. Assuming the former, maybe if the cops received a better wage, they wouldn’t have to work 6 and 7 days a week. But again, assuming they were being paid by the shopping center instead of the police department that day, why would you assume that they would then be willing to sacrifice their ethics and make false arrests, use unnecessary force, and the like, just because a private corporation is paying them. Is working for the private sector an automatic signal that ethics and honesty are sacrificed to the whims of the employer? Or is it only when cops work for a private employer?
Now, I’ll ask you the same question: exactly what did you want the cops to do? No one likes the result. I get that part. Believe me when i tell you the cops regret what happened far more than anyone posting here. Everyone has all kinds of complaints. No problem. Just come up with a reasonable alternative.
The cops initiated force promptly upon non-compliance and then use what they started as the justification to not stop when the situation could have been completely de-escalated and sorted out?
Stop resisting is cop jargon and circular reasoning. And yes, when there is no need to pursue continued force when the situation can be properly resolved, even after the cop has initiated a series of events that could result in needless death over nothing. Even a cop should be able to exercise sound discretion and do the smart thing. The problem is that he won’t, not that he can’t.
Whoa, this isn’t true. Business owners don’t command the cops, and just because the theater manager says jump doesn’t mean the cop has to comply. Nor is this a trespassing. He had a ticket and overstayed. Let’s be real, the cops made their own call, and they could just as easily have told the manager that it’s his problem.
But if nothing else, just don’t use force when there is no threat of harm.
JCC, please stop making assumptions of fact that are contradicted by reported evidence. I’m not assuming that the cops were off-duty, I’m repeating what was reported as fact by many media sources (the paper of record for the nation’s capital, the 24 hour news network, etc.): the dudes were off duty. That’s a material fact that you assume away. It matters because it calls into question the officers’ integrity (unless they take the same pay as an unsworn mall cop, they are using their office for personal gain) and their priorities (did they give sufficient consideration to the the safety of an incapacitated person, in the light of the desires of their private employer to start the next show on time).
Similarly, you state that she returned when the arrest was over or nearly so. Not true, per the paper of record and the US District Judge who is hearing the wrongful death suit. She was back on scene before the moonlighters escalated the situation and informed him of his condition and the coping strategy. And, while you might have bought him a hot dog, the moonlighters wouldn’t even let her buy him a new ticket.
We can’t continue to discuss this if you keep making up facts to make your defense of the mall moonlighters. I’d also appreciate it if you’d refrain from referring to the dead developmentally disabled man as a “spoiled man-child,” because it’s rude. I’m kinda glad you did, though, because that and your continued use of the word “retarded” gets your worldview across to the assembled readers rather well. Mind your facts and your manners and we can keep talking, otherwise I’ll end by answering your question, “What did I want the cops to do?” I wanted them to not hire out their power of arrest in service to a business owner. I wanted them to take the caregiver’s offer to pay for the ticket. I wanted them to wait a few minutes, the length of maybe a few coming attractions, for the man’s mother – or, say, some unbiased on-duty cops or paramedics, to arrive. If the man initiated violence, I would want them to restrain him in a manner that didn’t kill him. That’s what I’d want.
As a father raising a disabled son, a boy who would in years past may have been referred to as “retarded” and who in years to come will be a man (and, no, not a man-child and by no means spoiled), these questions aren’t as hypothetical as I’d like them to be. And while you claim (without evidence) that the killers regret this more than anyone posting here, I report as fact that I fear the cops in his future far more than anyone not similarly situated does. Especially since I live next door to the county where this happened, and I expect that an unfortunate few of your brother officers share your attitudes. Sorry if my son messes up anybody’s date night, but we’re not keeping him home 24/7.
J.P.S.
In JPS’ very informative post, this line sticks out the most:
“the moonlighters wouldn’t even let her buy him a new ticket.”
If that is true, then it shows that at some point the officers were no longer willing to attempt to deescalate the situation. For whatever reason (Mr. Saylor’s non-compliance, theater employees no longer wanting him in the theater, etc), the officers chose to resort to force when it appears there were other options. And as is the point of the original blog post, once one officer has an issue and starts the wheels in motion, the others will follow suit and see it through.
It’s really not hard not to kill.
It only takes minimal skill.
Keep him calm. Keep it tame.
Get his parent’s full name.
Buy a ticket and send them the bill.
It is ridiculous to accept the outcome of these and so many other stories of brutality. This is not a legal issue, the law has nothing to do with why we treat each other this way. It is pure indolence, self righteousness and entitlement that drives the police profession to look upon the rest of us as less than worthy of their effort and understanding. As a society we can not be expected to accept this arrogant behavior that is demonstrated by their actions and then supported by their leadership.
The military makes their expectations clear concerning the acceptable practices with which each soldier must negotiate contact with the civilian population. No matter what the soldiers education or background, they are expected to successful engage and interact with a people who evidence suggests, wants them dead and who they do not share a way to verbally communicate. Yet these interactions are conducted with more civility and care than we show our own neighbors.
I have some very bad news. Society called, and said it’s good with this. Unfortunately, society has yet to recognize this as a problem, and most people won’t until it touches them.
All, I think JCC has the better of this argument. The man did not pay and did not have the right to continue to be on the property and the manager had the right to ask for the assistance of the state to remove him from the premises. Does it really change any if it were a private security guard (i.e. not a police officer) that tried to remove the patron and the same thing happen? What happens if the private security guard asks the individual to leave, starts getting into a fight, and calls for police assistance.
Look, it’s a tragedy. And as other commentators have pointed out, there’s some question as to how much force was used, whether it was really appropriate, or whether it could have been handled better. The fact is that the police tried to arrest someone and it ended in tragedy. But to focus on this incident and beat it to death misses the point. It’s the broader narrative of police dressing like soldiers, using increasing levels of force, treating civilians as the enemy or potential threats that’s the more fundamental problem. As SHG points out elsewhere, we need to address this and give people the tools and skills (sometimes as simple as more time) to de-escalate the situation.
Welcome to my nightmare as a father of two pre-teen children with autism in Maryland. Frederick County is by Maryland standards conservative, ex-urban, but not a place known for police brutality or nastiness; more like Mayberry than like Selma.
Lesson: I need to settle a BIG case, as the Godfrey household will need to hire full-time negotiators to cope with the police. Maybe I can get a piece of that juicy mesothelioma business.
The risks for anyone, but particularly children, with any intellectual challenge are unacceptable. Not being capable of reacting in the way some cop anticipates is not a justification for harm or death. I’ve written quite a bit on this issue, as it’s very dear to me as well.