Man w/down syndrome dies

[Bann]

Love how some ignore the mother of a kid with a DD and her opinion in their bloodthirsty quest to make the LE/security guards the bad guys.

This was an unfortunate incident. But it doesn't sound like these men had MALICIOUS intent. They were trying to do a job. Right or wrong they had a difficult & apparently pretty strong person to restrain. Better training? Who knows?! But they didn't set out that day to kill a man with DS for crissake.

The aide could have helped him before it got too far - SHE/HE was not there in HIS TIME OF NEED! More on this needs to come out.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Love how some ignore the mother of a kid with a DD and her opinion in their bloodthirsty quest to make the LE/security guards the bad guys.

This was an unfortunate incident. But it doesn't sound like these men had MALICIOUS intent. They were trying to do a job. Right or wrong they had a difficult & apparently pretty strong person to restrain. Better training? Who knows?! But they didn't set out that day to kill a man with DS for crissake.

The aide could have helped him before it got too far - SHE/HE was not there in HIS TIME OF NEED! More on this needs to come out.

I'm pretty sure that's the concensus here...

The story says the aide came when it was going down, but was ignored.

:shrug:

 

[Roman]

Back in the early 70's, there was no formal training on "Special Patients". Since the 80's, Police are being trained on Special Patients. However, when the police see a threat to the public, or to themselves, all that special training flies out the window. It's very terrible that the DS man died. But as I posted earlier in this, the were probably underlying, or undiagnosed conditions that he had. For one thing, the tongue of a DS person, is very large. It can cause air way obstruction. Not many people know that. All in all, the Police did their job, and did not set out to kill anyone. Unless any of us were there, there is not one person on this forum that can sit in judgement, and that includes you Chris.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Back in the early 70's, there was no formal training on "Special Patients". Since the 80's, Police are being trained on Special Patients. However, when the police see a threat to the public, or to themselves, all that special training flies out the window. It's very terrible that the DS man died. But as I posted earlier in this, the were probably underlying, or undiagnosed conditions that he had. For one thing, the tongue of a DS person, is very large. It can cause air way obstruction. Not many people know that. All in all, the Police did their job, and did not set out to kill anyone. Unless any of us were there, there is not one person on this forum that can sit in judgement, and that includes you Chris.

But it's perfectly fine to judge the mom, the aide, and everyone else right?

How many people that aren't LEOs get judged on this forum?

But it's wrong to do the same to police, right? Even if the ME ruled it a homicide, right?

 

[vraiblonde]

The story says the aide came when it was going down, but was ignored.

The cops were busy at that time restraining her charge that she had abandoned.

That was the first irresponsibility - the aide running off to text her boyfriend or pick up a pint of hooch or whatever was so important that she was doing instead of what she was supposed to be doing.

The second was the movie house making a big freaking deal out of some DD guy wanting to watch the movie again. I understand that they didn't know him, didn't know whether he was unattended, didn't know jack squat. But still. How hard would it have been to let him watch the damn movie again, check with the ticket person to see if he came in alone, make a couple of phone calls to ARC or wherever to see if anyone knows him? "That's fine, you sit here and enjoy the movie. What's your name so I can call someone to come help you?"

The cops are the very last people that should be blamed for this, besides Saylor himself. Saylor became agitated, which prompted the theater guy to call security. By the time they got there, it was on and they did what they had to do.

They were the last line of defense, a result of the dip####s that preceded them, but I guess it's just easier to blame them. Doesn't require any actual thinking.

 

[Roman]

But it's perfectly fine to judge the mom, the aide, and everyone else right?

How many people that aren't LEOs get judged on this forum?

But it's wrong to do the same to police, right? Even if the ME ruled it a homicide, right?

I'm not so sure ALL of the facts are in, to include the ME's impression. It takes a while to get all of the facts in a case. I'm not judging anyone involved, not even the care taker at this point. In almost all of your posts, I can read between the lines that you don't like the Police for whatever reason. It is a thankless job, with effed up hours, and many family functions lost. The general public have set hours, and probably work Monday-Friday during the day. Police can not make long term family plans. It takes real dedication to be one. I am thankful for Police. As messed up as this world is today, could you imagine if there were none?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I'm not so sure ALL of the facts are in, to include the ME's impression. It takes a while to get all of the facts in a case. I'm not judging anyone involved, not even the care taker at this point. In almost all of your posts, I can read between the lines that you don't like the Police for whatever reason. It is a thankless job, with effed up hours, and many family functions lost. The general public have set hours, and probably work Monday-Friday during the day. Police can not make long term family plans. It takes real dedication to be one. I am thankful for Police. As messed up as this world is today, could you imagine if there were none?

The fact that his death was ruled a homicide has already been established.

The medical examiner ruled that Robert Saylor, of New Market, was asphyxiated and the manner of death is a homicide. He died on Jan. 12.

Robert Saylor death ruled a homicide | WJLA.com

I agree. It is a thankless job with crappy hours, and I respect those who take their job seriously and with honor. But lets be honest here, no one forced them to take that job, and they knew full well what they were getting into when they signed up.

 

[Bann]

But it's perfectly fine to judge the mom, the aide, and everyone else right?

How many people that aren't LEOs get judged on this forum?

But it's wrong to do the same to police, right? Even if the ME ruled it a homicide, right?

Obtuse. You work hard at it.

 

[itsrequired]

I did read everything in your post but you reference a case where the facts of that case have nothing to do with this case. The decision in that case was based on completely different circumstances and that is the police pepper spraying a restrained person.

You fail to see two things:

1. The officers has a responsibility to recognize that the situation is different because the individual is developmental/mentally impaired and thus treat it as such. You have no information to indicate they didn't! One could say they did by using three pairs of handcuffs instead of one. Is there a thought wih this sentence? It could also be said that they failed to recognize that the aid had the training to help calm the victim down.

You have no idea what was happening when the aid offered assistance. In the case that you cited, it points out that the aid couldn't calm that person down and locked herself in a car. If the police back off and let the aid attempt to deal with a person who is already violent, and that person then gets hurt, the police are responsible.

2. The officers, once arresting the individual (ie detaining him with handcuffs) have an added burden to take care of his welfare. The care was so good the arrested died of homicide (dead caused by another human - not for medical reason which was reported)

The officers did render aid. The individual died at the hospital. That is the officers obligation, to use reasonable force, which in this case there is not any information to this point the officers did anything but use reasonable force. The person dying is not automatically the officers fault.
I contend they failed on both.

I also contend that by touching the individual (the bases for assault under Maryland law) this started his 4th Amend. rights violation. In most minor property crimes and in many cases even simple assault causes, arrests are not made and court appears are only required. If you catch someone trespassing my first guess is you do not grab them to remove them from the property.

Again, you show your ignorance in the law. A misdemeanor committed in the officers presence (you have at least one here, the failure of paying for the ticket and remaining in the place of business.) is grounds for a warrantless arrest. If these officers did nothing, they could be charged with malfeasance of office.

I also contend that since there were 3 officers, the fear of great bodily harm was not an issues.

How do you figure this?


As for the officers, they were on the clock for the movie theater acting as agents for the theater, not the police department. Wrong.

Knowing a little about civil lawsuits, the sheriff office will be a target. Because they are officers, there is a higher expectation that they would have better training to handle such situation that a standard security guard.
It is really hard to argue the outcome based result that the corner reported homicide (dead by another human) and the SC ruling that once arrested (detain in such a way as not free to go) the police have an obligation to protect that person that they fail (detain is dead caused by another human).

I am pretty certain there will be a lawsuit, but that doesn't mean the officers did anything wrong.

I believe that the officers need better training and that message needs to be sent out. I believe the family has been wronged (likely the aid and the theater). I do not think it is criminal murder or even manslaughter. Probably more negligence on the parties involved. It is tragic and sad and all involved I would guess feel badly about it.

You have no idea what the police officers feel, but yet are willing to get on here and bash them for doing thier jobs. It is my opinion you should stick to automotive parts.

 

[itsrequired]

But it's perfectly fine to judge the mom, the aide, and everyone else right?

How many people that aren't LEOs get judged on this forum?

But it's wrong to do the same to police, right? Even if the ME ruled it a homicide, right?

If you were judging everybody equally then it would be alright.

 

[itsrequired]

You thinking that I am in automotive parts is another example that you don't know what you are talking about. I sure hope you do not stick in public service because "your narrow mind think" seems dangerous. People like you are the ones that give the 99% of the good cops a bad name.

I was waiting for that to come out. You have no idea what I have done in my 20+ years in law enforcement, but since I don't agree with you, I give cops a bad name. Lets not talk about the numerous citations, and accomidations I have received due to thanks and praise from victims and the community I have served. Good call.


Since the victim died from homicide while in the custody of the officers, tell me why those officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Unpaid theater ticket -> death. Something is wrong here, would you not say.

From the case - in reference to other case law:

"The diminished capacity of an unarmed detainee must be taken into account when assessing the amount of force exerted"

Yea, but the amount of force hinged on the FACT that they pepper sprayed a man in custody who was no longer resisting!!!!!
This is understand even if the pepper spray had not been applied.


Second, the Officers’ argument sidesteps the point: even if Champion had not died, but had only been injured, his clearly established rights were no less violated.

BECAUSE they pepper sprayed a man in custody who was no longer resisting!!!!!


It should be noted:


It also points out that the officers have the responsibility to assess the situation that the individual has a disability.


This is the biggest BS statement. Officers give people warning instead of speeding tickets all the time. I have seen officers let people drink in public and I have seen officers say thinks like please do not do that instead of arrest someone. People driving and talking on cell phones and drifting between lanes is a offense (I seen deputies doing it too!). I guess they should be held for malfeasance. My guess that infraction is a greater risk to the public than some DS sitting in a movie theater.

You are comparing discretionary traffic and other laws to a citizen complaint. This further goes to show your lack of intellect about law enforcement matters. Go back to doing parts. I know that is what you do because you are Penn, and that is what he does. You have shown to be not reputable here, don't try to change that.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Since the victim died from homicide while in the custody of the officers, tell me why those officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Unpaid theater ticket -> death. Something is wrong here, would you not say.

I think this needs repeating.....

 

[itsrequired]

I think this needs repeating.....

Because, from what we know at this point their actions do not meet the standard of gross negligence.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Because, from what we know at this point their actions do not meet the standard of gross negligence.

If it were another citizen who happened to be there when this guy died (under similar circumstances), do you think that person would be charged with homicide?

 

[itsrequired]

If it were another citizen who happened to be there when this guy died (under similar circumstances), do you think that person would be charged with homicide?

Describe the similar circumstances of your hypothetical.

 

[itsrequired]

I bet you get your butt in when you end up in court. I question your intellect on law enforcement matters too. Also, I am not Penn, so please continue to show your ignorance. It just shows you are making assuming that are wrong.

Not about pepper spray - think about 4th Amend.

We have repeatedly stated that “the right to be free from excessive force is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.” Neague v. Cynkar, 258 F.3d 504, 507 (6th Cir. 2001) (decided after Saucier). For example, we have articulated a clearly established right to be free from specific types of non-deadly excessive force, such as handcuffing an individual too tightly. See Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir. 1993).

Or being handcuffed to a point of being in an medical emergency! We are not talking about wrist bruises here.

Why do you answer to people when they call you Penn then? Oh well, stick to your story.

Who is making a claim of excessive force here? The family? The aid? Who?

 

[itsrequired]

The public and the people. That is why it is under review by the states attorney.

Who related to the case is saying it's excessive force?

Every homicide is reviewed by the states attorney. More lack of knowledge shown on your part.

 

[itsrequired]

Kain, 156 F.3d at 672. We now make explicit what this court in Kain implied: when there is no allegation of physical injury, the handcuffing of an individual incident to a lawful arrest2 is insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The threshold inquiry in a qualified immunity inquiry is whether a plaintiff has stated a valid constitutional claim. Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425, 429 (6th Cir. 1997). Under the undisputed facts of this case, the answer to that inquiry is no. Accordingly, defendants Murphy and Cynkar are entitled to qualified immunity.

So the theshold, injury to the arrested, is the factor that kicks in to qualified immunity.

Wrong again.

 

[itsrequired]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn
If it were another citizen who happened to be there when this guy died (under similar circumstances), do you think that person would be charged with homicide?

Describe the circumstances in your hypothetical?

 

[itsrequired]

Its like talking to a bag of rocks.

The States Attorney represents the people, even if it is not homicide.

[/I]

So what did you mean by this?

Originally Posted by JoeRider
The public and the people. That is why it is under review by the states attorney.

Don't the police represent the people? Doesn't everyone who is paid by the taxpayers represent the people? What does that have to do with it? You said it was under states attorney reveiw?