Now, Penn, you know that IPs don't prove anything and neither do email addresses unless you have used an official one from your work or something and not a gmail or yahoo.
And I do something useful every day, so no need to be snitty with me.
Man w/down syndrome dies
- Thread starter Chris0nllyn
- Start date
Now, Penn, you know that IPs don't prove anything and neither do email addresses unless you have used an official one from your work or something and not a gmail or yahoo.
And I do something useful every day, so no need to be snitty with me.
itsrequired
New Member
So what was it Joe meant when he said the police overreacted? And you are saying we have reading problems?
Hank
my war
itsrequired
New Member
The difference between you and I is I have practical experience and have dealt with people who get out of control. You sit behind your parts desk and make the assumptions that the police overreacted. How would I have handled this? I have handled this. Maybe not the exact scenario, but similar situations with people who were challenged. I have had to restrain someone who was challenged so they did not hurt themselves or others. Police work is sometimes dangerous work and you can't control every element of every situation. This man being dead is tragic, but that doesn't mean the police overreacted as you state. It is quite possible that the police did exactly as they were trained, but this person's actions caused them to have to react.
The further difference between you and I, is I am not going to make that call until the investigation is complete and I have all the facts. I am also not going to state as fact, what one side of the event is claiming. That type of speculation is left to the uninformed.
Baja28
Obama destroyed America
See, I am honest and admit it. Now you try it and say you are wrong. I'll wait.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
He probably meant they overreacted...
It was his opinion.
He didn't say they killed the guy, and has said it was an unfortunate accident.
So you don't think that by saying the police overreacted that is placing some sort of blame on them?
itsrequired
New Member
Of course he does, but he can't be honest with himself, let alone us.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Possibly, but I don't know what goes through his head.
Whatever you say,
With that being said, I'm willing to bet many people with DS get restrained every day.....they don't die. So, obviously, something is different about this case.
itsrequired
New Member
Possibly, but I don't know what goes through his head.
Whatever you say,
With that being said, I'm willing to bet many people with DS get restrained every day.....they don't die. So, obviously, something is different about this case.
You are right, people with DS probably do get restrained every day. Is that always an overreaction?
You said you nor Joe are blaming the police. So what your saying if a police officer overreacts, and a situation gets out of control, it's not the the police fault. Good to know, I'll keep your thoughts in mind.
itsrequired
New Member
Could you state exactly what they did to overreact?
She may have been allowed to do it, but obviously she shouldn't have left him alone. If she wasn't actually going to supervise and aid, what was the point of her being there?
We are negligent a thousand times...until something bad happens as a result.
You could leave your toddler alone in the bathtub 10 times - then #11 is when he drowns or gets scalded with hot water. Is that the bathtub's fault or yours for playing Russian roulette?
Nothing bad ever happens until it does.
By the time she got back to her charge, the situation was out of control. So no, they probably didn't listen to her.
itsrequired
New Member
Don't you love how people take quotes from the lawyer representing the plaintiffs in this action (I know...no lawsuit has been filed....yet!) and take what that lawyer says as gospel.
Well, yes - we both know she was being negligent. She was sent to the movies with him for a reason. I'm assuming that reason was to help him, since she was called an "aide". When he needed help, she wasn't there. That would be your basic negligence.
So you're saying that if you hired a person to take your son somewhere, and she just left him alone and he got into trouble, you wouldn't consider her negligent?
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
The guy had a job, and was a productive member of society.
The aide wasn;t there to hold his leash.
What was she there for, then?
Okay, so it's not a "fact" that she was an aide? Not a "fact" that she was there to be...um...aiding him? Not a "fact" that she left him alone to go do whatever she was doing besides aiding him?
Who was responsible for this man: the aide who was sent to the movies with him, or the cops?
You people are sofa king stupid, I swear.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Damn Penn, that is some serious drunk posting. Come back when you sober up and try again.