Man with down syndrome dies while handcuffed by police.

i was a military police man for the navy for four years at concord naval weapons station in concord, california. 91-95. i had my training at lackland a.f.b. in texas. i say this because i am sick and tired of hearing stories such as this occurring more and more.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

what is happening to the police in this country? they shoot two women and a caucasion man while looking for that former cop last week. they looked nothing like him! they killed that homeless guy in southern california who had mental problems. up near where i live, a decade ago they shot a man who was in his own driveway, drunk, yelling (he was angry) while he was holding a broom. they said he was wielding like he was a marttial arts master. his wife said that he has no training at all. she was also a nurse and they did not let her aid him.
in another incident close to where i live, they shot a teen who had a small knife a 2 inch blade. couldn't they have used their pr-24's to knock it out of his hand? why are they going to the gun so damn quick?

Read the rest of the article to find out why this is happening:

"Frederick County Sheriff's Office spokesperson Jennifer Bailey said the case is still under investigation and that the three officers involved in Saylor's death -- Lt. Scott Jewell, Sgt. Rich Rochford and Deputy First Class James Harris -- "continue to work their normal assignments," according to the Post.

Frederick County State's Attorney Charlie Smith said his office is reviewing the incident and has not decided whether to bring charges."

Yep, even after it was ruled a homicide the cops get to still work their job! What is the delay in deciding to file charges?

Sociopaths are going to be attracted to positions of unchecked power. Police have learned they can kill without consequences.

reply to post by blackthorne


This is just wrong. I hope he cops get what they deserve.
Where is the justice in this country?

Who is looking out for the little guy?

In this case the little guy with down syndrome

reply to post by blackthorne

The cases are almost endless.....the homeless guy calling out for his dad (Fullerton, CA?) who was on the force was pretty hard to watch (video)....There was a case in a KC suburb a year ago also where a women in her late 50s (frail and suffering from depression) would not let the police in to her apartment who were sent to do a "well check" on her and she brandished a little steak knife to dissuade them from coming in and they shot and killed her. They did not need to kill her.....they did not need access to her apt to save someone else and they could have simply backed away but they felt justified to kill her. Heck I would disarm the woman with my bare hands before I would kill her if I had to confront her and they had other "less lethal" means available (billy club, taser, etc).

reply to post by blackthorne


Well, when you cherry pick outrageous incidents, it looks awful bad. In this case, the dude couldn’t catch his breath and died.

Positional asphyxia is typically the result of an intense struggle and often involves a person who is handcuffed and lying on their stomach after the struggle. Kirkham said people often panic and can't catch their breath. People with larger stomachs are particularly vulnerable, he said, because their bellies will push into their sternums, making breathing even more difficult.

OP’s Source

It sounds like he had a big belly and couldn’t catch his breath after being cuffed and made to lay face down. Maybe if he didn’t act like a jackass and force the theatre employees to call the cops to have him removed (he refused to leave) then he wouldn’t have been handcuffed and made to lay down.

It appears to be an accident in this case! There are many cases of police brutality but this isn’t one of them!

I'm not saying that we don't have a police problem in this country but this incident doesn't seem to fit the bill IMO.

Being a police officer should not be a "license to kill"...whatever happened to "protect and serve??"

reply to post by seabag

What about the cases where they shot someone but would not let medical personnel treat?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by seabag

 

What about the cases where they shot someone but would not let medical personnel treat?

Provide a link....I don't know the particulars.

Like I said, there are cases of complete incompetence and straight up CRIME by police. The case the OP presented isn't one of them. There is no reason to jump on the "F-the police" bandwagon based solely on this story.

IMO of course...

In the words of Thomas Jefferson

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.

What kind of karma do these men sow and then reap when they abuse their position as a police officer?

To serve and protect - it takes a real certain breed of person to uphold the responsibility that is required to be a police officer. Where is that breed of person now?

reply to post by seabag


www.sfgate.com...

this was the case i referenced. the man's wife was a full nurse. after he was shot, she begged the police to allow her to administer first aid until the ambulance arrived. they kept her away from her husband and he died.

as to the case i posted. so what the man was fat? police are supposed to be able to handle situations according to the situation. there was no reason why he he had to die!

It does seem curious that when you do "wrong" the police investigate you, as it would be foolish, and rather obscene for you to investigate yourself.

Yet.

When the police do "wrong" they investigate themselves. The conflict here is obvious to anyone with eyes, but the absurd rational for this process has actually taken hold, and we actually believe the best folks to investigate the police are the police themselves.

And.

The police make up their own policy's. So, the policeman/women does "wrong" and company they work for investigates them - using only THEIR own company policy as a standard of measure, then, should "wrongdoing" be determined, the same company makes new policy. In a way it mimics the control mechanisms in gangs, the mafia and the military, which I supposes is the point.

Why are you not afforded the same favorable, insular review structure for your own self? Why when you do something "wrong" are you subject to fines, jail, loss of property but should a policy enforcement officer do "wrong" his employer will address the issue, often in secret, and it most likely won't include jail, fines or loss of property.

Consider. The same young man was stopped by several employees, while they were holding him for someone to come and pick him up and take him home, he suffocated. Would charges be filed?

reply to post by seabag


You know they should still be held accountable for the death though right? Even from the external text you used seems police should be aware of people with big stomachs having this possibly happen and they were in charge of him while being handcuffed.
I do agree it seems like an accident but one they let happen and should have known it was a possibility.

Originally posted by Connman
reply to post by seabag

 

seems police should be aware of people with big stomachs having this possibly happen and they were in charge of him while being handcuffed.

But that would entail them giving a flying f**** about us citizens first.

And we are far, far from that these days.

reply to post by Connman

You know they should still be held accountable for the death though right? Even from the external text you used seems police should be aware of people with big stomachs having this possibly happen and they were in charge of him while being handcuffed.
I do agree it seems like an accident but one they let happen and should have known it was a possibility.

Maybe so, but this was accidental and far from malicious. I've never heard of that condition...have you? Cops only receive basic first aid training much like military members receive.

Originally posted by blackthorne
reply to post by seabag

 

www.sfgate.com...

this was the case i referenced. the man's wife was a full nurse. after he was shot, she begged the police to allow her to administer first aid until the ambulance arrived. they kept her away from her husband and he died.

as to the case i posted. so what the man was fat? police are supposed to be able to handle situations according to the situation. there was no reason why he he had to die!

It's hard to say if the cops were wrong. It was 2am, cops were called for a disturbance, the man was drunk and swinging a broomstick in a martial arts-like manner and he aggressively approached an officer. I don't expect cops to get in a fist fight with a drunken Asian dude being belligerent and acting like Bruce Lee. If they feared for their life then they have every right to use deadly force.

I'll be curious to see the results of this investigation.

reply to post by seabag


I politely disagree, I feel those described circumstances do not make deadly force reasonable and here is my reasoning for discussion.

In any state where you can own a concealed carry permit for your firearm, you have the right to do so for self defense. The catch, as it was explained to me by a friend so maybe it is not 100 percent accurate, is that in a court of law you can't justify using it unless it can be proved deadly force was confronting you.

For instance, the example my buddy used, if a man pulls a knife on you, you aren't legally allowed to pull out your gun to scare him away - the only situation you can legally pull out your gun is one in which you use your gun on the attacker and in this way the attacker has to show deadly force first.

Maybe someone more informed on gun laws and whatnot knows what I am talking about? I would hate to sound like I disagree based on some flimsy thing a friend told me, but this buddy of mine had a CCP and explained to me the minor language used in the law and I just can't remember right now the way he worded it..

But the basic just of it, in comparison to this example and why I disagree, is that if the situation were nothing more than a man with a broom stick attacking an officer.. Well, say for instance that it wasn't an officer - what if it were a civilian? What if police officers came to the scene of a crime and found a man with a gun standing over a dead man with a broom stick? Would the police not arrest the man with the gun for due process to make sure his life was fully threatened in order to fire on a man with a broom stick? I have a gut feeling the situation would play out a little differently for the civilian with the gun killing a man with a broom stick. What do you think?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Being a police officer should not be a "license to kill"...whatever happened to "protect and serve??"

The term is " To Punish and Enslave"

I will get a pic of what I mean soon..

EDIT

reply to post by indigothefish

Well, say for instance that it wasn't an officer - what if it were a civilian? What if police officers came to the scene of a crime and found a man with a gun standing over a dead man with a broom stick? Would the police not arrest the man with the gun for due process to make sure his life was fully threatened in order to fire on a man with a broom stick? I have a gut feeling the situation would play out a little differently for the civilian with the gun killing a man with a broom stick. What do you think?

I’m sure it would play out differently, and I’m not saying that this incident shouldn’t be thoroughly investigated as ALL police shootings are. I’m just saying that if this drunken lunatic was approaching me at 2am in a threatening manner I would consider that a threat to my life. I’m sure the police already had guns drawn when the guy approached…he wasn’t deterred by the site of overwhelming force, which leads me to believe he knew what the potential outcome was.

I had a concealed license in Texas for 8 years and there is a consideration here called “disparity of force.” This rule is applied when considering the justification for shooting. I’m not a lawyer so this is by no means 100% accurate but I can provide a few examples to illustrate my understanding of how it works.

Example 1: A 5ft tall woman in a dark alley is confronted by a 6 ft 5 inch 300 lb unarmed man and he tries to physically assault her. Because of the disparity of force (he’s much bigger and stronger) she would be justified using her gun.

Example 2: Five unarmed young men approach an elderly man and attempt to rob him. The old man would be justified because of the disparity of force (it was 5 young men against one old man).

Example 3: A young man is approached by another young man in a dark parking lot. The approaching man has a baseball bat and raises it in a threatening manner. In my humble opinion, even though these men are the same age and same size, the fact that the aggressive man has a blunt object and appears to have the intention of assaulting the other guy with it, that is enough justification for using deadly force in self defense.

What say you?

reply to post by seabag


they still did not allow his wife to give immediate first aid since she was nurse. it could have saved his life.

Originally posted by blackthorne
reply to post by seabag

 

they still did not allow his wife to give immediate first aid since she was nurse. it could have saved his life.

It is the scene of a shooting!

Nobody except LE and EMT's are allowed to approach the man. You can't lose control of the situation and allow people to enter the scene. What if the man grabbed her and put a knife to her throat?? Then you'd be complaining about how the dumb cops allowed this woman to be hurt.