You said plenty of people would. If you meant that to say that you would, I admit I misunderstood. So, would you? A yes or no is all that’s needed.
OK. I’ve looked at your post carefully. I confess I don’t see one question. Where is it?
Believe it or not, I asked the the original question because I wanted to know the answer. That’s it. The relevance to the topic seems obvious. If he had not been unescorted, none of this would have happened. So it seems to me that *whether *he should have been escorted is pertinent.
So it’s as I suspected: it’s his parents fault that he got pepper sprayed, tasered, arrested, and laughed at while trying to take a dump. Those poor police officers were the victims. I knew I shouldn’t have wasted my time on this ridiculous little sidetrack.
No one has made any mention that the officers should not be on their guard. No one. You are arguing against a point that has never been brought up. Isn’t there a term for doing this?
Defense is fine. What actions were they defending themselves against?
Come again? Not wanting someone to come into the bathroom is now a violent act? Seriously? Not talking is now threatening behaviour? Are you serious?
Yes, in the abscence of any new information, I would say that after that amount of time trying to ascertain what was going in the bathroom, and who was in there, it would be reasonable to think that the best source of information was, in fact, the person in the bathroom. At that point, I would agree that breaking into the room would be a reasonable course of action.
There you go assuming things again. Why would you do that? Why should anyone assume things, and then act, knowing that they have very little information about the situation? Do you want your state senators, your president, your neighbors, your co-workers, your banker, your lawyer, anyone to actually make decisions based on assumptions? I don’t, and I don’t want my police officers acting on assumptions either, not when so much hangs in the balance (you know, little things, like life, liberty, etc.)
I disagree. They had all the information they could get without making any efforts on their own to gather any. That’s sloppy, shitty police work.
You keep harping on this badge thing. They could slip it under the door without relinquishing it, you know. They could have used a business card, which officers do carry. They could have written on a piece of paper “police open up”. There are dozens of ways to communicate, and the police tried 2: knocking and speaking.
Well, I know it. You should too, if you had read the stories in the links provided.
Assumptions and belief… great combo. :rolleyes:
Will you acknowledge that a bathroom is unique in the expectations and cultural norms we have set, when compared to other rooms? There is an inherent expectation of privacy, and refusing another person, unknown to you, entrance to a single-person restroom is the norm in our culture. I mean, if this was the stockroom, or the manager’s office, I wouldn’t disagree that they should have forced entry. But it wasn’t; it was a bathroom, with it’s unique function and mores. And as far as Mr. Love knew, he had every right to occupy the restroom. There were many other ways to let Mr. Love know that his time was up other than pepper spraying him and tasing him.
NOTE: According to the AL P-R story, Mr. Love was pepper sprayed before officers saw the alleged umbrella. WTF kind of police work is that, if not shitty, sloppy, and unprofessional? How is that not shooting first, getting answers later?
I mean, when I know that someone is there and I’m talking but not hearing any response, my first thought isn’t “GOOD GOD! WE’RE ALL IN DANGER! SHOOT!”, it’s “Hmmm, can this guy hear me? Can he understand what I’m saying? Can he talk? What’s going on in there?”
I’m sure that procedurally it did give them the right to use force, but that doesn’t mean it was the right thing, the prudent thing, or the professional thing to do. In this case, I think the procedures are not necessarily correct, and that the officers acted egregiously and negligently during the inital situation. Their conduct after the apprehension of Mr. Love is so poor, so outrageously delinquent, that I am having a hard time believing anyone could defend it (not that you are, Yog; you’ve made it clear you don’t agree with their conduct there).
The link I posted yesterday to the Alabama Press-Register has gone wonky. This seems to be the new link. To read the full story, you have to click on READ MORE OF THIS REPORT after the main body of text.
Snowboarder Bo, your comments in post #107 may not, technically, be over the line in GD, (although it would be a close call), but they are clearly in violation of my remarks in Post #101.
I never said that, and if you are claiming I did, you are making a claim that is simply untrue.
Again, where is that question you said I did not answer? It’s in your own post, right? How hard can it be to point it out?
If you can find anywhere in this thread that I or anyone else claimed he was, I would be greatly obliged. Failing that, why not stick to the facts?
My brother works with educable mentally retarded adults and children. He has for thirty some years. Many of his clients need to be escorted in public. They are neither fucking animals nor prisoners. Frankly, I am surprised that you did not know that those are not the only two reasons people might need help getting about.
You seemed to be echoing Shodan’s assertion that he should not legally be allowed in public without an escort. That would make him a prisoner. Or relegate him to a status different from, and less than, an adult with all the same rights that you and I enjoy. That’s what I find objectionable.
My cite shows that, in fact, Mr. Love is capable of being in public. His counselor thinks so, his mother and brother think so, and his employment record and lack of any other known police encounters corroborate this. He does not need an escort in public.
Your original question was ambiguous as to whether you meant that it would be me, or the “deaf ten year old” who had “no idea where he is”. Since there was no reason to believe that either interpretation was an honest comparison to the story, I thought it better to question before stipulating as you requested/demanded.
Incorrect. I am merely avoiding answering a question which mischaracterizes the actual events we are discussing. You refer to him ‘wandering about’ (as one might do if they had no idea where they were), and said “the police had to take him home to his family” (they didn’t have to… they could have just let him be to begin with). From this I conclude, as Cisco did, that you are being deliberately obtuse.
Obviously none of that compares to the opinion of someone who’s brother works with educable mentally retarded adults and children.
Actually, Contrapuntal, are you sure that’s really your brother you’re thinking of?
…or is it just a nice man who visits you regularly?
Shodan’s actual phrase was “to the extent possible.”
So Snowboarder is being less than comprehensive in his searches and Shodan is being less than accurate in his claims and both of you are engaged in a meaningless pissing contest that needs to stop, now.
The police reacted based on the information they had. It is not normal to spend an hour in a bathroom. It is suspicious behavior that warrants investigation. It’s sad that the person could not hear the police but they had no way of knowing this. They are presented with an uncooperative person which is further suspicious. They were then met with an umbrella which can easily be used as a weapon. Anyone who doubts the lethality of one can place their thumb below their Adam’s apple and apply 1 lb of pressure. An umbrella tip will have 1/3 of the surface area (more lbs per sq in). A mild jab using 10 lbs of pressure is an incapacitating event if not fatal. 10 lbs of pressure is far less than what a child can generate in a thrusting motion.
If the police mucked it up after this point then that’s a different story but their initial response was logical and non-lethal.
Absolutely, but did they investigate? No. They attacked. It is inexplicable that so many could be unable to see the difference.
They may indeed have had a way of knowing this. They might have been able to figure out who this person was if they had investigated! You know… done their jobs. There was no reason to do anything but investigate until they found out what the situation was that they were dealing with. But at some point (as soon as they arrived, it would seem) they decided to abandon investigation and simply attack without cause.
Virtually anything can be used as a weapon, that does not mean the police need to use force to defend themselves against the mere presence of every innocuous item. Again… the umbrella is a moronic red herring. If the mere presence of such a thing constitutes a threat, the police must just barricade themselves within the station on every rainy day.
Incorrect. There is no logical basis for using defencive weapons against a person who is not posing any threat.
Oh come on, that’s beyond ridicules. You’re telling me he’d have time to aim the umbrella at a small moving target, while setting down no less, and the cops wouldn’t have time to knock the umbrella away or grab it? The mind boggles.
They were met with resistance. What do you mean by investigate? Investigate what? Why they are being met with resistance? In order to find out who is in the bathroom and what they are up to they had to break the door down.
If you don’t understand how much of a weapon an umbrella is I’m not going to argue the point.
Your equivocation is insulting.
The ‘resistance’ they met was not a threat of any kind.
Your unwillingness to read the thread for the answer to a question which has been repeatedly asked and answered is tiresome.
Incorrect.
An umbrella is only a weapon if it is used as one. To say otherwise makes EVERYTHING a weapon, rendering the word ‘weapon’ completely meaningless. Your continuing equivocation is as clumsy and transparent as it is insulting.