# This young boy died because boot camps are considered "tough love" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 13, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552 "2006-04-13T18:10:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/41 "2006-04-14T14:44:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So where’s the crime? Point it out to me, please. I don’t fucking care, because **NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ANALYZED FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT**. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/42 "2006-04-14T14:49:37Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > **Derleth** , **GusNSpot** has a point. Obviously camps like this one shouldn’t be allowed to exist, but not every kid that resents being sent to summer camp is being sent to a hell hole. Drawing the line won’t be easy. You’re joking, right? We’re not talking about summer camps where kids swim and play in the forest. We’re talking about so-called “boot camps” where children are sent to be intimidated and abused by wannabe drill instructors. And gosh, the line is pretty easy to draw; it is illegal to assault someone. How tough is that? Please refer to Florida Law, Crimes, sec. 784.011 and 784.03. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/43 "2006-04-14T14:55:57Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > I don’t fucking care, because **NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ANALYZED FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT**. Ummm it does if you’re talking about convicting several men on the basis of a video tape that supposedly shows them beating a kid to death. I’ve watched it about four times all the way through now. I still can’t see what the hell is going on but if there’s a beating in there it sure isn’t as brutal as everyone seems to be saying. Not saying that what I could see was acceptable just not as outrageous as everyone seems to be saying here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/44 "2006-04-14T15:30:54Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > I don’t fucking care, because **NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ANALYZED FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT**. Yeah, a legal standpoint is really inappropriate to analyze a comment like “…but the nurse and the officers involved have yet to be arrested.” A legal standpoint is completely useless when evaluating “I truly hope the people in the video and those in charge here are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” :rolleyes: BWAHAHAHA! What a moron. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/45 "2006-04-14T15:45:20Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > No? Maybe. For that matter, the moment you restrain someone against his will, that’s kidnapping, or unlawful detention, the moment you place your hands on them without consent, that’s assault. However, a parent, or those who stand _in loco parentis_, have a common-law privilege to commit acts that would be crimes if committed by strangers against an adult. I can swat my kid on the bottom without being guilty of battery; I can confine him in his room with no supper without being guilty of unlawful detention or kidnapping. The strikes on the arm shown in the video do not, to me, appear to be particularly brutal. They were not punches - they were slaps. Assuming the parents had given permission for their child to be treated like that, it’s far from clear to me that the action was even illegal. And even if it was, it amounts to no more than misdemeanor assault. Granted, that is a crime… it’s not a particularly serious one. ---
**Author:** ![LilCutie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@LilCutie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilCutie)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/46 "2006-04-14T16:14:06Z")
Again, I would like to add that the actual video is 40 minutes long. It amounts to about 40 minutes of beating. To the point that the second examiner said he was probably brain dead at that point. Also, this is not your run-of the-mill camp like many others have pointed out. These children are pressure pointed excessively, beaten, revived by ammonia capsules, beaten again, and treated like animals. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/47 "2006-04-14T16:25:32Z")
> [@LilCutie](#): > > Again, I would like to add that the actual video is 40 minutes long. . from **Bricker’s** post, one gets the assumption that it was about 7 minutes long - hey, **Bricker** - you noted several ‘glips’ where you’re not sure if there was editing. I would assume that you would hesitate to make any conclusions based on the 7 minutes you viewed if you knew for certain that the original tape was 40 minutes long, w/o some idea of who edited what out, right? ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/48 "2006-04-14T16:35:53Z")
> [@LilCutie](#): > > Again, I would like to add that the actual video is 40 minutes long. It amounts to about 40 minutes of beating. To the point that the second examiner said he was probably brain dead at that point. Well is there any way to view the whole video? If it’s so horrible how come the 8 mins we can view doesn’t seem to be all that outrageous? Don’t take me wrong I’m not saying there wasn’t a brutal beating I’m just not seeing any real proof at this point that this isn’t anything more then a knee jerk situation. > [@](#): > > Also, this is not your run-of the-mill camp like many others have pointed out. These children are pressure pointed excessively, beaten, revived by ammonia capsules, beaten again, and treated like animals. If the standard of these camps are to beat children unconscious revive them only to beat them again it seems terribly unwise for them to allow videotaping to take place. Was this video somehow taken without the people that run this camp’s knowledge? Out of curiosity what is ‘excessive pressure pointed’? Is there a level that you’d find acceptable? Not being snide I just found that phrase kinda odd. Either it’s a legit tactic to get compliance or it’s not. As an aside I understand these camps are the alterative to juvenile hall. Do you feel the camps are inherently worse then that? Or do you just feel this camp turned to torture somewhere along the way? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/49 "2006-04-14T16:38:22Z")
Fair enough, Bricker. I think on the evidence of that tape alone I’d have a hard time convicting, too, because there’s definite doubt as to what occurred. The contents of the tape do suggest that something untoward occurred, though, and while we can’t come out and say there’s a clear case from a legal view I think it’s pretty safe to say that someone or a group are to blame, and that the kid was in the care of the camp at the time, leaving them with obligation to prevent harm coming to him. If I understand the law correctly (and I admit I’m far from an expert) the parents could at the very least bring a civil suit against the camp for failing in their duties to protect him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/50 "2006-04-14T17:01:41Z")
> [@wring](#): > > from **Bricker’s** post, one gets the assumption that it was about 7 minutes long - hey, **Bricker** - you noted several ‘glips’ where you’re not sure if there was editing. I would assume that you would hesitate to make any conclusions based on the 7 minutes you viewed if you knew for certain that the original tape was 40 minutes long, w/o some idea of who edited what out, right? Of course. However, the video I viewed was at the link offered in the OP. The page in question is certainly sympathetic to the cause of the boy’s death. I would assume, then, that they woud choose to post a version of the video that was most inculpatory with respect to the guards. This video, which ran eight minutes and ten seconds, was not, as I detailed above. But you’re correct. I mentioned the edit “jumps” precisely for that purpose. I have no way of knowing what was removed; for all I know, it shows a platoon of guards beating the crap out of the kid. _But I don’t know that_, and for the Op and others in this thread to demand “full prosecution” or the arrest of the nurse and officers BASED ON THE TAPE I SAW is ludicrous. If there is a link to the full tape, I’d certainly like to see it. It may well settle the issue we’re discussing definitively. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/51 "2006-04-14T17:08:58Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Fair enough, Bricker. I think on the evidence of that tape alone I’d have a hard time convicting, too, because there’s definite doubt as to what occurred. The contents of the tape do suggest that something untoward occurred, though, and while we can’t come out and say there’s a clear case from a legal view I think it’s pretty safe to say that someone or a group are to blame, and that the kid was in the care of the camp at the time, leaving them with obligation to prevent harm coming to him. If I understand the law correctly (and I admit I’m far from an expert) the parents could at the very least bring a civil suit against the camp for failing in their duties to protect him. Well, even there I’m not so sure. Certainly you’re right – the parents could bring such a suit. But if the only evidence were the tape I saw, they would not have enough evidence to win even a civil suit. The medical examiner’s report ruled the death a result of complications from a blood disorder. There was a second autopsy, which apparently will find that that the death was the result of suffocation, but it’s findings are not yet released. At best, then, you have dueling experts: the official medical examiner, a supposedly neutral party, says the death was not suspicious; an expert hired by the family disputes this. This is not exactly a slam-dunk for a plaintiff’s case. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/52 "2006-04-14T17:15:43Z")
Thanks for clearing that up, Bricker. One question, though; > [@Bricker](#): > > The medical examiner’s report ruled the death a result of complications from a blood disorder. There was a second autopsy, which apparently will find that that the death was the result of suffocation, but it’s findings are not yet released. At best, then, you have dueling experts: the official medical examiner, a supposedly neutral party, says the death was not suspicious; an expert hired by the family disputes this. This is not exactly a slam-dunk for a plaintiff’s case. What usually happens in cases like these, where there’s two experts disagreeing? Are more experts sought out, until there’s a more agreed-upon answer? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/53 "2006-04-14T17:23:37Z")
Well, the prosecution (or plaintiff) puts up their expert and the defense tries to impeach the testimony, and the defense puts up their expert and the prosecutor tries to impeach the testimony, and the jury (or the judge) decides what (if any) testimony is credible. The jury decides how much weight to give testimony. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/54 "2006-04-14T17:36:17Z")
Apparently, Bricker, the ‘kicking and punching’ part of the video. Now, maybe you can’t see it, but the young man apparently died from internal bleeding. [http://www.nospank.net/n-p64r.htm](http://www.nospank.net/n-p64r.htm) If the article is accurate, then he was kneed and punched repeatedly. [http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/03/14/ap2594644.html](http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/03/14/ap2594644.html) According to the expert opinion of Dr. Baden, pathologist, it is probable he died as a result of damage inflicted by the actions shown by the men in the videotape. What we see as a .wmv is not the actual videotape, but a byte-downsampled copy. It’s blurry, and I’m not an expert, but I think I see physical violence, yes. If the final results suggest that Mr. Anderson did die in that manner, then… well, I’d call that murder. Wouldn’t you, Bricker? ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/55 "2006-04-14T17:43:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yeah, a legal standpoint is really inappropriate to analyze a comment like “…but the nurse and the officers involved have yet to be arrested.” A legal standpoint is completely useless when evaluating “I truly hope the people in the video and those in charge here are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.” Right. Your post focused entirely on those two comments (there are admittedly others). The thread is about a kid who died under horrible circumstances. That’s what the thread is ultimately about–not whether what happened is technically illegal. > [@](#): > > What a moron. One could argue that it’s self-evident that what happened is horrible and wrong regardless of whether it was legal, and that it’s unreasonable to expect you to mention the obvious before delving into your typical legal nit-picking. But in your case I wouldn’t buy that, because frankly I’m not sure if you’d recognize it as wrong. I think you sometimes use your legal knowledge as a shield to hide less defensible (but more interesting) positions. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/56 "2006-04-14T17:45:00Z")
> [@jali](#): > > A second autopsy was done and the findings differed greatly from the original cause of death listed. This is murder and the offenders as well as all involved in the cover up need to be punished. Differed greatly? So if it was an asthma attack rather than complications from sickle cell anemia are we still asking for the death penalty. I watched the video presented, I didn’t see anything abusive exept for one bit at time point 1:21 where it looks like the officer might have kneed him. Refusing to walk is a pretty common method of passive resistance to arrest. I would imagine that the nurse is around probably to assist with people who want to claim physical inability to perform PT or other activities due to medical problems, probably also a common complaint/excuse. If the kid had relevant medical problems that would make his sentencing incompatible with boot camps the fault lies with whomever allowed him to be placed here. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/57 "2006-04-14T17:47:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. > > I have watched the video. > And if I were on a jury, I’m not sure I’d vote to convict anyone of anything based on the content of the video. > > So, for someone who contends that the video shows a crime, please identify the precise moment (minutes and seconds into the video) and what crime you believe is shown there. I am having trouble seeing anything that would allow for a criminal conviction. > > At timetick 1:28, three men bring a young man (presumably the victim) down the the ground. At 1:46, they release him. At 1:54, they appear to be holding him up; he seems to have trouble standing. It’s unclear to me if this is voluntary or genuine distress. At 2:26, they are restraining his arms, but he’s in a sitting position. At 2:37, they try again to get him to sit up or move away from the telephone pole he was leaning against, but he again apparently cannot walk on his own. At 2:53, they move him back into a sitting position against the pole. (I should note that the view jumps at several points, as though a section of the tape has been removed from what we’re viewing; obviously, I have no idea what happens on those missing sections, or even how long they are). > > By 3:47, the group is no longer restraining the alleged victim; they are simply standing around him. At 4:02, they move him into a prone position on the ground. At 4:23, they assist him in walking away; there appears to be no force or manhadling now, just help in walking. At 4:37, having taken about 6 laborous steps, he sinks to the ground again. At 4:50, one of the guards strikes the victim three or four times on the lower arm, near his wrist. There’s another up-and-down assisted walking sequence at 5:34. There’s another “edit jump” at 6:04 and we then see the victim on the ground. A woman in white is apparently checking him out; at 6:10, she’s using a stethescope to monitor him. At 6:40, thirty seconds after using the stethescope, she gestures and at least two of the guards run quickly out of frame in apparent response to a direction she gives. > > At 6:53, after another “edit jump,” two more figures in white shirts arrive carrying a bag; they look to me like EMTs. At 7:12, after another edit jump, there is a wheeled stretcher in place, the victim is loaded on to it, and at 7:56 the camera pans back and follows them wheeling the stretcher to a waiting ambulance. > > So where’s the crime? Point it out to me, please. For one, I hope the prosecution has more evidence than just a tape, like the eyewitness alluded to in the linked website and the autopsy conducted after the exhumation. I tend to agree with you on the tape alone, though. It’s just hard to tell what’s going on. However, if the tape is played for an eyewitness who can testify to the scene (tell me what I am looking at) and if I see an autopsy report showing this kid died of blunt force trauma, well then, that changes things. Consider this: If you were in a field 300 yards from me and I was just barely able to see well enough to see you extend your arm in the direction of what looked like a tree directly in front of you and then I heard a loud pop and saw what looked like smoke rise from the end of your arm and then, 2 days later, someone who had been next to you would tell me that what I saw was you shooting a .22 pistol at the tree and then someone else would show me a picture of what he said was the same tree and in that picture I could see a that there is now a bullet hole in the tree, and that person would tell me it was a 2 day old .22 bullet hole – well my first sight of you 300 yards away doesn’t tell me much, but in conjunction with the rest of that stuff, I’m pretty sure I know what happened. And this business about shutting down all camps is really stupid. LHOD has already pretty much covered this, but jeez . . . do you folks really expect to be taken seriously? Finally, as part of the earlier hijack – it was mentioned that Paris Island was full of volunteers and that’s not how it was in the '60’s – but it’s my understanding that USMC has always been volunteer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/58 "2006-04-14T19:47:09Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > What usually happens in cases like these, where there’s two experts disagreeing? Are more experts sought out, until there’s a more agreed-upon answer? Credibility is an issue of fact for the fact-finder (the jury) to resolve. Certainly if one side can bring in ANOTHER expert that will shore up his position, that may help things; the judge has the discretion to limit testimony that is wholly cumulative of previous testimony, however. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/59 "2006-04-14T19:52:46Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Right. Your post focused entirely on those two comments (there are admittedly others). The thread is about a kid who died under horrible circumstances. That’s what the thread is ultimately about–not whether what happened is technically illegal. When the OP itself, and other comments (as you acknowledge yourself, more than just the two I quoted) demand arrests or legal reprisals, it’s not crazy of me to respond to them. You may say, “The thread is about a horrible death, not techincal legal points,” but in fact the thread IS about legal points. Nor are these particularly hypertechnical legal points. We’re not talking about the exclusion of evidence for faliure to be specific enough in an affadavit support a warrant. We’re talking about the absence of evidence of a beating on a video that was offered to us as evidence of a beating. That’s pretty damning, and PRECISELY in line with what this thread is “about.” > [@](#): > > One could argue that it’s self-evident that what happened is horrible and wrong regardless of whether it was legal, and that it’s unreasonable to expect you to mention the obvious before delving into your typical legal nit-picking. But in your case I wouldn’t buy that, because frankly I’m not sure if you’d recognize it as wrong. I think you sometimes use your legal knowledge as a shield to hide less defensible (but more interesting) positions. You’re exactly right: right now, with the evidence in front of me, I do NOT see this as horrible and wrong. If the kid died of complications from a genetic blood disorder, then blaming the camp for his death is absurd. Nothing I saw on that tape strikes me as over-the-top punishment for a teenager who stole a car. Now, if I could see actual beating, I would change my opinion in a hurry. But I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552/60 "2006-04-14T20:04:26Z")
So, if the evidence supports the instructors beating the kid to death, then you support it. … Man, Bricker, you are just so… much a lawyer sometimes. I would like to put forth for consideration that we have an issue with these ‘boot camps’ that are generally A: outside US borders, as their actions might be illegal inside, B: generally containing ill-trained instructors, and C: apparently, not especially licensed or accredited. These ‘boot camps’ seem to be different in nature from ‘sleepaway camps.’ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-young-boy-died-because-boot-camps-are-considered-tough-love/352552.md?page=4)