I don’t think Bricker is an obvious advocate of an increasingly fascist nation. I just think he wants people to view the video with an open mind because he probably likes what he sees.
It’s not a black-and-white issue as you’re framing it. It will be simpler for the courts to determine abuse in camps than it is for courts to determine abuse in private homes, by virtue of the more public nature of camps. Since we don’t throw up our hands in surrender at the possibility of determining whether parents are abusive, I think it’s silly to suggest that it’ll be too hard to determine which camps are abusive.
Daniel
PS-Your kid ever gives you any trouble, here’s a great place to send him/her: Escuela Caribe
BookPage: Your portrait of Escuela Caribe is troubling, since what’s supposed to be a reaffirming place for confused teens comes off as an insensitive reform school. Do you think your parents made a mistake in sending you there?
Julia Scheeres: I think it’s a mistake to send any child to Escuela Caribe. For $3,000 a month, you can ship your child to a Christian boot camp in the Dominican Republic, where she’ll receive a substandard education, learn to spout “Praise Jesus,” and be so traumatized she’ll have nightmares about it for the rest of her life. Escuela Caribe is essentially a dumping ground for the problem teens of wealthy evangelicals. Many students come from homes where they were emotionally, physically or sexually harmed, yet these issues aren’t addressed by the school. Such camps are located in foreign countries for good reason: to evade U.S. regulations governing child welfare, academic quality and housing standards. The whole point of Escuela Caribe is to break the “rebellious teenage spirit”—through humiliation, intimidation and suspending simple freedoms—and convert kids into Christian automatons.
Yaaay!
And accusing Bricker of advocating a fascist state, simply because he doesn’t see the abuse that you see, is contemptible.
Daniel
Thank you and fuck you very much.
I don’t really see where the animosity for Bricker is coming from. He is mostly talking about the legal system, and seems to be presenting a logical, reasonable perspective of that system which will be used to examine this case. From my perspective, people calling him out seem to be having a “Dr. McCoy” reaction - jumping to conclusions about how Bricker feels about this from him simply stating facts as he sees them, with what I assume is an expert legal opinion.
GusNSpot makes a good point, too. If we as a society don’t want young offenders sent to disciplinary camps, what do you want the justice system to do with them? I personally don’t want young offenders brutalized, beaten, and murdered (and I am not saying that is what happened here - my judgement on this case is reserved), but I also don’t want them stealing my car stereo every weekend.
I hope you read the post from Snowboarder Bo , and know realize just how wrong you are. As much as some americans would like to think their military is sacred, that the boys can do no wrong, and all of its words and institutions are solely owned by the military, the truth is, sadly, not so. Boot camp can and does mean many things, such as in this instance. My point, which you seemed to have somehow missed is arguing about semantics is not the point of this thread. The point is a 14 year old boy died, in case you missed that too.
I feel no pity, or even respect for people, one of who you may be, who read only headlines and think they have the whole story. That is just stupidity.
The term ‘boot camp’ has been used for years now to mean a place where young criminals are sent for ‘tough love’. Again don’t blame me because of YOUR ignorance of such things.
Huh? Get a grip. My post is aimed only at the hijackers. The people who are trying to turn this thread into a pro/anti-military semantic arguement, rather then focus on (my percieved) point of the OP: A 14 year old boy has died in the hands of a pseudo-military institution. How anyone could find this less then outrageous is beyond me.
As Bricker has pointed out, this video does not show much in actual violence clearly, and the editing makes you wonder what you are missing. It could be anything from all the uniformed guys beating the black male, to the black male pulling out a knife and trying to stab someone. Or god knows what.
I still sand by my statement that it appeared to me that the black male was in distress, was not faking it (by going slack as a refusal to do more), and the care given to him was inadequate. The figure in white seemed to me to be particularly useless. On the basis of this video I don’t think I could vote for murder, by maybe manslaughter, or a lesser charge such as that. IANAL so beats me what I could vote for if I was a juror.
As pointed out above, it does not exclusively mean something different. I am glad you at least agree with me somewhat, means there is some hope.
I have to make this quick, on the go – besides don’t want make this thread about Bricker anyway.
Point being, I don’t afford Bricker any of the “respect” so many of you seem to give him. Oh, no doubt he’s quite knowledgeable in his field – and many others in fact, quite a well educated individual. But then again so are people like Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld and any number of other extreme rightwing assholes. In my eyes that’s precisely the niche that Bricker has carved out for himself in his many years of incessant posting here.
To wit, here we see him advocating none other that Balaguer, Trujillo’s right-hand man and political mastermind.
Just one of a zillion examples of what he stands for…namely, everything I am against.
Worlds apart, nothing in common. So yes, I hold him – and others like him – in contempt. They are part the problem not the solution.
Back to discussing yet another example of why your country is going down the toilet: the murder of a fourteen year old child by a bunch of sadistic animals.
The End.
Black and white: either we murder young offenders, or they steal your car stereo every weekend. Surely there are other choices?
For example: do you believe that camps for at-risk youth necessarily involve murdering the youth?
I don’t. I know a guy that went to one that involved spending six weeks in the desert eating lentils and rice every night for dinner, an experience almost like a monastic retreat. It did him a lot of good, as I understand it. He didn’t get beaten.
There’s a very reasonable middle solution: disciplinary camps can’t break laws against abusing children. These laws exist; they’re not unconstitutionally vague; they’re not unenforceable. So what’s the problem? Enforce the laws! If it turns out that a lot of these camps are breaking the laws, then that means you need to hire more officers to oversee this part of our society.
I just don’t see why people are insisting on extremist positions here.
Daniel
RedFury, your last post is quite odd. Letting your your perception of what you saw on the video be affected by Bricker’s political position on other issues makes no sense what so ever.
It’s also yet another retarded hijacking of the thread. If you have a beef with Bricker (or with anyone else, for that matter) start your own pit thread.
LilCutie, I’m sorry for the Anderson family’s loss.
Bricker, thank you for providing a careful analysis of the tape (which I don’t plan to view). Calling you a fascist on the basis of these posts is ignorant and unfair; a lawyer who focuses on his client’s beliefs and ignores opposing evidence doesn’t serve either side.
In re: Boot Camps for juvenile offenders (which, duh, has nothing to do with the military or Sheriff’s vocational training) – my sister was a psychologist at Allendale, in Lake Villa, Illinois. It’s not a boot camp, but a residential treatment center for troubled youths aged 4-18.
I once asked her opinion of boot camps, because to me they sounded good - get the kid out of the troubled environment, take away his autonomy and then slowly let him earn it back through responsibility and accountability.
My sister told me that the literature shows that it doesn’t work.
I’d ask her to do a lit search and contribute to this discussion, but can’t b/c she doesn’t work there anymore. In fact, she doesn’t even work as a psychologist anymore - two years of deeply troubled youths, who throw chairs through windows and aspire to be in jail “just like Daddy”, and she left the field entirely. Despite having many success, and receiving a lot of praise for her work.
The problems that these children face are so complex. Usually they’ve got a crazy, criminal family (who rarely, if ever, come to visit their children while they’re in the facility); come from a hopeless, poverty-stricken environment (where growing up means being in jail); and are unable to succeed anywhere else, such as school. Plus in some cases they’re just mean teenagers. Many of them would refuse to talk with my sister during their (required) weekly counselling sessions, choosing to sleep or shout obscenities instead.
I have no idea what the answer is.
I don’t know exactly what it is either, but I’m fairly certain that simply being tough on them is not the answer. Most have had plenty of tough in their lives already.
And those camps are not tough love. “Tough love” makes sense if you mean “setting rigorous boundaries in a relationship that is already loving”; in the absence of a loving relationship the kind of “tough love” people claim to see in those camps is simply brutality.
(That second paragraph wasn’t directed at you or anyone else in particular fessie.)
First off I didn’t “perceive” anything but rather witnessed a collapsing kid being bullied about by a bunch of uniformed men for the better part of 40 fucking minutes – while a so-called “nurse” milled about. Wonder what her attitude would have been had it been her son instead. No, not really, I need not wonder, for any parent allowing their child to be browbeaten that way is not worthy of being one.
Secondly, as odd and/or nonsensical as it might seem to you, I was simply pointing out that Bricker’s stand is par for the course. Lord knows he’s got a long history of standing up for much of what ails your nation.
Fuck him.
BoardBob, if and when I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you.
Meantime, blow moi.
TTFN.
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to get at, not that I think there are only black-and-white answers to these issues. My point was that there needs to be something done about young offenders, because they are committing crimes that hurt other people (like stealing stereos), but these are kids we’re talking about, and the punishment should be something that will actually help them become contributing adult members of our society.
I have no idea what the answer is, either. I don’t know if we have any methods of treating young offenders that are actually working.
Does anyone have tha autopsy results? Does anyone have video of the rest of whatever happened? One way to fix things would be to close the bad camps. There should be a sort of Internal Affairs group, staffed with professional investigators and doctors, to look into accusations and allegations like this. Another would be to hire real drill instructors or drill sergeants. They know what to do, without resorting to violence. Either way, something needs to be done. You don’t reform anyone through brutality.
Why does it always seem to be Florida, whenever something fucked up happens to children???
Even if the first examiner is correct, and it was complications from sickle cell anemia, these complications were CAUSED by the facility’s treatment of him. Why are they not being held partially liable?
Second, he had undiagnosed sickle cell anemia? Of course the medical examiner knows more than I do, but I had a friend with sickle cell anemia (which is, as far as I’m aware, determined by one autosomal gene, so there can’t be someone with only a little sickle cell anemia) and trust me, there was no way that could have gone undiagnosed.
http://www.newsherald.com/bootcamp/anderson_autopsy_pg1.htm
http://www.newsherald.com/bootcamp/video.shtml
Why only partially liable?
As I said above, the case is all about eggshells.
CMC fnord!
Part of fighting ignorance is getting all the facts. No one here has interviewed the witnesses, reviewed all the evidence, etc…
My husband, who is tasked with reviewing use of force tapes as a part of his job, watched this tape. For the record, he and I don’t suppport “boot camps” because studies have shown their effectiveness to be marginal, at best.
From this tape it would be very hard to determine a crime. What it appears to be is attempts by officers to move a subject who they believed was being passively resistant. Therein is the crux of the matter. Apparently, the child was in medical distress, BUT we don’t know what was being said. The young man could have been saying “fuck you, I aint going no where”. At that point, it would be easy to assume that the officers thought he was resisting. The slaps on the arm were likely attempts to turn the elbow, ie. force the joint into a submissive posture. The method used was not a good method. It is better to apply twisting force to move a joint, rather than a sharp blow.
However, as my husband viewed the tape, he became very suspicious of a “passive resister”. Even if the officers thought he was resisting, the video seems to show enough to suggest the nurse should have been examining him earlier. Once he was controlled in a subdued position, he could have been checked and then maybe the vitals would have demonstrated a need for more medical attention.
Nonetheless, Bricker is right. We cannot conclude that there are wrongful acts from the video alone. Furthermore, we cannot condemn the officers because they were functioning in a boot camp. The law allows it, right or wrong, and henceforth, making the young man participate means that these officers were acting under the color of law.
If he died of suffocation, likely it was exacerbated by positional asphyxiation because alot of the tape does show force being placed on him with his face down on the ground or arms behind the back.
This is a tragedy, nonetheless, that IMHO could have been averted by using a different form of punishment rather than a boot camp.