When the incidence of the problem is one in five hundred African Americans, per Daniel’s link, you believe it’s so obviously necessary for a camp to medically test each person for the condition, such that failure to do so is negligence?
If your claim of 12% had actually been the case, I’d have agreed with you. But I do not believe there are too many juries that would find the failure to medically test for a medical condition that appears once in every five hundred African Americans is per se negligent.
I’d be very curious – can you offer up any case law examples where the failure to allow for a 500-to-1 chance in any circumstance was considered per se negligence? I’d be willing to be educated, but right now I have to suspect you’re defending this claim because you made it when you thought the number was different and you’re unwilling to concede the collapse of your point, even though the numbers on which you relied to make your point have drastically changed.
One clarification: it is reasonable for the camp to assess the health by SOME method – like an admission form in which the parent or guardian provides a medical history. It’s NOT reasonable to suggest that the camp should be conducting its own independent bloodwork analysis for each admission.
If it develops that the camp never asked for medical information or history of any kind, then I’ll agree it was negligent, and there are thus grounds for action in tort. But I’m unaware of any such allegation.
The difference is that the Nazi concentration camp guards* knew they were hurting and killing people-- they intended* to hurt and kill people. The folks who work at “boot camps” think they’re helping kids. Even if you disagree with the methods, their intention is to help kids turn their lives around, not hurt them.
I agree whith you guys wholeheartedly in spirit. If this country tried to execute believers in other religions or homosexuals, I would be in the front line of the resistance, fighting to the death to stop it. But I simply don’t think this is in the same league-- there is no intent to harm anyone.
Attack “boot camps” based on their proven inefficacy, but don’t call them “evil.” That’s a word that gets thrown around way too much these days, and is in danger of losing its meaning. The staff at the camp did not wake up that morning thinking, “Man, who can I torture today? If I’m really lucky, someone might* die!*”
No. To put it in its coldest terms, no one wants to deal with the hassle of an investigation, the potential of losing one’s job, or being sued. To put it in more human terms, I would bet the farm that the staff members invoved are heartbroken that this kid died.
My husband works in a prison. There have been occasions when inmates have died while being subdued, and he’s been accused by grieving family members of “murder”. I sometimes lurk the message boards of prisoners’ families, and I see a lot of emotional and irrational claims, like the guards want to torture the inmates, and that they’re cruel and evil, and that there’s a vast conspiracy to cover up their brutal behavior.
No, they’re not evil or cruel. They’re folks like any others, with families and mortgages, trying to do a good job in a tough situation. There are bad apples, sure, just like in any profession, but people like my Hubby put tremendous effort into getting bad employees fired. Again, the cold side of it is that no one wants negative publicity, lawsuits and the people in the head office breathing down your neck, but more humanely, they don’t want to see anyone maltreated because they, too, feel that it’s wrong.
I don’t see “evil” here. I see a tragic accident brought about in sad circumstances, involving people who had good intentions.
As was pointed out above, he did not have sickle cell anemia, he had sickle cell trait (which is having one of the two alleles for anemia) which does affect 12% of African Americans.
{Corrected percentage}
I think the germane point here is still how far can we expect penal institutions including “boot camps” to go in looking after the health of their participants? Test everybody entering the penal system for Sickle Cell Trait/Anemia? Test them all for STDs? Test them all for asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart defects, etc.? I’m not being sarcastic; I really am interested in learning how far the penal systems need to go to ensure the health of the inmates.
If one of the consequences of people having Sickle Cell Trait is sudden, unexplained death from exercise (and it is - see my link above), then making kids with SCT exercise doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me.
Wouldn’t there be some sort of paperwork or a form that could be used? A generic “workplace” form would do. A checklist that notes medical conditions like heart trouble, lung problems, chronic back trouble, required medications, allergies etc. Plenty of places have this sort of information on employees and/or inmates. That way, the camp operators KNOW who has what condition. It should be common sense. You wouldn’t order someone with a bad ticker to run 200 miles or do 5000 pushups after all.
Sure, but where is the information coming from? A new, comprehensive medical exam, or self- reports? And if it’s self-reporting, the camp can hardly be held responsible if they weren’t told of the medical condition.
Yeah, that makes sense. I suppose you’d want to test inmates rather than rely on self-reporting for infectious things (AIDS, stds, etc.) for the safety of other inmates and staff.
Just wanted to say, since nobody in 3 pages has said it, that the proper term for these places is “Work Camp”. Kinda like the movie Holes.
I couldn’t tell what the hell was going on in the video. Looks like the kid fainted, and the cops & nurse thought he was faking it. (Not uncommon at all when dealing with troublesome kids, especially the passive-aggressive types.) By the time they figured out he really did have sunstroke or dehydration or whatever it was, he was too far gone to save. Tragic, but not necessarily criminal. At least, that’s my take on what the video shows.
Doesn’t excuse a thing, of course. They should train these people, ESPECIALLY the nurse, how to look for subtle signs that the kid’s really in trouble. And I do believe, lots of people join this profession because they can boss around someone much smaller and weaker. Lots of high school bullies wind up as cops, you know.
I’ve heard this before and it strikes me as conventional wisdom/urban legend material. I would be very interested in seeing a study on the issue, though. Has anyone ever researched it?
I ahven’t seen the full video, just what was on TV, but it was pretty clear to me that the kid was hit in the back, the ribs and the arm while he was restrained. The digital version online may not show this, but it was obvious at the time. The boy may have had a record, but he was still a boy. Fourteen. He had no history of violent crime. Whether these guards are convicted, I can’t believe anyone can defend their actions. The fact that they don’t kick their dogs when they get home has no bearing on what they do at work.
With the digital version, I couldn’t tell if he was hit or not. How clear was it to you? Can you point out the time on the digital version when you saw him hit on the tape on TV?
There are at least two moments shown on the link RedFury posted that do not appear on the ealrier version of the tape. In the first, two guards are holding the youngster while a third strikes at his abdomen. The blow is hard enough to bounce the victim upwards. The second is not as distinct, but in my opinion it appears to be a kick in the side of the ribs when the victim is lying prone.
Based on these two events, I’d say there is now enough evidence to easily support a civil suit.
Please note that causation is important, however. A wrongful death suit must show that the death was caused by these actions. Given that the medical examiner’s report lists complications from sickle cell as the cause of death, there’s an uphill battle to win wrongful death. But the guards can be sued for the punches and kicks as tortious acts in and of themselves.
