Sure. But while I’m guilty of assault and battery if I swat you on the ass without your permission, I’m not guilty if I swat my kid on the ass without his permission. Prison guards are not guilty of assault and battery if they pick up a recalcitrant, passively resisting prisoner and apply painful pressure holds, or even strike him, in order to get him to move. Two kinds of privilege to commit assault existed here: police conduct and parental discipline.
In order to get past the hurdle of privilege, you have to show that the use of force was unreasonable for the situation. The accused will try to show that his use of force was reasonable. Testimony from similarly situated guards about how they handle resistance from inmates will undoubtedly be offered to show that the guards’ conduct here was not beyond the pale.
Thanks there. I can’t tell from the video that was originally cited, WHAT was going on. So, I tried to stay off the “hang the guards” bandwagon. Still I see your point. Cops and guards have to be authorized to use physical force when needed. Otherwise it becomes a Monty Python situation “Stop or I will yell stop again”. Still, I feel bad for the kid and his family. I have the feeling of “something should be changed” but have no idea what.
One in five hundred is pretty significant in the scienctific community. If General Mills put cyanide instead of whole wheat in one of every five hundred boxes of Wheaties, would you eat Wheaties? If one of every five hundred airline flights crashed, would you fly? If not, why? Since it is so infrequent as to be negligible. It would be relevant to know how soon, or how often, this boot camp, or teen boot camps overall, induct 500 African Americans, and what is acceptable in terms of putting them at risk with an extreme physical regimen.
One of three events, regarding his condition, took place prior to Anderson’s death:
The camp did not attain subject’s relevent medical history because;
a. They did not ask
b. They asked but the subject did not know, forgot or refused to tell them
c. They did not medically test him because;
[INDENT]I. They do not have facility to medically test a subject
II. They have facility but they neglected or refused to test subject
III. The subject refused to be tested[/INDENT]
The camp did attain the subject’s relevant medical history by any such means.
The guards exposed subject to a physically demanding regimen with or
without them having knowledge of subject’s unique biological impairment.
If they had knowledge of such, and refused to act when subject was in clear physical distress, I don’t think anyone could argue against gross negligence.
If they did not have knowledge of such, then at least the possibility of negligence still exists as outlined above; to wit: They should have at least attempted to attain a relevant medical history.
You imply 1 in 500 is statistically insignificant. I express that if it were statistically insignificant, this thread would not exist. Maybe he didn’t die from a sickle cell event. Maybe he doesn’t even have the abnormality. I don’t know. I don’t think anyone in this thread knows much about this incident or subsequent case. But it has been intimated in at least one news article that he does have the disease and that extreme physical exertion triggered a sickle event (cite forthcoming). And even if he doesn’t have sickle cell (trait), or didn’t die from same, my argument still stands, just for somebody else, somewhere.
As I said above, I made an error. But not an error of thought, merely an error in typing. My original posit was with 8.3% (1 in 12) and 0.2% (1 in 500)* in mind. I merely mistated the numbers.
I guess I could input “500-to-1” or “1 in 500” or “500/1” into a Westlaw search and see what comes up.
Nah. I think I’ll do something exponentially more fruitfull; like seal my eyelids with a cauterizing iron.
*I’ve actually seen the ratio reported as high as 1 in 400 and as low as 1 in 650. For comparison, the Caucasion rate (generally) is 1 to 58,000.
Of course, there is no evidence of this. But if it were to develop that they knew, then that’s obviously negligence.
I agree again. And I am willing to bet that they have some process in place to get some sort of medical history. But I agree that if they don’t, then THAT is negligence.
There’s no evidence for that in front of us, though.
Animosity and law aside if you would, please. How would you react if you saw your child beeing beaten that way for taking your Mom’s car for a spin? And I mean not just watching a video but physically being there.
There was an episode of Happy Days in which Richie is being bothered by a bully. He tries verious strategies to get the bully to lay off, but to no avail. It loks like the only choice is to fight the bully. Finally, he asks Fonzie for advice.
“Fonz,” he says, “What would you do if you were in my situation?”
“Richie,” The Fonz replies, “I wouldn’t BE in your situation.”
I feel I must invoke the Fonz’s words of wisdom in response to your question. I don’t believe I would choose to commit my child to a boot camp in the first place. And the kid in this case did not simply take Grandma’s car “for a spin.” He stole and crashed the car. But that wasn’t why he was in the boot camp. He was given probation for the car theft. and then arrested for trespassing - a crime itself, AND violation of his probation. It was in response to this second offense that the kid was given the boot camp sentence.
If I saw this being done to my child, I’d step in and stop it. But I also intend to raise my child in such a way that he doesn’t steal cars and violate probation. And if, in the event that despite my parenting, my child turns out to be the sort of kid that steals cars and violates probation, I would not agree to a boot camp.
Why not? I mean, it’s not an over-the-top punishment for a child who steals a car, right? And if you’re kids in the criminal justice system, you’re probably not making very good disciplinary decisions, right? So maybe it would be best to let the sheriffs have a crack at him.
I really didn’t see any severe abuse. I was expecting to see a gang style beatdown with the kid eventually going limp. But I really didn’t see any of that. Usually they just move them to places like Jamaica which have different rules for child abuse.
That’s a spurious argument. We can’t and won’t live our lives wrapped in bubble wrap because there are chances that dangerous things might happen.
As I said in an earlier post, Florida is one of 40 states that routinely tests all newborns for Sickle Cell Disease. It is being taken seriously by The System. If there is any negligence here, it might be that the Boot Camp didn’t take a medical history. If they did, then the negligence falls back on the kid and the parents for not telling them he had Sickle Cell Trait, or not getting the kid tested if they didn’t know. If you live in a community that has a problem as prevalent as Sickle Cell Anemia, you have some responsibility for your own health to find out if you and your family have it or not, especially when the testing is so readily available.
As I also mentioned in an earlier post, and you could know already if you had read the linked autopsy report, the kid died from a Sickle Cell event. He had Sickle Cell Trait. It is stated very clearly in the autopsy. He was not showing evidence of being beaten to death.
So it’s all right for them to beat the kids up as long as they don’t hurt them too badly?
Never mind exactly how the boy here died. I find it incredible – and not in a good way – that they seem to feel like they are allowed to punch and kick the kids. I can see restraining them, but not hitting them. I’m completely lost as to how this is acceptable, death or no death.
Not sure why the defenders of this barbaric act keep referring to “death by natural causes” as reported in the original autopsy as if that is an undisputed fact. Although I don’t believe the results of the second autopsy have been completed/released yet, no less an authority than famous forensic pathologist with impeccable credentials, Dr Michael Baden, disputes the findings of the first.
In this morning’s news, the head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (and former Bay County Sheriff) has resigned over the case. FDLE’s investigators had previously been removed from the case because Tunnel had sent emails defending the camp (which he “founded”) and discussing attempts to suppress the longer version of the video.
I know what you’re talking about with the wild soldier behavior on leave.
But anecdotal evidence is widespread that the military has turned around many people from their immature or criminal ways. I know my brother was much more grown up when he came back from his 6 months in Army basic and other training.