# Parents Sue Police Over Death of Down Syndrome Man



## EMT2B (Oct 18, 2013)

This news article was on my homepage when I started up my complicator.  Parents sue deputies in death of man with down syndrome at Maryland movie theater

The parents claim the police deputies (who were moonlighting as mall security) caused the man's "violent, terrifying, and painful death" when they attempted to remove him from the theater where he had apparently tried to sneak in to see a movie without a ticket.

"As the deputies manhandled Mr. Saylor, they fractured his larynx, making it difficult for him to breathe," the suit charges..."  

"... an attorney for the sheriff's office, disputed that account, telling The Associated Press that Saylor's Adam's apple could have been damaged when paramedics inserted a breathing tube."

IMHO, this is just sad all around.


----------



## CFal (Oct 18, 2013)

I have a feeling that we are only getting half the story here


----------



## Household6 (Oct 18, 2013)

Where was his caregiver/attendant while this was happening?


----------



## Aidey (Oct 18, 2013)

Household6 said:


> Where was his caregiver/attendant while this was happening?



Standing nearby, telling them to back off and let her handle it.


----------



## CFal (Oct 18, 2013)

Household6 said:


> Where was his caregiver/attendant while this was happening?



From what i heard the caregiver left to go get the car at which point he reentered the theater after already punching a glass window


----------



## Aidey (Oct 18, 2013)

CFal said:


> From what i heard the caregiver left to go get the car at which point he reentered the theater after already punching a glass window



I number of the stories I read said that she came back inside and was there before the security guards tackled him. She tried to explain he had downs and didn't like to be touched and they needed to let her handle it, and they ignored her.


----------



## CFal (Oct 18, 2013)

the MAN with downs syndrome was over 300 pounds pounds and violent, having a disability is not free reign for law breaking.  The officers did not intend for him to die, but :censored::censored::censored::censored: happens.  "Oh, ignore him.  Leave him alone and eventually he will calm down" a viable approach.


----------



## unleashedfury (Oct 19, 2013)

CFal said:


> the MAN with downs syndrome was over 300 pounds pounds and violent, having a disability is not free reign for law breaking.  The officers did not intend for him to die, but :censored::censored::censored::censored: happens.  "Oh, ignore him.  Leave him alone and eventually he will calm down" a viable approach.




Its unfortunate, but this is true just because he is mentally handicapped dosen't mean he is above the law. 

Unfotunately alot of individuals who have down syndrome or the similar can develop great strengths when frightened.


----------



## Aidey (Oct 19, 2013)

CFal said:


> the MAN with downs syndrome was over 300 pounds pounds and violent, having a disability is not free reign for law breaking.  The officers did not intend for him to die, but :censored::censored::censored::censored: happens.  "Oh, ignore him.  Leave him alone and eventually he will calm down" a viable approach.





unleashedfury said:


> Its unfortunate, but this is true just because he is mentally handicapped dosen't mean he is above the law.
> 
> Unfotunately alot of individuals who have down syndrome or the similar can develop great strengths when frightened.



Ya'all realize that he was attempting to re-enter a movie, not walk out of a store with $1000 of merchandise right? And you do realize there is a difference between giving him free reign, and allowing his caregiver to step in and calm him down right?


----------



## chaz90 (Oct 19, 2013)

CFal said:


> the MAN with downs syndrome was over 300 pounds pounds and violent, having a disability is not free reign for law breaking.  The officers did not intend for him to die, but :censored::censored::censored::censored: happens.  "Oh, ignore him.  Leave him alone and eventually he will calm down" a viable approach.



Different approaches need to be taken with adults with developmental disabilities. Yes, he was chronologically an adult, but treating him in the same way as other adults and expecting him to respond identically is asking for trouble. I wasn't there and will try not to pass judgement, but there's quite a large variation in what it means to "break the law."


----------



## CFal (Oct 19, 2013)

At 300 pounds he's capable of doing damage when he gets violent, which from accounts he was prior to the arrival of the officers


----------



## CFal (Oct 19, 2013)

And his caregivers approach to calming him down was to ignore him until he calmed himself down


----------



## Farmer2DO (Oct 19, 2013)

He had a fractured larynx. 

The police department tried to blame it on EMS when they intubated him.

They hog tied an obese, mentally retarded man in a face down position. Someone they were warned would not have the mental capacity to comprehend their commands. A position that we KNOW causes death.

The medical examiner said it was homicide.

I agree.


----------



## exodus (Oct 19, 2013)

Farmer2DO said:


> He had a fractured larynx.
> 
> The police department tried to blame it on EMS when they intubated him.
> 
> ...


Imo, they responded with equal force to what was being directed at them.


----------



## CFal (Oct 19, 2013)

Farmer2DO said:


> He had a fractured larynx.
> 
> The police department tried to blame it on EMS when they intubated him.
> 
> ...


Homicide does not equal murder, there were 20 witnesses that testified on behalf of the officers, hence they were not  indicted.  They didn't hog tie him, they handcuffed him, nice spin.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Oct 20, 2013)

They restrained his hands behind his back in a face down position. In an obese person, we know this has a huge risk of causing death. That's why they teach not to do it. People die because of it.

And EMS fractured his larynx? Give me a break.

There were a whole lot of ways this guy could have been dealt with. It wasn't necessary to kill him.

The cops should be in jail, IMO.


----------



## Rialaigh (Oct 20, 2013)

exodus said:


> Imo, t*hey responded with equal force to what was being directed at them*.



That is the problem. You cannot respond with equal force to what is being directed at you when you are a public servant (or really in any capacity at all). If I threw a punch at a patient every time one tried to hit me there would be an awful lot of trauma. We get paid to deal with violent patients in a more responsible manner then meeting force with force. 


 I will say that officers in our area have been known to apply a bit of pressure to the airway to help detain violent patients.....I figure this happens in many areas regardless of official policy....


----------



## CFal (Oct 20, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> That is the problem. *You cannot respond with equal force to what is being directed at you when you are a public servant* (or really in any capacity at all). If I threw a punch at a patient every time one tried to hit me there would be an awful lot of trauma. We get paid to deal with violent patients in a more responsible manner then meeting force with force.
> 
> 
> I will say that officers in our area have been known to apply a bit of pressure to the airway to help detain violent patients.....I figure this happens in many areas regardless of official policy....



umm... yes you can.  It's called the use of force continuum.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Oct 20, 2013)

You use the level of force needed to subdue them, not automatically give to them what they're giving out.

That's irresponsible, and it's the police meting out punishment. Not their job. 

And I guess I missed the part where the guy was restricting their breathing and crushing their airways.


----------



## CFal (Oct 20, 2013)

Farmer2DO said:


> You use the level of force needed to subdue them, not automatically give to them what they're giving out.
> 
> That's irresponsible, and it's the police meting out punishment. Not their job.
> 
> And I guess I missed the part where the guy was restricting their breathing and crushing their airways.



It takes quite a bit of force to subdue a 300 pound man.  Your first sentence and last sentence contradict each other.  Empty-hand submission techniques are appropriate for an individual actively resisting.


----------



## Aidey (Oct 20, 2013)

Force doesn't have to mean physical force.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Oct 20, 2013)

CFal said:


> It takes quite a bit of force to subdue a 300 pound man.  Your first sentence and last sentence contradict each other.  Empty-hand submission techniques are appropriate for an individual actively resisting.



Resisting what? Paying the movie ticket? He wasn't a threat to the public safety. They were advised how to deal with him, and that he wouldn't understand. They chose to go forward with the "one size fits all" technique.

And you're telling me that four police officers, who are all most likely in reasonable shape, had to crush the airway of a 300 pound man who was likely in very poor shape and uncoordinated, in order to "get him to comply"?

What a bunch of garbage. They killed him, plain and simple.


----------



## exodus (Oct 20, 2013)

Farmer2DO said:


> Resisting what? Paying the movie ticket? He wasn't a threat to the public safety. They were advised how to deal with him, and that he wouldn't understand. They chose to go forward with the "one size fits all" technique.
> 
> And you're telling me that four police officers, who are all most likely in reasonable shape, had to crush the airway of a 300 pound man who was likely in very poor shape and uncoordinated, in order to "get him to comply"?
> 
> What a bunch of garbage. They killed him, plain and simple.



Overweight people are usually VERY strong in short bursts because of the extra muscle mass required to keep them selves balanced and up right.  And he was resisting in leaving the movie theater he was being ejected from.

He damaged the theaters property and continued to be aggressive after he was told to leave. His caretaker said leave him be until he calms down.  That is unacceptable if he is damaging property. If he continually has angry outbursts that puts himself and other in danger, he needs to be institutionalized.


----------



## Jim37F (Oct 20, 2013)

Farmer2DO said:


> Resisting what? Paying the movie ticket? He wasn't a threat to the public safety. They were advised how to deal with him, and that he wouldn't understand. They chose to go forward with the "one size fits all" technique.
> 
> And you're telling me that four police officers, who are all most likely in reasonable shape, had to crush the airway of a 300 pound man who was likely in very poor shape and uncoordinated, in order to "get him to comply"?
> 
> What a bunch of garbage. They killed him, plain and simple.



Cool so I can just waltz into a movie theater without paying, maybe grab some snacks from the concessions stand in between hopping into different movies right? And when they call the cops for theft all they can do is ask me to go sit in their squad car, but they can't physically detain me because I'm just watching movies and not being a threat to anyone right?

Once you're in a fight with somebody who's actively resisting, moving around, fighting back, it's damn near impossible to land any sort of precision blows. It'd be real easy to for an inadvertent elbow to accidentally strike the neck when you're being tossed about by a bigger stronger attacker. 

:censored::censored::censored::censored: happens. It sucks but it was an accident. Such is life. I doubt very seriously any of those cops had any intention to kill this guy. Waayyy to much paperwork and meetings with higher ups and other headaches involved lol. There's a reason why there's no such thing as "non-lethal", instead it's Less Lethal.


----------



## Farmer2DO (Oct 20, 2013)

> Waayyy to much paperwork and meetings with higher ups and other headaches involved lol.



You think his death is funny? I'm betting his mother doesn't. And posts like this are exactly one of the reasons that people view us as a vocation, and not a profession. You're in the public eye. Anyone can come to this board and read our posts, and you're making a joke about the death of a Down's patient at the hands of the police.

And you're making us all look bad. Act like a mature, professional adult, because right now, I'm pretty ashamed to admit that you have anything to do with my profession.


----------



## CFal (Oct 20, 2013)

Farmer2DO said:


> You think his death is funny? I'm betting his mother doesn't. And posts like this are exactly one of the reasons that people view us as a vocation, and not a profession. You're in the public eye. Anyone can come to this board and read our posts, and you're making a joke about the death of a Down's patient at the hands of the police.
> 
> And you're making us all look bad. Act like a mature, professional adult, because right now, I'm pretty ashamed to admit that you have anything to do with my profession.



 He wasn't a patient when the police interacted with him


----------



## ffemt8978 (Oct 20, 2013)

Everyone needs to relax a bit and think before they post, or this thread will go the way of the Dodo bird.


----------



## EMDispatch (Oct 20, 2013)

Farmer2DO said:


> They restrained his hands behind his back in a face down position. In an obese person, we know this has a huge risk of causing death. That's why they teach not to do it. People die because of it.



How else would you handcuff a person resisting arrest? I generally thought that was how LEO's are trained to do it. 

Also a general note, if the man did not have downs, and a similar situation occurred would people care as much? 

It was an unfortunate tragedy, that like most can be a huge training opportunity. It also highlights a big problem for LEOs dealing with special needs populations. Is it necessary to change force continuum, despite the fact they still pose the same physical threat as any other person in the population?


----------



## CFal (Oct 20, 2013)

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/0...ice-department-interested-in-case--86720.html

Pre-existing conditions contributed to his death, it's certainly a tragedy but I don't see how the deputies are responsible.  



> The deputies then handcuffed Saylor, using three sets to accommodate his girth, while he was face down on the floor, according to the autopsy report. He became unresponsive and the deputies rolled him over. They couldn't find a pulse, so they removed the handcuffs and started chest compressions.
> 
> Saylor started breathing on his own, and still had a pulse when emergency medical workers arrived, the report says. But his heart stopped again as they tried to apply a breathing apparatus and a breathing tube, which they had difficulty inserting, according to the report. Saylor was pronounced dead at Frederick Memorial Hospital.



Once he started having a medical emergency they started CPR and called EMS



> Espo said he hadn't seen the report but that the deputies had acted improperly.
> 
> "One of the options they had was to simply tell the theater manager, 'We're just simply not going to deal with this.' They should have and could have just walked away," he said.


One of the options they had was not doing their jobs?


----------



## exodus (Oct 20, 2013)

CFal said:


> http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/0...ice-department-interested-in-case--86720.html
> 
> Pre-existing conditions contributed to his death, it's certainly a tragedy but I don't see how the deputies are responsible.
> 
> ...



That makes no sense. So lets leave a man destroying property just because. :censored::censored::censored::censored: no. They did their jobs and acted appropriately. Anyone who disagrees needs to learn how things work in the real world.


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 21, 2013)

CFal said:


> One of the options they had was not doing their jobs?


The person who said that was the Family attorney of the deceased.  What did you think he was going to say?


----------



## CFal (Oct 21, 2013)

DrParasite said:


> The person who said that was the Family attorney of the deceased.  What did you think he was going to say?



something that doesn't make them look like an idiot?


----------



## unleashedfury (Oct 21, 2013)

CFal said:


> http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/0...ice-department-interested-in-case--86720.html
> 
> Pre-existing conditions contributed to his death, it's certainly a tragedy but I don't see how the deputies are responsible.
> 
> ...



If the Police where out to kill him why would they have started CPR and summoned EMS? Obviously they realized that there was an issue and became a layperson and advocate for the detainee. 

And I do enjoy the quote of the attorney for the deceased. PD is to decline to do their jobs when a large individual is destroying property, and a caretaker is doing nothing. 

I didn't know PD had a option to not do their job. Once again though tragic and unfortunate its not an option to allow an individual destroy property whether in mental capacity to make decisions or not.


----------



## exodus (Oct 21, 2013)

This also isn't like the several other cases where the person wasn't fighting back, but just not following orders. This person was _aggressive_.


----------



## Rialaigh (Oct 22, 2013)

CFal said:


> umm... yes you can.  It's called the use of force continuum.



Your pretty incorrect on this statement, I would look at what the use of force continuum is and how it is supposed to be applied. 

I am not saying the officers acted criminally or should be held liable in any way. I am not saying they should be punished or restricted at work or lose their jobs. I AM saying that there always seems to be fairly simple solutions or alternatives to the majority of these situations that would likely improve the outcome and it is a shame that when you have that many public agents responding to a scene no one could STOP, think for a minute, and come up with a better way to handle the situation. 

When I do things in EMS or in the hospital system, it is not about doing anything to not be held liable and get sued, it is about doing the best for the person I am taking care of, there is a big difference. 

There are many answers in our field that are not wrong, but there are usually only a few answers (or one) that result in the highest probability for an optimal outcome. 

I don't like to do my job "not wrong". I like to do my job the best I can.


----------



## CFal (Oct 22, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Your pretty incorrect on this statement, I would look at what the use of force continuum is and how it is supposed to be applied.
> 
> I am not saying the officers acted criminally or should be held liable in any way. I am not saying they should be punished or restricted at work or lose their jobs. I AM saying that there always seems to be fairly simple solutions or alternatives to the majority of these situations that would likely improve the outcome and it is a shame that when you have that many public agents responding to a scene no one could STOP, think for a minute, and come up with a better way to handle the situation.
> 
> ...



That's the difference between us in EMS and police, we are typically taking care of one person at a time, they are taking care of everyone.


----------



## Christopher (Oct 22, 2013)

I'm frankly surprised they did not use a TASER. Contrary to popular belief they don't kill people, and usually work well when somebody does not comprehend a request to comply.


----------



## Aidey (Oct 22, 2013)

Christopher said:


> I'm frankly surprised they did not use a TASER. Contrary to popular belief they don't kill people, and usually work well when somebody does not comprehend a request to comply.



They probably didn't have one. They were off-duty, moonlighting as security guards. Which actually makes me wonder if they were even supposed to engage him physically.


----------



## PotatoMedic (Oct 22, 2013)

Aidey said:


> They probably didn't have one. They were off-duty, moonlighting as security guards. Which actually makes me wonder if they were even supposed to engage him physically.



The rules of off duty police working as security very greatly depending on the contract.  A lot of the off duty police are contracted through the city/county or are authorized by the city/county to have police powers in those situations. (ie carry a gun, arrest/detain, use police radio for backup even though off duty, wear duty uniform etc.).  I don't know about this situation but I do know it can very greatly.  And usually if a place contracts for off duty cops it is because they want the "greater scope of practice" that a cop has.


----------



## exodus (Oct 22, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> Your pretty incorrect on this statement, I would look at what the use of force continuum is and how it is supposed to be applied.
> 
> I am not saying the officers acted criminally or should be held liable in any way. I am not saying they should be punished or restricted at work or lose their jobs. I AM saying that there always seems to be fairly simple solutions or alternatives to the majority of these situations that would likely improve the outcome and it is a shame that when you have that many public agents responding to a scene no one could STOP, think for a minute, and come up with a better way to handle the situation.
> 
> ...



So how should they have diffused this situation then?


----------



## Christopher (Oct 22, 2013)

Aidey said:


> They probably didn't have one. They were off-duty, moonlighting as security guards. Which actually makes me wonder if they were even supposed to engage him physically.



Yeesh...so some moonlighting folks did this? Talk about a System Failure.

Call 911, wait for the folks on duty to handle it...better yet, don't moonlight and you won't get put into these situations.



			
				CFal said:
			
		

> Pre-existing conditions contributed to his death, it's certainly a tragedy but I don't see how the deputies are responsible.



You could argue EMS was contributory due to multiple failed attempts to secure an airway (I have no idea how they tried, but they noted it was "difficult" to put a "breathing tube" in place...which given how ridiculously uneducated the media is[1] I have a hard time knowing what they really did).

Long and short of it is this probably wouldn't have happened if we took a ride in a retrospectowagon and chose another path. The likelihood of that path being taken by other similarly trained individuals in the same situation is what we should look at.

I'd chance to wager this would have gone poorly no matter the jurisdiction.

[1] They're roughly as uneducated about EMS as EMS is about medicine. It is often hard to tell which one is worse.


----------



## CFal (Oct 22, 2013)

In many places officers retain powers off duty, if they are supposed to just call pd then there is no point in hiring security.


----------



## Aprz (Oct 22, 2013)

CFal said:


> In many places officers retain powers off duty, if they are supposed to just call pd then there is no point in hiring security.


I know this happened in Maryland, but in California, security guards are like scarecrows. If something happens, they are taught to "observe and report". To get a guard card, the class is initially 8 hours, half of that is on weapon of mass destruction (similar to TEEX AWR 160 and FEMA IS 3).


----------



## CFal (Oct 22, 2013)

These guys obviously have much more training than that


----------



## CFal (Oct 22, 2013)

http://phoenix.gov/police/help/off_duty_work_detail.html

This is the city of Phoenix policy


----------



## Aprz (Oct 22, 2013)

I commented because you said there would be no point in hiring security if they had to call the police department. In my area, you are suppose to stay back, "observe and report", call the police department. They may have violated their companies policies, or they may not have off duty powers in their area.


----------



## PotatoMedic (Oct 22, 2013)

CFal said:


> http://phoenix.gov/police/help/off_duty_work_detail.html
> 
> This is the city of Phoenix policy



And a quote from the policy: 





> The officers you hire are expected to provide you with the same level of service they would provide the public while in an on-duty capacity. The intent is to have a positive relationship between your business, the Phoenix Police Department and the public.


----------



## Aprz (Oct 22, 2013)

But that's Phoenix (Arizona)? This happened in Maryland. I am saying it may be different.


----------



## Rialaigh (Oct 22, 2013)

exodus said:


> So how should they have diffused this situation then?



I am fuzzy on the facts (as the article does not provide much) but no where does it say that the guy who died damaged any property, threatened anyone, or was aggressive (until after provoked by officers). It also says he uses a wheelchair....

I understand it is a big guy, I understand that he was doing something illegal. However this is about on par with telling a mentally handicapped guy to turn around and put his hands on the car so you can search him, then tasing him when he doesn't respond the way a mentally capable adult would. 


Honestly from what little the article says it doesn't look like the situation needed diffusing, It looks like the officers enflamed a situation that was previously completely controlled....

You wait on the caregiver, you don't even need an officer, you have movie theater management thank the care giver and tell them they are welcome back anytime, just be sure to buy a ticket....I mean, basic customer service...

If anyone has any other articles indicating that this guy was just violent and aggressive and damaging property prior to any police intervention that would be news to me...


----------



## CFal (Oct 22, 2013)

One article said he punched out a store window, he was not in a wheelchair, he may use one on occasion but not the day of the incident


----------



## ffemt8978 (Oct 22, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> I am fuzzy on the facts (as the article does not provide much) but no where does it say that the guy who died damaged any property, threatened anyone, or was aggressive (until after provoked by officers). It also says he uses a wheelchair....
> 
> I understand it is a big guy, I understand that he was doing something illegal. However this is about on par with telling a mentally handicapped guy to turn around and put his hands on the car so you can search him, then tasing him when he doesn't respond the way a mentally capable adult would.
> 
> ...



Contradicting yourself there?  You admit to being fuzzy on facts yet are will to make that claim based upon it?


----------



## exodus (Oct 22, 2013)

Rialaigh said:


> I am fuzzy on the facts (as the article does not provide much) but no where does it say that the guy who died damaged any property, threatened anyone, or was aggressive (until after provoked by officers). It also says he uses a wheelchair....
> 
> I understand it is a big guy, I understand that he was doing something illegal. However this is about on par with telling a mentally handicapped guy to turn around and put his hands on the car so you can search him, then tasing him when he doesn't respond the way a mentally capable adult would.
> 
> ...



The caregiver told them to just let him chill out afaik.


----------



## Aidey (Oct 22, 2013)

exodus said:


> The caregiver told them to just let him chill out afaik.



That was what my understanding was. She told them that he didn't like to be touched, and to back off and let her handle it.


----------



## usalsfyre (Oct 22, 2013)

I'm quiet stunned by some of the replies here. It honestly frightens, disappoints and angers me at the lack of understanding of special populations. 

Quite simply, special needs children and/or adults will not react the way the majority of the population would. If a caregiver who is familiar with that individual makes a suggestion, it's really best you follow it.

As for the "misplaced strikes" theory. I call malarkey. It's truly difficult to fracture an airway with a strike. It's far more likely someone put a knee in his throat. OF COURSE they didn't want to kill him, but if they inappropriately escalated the situation (and I don't know if they did or not) then they are responsible for his death. That's the standard I as a citizen am held to, it should be no different for a law enforcement officer.


----------



## EMDispatch (Oct 23, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> I'm quiet stunned by some of the replies here. It honestly frightens, disappoints and angers me at the lack of understanding of special populations.
> 
> Quite simply, special needs children and/or adults will not react the way the majority of the population would. If a caregiver who is familiar with that individual makes a suggestion, it's really best you follow it.



I strongly agree with the sentiment, the problem is how huge a gray area this can be for a for public safety. Following a caregivers advice and approaching the situation with a different mentality should be the norm.However, while they may be Intellectually Disabled (ID), they still are physically developed to their appropriate age level. At some point you have to change from dealing with their capacity to understand versus the physical threat he/she can pose.

It's call that I'd never want to make, and I'm sure the vast majority of public safety professionals would ever want to make. Hopefully, those deputies made a conscious and deliberate choice based on the situation, but account on that definitely vary.


----------



## exodus (Oct 23, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> I'm quiet stunned by some of the replies here. It honestly frightens, disappoints and angers me at the lack of understanding of special populations.
> 
> Quite simply, special needs children and/or adults will not react the way the majority of the population would. If a caregiver who is familiar with that individual makes a suggestion, it's really best you follow it.
> 
> As for the "misplaced strikes" theory. I call malarkey. It's truly difficult to fracture an airway with a strike. It's far more likely someone put a knee in his throat. OF COURSE they didn't want to kill him, but if they inappropriately escalated the situation (and I don't know if they did or not) then they are responsible for his death. That's the standard I as a citizen am held to, it should be no different for a law enforcement officer.



So you think we should have just let him continue to destroy property?


----------



## usalsfyre (Oct 23, 2013)

exodus said:


> So you think we should have just let him continue to destroy property?



As opposed to escalating the situation to physical violence that lead to his death? Abso-f$cking-loutely. Anyone who says otherwise needs to take a long, hard look at their value system.


----------



## exodus (Oct 23, 2013)

usalsfyre said:


> As opposed to escalating the situation to physical violence that lead to his death? Abso-f$cking-loutely. Anyone who says otherwise needs to take a long, hard look at their value system.



The chances of him being killed from what the officers knew were very slim.  Just because he is mentally retarded doesn't mean he has free reign. If he is dangerous, which he was by how he acted. He should have been institutionalized where he could have been kept safe. When he becomes threatening, he needs to be controlled.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Oct 23, 2013)

I've read only a couple of the news stories about this. There are always 2 sides to the story so I'm not gonna say who is in the wrong. The off duty officers could have used excessive force or they could have used the force needed to handle the issue. 

I'm not an expert in special needs however I have had some special needs patients who's caregivers were unable to control them. So for everyone's safety they were forceably restrained by PD. Now if this person was acting like any of my patients, he could do a lot of damage even if he was in a wheelchair. 294 lbs is a pretty good sized person to restrain special needs or not.


----------



## CFal (Oct 23, 2013)

There are always 3 sides to the story, both sides and the truth.


----------



## CFal (Oct 23, 2013)

But one side can be can be closer to it than the other, and right now we are only getting one side


----------

