Darwin winner

[skycop 0]

Yes it is. I'm still authorized to wear this, I spent many years crawling on or around nukes, banging on AIM-9's with a brass hammer.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Richards 0]

Quote

If he were my child I'd be sad, and I wish the officer had at least kept an eye on him....(noticed he was missing and then saw him in the water???)....but I wouldn't blame the police officer for my child's death. And I sure as hell wouldn't sue anyone for my child's stupidity.

The cop really SHOULD have paid better attention to the kid though. To just assume that the drunk 16 y/o would just sit there as he was told shows a serious lack of judgment on the officer's part.

He made a mistake but I do not think he deserves to be penalised for it. It should be seen as a lesson learned. I doubt the cop could have possibly felt that his actions were putting the kids life in danger. It should become an issue of procedure. Maybe there was no policy before on whether a minor can go in the front or back.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[freethefly 6]

I hope all works out well for the officer and the family of the kid that died. What I have a problem with is statements such as this one;

Quote

If thier son couldn't figure out that jumping 60 feet into a river with his hands cuffed behind his back was not smart then he was simply taking up space in thier house and would have been a long term liability to them anyway. They should be thanking the police.

To find it a blessing that a kid had died a horrible death (to me and I am sure to others) is sub-human and shows a serious lack of compassion.
Darwin winner? Maybe the same could be said for any skydiver that died under a perfectly functioning canopy? I wouldn't say it. I would say that the person made a tragic mistake and now the family knows what it means to really lose. I would not want to be the father who is awakened to learn that his young son has died. He screwed up but, deserves more than a good riddance. I do not have children that I am raising and will never recieve that sort of news but, my heart goes out to them. I, also, hope that the officer is not punished harshly for his mistake as he could not possibly have forseen this when he placed the kid in the front seat. It is a tragic lesson learned and we should all hope that all LEO's take note and do not make the same mistake. Some on this board may call me a bleeding heart liberal but, I was once extremely bitter towards the poor, the sick and people who did things like this kid. The tragedy in my life was contracting AIDS. I once made fun of everyone who had it. Wished them all death. Not gay, never shared a needle (shot coke a few times) but, I loved the ladies and was on a mission to have them all. I knew nothing at all about AIDS and it got me. Point is is that when you least expect it something is going to get you. Any person here could end up paralyzed or killed from a skydive accident or any other activity. Some here could end up with AIDS from a one night stand, your girlfriend or boyfriend (you are sleeping with every person from their past and they from yours)or a cheating S.O.. I did not know compassion until I found myself needing it the most and the people who were quickest to offer it were the people that I hated the most. Extremely ironic, wouldn't you say? Point being is that you should learn from others and stay open to offer compassion either physically or in thought as you will want it if and when you find yourself needing it most.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[airtwardo 7]

I spent many years crawling on or around nukes, banging on AIM-9's with a brass hammer,

Quote

Ya know what Jim.....That REALLY explains a lot!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[Jasmin 0]

Quote

I would bet the farm that if this was your child you would scream bloody murder. No doubt, the kid made a mistake and he should had paid for it in court. How many here can say that they never screwed up? I feel sorry for the cop as I am positive that he believed that he did everything right. An unfortunate chain of events.

I'm not going to dispute that I'd be mad as hell, but there is a big difference between being distressed at the death of your child and holding someone wholly responsible for it. I believe that the parents have a duty of care that they’ve also neg'd on. That duty of care was primarily to their son, but I also think that it can easily be extended to the other road users who could have been killed by their drunk and unlicensed son, who has clearly displayed scant regard for his own survival and the safety of those around him.

On the lawsuit issue, for me it is a case of put-up or shut-up. I have had the opportunity to sue the pants off someone for negligence resulting in serious harm and for which they were entirely at fault. But I continue to feel that it is quite sufficient penance that this person will have to live with the knowledge and memories of what happened and that a lawsuit would not make me feel any better or have made my injuries any less. People make mistakes, shit happens.

It is indeed an unfortunate chain of events and my comments are essentially to say that the appointment of blame being decided by society/judiciary is becoming increasingly skewed and illogical. On paper, yes the cop is to blame, but that does not make his being held to account for it, just or right.

xj

"I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I'm not going to dispute that I'd be mad as hell, but there is a big difference between being distressed at the death of your child and holding someone wholly responsible for it.

Is anybody doing that right now, holding the officer wholly responsible?

I think the officer is (just like the kid and the arents) partly responsible.

Fact is the minor, once taking into custody, was the responsibility of the officer. Especially if the officer also deemed him to be intoxicated.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a lawsuit, since people in the US seem to be pretty "sue happy". In this case the agency should pay, since one of their members was clearly partly responsible.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I have had the opportunity to sue the pants off someone for negligence resulting in serious harm and for which they were entirely at fault.

If I were to screw up and injure somebody, I damn well hope that it is you. Serious now, why should someone pay what might amount to thousands in Dr. bills when they were not at fault? Why should the party responsible walk away and pay nothing? I have never sued anyone but, have been sued myself, twice. Lost one, won one. I can honestly say that if someone were to injure me, they will be paying the bill. Why would you want to take on debt that you otherwise would not of had if not for the party responsiible?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

16 year old kid died a tragic death.

From reading the article, the kid killed himself.

We are all engines of karma

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's a free country - no one is forced to be a cop.
However, if one chooses to assume the responsibility of being a cop, then one should expect to be held responsible. A minor is, by definition, a person with incompletely developed judgment...

Let's see, using that philosophy, we could have this scenario:

A college professor is accused of sexual molestation by a mentally immature teenage girl because she didn't like the grade she received in the professor's class.

And the response, according to your philosophy, should be:

It's a free country - no one is forced to be a professor. If one chooses to assume the responsibility of being a professor, then one should expect to be held responsible. A teenager is, by definition, a person with incompletely developed judgement.

So I guess if this ever happens to you, professor kallend, then you deserve whatever you get, whether the allegations are true or not. You could have chosen to be a garbageman instead, a job which has no authoritative contact with teenage girls.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

It's a free country - no one is forced to be a cop.
However, if one chooses to assume the responsibility of being a cop, then one should expect to be held responsible. A minor is, by definition, a person with incompletely developed judgment...

Let's see, using that philosophy, we could have this scenario:

A college professor is accused of sexual molestation by a mentally immature teenage girl because she didn't like the grade she received in the professor's class.

And the response, according to your philosophy, should be:

It's a free country - no one is forced to be a professor. If one chooses to assume the responsibility of being a professor, then one should expect to be held responsible. A teenager is, by definition, a person with incompletely developed judgement.

So I guess if this ever happens to you, professor kallend, then you deserve whatever you get, whether the allegations are true or not. You could have chosen to be a garbageman instead, a job which has no authoritative contact with teenage girls.

That is correct - I DO assume the responsibilty for my actions with my students. Don't YOU assume responsibilty for your actions in your job?

Are the allegations correct in this case? Well, apparently the kid is dead, was handcuffed and in the custody of the police. What part is unverified at this time?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That is correct - I DO assume the responsibilty for my actions with my students. Don't YOU assume responsibilty for your actions in your job?

Are the allegations correct in this case? Well, apparently the kid is dead, was handcuffed and in the custody of the police. What part is unverified at this time?

You misrepresent JRs example. He's asking you if you assume responsibility for the actions of students that are beyond your control. Your response only addresses 'your actions' not the student's.

The correct response is that his example doesn't apply and the better analogy would be a medical staff dropping a patient that was under anesthesia. (the cop example is somewhere in between, but MUCH closer to the medical analogy)

(the cop does have a level of culpability here, the real question, is whether that culpability will be overinflated by those with grudges to grind vs understated by those reacting to the first group)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

So the kid was an idiot, no argument there.

Given that minors are not considered responsible enough or have good enough judgment to vote OR CONSUME BOOZE, or be executed in most civilized jursidictions, and minors are not held to the same standards of behavior as adults, and drunks are clearly suffering from impaired judgment, does it not follow that the custodians of a drunk minor should be responsible? In this case, the minor was in police custody.

By taking a minor into custody, the police assumed responsibility for his safety.

So, you believe that authority should be responsible for protecting me from myself?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So, you believe that authority should be responsible for protecting me from myself?

Generally, no; but in limited circumstances, yes. When the police take someone into physical custody who has impaired judgment, due to youth, or intoxication, or mental infirmity, or a combination thereof, they assume a responsibility to protect the person against anticipatable harm, including from himself.

What I don't quite understand: why was this kid in the front seat of the police car? Why not locked in the typical police cruiser's back seat, which is "caged-in", no door or window handles, etc.? I don't get that.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

So, you believe that authority should be responsible for protecting me from myself?

Generally, no; but in limited circumstances, yes. When the police take someone into physical custody who has impaired judgment, due to youth, or intoxication, or mental infirmity, or a combination thereof, they assume a responsibility to protect the person against anticipatable harm, including from himself.

What I don't quite understand: why was this kid in the front seat of the police car? Why not locked in the typical police cruiser's back seat, which is "caged-in", no door or window handles, etc.? I don't get that.

And I don't get why people want their freedoms but refuse the responsibilities that come with their freedom.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[NCclimber 0]

Seems like this is a situation where people think law enforcement should have anticipated behavior that they had no prior experience with.

Or can someone produce other examples where drunk, speeding teenagers have tried to escape off bridges, after being hancuffed, secured by a seatbelt and locked in a cruiser?

What will probably happen is law enforcement nationwide will have new additional procedures placed on them, to prevent this from happening a second time. Meanwhile, thousands of 991 requests for help (every year) will go be responded to more slowly because officers will have to babysit criminals, while waiting for backup.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

So the kid was an idiot, no argument there.

Given that minors are not considered responsible enough or have good enough judgment to vote OR CONSUME BOOZE, or be executed in most civilized jursidictions, and minors are not held to the same standards of behavior as adults, and drunks are clearly suffering from impaired judgment, does it not follow that the custodians of a drunk minor should be responsible? In this case, the minor was in police custody.

By taking a minor into custody, the police assumed responsibility for his safety.

So, you believe that authority should be responsible for protecting me from myself?

Not answering for John but, my answer is that once in the custody of the police, they are now responsible for your safety as you are now in their control. They have rules and guidlines to protect you and themselves. The police will always make sure that you do not bang your head on the car door jamb when placing you inside and that this level of safety extends all of the way untill you are released and back on your own to do as you please. The rules protect you from injury, whether from yourself or at the hands of the police and protect the police from civil suit.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And I don't get why people want their freedoms but refuse the responsibilities that come with their freedom.

When you are handcuffed and in a police cruiser, you are generally not free anymore, but in the custody and control of a police officer, which also means they are responsible for you.

With the power of arrest and detention also comes the responsibility to care for that person.

I don't get why people are okay with organizations taking away freedom but not take the accompanying responsibility.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

And I don't get why people want their freedoms but refuse the responsibilities that come with their freedom.

When you are handcuffed and in a police cruiser, you are generally not free anymore, but in the custody and control of a police officer, which also means they are responsible for you.

With the power of arrest and detention also comes the responsibility to care for that person.

I don't get why people are okay with organizations taking away freedom but not take the accompanying responsibility.

The organizations aren't taking away all of your freedoms. Do you want the organizations to take away all of your freedoms and have all of the responsibility? I would rather live in a society where you maintain as many freedoms as possible and the accompanying responsibilities.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I would rather live in a society where you maintain as many freedoms as possible and the accompanying responsibilities.

I agree, but that is not pertinent to this thread.

The police officer took away some of the freedoms of the your man. In doing so, the officer took on some responsibility for the well being of the young man. The officer subsequently failed in that duty and hence is partly responsible for the death of the young man.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

And I don't get why people want their freedoms but refuse the responsibilities that come with their freedom.

When you are handcuffed and in a police cruiser, you are generally not free anymore, but in the custody and control of a police officer, which also means they are responsible for you.

With the power of arrest and detention also comes the responsibility to care for that person.

I don't get why people are okay with organizations taking away freedom but not take the accompanying responsibility.

Hypothetically speaking... let's say you get throw in a crowded holding cell and start spouting racist crap to the bruthas. Are the officers in the next room to blame for you getting pummelled?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I would rather live in a society where you maintain as many freedoms as possible and the accompanying responsibilities.

I agree, but that is not pertinent to this thread.

The police officer took away some of the freedoms of the your man. In doing so, the officer took on some responsibility for the well being of the young man. The officer subsequently failed in that duty and hence is partly responsible for the death of the young man.

Why do I feel Jackie Chiles needs to represent this man's estate?

steveOrino

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hypothetically speaking... let's say you get throw in a crowded holding cell and start spouting racist crap to the bruthas. Are the officers in the next room to blame for you getting pummelled?

Not even close to a similar situation and not enough information to form a sound opinion.

[billvon 3,110]

>Hypothetically speaking... let's say you get throw in a crowded holding cell . .

. . . with an angry drunk they just arrested. You avoid him, but eventually he comes over and starts beating the crap out of you with a stick. Do the cops have any responsibility to prevent that? To stop it?

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I would rather live in a society where you maintain as many freedoms as possible and the accompanying responsibilities.

I agree, but that is not pertinent to this thread.

The police officer took away some of the freedoms of the your man. In doing so, the officer took on some responsibility for the well being of the young man. The officer subsequently failed in that duty and hence is partly responsible for the death of the young man.

I disagree. The cop did not take away the freedom of the minor to move about and thus the responsibility for moving about was still the minor's.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Hypothetically speaking... let's say you get throw in a crowded holding cell and start spouting racist crap to the bruthas. Are the officers in the next room to blame for you getting pummelled?

Not even close to a similar situation and not enough information to form a sound opinion.

Goes to the point about law enforcement being responsible for our welfare once we're arrested.

Speaking of "not enough information" - do we have any information as to why the arresting officer would have had any indication that the arrestee would make a break and jump off a 60 foot high bridge.

I think the thead title sums this situation up, nicely.