104 replies to this topic

[Gabba]

Though in 99% of cases its because the social workers/carers etc CANNOT use force wheras we can.

Its the same with care homes. They cant lock the front door as its a fire escape and they cant use force to stop the children in their care from walking out. This means we get called out to a misper...

this is all to true, only late week I returned a mispa to a Home only to be called back 20 mins later to be told she was missing again!
As for this thread... the MET should be allowed to appeal it's just not fair, we already see young offender workers not allowed to use certain restraint techniques which allow crimal offences take place and there is nothing that can be done

[candles]

My Mum works with lots of young autistic adults and it really isn't as easy to "control" these young people as you might imagine. She's five foot five and considerably smaller than most of the people she works with so doesn't really have a hope in hell if they kick off. She was a police officer for 15/16 years so has a pretty good understanding of the way things should be dealt with but sometimes the only option is to leave it to people who have the powers, training and equipment to deal with this sort of thing.

or not in this case...

[MacGregor]

or not in this case...

I wasn't suggesting anything about this specific case if you read the post carefully. There isn't enough information for me to make a judgement on. I'll wait until the appeal.

[Gabba]

I wasn't suggesting anything about this specific case if you read the post carefully. There isn't enough information for me to make a judgement on. I'll wait until the appeal.

there won't be an appeal as the Met was refussed that option, unless the Court of Appeal changes it's mind

[inmyownmadworld]

If a person chooses a career as a police officer, then they are taking on the duty of respecting and caring for their community,
lack of training is not an excuse, police officers should do their own research,
the damage that that attack has had on this autistic boy is irreversible
I am hugely disappointed by what i am reading
restraint is not the answer, a little humanity, understanding and common sense is sometimes also required,
unacceptable,

[Giraffe]

If a person chooses a career as a police officer, then they are taking on the duty of respecting and caring for their community,
lack of training is not an excuse, police officers should do their own research,
the damage that that attack has had on this autistic boy is irreversible
I am hugely disappointed by what i am reading
restraint is not the answer, a little humanity, understanding and common sense is sometimes also required,
unacceptable,

OK, so what do you propose a group of people (setting aside the fact they are police officers) should do in such a situation? You say a lack of training is not an excuse - I beg to differ on that part. If you have no idea what autism is, then how are you supposed to recognise the signs or now the best way of dealing with it? Police officers are trained specific officer safety techniques that they use on a regular basis. These include the use of handcuffs and leg restraints.

Perhaps if you feel so strongly about this you will be offering to provide an input into the subject for us? If the teachers and life guards are unable to resolve the situation by themselves, how exactly are police officers supposed to resolve it?

As for doing our own research - where exactly does that stop? We aren't doctors and our medical knowledge is more or less limited to first aid training. Perhaps you should equally do a little research into the actual role and purpose of a police officer.

[Sceptre]

If a person chooses a career as a police officer, then they are taking on the duty of respecting and caring for their community,
lack of training is not an excuse, police officers should do their own research,
the damage that that attack has had on this autistic boy is irreversible
I am hugely disappointed by what i am reading
restraint is not the answer, a little humanity, understanding and common sense is sometimes also required,
unacceptable,

Humanity and understanding aren't going to stop him diving into the water and drowning, nor I suspect would the boy's father be any happier as I believe the aftereffects of jumping into deep water whilst being unable to swim are often just as irreversible. Why should I or any other officer become an expert on absolutely every disorder under the sun just on the off-chance that one day we might end up in a no-win situation involving either restraining a large and powerful teenager who is too mentally disordered to communicate with, or letting him do something which could well result in his death - and either way being criticised for it? I'd have thought the Mental Capacity Act would come into play here.

I'd love to hear your suggestions in slightly more detail than "humanity, understanding and common sense". Nice username, by the way.

Edited by Sceptre, 14 March 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[SC Meerkat]

restraint is not the answer, a little humanity, understanding and common sense is sometimes also required,

I can see the headline now

"Autistic boy drowns as police attempt to have a chat to him"

There is a time and place for what you have described inmyownmadworld, but sometimes we have no option but to resort to use to force in order to save someones own life.

[inmyownmadworld]

Resisting arrest presumably?

Autistic teenagers can be very strong, 16 year olds are perfectly capable of ending up in leg restraints. The France 6 nations game had the opening kick from an austic boy, much younger, who they did appear to have a little trouble removing from the pitch. Imagine that but 16, with police officers trying to tell you what to do, wanting to to something and basically throwing a tantrum.

I'm not saying that is what did happen but it is entirely possible. Police officers receive little or no training in autism or any other disabilities and yet are expected to deal with such circumstances. I'd still struggle to see how it would lead to degrading treatment or disability discrimination. Indeed its almost not-discriminatory being treated the same as anyone else who refuses to comply...

It is COMPLETELY different to dealing with anyone else who refuses to comply...
Autism is a COMMUNICATION DISORDER,
Someone with severe autism as stated in the post.. would not have been refusing to comply, but would have been terrified,
this is something that the police should have been able to recognise..

I can see the headline now

"Autistic boy drowns as police attempt to have a chat to him"

There is a time and place for what you have described inmyownmadworld, but sometimes we have no option but to resort to use to force in order to save someones own life.

I am a lifeguard, and i would have been able to save that boys life without the use of restraints and handcuffs,
its called teamwork,

[Giraffe]

It is COMPLETELY different to dealing with anyone else who refuses to comply...
Autism is a COMMUNICATION DISORDER,
Someone with severe autism as stated in the post.. would not have been refusing to comply, but would have been terrified,
this is something that the police should have been able to recognise..

Please refrain from CAPITALISATION as it comes across as though you are shouting (maybe you were?).

Perhaps you may like to explain how a police officer, with no knowledge or experience of the subject, is supposed to recognise and deal with autism? The fact his own teachers would have been there, who presumably would have had some training and knowledge on the subject as they wee entrusted with looking after him, were unable to deal with him how exactly do you expect the police could have dealt with it differently?

I am a lifeguard, and i would have been able to save that boys life without the use of restraints and handcuffs,
its called teamwork,

Well clearly you must know something that the lifeguard's who were there that day didn't know. Perhaps you can share that with us?

[SC Meerkat]

I am a lifeguard, and i would have been able to save that boys life without the use of restraints and handcuffs,
its called teamwork,

So once you get him out of the pool, and he punches you in the face, what do you do then?

[inmyownmadworld]

OK, so what do you propose a group of people (setting aside the fact they are police officers) should do in such a situation? You say a lack of training is not an excuse - I beg to differ on that part. If you have no idea what autism is, then how are you supposed to recognise the signs or now the best way of dealing with it? Police officers are trained specific officer safety techniques that they use on a regular basis. These include the use of handcuffs and leg restraints.

Perhaps if you feel so strongly about this you will be offering to provide an input into the subject for us? If the teachers and life guards are unable to resolve the situation by themselves, how exactly are police officers supposed to resolve it?

As for doing our own research - where exactly does that stop? We aren't doctors and our medical knowledge is more or less limited to first aid training. Perhaps you should equally do a little research into the actual role and purpose of a police officer.

Perhaps your right, i am beginning to question the actual role and purpose of a police officer,

[Rocket]

It is COMPLETELY different to dealing with anyone else who refuses to comply...
Autism is a COMMUNICATION DISORDER,
Someone with severe autism as stated in the post.. would not have been refusing to comply, but would have been terrified,
this is something that the police should have been able to recognise..



I am a lifeguard, and i would have been able to save that boys life without the use of restraints and handcuffs,
its called teamwork,

Please don't attack us as police officers, if you read what we were saying and then read the last line of your post in the quote then I do hope you will see that we are actually in agreement here.

You as a lifeguard could have dealt with the situation without the police being called, so why didn't that happen in this incidence?

The police are (or should be at least) a last resort.

[smt]

I think that everybody is missing the point here. The force the officers used was illegal because they didn't have a legal right to do what they were doing, hence the false imprisonment.

[candles]

I am a lifeguard, and i would have been able to save that boys life without the use of restraints and handcuffs,
its called teamwork,

I am not sure how you can say that without knowing the facts in this case. Additionally, if you think you can apply your logic to every incident, then I suspect you haven't had enough life experience to know that every situation is unique. The point that has already been made about a life guard at the time must've decided or certainly acknowledged the need for a police presence. Whilst you think you are trying to potentially belittle only the job the police are doing, you are inadvertently belittling yourself and your role as a lifeguard.

Just because the child suffered from autism, does not mean that he can't get angry and violent. Not saying that it happened or not in this situation, but please be mindful that the vast majority of police officers try their very best in very hard and challenging situations. Just as you do as a life guard.

I think that everybody is missing the point here. The force the officers used was illegal because they didn't have a legal right to do what they were doing, hence the false imprisonment.

I don't think anyone is missing this point - I think most people are requesting more information, highlighting holes in the report and debating the situation that has arisen,

[smt]

I don't think anyone is missing this point - I think most people are requesting more information, highlighting holes in the report and debating the situation that has arisen,

The officers involved shouldn't have used force, it's as simple as that.

This debate appears to be more about whether or not the level of force was unlawful; which I don't think was disproportionate if they had (which they evidently didn't) the lawful authority to detain him.

Remember this boy wasn't arrested, he was detained. The latter is unlawful.

[Rocket]

I think that everybody is missing the point here. The force the officers used was illegal because they didn't have a legal right to do what they were doing, hence the false imprisonment.

This is getting a bit out of control here, we are all trying to make sense of this with the the pitiful information available. It wasn't a criminal case that was brought against the Met officers, it was a civil case as far as I understand it.

[MacGregor]

Perhaps you may like to explain how a police officer, with no knowledge or experience of the subject, is supposed to recognise and deal with autism?

I think we all know you won't be able to recognise the symptoms of a condition you know nothing about but it does raise an interesting point. Given how prevalent autistic spectrum disorders are and the effects of such disorders, there certainly should be some input on the matter given to police officers (how much is currently given I don't know but from the sounds of it, not a lot in some forces). I know a few forces here in Scotland have schemes running to try and raise awareness of the issue, such a scheme seems like a good place to start. Dealing with autistic people can be difficult at times but also hugely rewarding, there just has to be recognition that the way in which you normally communicate might not be effective.

Edited by CharlieJulietMike, 14 March 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[smt]

This is getting a bit out of control here, we are all trying to make sense of this with the the pitiful information available. It wasn't a criminal case that was brought against the Met officers, it was a civil case as far as I understand it.

Exactly, like I said originally, hence the false imprisonment.

The assault though is criminal.

[Rocket]

Exactly, like I said originally, hence the false imprisonment.

The assault though is criminal.

Exactly what? you can't agree with me just for the hell of it!

[smt]

Exactly what? you can't agree with me just for the hell of it!

I agree with you that false imprisonment is civil.

The assault is, however, criminal.

In either scenario, the officers didn't have the legal right to use force. If they did we wouldn't have this thread going.

[Sceptre]

Remember this boy wasn't arrested, he was detained. The latter is unlawful.

Is it? I can detain a person who is mentally disordered and posing a risk to themselves or other in a public place to prevent a breach of the peace, under the Mental Health Act or even the Mental Capacity Act provided the necessary conditions are met. None of these amount to an arrest.

I have done and witnessed events which by all accounts seem identical to this, so I'm at a loss to see why a fairly cut and dried case of restraining someone who is clearly incapable of making a reasoned decision whether to enter the water or not yet is intent on throwing himself into the deep end has suddenly resulted in this peculiar precedent. Apart from anything else bizarre court findings can have quite far-reaching consequences for how we go about things - take Hookway as an example. Given that it happened some years ago, if the force used was unlawful then why haven't any of the seven officers who attended (and who presumably all agreed it was necessary to restrain him at that point) been charged with anything?

[smt]

Is it? I can detain a person who is mentally disordered and posing a risk to themselves or other in a public place to prevent a breach of the peace, under the Mental Health Act or even the Mental Capacity Act provided the necessary conditions are met. None of these amount to an arrest.

But these conditions evidently weren't satisfied.

Given that it happened some years ago, if the force used was unlawful then why haven't any of the seven officers who attended (and who presumably all agreed it was necessary to restrain him at that point) been charged with anything?

They may now. We'll have to wait and see what happens post judgment.

[Rocket]

I agree with you that false imprisonment is civil.

The assault is, however, criminal.

In either scenario, the officers didn't have the legal right to use force. If they did we wouldn't have this thread going.

I haven't yet seen in this thread where there has been a criminal conviction for either assault or false imprisonment,

I find the couple of posts by 'inmyownmadworld' interesting as he seems to know for one reason or another a lot about autism. What I would like is for him to calm down a bit and educate us on it.

I doubt that any of us who are are commenting in this topic as Special Constables were actually there, but this forum seems to be at the 'coal face' of policing so we do often bare the brunt of situations like this.

I do know a bit about autism as I was dumped in at the deep end with it as a Scout Leader with no training and no advice from the parents of a particular young person as to what to expect (they never told me he was autistic until after it went pear shaped)

But now I do know a bit about this through experience, hence one of my first posts on this that he just wanted a swim and he could have been allowed/persuaded to have his swim in a more controlled situation where he could be safe and do what he wanted to do.

[callsign-kid]

I haven't had the time to read all the comments here yet. However I think rather than suing the police what people have to realise is that when you call the police you call the police. What I mean by that is you aren't phoning for an emergency social worker you're phoning for a police officer who will deal with the situation as a police officer will. Now if he's got the mental capability for a 5 year old then I very much doubt that he understands the dangers of the water which I would argue is demonstrated by going into it whilst fully clothed. It would also appear that he would not have been able to swim judging by the scenario, since he had been watching rather than participating. So a non-swimmer in the pool, fully clothed who is 16 and has the mental age of a five year old. It doesn't seem like that is going end particularly well whatever happens. Now others have failed to deal with him verbally and when words run out you don't have that many other options. Was it a police officer who got him out of the pool? So he gets pulled out for his safety, presumably he keeps trying to re-enter the water so they restrain him to prevent him from doing so. What I want to know is what position the Met would be in if he had died because officers refused to act for fear of this sort of thing happening. What a stupid decision.

If a person chooses a career as a police officer, then they are taking on the duty of respecting and caring for their community,
lack of training is not an excuse, police officers should do their own research,
the damage that that attack has had on this autistic boy is irreversible
I am hugely disappointed by what i am reading
restraint is not the answer, a little humanity, understanding and common sense is sometimes also required,
unacceptable,

I'd suggest your user name is most apt. As a police officer I expect to be trained in what I need to know. What is important to me. What is going to keep me, the public, my colleagues safe and fight crime, deal with other scenarios as we come across them. We can not be educational psychiatrists, psychiatrists, doctors, nurses, paramedics, heart surgeons, fire fighters, social workers, experts on every condition which may affect someone's behaviour ever and so on and so on as well as being police officers. If I'm not trained and use my own research and that fails and I was doing something I was not trained to do I'm in the mother of all troubles. Further I think you'll find that the effects of inhaling large amounts of water are irreversible too and that a large amount of people who do this are non-swimmers. Since teachers had failed to stop him going in the water by talking to him I'm going to suggest a little understanding and "common sense" although I do rather disagree with your use of the term, had failed in this case.

I am a lifeguard, and i would have been able to save that boys life without the use of restraints and handcuffs,
its called teamwork,

If you think that you have never tried to have to restrain someone.

I have to agree with Rocket, there is nothing stopping you from posting some useful information about the condition here.

Edited by callsign-kid, 14 March 2012 - 07:18 PM.