Police Tazer, Pepperspray, and Beat Mentally Challenged Teen

[zoobyshoe]

DAYTON, Ohio (CN) - Dayton police "mistook" a mentally handicapped teenager's speech impediment for "disrespect," so they Tasered, pepper-sprayed and beat him and called for backup from "upward of 20 police officers" after the boy rode his bicycle home to ask his mother for help, the boy's mom says.

Pamela Ford says her "mentally challenged/handicapped" son Jesse Kersey, 17, was riding his bike near his Dayton home when Officer Willie Hooper stopped him and tried to talk to him.
The mom says that "Prior to the incident described below, defendant Hooper knew Jesse and was aware that Jesse was mentally challenged/handicapped and a minor child."
Nonetheless, Ford says, Hooper "apparently took Jesse's speech impediment for disrespect ... [and] began yelling at Jesse and after Jesse attempted to communicate with him[.] Jesse, being a minor and mentally challenged/handicapped, turned and rode his bike back to his home in an attempt to ask his mother, Ford, to help him communicate with defendant Cooper," according to the complaint in Montgomery County Court.
On the way, the mom says, "A neighbor attempted to communicate with Officer Hooper about Jesse's disabilities and was told to go back into his home, or he would be arrested."...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/29/37770.htm

When I was 17 I got arrested by one cop with a stern voice.

 

[micromass]

Despicable... I hope that cop gets fired for what he did.

 

[rootX]

I wouldn't be willing to read article with headline ... 'Cops Just Love Those Tasers'

 

[Hurkyl]

Does anyone know of a report that explains what happened in the incident?

 

[Evo]

I found the local news paper article, but it's not very clear either.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/teen-shot-with-taser-as-police-call-for-backup-784318.html

 

[HeLiXe]

I really cannot fault the mom for removing the taser prongs from her child.

 

[Proton Soup]

at first, i thought it might be racial, but the pic at infowars is from another incident in Dayton a year prior.

 

[micromass]

OK, Evo's link reports a quite different story, so

Despicable... I hope that cop gets fired for what he did.

holds iff everything went like the OP described.

 

[zoobyshoe]

holds iff everything went like the OP described.

The one I posted is more recent and reports the charges against the kid have already been dismissed, which indicates the cop(s) were very quickly assessed to have over-reacted. That "courthouse report" I posted seems to be about the proceedings where the "two lead officers" are being sued. Notice they are being referred to as "Defendant Hooper" and "Defendant Howard".

Anyway, the problem seems to be that, whenever a suspect is non-compliant, the cops go ballistic.

(Sometimes they go ballistic if they think it's remotely possible you might be someone who might be non-compliant:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=386760&highlight=night)

The whole Rodney King thing escalated so fast because he wouldn't lie down. By the end of this incident here, with the teenager, there were 20 cops at the scene, the kid had been tasered and pepper-sprayed and punched.

The mother says the cop knew the kid, and knew that he was handicapped. If that's true, then I think the kid's non-compliance could have been dealt with in an uneventful, Andy Griffith way, with Andy and Barney going over after lunch to talk first with the Mom, then with the kid, explaining to him the importance of stopping when a cop tells you to, or, alternately, of not speaking disrespectfully to cops, whichever was the actually inciting offense.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It doesn't say what his handicap is. Does he have Tourette's or something? I don't know how you decide that a handicapped kid running for his mom is deserving of being arrested let alone like that. While I typically stick up for police officers I don't really see anything in the circumstances here that I could possible back up.

So he's either 16 or 17. I understand that's not a little kid really, he could be dangerous I suppose. If a teen takes off while an officer is talking to him it would be proper procedure to go after him, I get that. Its not as though he hurt anyone or stole anything though. Just follow him to where ever he's going and then continue trying to speak to him. And if he gets away? oh well. It was just a traffic violation, and on a bicycle no less. If the kid "assaulted" the officers it seems quite likely due to the actions of the officers escalating the situation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The one I posted is more recent and reports the charges against the kid have already been dismissed, which indicates the cop(s) were very quickly assessed to have over-reacted.

Not really. It says it was dismissed based on the courts findings of "mental incompetence" which likely would have been determined before they ever even went over evidence. I'd imagine a judge would have harsh words for the officers involved but the simple finding technically says nothing of the officers actions.

By the end of this incident here, with the teenager, there were 20 cops at the scene, the kid had been tasered and pepper-sprayed and punched.

And beat with an ASP apparently, which is basically a sort of baton.

 

[xxChrisxx]

 

[Pengwuino]

fool done disrespected the po po.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not really. It says it was dismissed based on the courts findings of "mental incompetence" which likely would have been determined before they ever even went over evidence. I'd imagine a judge would have harsh words for the officers involved but the simple finding technically says nothing of the officers actions.

Not sure what you're saying, but I didn't mean to imply the charges were dropped because it was determined the police over-reacted, if that's what you're thinking. It's the fact the charges were dropped for "mental incompetence" that makes the cops look so bad, and would cause anyone looking at the incident to assess them as having over-reacted.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It doesn't say what his handicap is. Does he have Tourette's or something?

Dayton police "mistook" a mentally handicapped teenager's speech impediment for "disrespect,"

The implication is not something like Tourettes, but garbled speech. My best guess is that, when the cop addressed him, he said something that the cop mistook for "kiss my ***" or some such.

 

[Hurkyl]

While I typically stick up for police officers I don't really see anything in the circumstances here that I could possible back up.

That's because you're been presented with a "here's why the cop is evil" article, not a "here's what happened that day" article.

The article could plausibly be a fair treatment of the cop's actions, but it is almost certainly not "the whole truth" of the incident.

I try to make it a point not to form opinions based on a one-sided description, especially when it's so obviously so.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's because you're been presented with a "here's why the cop is evil" article, not a "here's what happened that day" article.

Exactly. Everyone should notice it spoon feeds you with the conclusion the cops were out of line, and that the source seems mainly to be the kid's mom.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's because you're been presented with a "here's why the cop is evil" article, not a "here's what happened that day" article.

The article could plausibly be a fair treatment of the cop's actions, but it is almost certainly not "the whole truth" of the incident.

I try to make it a point not to form opinions based on a one-sided description, especially when it's so obviously so.

I read both articles. Based on the bare facts alleged in both I can not see anything to support the officer's actions. Unless the facts are wrong. I don't care that he may or may not have spoken disrespectfully to an officer and that it may have been a misunderstanding due to mental handicap. That officers chased down a kid on a bicycle and physically accosted him over a traffic violation is sheer inanity.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Based on the bare facts alleged...

Herein lies the problem. What we don't know might make a huge difference. Fictional additional info that would change things: the cop had previously seen the same kid talking in a friendly manner with a known drug dealer, and once saw the drug dealer hand him a small paper bag. In other words, the cop might have suspected the drug dealer was using the kid as a "mule". That's fiction I just invented, but it represents the sort of information that could mitigate our opinion of the cop.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Herein lies the problem. What we don't know might make a huge difference. Fictional additional info that would change things: the cop had previously seen the same kid talking in a friendly manner with a known drug dealer, and once saw the drug dealer hand him a small paper bag. In other words, the cop might have suspected the drug dealer was using the kid as a "mule". That's fiction I just invented, but it represents the sort of information that could mitigate our opinion of the cop.

This is why I put in the last line, "That officers chased down a kid on a bicycle and physically accosted him over a traffic violation is sheer inanity." If these are the true facts (minus my personal opinion) then there isn't much that can alter the acceptability of their actions. It all apparently started over a traffic violation on a bicycle, which is somewhat ironic considering that most traffic laws regarding the operation of a bicycle are for the safety of the cyclist. The progression of events from there is rather drastic and would require quite a bit of extenuating circumstances to explain. Even your fictional scenario would not help the officers as it would likely give the impression that the kid was stopped for a traffic violation specifically for the chance to search him for drugs which would not be legal.

Like I said, I usually stick up for the police. In threads regarding using pepperspray and tazers on kids I have supported the actions of the officers as quite possibly necessary. I supported the assertion of the officer in the BART shooting of it being an accident (though condemning it as a jail worthy accident). I just can't see anything here to support. Unless some particularly interesting information is missing I would have to say that the officers were in the wrong.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is why I put in the last line, "That officers chased down a kid on a bicycle and physically accosted him over a traffic violation is sheer inanity." If these are the true facts (minus my personal opinion) then there isn't much that can alter the acceptability of their actions. It all apparently started over a traffic violation on a bicycle, which is somewhat ironic considering that most traffic laws regarding the operation of a bicycle are for the safety of the cyclist. The progression of events from there is rather drastic and would require quite a bit of extenuating circumstances to explain. Even your fictional scenario would not help the officers as it would likely give the impression that the kid was stopped for a traffic violation specifically for the chance to search him for drugs which would not be legal.

Like I said, I usually stick up for the police. In threads regarding using pepperspray and tazers on kids I have supported the actions of the officers as quite possibly necessary. I supported the assertion of the officer in the BART shooting of it being an accident (though condemning it as a jail worthy accident). I just can't see anything here to support. Unless some particularly interesting information is missing I would have to say that the officers were in the wrong.

All good points.

 

[Evo]

I feel the same, but based on both accounts, I don't see how the police acted reasonably. There would have to be some significant ommissions of facts to justify the police actions taken.

I also normally support the police.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I feel the same, but based on both accounts, I don't see how the police acted reasonably. There would have to be some significant ommissions of facts to justify the police actions taken.

I also normally support the police.

Stipulating all the facts are correct and complete, I don't see how anyone could support the cops here. But, we'd want to hear the whole thing from the cops side, as well.

 

[Hurkyl]

(To add to the below scenario, imagine the kid making a violent motion with his head every time he forces his way past the speech impediment)

Cop: Sir, stop the bike.

Kid: Wh, wh... WHAT DO you want?

Cop: I'm going to have to give you a ticket

Kid: I did... did... DIDN'T DO anything.

Cop: *explains violation*

Kid: I'm g.. g... GOING HOME.

*kid gets on bike*

Cop: SIR! DON'T LEAVE THE SCENE!

Kid: T.. t.. TALK TO MY MOM.

*kid bikes off*

*cop chases kid, shouting at him to stop*

*neighbor sees chase, and rushes out of house to intercepts officer*

Neighbor: Stop picking on that kid! He's mentally handicapped.

*neighbor attempts intimidating stare*

Cop: Sir, go back to your home or you will be arrested for interfering.

*Cop goes past neighbor and continues pursuit. Calls for backup. Continues shouting after the kid to stop his flight*

*Kid arrives at home yard*

Cop: Do not enter that house. Stay outside.

*kid starts towards house*

Cop: Stop or I will be forced to restrain you.

*kid nears door*

*Cop fires the taser to stop the kid, then approaches to subdue*

*kid violently resists*

et cetera.

I don't care that he may or may not have spoken disrespectfully to an officer and that it may have been a misunderstanding due to mental handicap. That officers chased down a kid on a bicycle and physically accosted him over a traffic violation is sheer inanity.

This scenario I lay out above seems fairly consistent with the facts laid out in the article of the opening post. And the cop in my scenario seems to be behaving quite reasonably.

But, you state that you don't care about any of the facts of the scenario other than those outlined in the article of the opening post. You would condemn my scenario's cop without even listening to the whole story?

 

[xxChrisxx]

This scenario I lay out above seems fairly consistent with the facts laid out in the article of the opening post. And the cop in my scenario seems to be behaving quite reasonably.

You have an curious definition of the word reasonable.

 

[rootX]

Mentally handicapped people, like people with impaired judgement, are generally hard to handle.

The officer actions were reasonable in the scenario Hurkyl provided.

 

[Hurkyl]

You have an curious definition of the word reasonable.

Really? What part do you find unreasonable? TBH, I thought the cop in my scenario was bordering on being unreasonably tolerant of the kid's behavior.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Really? What part do you find unreasonable? TBH, I thought the cop in my scenario was bordering on being unreasonably tolerant of the kid's behavior.

Even in your 'reasonable' scenario, it's plainly obvious that there is something not quite right about the boy. Yet at no point did the boy escalate the situation into a violent one. Each increase in the level of violence was taken by the police officer.

Of course beating up a retarded child for failing to stop is the first thing i'd think of to solve the situation.

In this case.
Non-compliance = MOAR FORCE REQUIRED.
Leading to a Cartman-esque respect of authoritah.

It seems to be the way that almost all Americans are conditioned, as the vast majority of you act very single mindedly. It's obviously the way police are trained over there, that a situaiton needs to be quelled as quickly as possible. But in this case violence was clearly not the option that would yield the best results.
EDIT: To clarify, everything is dealt with with a very confrontational approach, where a non confrontational approach would diffuse the situation rather than escalate it.

This reminds me of that cop who smacked the 15 year old girl in the police cell becuase she was 'provoking' him by mouthing off. Another totally disproportional response.

It's something I noticed recently vistited the States (loved it btw). Though most the people were really pleasant, they all acted in a slightly robotic manner.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Really? What part do you find unreasonable?

That the cop is expecting the mentally handicapped kid to grasp the whole situation as if he weren't mentally handicapped. You especially lost me when he tasered him.

 

[micromass]

Calling back-up of 20 cops, tasering him, beating him and using pepper spray sounds quite unreasonable to me.
A taser should only be used if the cop is in danger. This was not the case here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Calling back-up of 20 cops, tasering him, beating him and using pepper spray sounds quite unreasonable to me.
A taser should only be used if the cop is in danger. This was not the case here.

No matter how bad it gets, there will always be those who try to make such actions sound reasonable.

 

[Hurkyl]

You especially lost me when he tasered him.

I took the kid's threatening to enter a house as the point where confrontation was forced. The officer had to choose between letting the kid go, finally taking action to stop him, or risk the situation escalating into one much more serious.

I picked the taser as the opening move simply because that's what the article describes.


(aside -- there are all sorts of arcane rules involved in dealing with private property. For all I know, letting the kid into a house might actually be the same thing as letting the kid go)



Why the risk? He has already faced a belligerent and dismissive response from the kid and hostile intervention from the neighbors. I don't find any difficulty imagining lots of ways things could spiral out of control if things continued onto confronting the owners of the house or waiting for backup to arrive.


If you and Chris don't see the apparent belligerence and violence in my scenario's kid's words, then you simply aren't imagining them the way they I was when I wrote the scenario. When the kid forces through his stutter, he is literally yelling those words, and this is accompanied with him jerking his face towards the cop. I had also imagined him with a somewhat naturally loud voice. I picked this particular speech impediment because I have actually heard ones that aren't too dissimilar, albeit more subdued. (it's not hard to revise the scenario to one where there kid is expressing genuine belligerence, but with similar words and intents)



(another aside: while I was making a scenario that agreed with the article, I wasn't trying to make one that agreed with the court document)

 

[micromass]

I took the kid's threatening to enter a house as the point where confrontation was forced. The officer had to choose between letting the kid go, finally taking action to stop him, or risk the situation escalating into one much more serious.

I picked the taser as the opening move simply because that's what the article describes.


(aside -- there are all sorts of arcane rules involved in dealing with private property. For all I know, letting the kid into a house might actually be the same thing as letting the kid go)



Why the risk? He has already faced a belligerent and dismissive response from the kid and hostile intervention from the neighbors. I don't find any difficulty imagining lots of ways things could spiral out of control if things continued onto confronting the owners of the house or waiting for backup to arrive.


If you and Chris don't see the apparent belligerence and violence in my scenario's kid's words, then you simply aren't imagining them the way they I was when I wrote the scenario. When the kid forces through his stutter, he is literally yelling those words, and this is accompanied with him jerking his face towards the cop. I had also imagined him with a somewhat naturally loud voice. I picked this particular speech impediment because I have actually heard ones that aren't too dissimilar, albeit more subdued. (it's not hard to revise the scenario to one where there kid is expressing genuine belligerence, but with similar words and intents)

Hurkyl, there are actually rules for these kind of things:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/continuum.htm

since the kid wasn't posing any threath and since he was just running away, the use of taser or pepperspray would not have been allowed. Only when the suspect physically poses threat to the officer, would such a thing be allowed.

The military rules of engagement are broken down as (according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement)

• Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
• Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
• Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
• Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
• Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm.

The kid was activily resisting, thus he was level 3 at most. So only joint manipulation or stunning blows were allowed. Tasers and pepperspray do not apply here (as they shouldn't).

 

[xxChrisxx]

I took the kid's threatening to enter a house as the point where confrontation was forced. The officer had to choose between letting the kid go, finally taking action to stop him, or risk the situation escalating into one much more serious.

Or he could have let him go in, knocked on the door and spoke to the boy's mother.

I don't find any difficulty imagining lots of ways things could spiral out of control if things continued onto confronting the owners of the house or waiting for backup to arrive.

The police are meant to stop a situation sprialling out of control not take an active part in exacerbating the situation. And why would there need to be a confrontation with the home owner?

It was dealt with in an immensly clumsy manner, that lead to a non violent child, who seemingly didn't have the mental capacity to fully grasp the situation being shot with a taser then sprayed, punched, then hit with a baton.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, there are actually rules for these kind of things:

Ah, thanks! Are you able to find a reference for which rules are relevant in this particular case?


Anyways, if we go by the military rules of engagement you mentioned, the claims in linked court case indicate he was level 3 at least (at the time the taser struck, he was level 2 at least), and offers no comment on whether or not the kid reached level 4 or above.

(you are classifying both tasers and pepper spray as "enhanced pain compliance", then?)