As usual, you are wrong.
And saying I am wrong makes you doubly wrong.
And that statement comes from an article on the PoliceOne website, probably the most biased (and irrationally so) pro-police website on the Internets.
When a cop takes someone into his care and custody through detention or arrest it is the cop's responsibility to ensure that person's safety and security.
Makes sense, right?
I mean, if you're a reasonable, rational, unbiased person. Maybe not if you're an anti-freedom, pro-police state "conservative".
Anyhow, you can't handcuff someone, manacle them, throw them in a metal box in the back of a moving motor vehicle, and then act surprised if they somehow get injured as a result.
Do that, and you're negligent.
Do that and they die, you're taking a ride for involuntary manslaughter, at a minimum.
:doh
No soot and you can stop with the exaggerations.
You have not refuted that slipping and falling while banging your head is not the result of his own actions. Nor could you.
Inmates often injure their self, and that injury is not attributable to the the States D.O.C.
Had he remained laying on the floor he would have been fine.
He chose not to and instead was banging his head and causing a ruckus which is why the leg restraints were applied.
In this case the suspect was supposedly not secured which was okay for the reason claimed under the previous set of rules.
But to claim criminal activity becasue a supposed policy was not followed is absurd.
And if it is found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy, the old standards will be accepted.
The supposed new rules are no where to be found.
Do you have a link to them?
Here is a link to the only ones (old) I could find.
-- Ensure medical treatment for a prisoner is obtained, when necessary, at the nearest emergency medical facility
>The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger
http://www.aele.org/law/2009all10/baltimore-transport.pdf
A good call on their part.
She is clearly biased and has a conflict of interest.
The rest of what you said was emotive nonsense.
intentional
[in-ten-shuh-nl]
adjective
1. done with intention or on purpose; intended: an intentional insult.
2. of or relating to intention or purpose.
ac·ci·den·tal
?aks?'den(t)l/
adjective
adjective: accidental
1. happening by chance, unintentionally, or unexpectedly.
2. incidental; subsidiary.
You just made the argument that he did it intentionally. If it were accidental, that is the officer's fault for not properly securing him in the van!
Just more deflection.
Your reply again ignores that fact that there was no conflation.
I spoke to injury during an intentional act as being the responsibility of the person.
There is no conflation in that.
Slipping and falling while banging your head still is the result of your own actions.
You can't change that.
But since you can't get past the fact that it can happen ... ↓
In the meantime, I'll entertain myself watching the apologists try to convince themselves that someone severing their own spinal cord is a believable notion, and not one borne out of brutal stupidity.
This was you engaged in brutal stupidity.
This guy broke his neck by ramming his head into a wall.
Brutal stupidity would be not recognizing that self inflicted broken necks are not an uncommon occurrence.
:lamo
As you have repeatedly shown, that is you.
the fact that they arrested this young man without cause, aggressively restrained him and failed to see to his medical request/needs and as a result of their negligence, he died.
Not facts. Allegations.
Please provide the relevant information that they "had to" respond to his request.
The old standard did not require it.
So where is this new standard?