Title: Cop Tackles, Cuffs Innocent 13yo Autistic Boy Who Was Out Walking His Hamster Source:
Free Thought Project/Salt Lake Tribune URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/boy-autism-body-cam-tackled/ Published:Jul 26, 2017 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2017-07-27 09:10:53 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:8034 Comments:33
Duchesne, UT — Parents of a 13-year-old boy with autism filed a lawsuit against the Duchesne Sheriff’s Department this month after they say Sgt. Carl Reilley attacked him for no reason. The boy had committed no crime and was out walking his hamster when he was violently taken down by Reilley, handcuffed, and thrown in the back of the patrol car.
The incident happened in April as the boy, who’s unidentified for privacy reasons, took his pet hamster for a walk like he does all the time.
As the boy walked by the library, he looked inside because he wanted to ‘see the giraffes.’ However, a child’s interest in animals raised enough suspicion from Sgt. Reilley, who was driving by, to detain him.
According to Reilley, when he attempted to detain the boy — without any reasonable articulable suspicion — he ran. However, we never see the young man run on camera and the family’s attorney doesn’t believe it even happened.
Body camera footage obtained by The Tribune through a public records request begins with the teen facing the officer and holding up his hands.
The footage doesn’t show any of the interaction before Reilley got out of his car. Then teen’s arms drooped, and the officer told him to put his hands up, which he did.
As the officer turned the teen around to handcuff his arms behind his back, the teen cried out for help. He then lunged away, at which point Reilley threw the teen to the ground amid his pleas to not be taken to jail.
There, the footage ends, because the officer turned his body camera off.
Reilley claimed he accidentally turned the camera off. (what are the odds of that happening?) As the body cam goes off, a responding Utah State Trooper’s dash cam picks up.
Even if the boy ran, the stop was not justified from the beginning, according to the lawsuit.
The teen was stopped without “reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed,” which therefore constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, the lawsuit states. In addition, Reilley’s use of force was “excessive, unlawful, and caused physical and emotional harm” to the boy, the suit stated, according to the Tribune.
“I would certainly hope that they would get additional training” in regard to identifying and approaching people with disabilities, said Tyler Ayres, the teen’s attorney.
“He didn`t run away from that officer and any assertion that he did I think is an outright falsehood,” says Ayres.
“He was terrified. He was terrified not only because he was taken out of his routine but he was violently taken out of his routine,” says Ayres.
The trooper who responded to the incident was not so aggressive and actually showed compassion toward the boy.
According to UHP Trooper Nate Mikulich’s report of the teen’s arrest, he “was visibly shaken up by the incident, and I told [him] he was a good boy and to not be afraid of officers.”
“I told [him] not to run next time an officer tries to speak with him,” the trooper wrote. “I said, ‘Next time give us a high five.’ [The teen] asked for a hug. I was emotionally shaken by the altercation and asked him for a second hug and gave him knuckles.”
Knowing that the boy was at the library to try to see the giraffes, the trooper tried to repair the child’s trust in police by arranging for the sheriff’s department to take him to the zoo.
According to the trooper’s report, Sheriff David L. Boren allegedly responded: “If the boy can’t be trusted on his own we’ll make sure he is not allowed to be out in public unsupervised.”
Boren denies saying it.
It is also not likely that this young man will trust police anytime soon as the department says that their officer, who tackled a 13-year-old boy with autism, acted accordingly.
In response to the lawsuit, Duchesne County Sheriff David Boren released the following statement Tuesday:
“My office conducted a full and fair review of the April 14 encounter between Sgt. Carl Reilley and Ms. Vallejo’s teenage son. The members of our After Action Review Panel found that Sgt. Reilley was reasonable in his use of force and acted appropriately during the interaction, except for the instance where he mistakenly and briefly switched off his body camera. I support the panel’s findings that the use of force was reasonable and their recommendation that Sgt. Reilley receive a verbal warning for mistakenly turning off his body camera.
When police claim this type of treatment of a child with special needs is justified, something needs to change. The good news is, that this lawsuit is seeking that change and the sheriff’s department has already begun training on how to deal with people who have special needs. It can’t come soon enough.
Poster Comment:
According to the trooper’s report, Sheriff David L. Boren allegedly responded: “If the boy can’t be trusted on his own we’ll make sure he is not allowed to be out in public unsupervised.”
The kid is fine on his own as long as you assholes leave him alone.
Boren denies saying it.
Of course he does.
The members of our After Action Review Panel found that Sgt. Reilley was reasonable in his use of force and acted appropriately during the interaction, except for the instance where he mistakenly and briefly switched off his body camera. I support the panel’s findings that the use of force was reasonable and their recommendation that Sgt. Reilley receive a verbal warning for mistakenly turning off his body camera.
Un-frigging believable!!
“I told [him] not to run next time an officer tries to speak with him,” the trooper wrote. “I said, ‘Next time give us a high five.’
Don't fall for that trick kid - the cops will fear for their lives and charge you with "assaulting" a Law Enforcement Officer.
This case isn't as bad as others, at least, as no one was shot or killed. Also, the cop does seem to show some humanity when returning the kid to his home, which is an element we typically don't see in such cases of unapologetic police brutality.
It does seem the cop had no reasonable suspicion of any crime, though the newscaster reported someone did call 911 about the kid. If a cop responds to a 911 call about a suspicious person, and then sees that person who then tries to run away (if that is what happened), what then should the cop do?
Even given the worst possible circumstances, this incident is not nearly as bad as many others. I'm more concerned about cases of extreme, intentional and sadistic brutality on the part of cops where there is reckless disregard for a person's rights, and this case, even if the kid did not try to run away (without which there would be no reason for him to be arrested), doesn't hold a candle to those.
This case isn't as bad as others, at least, as no one was shot or killed.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember but it used to be in situations like this, the cop would, you know, talk to the kid and by doing that he would be aware that just maybe the kid has some issues.
The kid would have been asked his address and most likely Officer Friendly would have given him a ride to his parents.
Not anymore. Nowdays everyone is perceived to be a criminal by today's law enforcement culture.
Today, no one is safe from being needlessly harassed and assaulted by the current crop of uniformed and armed soldiers who view the streets of Amerika as a battle zone.
It was a bit before my time, but I've been told by a former cop that in the old days, cops had their "beat" which was a section of the city or town they routinely patrolled. They pretty much knew the people who lived there and the people knew the cop. So the cops knew who the good and bad people were, and would have a pretty good idea if someone they saw was a local resident or a true stranger.
If that were the case today, then in this case, this deputy would have probably already known the kid and that he had autism, that he was likely no problem at all, and where he lived. Might have even taken him home as a courtesy, if the kid wanted a ride, and without handcuffs.
If cops had a personal relationship with the community they served it would go a long way to making things safer for both cop and community, but that's not how things work today.
If cops had a personal relationship with the community they served it would go a long way to making things safer for both cop and community
Agreed.
The behavior of the police comes down to leadership. During the first prohibition xome of the leaders in towns and cities were corrupted and the police under them either went along or were out of a job (or worse). Now the problem has been compounded: We still have prohibition, plus the agenda to destroy independence. Making us all reliant and obedient to the government overseers is the goal of the "cultural Marxists" (or "Gramscians" or whatever you want to call the central control freaks).
This is not a simple "collective vs individual" dichotomy. It is the mind sweating fetish for social control, even if it is ultimately destructive to the society. One of many venues implemented deliberately to usurp power over people for arrogant gratification and profit.
If cops had a personal relationship with the community they served it would go a long way to making things safer for both cop and community, but that's not how things work today.
Example, when I was 17, my parents were out of town. My sister was away at school. I played in a band, and got home about 3:00 AM. I had lost my door key, and used a step ladder, and was climbing in the kitchen window, and got lit up with a spot light. One of the cops knew me, he lived about 3 blocks from our house. I explained what I was doing and why. The cops got a good laugh, we talked a bit, and that was the end of it. It would not go that way today in most cities. I grew up in a great small town, and at a good time!
