Hey, there! Log in / Register
Detained while jogging in Jamaica Plain
By adamg on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 9:14pm
David Mittell reports what happened while he was jogging past Faulkner Hospital last week:
Several times I offered my hands for handcuffs, saying, "If I'm under arrest I'm going to cooperate." Finally, I said, "We can go back and forth on this for another hour. If you need to arrest me let's do it." By and by an ambulance arrived. At that point there were two cruisers, four police, and two ambulance attendants at hand. I expressed regret that I was tying up so many services. I was handcuffed, put on a gurney, tied down, and driven the some 100 yards to Faulkner's emergency room. The pretext given was that I was confused.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Just FYI, this has absolutely
Just FYI, this has absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act, post-9/11, or anything of that sort. For better or for worse, and the system isn't great, this is how mental health detentions work in Massachusetts.
I don't know the details of the initial call, or why officer's believed that the author might not be alright. Generally, once there is a suspicion that a person may be a danger to himself or others, or that he may not be able to take care of himself, they will try and make a determination by asking the person some basic questions. If you can't answer these questions in a manner that convinces the officer you aren't crazy, they'll call you an ambulance and "Section 12" you. (Hint: ranting about "the future" in response to a simple question may make you look crazy). You'll be transported against your will to the nearest hospital, and generally evaluated by a psychiatrist within the first two hours. The Dr. will then determine, based on their interview, whether to commit you for further evaluation, or to release you. If you are held, you have the right to an emergency appeal with the court, who will appoint an advocate to represent you. While you are being held, you do not have the right to sign yourself out and leave the hospital.
This is how it's been done in Massachusetts since long before 2001, I'm guessing.
Re: +1 AlertNewEngland
Well said, sir.
As for, "I don't know the details of the initial call, or why officer's believed that the author might not be alright." If indeed it was a call for a wandering senior, as Mr. Mittell seems to think it could have been, stubbornness and uncooperativeness are two of the hallmarks of Alzheimer's Disease. I agree that they handled it by the book.
Well of course you would.
Well of course you would. From your posts here you seem to have never met an authoritarian action you didn't like. But as the writers points out this seems to mostly a case of police authority run amok and a cop getting pissy about someone not meekly complying with his orders.
Boston Police acted professionally. Mr. Mittell, not so much.
Let me get this straight. A concerned citizen calls Boston Police to report a possibly confused senior citizen. A serious call for police, especially at night in autumn, in these days of heightened Alzheimer's awareness. By Mr. Mittell's own admission:
Even though Mr. Mittell admits the citizen's concern and the officer's arrival was justified, he still becomes flippant, somehow concluding the police response is corrupt!
Mr. Mittell, who the officers apparently don't know, continues to pool his game. He refuses to answer simple questions, recalls a bad TSA experience from years ago and even offers up his hands to be cuffed, long before there was any indication that officers wanted to. Given the totality of the circumstances, he left the officers no choice but to send him for observation. Had he been the wandering senior that the caller thought he was and had police failed to act, Mr. Mittell's family would be jogging to the nearest law office and not as slowly. If he is not confused, he should be embarrassed.
This video has colored my
This video has colored my perception of the role of law enforcement vis a vis answering police officers' questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Hard to believe it, but I have to agree with FISH on this one..
One only has to suffer through this heavy handed account of what one confused egomaniac "suffered" at the hand of what he perceives to be a police force straight out of Gilliam's "Brazil" to see that all this moron had to do was answer the officer's question in a rational manner.
But, no, Mr. Fearing for the future of our Democracy has to be a wiseass, so they locked his ass up. I also seriously doubt his account of sparring with corrupt Ukranian police, as the beating he would have gotten from them would have taught him never to wise off to cops who are just doing their jobs, corrupt or not. I say that as someone who has seen the business end of both a Yellow Pages and a billy bat courtesy of the BPD.
I have experienced fools like this many times over the years, and their small degree of intelligence is often trumped by their egos and their foolish perception of themselves as somewhat above a mere police office trying to perform his duty. They also tarnish those who have experienced real brutality at the hands of police, all in the pursuit of their own desire to be seen as some sort of martyr to their pseudo-intellectual friends who have never spent one moment on the street.
I'm no psychiatrist, but as a layman, I'd diagnose Mr. Mittell as a narcissistic asshole.
But being a narcissistic
But being a narcissistic asshole is neither a crime nor evidence of mental illness. This is what you and O-Fish-L seem to fail to grasp. He has every RIGHT to be a narcissistic asshole. He has every right to express heavy handed political beliefs. He has every right to back talk and be snarky to cops as long as he complies with their LAWFUL commands (the modifier there being key).
I'd also say that while the "I'm doing this for the future of democracy" or whatever the line is, was heavy handed, you're far to dismissive of what must have been a harrowing experience for the author as he was detained for several hours for doing nothing. While this isn't Gitmo it's still a very disturbing event for someone and the dismissive attitude of yourself is partly what the author is writing about.
Surprise surprise that you'd
Surprise surprise that you'd cheer police on for depriving someone of their freedom without cause. Just to refresh you O-Fish-L the author is under no obligation to act "professionally". Most citizens decline to back talk to cops because it's rarely a wise move but we're under no obligation to act "professionally" (what profession would that be exactly? jogger?) or politely in interactions with police.
As for your ludicrous assertion that they left the police "no choice", that's farcical and only makes sense if we assume that the police must always exercise the most drastic option available.
Finally, your post here, where you admit that the cops detained him for back talking to them rather than for being mentally unstable, contradicts your earlier assertion that this was all about protecting a potentially mentally unstable person.
@anon 12:22 am. Allow me to educate you on Mr. Mittell
David A. Mittell has long been a freelance columnist for suburban newspapers, although my guess is this column may be among his last. I never said he was under any obligation to act a certain way, just that the police acted professionally and he didn't.
Even more egregious is your claim that I "admit that the cops detained him for back talking to them rather than for being mentally unstable." Not quite. Combine the citizen's call, Mittell's very own admission that he may have appeared to have wandered from a nursing home, the unccoperativeness that is the hallmark of Alzheimer's, his refusal to answer basic questions while offering unsolicited bizarre statements, then offering his hands for cuffing when nobody asked him to. The officer would have been derelict to let him go. Mittell is an educated guy. If he is still of sound mind, then he got exactly what he wanted, as a sage commenter noted before me.
Lastly, I hope Mr. Mittell's ill-advised column doesn't result in some future elder in need of services being let go because the next officer doesn't want to risk a citizen complaint or being maligned in a column. Again, Mr. Mittell should be embarrassed.
Here's more information on
Here's more information on this guy. Walk down Chestnut Ave. from Green Street and try to guess which house is his. He is not suffering from alzheimer's because he has kept this eyesore shit hole in this condition for years. Apparently, he thinks the government also has no business telling him he can't collect rent from people who live in squalid, dangerous conditions. For further evidence of his character, read the Herald article singing praises to the child toucher Gerry Studds after his death. God bless the Boston Police who deal with such insufferable bastards like him on a daily basis.
Interesting - I didn't
Interesting - I didn't recognize his name until i saw this comment - Mr. Mittell has been my neighbor for the last 10 years. Yes, it's true that he keeps his house in such a shocking state of disrepair that one must question his mental state. And my only personal interaction with him was also in relation to a police incident on our street, although in that situation he did a kindness for another of our neighbors whose car had been vandalized. I certainly have friends who are of the same opinion as him about not complying with police requests for identifying info when it's not required, but I think that unfortunately, any attempts to exert your rights in this regard are more often than not going to result in negative consequences. I agree that he probably went too far in taking a stand in this situation, but it is unfortunate that the police take assertion of basic rights to be indicative of dementia or criminality.
The police didn't take an
The police didn't take an "assertion of his basic rights" to be indicative of dementia. They are charged with determining on the spot whether or not he is ok, and if you don't answer basic questions about who you are, where you're from, etc, or if your answers are disjointed and rambling, they're going to make a judgement call.
This guy is insufferably smug
"When he asked why I was doing this I told him it was for the future freedom of his children. It was also for the freedom of every down-and-out, different-looking, homeless or intoxicated person, and for every immigrant stopped by the police."
Oh, for the life of me, such histrionics! Did he have that speech pre-planned? It sounds to me like what happened is exactly what Mr. Mittell wanted to happen, so he could prove his "point". He made his little act of civil disobedience and I'm sure he is quite pleased with himself.
I'll stress though that being
I'll stress though that being smug and insufferable is NOT a crime. Neither is being an asshole, or "heavy handed" or "unprofessional" or stubborn, all things the writer has been accused of in this thread. Which is precisely his point.
He was never accused of a
He was never accused of a crime, nor charged, nor arrested.
Interesting that he mentions
Interesting that he mentions intoxicated people. I wonder if he knows that they can also be held against their will for their own safety.
How does this lunatic get
How does this lunatic get into the newspaper? It's scary that these people are walking the streets and you don't know who they are until they open their mouths and jabberwocky comes out. I counted three different pathologies before I stopped reading.
I find it rather sad that
I find it rather sad that people somehow think that the real crime here is being overblown in connecting a disturbing detention of dubious legality to larger issues of the surveillance state in America, rather than a cop locking someone up for mouthing off to him (which everyone, even our hang-em-high friend O-Fish-L admits is what really happened here).
Why should a cop get to detain someone for being a dick to them? Would you like it if a cop were able to lock you up just cause he didn't like your attitude?
I'd add that the author's
I'd add that the author's reference to "poorly trained" police likely refers to their being untrained in why anyone but a crazy person would backsass them.
Analysis
Everyone here has been psychoanalyzing Mr. Mittel, and it's uncalled for. The problem is not in his brain; the problem is with the age-old, self-preserving, deeply-rooted establishment - the establishment that decides where you and I can live, whether we'll be in advanced classes or remedial, whether we'll have red hair.
Mr. Mittel doesn't need a psychotherapist; he needs a genomic analysis. Jon Kamens, you may have a new cousin.
-1
oh good lord. some of you folks are so paranoid its crazy. Pun Town.
It is called for. The article and its language expose a contrived effort by Mittel to end up in that situation. It is likely that the officer had further reason to detain him as a lost/deranged individual when he viciously fist pumped with joy that he'd found an opportunity to opine when the blue lights came on.
I would love to know the truth on this one.
Was it a section 12 or voluntary transport?
Does it matter?
Whether it was section 12 or officially voluntary, it was clearly the desire of the jogger to be detained. If you act crazy right up until the moment you meet a mental health professional, you should expect a commensurate reaction.
I does matter.
If you are handcuffed in an ambulance, they don't let you leave at the hospital untill a doctor says you can go. The way this guys story reads out is that once he gets to the hospital (by control of the goverment), they just let him leave when he asks. That doesn't add up to me.
These calls are common when family members call the police and say a family member or friend has mentioned thoughts of suicide or hurting themselves or others. When the police respond, the person sometimes doesn't really stand out as anything out of the ordinary. You know the person needs help, but the person sometimes doesn't want to get any.
Being "crazy" doesn't mean the police always have the right to put handcuffs on you and send you to a hospital.
It would just be interesting to know the whole story here.
I meant that he wanted to be detained
Whether or not the mechanism was section 12, the detention was voluntary. If it was section 12, he purposefully manipulated that result. I agree that there is a difference in terms of paperwork and end game. As described, it appears to me that it was not section 12, because he states to the psychiatrist that he has a right to leave, and she agrees. That doesn't sound like any evaluative discharge.
Why was he handcuffed then?
That was kind of my original question. People who go to the hospital on their own do not get handcuffed.
I other issue is that many people with schizophrenia can explain accounts like this differently than how they happened. Unless he tried to maniuplate the system like you said.
The whole thing doesn't add up to me still by his account.
Involuntary Safekeeping
I can't speak for the officer in this case, but if I had concluded that this guy needed to be evaluated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and he continually offered up his hands for cuffing, I would certainly cuff them.
Imagine if he hadn't been cuffed, then freaked out in the ambulance, injuring the unarmed medics or worse (it happens), the claim would be "the man who warranted a citizen's 911 call, then acted in a bizarre manner with the police, offered several times to be handcuffed but the police declined the man's offer."
I always have to laugh when a layman whines when a subject is cuffed for short ride or cuffed behind his or her back. They had better be cuffed! #8 of the Ten Deadly Errors that Kill Police Officers. Improper Handcuffing: Once you have made the arrest, handcuff the prisoner (or patient) CORRECTLY! See that the hands that can kill you are safely secured.
I was "detained" by an E-13 cop once
The reason cited was exactly as given to the jogger: "you're acting irregularly."
This officer was older, white, balding, heavyset and usually drives the traffic enforcement cruiser. Does this sound familiar, Mr. Jogger? I bet it does.
I had made a comment under my breath as I passed on the opposite side of the street on my bike, about the irony of him blocking a firehouse entrance while he wrote up a ticket on a driver. Apparently he heard it (amazing hearing!), and suddenly that ticket wasn't all that important - he made an (illegal) U-turn and roared after me.
He pulled up next to me, screaming out his passenger side window. I ignored him and tried to keep from being hit - he left barely a few feet between me and the parked cards. Then he races ahead and cuts me off and starts screaming at me some more.
"Am I being detained?"
*silence, stares at me*
"Officer, am I being detained?"
"You know what? YES, ASSHOLE." *gets out of cruiser*
"Why?"
"Because you're (*makes air quotes*) acting irregularly"
I was then forced to give my name and address, and he promised "I'm going to keep an eye out for you."
Taken in the context of David Woodman (who died for mouthing off to a couple of Boston cops and having an open container) and other incidents of BPD officer rage - basically, they're a bunch of narcissistic little pricks. If everyone doesn't lick their boots, give them half-off everywhere they shop on duty, and smile while doing it - they fly into a rage.
Oldest in the nation, and most entitled. They don't even think they have to follow the law on front license plates - they run those stupid "thin blue line" plates to let the rest of the world know they're a cop and deserving of special treatment.
I love interactions between two assholes.
(you and the cop).
It must have been funny.
Really?
Could you be a teeny bit more specific? You just described half the BPD.
The difference
One is just an asshole, the other is supposed to be a professional on duty and act like one.
The other difference?
One could be a lying asshole, and the other could be a professional on duty and acting like one.
Oh and by the way Swirrly. I know exactly who this anon is talking about. Although I would never call this guy friendly, he is actually one of the only guys who does traffic enforcement in the City. This guy is right up your alley. He isn't going to treat anyone like he wouldn't want to be treated. He knows the law and he knows how to do his job.
Oh, and that anon forgot to add that Woddman also died because he went out that night, he had a heart condition, and he resisted arrest.
Resisted arrest?
Do we know definitively that he resisted a legitimate arrest, as opposed to an arrest for contempt-of-cop?
That is what the independent witnesses said.
I guess you would have to ask them. And you would have to know the legal definition of what resisting arrest is.
General shape of the story
What ultimately matters in such cases, unfortunately, aren't the facts or the text of the report, which few people bother to read, but the general public perception, which, in this case, seems to be:
The question is not necessarily, did he struggle once the police had already escalated the situation, which would result in a resisting arrest charge, but, instead, was there any good reason, at the outset, for the police to escalate?.
Tips for dealing with police
http://flexyourrights.org/
First they came for the night joggers
I'm all in favor of police harassment and unlawful imprisonment, as long as it always happens to other people doing things I don't do.
To all the myriad cop-defenders, how much ass is one legally required to kiss in order to be allowed to jog at night? If you want to pass a law making it a crime to refuse to answer cops' questions, then you should try and pass that law. But as far as I know no such law exists, so disobeying it does not mean you want to be, or deserve to be, arrested.
And using Section 12 on this man sounds pretty sketchy to me, considering all the certifiable ranters and ravers one can find throughout the city and on the Internet, some of whom make generally threatening statements or periodically unleash angry invective.
Running while old
This sort of thing has happened repeatedly to my father - a 70+ year old man who runs for exercise, very slowly, often while not wearing a shirt in warm weather. Old people aren't supposed to exercise; when they do, it only takes one phone call to get them put in the back of a police cruiser.
Granted, my father has never ended up in a psychiatric hospital, but that may just be because there isn't one conveniently located near his running routes (in New Jersey)
Where's the AARP?
When we so much as cite the literature on declining abilities when it comes to elderly driving, its suddenly unreasonable to have an elder tested even after numerous driving complaints - like my batshit senile neighbor who finally had an accident and his mechanic lied to him to get him off of the road. The cops couldn't do it. Multiple filings of complaints with the RMV didn't get him retested - which he would fail.
But one older person jogging ... danger to self and society!
I say this as "a little girl like me" who has been harassed and scolded for biking home from work late at night when I worked in a research lab. (with complete head, tail, and side lighting, reflector vest, the works ...). Funny how nobody else ever attempted to stop me or otherwise harass me.
Police didn't come for the jogger, they were sent to him
@Dan Farnkoff: The police didn't come for the nighttime jogger, they were sent to him by a concerned citizen. Even Mr. Mittell admits he may have appeared to have wandered from a facility. He then intentionally mimics many of the classic symptoms of someone with Alzheimer's or dementia, even refusing to give a name so that officers might verify that he is or isn't at risk. You'd better believe he is going to be detained, not in a prison as you say but in a care facility. Despite your warped view, police are indeed the community caretakers, the last life-line for Alzheimer's patients and others at serious risk. Helping them is one of the most enjoyable parts of the job. Being harangued by the likes of Mittell for doing ones job isn't so enjoyable but I'm sure the officer wouldn't have changed a thing. Both Boston Police and the MSP now have academy classes in session. I'm inclined to send Mittell's column to the academy director's and encourage them to teach that this is how it should be done. Strong work!
Something about a broken clock
I agree!
yeah, they should just trust anything anyone tells them
"The police didn't come for the nighttime jogger, they were sent to him by a concerned citizen."
"Hello, Arkham Asylum, how may I help you?"
"Hello, this is the Officer Clownshow from Boston Police. Do you have any male residents missing, who might be out jogging?"
"Nope, everyone's accounted for."
"Thank you very much."
YEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHH. 5 minute phone call and nobody gets arrested.
This is an important point as
This is an important point as well. A lot of people are REALLY willing, even eager, to apologize for heavy handed uses of authority as long as it's used against people who aren't like them. It's interesting that if you look at the comments here, all of the folks defending the cops actions, with the exception of AlertNewEngland, are doing so not based on the facts of the situation but on the identity of writer: he was "smug" "insufferable" an "ass" a "weirdo" "unprofessional" etc etc etc. These are all qualities which the commenters presumably don't self apply. So as long as the cops are hauling off people who aren't like me to the psych ward on dubious cause it's fine and dandy, but god forbid they impinge on my freedom in the slightest manner.
The only problem anon....
is that no one knows the facts here. So everyone can have an opinion.
I'm not trying to argue one
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other; I just like to clear up misconceptions about what the police actually do and why they do it. Sometimes I do get sucked into an argument though, especially when people jump to conclusions about the actions of police officers, especially when these conclusions aren't even backed up by the author's account.
Here's where you're wrong...
I have never had any problem admitting that I'm an asshole. Therefore the "takes one to know one" theorem applies to my comments.
Also, I have to take objection to the term "heavy handed". It's not like they turned a fire hose on the guy. In fact, I can imagine the first cop asking his partner; "What's with this fucking guy?".
This is nice, too: "To
This is nice, too: "To establish I was being held against my will I might have to take physical steps toward my freedom.", by which I guess he means try and push his way past the security guard, but it's ok, because he had already explained to the guard that his actions weren't directed at him.
Except that you didn't, as per your own account of the events, the charge nurse had already told you that if you tried to leave, you would be restrained.
While we're at it, nowhere in the article does he give any evidence that the cops acted unprofessionally, or that they did what they did because he "talked back to them" or anything of the sort. Towards the end, when he claims the cops were menacing and bullying, he relates that one said to him "Just making sure you're ok, sir". The horror!
An action like this by the police isn't an arrest. Once the person is transported to the ER, the police no longer have anything to do with them, whether the person is examined and released after 20 minutes, or held for days. I can understand the man's reluctance to answer questions by the police because he isn't legally required to, but unfortunately, asking basic questions like your date of birth or address are how the police determine you still have your wits about you.
A person with actual dementia often acts how the author did. They can't grip these facts in their mind, and they come up with excuses not to answer them, or they resort to "I don't want to talk to you". The police aren't mental health professionals, but are charged with making sure this gentleman is safe through a spot assessment of his competency. For those of you who feel this is authoritarian and controlling, what would you suggest?
In this case, erring on the side of caution means that the author gets a trip to the emergency room, because at the time, he is acting exactly the same as a dementia patient that will later be found dead of exposure in the Allandale woods. If you feel that the system should swing the other way, and that dementia patients should be left alone to wander off and die so that the rest of us don't risk an unnecessary detention, then your problem isn't with the police, it's with the mental health system in the state.
I find it a little curious that uHub commenters are always quick to point out that someone maintains their innocence until they are proven guilty, but in a case like this, which fails to show that the police did anything other than what you pay them for, people can't resist a chance to take a shot at the cops. Read the article again. Nowhere does the author provide a single quote or action from the cops that makes them seem like anything less than professional.
Personally, I'm an individual rights kinda guy, so if you don't like the fact that people get detained on the basis that they may not be able to take care of themselves, I'm inclined to agree. It's unfair to blame the cops for that system, though.
Of all occupations, I think only the police
insist on being commended for their errors.
That's what you took from
That's what you took from what I wrote? Interesting. Anyways, what's your solution here?
EDIT: Other professions that like to err on the side of caution: pilots, firefighters, doctors, nuclear reactor operators, plumbers, architects...wait, maybe it would just be easier if you list the professions that, when given a choice between safe and dangerous, choose "unsafe".
uhm...
hedge fund traders?
Yeah, that's probably one,
Yeah, that's probably one, although with a vastly different definition of "dangerous".
Dan is 100% right
If this guys story is true, the police are 100% at fault.
While all people tend to like
While all people tend to like to insulate themselves from criticism it's true that the police, as people who are allowed to exercise authority over strangers and who need to do so as part of their job, tend to be extremely reflexive in defending their authority when it's challenged.
Hmmm
Except that's what didn't happen:
The horror! Aren't you supposed to be some kind of reporter?
Ah, you're right, I misread
Ah, you're right, I misread that. I thought only the last part of the exchange was imaginary, when in reality, more of it was. And no, I am definitely not supposed to be some kind of reporter. I wish the author had related what the police actually said to him.
No...
You misread. The author says that that is what the cop should have said. Which is made clear by the following sentence: My cue would have been to say, "Thank you for your concern. Sorry to trouble you!"
So no, the cop didn't say that.
"Zitizen, your pay-puhz,please!!"
Hey, guess what?! This is not the Dreyfus affair and Mr.Mittell was not the victim of some Orwellian inspired minions of the police state.
He's just another in a series of guys who don't have to get up every day, strap on a gun and go out knowing that some kid may shoot him in the face today. No, he's just some asshole with contempt for the same guys he'd bitch about if they didn't show up quick enough to deal with someone keying his Volvo in the parking lot of Whole Foods.
I'd wager the toughest part of Mr. Mittell's day is deciding which recording of Scriabin's second he wants to listen to or which wine goes with autoflagellation.
"Don't have to"
Nothing is forcing anyone to get into police work. If you don't want to take the risks, you can't handle the stress, and you can't work professionally, then the job isn't for you.
That the job is dangerous is NOT a excuse for any improper doings. Not that I think there was any here, but just that it's a false crutch that shouldn't be used.
There's no reason to treat cops any different then you'd want to be treated yourself. If they overstep the line, then just refuse to answer their questions, and ask if you are being detained. No? Walk away.
This: if you're the kind of
This: if you're the kind of guy who feels that he needs to prove he's a big man because someone is being rude to you then policing is not for you.
At times like these I remember a video I saw on one of those COPS type shows of an officer who had pulled a woman over for some kind of traffic violation. This woman unloaded every kind of verbal abuse she could at that cop, screaming and yelling at him and calling him names. Like a true professional this guy simply responded politely to her with the information about what to do with the ticket.
dvdoff
Thank you for injecting humor into my day!
Police can't section people
This guy seems to have got in the ambulance willingly.
Police can apply for a
Police can apply for a section 12, which is enough to transport the person to a hospital. It's right on the Section 12 form. http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dmh/forms/form_aa...
It isn't really an application process.
If the police think you are a harm to your self or others, they can handcuff you and send you to the emergency room for an involuntary evaluation. That is what I think happened here.
Yeah, by "apply for", I meant
Yeah, by "apply for", I meant complete the front of the Section 12 page. The back on the other hand, which holds you for longer, has to be completed by a shrink. I just wanted to be clear that the cops can only get you to a hospital, and after that, the decision about whether you stay or go rests on a mental health professional.
This is not an easy call
It's got to be one of the toughest questions around the use of detention -- both at a philosophical level and at a pragmatic one.
I've had the joys of caring for a parent with dementia. Perhaps some of you have; perhaps the others can put yourself in my shoes for a minute.
Consider this: If your father or mother with dementia were lost, what would you want the police to do? In particular, what would you want them to do if your wandering, disoriented parent were being combative and telling the police to buzz off?
Now, imagine another scenario, in which it's not your demented parent, but your wise-assed teenaged kid, being combative and telling the cops to buzz off.
I can tell you what I'd want: In the first case I'd want the cops to take my parent into custody and find me or some other caregiver, or get a competent professional opinion as to whether my parent was safe to be out or not. In the second case, I'd want the cops to leave my kid alone, even if he's being snarky to the cops or otherwise doing something that, while dumb, is entirely legally permissible.
The problem is that the line that separates these two scenarios is very, very thin. I'd want to see some sort of evidence, even from the arrestee's own testimony, that the police were acting in bad faith. I'm just not seeing that here.
On the other hand, assuming that we take his account at face value (which is admittedly a huge assumption), my only question about the bullying, low-level hospital staff, is whether they should be publicly horse-whipped before or after they are fired from their jobs.
Is this an unusual place for people to run?
I'm not familiar with that area. Is walking or running there so unusual that it merits attention from the police?
Not unusual, lots of people run there.
It connects two neighborhoods to both the Arboretum and Jamaica Pond. The sidewalks are wide, with abutting bike lanes, and you'll see lots of runners on a typical evening or weekend.
Bad thread...
no soup for you. The facts in this "case" sound bizarre and don't really pass a sniff test (for me at least). I have no clue who this guy is or what his particular axe-grinding issue is, but the scenario feels like some weird-ass avant garde French movie where no one reacts to things in the way that you would expect them to. I'm not going to analyze the psyche of this guy and I don't think there's much here to go pillorying the BPD about. We don't know what happened and I personally don't really feel what the author has written is an accurate representation of what happened.
There's lotsa conversation matter here about police attitudes, how to behave when interacting with police, rights violations, caring for people with dementia, old people jogging (shirtless or not) at night -- but the source article just doesn't seem to be the case to initiate it. Nothing to see here, move on.... Don't worry, there will no doubt be plenty of legitimate things to complain and argue about in a day or two.