Ryan Gainer, a teen with autism, was a cross-country runner who worked out his frustrations with six-mile runs and dreamed of becoming an engineer.

On Saturday afternoon, the 15-year-old became upset that his parents had demanded he complete his household chores before he would be allowed to play video games or listen to music on his computer, according to DeWitt Lacy, a civil rights attorney representing Ryan’s family.

“He got upset. Any teen would be upset by that,” Lacy said. Some people with autism experience more heightened emotions and on that day Ryan responded by breaking glass on the front door, Lacy said.

A family member called 911 for help, asking dispatch to send deputies to “take him in” because he was breaking glass and hitting his sister, according to a portion of the call released by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department.

But instead a responding deputy fatally shot the teen, saying he had threatened the deputy with a garden tool.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Whether you are an ACAB type or a Thin Blue Line type, you should be in favor of being less dependent on cops for things like basic civil service, mental health care, wellness checks, traffic enforcement, etc. Cops have to wear too many hats. They’re expected to be professionals, experts even, in too many fields. It is not fair to them to expect that level of competence in so many specialties and it’s not fair to the community that needs experts to rely on people who have minimal training outside of arrest techniques and self defense. Instead of 30 generalists in all fields in a community, we should have 30 specialists in different fields. Some cops, some emergency mental health experts, some social workers, some traffic enforcement specialists (yes, this should be separated from general law enforcement), etc.

    Edit: Additionally, I believe that separating these duties to different people with different authority, techniques and mind sets will also make it safer for both cops and the public. How many cops are killed during basic traffic stops because a criminal was expecting to be caught or feared the cop’s sidearm? How many innocent citizens have been killed in basic traffic stops because the cop was trained to be afraid for his life? How likely is a civil worker going to be to feel the need for lethal force if they aren’t armed at all times? How likely is an addict going to be to shoot on sight when an EMT knocks on the door for a wellness check?

    It’s also counter-intuitive, but cops and the public will be safer when they only have to deal with dangerous situations, when they’re exclusively dealing with criminal suspects. They can rely on their defensive training without worrying about as much situational circumstances. And they’re not interacting with the general public as if their the nails they’re trained to hammer.

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      This is essentially what the Defund The Police idea was all about before it got killed politically. Instead of putting additional $millions per year into the local PD, spend that money on additional outreach programs and first-responders with counseling training instead of having armed cops showing up on every scene.

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Exactly. Unfortunately, the fundamentally good and sound idea, “defund the police”, got named a phrase that, while understandably cathartic and snappy for those on the side of police reform, was an easy target to the opposition. It played into their misrepresentation of the actual goals of the movement as being fundamentally lawless, chaotic and anarchistic. They made the idea of reprioritizing our tax dollars to more directly meet the public needs into a scary idea that will destroy property and endanger lives. And the police helped with that too. I really feel like if the name attached to the idea was less seemingly antagonistic towards the police and more descriptive of the actual goal, we’d still at least be talking about it in legislatures.

        • aleph@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, it’s sad how such a promising idea essentially got killed because the poor choice of name stuck.

          “Reform Police Funding” or “Budget Reallocation” would have been a lot less controversial.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        “Defund the police” was the dumbest slogan. It made it too easy for people to misunderstand reallocate funds and responsibilities.

        • MrBusiness@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          We could pull the ol name switcheroo, like many politicians do for bills. Could start the ‘Help the police’ movement but still call for reallocating funds and responsibilities. Same same, but different.