Maybe autistics are getting too much of kid glove treatments
03 Mar 2015, 4:02 am
We know by now the story of Reginald Latson, the autistic man who was recently pardoned by Virginia's governor. However, there were so many reports about how peaceful and gentle he was, but I did not even know about this during the story: http://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/co ... -11-4.html
http://potomaclocal.com/2011/03/11/auti ... to-appeal/
Why was this ignored when talking about this case with autism? I am getting worried that maybe there are certain subsets of the autistic advocacy community who really do think autistic people should never be accountable even when they violently attack others. I mean, the autistic community was up in arms over this but refused to discuss Latson's criminal history. Why is this? Did the autistic community feel that Latson should not have been held accountable for breaking and entering? Do we want everyone to assume everyone with autism is a saint? Do we expect others to be ok with it when autistic people assault others, even on their own property, because they are autistic? What is going on exactly? I am getting worried here. What am I missing?
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
03 Mar 2015, 4:27 am
Verdandi wrote:
It looks like his mother is disputing a particular incident in which Latson was determined to be guilty of basically "being in the area while black." Despite his criminal record, he should not be tried for not breaking any laws.
The point was that his criminal record may have been the proof prosecutors had that he was truly a danger to society. I wish there was a way to know more about the case. It sounds like prosecutors alleged that he broke into a neighbor's house that one time and used that combined with his fight with the officer to show that he was too dangerous to be in public. And that it autism advocates wanted him to be free than it meant they did not care about the public's safety since according to his record he was shown to be too much of a threat to other's safety, especially after the break in if the break in did happen.
And this points towards a larger issue - if autism advocates are against prison sentences for people like Neli, are we saying that the public should accept violence from those with autism? And accept physical abuse from those with autism? Is that the message we are sending? That is where the concern lies.
In this article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in- ... story.html there were comments like this
"I'm sorry that some children are born with disorders, but when their behavior infringes on the safety of the rest of society we have a special place for them- jail! You are obviously a bigot who holds a special hatred for law enforcement, but get real. This kid is a danger to society and should be given the full sentence recommended by the jury. "
Is this the reason why we get comments like this?
03 Mar 2015, 4:58 am
emax10000 wrote:
Did the autistic community feel that Latson should not have been held accountable for breaking and entering? Do we want everyone to assume everyone with autism is a saint? Do we expect others to be ok with it when autistic people assault others, even on their own property, because they are autistic? What is going on exactly? I am getting worried here. What am I missing?
I think any person diagnosed with a mental illness (not just autism) when convicted for a crime by the judicial system deserves to have their case more thoroughly investigated in order to completely rule out mitigating circumstances due to their mental condition.
It appears (a common response on WP) that you believe this is about how the persons (Latson's) conduct will reflect on how mainstream society will respond to your autism.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
03 Mar 2015, 7:14 am
emax10000 wrote:
The point was that his criminal record may have been the proof prosecutors had that he was truly a danger to society. I wish there was a way to know more about the case. It sounds like prosecutors alleged that he broke into a neighbor's house that one time and used that combined with his fight with the officer to show that he was too dangerous to be in public. And that it autism advocates wanted him to be free than it meant they did not care about the public's safety since according to his record he was shown to be too much of a threat to other's safety, especially after the break in if the break in did happen.
My point was that having a criminal record doesn't mean that he's automatically causing trouble just by being in public.
Your concern for the public's safety is kind of concern trollish. If I'd realized your argument was this dodgy I wouldn't have wasted time responding.
03 Mar 2015, 7:25 am
emax10000 wrote:
And this points towards a larger issue - if autism advocates are against prison sentences for people like Neli, are we saying that the public should accept violence from those with autism? And accept physical abuse from those with autism? Is that the message we are sending? That is where the concern lies.
It actually hurts the autistic community if autism is used as an excuse to commit crimes, so no we don't support that. In Neli's case though, he was tried and imprisoned unjustly and should never of gotten a sentence, autism or not, that's why we oppose it in that case. He committed no crime other than trying to defend himself and get away from a police officer who assaulted him for no reason. If he broke into someone's house, then he should be tried for that, not for a crime that he didn't commit.
03 Mar 2015, 12:33 pm
I wonder why he assaulted the officer in the first place? Could he have felt threatened because the officer was white (assuming) and he was black? Some black people don't know if the white officer is going to attack them or not even if the black person was following their orders so they may feel the need to "defend" themselves because they don't now if the officer is racist or not. I am not saying this to justify the attack, this is how black people feel about white officers because of history of racism done by white officers. But some white officers feel the same way about blacks, even though they are just doing their jobs and not being racist and then the person they pull over or have to confront happens to be black, they also get nervous because they don't know if the black person is going to attack them or not unprovoked. It's like a cycle and why these things happen. This is what I heard on the Dr. Phil show about the Ferguson case and they had black and white people on stage and a black guy said this so it gave me a different perspective.
I fail to understand how AS can cause someone to attack unprovoked. That is unless he got touched all of a sudden so it startled him and he hit because it was a reflex movement or he got grabbed and he was sensitive to touch so he started to fight to get the officer off. What other reasons could there be?
I see this is an old story.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,483
Location: Long Island, New York
03 Mar 2015, 12:47 pm
If Adam Lanza did not do it himself I would have supported the death penalty for him.
But I do believe many more autistics get unduly harsh treatment rather then kid glove treatment. From this and personal experience of many here there is a natural suspicion to suspect unfairly harsh treatment when these situations come up.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
03 Mar 2015, 1:48 pm
League_Girl wrote:
I wonder why he assaulted the officer in the first place? Could he have felt threatened because the officer was white (assuming) and he was black? Some black people don't know if the white officer is going to attack them or not even if the black person was following their orders so they may feel the need to "defend" themselves because they don't now if the officer is racist or not. I am not saying this to justify the attack, this is how black people feel about white officers because of history of racism done by white officers. But some white officers feel the same way about blacks, even though they are just doing their jobs and not being racist and then the person they pull over or have to confront happens to be black, they also get nervous because they don't know if the black person is going to attack them or not unprovoked. It's like a cycle and why these things happen. This is what I heard on the Dr. Phil show about the Ferguson case and they had black and white people on stage and a black guy said this so it gave me a different perspective.
I fail to understand how AS can cause someone to attack unprovoked. That is unless he got touched all of a sudden so it startled him and he hit because it was a reflex movement or he got grabbed and he was sensitive to touch so he started to fight to get the officer off. What other reasons could there be?
I see this is an old story.
I fail to understand how AS can cause someone to attack unprovoked. That is unless he got touched all of a sudden so it startled him and he hit because it was a reflex movement or he got grabbed and he was sensitive to touch so he started to fight to get the officer off. What other reasons could there be?
I see this is an old story.
I agree this is an old story, however I think the mentality behind it might possibly be irrelevant. My concern for the public's safety was considered concern trollish by a poster above, however I just wish I knew how autism advocates fully addressed the issue of public safety. There seems to be an awful lot of cases of autistic kids and young adults violently attacking strangers or even caregivers, and I think the concern that autism advocates might be making excuses for it is a legitimate one.
I just wish I understood more about how autism advocates as a whole addressed this. Is there more information I need to be aware of? If so, I would genuinely like to be more aware of this. The goal should be improved relationships between autistics and neuro-typicals, and addressing the issue of autistics who have tendencies to be violent seems to be a critical one.
03 Mar 2015, 1:57 pm
Verdandi wrote:
emax10000 wrote:
The point was that his criminal record may have been the proof prosecutors had that he was truly a danger to society. I wish there was a way to know more about the case. It sounds like prosecutors alleged that he broke into a neighbor's house that one time and used that combined with his fight with the officer to show that he was too dangerous to be in public. And that it autism advocates wanted him to be free than it meant they did not care about the public's safety since according to his record he was shown to be too much of a threat to other's safety, especially after the break in if the break in did happen.
My point was that having a criminal record doesn't mean that he's automatically causing trouble just by being in public.
Your concern for the public's safety is kind of concern trollish. If I'd realized your argument was this dodgy I wouldn't have wasted time responding.
It seems the point was that it showed Latson had a history of violence against innocent people that was ignored when autism advocates first talked about the story and were trying to get him pardoned. In this case the prosecution was able to argue that Latson's past criminal record combined with the assault on the officer showed that he needed to be locked away for ten years. And I was not sure that autism advocates who said the prosecution was wrong were able to successfully demonstrate exactly why.
The story is old but Latson was pardoned by the Virginia governor only a month and a half ago and I think that the issues behind this might still be relevant. I still do not know how exactly autism advocates address the issue of those who suffer from autism and have a periodic tendency towards violence towards the public in certain circumstances.
03 Mar 2015, 2:12 pm
emax10000 wrote:
I just wish I understood more about how autism advocates as a whole addressed this.
Your thinking about this is based on false assumptions. There is no such thing as "autism advocates as a whole" --this is something you made up because of a category error. "Autism advocates" are a heterogeneous group with a multiplicity of perspectives.
The best you are going to get is official positions from various groups, but they won't all agree or even have official positions on specific issues like this.
You seem to want a simplistic answer from a non-existent collective entity. The best you are going to get is nuanced answers from a variety of sources which are likely not to be in accord in many details.
03 Mar 2015, 2:20 pm
Go back to the basic way to ask whether something is reasonable. Would the action be the same for a non-disabled [non-black] person or is this specifically happening because of being a member of a targeted group?
Would a white NT have been given 10 years in prison for having had a past criminal record?
03 Mar 2015, 3:30 pm
emax10000 wrote:
Did the autistic community feel that Latson should not have been held accountable for breaking and entering?
Legally the offense in question was not breaking and entering, as per the appeal court's decision.
It would be inappropriate for any community to advocate holding a man accountable for an offense he did not commit.
_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste
03 Mar 2015, 3:36 pm
RhodyStruggle wrote:
emax10000 wrote:
Did the autistic community feel that Latson should not have been held accountable for breaking and entering?
Legally the offense in question was not breaking and entering, as per the appeal court's decision.
It would be inappropriate for any community to advocate holding a man accountable for an offense he did not commit.
And in the case of Latson and the officer, was there proof that the officer was harassing and threatening him before he struck back? I am having a very hard time finding useful information on this and I think it remains relevant even though this case is finished since I still feel it may be a reflection of issues with some autism advocates. If Latson attacked the officer without any provocation of any kind, that would have to be considered a problem and I am struggling to find any sort of proof that he was harassed and felt threatened by the officer before attacking and did not attack simply out of spite. if this is being ignored I feel it remains a general problem unless there is information about this I am not aware of.
03 Mar 2015, 4:18 pm
emax10000 wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
emax10000 wrote:
Did the autistic community feel that Latson should not have been held accountable for breaking and entering?
Legally the offense in question was not breaking and entering, as per the appeal court's decision.
It would be inappropriate for any community to advocate holding a man accountable for an offense he did not commit.
And in the case of Latson and the officer, was there proof that the officer was harassing and threatening him before he struck back? I am having a very hard time finding useful information on this and I think it remains relevant even though this case is finished since I still feel it may be a reflection of issues with some autism advocates. If Latson attacked the officer without any provocation of any kind, that would have to be considered a problem and I am struggling to find any sort of proof that he was harassed and felt threatened by the officer before attacking and did not attack simply out of spite. if this is being ignored I feel it remains a general problem unless there is information about this I am not aware of.
You're asking the wrong person. I'm of the opinion that the act of donning a Law Enforcement Officer's uniform is an act of advertising to any and all who see said uniform that you are ready and willing to do violence against them; ethically indistinguishable from any other threat. As such, I believe that any and all acts of violence against uniformed Law Enforcement Officers are always and necessarily justifiable.
_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste
03 Mar 2015, 4:39 pm
RhodyStruggle wrote:
emax10000 wrote:
RhodyStruggle wrote:
emax10000 wrote:
Did the autistic community feel that Latson should not have been held accountable for breaking and entering?
Legally the offense in question was not breaking and entering, as per the appeal court's decision.
It would be inappropriate for any community to advocate holding a man accountable for an offense he did not commit.
And in the case of Latson and the officer, was there proof that the officer was harassing and threatening him before he struck back? I am having a very hard time finding useful information on this and I think it remains relevant even though this case is finished since I still feel it may be a reflection of issues with some autism advocates. If Latson attacked the officer without any provocation of any kind, that would have to be considered a problem and I am struggling to find any sort of proof that he was harassed and felt threatened by the officer before attacking and did not attack simply out of spite. if this is being ignored I feel it remains a general problem unless there is information about this I am not aware of.
You're asking the wrong person. I'm of the opinion that the act of donning a Law Enforcement Officer's uniform is an act of advertising to any and all who see said uniform that you are ready and willing to do violence against them; ethically indistinguishable from any other threat. As such, I believe that any and all acts of violence against uniformed Law Enforcement Officers are always and necessarily justifiable.
Yeah, see, I am not ok with this at all, even a little bit. I think even the vast majority of those who are increasingly distrustful of police and want more police reform and reevaluation of how they do things are also not ok with this. The idea that unprovoked attacks on officers is justifiable is a very bad idea and autism advocates MUST reject such viewpoints if they want to be taken seriously at all by neuro typicals.
