 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Charles Helms Jr |
Henry Dickens |
Charles Enfinger |
Patrick Garrett |
Raymond Hauck |
Henry Mcfadden
|
Joseph Walsh II
|
Kristin Schmidt |
A Matter of Law
***This section remains because the facts speak volumes as to the guilt of each of these individuals under Florida statutes. With the additional information out of the criminal proceedings, the evidence is in overwhelming support of the charges.
The charges filed, Aggravated Manslaughter of a child. Physical evidence coupled with the infamous video footage of Martin's horrific last conscious moments, it is hard to imagine these eight individuals have so much support in the local community of Panama City. From the folks in the grocery store and churches, to those in the media, and local politics, despite what is obvious to the rest of the world, they see no wrong doing on the part of the accused. "They were doing their job."
According to the law in the great state of Florida, the information following will provide what I believe is more than enough proof, to suppurt the charge, Aggravated Manslaughter of a child. As well as a number of other felonies such as endangerment of a child, assault and battery, child neglect, and child abuse.
As you should have read in the Controversy section, there is a argument being presented to the public. It is a good argument. The problem with the argument is it changes nothing. It is more or less a trick. The supporters say Martin died of "natural causes" due to complications of sickle cell trait. As I posted in Controversy there is science to deaths being associated to sickle cell trait, however there are a number of fundamental differences between those reported deaths, and that of poor Martin. Before we go into these differences specifically, it is first important to deal with the real issue, regardless of Martin's chemistry at his time of death. The issue here is a matter of the law. Those that want to turn this into a technical case about the science of hematology, allow me to remind them exactly what the law states.
Florida Statute 827.03
(1) "Child abuse" means:
(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;
(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or
(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.
A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) "Aggravated child abuse" occurs when a person:
(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;
(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or
(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.
A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3)(a) "Neglect of a child" means:
1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.
(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) For purposes of this section, "maliciously" means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse. Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury
This is the statute on child abuse, in Martin's case of course, there was a death. A death that stems directly out of a situation of child abuse, aggravated child abuse, and neglect of a child. Take your pick, they all have there place in this case.
It is a crime as defined in sections (1), (2), and (3) of 827.03. I am not saying that these individuals believed they were "abusing" Martin, I do not think that was the case. I think they viewed Martin as they viewed every offender at the camp, like criminals, instead of children. The law supersedes their intent, or whatever it is they thought was justified. At any rate, it is not always a matter of intent. Although to any reasonable minded person watching the video, the instructors intent was clear. They were going to break Martin, because as you will hear often around here, "you don't make it into a boot camp being a choir boy".
There are however, those that argue Martin's treatment was not child abuse. They call it a disciplinary tactic, Force Matrix, they like it technical. The only problem with this is, Martin was not deserving of this treatment, as in he did not either pose a threat to himself or any other person. Of course the response to this is something along the lines of, "these drill sergeants go through this kind of thing all the time, they have to protect them self, previous situations... these technique's are designed to get the subject to comply..." None of these responses work. I imagine yes, some young men Martin's age can be very dangerous. To a police officer approaching a vehicle, based off his own previous experiences, the person in that car might be extremely dangerous. Nonetheless they do not pull them from their vehicle slam them against the concrete without cause. In the real military boot camp, when the private can't make it over the wall, his CO's don't cover his mouth and force him to breathe ammonia capsules for 3 to 4 minutes, or even slam his face against the ground. No, that would be a crime. Martin posed no threat to these men, and thank God there is a video tape to prove that. Since he did not pose a threat to any person whatsoever, there is a problem.
Burnie Thompson, of Talk Radio 101, has stated a number of times that he has a huge problem with the criminal culpability aspect of this case, when these men were "following policy". On one occasion at least he told me the problem I had was with the policy, and that their failure to recognize medical crisis is not a crime. This is what he is selling, so lets look at it.
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice states in its guidelines that force is not used as a punishment, rather only when the inmate poses risk to them self or others. It also states level of force used should depend on level of resistance offered by the child. It is at the discretion of the instructors sound judgement, based on the situation at the time. I would be interested in questioning the rationality of any person who describes Martin's actions as "resistance", or otherwise posing any "risk"
-Excerpt FDJJ-1508-03 PAR policy
"The use of physical intervention techniques or mechanical restraints shall not be used as punishment."
-Excerpt SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 2968
“depending on the level of resistance offered, the officer may use techniques that may rise to a level of physical force that is intended to influence behavior through pain compliance in order to establish control,” and states that force shall never be used as punishment.
-Excerpt FDJJ-1508-03 PAR policy
"they shall only be used when reasonably necessary to control youth and only after all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, including verbal persuasion, warnings, and verbal intervention techniques;"
Click here to review Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) 1508-03, the Protective Action Response (PAR) policy. Note the section 'Escalation Matrix'.
Click below to review Bay County Sheriff's Office policy.
Not only did Martin pose no threat, he was in obvious distress. Therefore the actions were child abuse.
Moreover, no where in the policy guidelines does it mention the usage of ammonia capsules, and certainly not as a disciplinary tactic. Nor does the policy define the occlusion of a detainee's airway by forcing his mouth closed for minutes at a time. Couple these facts with Martin's failure to pose any threat, and the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn, is their actions were not consistent with DJJ policy. They were acting as if they were the judges of what was going to be policy, with their own self developed tactics in play.
-Excerpt SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 2968
The use of ammonia is not addressed in either of the use of force policies authorized by the Department. The Protective Action Response (PAR) Policy (FDJJ – 1508-03) requires responses to be commensurate with the youth’s level of resistance according the PAR Escalation Matrix. The PAR Escalation Matrix does not address the use of ammonia or any other chemical restraint.
I asked Richard Klein, of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, if the use of ammonia capsules as a disciplinary tactic or as a compliance tool was within the guidelines and policies of the department. "Its not authorized" - Richard Klein
When asked if an individual is complaining they are having trouble breathing, would the drill instructor be authorized to "council" the youth? After explaining to Mr. Klein what "council" means when used by a drill instructor, he stated if someone is in medical distress, providing medical attention is what is required.
Furthermore, I posed a hypothetical question. If a youth directed expletives at a DI, would this alone constitute use of force, such as an arm bar take down? Klein responded, "no".
I am not saying Martin was directing language at the drill instructors, I'm comparing Martin's none existent level of resistance, and the treatment he received, to the allegation that the guards were acting within the parameters of DJJ policy. In other words, if the hypothetical young man cursing at the guard is not considered a level of resistance constituting the use of force. So, how was it Martin being unable to continue was? Mr. Thompson, could you please answer this question for me, since you are so adamant about the policy aspect of this case.
If the use of ammonia capsules as a disciplinary tactic is "not authorized", can anyone explain exactly how it was the DI's were following policy?
Would you allow your own child to go through the treatment Martin painfully endured, because he said he "couldn't do this", or even worse, he said he "couldn't breathe"? No parent would. Again this was completely outside DJJ policy, and therefore child abuse under all definitions. The methods and tactics used were for "pain compliance". The purpose of the acts was cause Martin pain, so he would "comply". In this case Martin was in no shape to be a danger, so the pain is unjustifiable. According to Dr. Siebert, "their handling of him", "the stress they put on him", combined with exercise, resulted in injury and death.
It is the view of many, including Burnie Thompson, that Martin would have likely recovered if allowed to do so. Moreover, if someone would have called the paramedics at the beginning, no matter what side of the science your on you must admit Martin would be here today. They made a conscious decision to withhold medical attention. Another conscious decision to slam his helpless body to the ground, repeatedly. These grown men decided to strike this poor child over and over, to knee him, and to apply pressure points, so hard it bruised him. They decided to force ammonia on Martin. Not to "pep" him up, as a few folks like to say. No, this was to force a reaction out of this child. Comply! Every medical professional I have spoken with about this "tactic" have agreed, to administer ammonia capsules in this fashion is absolutely not safe. Explaining "under no circumstances should one be used for longer than a 3 or 4 seconds." Three minutes? Maybe four? While covering his mouth? Is this what Burnie Thompson calls, "following policy".
In the criminal trial, each of these DI's testified they did not use the ammonia as a disciplinary tactic, or a pain compliance tool. Of course their testimony was directly conflicting with what they were admitting was happening at the time, still it is worth noting their statements are in direct contradiction to previous sworn testimony.
-Excerpt SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT – SB 2968
“Normally the ammonia capsule is applied to the offenders by covering the mouth and then an ammonia capsule is placed under the nose of the offender so that he can breathe it in.… The purpose of covering the mouth is … that in the past we have had kids that hold their breath or close their mouth and don’t inhale the ammonia and we’ve found that by covering their mouth that forces them to breathe through the nose and inhale the ammonia.” Sworn statement of Lt. Cmdr. Helms, 1/18/06.
The use of the ammonia cap “… it’s something we do on a regular basis.” Sworn statement by Drill Instructor Adam Rogers, 1/9/06.
“every intake we have offenders that {try} to fake that they’ve passed out or can’t run any, that’s one of the techniques that we use is the capsule…” Testimony of Sgt. Patrick Garrett, 1/5/06.
“it’s a common practice when offenders act as if they can’t breathe or going to pass out to pop an ammonia cap and they kind of decide that they would rather go ahead and do what they got to do.” Sworn testimony of Drill Instructor Enfinger, 1/5/06.
Again, "Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury."
As I mentioned in the beginning, Martin was possibly suffering from exertional rhabdomyolysis, a form of exertional heat illness or EHI. This condition is not a death sentence. Yes, there are propably a hundred or so deaths I could find associated to this illness as it relates to sickle cell trait. The fact is however, just as many people without trait have died from the illness. This is documented in the cohort study Dr. Kark lead, which is the study Dr. Eichner was referring to in his testimony in the criminal case. EHI is an illness millions of people can get right now, you too. You do not have to have the trait to be stricken with or even die from EHI. Read here for the facts on the illness. Martins condition really did not progress until the guards decided to ruff him up, and take away his ability to breathe. They brought Martin to his end with, "their handling of him"- Dr. Siebert.
I think it is reasonable to say that these guards acted with negligence, and with malice, as defined by the Florida statute 327.03.
Here is where the law changes. As we all know this case ended in the death of a child. Since the events described created Martin's demise, the "child abuse" he suffered, through their culpable negligance, became aggravated manslaughter of a child.
782.07
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
The charge is legitimate by all standards measurable.
Quick Links
What Happened - 10/17/07
Autopsies - 11/01/07
Court of Public Opinion - not available
Matter of Law - 10/03/07
Ammonia Facts - 10/03/07
Sickle Cell Trait and EHI - 10/10/07
Dr. Siebert 10/13/07
Dr. Adams
Dr. Andrews 11/26/07
Dr. Gravenstein 11/29/07
Dr. Downs 10/29/07
Dr. Steinberg 11/27/07
Dr. Eichner
Science for Suffocation - Must read 10/10/07
