Assault of Central staff member dismissed on basis of mental incompetency, student still allowed on campus
The first strike hit Lareta “Joy” Chrismer near her temple, cutting her face and sending her to the ground. Onlookers in Nicholson Pavilion’s field house said Bryan Yancy then kicked her repeatedly in the head while she was down.
Chrismer had just congratulated Yancy on an article written about him in The Observer. The story was about Yancy’s success in life while dealing with autism, and his bond with the football team.
“I feared for my life when I came to on the floor and felt blows to the back of my head,” Chrismer wrote in her petition for an Order for Protection.
Days later, Chrismer would reflect on the incident.
“I cannot just sit back and ignore the fact that he needs help,” Chrismer wrote in her Victim Impact Statement.
Yancy has autism, a disorder that affects 1 in 68 American citizens, according to a recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report. Autism ranges along a spectrum of mild to severe. Yancy falls under a more severe diagnosis of developmental autism. Studies from around the country have shown that people with autism have an increased tendency for displaying aggressive behaviors.
This incident brings into question the legal system’s ability to cope with society’s right to safety, versus an individual’s right to participate in society, regardless of whether they have a mental disorder.
“He’s no imminent threat to anybody,” James Denison, Yancy’s attorney, said minutes before Yancy’s assault charge was dismissed on Jan. 23.
Central has suspended Yancy for winter quarter, but still allows him to visit some parts of campus.
“This attack is not just about me. It is about the fact that Mr. Yancy has a history of attacks against other citizens and people of authority in his life, and that he is continually allowed to not be held responsible for those attacks,” Chrismer wrote in her victim statement. “From what I have witnessed, I do not believe that his parents/guardians are capable of getting him the appropriate help.”
Yancy has been at Central for eight years as a student, taking classes but not earning credit toward a degree. He served as a member of the Central football team’s coaching staff for seven years before “retiring” in 2014 due to the stresses of traveling, his father said.
Yancy is also beloved by many team members, and his end-of-the-season “Friendship Awards” have been highly coveted.
In her response to Chrismer’s victim statement, Yancy’s mother and caretaker, Cynthia Loveland, wrote that Yancy has been a model citizen. He has raised money for charity, donated food to the FISH Food Bank after it caught fire last November, and volunteered regularly at the West Seattle Food Bank from 2000-2004. He has also worked as a paper carrier for the Daily Record.
“Wherever he goes, he brings a smile to people’s faces,” Cynthia Loveland wrote. “I absolutely feel that Bryan is a productive member of society who has a purpose.”
This was not Yancy’s first assault on another person. According to a competency evaluation administered in July 2005 by Michael Comte, clinical social worker, Yancy has a history of violent attacks.
Despite these outbursts, Yancy has yet to face any serious legal consequences.
In 2005, Yancy was expelled from Ellensburg High School for attacking a vice principal and a member of the teaching staff. All charges were dropped due to a conclusion of incompetency, as they were for the most recent incident.
Chrismer decided not to press charges of her own.
Although Yancy was not convicted of a crime, the state could have pursued RCW 10.77.088, which states that a person found not competent in a nonfelony charge should be placed in a secure mental health facility for a period no longer than 14 days.
“I cannot reasonably believe that any Act such as the Disabilities Educational Act or the Disability Discrimination Act were put in place to allow disabled people the ability to assault others and not be held responsible for their actions,” Chrismer’s victim statement reads.
Newspaper profile leads to violent reaction
Conditioning class started in the field house in Nicholson Pavilion at 10 a.m. on Nov. 13, 2014, like any other day.
“Most of us were gathered along the wall and a few people were closer to the main entry of the gym, including [Yancy] and his caretaker Joe,” Caitlin Sloane wrote in her witness report.
Bryan Yancy “was in a great mood and we were joking around; the normal start to our day,” Josef (Joe) Kistler, Yancy’s caretaker of four years, said in his voluntary witness statement.
Joy Chrismer, a 60-year old equipment manager working in Nicholson, walked up to Yancy, according to witnesses.
“I was giving [Yancy] a compliment on the write-up in the school paper, he then flipped me off,” Chrismer’s statement read.
Jared Larson witnessed Yancy’s sudden change of mood.
“The look on [Yancy’s] face then changed and he looked very angry. [Yancy] then reached back and punched Joy in the face, knocking off her glasses, cutting her cheek, and sending her to the floor instantly,” Larson wrote in an email to David Paul, graduate assistant and track and field coach.
Chrismer was knocked unconscious by the blow, according to her statement taken after the attack.
Yancy “[blind-sided] me, knocked me down. That’s all I remember. This happened so quick,” Chrismer wrote in a police report after regaining consciousness that day.
Kistler said in his voluntary witness statement, taken right after the incident, that he had positioned himself near Yancy in an anticipatory stance.
Yancy “had recently developed anxiety around Joy for reasons that I cannot understand or [get] him to verbalize to me,” Kistler wrote. “Bryan saw her coming and turned his back to her. I made sure he was within my arm’s reach as she neared.”
Kistler’s description of the incident differs from that of the other witnesses.
“He became aggressive and struck out at Joy, hitting her in the face,” Kistler wrote. “She dropped as I put him [on] the ground as well (at the time of the incident Bryan was within my arm’s reach and Joy was just out of my reach).”
Kistler then took Yancy out of the area while Nicholson Pavilion staff attended to Chrismer.
Central student Caitlin Sloane was waiting for her conditioning class to start when she saw the altercation.
“Within a second, she was on the ground,” Sloane wrote in her witness statement. “It all happened very fast but I saw [Yancy] punch her to the ground. Joe was not directly near him when it happened.”
“She was on the ground and [Yancy] began kicking her in the head and chest profusely before Joe intervened and pulled [Yancy] off. [Yancy] showed extreme strength and fought through Joe’s restraints, going at Joy again. Finally Joe got [Yancy] to listen,” Sloane wrote.
Kistler’s report makes no mention of Yancy kicking Chrismer in the head while she lay on the ground.
Mackenzie Burvee, Chrismer’s niece, was working in Nicholson when she heard Kistler yelling at Yancy to “drop and give him 10.”
“I turned to look and I saw Joy Chrismer lying on the field house floor. I ran to her side. She looked terrified and was crying. Blood was running down the side of her face and down her right hand; she was holding the back of her head with her left hand, and was sitting up leaning on her right elbow,” Burvee wrote in her witness statement.
Burvee’s first reaction was to call her dad, Matt Burvee, who works across the street in the Hogue Technology Building. Matt Burvee, upon arriving at the scene, called 9-1-1.
Greg Margheim, university police officer, was the first law enforcement officer to arrive.
“I walked over to the field house area where [Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue] was completing their assessment on Chrismer,” Margheim wrote in his incident report. “Chrismer appeared to have trouble keeping her balance and KVFR advised she was going to go to [Kittitas Valley Hospital] to be assessed for a concussion.”
After Chrismer refused transportation via ambulance, Matt Burvee elected to drive her to KVH. Margheim then made contact with Yancy.
“He said he was waiting for class to start, then ‘Joy’ came over to him so he ‘took Joy down,’ ” Margheim reported. “Yancy’s arms were crossed and his head was down while he explained this.”
Margheim cited Yancy with assault in the fourth degree and informed Yancy’s adoptive mother, Cynthia Loveland, who had arrived on scene, about the mandatory court date.
“Loveland took custody of Yancy and they left the area,” Margheim reported.
Later that evening, The Observer received an email from Sammy Henderson, director of athletic communications.
“BTW, the story on [Yancy]caused him to assault one of our janitors today,” the email reads. “Not that it was your fault, but people started telling him how good the story was and it triggered something and he hurt someone pretty bad. Crazy isn’t it? I think he is going to get banned from the school or something like that.”
After a concerned reply from The Observer was sent, Henderson responded:
“She will be fine. Was knocked unconscious for a bit but should be back Monday.”
Victim struggles with normal activities
In the hospital last November after the incident, Lareta “Joy” Chrismer was treated for her wounds, which have left scarring on her face. When she arrived home, Officer Margheim took pictures of her wounds and collected her voluntary incident statement.
Chrismer has been dealing with health issues ever since.
“I continue to have night terrors that cause me to wake up scared throughout the night,” Chrismer wrote in the victim statement. “On average, I am only able to get about [four] hours of sleep each night.”
Chrismer has since returned to work at Nicholson, but she reports she can’t physically complete her regular routine to the same degree as she could before the attack.
“I am not able to do my job fully, be active, play with my grandchildren or enjoy the things that I have routinely done for years,” she wrote in her victim statement. “I enjoy golfing year-round and have not been able to do that because of my severe headaches and dizziness.”
Ken Briggs, chair of the department of physical education school and public health, and Chrismer’s boss, declined to comment.
Chrismer said she regularly meets with a psychiatrist, as encouraged by the hospital, to help her recuperate.
Despite the assault happening on Central grounds, the Lovelands said Yancy has still been allowed on campus, which, according to Chrismer’s victim statement, has caused her severe stress and emotional harm.
As a result, Chrismer sought a restraining order to keep Yancy away from herself and the Central campus, where Chrismer believes he is likely to attack again, as she wrote in her restraining order request.
On Jan. 21, 2015, Lower Kittitas County District Court granted a protective order.
The order restrains Yancy from being within 500 feet of Chrismer’s residence and 100 feet of Chrismer herself. It also bars him access to Nicholson and the parking lot immediately south for an entire year.
Chrismer reports she is also suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and memory issues. She is also concerned about Yancy’s state of mental health and his ability to be a responsible citizen.
“I believe it is not reasonable for Mr. Yancy to continue to be allowed to injure innocent citizens and then not be required to get help to stop this type of behavior,” Chrismer wrote in the victim impact statement.
Chrismer declined to be interviewed at length for this story.
Nicholson assault one of many for Yancy
Michael Comte, clinical social worker, wrote an evaluation that lays out a history of school problems and violence.
Bryan Yancy was born Dec. 24, 1988 in Palo Alto, Calif. His birth father has been described as a “homeless drug addict” and his birth mother as a “paranoid schizophrenic,” according to Comte’s competency evaluation.
While residing with his birth mother, Yancy was kept in a box under a table, the report said.
At the age of 5, Yancy was adopted and placed under the legal guardianship of Dale and Cynthia Loveland. Soon after they became convinced he was autistic. Yancy was formally diagnosed at the age of 6.
Yancy can recite all the capitals of countries in the world, according to Comte’s evaluation, yet he can’t do simple tasks such as tie his shoes. Yancy has an I.Q. score of 55.
Before being placed in the Lovelands’ custody, Yancy was unable to walk upright, “was not toilet trained and drank water from a dog dish,” Comte’s report said.
Following placement with the Lovelands, Yancy quickly reached developmental milestones and was promptly enrolled in the Ellensburg school system, Comte wrote. When Yancy was in the fifth grade, Cynthia Loveland became frustrated with what she said was Yancy’s teacher’s lack of understanding of autism, according to Comte. She decided to move Yancy to junior high.
“District personnel thought the move might be positive, because he would be with an older group of students and may mimic more mature behavior,” Comte wrote in his evaluation.
Cynthia Loveland claimed Yancy’s middle school teachers were not sufficiently meeting his needs. She petitioned for a paraeducator, but conflict arose when “Bryan referred to his aide as his teacher, which angered the teacher.”
After the incident, Cynthia and Yancy separated from Dale and moved with Yancy to Seattle, where he was enrolled in McClure Middle School. Following graduation from middle school, Yancy was enrolled in a program for autistic students at Garfield High School. However, the teacher quit before the school year began. A series of substitutes proved to be unable to fulfill Yancy’s educational needs, Cynthia Loveland said.
Cynthia then moved Yancy to Ingraham High School in north Seattle, where she claimed there was “supervisory neglect.” “On one occasion, she discovered him wandering outside the building. On another occasion, he complained to his mother he choked on an apple and there was no one to assist him,” Comte reported.
Yancy’s first incident of violence occurred when he attacked the Ingraham High School principal, whom Yancy had reportedly developed a “fixation” with. Yancy was then expelled.
Cynthia returned Yancy to Ellensburg and enrolled him in Ellensburg High School (EHS).
“Despite intermittent explosiveness and disruptive behavior, [Cynthia] said his adjustment was generally positive,” Comte reported. “She said she is upset by the fact there is constant emphasis on ‘three bad days and not the 124 successful days [of school].’ ”
The second violent incident occurred when Yancy developed another fixation, this time with a female student.
“He was extremely assaultive with her, and was observed ‘kicking her in the face and head.’ She was examined at the hospital. Fortunately, she was not severely injured,” Comte reported.
Yancy was suspended for 10 days.
Following this incident, Cynthia and the case manager with the Division of Developmental Disabilities made requests for a case aide to be assigned to Yancy.
“[Cynthia] said she was told ‘wait until there’s another incident’ and school personnel would then consider the need for one-on-one supervision,” Comte reported.
Yancy was involved in another incident on March 1, 2005, which he describes as the “geography brawl,” where he assaulted a vice principal and teacher.
“While in the classroom, he allegedly abruptly tipped over a table and attacked one of the [teachers],” Comte reported. “Witnesses indicated threats to assault and actual assaultive behavior seemed at times to occur without antecedents or provocation.” Yancy was expelled from EHS. The court ordered a competency evaluation of Yancy in which Comte deemed him legally incompetent, and thus unable to stand trial.
No charges were ever brought against Yancy.
“In my opinion Bryan does not satisfy the legal competency standard and cannot assist counsel in his defense. I am requesting the court allow Bryan to remain outside the courtroom,” Comte concluded.
“In my opinion, he could not cope with an appearance before the court. His presence could very well result in a ‘meltdown,’ extreme agitation, and possibly aggression. Despite behavior problems he has experienced, [Yancy’s] long term prognosis is positive.”
CWU allows attacker on campus
According to Central’s Student Conduct Code, Bryan Yancy could be in violation of at least three parts of the student code of conduct.
Violations for such conduct, according to Richard DeShields, associate dean of students, vary on a case-by-case basis. It could be as simple as a suspension, and as severe as expulsion from the university.
University officials work with police officers and reports from the city or county to make an informed decision. They also assign a case worker, schedule a hearing with the student and conduct an independent investigation of the matter before making a decision.
DeShields refused to discuss any particulars regarding Yancy’s case.
According to his parents, Yancy is currently serving a suspension on a quarter-by-quarter basis, and has regular weekly meetings with DeShields to track his progress. He has the possibility of having his suspension reduced.
Cases of this magnitude usually result in a year suspension, or longer, DeShields said.
During his suspension, Yancy is allowed inside Black Hall to use the computer lab and the SURC at noon for lunch, Cynthia Loveland said.
The protective order issued by the Kittitas County District Court bars Yancy from being within 100 feet of Joy Chrismer. The order also bars him from Nicholson and the parking lot directly south.
DeShields said Central must follow all legal directives handed down by the courts.
“A court order may say that a student can’t be within 100 feet of the campus,” DeShields said. “In many instances, court orders do not go that far, and they’ll specifically say, within a certain amount of feet of an individual, so at that point there really is nothing in the state that allows them to not have access to certain resources.”
DeShields said as far as previous incidents go, any violation while registered as a student stays on that student’s record, and could compound if further violations were recorded.
“If a situation happens somewhere else, prior to a student being a student or being enrolled, or even being associated with the university, the university doesn’t necessarily have access to that information,” DeShields said. “We can’t make decisions on things we don’t have.”
DeShields said he thinks that Central needs to take a look at its policy and ensure that students are not only safe, but that everyone’s rights are considered equally.
“I do think that the university should try to do everything possible to keep communities safe,” DeShields said.
Despite Chrismer and others believing Yancy is a threat to the students and staff at Central, DeShields said this incident is isolated and the actions taken are the best for all parties involved.
Dale and Cynthia Loveland, and their attorney, believe Yancy isn’t a threat to society.
“I’d go to jail with him if I thought it would cure him,” Dale Loveland said. “But it won’t.”
Bill • Dec 11, 2015 at 9:00 pm
one more thing is it seems to his supporters that he doesnt have to adust to people its everyone else that has to adjust to him. so even if he attacks a small child. to people that are supporting him. it is the small childs fault
Bill • Dec 11, 2015 at 8:56 pm
What i find funny is Brian beat up a woman twice his age and half his size and to a lot of people he is the victim.
Elizabeth Lopez • Nov 16, 2015 at 5:12 pm
I work in a mental health residential facility.
All staff and residents need to be protected from assaults by residence.
A resident who has mental health issues yet is able to study and be educated yet refuses to be compliant with therapy needs to be held responsible for their actions.
When they are not held responsible for their actions the assaults continue since they are not held by any consequences as a result except for removal of special outings. This is insufficient as a consequence.
If therapeutic environment is established yet there are some residents that are noncompliant and try to rule and run a facility by controlling staff through The practice of a soaps and self harm as well as damage to property. They want their way and they learn they get their way when ever they act out severely. When they act out severely they need to be removed from the group And this was their goal in the first place.
aqualung • May 4, 2015 at 2:47 am
What I never understand is how people care so little about what happened to Joy. This is a 60+ year old woman who was beaten half to death. He was kicking her in the head while she was on the ground.
Let’s be clear, that is unacceptable. No one gets a free pass, it doesn’t matter if you’re autistic or not, you know right from wrong, and if you don’t, you shouldn’t be allowed around other people freely. Mr. Yancy chose to assault Joy, and he chose to beat her half to death. He should be banned from campus entirely at least for a year. One of my family members has autism, and she knows right from wrong like everyone else who is allowed to function in society. I find it incredibly insulting that Yancy can get a free pass because he’s somehow ‘not responsible.’ I don’t buy it. He messed up, now he has to submit to the consequences (which should be harsher). I make no apologies that my sympathies lie with the poor woman who will have to deal with this for the rest of her life.
I fully understand that autism and mental health issues are difficult, and that we must as a society begin to address these issues in a much more holistic and sympathetic manner. As I said, autism has affected my family as well, and I love my family, but no one should have to come to their job every day wondering if there will be someone there who has and may again in the future assault them. That is unacceptable, and that’s just how it is.
Cheers.
Phillip J Fry • Apr 25, 2015 at 3:52 pm
The article contained “facts” not accusations and moral condemnation. The article presented both sides extremely well in what has been an open sore in America since the Carter era. Prior to the 1970’s dangerous adults with mental disability were safely locked in Mental Health Facilities. In our more enlightened era the only option for a borderline functioning adult that is dangerous, is voluntary commitment, or Jail. The Author did an excellent job of making, YOU the reader face this fact. Do we allow dangerous mentally disabled people to have a pass in society?, or do we agree that there should be perhaps a 3rd solution. The criminal justice system has the ability to create and refer a new class of mentally limited Americans who commit crimes. They could then go to a different court from the rest of us? Don’t worry the government can handle who is assigned to which court when it needs to…
Maybe most of you are angry because this is a very painful and difficult situation that exists in America, and the author made you look at it.
Lena • Mar 5, 2015 at 12:24 pm
This just makes my blood boil! I hope that one day, the person/ people who wrote this article get to have a chance to actually MEET the REAL Bryan Yancey that we all know! sweetest and most generous guy i know. (shoot, he gives Joe a run for his money sometimes ;P) They will regret writing this horrible one sided article for the rest of their days. Bad journalism if you ask me.. I mean come on, completely one sided and SLANDER throughout the entire article.
I feel that this article could have been much better, they failed to put any positives in Bryans life and his great accomplishments. Only the bad. He has clearly been through tough times and is trying to move past all of that. And for his biological family history included in this article, thats non of anyone else damn business but BRYANS! not a single person on this campus needed to know about that and I think it is horrible that all of the negative and scaring issues in his life were surfaced for the sake of this article.
Words do not do justice for how atrocious this article is. As for Mrs. Chrismer who seems to stop at nothing to ruin Bryan’s name, I hope that she soon realized the extent to her actions. What happen to her was very unfortunate, and shouldn’t have happened. The consequences that Bryan is facing has changed Bryan’s LIFE. His entire schedule and independence has been thrown out the window because of this. Now, I am not saying that he shouldn’t have any consequences, but should his whole life be turned upside down over this? He lost his job, had to “retire” from the football team which is the Light in his eye and was not able to set foot on campus for an entire quarter, and the list goes on. These consequences may not seem big to you or I, but to a person with autism like Bryan, that’s HUGE.
Routine and consistency is HUGE for people with autism and the people involved are seeming to forget that he has different needs that they may never understand. His family is capable of getting him the proper help and they have. Bryans mom and dad are two great people that have molded their lifes for what is best for Bryan, to say they are incapable of getting him the proper help is just ignorant. putting Bryan in jail and taking him away from his friends and life as he knows it IS NOT the answer and will solve nothing. Yet, she still continued to make sure this article was published. like i said before, this article could have been so much better if they did not only focus on the negative and False statements like they did. The true colors that she has shown throughout all of this…. well I think an article needs to be published about all of the menacing things Mrs. Chrismer and her family members have done in attempt to get Bryan excommunicated and even institutionalized over this unfortunate incident. the only reason for a follow up article would be to defend Bryan and rebuttal all of the false statements that have been made, but, I hope that if there is a fallow up article, it is done justly and is truthful with good honest journalism. there was no need for this article to be in the campus newspaper in the first place, no reason that students on campus needed to know about any of this.
Carter • Mar 4, 2015 at 5:54 pm
It’s taken me awhile to get my thoughts together well enough on this article to comment, but I’m glad to be coming back to it to see so many people voicing the exact sentiments I have in relation to this article. Everything Amanda, J, and C. Reed have said is spot on. This is an incredibly biased, one-sided article that is incredibly invasive of the obviously hard life Bryan has had. If this had been published about someone who was not on the spectrum/someone who had the ability to defend themselves properly, I guarantee you that this article would’ve been taking down and/or not made it to print due to it being slanderous and a character assassination. I really do feel for the victim, Mrs. Chrismer, in this incident and know what it’s like to experience mental trauma. However, I cannot ignore the fact (and don’t think anyone else should either!) that there was not a single shred of objectivity in this article and absolutely no support or understanding for Bryan. It makes me really sick to have such for reporting representing our school, and I really hope the CWU Observer realizes what an atrocious job they did here. Hopefully they get it right next time.
R. Troy Peterson • Mar 3, 2015 at 11:52 pm
And now, an extended comment in response to all of the comments I have so far read.
(1) If I was on the observer this year, I would have probably written it because I’m on the spectrum; (2) I was told that they had another section that addressed the topics of mental diversity in more detail but had to cut it due to length constraints; (3) that’s why the guy’s history is in the article, because there’s probably another underlying cause for his outburst, but then again we can’t say that it’s not his autism because (a) you can’t prove a negative and (b) you can never be certain of anything 100% and (c) everybody’s neural chemistry is different so it is possible that his autism doesn’t fall inside the bell curve.
Further – I’m told there is going to be a follow up article, so don’t get your panties in a bunch. I feel as though everybody on this comments section is the college equivalent of Ben Affleck, who, when they hear something being even discusses as a potential cause of a problem, scream “that’s gross and racist!” Not once in the article did I come across the explicit statement that violence and aggression are symptoms of autism. I mean, you guys/girls/he/shes/its act like if the subject of the story is in any way different we can’t address the problems with them. I call bullshit. Sure, autism doesn’t necessarily cause violence, but this story is about an autistic man who got violent.
And to whoever on Facebook decided that the Observer published this article to gawk over the hardest part of this man’s life, get over yourself. Life isn’t sunshine and puppy farts, and every once in a while (actually, disturbingly frequently) you’ll have to publish a story that deals with a major tragedy or a major issue that somebody is disadvantaged by, and if we didn’t address these problems because of some misplaced sense of politeness we’d only be circling the drain as our problems drown us. Mental health in this country is appalling, and so is people’s views on autism (I mean, for god’s sake, a major autism group says that it needs a cure as if it were some terrible disease); we’re not going to ever deal with it correctly if we simply overlook everything that might be seen as “gawking.”
Furthermore:
“For one I’ve also only seen the happy and funny side of him!”
>>Yes, then therefore there must only be that happy side of him because clearly, if he had another side, this Facebook commentator would have naturally seen it as they are clearly privy to such information. Just because you don’t see something doesn’t mean it’s not there. (Although, since we can’t see the brain of whoever wrote this article, by their logic….)
“And two, people should educate themselves before they publish something of such magnitude. Dragging up instances of someone’s childhood are no way relevant.”
>>Seeing as everybody is a product of their genetic makeup, the environment which effects that genetic makeup, and their experiences over a lifetime, yeah I would think his childhood might have some importance, especially if we want to actually understand this. You’re not going to understand anything by sitting in an armchair saying “wow, isn’t this mysterious?”
And finally:
“First, why is it necessary to share the details of somebody’s childhood trauma in an article? Do you think that information is something he wants EVERYONE in his community to know? Family history, IQ scores, trauma, and so forth have NOTHING to do with the “incident” that’s supposedly being reported on. It’s tasteless. Do you have any decency whatsoever? Would you like it if someone wrote an article about your life that included every struggle you’ve gone through, every mistake you’ve made, and every trauma you’ve experienced?”
>>You’re final question is kind of irrelevant, since the person you are addressing hasn’t assaulted another individual. And yes, you’re absolutely right; considering that mental illnesses have a tendency to run in families and have genetic factors, of course his family history would be absolutely irrelevant. Hey, we wan to fix this, but we can’t really look at family histories because that would be naughty. And considering that trauma to the brain affects our behavior, again that would be relevant to the story as a source/cause of the problem of his intermittent violent outbursts. Ignoring such fundamental aspects that could help people identify the problem isn’t helping, it’s hurting.
C. Reed • Mar 2, 2015 at 10:27 pm
Autism is a disorder that has many facets and is described like a puzzle. So much more knowledge of the disorder is required than just someone’s opinion of this incident to decide if someone should or should not be allowed to participate within society or the right to as ‘normal’ a life as everyone else. We should consider the idea of this were a member of our own family or even ourselves that this could be happening to we definitely would have a very different view.
What I DO NOT see happening here is the need to see if there could be some underlying issues, like chemical imbalances or some mistreatment by someone triggering Bryan to exhibit this behavior. If that is the case, then we should give the young man credit for not acting out more often or while it is very unfortunate, hurt someone more often. It appears, what needs to be done is to figure WHY IT IS HAPPENING OR WHY IT HAS HAPPENED. Committing him or putting him away will not help, and can make the behavior worse, more likely to occur again and the real cause goes still unresolved.
Mrs. Chrismer has without a doubt suffered here, but acting out of anger or assassinating Bryan’s character will not make it better. Because it was so public an incident doesn’t mean the situation has to be resolved in the public eye for the public to voice their opinions. it is also very unfair that there is so much other disclosure of this Bryan’s life, both past and present, as if his life and issues don’t matter.
So much more could have been done other than an article ‘gossiping’ about this whole horrible incident, it is unfair to both Mrs. Chrismer and the man, Bryan.
J • Mar 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm
This is repulsive. Not due to the action of the individual but due to the nature of the journalism. It’s an absolute atrocity to see that the author found it permissible to delve into the personal, familial, and medical history of an individual with a disability. If this article does anything productive it is that it goes to show just how little the general public understands about disability.
R. Troy Peterson • Mar 3, 2015 at 11:15 pm
Of course, if they hadn’t gone into his medical background and what not, you’d probably be mad that they made it look like he did it because he was autistic.
Amanda • Mar 1, 2015 at 2:02 pm
This article was absolutely disgusting, completely one-sided, and it should be taken down.
First, why is it necessary to share the details of somebody’s childhood trauma in an article? Do you think that information is something he wants EVERYONE in his community to know? Family history, IQ scores, trauma, and so forth have NOTHING to do with the “incident” that’s supposedly being reported on. It’s tasteless. Do you have any decency whatsoever? Would you like it if someone wrote an article about your life that included every struggle you’ve gone through, every mistake you’ve made, and every trauma you’ve experienced?
Also, it is so very clear that the author of this article has ZERO understanding of autism. Before publishing something like this, DO YOUR RESEARCH. Aggressive behavior is not a symptom of autism. That is ignorant and incorrect. Do not report on something you clearly know nothing about.
I am embarrassed I went to a university that publishes garbage like this and calls it “journalism”. Slandering a person with a developmental disability for a school newspaper is sick.
I posted this on Facebook in hopes to get a response from someone from the Observer and to see how past and current CWU students felt about this article. I’ll include some responses below…
“I read this article too. It was disturbing and the writer is clearly misinformed about the symptoms of autism. To say that aggression is a symptom of autism is ignorant and further perpetuates this ridiculous idea sensationalized by media. I’m considering emailing the editor. So outrageous.”
“I HATE when people think it’s just a normal process to be found not competent. Do you know how often that occurs? Rarely, because the state has rigid standards (as they should) that prevent it from happening. If he was found not mentally competent, it’s because he truly IS NOT competent. People with autism don’t just randomly attack people. Joe said he had become anxious around the woman. Why? He obviously felt threatened in some way, real or perceived, and acted on it. His responses was disproportionate of course and I sympathize with the victim, but the light the “journalist” put Bryan in portrays him to be someone he is not. Not only did this article effect the people with autism spectrum disorder who attend our campus and influence the public’s views of ASD, it also sets up yet another barrier to working with people who have developmental disabilities. I’m really livid about this article.”
“I was so disgusted when I read this. I can’t believe the hardest parts of his life were just published for everyone to gawk over.”
“I was appalled after reading this! Literally disgusted to even think people could treat someone like Bryan so awful. For one I’ve also only seen the happy and funny side of him! And two, people should educate themselves before they publish something of such magnitude. Dragging up instances of someone’s childhood are no way relevant.”
“This is sick. Talk about exploiting someone’s weaknesses to gain sympathy for the other party. I hope people are able to look past it and see that people clearly need better services than what are available.”
Alexis • Mar 3, 2015 at 10:44 pm
I could not have said it better myself. I did the same thing, here are some of the comments from my post:
“I don’t understand the purpose of this article. It sounds like it’s meant to be an expose of Yancy, a plea on behalf of the victim, and a call to CWU to carefully select which students it should enroll on campus. I don’t think all three work together in a productive way. It just seems so jumbled and sensational.”
“Thank you for posting this! You’re right! Many of the details in this article are extremely personal, and have nothing to do with public safety.”
“For an article ostensibly about autism, there sure aren’t many autistic people interviewed for it. Shocking.
Seems to me this is a case of a HELL of a lot of things being packed into a box, which then all gets labelled “autism.” I mean the description of autism “existing on a spectrum of mild to severe” is backwards but fairly understandable, as it’s common place to refer to mild and severe autism, even though those terms are pretty meaningless. But low IQ is not autism. Violence is not autism. Being raised in an unstable environment is not autism.
It seems to me like this person has done extremely well considering his life to date. But obviously violent behavior can’t be tolerate, especially since so much of it seems aimed at women (systemic social problems much?). And further, the fact that so many personal details about the guy’s life are revealed, from how he was raised, to what his various cognitive abilities are, really demonstrates that this author really doesn’t think autistic people merit much privacy. Killers get their private details broadcast, and that’s fine with me. This guy didn’t kill anyone. No one should know that he can’t tie his shoes. Who cares that he can remember state capitals or whatever other autism stereotypes the interviewees could dredge up. Why can’t the just tell the story that’s there: there’s a dude beating people up which is BAD, and people are trying to figure out how to solve the problem, since he clearly isn’t always in control of his own behavior. And if you have to bring autism into the discussion, TALK TO SOME AUTISTIC PEOPLE.”
I hope his guardians and caregivers raise hell over this slanderous article. Regardless of his actions, regardless of whether or not the student is on a course of study that will result in a degree, HE has not lost his right to a safe learning environment either. The fact that any CWU student or staff or person Googling his name for the rest of TIME can discover that he cannot tie his shoes and has an IQ of 55 is not conducive to creating a positive school/work environment. As far as I’m concerned, The Observer is as guilty of creating a traumatic experience as he is. I understand that the victim in this case feels anxiety on school grounds — how do you think Bryan feels knowing that the entire student body is privy to the details of a severely traumatic childhood? And an important, public component of his university is the one that put him in that position? This is absolutely vile “reporting”.
M Bear • Feb 27, 2015 at 9:08 pm
Is the Observer now going to delve into the private lives of every Central student who commits a crime? Would they be as quick to say that Bryan should no longer have a ‘right to participate in society’ if he had been drunk instead of autistic?
Also, when did it become acceptable to use sweeping generalizations that categorize entire groups of people as aggressive?
Ben • Mar 2, 2015 at 12:25 am
If he had been drunk instead of autistic he would have been put in jail already and would no longer have the right to participate in society…because he would be in a cell. If he is incompetent to the point that he can not be held responsible for his actions, then shouldn’t be afforded the same rights as everyone else. By letting him roam free people are being put in direct physical risk. What happens if the next time he assaults someone, the person dies, or he assaults someone who can actually defend themselves and he is injured or killed?
Desiree • Feb 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Isn’t the whole point of the disabilities right movement to create equal standards. By not charging him, we as a society are saying that if you have a mental disability, it’s ok, you didn’t know any better. The point is, he assaulted someone, he should be held to the same code of conduct standards everyone else is that comes on the CWU campus.
Lena • Mar 5, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Thats the problem here! why is an autistic man being held to the same standards as a “normal” person in society?! Thats like saying lets hold a child to standards of an adult. he needs special consideration and yes, consequences, but with thoughtful consideration! Mrs. Chrismer and Bryan DID go to court and he was faced in court like every other person in this society, but because he wasnt thrown in jail or instatutionalized like they wanted, bashing his name was the next best thing.. which is SO wrong.
Vanita Boyd • Jun 6, 2015 at 11:26 pm
Lena do you think he should have had any consequences.
Eileen • Feb 27, 2015 at 9:39 am
What does it take to resolve these matters? A person with his history it may be only a matter of time it could be a fatal attack. Then what? Because a person has a disability it does not give them the right to do these acts .
Teri Jackson • Feb 26, 2015 at 6:13 pm
This individual should NOT ever be allowed on CWU grounds anywhere. He’s been known to attack someone before. Something needs to be done about him. Because of his previous attacks on individuals he should not have any rights.