Police Watched as a Man Drowned and Discouraged Bystanders From Helping, Lawsuit Claims
When a bystander offered to give the officers flotation devices and a small boat, they refused.

A Tennessee man drowned last year as police watched and actively discouraged others from helping the man. Now, the man's mother has filed a lawsuit against the officers, claiming their negligence caused her son's death.
Mika Wheeler Clabo was a 30-year-old man who had been experiencing a mental health crisis when he ran into the Tennessee River in Knoxville on the morning of July 25, 2022. A few minutes after falling into the water—which was murky and filled with vines and branches—four police officers and two EMTs had arrived on the scene.
According to the suit, Clabo "yelled out several times, gasping and groaning, desperate for help, as he tried in vain to pull himself up or free himself from the vines that snared him." However " for approximately fifteen minutes, other than coaxing Mika on by yelling at him to 'swim' or 'get out,' no one helped him."
As the gathered first responders watched, several employees at a nearby restaurant offered to help Clabo. One man even offered to give the officers access to a storage area that held flotation devices and a small boat but was refused.
"These men and others were warned off by the KPD officers against making any effort to help Mika, with one officer repeatedly telling them 'he'll drown you too' or words to that effect," the lawsuit claims. Instead, the officers said they were waiting for a rescue boat.
But the rescue boat came too late. The lawsuit claims that 13 minutes after falling into the river, Clabo's head went underwater. Though the rescue boat arrived just a few minutes later, Clabo had drowned, and his body had become so entangled with the vines in the riverbank that it would not be recovered for two hours.
"The officers acted recklessly by merely watching a man who they believed to be mentally compromised struggling to free himself from vines, brush, and tree limbs before drowning," the lawsuit states. "It is clear that the officers knew there was a substantial risk of death to Mika, yet consciously chose a course of action that ignored that deathly risk."
However, while the officers' indifference as Clabo drowned was disturbing, it's unlikely that the lawsuit against them will succeed. In 2005, the Supreme Court found that the police have no legal duty to protect individuals from harm. In failing to rescue Clabo, the officers may have acted callously and cruelly—but also likely within the law.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This case may not be as unlikely as the article's conclusion suggests. 'No legal duty to protect from harm' is quite a bit different from 'actively preventing others from offering assistance'. The coercive power of police "advice" should not be underestimated.
Well, I would like to think that, but I have my doubts. Might be an interesting case to follow. I am guessing none of the cops were Eagle Scouts.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
I am guessing none of the cops were Eagle Scouts.
The guy who waded into an unfamiliar riverbank with no means of extricating himself was clearly unprepared.
"The guy who waded into an unfamiliar riverbank with no means of extricating himself was clearly unprepared."
True. Folks in the middle of a mental health episode sometimes do that.
Why am I thinking had the drowning person been an attractive young lady, these cops might have fallen over themselves in a rush to help her out...
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Because you need an excuse to cover your desire for dead cops.
Like, lets be clear here, I actively dislike cops, and mostly think dead cops are a good thing, and I still feel like having Emma be the reporter makes them seem like the good guys here.
The major issue I have with this article is that Emma Camp actively makes any subject less credible via her interaction. I'd be willing to believe that the cops are in the wrong here,... except for the fact that Emma is such a fucking liar that now I wonder if the guy was swinging a bolo around that might otherwise have entangled a potential rescuer. She's not only not trustworthy, she's actively anti-trustworthy.
In so many of these stories, it's a person having a mental health crisis.
Cops are not meant to solve people's mental health crises.
The problem is that people think 911 and the government are the solution to every problem. It's not.
"Cops are not meant to solve people’s mental health crises.
The problem is that people think 911 and the government are the solution to every problem. It’s not."
Well, that is certainly true.
Why am I thinking had the drowning person been an attractive young lady, these cops might have fallen over themselves in a rush to help her out…
An attractive young lady suffering a mental health episode? You sound like an SNL character.
My question is “Why did the first responders bother responding?”
It wasn’t to go into the water to help the struggling man, was it simply to make sure no one else went into the water?
I’m sure they have a great argument against tossing the man in the water a flotation device, preferably with a rope attached – I can’t wait to hear it…
This is one of those cases with no good answer – go into the water, risk your own life, stay out of the water, the man drowns…
Good point. If "mentally compromised" means passing-out drunk, that's a good argument for repealing laws against less debilitating ways to cop an enjoyable buzz. By lifeboat ethics: Tim Leary swallows a dozen doses of LSD when stopped for a dim license plate bulb. Houston cops then beat and throw him into the bayou for "obstructing justice" (swallowing the evidence). They then call backup to keep him from swimming ashore because... um... "mentally compromised" or likely to give bad press if allowed to live.
Either Emma Camp misunderstood the lawsuit and it's really about police interfering with others rescuing the drowning man, or the family needs a new lawyer - one that's competent enough to look up the precedents on a legal theory before going to court with it.
Always eager to spend the lives of others aren't you.
Would you be demanding compensation for any bleeding heart that foolishly attempted the rescue and drowned? Or perhaps cheering the death of the officers if they attempted a rescue they weren't qualified to carry out?
How qualified do you have to be to toss someone a flotation device?
“How qualified do you have to be to toss someone a flotation device?”
That all depends.
Is it a properly registered flotation device? Does the “tosser” have a permit to possess it?
According to the Coast Guard, one-third of all US drowning deaths are of people who tried to rescue someone else who was drowning.
"According to the Coast Guard, one-third of all US drowning deaths are of people who tried to rescue someone else who was drowning."
And how many of those folks were paid professional in dealing with life-threatening situations? And how many of those who drowned had a boat and a flotation device handy?
I don't have that information.
Yeah. I doubt the stats for those incidents have ever been gathered. But on a hunch, I will predict it's a really small number.
My mom saved someone from drowning in heavy surf. I managed to do the same thing when a friend was drowning. But this story sounds like a Sargasso Sea choked with enough stuff to practically stand on. Someone ask Mother's Lament or a similar sockie why Trump didn't walk on the water and simply pull the guy out.
Interesting story. As always I'm skeptical of the details - notwithstanding the police's decisions. I'm trying to imagine how someone could become so entangled in river weeds that they tread water for 13 minutes without some sort of change in their situation. The only pictures about this news story seem to show the area being under a restaurant with multiple pylons extending into the river.
The line of "taking 2 hours to free his body" is very loaded and assumptive.
Yeah, welcome to Reason "You want fucking details? You probably want them to make sense too don't you? Well, this isn't the fucking Ritz Mr. La-Ti-Da. Shut up and eat your shit sandwich!" Magazine.
Did the officers go home safe that night? Yes? That's all that matters.
And none of them got that icky river water on their pretty uniforms.
I can feel it coming in the air tonight...
Don't go down to the water's edge...
Though the rescue boat arrived just a few minutes later, Clabo had drowned, and his body had become so entangled with the vines in the riverbank that it would not be recovered for two hours.
Validating pretty much everything the officers had just said for the last 13 minutes.
Except, of course, that a floatation device may have helped him keep his head above water until he could be rescued. His head WAS above water for most of the time.
The "response" from the first responders didn't need to do anything but help him keep his head above water for a few minutes till the rescue boat arrived.
You can't read too much into the "two hours to remove his body" statement, once he's dead, what's the rush? I don't mean to be callous, but there's no need for heroic, life-threatening measures when the person is dead...
This would make a good parable: Drowned guy gets to the Pearly Gates and asks, "God, why'd you let me drown like that." So God answers: "Heck, I summoned a bunch of Tennessee cops to the scene. All you had to do was start teaching Evolution and they'd've jumped in and arrested you. I helps them that helps themselves."
While I suppose they could have used a boat to give him a flotation device, given how deeply his body was entwined it doesn't seem like a rescue would have been easy.
If only a bystander had thought of that, or knew where a boat and flotation device were.
"If only a bystander had thought of that, or knew where a boat and flotation device were."
But even with that information, it would have required actual cognitive effort to equate 1) drowning person, 2) boat, 3) flotation device and, 4) toss flotation device. It may have also required them to shorten their coffee-break.
You sure seem 100% certain that the claims, in a lawsuit, unexplored and unrefuted yet by the defendant, are the true and whole story here.
I'm not saying this is what really happened, but as someone with lifeguard training, the guy freaking the fuck out will try his very best to drown you. Send someone untrained in and then you'll have TWO bodies to pull out of the river.
As for the claims that restaurant people were begging the cops and "giving them access" to a small boat, maybe. But I'd like to see the video, the evidence from the restaurant goers, the boat, and the location, and how hard it would be to get some sort of flotation device out to the guy before I'd condemn anyone for anything.
The cops called a boat run by people who knew how to operate the thing, maybe getting the restaurant's boat there would have taken longer. Maybe they couldn't get near enough to throw a device without sliding in themselves. Maybe a bunch of things we don't know from this absolutely un-revealing Reason story.
If those facts are in evidence, and still it looks bad, well then you will be certain. But rarely is the hyperbole from a complainant's lawsuit the whole true, and unvarnished story.
They stood and watched him flail in the river for 13 minutes. That's a seriously long time, and takes you past the initial 'don't go in or you'll drown too' argument all the way to 'what can we do to help without risking anyone else?' Which should have them tossing him flotation devices, a rope, something.
Try this, go in your backyard and just stand there for thirteen minutes, pretending someone is drowning in front of you. Wouldn't you eventually start to look for SOMETHING to do to help the person drowning?
I think you would, I believe I would - 13 minutes is a LONG time.
Um... to Republicans whose platform calls for thirty years in prison for possession of weed, thirteen minutes ain't nuthin'. Also, if this were a 1931 Tennessee newspaper, the headline would include a one-word explanation. Was the victim African-American by any chance?
Call me crazy, but a dude suffering a mental health crisis marching into a body of water sounds quite foreseeably like assertions of "I've got a life preserver!" and "I've got a boat!" (may) mean precisely dick.
All kinds of ways to physically imperil yourself in a manner certain to bring about your own death that allow you to imperil others in your demise. Kinda inherent in some of the mental conditions and the conditions of those responding.
Why the hell when there is a "fallen hero" funeral, 100's of cop cars clogged the streets and use up a full day of taxpayer salary to attend a funeral? Who pays the salaries and vehicle expenses?
Especially when it was an overweight cop who died of a heart attack.
You assume they are paid, I don't know that they are.
Waitaminnit! Was that a cop drowning in the river?
Cops: "We are selfless heroes."
Also cops: "Our personal safety is our absolute top priority."
Activists: "All cops are bastards."
Also activists: "Why do cops fail to live up to the superlative standards we hold them to?"
It took hours to disentangle the body.
Maybe the cops were right?
That, IMO, is the funniest thing about it. There's a pretty objective case to be had and there's a pretty solid libertarian/objectivist-capitalist case that "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.", that someone isn't morally wrong by refusing to choose to sacrifice the fat man to the trolley car.
But the article completely avoids even vaguely conceptualizing it and continues the Daddy issues framing by quoting the 40 yr. old ex-stripper spinster about how "All Dads Are Bastards" because this Dad or group of Dads fell short of her 8 yr. old conception of her Dad or all Dads as heroes.
As much as I dislike agreeing with police, rescuing a drowning person is sketchy at best. A panicking person will try to stand on your head to get out of the water when they are drowning. While I wouldn't go in after him, I can't imagine why they refused the flotation devices; they could have easily tossed a couple towards the guy without risking themselves. Anybody else a junior lifeguard as a teen ? Anybody else remember the mantra: Reach / Throw / Row / Go. Reach with something (rope or pole) , throw a flotation device , row a boat out to get them, Go in person only as a last resort.
And I won't blindly applaud cops --- but letting civilians try and rescue the guy is more likely going to lead to dead civilians.
The cops had no floatation device with them. And the person who offered one did not have one with him at the time and no clue in regards to the condition of the boat or floatation device nor their capacity to rescue the guy.
"The officers acted recklessly by merely watching a man who they believed to be mentally compromised struggling to free himself from vines, brush, and tree limbs before drowning,"
Bullshit! A mentally unstable man, in the water, entangled in vines, brush and tree limbs and with limited visibility. I'm a former Navy rescue swimmer and I'd hesitate in that situation. Our scariest rescue situation is a person entangled in parachute shroud lines. That was so hazardous that we trained for it in a special pool. Sorry it's better to wait for a rescue boat, than to one person drown than to have two or more drown trying to save him. The cops were in the right.
You're right. Having said that, I probably would have disobeyed the cops and tried to help.
But if you died, it'd be "Why did the cops not stop that person?"
No win situation.
There seems to be no evidence that they delayed in calling for the boat. It did not get there fast enough, but the suit does not pretend to claim that they did not call for it quickly. It seems like they followed the proper protocol for the specific situation.
jimc5499: Would you have refused to get a flotation device and throw it to him if someone told you where it was?
Seems reasonable to me under the circumstances that the cops warned bystanders not to attempt a rescue because "he'll drown you too". The only issue in my mind is the boat and flotation devices that the cops refused according to Emma. The question is how long would it take to access the shed, retrieve the floats, launch the boat and actually get a float into the hands of a panicked, mentally ill person? How far into the 13 minutes was the offer made? Could it be that the rescue boat actually arrived before any of that could have been accomplished? If it would take 10 minutes to drag out the restaurant equipment and the rescue boat was expected in 5 minutes were the cops in the wrong here? I don't know the answer to these questions and anyone relying on this article doesn't know either. I'm not here to defend the cops here but I'll need a little more information before condemning them.
Also I gotta say I'm baffled by the timeline. First this guy "runs" into the river but some time later " falls" into the river. For purposes of the lawsuit the negligence clock starts then. We're told later that 13 minutes later his head went under. It takes a " few" minutes for the first responders to arrive so let's say 4. We now have 9 minutes left. Somehow the cops spend another 15 minutes trying to coax him out of the water even though he would have been under water for the last 6 minutes. I can't make this work.
Reason Magazine Comment Section: Last refuge of the Monday morning quarterbacks.
There are a lot of articles about how police are bullying citizens or are over zealous with a use of force. In this case they did what was in the best interest of public safety. It is extremely dangerous to attempt to save a drowning person without the proper training and equipment. The police officers more than likely did not have either. They are also encumbered by the ridiculous amount of equipment they carry. Could one of them stripped down into their boxers and swam out there? Probably. Were they trained to save a drowning person? Not very likely. The police did the job they were paid to do. They called the appropriate rescue service.
As far as bystanders are concerned if one would have drown trying to save the drowning man the officers would have been on the hook for allowing it to happen. The bottom line is the officers stop any further loss of life.
"As far as bystanders are concerned if one would have drown trying to save the drowning man the officers would have been on the hook for allowing it to happen. The bottom line is the officers stop any further loss of life.:
No, the "bottom line" was they didn't want to be sued.
And? Seems like a situation where the outcomes were obvious. Sue police departments for doing their job and, well, they will be far less willing to take chances. Same reason why cops in major cities do not arrest many criminals --- why do the paperwork if the perp will be released before you even finish it?
Dude, any Tennessee cop stripped down to boxers would've been arrrested for indecent exposure and reprimanded with a 2-week vacation for going swimming while on duty--AND leaving a service pistol on shore for some dope attic to rampage with! Get real.
We pay our police to be brave, not reckless and foolhardy. Wrestling with a panicked, mentally ill man in the water is a damned-fool idea. And, while police officers should know how to swim and basic rescue techniques, they aren't the Coast Guard or professional rescue divers. It's only tangentially their lane. I don't know why they didn't throw him a floatation device or a line, but under the circumstances, unless he were to calm down or they were to stun him or render him unconscious first (which would get all sorts of other vitriol flying), I don't expect them to risk getting dragged under and dying along with him. They get to go home at the end of their day just like the rest of us.
They get to go home at the end of their day just like the rest of us.
No, they don't. Sometimes they are expected to put themselves at risk. That's part of the job. That's arguably the reason the job exists. If they don't like that deal, they should find a different career.
I'm sort of mildly OK with the copers not wanting to jump n and play TeeVee Heroes.. ut to stand there and passively WATCH is NOT OK at all. There are almost alays SIME items nearby, and they were offered helpful devices, AND a boat. But refused. Almost as if they KNEW the guy in the water and wanted him dead.
But for them to actively discourage others standing by from DOING anything, that's just flat out wrong, and HUGELY so.
Had I been there and had access to a boat, I'd have gone anyway. Let them arrest me if they want to play the Big Bad Bully. The guy who offered the boat, and was rebuffed, could have simply gotten into the bot and gone out in spite of the yellow bellied coward (or worse) coppers.
Reminds me stringly of the Uvalde school massacre incident.. where a horde or corrupt coppers not only refused to go in themselves, but ordered others to stay away. Until some guys with backbones marched past the dirty coppers and went in anyway. And ENDED the massacre by doing the ONLY thing that EVER stops such a massacre... Good Guy with Gun shoots Bad Guy with GUN. Ends the killing every time.
WHY is that so hard to figure out?
They are possibly WRONG. While Police have "no duty to protect", if the officers threatened anyone for trying to help then they did so by abuse of authority. Regardless, if another boat was available and nearby then telling the people wishing to help not to help and or threatening them in any way or discouraging them is actually an actionable offense. The issue is the BADGE and POWER it wields.
Put me on the Jury. "No Duty to protect" is not the same as using one's power of the badge to stop aid for 15 minutes!
This is absurd.
If the odds of a civilian trying to save the man lead to their drowning, did the cops not protect that civilian by preventing it?
How was someone throwing a life ring to the drowning man in danger? Except maybe from cops that were neither willing to do anything to help nor to let civilians show them up?
We weren't there. We don't know the lay of the land, the actual water conditions and the circumstances involved. The only reason that this article is here is because Reason likes dumping on the Police.
Several years ago we had a drowning at a local Park. The drowning happened in cold fast moving water. 911 was called and a local volunteer fire department responded. By the time they got there it had been over 20 minutes since the person went under. Two of their divers ignored protocol (didn't put on dry suits) and went into the water. They went hypothermic and drowned. After 20 minutes, it wasn't a rescue, it was body recovery. All three were found over two hours after the divers went in.
Were the responding officers trained in water rescue? We don't know. The funny thing is that if they were not, they still did the right thing.
When I started to read the article I was braced for a shrill Fiona testimonial about Guvner Greg's border patrol standing on the shore and cheering while an attempted invader drowned--possibly on foreign waters outside The Kleptocracy's jurisdiction. The reprieve is appreciated.