quote:Cops in Texas tasered a man having a diabetic seizure. The department determined that the use of tasers was appropriate. Do you really agree?
I don't know anything about the case, but why should you assume that I would agree? I did not say in my post that all usage of tasers is appropriate or that no cops ever abuse the use of tasers or any other kind of force.
All I said was that cops don't use them indiscriminately and that there are procedures in place to review their usage and make certain cops understand when they use a taser, they must answer as to why and how it was used. Does that mean they are never used inappropriately? Of course not...last I checked cops were human and had to rely on their judgment and no one has perfect judgment all of the time.
Given that these people that must rely on their judgment are armed with several things that can harm the public - particularly firearms - I would actually prefer it if they reached first for a taser when they think they need to subdue someone rather than a gun or even a nightstick. Doesn't mean I want them reaching for them indiscriminately or that they should use them in all cases, I just think they are preferable to other alternatives.
As for diabetic crisis...I don't know the details and certainly cops should be trained as first responders and be able to recognize a medical emergency. If they do not, that sounds like a fault of their training that should be corrected.
Again, let me reiterate - I do not submit that tasers are always appropriate or that cops never make mistakes. I do submit, however, that tasers are a better alternative to nightsticks and firearms.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People having diabetic events like insulin shock or low blood sugar can look and act just like drunk/ high/ psychotic people. It sucks, but there's just no way to know the difference just by looking.
And in terms of compliance, cops learn hard lessons all the time. A great grandma can flail around and blind you with a fingernail; a toddler can grab at the sidearm; and it doesn't matter how frail and weak someone in a vehicle is, they are in effect armed with that vehicle.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's true. The common person really doesn't understand irony.
While I'm sure that's flattering to your ego, here's an alternative explanation that doesn't assume a patronizing aspect towards the people you're discussing this with: you communicated poorly.
quote: The point is, a taser isn't a non-lethal form of enforcement. Medically speaking, it CAN generate enough electrical current to kill SOME people. That is a fact. And to treat it as an abolute non-deadly deterrent is rediculous. It's when officers become complacent that people will die.
Oh, so something must be absolutely non-lethal in order to be considered a non-lethal weapon? Who's being silly now? A fistfight can be lethal, yet we generally don't consider an unadorned fist a lethal weapon. Your argument is absurd, which isn't surprising given how poorly you're informed about these matters.
quote:It's like playing Russian roulette. Whether you only have one bullet in the chamber or not, there's the possibility to kill someone every time. Perhaps in this case the gun has 10,000 chambers --- that doesn't make it any less lethal when the bullet goes off.
Yes, but what you're agitating for is this: the gun is equally lethal if it's got one round in 10,000 chambers or one in two.
quote:What's moronic is to believe that using tasers nonchalantly is okay because "it's not very likely to kill you". That's like saying that it's okay to drive 100 miles an hour because you probably won't wreck.
What's especially moronic is to suggest that this use of a taser was 'nonchalant'. You're Monday morning quarterbacking here, and you don't even realize it.
quote:The point is, the taser should only be used as an alternative to force. Force was certainly not required in this case. So, neither was the risk of a taser.
Oh, certainly? How on Earth do you know that?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If not, all these comparisons insisting tasering is better than shooting or beating her are hopelessly stupid. There are ways to restrain great-grandmothers that don't involve weapons.
How many ways are there to restrain a great-grandmother who is physically resisting without using some form of physical force? If the cop laid hands on her, and - though no ill intent and negligence of his own - she fell down and broke her hip, dying on the way to the hospital, I very, very much doubt you'd say, "Well, he didn't mean for it to happen."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: All I said was that cops don't use them indiscriminately and that there are procedures in place to review their usage
Yes, and those procedures determined that it was fine to tase a man seizing on the floor in Texas. In the UK, they used a taser on a guy who'd passed out from a diabetic coma in the back of a bus. That was deemed appropriate too.
Is your assertion mean to make people feel safer? Because it doesn't.
Just google. Stick to diabetics subdued by tasers. Read how much punishment cops get for submitting sick people to potentially life-threatening shocks.
quote:Does that mean they are never used inappropriately? Of course not...last I checked cops were human and had to rely on their judgment and no one has perfect judgment all of the time.
You aren't talking about what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about flaws in judgment, I'm not talking about cases where the police deparment determines that the taser was use in appropriately. I'm talking about people using the taser in accordance with how police departments think it should be used. The seizing guy in Texas was deemed to have been an appropriate victim.
quote:I would actually prefer it if they reached first for a taser when they think they need to subdue someone rather than a gun or even a nightstick.
If you give people tasers rather than nightsticks, they will decide a lot quicker taht physical subduing is necessary. How many diabetics do you think were beaten in the last two years by cops?
quote:As for diabetic crisis...I don't know the details and certainly cops should be trained as first responders and be able to recognize a medical emergency. If they do not, that sounds like a fault of their training that should be corrected.
The cops in the Texas case were determined to be in the right by their department. If anything, the lesson is "When in doubt, tase. Even if the subject is sick and helpless, there will be little to no penalty." They aren't going to train people into not seeing that.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cops in Texas tasered a man having a diabetic seizure. The department determined that the use of tasers was appropriate. Do you really agree?
I'd reword that as "Cops in Texas tasered a man who claimed he was having a diabetic seizure."
Given what else the man himself was reported to have said he was doing at the time (see below), I'd say that claim was highly suspicious, which makes the use of a taser no longer as obviously beyond the pale.
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Yes, and those procedures determined that it was fine to tase a man seizing on the floor in Texas. ... Just google. Stick to diabetics subdued by tasers. Read how much punishment cops get for submitting sick people to potentially life-threatening shocks. ... The seizing guy in Texas was deemed to have been an appropriate victim. ... The cops in the Texas case were determined to be in the right by their department.
That's a pretty weird form of a hypoglycemic seizure. Generally, the person isn't up and moving around, much less forming complete sentences. It is more of a comatose thing -- [at bare minimum, unconsciousness] -- and the time needed for people who are actually having such a seizure to recover sufficiently to interact normally is on the order of hours, not mere minutes.
Methinks there is more to the story than there appears. I wonder about a history of prior spousal abuse allegations or domestic disturbances, given that it was the wife who called 911, the wife who said she needed medical assistance when the police arrived, and the husband (who was "seizing") that stuck his head out the door and told them they were not needed there. [And given that the police were responding to a 911 call for "medical assistance," being the first to arrive on the scene. That's certainly atypical for a call in to 911 for a "diabetic seizure" without additional context of some sort that makes police likely to be needed. It isn't conclusive, but it is very weird.]
There is a pending lawsuit, from what I can see, and I expect more details will come out. We'll see. It looks so suspicious a claim as to be untenable, given the information available at this point.
In reading about more of these stories you referenced online, methinks there is usually more than meets the eye there, as well. I haven't seen one that reads like an accurate example of the sort of case intended to be referenced as an outrageous abuse of justice. Rather, none of them seem to be consistent with medical truth.
---
Added: It's easy to make allegations that sounds like they might be tenable to untrained people. It's much harder to have such allegations stand up in court versus expert testimony of what is and isn't consistent with reality in the middle of a "diabetic seizure" (and the behavior reported by the above man himself falls into the latter category).
Mind you, there certainly may be cases where someone in the middle of a hypoglycemic seizure was incorrectly assessed and harmed by a taser. I just don't see any that hold together medically that have been referenced here.
posted
Well, I decided I didn't know enough about the way diabetics can act when their in crisis, so I asked someone who knows. My husband is a paramedic - has been for 12 years, and has seen hundreds of these types of patients. Diabetic patients are one of their most frequent types of calls. He says he has had to call the cops to help subdue patients, numerous times. Patients in diabetic crisis can be combative, and can fight the very people that are trying to help them.
Even my husband, who IS trained to recognize people in medical emergencies says he often cannot tell the difference between someone in a diabetic crisis and a person on drugs. He's had to get orders for restraints and physically restrain people to the point where he can even check their sugar levels and try to determine what happened to them.
Given that, I can foresee a case where a police officer might use a taser to try and restrain someone and have it deemed appropriate after the fact. It's easy to look backwards with hindsight and say "oh, he was a diabetic and so he wasn't a drug addict or a mentally unstable person after all" When it's happening...not so easy. The first priority of every first responders is to their own physical safety, because they can be of no help to anyone if they become another casualty. So, if someone is combative and acting like they are a danger to themselves or others, then they need to be restrained.
You seem to be concerned that police are more likely to use tasers than they would a nightstick. I am not so certain, and don't accept that as a given. Maybe because I know too many cops who gripe and complain anytime they have to use one because of the paperwork it engenders and the trouble it causes. The cops I know would much rather deal with a situation without using any kind of force, including tasers. And that is as it should be, I think we can all agree.
Besides, being a diabetic doesn't mean you cannot also be a criminal, or a drug addict or have mental problems. Resisting police officers is going to be met with some type of forceful response - regardless of why the person is resisting. That is how cops are trained, and the purpose of that training is to protect the public.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll distinguish here between a "hypoglycemic crisis" and a "diabetic seizure."
Hypoglycemia itself can result in irritability and combativeness, but a diagnosis of "diabetic (or hypoglycemic) seizure" is a more debilitating matter -- this kind of seizure is a generalized convulsion, a.k.a. a tonic-clonic or grand mal seizure.
An ongoing generalized convulsion is not consistent with walking around and talking in complete sentences, and it typically wouldn't be for several hours afterward.
There is dramatic impact to saying that the police were tasering a helpless diabetic while he was on the floor having a seizure. There is less drama to saying he was hypoglycemic and possibly combative, although of course that also makes the use of a taser less outrageous [as Belle notes above].
posted
And I should add...(because my husband is making me - he wants to be clear) that MOST of the time, recognizing someone who is hypoglycemic is an easy process for him and his fellow paramedics. Many times it's relatively mild irritability and paramedics can quickly correct the situation.
So, please don't think there are tons of raging diabetics terrorizing the streets and that cops and paramedics often can't tell who or what they are.
He does remember a specific case, where he and his fellow medic were darn near certain the person was crazed on drugs, but checked his sugar and was shocked to find he was merely in hypoglycemic crisis instead.
He also wants to point out that many times the most combative diabetics are those that have also been drinking - certainly not recommended for diabetics but my hubby points out that just because you have a disease doesn't make you smart about your health. So, perhaps the alcohol is contributory factor to their behavior.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: He also wants to point out that many times the most combative diabetics are those that have also been drinking - certainly not recommended for diabetics but my hubby points out that just because you have a disease doesn't make you smart about your health. So, perhaps the alcohol is contributory factor to their behavior.
Yep. And there is a typical blood sugar crash that comes after imbibing alcohol for diabetics, so you have (potentially) both the irritability and combativeness of hypoglycemia combined with whatever alcohol brings out in that person.
That's not to say abuses don't occur. I just suspect that in the majority of the allegations, the full story isn't being told, and it is the part of the story not being told (or not being told correctly) that explains the taser use in many cases.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Look, you ladies appear to be missing the point here, which is, "OMG! Cops tazin' people!"
Kindly get back on topic, please!
I first read this as "OMG! Cows tazin' people!" Which would be oddly apropos, a'la Deer Avenger.
---
On a separate note, swbarnes has given me pause with reference to Milgram. Despite the fact that the allegations I read don't seem to hold water, I am by no means concluding that abuses don't occur. Rather, I am sure they do. I do wonder about it being easier (psychologically) to use a taser than a [nightstick]***, given that one is at more of a remove from the subject, and (if) the amount of paperwork documentation is roughly equivalent.
I don't discount the effect of paperwork, as per Belle's comments. That can be a serious force for apathy and creativity in finding other solutions -- paperwork is the bane of most such jobs, and people will do a heckuva lot to avoid it. But if the paperwork is the same -- and as to that, I don't really know -- I can see a real concern here as raised by swbarnes.
This is exactly why I am particularly surly about allegations that don't hold together. It poisons the well of credibility for people who have legitimate grievances. Mind you, I know very little about the cases referenced here; it's just that what is referenced looks so fishy. But of course this would get delved into much more deeply at trial. I am glad the matter was taken to court, where it is more likely to get a fair and thorough hearing.
---
*** "nightclub" != "billy club" OR "nightstick," although it sure would be harder to use on somebody. You'd have to convince people to put down their drinks first, and what with the distraction of dancing and all, it's so hard to get people to do anything as a group these days.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
