Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Video of Cop Tasing Unresponsive Diabetic "I didn't know he was a freakin' diabetic!"

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
As for fat azz and knowing the symptoms how come you didnt bother to stop the officer from taking that action? You, and the others in this thread, had no way of knowing this individual was hypoglycemic until the media reported it after the fact.


As I've written elsewhere, that is however one of the possibilities that any police should take into account, especially since diabetes isn't exactly an uncommon disease. I don't expect everybody out and about to be 100% fit and healthy. Being diabetic isn't a crime.




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by InFriNiTee
There should be a law that all law enforcement learn about things like diabetes, epilepsy, etc.




Who needs another freakin' "law"?

What we need are cops with integrity and common sense. Apparently, these are rare characteristics today.


Indeed.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Just to let everyone know, this is covered in police academy,dui training, and in Crisis intervention training (CIT)..so the training IS there



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by paearmor
 

so, in other words, this officer either dismissed his training, ignored his training or may have been hyped up on steroids himself, correct ??



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
There was a time when you may have served in the Military but you were trained to be a Cop. There has been a shift away from traditional Law Enforcement, public servant, training toward a Military response. Officers today are taught to view every citizen as a potential threat and the result is what you see here, more attitude than brains. Morons wear ties, hardhats and carry badges. They are everywhere.

If you ever want to see how an Officer should conduct themselves with the public watch any Prison based reality show. The public is not treated as well as the already convicted in many cases



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You are arguing for the sake of arguing here or you are losing it.
When that occurs the person doesn't seem a little drunk they seem black out drunk. Regardless, if he was can't walk or talk drunk or slipping into a diabetic coma, he was NOT a threat or someone that even appears to be.

He shocked the guy because he was UNRESPONSIVE. So you are telling me that a cop can use his taser for anything now? Not a threat, not uncooperative, unresponsive.

This cop should be done. Cops should be allowed a lot fewer mistakes before losing their job. Also ones that show big lapses in common sense, or any excessive aggression - gone.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The tazer was intended to be used to subdue the physically violent, but it is now used
against anyone resisting police orders--even the passively resistant injured or ill person physically
unable to comply. Basically, it has become a way for police officers to "skip" the judge and jury
part of the justice system, and move right into sentencing phase...comply or ride the lightning.

Too many laws, too many lawyers...too much government.

My run-in with Cleburne police happened one night when my son and I were at the Cleburne city park.
We both work nights, we were on our day off, had gone to the park to use the tennis courts, the
basketball court, and toss the football around--those were the only things we had with us at the
time, AND we were alone in the park.

At 12:07 (that's what the ticket read) we were cited for being in the park after-hours.
There was no sign, the lights were on, we were initially stopped BEFORE midnight, ordered to sit
down on the curb twenty feet apart and not talk (while our names were ran for at least ten minutes)
and finally cited seven minutes after the midnight curfew.

We explained to the judge, there was no sign, the lights were on, showed him the receipt from
Wal-Mart for the tennis rackets (less than one hour prior) and explained that the stop occurred
PRIOR to midnight.....instead of leniency we got a lecture about "ignorance of the law" and were
both ordered to pay 300 dollars in fines.

Cleburne is about as fine an example of red-neck, good ole boy, rural Texas as there is.





edit on 27-10-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Serve and Protect eh?
I know these officers have a very difficult job, but the actions of the "police officer" I just saw stinks of the aggression that is endemic in American society.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Shocking story but unfortunately "Welcome to America". Police State.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


In my honest opinion, this is just another thread trying to make cops look like bad guys. Cops deal with drunks/druggies all day every day. And when you see someone past out, you kinda figure he/she is a drunkard/diabetic.

I also disagree with your statement that makes it sound like the cop called this person a "freak", and you know he didn't either. Which is just disgusting on your part. The rest of us with common sense realize he was using slang, "freakin".

However, I have to give two thumbs down to the cop for tazing someone who isn't responsive. That just seems really stupid to me. "Hey bud, you alive? Let's taze you and find out!".



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Auricom
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


In my honest opinion, this is just another thread trying to make cops look like bad guys. Cops deal with drunks/druggies all day every day. And when you see someone past out, you kinda figure he/she is a drunkard/diabetic.

I also disagree with your statement that makes it sound like the cop called this person a "freak", and you know he didn't either. Which is just disgusting on your part. The rest of us with common sense realize he was using slang, "freakin".

However, I have to give two thumbs down to the cop for tazing someone who isn't responsive. That just seems really stupid to me. "Hey bud, you alive? Let's taze you and find out!".


The cop made himself look bad. The thread is just telling it like it is. Cops deal with drunks and druggies yes, that is part of their job. What does that have to do with anything?

The cop said, "I didin't know he was a freakin diabetic!" What, exactly, is "freakin" about being diabetic? Glad your "common sense" is just that - yours.

Lastly, I'm glad your final statement nullifies your first. By your own words his actions were really stupid, ie what the thread is about. Stupid cops and their behavior. Thanks for agreeing.

CJ



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Ketoacidosis doesn't cause a diabetic to act intoxicated, they just vomit and eventually pass out into a coma if they don't receive their insulin.

Also, their breath would smell of pear drops, basically they would smell like candy.

LOW blood sugar however, makes them act intoxicated. My boyfriend is Type 1 diabetic, and just the other week had a seizure due to low blood sugar, he had taken a dose of fast-acting insulin without recording it in his diary or letting me or anyone else know, and skipped eating and went to sleep.
I was playing the ps3 on the bed beside him while he slept, he all of a sudden moved his arm, I turned round and his eyes were open, I spoke to him, asked him something, and he just stared blankly at me, I thought it was just sleepwalking (minus the walking :lol


Turns out he had extremely low blood, and violently shook, bouncing around like a fish out of water, blood pouring out of his mouth (bit his tongue) and I was none the wiser as to why, until I did a blood test and gave him that high-sugar injection into the thigh (massive needle, was totally hesitant to stab him with it :lol


Anyways, while he eventually came back round, he would ask where his friends were, since the last time his brain was receiving energy was around the time our friends were in the house. He asked me the same questions about 15-20 times over the period of about half an hour, with a slurred voice, very shaky demeanour and couldn't walk straight.

I can see how this can he construed as intozicated, but if he was tazed because of it, I would he demanding a helluva lot more justice.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by moniker
 


and neither is being a police officer....

As for the rest of the comments people have made in this thread they really should understand my initial post because apparently people arent bothering to read / understand it.

at no point did I ever say the officer was correct in his choice. At no point did I ever state its something I would do so people really need to stop with the blind hatred of law enforcement and only seeing what you want while ignoring the trest.

I pointed out the comparison between an intoxicated individual and the signs of ketoacidosis and nothing more. Having dealt with a multitude of situations throughout my career I can see situations where actions you guys find offensive I would find justified. Thats just the way it goes and until a few of you actually are in a situation, viewing something from the outside and commenting on what you would do is completely different than what you would do if in the actual situation.

The officer took an action based on totality of circumstances as he saw them.
You guys are basing your opininons off of your own established totality of circumstances.

The difference between the 2?

The officer did not have the element of hindsight 20/20 that you guys have in creating your opinion.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


But you have posed your argument so that the officer may have been in the right - my contention is an unresponsive person involved in a car crash should not be tasered for not responding to commands unless threatening the officer. Your argument seems to somehow imply it is ok to tase an unresponsive individual.

CJ
edit on 27-10-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You keep comparing ketoacidosis to being drunk, probably because of the fruit smell on the breath, that does not work in this situation.

The kid had low blood sugar which is the exact opposite of ketoacidosis. That means no chance of a fruity smell.

And ketoacidosis does not automatically equal a fruity smell. Trust me, I know that for a fact.

So drop talking about ketoacidosis. It has nothing to do with what happened.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
yes, i read them, before commenting.
point is, you seem to think that "he had no way of knowing" and i still claim BS of the highest order ... even my 8yr old grandchild can detect when something like that is wrong. (no medical training needed)

We do not diagnose medical conditions.. So no the officer had no way of knowing the individual was having a diabetic issue and I seriously doubt your grandchild could detect what was wrong either.



Originally posted by Honor93
X - it was an auto accident ... there may be injuries ... that's an absolute.
the officer, under no threat, should have WAITED (like the last trigger happy moron who shot the dad) until EMS responded, period.

And at no point did I say the officers actions were correct. So please stop coming at me with the blind hatred you jave for the cop in the story.



Originally posted by Honor93
notice, i didn't say the officer should have known, i said he should have WAITED until the proper authority arrived.
he jumped the gun (literally in this case) and he was wrong.

Actually in your first paragrahp in this post you state the officer should have known and that your 8 year old grandchild could etect something was wrong.

So which is it?



Originally posted by Honor93
unresponsive IS a diagnosis, every time, try again.
even drunk and unresponsive is still a DIAGNOSIS, you know, that which you/they aren't qualified to make.

Again there is a difference in terminology between law enforcment and police. Please stop ignoring that bit of info while trying to argue what a diagnosis is and is not.



Originally posted by Honor93
so, are you saying an unresponsive dead person should be tased too ??
you know, you gave an order and he ignored you, so taze the dude and watch that body bounce !!

please man, tell us how it really is out there, eh ??

Again, correct your rectal cranial inversion, read what I am posting and then comment. There is a differnce in terminology used by police and medical services.



Originally posted by Honor93
protocol is not "situation dependent" and never has been.
protocol should be followed not re-written as you/they see fit.

It is situation dependent and does not change simply because you are unfamiliar with protocols and how it works. Protocol says if I am faced with a deadly force situation I am authorized to use deadly force. However of all of the situations I have been invovled in I have never had to kill a person. So are you so sure that protocol should be followed to the level you are trying to force it into?

Even medical services policies can change mid field based on the situation.


Originally posted by Honor93
yes, i read the outcome, doesn't mean i agree with it.
and besides, it's not the city who pays ~~ it's the taxpayers, yet again, even though it should be the sole responsibility of the thug with a tazer fantasy, inability to follow protocol and unwillingness to be patient until the proper authority arrived.

and the officer is a taxpayer.. something you are ignoring.



Originally posted by Honor93
on the off chance you've never been involved in an auto accident, good luck getting the pd to respond in a reasonable amount of time.
often, they are the last to respond, not the first.

We are the first to respond since an auto accident is by law a law enforcement scene, not medicla nor fire.



Originally posted by Honor93
attending to an injured person IS most assuredly out of their area of responsibility or they would be licensed to do such a thing, however, they are not.

We are medicla first responders but thanks for demonstrating the lack of knowledge people have about law enforcement, level of training and protocls,. in additiion to governing laws.



Originally posted by Honor93
you're confused but this wouldn't be the first time.
do tell, when an auto accident is NOT reported to the PD, what authority do they have again ??
or perhaps, when an auto accident occurs on private property, why aren't they (cops) permitted to flaunt their authority ??
oh, that's right, because they have NONE.

A mva occuring on private property is generally not investigated by law enforcment because its private property. However when its an injury accident, drugs or alcohol are involved, C and I driving is involved or the property damage is in excess of a certain amount law enforcement can work private property accidents.

Accidents by their very nature are just that, accidents. If they occur on a public right of way law enforcement is responsible for investigating should a call come in.

So yes, we have authority both on city streets as well as private property. In my statre a MVA on a pubnlic right of way where damage, regardless of number of vehicles involved, is in excess of 500 dollars we are required, by law, to investgate and submit a report to DPS.




Originally posted by Honor93
i'm beginning to think your perception of "authority" is merely a figment of your imagination.

Like your knowledge of the law and how law enforcement works?




Originally posted by Honor93
it does not take hindsight to witness or complicate an injury.
it does not take a totality of circumstance to determine a threat.
nice try but try again cause you are waaaay off the mark.

Yet the person in the car showed no obvious signs of injury did he? Or are you assuming there were obivous signs of injury even though you were not present?

Amazing how you cast ignornce on the officer while demonstrating your own ignorance in the process.



Originally posted by Honor93
you also cannot claim a bystander didn't/couldn't know cause you weren't there either, were you?

Hence the reason I said tough call in my intial post and did not support nor defend the officers actions. I provided material for those people who do not understand some of the situations that can occur.

The same cannot be said about your posts but nice try.



Originally posted by Honor93
surprisingly, i've seen and assisted with more diabetic complications in a week than most do in a lifetime and i'm not a medical authority either.

And since your not a police officer and you are not restricted in what you can an cannot do on a scene where medical issues are involved its not really a comparrison now is it?



Originally posted by Honor93
i guess it takes a compassionate person to recognize the ailments of others.
tis a shame most cops don't possess such a skill.

I guess it takes an ignorant person to fail to understand protocol, law enforcment, authority to investigate an accident, who the authority is on an accident scene, all the while second guessing a decision you were not present for but basing your actions off hindsight 20 20 info.

bravo for being all those things while accusing the officer of the same.

that takes talent.
edit on 27-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

so, with this are you affirming that tazing an unresponsive person who is not a threat is something you would do and support being done ??

since that's pretty much the totality of what you typed, please confirm or deny ... i'm sure i'm not the only one who'd like to know.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
But you have posed your argument so that the officer may have been in the right -

Incorrect - I have provided the information that goes with the side of the story people refuse to look at simply because it is on the law enforcement side. I pointed out the medical issue and the similarities between it and intoxicated individuals. Since we never get the FULL story of what actually occured, people just assume and fill in the blanks and make leaps of logic.

My initial post did not justify the officers actions nor did I say the cops actions were correct. I said tough call based on the info present. People really should stop trying to make my posts into something they are not and should also quit trying to say im taking / holding a position that I am not.



Originally posted by ColoradoJens
my contention is an unresponsive person involved in a car crash should not be tasered for not responding to commands unless threatening the officer. Your argument seems to somehow imply it is ok to tase an unresponsive individual.

Again because people are ignoring it - the term unresponsive, when applied to 2 separate agencies with differing areas of respoionsibility, does not make the word the same for both.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


But you have posed your argument so that the officer may have been in the right - my contention is an unresponsive person involved in a car crash should not be tasered for not responding to commands unless threatening the officer. Your argument seems to somehow imply it is ok to tase an unresponsive individual.

CJ
edit on 27-10-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)


I think the argument is actually what unresponsive means. From a normal person's perspective it would mean the guy was, well unresponsive. From a cop point of view it basically means non compliant. So if the kid is rummaging around under the seat and not responding to the officer the officer may very well be entitled to tase. I couldn't tell from the video what was going on in the car. If the officer went hands on and the kid started resisting, or if the kid was essentially blacked out.

I haven't seen Xcathdra defend the cop at all, merely offer another point of view. Considering the quality of the video, I think jumping to conclusions one way or the other is foolish.

I think we can all agree that police should be trained how to spot someone with a diabetic issue. Contrary to ATS popular belief I don't think the vast majority of cops in any way wish to hurt an innocent person suffering from a medical issue.

One thing that I'm taking from this article is that perhaps diabetics shouldn't be allowed to drive. I know next to nothing about diabetes. All I know is that when I was working in Asset Protection more than half the people would claim to be diabetic to try and get us to release them. I wouldn't but would offer to call an ambulance and make it very clear it would be at their expense. Never had anyone take me up on that offer.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneisOne
You keep comparing ketoacidosis to being drunk, probably because of the fruit smell on the breath, that does not work in this situation.

Actually it goes beyond the smell -

Diabetic Ketoacidosis

Vomiting, dehydration, deep gasping breathing, confusion and occasionally coma

Confusion, inability to concentrate, inability to speak / speaking with a slur, inability to multitask / inability to control fine motor control etc etc etc.

All of which are signs of an intoxicated individual. Who can suffer from DKA?

DKA most frequently occurs in those who already have diabetes, but it may also be the first presentation in someone who had not previously been known to be diabetic. There is often a particular underlying problem that has led to the DKA episode; this may be intercurrent illness (pneumonia, influenza, gastroenteritis, a urinary tract infection), pregnancy, inadequate insulin administration (e.g. defective insulin pen device), myocardial infarction (heart attack), stroke or the use of coc aine. Young patients with recurrent episodes of DKA may have an underlying eating disorder, or may be using insufficient insulin for fear that it will cause weight gain.[5]







Originally posted by OneisOne
The kid had low blood sugar which is the exact opposite of ketoacidosis. That means no chance of a fruity smell.
You still have the remaining symptoms.



Originally posted by OneisOne
And ketoacidosis does not automatically equal a fruity smell. Trust me, I know that for a fact.

I know for a fact as well, and again elminate the breath and you still have the other signs which read like intoxication.



Originally posted by OneisOne
So drop talking about ketoacidosis. It has nothing to do with what happened.

Actually it does


edit on 27-10-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join