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

reply to post by ColoradoJens


As a former Australian Police officer - it was part of our training to be aware of diabetics. In particular when taking someone into the station for an alcohol breath test.

Why do I keep reading about American police officers shooting, tasing and even killing the very people they are supposed to protect.

When I was a Police officer it was my duty to help people - not to go to work and pretend I was licensed to do what I wanted with my appointments. (Appointments refers to all the gear a Police officer has on their appointment belt.) The only time you refer to your appointments is when there is a violent offender. A person sitting in the drivers seat after a car crash - I am calling the ambulance. Where is the common sense in these officers and more importantly where is their sense of decency and humanity???

Much Peace...to the people in America who may one day be innocently zapped, shot or killed by one of your own...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
You are arguing for the sake of arguing here or you are losing it.

Not at all.. Other people are accusing me of something I did not do simply because they are to lazy to read the post.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

And at no point did I ever say he was a threat and at no point did I say the officer was right in his actions. I pointed out a mecical condition that shows the signs of intoxication.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

He shocked the guy because unresponsive in this case was viewed as the person being alert and conscious and failing to comply with verbal commands to exit the vehicle.

There is a difference in how the word is applied however people want to ignore that.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

Suince you were prsent you should make youself available to the IA investigation to let them know what you observed.

Now, are you done with the over dramatizing?

reply to post by Amanda5


So because Australian police decided to use occupied civilian vehicles to create a road block to end a pursuit are all australian cops ready to put the public in danger by forcing them perform a function the police themselves would not do?

Police ‘ordered motorist roadblock'

Every depatment has one that makes the rest look like idiots. Assuming it only occurs in the US is naieve to say the least. Would it be fair to compare all Australian police to that officers actions?

While I get the intent of what you are trying to say the manner in which you are stating it is based on, for lack of a better term, ignorance.

US law enforcement is not uniform and laws will vary state to state. Policies will vary state to state. The status iof weapons, specificallt a taser, will vary state to state / federal circuit to federal circuit.

The actions of one officer from one agency in one city / county / state does not mean all officers of the same agency / city / county / state / other state / federal / tribal behave in the same manner. The exact same argument can be applied to civilians as well as criminals as well.

reply to post by Xcathdra

We do not diagnose medical conditions

yet, he did

So no the officer had no way of knowing the individual was having a diabetic issue

i never suggested he did or should have, however, i still firmly stand on the "something is wrong with him" line that my grandchild would offer freely.
along with "car accident = potential inujury", that's one fact he nor you can escape.

you are insisting that the act of tazing this injured party was a reasonable, justifiable act, so yes, you are not only insinuating but you are stating the officers actions were acceptable if not correct.

this is not blind hatred, this is a firm disgust and abhorrence for both his acts and your argument.

So which is it?

just what i said, even my grandchild would notice and say something was wrong.
i stand by my original statement.

oh Bullshizzle, terminology conflict, what are you guys Martians ???
since when are "law enforcement and police" separate entities with separate languages anyway ?

you can argue it isn't a diagnosis all you want, good luck finding many who'd agree.

... now it's different terms for police and medical ppl ??
really ??? hmmmm, guess i better keep a few dictionaries handy then, huh ?
[btw, you are sooooo full of it, i can smell it over here]

yes, IF YOU ARE FACED WITH A DEADLY FORCE situation, which this wasn't.
so, next excuse please ?

since protocol doesn't permit, instruct, authorize or even suggest using deadly force on a non-responsive person, yes, protocol should be followed as intended.

oh please, medical services are always "situation dependent", nice try though.

hahahahahaha, yeah he's a taxpayer using everyone ELSEs money, what's new there ?

really ??? first you say ... maybe in some other state but you won't find that 'round here.
can't even get them to respond first to a shooting, let alone a car accident

very few cops are licensed to administer anything beyond first aid.
and unresponsive requires more than first aid, hence, he likely wasn't qualified.
if you know he was, please provide proof, otherwise, drop the bone and move on.

yeah, no kidding. (hence, they have NO authority)
no, they cannot "work" them, they can investigate and submit findings, nothing more.
(kinda hard to pinpoint drugs or alcohol when they are not welcome on scene isn't it ?)

and yet, all that authority just doesn't permit, encourage or even openly suggest tazing an unresponsive victim of a car crash, does it ?
if you believe it does, please link proof, otherwise, find another bone to pick.

surprisingly, my knowledge about how it works keeps me out of the system and away from the toads who trounce on the most unsuspecting victims along the way.

hmmmm, head injury that hasn't shown bruising yet, sure, quite possible.
possible whiplash, absolutely.
since i wasn't there, i couldn't say if anything else was obvious, were you?
unresponsive and non-combative ... concussion, disoriented, stroke, heart-attack, seizure ??
allllll very possible on sight without having to touch or taze anything.

yeah, all this yada yada yada and you still can't bring yourself to say the words.
he messed up ... or anything similar ... typical control freak.

at least my posts aren't based on some non-existant authoritative fantasy like yours.

sure is, i can be sued just like the next guy only the rest of the taxpayers won't pay my bill for me.

when you find such an ignorant person, be sure to taze first and ask questions later
protocol and all

edit: nvmind ... was gonna but it's not worth the effort.

Reply to post by Xcathdra

Once again.

The person was suffering from low blood sugar, which is the exact OPPOSITE of ketoacidosis.

So you tell me in your own words how him suffering from something that is not at all ketoacidosis, makes this about ketoacidosis???

It looks like at this point you are just trying to find something that justifies this officer's action.
The person was NOT in a state of ketoacidosis. Why do you keep pushing that point??



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Honor93
yet, he did

Really? Point it out in the article please... being the cop stated he did not know the guy was diabetic pretty much undermines your argument here.

Originally posted by Honor93
i never suggested he did or should have, however, i still firmly stand on the "something is wrong with him" line that my grandchild would offer freely.
along with "car accident = potential inujury", that's one fact he nor you can escape.

Yes sir you did -

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

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)

Originally posted by Honor93
you are insisting that the act of tazing this injured party was a reasonable, justifiable act, so yes, you are not only insinuating but you are stating the officers actions were acceptable if not correct.

Again quit seering only what you want. At no point did I state the tazing was justified or reasonable. I pointed out a medical condition that mimics intoxication.

Originally posted by Honor93
this is not blind hatred, this is a firm disgust and abhorrence for both his acts and your argument.

Actually im leaning more toward intentional ignorance on your part since you seem to keep telling me what my position is, when in fact its not my position at all. That leads to blind hatred and an example would be you coming at me making claims that I said / hold a position I dont simply because it offers an alternative possibility for law enforcement actions - actions you find disgusting and abhorrent regardless of other possibilities.

Originally posted by Honor93 just what i said, even my grandchild would notice and say something was wrong. i stand by my original statement.

That your grand daughter and cop should ahve known the person was having a diabetic reaction? ooooook

Originally posted by Honor93
oh Bullshizzle, terminology conflict, what are you guys Martians ???
since when are "law enforcement and police" separate entities with separate languages anyway ?

agai - read.

Police / Law Enforcement and medical / EMS / Fire will have differing meanings of the same word.

quit seeing only what you want.

Originally posted by Honor93
you can argue it isn't a diagnosis all you want, good luck finding many who'd agree.

Those who are familiar with both sides of this line of work can understand the points ive point forward. Whether or not they agree with them is not in question since I am not making an argument for or against the officers actions. I am pointing out the things you and others choose to ignore.

Originally posted by Honor93
...

now it's different terms for police and medical ppl ??
really ??? hmmmm, guess i better keep a few dictionaries handy then, huh ?
[btw, you are sooooo full of it, i can smell it over here]

Correct... Police Officers acting in that capacity are not EMT's (unless the agency is a true public safety and in this case the officers agency is not).

Originally posted by Honor93
yes, IF YOU ARE FACED WITH A DEADLY FORCE situation, which this wasn't.
so, next excuse please ?

I answered the question you posed and now you want to move the goal line... typical yet not surprising. Again, you stated that protocols cannot be changed and are essentially absolute and I am saying you are very much wrong. nice attempt to deflect though.

Originally posted by Honor93
since protocol doesn't permit, instruct, authorize or even suggest using deadly force on a non-responsive person, yes, protocol should be followed as intended.

See your flip flop comment above and my answer above as well as your last post whre I pointed the same thing out. Hint: It would be the portion you ignored.

Originally posted by Honor93
oh please, medical services are always "situation dependent", nice try though.

As are law enforcement.. again, nice attempt at deflection.

Originally posted by Honor93

hahahahahaha, yeah he's a taxpayer using everyone ELSEs money, what's new there ?

the fact he is a taxpaying citizen... something you and others seem to be oblivious to.

Originally posted by Honor93
really ??? first you say ... maybe in some other state but you won't find that 'round here.
can't even get them to respond first to a shooting, let alone a car accident

Check the blind hatred at the door and quit moving the goal post. You said law enforcement is not suppose to respond as its outside their area, which it is not.

Originally posted by Honor93
very few cops are licensed to administer anything beyond first aid.
and unresponsive requires more than first aid, hence, he likely wasn't qualified.
if you know he was, please provide proof, otherwise, drop the bone and move on.

Incorrect... We receive the same level of training firefighters do in terms of a medical firsst reponder. What limits us in what we can do is Supreme Court rulings and area of expertise restrictions when it comes to taking an offical action and not an action from a civilian position.

also, you just underminded your own argument that the cop should have known.

Originally posted by Honor93
yeah, no kidding. (hence, they have NO authority)
no, they cannot "work" them, they can investigate and submit findings, nothing more.
(kinda hard to pinpoint drugs or alcohol when they are not welcome on scene isn't it ?)

You are wrong... They can investigate. as for drugs there are field tests that can be done along the smae lines as NHSTA testing. As for being wlecome on scene we wouldnt need to be there in the first place if people act like an adult and took responsibility for their own actions.

Originally posted by Honor93
and yet, all that authority just doesn't permit, encourage or even openly suggest tazing an unresponsive victim of a car crash, does it ?
if you believe it does, please link proof, otherwise, find another bone to pick.

Quit seeing only wehat you want.

Originally posted by Honor93
surprisingly, my knowledge about how it works keeps me out of the system and away from the toads who trounce on the most unsuspecting victims along the way.

So ignorance truely is bliss then?

Originally posted by Honor93
hmmmm, head injury that hasn't shown bruising yet, sure, quite possible.
possible whiplash, absolutely.
since i wasn't there, i couldn't say if anything else was obvious, were you?
unresponsive and non-combative ... concussion, disoriented, stroke, heart-attack, seizure ??
allllll very possible on sight without having to touch or taze anything.

Bruising does not occur immediately. In fact severe brusing can appear as much as 24-72 hours AFTER the event that caused the injury. Thats not taking into account deep tissue brusing.

I was not there, which is why in my first post I said tough call. You on the other hand feel the officers actions were in the wrong and thats based on incomplete information facts.

Originally posted by Honor93
yeah, all this yada yada yada and you still can't bring yourself to say the words.
he messed up ... or anything similar ... typical control freak.

And you cant seem to understand I never supported the officer nor his actions. I raised other issues involved, where as you have made a judgement against the officer without having all the info.

Originally posted by Honor93
at least my posts aren't based on some non-existant authoritative fantasy like yours.

If you think facts and legalities are fantasies then you just filled in the missing puzzle on your posts and why they are so far out in left field.

Originally posted by Honor93
sure is, i can be sued just like the next guy only the rest of the taxpayers won't pay my bill for me.

Depends on your state and what the law suit is about. Again, please learn the law before making a claim thats not true or half assed based on refusal to research.

Originally posted by Honor93
when you find such an ignorant person, be sure to taze first and ask questions later

protocol and all

No problem.. address?

Originally posted by Honor93
edit: nvmind ... was gonna but it's not worth the effort.

edit on 27-10-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt

yet here we are, you spouting off without using common sense, facts or laws that govern the actions you question.

anything else I can correct you on?

reply to post by Xcathdra

actually it doesn't ... they have very different symptoms, for example ...

diabetes.webmd.com...
Early symptoms of hypoglycemia may include:

Confusion
Dizziness
Feeling shaky
Hunger
Headaches
Irritability
Pounding heart; racing pulse
Pale skin
Sweating
Trembling
Weakness
Anxiety
Without treatment, more severe hypoglycemia symptoms may develop, including:

Headache
Feeling irritable
Poor coordination
Poor concentration
Numbness in mouth and tongue
Passing out
Nightmares or bad dreams
Coma

none of which (except the most extreme) are duplicate symptoms of both conditions.
but leave it to the cops to suspect alcohol or drugs first ... that's the problem.

here's a classic example of "suspected drug running so we shot them" ... www.themonitor.com...
and there will be more ... whether you're using or not, beware cause we've been targeted.

Originally posted by Domo1

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.

Since when is "unresponsive" scrambling looking for something under a seat? I can understand the idea of what is being said, and I appreciate it. In this case the argument for separation of knowledge before hand and the idea of dying for a crappy job and boss and unloving public is well made - we are all human and do whatever is right in protecting ourselves. That said, it isn't that the cops don't want to hurt innocent people suffering, it's that they do.

Regarding the last part, if and when it becomes an epidemic, the diabetic car crashes, then something will be done.

CJ

The Tasing wasn't an act of self-defense. It was done out of anger at the fact that the cop wasn't getting his way.

I can see if the guy was a schizophrenic who flipped and was trying to attack the cop without knowing what he was doing or something, but come on! This guy was just sitting there unresponsive. There is no way the cop felt as though he was in danger enough to use the Taser. He just got mad.

reply to post by Xcathdra


quote]Originally posted by Xcathdra

This medical issue is not addressed in the police academy (at least it was not in my region).


BS. In every police academy in the country they teach you never to move a victim of an accident if they cannot move on their own, unless their life is in danger if you leave them where they are.

This cop's attitude was not for helping and serving the public... it was an aggressive attitude. When cops show up on scenes with aggression on their minds instead of serving and protecting, don't defend them. It lumps you in with the bad apples that are spoiling the whole buch.

Originally posted by Honor93
actually it doesn't ... they have very different symptoms, for example ...

diabetes.webmd.com...
Early symptoms of hypoglycemia may include:

Confusion
Dizziness
Feeling shaky
Hunger
Headaches
Irritability
Pounding heart; racing pulse
Pale skin
Sweating
Trembling
Weakness
Anxiety
Without treatment, more severe hypoglycemia symptoms may develop, including:

Headache
Feeling irritable
Poor coordination
Poor concentration
Numbness in mouth and tongue
Passing out
Nightmares or bad dreams
Coma

none of which (except the most extreme) are duplicate symptoms of both conditions.

Actually the symptoms of ketoacidosis / diabetic shock / diabetic reactions exhibit the same symptoms as an intoxicated person does. Again please read the posts before responding. You are pulling us off topic by only seeing what you want and by intentionally making connections that are not present in the post.

Originally posted by Honor93
but leave it to the cops to suspect alcohol or drugs first ... that's the problem.

Yes god forbuid law enforcement act in a manner they are trained to do instead of trying to apply a medical diagnosis to a situation they are not allowed to medically diagnose.

reply to post by ColoradoJens

Since when is "unresponsive" scrambling looking for something under a seat?

It's not. It means unresponsive. Most people think of that in a medical sense, as in the person was blacked out. Unresponsive to any sort of stimuli. A cop saying someone is unresponsive doesn't always mean the same thing. He was unresponsive during questioning, I gave a command and he remained unresponsive while resisting. I gave a command and he was unresponsive (to the command) and combative.

Unresponsive can mean a few different things. You don't know what the officer saw. I don't know what he saw. I'm not saying the cop didn't make a mistake. I'm saying I don't know and neither do you.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Since when is "unresponsive" scrambling looking for something under a seat?

Its not and if you read the posts you would know what im referring to. The term has differeing meanings and its not a difficult concept to understand.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
I can understand the idea of what is being said, and I appreciate it. In this case the argument for separation of knowledge before hand and the idea of dying for a crappy job and boss and unloving public is well made - we are all human and do whatever is right in protecting ourselves. That said, it isn't that the cops don't want to hurt innocent people suffering, it's that they do.

* - If a police officer asks a person they arrested a question, and the person refuses to answer, he is being unresponsive.

* - If a person is on the stand and a lawyer asks a question, and the person provides an answer which has nothing to do with the question asked, he is being unresponsive as a witness.

* - If a person is unconcious and medical uses a sternum rub with no result, the person is unresponsive.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Regarding the last part, if and when it becomes an epidemic, the diabetic car crashes, then something will be done.

CJ

we should not have to wait for a person to die because someone who has a medical condition, and does not take appropriate precautions for that condition, decides they are ok to drive.

Individuals with medical conditions that are a cause of an accident can result in the person being restricted / being denied driving privelages. The medical condition itself can be cited as a public safety hazard when performing certain functions, like driving, that can place the public at large in jeopardy.

reply to post by Xcathdra

he was diagnosed as unresponsive and not injured.
read the article yourself.

ah man, after all this time, you still won't even offer the correct salutation ?
that's a MA'am to you ... sir.
ok then, same respect to ya ... just remember that.

Yes sir you did

then link it, cause i know better and so does anyone else following this thread.

what you linked doesn't say anything about diagnosing diabetic anything.
i said and i'll say it again ... clearly, obviously, even to a child, there was something wrong with this person.

diagnosis is for those qualified to provide one.
compassion should be exhibited by those responding to "something being wrong with this person". clearly, compassion never entered the scene.

like i said before ... BS of the highest order.
"something wrong" is not diagnosing a diabetic disability.

i'm seeing and reading everything.
you want me to see something different, type it and i'll be glad to see/read it.

yes, you pointed out a condition that does NOT apply to this situtation merely to justify your position that tazing was acceptable or necessary.
that's all you buddy, not me.

i am ony responding to what you type here, if that isn't representative of your position, clarify it, don't accuse others of misinterpreting what you typed.

blah, blah, blah --> [color=amber]alternative possibility for law enforcement actions ~~ and yet, you stick to "that's not my position" ... well, then, what is ?

the best you've offered is ... you're wrong ... got anything better?

Originally posted by craig732
This medical issue is not addressed in the police academy (at least it was not in my region).

Nor mine.. Our medical section focused on emergency actions (stopping blood loss / stabilizing a neck / broken bone / basic verview of shock / delivering a child etc etc etc). It was drilled that law enforcement cannot medically diagnose.

Originally posted by craig732
BS. In every police academy in the country they teach you never to move a victim of an accident if they cannot move on their own, unless their life is in danger if you leave them where they are.

Which is immediately followed by instruction on a civilians behavior during a high stress situation, including actions during a motor vehicle accident, whether its one car or fatality involving multiple. Specifically how drugs / alcohol can affect a persons pain / reality perceptions, up to and including pain being experienced by the person as something other than pain.

Meth is a good example as is alcohol.

Originally posted by craig732
This cop's attitude was not for helping and serving the public... it was an aggressive attitude. When cops show up on scenes with aggression on their minds instead of serving and protecting, don't defend them. It lumps you in with the bad apples that are spoiling the whole buch.

The counter point is by ignornatly assuming, it places you in with those people who have no clue on the number of possibilities present on a scene. It does nothing but reinforce the us verse them mentality based solely on ignorance and misperceptions.

The officer did not start out by attacking the individual... If you read the article it began with the officer speaking to him and making several requests.

is there any reason you are ignoring that part?

reply to post by Xcathdra

you are so full of it a diaper wouldn't help.

Police / Law Enforcement and medical / EMS / Fire will have differing meanings of the same word

as i have been employed in 3 of those fields you listed and have family currently entwined in 2 of them, you are so wrong i can't begin to quit laughing.

one day, your English will catch up to you and when it does, i sure hope you have a translator close by

Originally posted by Honor93
he was diagnosed as unresponsive and not injured.
read the article yourself.

Law enforcement does not medically diagnose, and by using the term in your response does not change that fact.

Originally posted by Honor93
ah man, after all this time, you still won't even offer the correct salutation ?
that's a MA'am to you ... sir.
ok then, same respect to ya ... just remember that.

Ive been nothing but respectfull towards you and others up to the point you guys moved beyond that and devolved it into something else.

As for correct situation what part of my very first post are you not understanding? Let me know and I can try and explain it to you. I never condoned the officers actions, I poinyed out other possibilities to consider. Its not a hard concept to understand.

Originally posted by Honor93
then link it, cause i know better and so does anyone else following this thread.

I quoted it, twice now. Go back and read your own post and my response.

Originally posted by Honor93
what you linked doesn't say anything about diagnosing diabetic anything.
i said and i'll say it again ... clearly, obviously, even to a child, there was something wrong with this person.

can diagnose.. cant diagnose.. your not saying the officer dhould diagnose, yet your saying he should have known.

Please pick one and stick with it.

Originally posted by Honor93
diagnosis is for those qualified to provide one.
compassion should be exhibited by those responding to "something being wrong with this person". clearly, compassion never entered the scene.

Your hug a thug attituse aside, I cannot diagnose medically on a scene, and neither did this officer. I can observe actions and use those actions in my decision process though.

The officer is just as much qualified to diagnose as your grand daughter is, which is to say they cant.

Originally posted by Honor93
like i said before ... BS of the highest order.
"something wrong" is not diagnosing a diabetic disability.

Because we cant diagnose... however the officer did see something wrong when the person failed to respond to his verbal requests.

Originally posted by Honor93
i'm seeing and reading everything.
you want me to see something different, type it and i'll be glad to see/read it.

No really you are not.. Its evident in your responses since you keep bringing up the same questions and points that have been answered already.

Originally posted by Honor93
yes, you pointed out a condition that does NOT apply to this situtation merely to justify your position that tazing was acceptable or necessary.
that's all you buddy, not me.

incorrect- go back and read and understand the post.

Originally posted by Honor93
i am ony responding to what you type here, if that isn't representative of your position, clarify it, don't accuse others of misinterpreting what you typed.

My position is clear.. Your the one making the claims about my position not me. Hence the reason you keep telling me to say I dont condone the cops actions even after I told you I never said I supported them. hence the tough call part in my first post, something you should go back and read.

Originally posted by Honor93
blah, blah, blah --> [color=amber]alternative possibility for law enforcement actions ~~ and yet, you stick to "that's not my position" ... well, then, what is ?

go back and read.

Originally posted by Honor93
the best you've offered is ... you're wrong ... got anything better?

Nope - you being wrong pretty much sums it up.

Originally posted by Honor93
you are so full of it a diaper wouldn't help.

so when you get called out you resort to comments like the above... typical..

Originally posted by Honor93
as i have been employed in 3 of those fields you listed and have family currently entwined in 2 of them, you are so wrong i can't begin to quit laughing.

Im not but think what you want.. Is there any particular reason you are no longer employed in those 3 fields?

Originally posted by Honor93
one day, your English will catch up to you and when it does, i sure hope you have a translator close by

Hmm lets see.. I thin the appropriate response would be im rubber your glue?

how about you move beyond the childish crap and act like an adult? You behavior thus far is in line with the actions of the officer mentioned in the article.

Please respond in an adult manner and address the issues.

reply to post by Xcathdra

goal posts ?? who's playing a game, you ?
all i did was quote you in caps ... your words, not mine.

i never asked you when deadly force can be applied.
i asked if you would have shot this person based on tazers being used in LIEU of guns.
care to answer the question asked ?

Again, you stated that protocols cannot be changed

LIAR, link it.

don't you mean, it was the part i answered but you don't like the answer ?
i'm not fishing for you, your current input isn't worth the effort.

wrong again ... law enforcement does not have authority to act without cause or to respond outside of protocol.
medical services, not so much.
also, LEOs do not have authority to escalate a situation, much as you'd like to infer they do.
(hence the settlement in lieu of prosecution)

yes, tax paying with OTHER ppls money, not his, nothing that he generated with his own talents/skills.

You said law enforcement is not suppose to respond as its outside their area, which it is not.

again, liar ... link it.
in one post, we were discussing this officer medically tending to this victim.
in another we were discussing responding to an accident on private property.
neither of which even infers what you said ... link it or leave it.

how could i possibly undermine this statement ??
"even a child could detect there was something wrong with this person".
OR, are you suggesting this officer had the training and just chose to be an overzealous punkazz instead ??

are you then stating that he was trained/qualified to diagnose and treat this victim just chose otherwise ??
hmmmm, interesting.

we aren't/weren't discussing field tests or blood tests.
if the officer isn't on scene, he cannot perform field tests.
if no one is transported for medical care, they cannot get serum tests either, so what's your point here ?

personally, in a self-governing society, i see no use for the cops we do have.
and lately, they appear to be doing much more harm than good anyways.

hmmmm, still no proof, no links, just more shizzle ... do you at least dance ??

ignorance is bliss ??? wouldn't know.
i never suggested i had all the facts, heck i can't even view the video.
(i read about it and from more than one souce too)

thing here is, we aren't discussing all the facts, just those presented.
any chance you could stay within the boundaries of what has been reported or are you soooo
focused on a condition (ketoacidosis) that doesn't even apply that you have finally run out of deflections ??

you've raised issues that aren't even invovled, how is that discussing the topic at hand?
you have personally attacked me and others. (T&C violation ya know)

you have yet to present any substance supporting using deadly force on a non-responsive victim of an auto accident. **** oh yeah, semi-deadly-force in lieu of deadly force ... what'd others call it?? ... cattle-prod ***

so, we're just cattle to you ?? is that what we should take from your commentary ??
regardless our ailments, you da shepherd and we da sheep ???
is that what this really is

yep ... non-existant authoritative fantasy is all you're spouting here.
and folks like yourself can find me near somewhereville.earth

did i miss something ?? you corrected me, where ?

reply to post by Xcathdra

Actually the symptoms of ketoacidosis / diabetic shock / diabetic reactions exhibit the same symptoms as an intoxicated person does.

oh BS, i live with a hypoglycemic and they do not.
when his sugar is low, drunk is the last thought on my mind and his behavior isn't anything like a drunk.

excuses, excuses ... at least they'd count for something IF they were on point.
try again.

make up your mind ... cause this just isn't possible --> they are trained to treat but they aren't allowed to diagnose ... now isn't that an interesting conundrum