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

page: 8
27
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


[SNIP] I just showed you the law that requires a person to provide information to law enforcement during traffic stops, and now your back to this BS again.

Your miranda rights can be invokved when you are under arrest. Absent that failure to respond will fall under the various other laws I provided to you. You are required by law to provide pedigree information to law enforcement during a traffic stop.

Mod Note: No personal insults please.
edit on 7-11-2012 by Gemwolf because: Snipped insult




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


How does an incapacitated person in a car wreck show you a license?

CJ


How does an incapacitated person in a car wreck consent to medical treatment?
How does an incapacitated person in a car wreck consent to a blood draw if alcohol is involved?

Care to point out where this individual was incapacitated? I thought the term people were arguing over was non responsive? Or are we still ignoring the difference in terminology use by different agencies because it undermines the opposing sides argument about law enforcement?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Round and round.
Obviously his medical condition incapacitated him.

How does an incapacitated person consent to medical treatment? They don't.
How does an incapacitated person consent to an alcohol test? They don't.
Are you somehow suggesting they do?
Apparently, and this must be an anomoly, as an officer you've never seen a car accident or an MMA fight.
Never seen someone with a concussion or had one yourself?

You simply are and have been arguing a semantic point.


Definition of INCAPACITATE

1

: to make legally incapable or ineligible

2

: to deprive of capacity or natural power : disable

Examples of INCAPACITATE

The class teaches you how to incapacitate an attacker.
The stroke left her completely incapacitated.
He was incapacitated by the pain.
a computer system incapacitated by software problems

Synonyms: cripple, disable, hamstring, immobilize, paralyze, prostrate


See? If you are incapacitated, chances are you are unresponsive. How does a person concussed in a car crash give consent for anything? They don't. And ususally they aren't assaulted for being unresponsive. They are treated.
It really is simple. You help them, not taze them for not responding. Is your thought that if I am in an accident and do not respond to your commands that I am then threatening your life and thus a taser is ok to use? How is being unresponsive threatening? What is the justification for using a lethal weapon on someone who simply isn't responding? Is not showing ID enough to tase someone?

CJ
edit on 4-11-2012 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
How does an incapacitated person consent to medical treatment? They don't.
How does an incapacitated person consent to an alcohol test? They don't.
Are you somehow suggesting they do?


I chopped the rest since its irrelevent to the legal issue we have been discussing. Let me also state while I understand your argument, as well as some others in this thread, you guys are ignoring the legakl application in the context of the OP article.

Secondly - and ive explained this in other threads and will try again here for context. When a person is involved in a situation involving law enforcement, cooperation and compliance with the law fall into different areas. As an example if a person answers my questions yet refuses to leave an area they are illegally in, the refusal to leave is a form of resistance. We see this most often with demonstrations where individuals will block a public right of way and refuse to move.

That action is a form of passive resistance and is an accepted protest technique, although it can be illegal depending on what is being blocked. So while the individuals may have complied with the request for name and info, they refused to comply with the lawful command to move to a different area.

It would be like giving an officer your pedigree information on a traffic stop and then refusing to exit the vehicle when requested to do so. It would also be like an officer asking for your info on a traffic stop as the driver where the driver refuses to answer and comply to exit the vehicle.

In the above 2 example its a text book example (in general) of resisting a lawful detention / arrest or stop (among other applicable laws). When a person is drunk, the impact on the persons CNS is extensive. Its one reason drunks will survive accidents where the other driver does not.

With that being explained.,..

To answer your response above - Yes, I am stating the person does in fact give consent when they are incapacitated and medical treatment or an alcohol test is required.

When you get your driver's license you agree to this legal application. If you dont agree with it thats acceptible as well as a person is ont required to obtain a drivers license. They are free to take other forms of transportation outside of motor vehicles.

Since you gave me a definition I will give you one -

Implied Consent - Various applications - Specific to this topic is DWI and Medical

Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather inferred from a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (or in some cases, by a person's silence or inaction).


1. Implied Consent - Motor Vehicle application -

Implied consent and driving while intoxicatedSee also: Drunk driving (United States)
All U.S. states have driver licensing laws which state that a licensed driver has given his implied consent to a field sobriety test and/or a Breathalyzer or similar manner of determining blood alcohol concentration. These laws have generally been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the states' police power, against challenges under the Fourth Amendment (as a reasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (as not violative of the right against self-incrimination). This is largely because in the United States, driving is considered a privilege rather than a right, and the state has a legitimate interest in keeping dangerously intoxicated drivers off the road, to prevent injury, property damage, and loss of life. In most states, however, the police must have reasonable grounds for administering a sobriety test.[1]


If you are the driver in a motor vehicle that is involved in an accident and you are incapacitated, a blood draw can be done without the persons conscious, verbal, consent. This is established when you sign and receive your drivers license. If you are not incapacitated then we go through the normal request / accept / refusal.


2. Implied Consent - Medical application (also applies to motor vehicles).

First aidIn the United States, if a person is at risk of death or injury but unconscious or otherwise unable to respond, other people including members of the public and paramedics may assume implied consent to touch the person to provide first aid.[3] Many states have Good Samaritan laws that protect persons giving aid from legal liability, but the type of persons (laypeople versus healthcare professionals) and the amount of protection varies.



Does this better explain the other side of the fence?



One other thing to take into account that is either ignored or people just do not understand. Law Enforcement does not decide innocence or guilt nor does a civilian who is dealing with the officer and his actions..

That is the responsibility of the courts.
edit on 4-11-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So by your words, without responding you are giving consent to medical treatment. Why wasn't this person given the same? Instead, he was assaulted. No matter what spin you are putting on this, like saying, "I didn't include anymore of your post because it doesn't pertain to the legal argument we are having" - when in fact the questions I asked are specific to the OP as an unresponsive person was tased for being unresponsive, the facts come back to - why would a cop tase an unresponsive man involved in a car crash who did nothing to threaten the officer?

CJ



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


You get what you pay for, cheap stuff is poor quality stuff and it goes the same for people, this is the face of welfare employment in America cops included.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Because we go back to the term unresponsive and how it was used in this situation. The bulk of people are only using it in the medical term while rejecting the other applications of that term by other agencies. Unresponsive does NOT always mean unconscious nor does it only have medical applications.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Because we go back to the term unresponsive and how it was used in this situation. The bulk of people are only using it in the medical term while rejecting the other applications of that term by other agencies. Unresponsive does NOT always mean unconscious nor does it only have medical applications.


But in this case it did.

CJ



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Because we go back to the term unresponsive and how it was used in this situation. The bulk of people are only using it in the medical term while rejecting the other applications of that term by other agencies. Unresponsive does NOT always mean unconscious nor does it only have medical applications.


But in this case it did.

CJ


Your own OP source says otherwise...


Originally posted by ColoradoJens


When Ricky Jones collided with a car in Cleburne April 9th, he was disoriented and confused. A Cleburne police officer questioned him. His audio was recorded. He asked Jones, “Do you understand that I’m talking to you? Answer my question. What’s the matter with you?”



In this case unresponsive does not mean unconscious.
edit on 6-11-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Exactly, it does. It shows his unresponsiveness connotated with his medical condition. His condition made it so when the office was shouting at him if he understood him he couldn't respond. He had just been in a car accident. There are many reasons why he may not have understood the officer. To tase someone without them causing anything other than the annoyance of silence is criminal. Especially in these circumstances. What if it had been an old senile woman? Should she be tased after getting in a wreck because she has no idea where she is?

CJ



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


You guys are missing my point... At no point have I ever said the officer was right to do what he did.. What I have stated is its a tough call, and to those who are not in law enforcement I can understand why the reaction is what it is.

The guy in the car was not unconscious..

Some questions to ask yourself...

* - What information was given to the 911 call takers?
* - What information was provided to the officer by the dispatchers? **Not all updates are sent by radio. As an example my agency uses MDT's (mobile data terminals) in our cars. We get the initial dispatch and any updates come in on our car computers. Was there any info sent in that manner (if it applies)?
* - Of those people who called 911 did any of them describe behavior and suggest / that might suggest their might be alcohol / drugs involved?
* - Do we know if any of those callers checked the driver who was tased and described that behavior to 911?
* - How was the individual acting prior to tghe arrival of police?
* - Can a person who is diabetic / has a medical condition use drugs and or alcohol? Just because a medical condition is present does not mean that condition alone is responsbile for certain actions / behavior.

All questions / factors that should be viewed in proper context, which is to say hindsight is 20/20 and cannot be used to judge an action. Just like you and I, the officer did not know the individual was diabetic until after the fact. Even the US Supreme Court has stated this and it is the standard when a use of force is reviewed.

While offering an opinion on an officers action is fine, in the end it must be viewed on the criteria present that allows an officer to take certain actions. If the officer in this case cannot justify his use of force then the criminal justice system becomes involved and we go from there.

I am viewing this situation through the legalities involved and not my perosnal opinion, hence the reason my very first post stated its a tough call.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Exactly, it does. It shows his unresponsiveness connotated with his medical condition.

A medical condition not familiar tothe officer. We cannot make a leap of logic using 20/20 hindsight.



Originally posted by ColoradoJens
His condition made it so when the office was shouting at him if he understood him he couldn't respond. He had just been in a car accident.

I ahve worked DWI accidents where the same occurs.. The intoxicated person knew what he just did and will either shut down and become passive or the flight or fight response will kick in. Either way there is a contemplation process where the person is non comittal to either action. Calm before the storm if you will, with the storm being a slight mist or an F-5 tornado.



Originally posted by ColoradoJens
There are many reasons why he may not have understood the officer.

Agreed... However an officer does not always have the luxury of time and can be put into a decision to make a snap judgement. As you pointed out there are many reasons, all of which we can discuss after the fact, that may not have been possible to do so on scene.



Originally posted by ColoradoJens
To tase someone without them causing anything other than the annoyance of silence is criminal. Especially in these circumstances. What if it had been an old senile woman? Should she be tased after getting in a wreck because she has no idea where she is?

CJ

The what if games are fine, however, again, its not something that is always available on scene.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


You guys are missing my point... At no point have I ever said the officer was right to do what he did.. What I have stated is its a tough call,


A tough call is when you can see yourself doing the same thing.

Can you see yourself tazing someone who was just in an accident, disoriented and confused but not answering you or your commands? Do you see yourself using your lethal weapon on someone as a cattle prod for compliance as this cop did?

If so, you are one of the "bad apples" IMO.

And you just lost a huge amount of respect from me and probably a hell of a lot of others.



edit on 7-11-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
A tough call is when you can see yourself doing the same thing.

I never said I would do the same thing and trying to make it out that I would is cowardly. Stick to the main points and quit trying to turn this into something its not. A tough call is when a person knows the law and realizes, given the circumstances, a decision must be made and regardless of that decision the outcome is not going to be clear.

Quit being stubborn and blind and think for once would you please. Your constantly putting words in other peoples mouths is immature and shows signs of ignorance in an attempt to shift focus to something other than the fact you have no clue what you are taliking about.



Originally posted by HandyDandy
Can you see yourself tazing someone who was just in an accident, disoriented and confused but not answering you or your commands?

It would depend on the circumstances... Something you and others are quick to ignore because you are too busy being blinded by your own ignorance on the law and how law enforcement works and what we can face.




Originally posted by HandyDandy
Do you see yourself using your lethal weapon on someone as a cattle prod for compliance as this cop did?

Please educate yourself on how a taser works, including the difference between probe discharge and drive stun, in addition to understanding the difference between a lethal weapon and less than leathal. Then maybe you would be in a better and more eductaed position to ask questions.



Originally posted by HandyDandy
If so, you are one of the "bad apples" IMO.

being labeled by a person who is ignorant on the issue and unwilling to learn means nothing.



Originally posted by HandyDandy
And you just lost a huge amount of respect from me and probably a hell of a lot of others.

This is not a popularity contest and as far as respect goes its earned and not exepcted. Maybe you and the others should quit making it up as you go along while ignoring the information and facts provided, in addition to the law, before you decide to make some of the comments you have.

You and others have taken my posts to be something they are not, and its being done simply because you and the others despise law enforcement regardless of what occured.

As for losing respect you seem to think that is important to me when it deals with a group of people who refuse to learn and educate themselves. When you and the others decide to do that instead of just making blanket accusations and accusing others of something they never did then maybe I will find the time to care about earning your, or their, respect.


Your and others position is based solely on the officers actions where as mine are based on the legalities involved that allowed the officer to make that choice.

Contrary to belief there is a difference.
edit on 7-11-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
and its being done simply because you and the others despise law enforcement regardless of what occured.


Funny how I love my brother the policeman.




Please educate yourself on how a taser works, including the difference between probe discharge and drive stun, in addition to understanding the difference between a lethal weapon and less than leathal.


Please educate yourself in how many people die from being tazed a year. It is NOT less than lethal....in many cases it IS lethal.



Your and others position is based solely on the officers actions where as mine are based on the legalities involved that allowed the officer to make that choice.


In other words....damn the morality of it, you just want the legality of it?

You do know that everything Hitler did while in power was legal.......correct?


Contrary to belief there is a difference.


There sure is. And you've shown what kind of person you are.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
Funny how I love my brother the policeman.

Then how can you be so lost on in this conversation?




Originally posted by HandyDandy
Please educate yourself in how many people die from being tazed a year. It is NOT less than lethal....in many cases it IS lethal.

Less than lethal is a term, just like implied consent or bullet resistant vest, that you need to familiarize yourself with and stop assuming / guessing what it means. Less than lethal means when the item in question is used, the result intended is non fatal. If a fatality occurs because of its deployment then secondary factors are looked at on a case by case basis (again going back to supreme court rulings / 20/20 hindsight).





Originally posted by HandyDandy
In other words....damn the morality of it, you just want the legality of it?

No, but thank you again for proving my pioint that you are incapable of engaging in a conversation without putting words in the other persons mouth solely to justify your own ignorance.

What I am saying is you are basing your position on your own personal beliefs on how something should go while ignoring all other factors. You dont think a taser should have been used in this situation and its a perfectly valid opinion. What you ignore though is the fact you were not present nor did you see the interaction between the officer and the person in the car.

Contrary to popular belief news media does not always include all of the information. They often times will not have access to the full police report until the release will not interfere in any investigation / prosecution. You are basing your position on the info the media has supplied and supplementd the rest with your own beliefs. Those beliefs are not the law, which is where you and others seem to ben having a major issue.



Originally posted by HandyDandy
You do know that everything Hitler did while in power was legal.......correct?

Actually you would be wrong... A lot of what Hitler did was illegal, even under their own laws. As an example feel free to educate yourself on the Nuremberg laws and how those laws were ignored by the SS. Check up on german marriage laws and educate yourself on how those were ignored by the SS in order to produce more "aryan" children. Or how the Nazis ignored their own laws when it came to their domestic courts.

If you wish to debate / argue the topic of this thread im good with that... However invoking the ignorant Nazi argument tells me you have absolutely nothing left to support your attempt, and feel the need to try and equate Nazis with Law Enforcement..

Im sure your brother would be proud...


Originally posted by HandyDandy
There sure is. And you've shown what kind of person you are.

Educated on the facts, knwoeldgeable about the laws that govern my actions on a day to day basis, the ability to see beyond what I think should happen and focus on why something occurred and why the law allowed such action to take place?

If you want changes then please educate yourself instead of spouting off and making claims that have nothng to do with the topic.

By refusing to educate yourself, by refusing to read the laws in question, by refusing to research supreme court rulings, and then, after all that, you go after law enforcement based on ignorance, shows us exactly the type of person you are.

You would rather scream at the sky because its raining than to get up and go indoors and find out why.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 

I have been a type one diabetic for 33 years. 12 years ago I was driving with extreme hypoglycemia. I did not have an accident but was driving "recklessly" at 5mph. The police asked if I had been drinking and doing drugs. I do not remember the incident at all, but the written police report said I responded, "uh huh" to both questions (confession). An ambulance took me to the emergency room where blood and urine showed 0000 alcohol and neg to the list of recreational drugs. I was charged with a DUI and fought it in court each month for 12 months when they reduced it to a non-alcohol related reckless driving" (class B misdemeanor). One repetitive argument in court was that I had already confessed ("uh huh"), there was no audio recording of the event. I do not drink nor do I do non-prescribed drugs, but I was sentenced to go to drug and alcohol counseling. I carried around my toxicology report with me and did not drive for years. I was so afraid I could have hurt someone.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join