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

reply to post by Xcathdra

really ???
you start off (1st post addressed to me - opening line)

Please read some of the other posts in this thread where people think the officer should have known the difference.

why would you expect me to adopt other's opinion ??
since i didn't share their opinion, it was appropriate for you to group me in with them why ??

then there's all of this but you're being respectful right ??

While protocol states a person with injuries should not be moved

[color=amber] but feel free to taze him all you want ... it's a "tough call" after all.

then this partial response to make your point while avoiding mine ...

so the officer was not acting out his area of responsibility by responding

[casually eliminating the rest of the phrase i used - "[color=amber]officer was already acting outside of his area of responsibility by responding inappropriately to a non-threat"
i never said he was out of his area of responsibility to respond to the call.

quit trying to claim the moral highground

when did i mention any moral highground ??

and you continuously refuse to answer several posters who asked if you personally would have tazed/shot the guy. yep, real respectful to everyone who addressed you

and again with the "We do not diagnose medical conditions" but we've been trained to treat them.

Again there is a difference in terminology between law enforcment and police

is there really ???
one would think the same agency uses the same language and definitions.

correct your rectal cranial inversion

why don't you follow your own advice

and on and on and on ... no R E S P E C T at all.
try again.

this is either BS or a lie, you choose.

We are medicla first responders

you cannot be a 1st responder AND be restricted from diagnosing medical issues.

you've exihibited about as much respect for me as that officer did for his VICTIM.
thanks for the blowby ... now where's my overdue apology ??

reply to post by Xcathdra

when did i ever say this ??

Hence the reason you keep telling me to say I dont condone the cops actions

fantasy, fantasy ... do you work for Disney ??

i suggested that you cannot bring yourself to state that this officer "messed up" or something similar. any chance you could proceed with actual commentary instead of your made-up nonsense ??

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I admit, on this one,I just can't understand what the cop was thinking. You have an unresponsive person that was just in a car accident. Common sense would/should dictate that perhaps they are in need of medical attention.

I mean, did he really think the guy was just ignoring him? I just... Don't quite get it.In this case, ( And I try to be as fair as possible to both sides) I think perhaps the cop over stepped his bounds and needs not only training about diabetics...But perhaps he is in need of some training in how to use common sense.

I mean really... You have a guy who was just in a car wreck... Not responding at all.... disoriented and confused.... And your response is to taser him? Are you really that dumb, officer? Really? If so... Then I suggest you are one who has no business being in the line of work you are on.

Now...Don't get me wrong... I stand firm in saying that most cops are good guys... And this guy may very well be a good guy as well... But at the very least he apparently lacks common sense... And that is scary, considering his job title....

reply to post by Xcathdra

ya know, i just noticed that you quoted this and then said i was wrong ??
who isn't reading posts thoroughly ???????

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 ?)

to which you responded ...

You are wrong... They can investigate.

dude, put the drink down, focus or find another topic.
at this point you are really embarrassing yourself and the department as a whole.

to answer your off-topic question (more courtesy than you've exhibited) ...

Is there any particular reason you are no longer employed in those 3 fields?

yes, several reasons ... age and health being 2 of them and i don't see what this has to do with a hill of beans or the topic.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You know when I first read this thread I knew you were going to comment and I kind of knew how it was going to go. No you never did agree with this occifers actions but you never condemned them either. All you know how to do is stick to the thin blue line and offer explanations as to why this occifer did what he did, or why it is"legal" under procedure. "Hindsight is 20/20" and "You don't know what he had to deal with unless you've been there" is all a cop out.

The guy was unresponsive, not combative, and didn't deserve to be tasered in the first place. Disobeying orders is not the same as being combative. Can you admit what he did was wrong? Not some lame cop out about someone being in the right/wrong. If your father/mother/sibling was in a car accident and was subsequently tasered because of noncompliance would you not be outraged?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by OneisOne
You keep comparing ketoacidosis to being drunk...

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

So the correct response when dealing with an intoxicated noncombative individual is to tase them into compliance?
I'm glad I was never pulled over by you, I'd be dead by now.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.

And at no point did you condemn him for his actions either.

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.

So someone who was just in an accident is required to exit his vehicle when told to do so by an occifer of the law? lol

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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

Umm no, that's called pleading the fifth.

reply to post by thov420

[snipped]

There's always some reason to excuse common sense. Despite him saying the cop didn't offer a diagnosis, he did, and diagnosed that this guy was intoxicated rather than diabetic, leading him to be unresponsive, and therefor in need of a good shock. Just because the cop didn't diagnose him as a diabetic doesn't mean he didn't diagnose him. He also incorrectly diagnosed this man as a threat, which is becoming more and more common.

Sometimes it's perception, what did the cop perceive. Well, many times an idiot perceives things differently than an intelligent person. When we have cops running around who aren't that intelligent and don't have much common sense, things like this happen, and they happen at an increasing rate.

Looking at the number of these types of incident occurring, it's clear we have a number of people just not cut out to handle the responsibility of being a cop, who are wearing badges. The more these things happen the more the excuses come out. Well, many just aren't fit to handle the responsibility.

At a certain point the perceived threat crap is just that, crap. At a certain point it becomes clear we have too many men in blue who shouldn't be in a position to judge whether or not something is a threat in the first place.

Why aren't teenagers cops? Well, aside form laws regarding age, they can't handle the responsibility. They'd make poor decisions, handle situations incorrectly and put people at risk. How come when we see those same results with actual cops, it isn't realized by many the issue is those certain individuals can't handle the responsibility? Then you look at the type of person who's hired as a cop versus some of the more intelligent turned away and the picture becomes more clear.

reply to post by MysticPearl


You know most of these problems wouldn't happen if the "good" cops would stand up against the perceived "bad" cops but I think it's a systemic problem. Everyone knows the saying "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." All these good cops who are supposed to be out there should stand up and demand better, but they don't because they will get laughed out of the force and lose future employment opportunities. No one is going to do anything against the grain when their livelihood is threatened.

I believe it's a symptom of predators in general. Predators don't show weakness because that takes them from predator to prey instantly. Compassion = weakness to some of these psychopaths and it needs to be pointed out from time to time. Nobody can out grow their faults if nobody calls them on it.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


More trolling and lack of common sense. I'm outta this thread as I see this going down bad and I'll have no part in such idiocy.

Originally posted by thov420

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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

Umm no, that's called pleading the fifth.

I wonder if Xcathdra knows what the right to remain silent is? It sounds like he doesn't and would taze someone who would dare choose this option. Bad form XCath........

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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?

I read the article... did you watch and listen to the video?

It isn't possible to listen to the cop's voice in that video and not hear the aggression in it.

And I do I have a very good "clue on the number of possibilities present on a scene". If you arrive on a scene, and there is a person who has been in a car accident and is not acting aggressively to anyone and not threatening anyone, the FIRST words out of your mouth should be "Are you okay?"

No police officr is trained to say anything else to a non-agressive accident victim. Even if they forget their training due to their adrenaline rush, if they are a reasonable person then common sense will tell them to see if the person needs help.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by thov420

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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

Umm no, that's called pleading the fifth.

I wonder if Xcathdra knows what the right to remain silent is? It sounds like he doesn't and would taze someone who would dare choose this option. Bad form XCath........

edit on 28-10-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)

Whats bad form is making a statement that is wrong.

Your rights apply when you are under arrest and being asked guilt seeking questions. A traffic accident falls into a different category, meaning pedigree information is required to be provided.

Law Enforcement could be dispatched to a murder scene, investigate, identify a suspect, arrest the suspect, the PA can file charges and prosecute that suspect and the courts could find him guilty and sentence him to death, all without his miranda rights ever being read to him.

Miranda is only required when a person is under arrest and being asked guilt seeking questions. The US Supreme Court will be taking up a case this term where they will consider dropping the miranda warning requirement. I am going to go out on a limb and assume the bulk of the people in this thread most likely had no idea that was occuring. Hence my comment about being needing to be involved in government and take an active interest.

reply to post by craig732


reply to post by thov420


reply to post by MysticPearl


As for the rest of the BS from the other posters - ignorance is no excuse, whether its from law enforcement or from the citizens themselves. If you wish to hold law enforcement accountible then get involved in government. Quit bitching about things you dont understand or dont agree with and actually do soemthing to effect change.

Its easy to lip of about an officers actions... lipping off though donest correct that officers actions though now does it? You must move beyond the comment stage and actually educate yourself and take part in the system. Until you do that you are just as much a part of the problem as the officer in the article is.

As for those who are demanding I say the cops actions are wrong - not going to happen. I was not present and video does not always show the entire story. What I would call for would be an IA investigation to determine if his actions were within departmental policy. Its not my place to say if he was in the right or the wrong. I posted my opinion at the start and people have opted to read into it and make assumptions and thats not my problem.



reply to post by Honor93

Your posts answe3red my question as to why you are no longer employed in those 3 fields. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

reply to post by Xcathdra

so that's why all the ambulance chaser commercials insist ppl "say nothing" and call them first, right?
lawyers advise to not give any statements whatsoever and that includes to the police.

so, who's right X ??
you, the supposed cop affiliate or the lawyers ?
since "anything" you say can be held against you (with or without arrest), i'd go with the lawyer's advice

miranda is nothing more than advisement of a "suspect's" rights, including 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
just because someone signed-off to advisement of miranda, doesn't mean they cannot invoke the 5th.
and, no one need be arrested to invoke the 5th, anytime, anywhere.

thanks for the best chuckle today ...

Your rights apply when you are under arrest and being asked guilt seeking questions

our rights, all of them, (including our right to not self-incriminate) apply 24/7, with or without arrest

You must move beyond the comment stage and actually educate yourself and take part in the system

do you mean like all the "good" cops who stand by and do nothing to rectify the situation ?
should we follow their lead ??

Its not my place to say if he was in the right or the wrong

for the record, i never asked for such a statement.
i simply suggested you admit (in your own form) that this particular officer messed up, made a mistake, errored, used excessive force, something along that line.
no statement of right or wrong necessary.

his actions however, are either correct or errored, i had hoped you would be somewhat specific regarding your opinion, not that of "policy".

ETA: hahahahahaha, coming from someone who doesn't even know which 3 fields or duties/experience gained in them ... that's downright remarkable i tell ya ... do you conduct investigations in a similar manner ?

nah, you wouldn't believe me if i told ya anyway.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Your rights apply when you are under arrest and being asked guilt seeking questions. A traffic accident falls into a different category, meaning pedigree information is required to be provided.

My rights only apply when under arrest? BS....you need to go back to school. My rights are present 24/7. I don't have to answer your silly questions without my lawyer present. Get that through your head and you might just learn to be a "good" cop.

Originally posted by HandyDandy
My rights only apply when under arrest? BS....you need to go back to school. My rights are present 24/7. I don't have to answer your silly questions without my lawyer present. Get that through your head and you might just learn to be a "good" cop.

You are the one being thick headed... So lets try this again... Your Miranda warnings apply ONLY when you are under arrest and being asked guilt seeking questions. As I stated before and you apparently ignored. When you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, it is different than being involved in a crminal investigation.

Ive been to school, and college, and 2 police academies in 2 different states, not to mention having over a decade of experience at this.

Let me help you out -

Start here -
Miranda vs. Arizona - Miranda Warnings (rights)

Learn the difference between:
custodial treatment
Interrogation

Understand what conditions are REQUIRED for Miranda to be REQUIRED.

Learn and understand the status of a traffic stop in the eyes of the US Supreme Court and how Miranda applies to those situations - hint - see above with custodial / interrogation.

Understand what a Terry stop is and how it applies to Miranda.

In Custody and asking guilt seeking questions = Miranda.

Learn what in custody means in the legal sense and not what you think it means based on what you want it to be.

So before you act stupid and refuse to answer pedigree questions / basic questions on a traffic stop / DWI / MVA learn what the law actually says and how it applies.

Once done look up
failure to Identify as a witness.
failure to provide identification

Originally posted by thov420
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You know when I first read this thread I knew you were going to comment and I kind of knew how it was going to go. No you never did agree with this occifers actions but you never condemned them either. All you know how to do is stick to the thin blue line and offer explanations as to why this occifer did what he did, or why it is"legal" under procedure. "Hindsight is 20/20" and "You don't know what he had to deal with unless you've been there" is all a cop out.

The guy was unresponsive, not combative, and didn't deserve to be tasered in the first place. Disobeying orders is not the same as being combative. Can you admit what he did was wrong? Not some lame cop out about someone being in the right/wrong. If your father/mother/sibling was in a car accident and was subsequently tasered because of noncompliance would you not be outraged?

That's one of the biggest issues here you hit on. A tazer should have never been used here. They were meant to be a non-lethal option to guns. An unresponsive diabetic is not a threat, nor is an unresponsive drunk, especially to the point a tazer was needed.

This cop never should have been in the position to make that judgement, and there's a number of other cops out there as well who can't handle the responsibility of making that judgement either. We have a force full of idiot thugs in blue who resort to violence at every turn and show a remarkable lack of common sense and people skills along the way.

The idea you're so mentally challenged that you wouldn't think someone in a car accident might be a little out of it or be suffering some sort of trauma resulting from an accident is asinine. And I've heard the ridiculous defense in this thread that there weren't visible injuries. So basically diabetics needs to fear for their lives at the hands of cops because you might not show a visible injury when suffering and needing insulin? How about concussions? This victim could have easily had a concussion and not been diabetic, but that wouldn't show as a visible injury either. I've had multiple concussions, and each time I was pretty out of it. I didn't know at the time, but the people around me filled me in later. I was unresponsive to friends even saying my name. I'd hate to think what could have happened if a came across a cop who thinks because I didn't have a visible injury that I might have gotten tased.

It's just ridiculous the conclusions we see cops jumping to week after week. Well, they perceive scenarios a certain way so apparently it's alright. Problem is their perception is often wrong, people are getting hurt because of it, and then they want to hide behind the book instead of applying a little common sense. It's like they assume the worst every time they cross paths with a citizen. That's a very dangerous way to deal with society.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Again, go back to school.

This means that if you cooperate with the police in any form or fashion before being placed under arrest, you give up your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Under the Raffel ruling, you cannot later reclaim your rights, even after arrest and being informed of your Miranda rights. This makes the Miranda Warning rather powerless, as the police do not have to advise the suspect of his or her rights until after a self-incriminating comment is made and/or he or she is arrested. If the suspect has already cooperated prior to arrest, he or she has already given up most of the rights that the Miranda Warning would advise him or her of.

www.mirandarights.org...

How can one give up their miranda rights before being placed under arrest if their miranda rights don't kick in until they are under arrest Xcathdra?

According to this source I must invoke my miranda rights from the begining of dealing with the police even before being read my miranda rights. Again, my rights don't begin when you say they begin. They have always been there even before you are lawfully made to tell me about them.

I know the law. You don't. Figures.



Here's more:

Most surprising to this author was this right, “Refusal to answer questions, although perhaps frustrating to law enforcement, is a right of drivers, so long as their refusal is not misconstrued as resisting arrest.”

ireport.cnn.com...

Q: Do I have to refuse to respond to questions that are asked by law enforcement officials?

A: The United States Constitution guarantees each and every individual under the 5th amendment the right to remain silent. It is not against the law to refuse to answer questions. It is strongly recommended you talk with a lawyer before agreeing to be interviewed by law enforcement officials. Even in the event you are arrested or are in jail, you still do not have to answer questions posed to you by law enforcement officials.

The use of "even if you are arrested" tells me that my right to remain silent kicked in well before arrest.

Q: What do I do if I am stopped by the police while driving my car?

A: To start with, it is important that you keep your hands either on the steering wheel or in a location where the police officer can see them. You do not have to consent to the search of your car. However, it should be noted that if the police feel there is probable cause that you have been involved in a crime or that there is evidence of a crime in you car, your car may be searched without your consent. You should state clearly that you do not consent to the search. In the event there are passengers in the vehicle, both the passengers and the driver may refuse to answer questions posed to them by law enforcement individuals.

No mention of being arrested....just being.

www.schlissellawfirm.com...


I'll take the advice of those who actually know the law rather than a cop thank you very much.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You are the one being thick headed... So lets try this again... Your Miranda warnings apply ONLY when you are under arrest and being asked guilt seeking questions. As I stated before and you apparently ignored. When you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, it is different than being involved in a crminal investigation.

Am I being thick headed? Just because some douche bag doesn't have to tell me about my rights doesn't mean they are not present. See above.

Miranda warning /= the fifth amendment

Get that?

One is telling me about my right and the other is the actual right itself.

So, you have shown in this thread that if I invoke my miranda rights before you tell me about them, you would consider this a threat and taze me. Very telling I would say.