TOTALLY GEEKED!

Neither is there any parallel to the comparisons u and husker have made.

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Flan, if you were sitting in a restaurant, or at work in your library and someone came up and threw a cup of piss in your face, I highly doubt you would think it's "no big deal" like you are saying here.

---

 I sure as crap wouldn't kill the person.

flan

---

Maybe not--but you don't say what you would do.

 

A beat down is certainly in order--and deserved.  

 

You keep ignoring the FACT that they didn't intend to kill her. 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Sunday 13th of September 2015 05:07:35 PM

---

husker, I am NOT going to give anyone a "beat down" while I'm at work. Are you insane? I'd call 911 & get the MIC.

I'm NOT ignoring anything; I've addressed that point several times.

And, fwiw, how do you KNOW they didn't intend just that?

flan

---

 I have been purposefully not engaging with you, but I have to ask; if you call the police on someone throwing their urine in your library, what do you expect the police to do? 

Stand there and wait it out or stop them? 

Cause what you seem to be suggesting, along with others, is to just stand around with thumbs up their butts and wait it out. 

 

That would mean closing down the library until they stopped. Could be a minute or could be the rest of the day.

And what about others in the library? Should they have to have piss thrown on them because, God forbid, something might happen to the assailant? 

Then there is clean up. Waiting could mean the difference between a small area and the whole building. 

In the meantime,  while the police are standing and waiting, there could be any other place they are needed. 

See, the police are for LAW enforcement. Not babysitting.

Now I will go back to ignoring you.

-- Edited by lilyofcourse on Sunday 13th of September 2015 07:26:14 PM

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Flan, if you were sitting in a restaurant, or at work in your library and someone came up and threw a cup of piss in your face, I highly doubt you would think it's "no big deal" like you are saying here.

---

 I sure as crap wouldn't kill the person.

flan

---

Maybe not--but you don't say what you would do.

 

A beat down is certainly in order--and deserved.  

 

You keep ignoring the FACT that they didn't intend to kill her. 

-- Edited by huskerbb on Sunday 13th of September 2015 05:07:35 PM

---

husker, I am NOT going to give anyone a "beat down" while I'm at work. Are you insane? I'd call 911 & get the MIC.

I'm NOT ignoring anything; I've addressed that point several times.

And, fwiw, how do you KNOW they didn't intend just that?

flan

---

LOL!!! 

 

And just WTF would you expect the police to do? Play tiddly-winks with them? 

No, you'd expect an arrest.  If they resist would you then expect them to just walk away and say "well, they don't want to be arrested, so I guess we'll just go"? 

 

You know damn well you wouldn't be fine with that. 

 

We KNOW they didn't intend to kill her because that is EXACTLY what the DA found to be true.   

Police officers are trained with those tasers and are very aware of the dangers of using them. Any idiot should realize that tazing a person 4 times in a short period of time is dangerous. So, whether they MEANT to kill her is irrelevant in this instance b/c they were grossly negligent while she was in their control and custody.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Police officers are trained with those tasers and are very aware of the dangers of using them. Any idiot should realize that tazing a person 4 times in a short period of time is dangerous. So, whether they MEANT to kill her is irrelevant in this instance b/c they were grossly negligent while she was in their control and custody.

---

 Granted.

But it still doesn't answer the questions does it? 

What are they supposed to do?

How long do they wait for the criminal to calm down? 

Should a criminal have the ability to cause chaos unchecked? 

This kind of behavior generally has a ripple effect, other inmates are going to start reacting to the one freaking out. So should the whole jail become a free for all? 

 

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Police officers are trained with those tasers and are very aware of the dangers of using them. Any idiot should realize that tazing a person 4 times in a short period of time is dangerous. So, whether they MEANT to kill her is irrelevant in this instance b/c they were grossly negligent while she was in their control and custody.

---

 Seriously...WHY is this so hard to comprehend?

flan

---

Yeah really!   

We have all answered Lilly over and over. She just wants to keep on.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Police officers are trained with those tasers and are very aware of the dangers of using them. Any idiot should realize that tazing a person 4 times in a short period of time is dangerous. So, whether they MEANT to kill her is irrelevant in this instance b/c they were grossly negligent while she was in their control and custody.

---

 Granted.

But it still doesn't answer the questions does it? 

What are they supposed to do?

How long do they wait for the criminal to calm down? 

Should a criminal have the ability to cause chaos unchecked? 

This kind of behavior generally has a ripple effect, other inmates are going to start reacting to the one freaking out. So should the whole jail become a free for all? 

 

---

 I have already answered this.  They call in mental health professionals to deal with her and sedate her.  There was no reason they couldn't just leave her locked in that cell. 

She's a schizophrenic - that's not just a little mentally ill.  That's full blown insane, and therefore NOT criminally liable for her actions. 

---

 So you think assume this out of control, full blown freaking out mentally ill woman, who was arrested for assault on an officer, is going to just hold out her arm and allow an officer to give her an injection? 

My question is still just as valid.

It took 5 men and 4 volts from a stun gun to subdue this woman. 

5 men. 4 volts. 

This woman needed to be restrained. Period. No matter if she was going to be given a shot. She would have to be restrained to do so.

That is what is continuing to be ignored.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Police officers are trained with those tasers and are very aware of the dangers of using them. Any idiot should realize that tazing a person 4 times in a short period of time is dangerous. So, whether they MEANT to kill her is irrelevant in this instance b/c they were grossly negligent while she was in their control and custody.

---

 Granted.

But it still doesn't answer the questions does it? 

What are they supposed to do?

How long do they wait for the criminal to calm down? 

Should a criminal have the ability to cause chaos unchecked? 

This kind of behavior generally has a ripple effect, other inmates are going to start reacting to the one freaking out. So should the whole jail become a free for all? 

 

---

 I have already answered this.  They call in mental health professionals to deal with her and sedate her.  There was no reason they couldn't just leave her locked in that cell. 

She's a schizophrenic - that's not just a little mentally ill.  That's full blown insane, and therefore NOT criminally liable for her actions. 

---

 So you think assume this out of control, full blown freaking out mentally ill woman, who was arrested for assault on an officer, is going to just hold out her arm and allow an officer to give her an injection? 

My question is still just as valid.

It took 5 men and 4 volts from a stun gun to subdue this woman. 

5 men. 4 volts. 

This woman needed to be restrained. Period. No matter if she was going to be given a shot. She would have to be restrained to do so.

That is what is continuing to be ignored.

---

 It took 5 men and 4 volts to kill her - not restrain her.  Which shows their incompetence.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Police officers are trained with those tasers and are very aware of the dangers of using them. Any idiot should realize that tazing a person 4 times in a short period of time is dangerous. So, whether they MEANT to kill her is irrelevant in this instance b/c they were grossly negligent while she was in their control and custody.

---

 Granted.

But it still doesn't answer the questions does it? 

What are they supposed to do?

How long do they wait for the criminal to calm down? 

Should a criminal have the ability to cause chaos unchecked? 

This kind of behavior generally has a ripple effect, other inmates are going to start reacting to the one freaking out. So should the whole jail become a free for all? 

 

---

 I have already answered this.  They call in mental health professionals to deal with her and sedate her.  There was no reason they couldn't just leave her locked in that cell. 

She's a schizophrenic - that's not just a little mentally ill.  That's full blown insane, and therefore NOT criminally liable for her actions. 

---

 So you think assume this out of control, full blown freaking out mentally ill woman, who was arrested for assault on an officer, is going to just hold out her arm and allow an officer to give her an injection? 

My question is still just as valid.

It took 5 men and 4 volts from a stun gun to subdue this woman. 

5 men. 4 volts. 

This woman needed to be restrained. Period. No matter if she was going to be given a shot. She would have to be restrained to do so.

That is what is continuing to be ignored.

---

 It took 5 men and 4 volts to kill her - not restrain her.  Which shows their incompetence.

---

 You really think it wouldn't take 5 men and more to inject a sedative?  

How much man power should it take to keep order in a jail?

You want to focus on the one. Not see the whole.

And take the tazed out of it.

5 men wasn't working. Maybe 6 or 7 would have.

Or use the Billy club. 

Or maybe that doesn't work either.

Maybe 8 men.

Hind sight is a glorious thing. Too bad it's an after the fact benefit.

So how many should be in that cell to restrain her? To get that shot into her? 

You don't understand the strength of a oerson fighting.

You didn't answer the question.

How do you give a belligerent, fighting person, who needs 5 men to hold them down and still failing to control them, a shot?

Do you think that person is going to go " oh sure, here" and hold out their arm?

There are meds that can be jabbed in the muscle of a cow to sedate them quickly and easily. I find it unbelievable that there are not comparable drugs for humans.
If I can go in a pen with a frantic, flailing 1500 lb animal and knock them out without harm, why can't five trained professionals subdue a single woman?
This entire thread is unreal.

Except the only thing is did they have someone licensed to give the med? Policemen are not trained to give a shot of anything. Here's the deal, where I live this woman wouldn't have even ended up in the jail. She would have been taken down the street to the psych ward where THEY would have treated her and treated her effectively. These police officers need some serious training. One, learn to recognize mental illness. Two, the correct way to deal with mental illness. Three, learn appropriate behavior when tazing someone. I mean I could go on and on. The whole thing was just handled wrong. And I highly doubt tazing her that many times was "protocol". If these police officers needed so much help with her maybe they should have called someone and explained the situation and asked what to do next.

cadiver wrote:

---

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

Except the only thing is did they have someone licensed to give the med? Policemen are not trained to give a shot of anything. Here's the deal, where I live this woman wouldn't have even ended up in the jail. She would have been taken down the street to the psych ward where THEY would have treated her and treated her effectively. These police officers need some serious training. One, learn to recognize mental illness. Two, the correct way to deal with mental illness. Three, learn appropriate behavior when tazing someone. I mean I could go on and on. The whole thing was just handled wrong. And I highly doubt tazing her that many times was "protocol". If these police officers needed so much help with her maybe they should have called someone and explained the situation and asked what to do next.

---

 According to the sherriff in the video it is the default detention facility for those with mental illness.

---

 Then they suck and need to be shut down.  Anyone who works with mentally ill people would not even have tazers.  If this is their "mental facilities" they're sorely lacking and the officers need to be fired.  I simply cannot believe that this is a mental facility.  No mental facility I know of looks like that one.

Naloxone is given to reverse or reduce the use of other narcotic drugs. So that wouldn't have any play here. She wasn't a drug addict. She was a mentally ill woman. Giving her that would have no bearing on how she acted. And I'm sure there are places that police are trained to give that. Where I live they don't. They would call the EMT's and they would give it. But again, Naloxone isn't even an issue in this woman's case.

MyNameIsJoe wrote:

---

That's what I said.

---

 Um no.  That's NOT what I said.

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

MyNameIsJoe wrote:

---

That's what I said.

---

 Um no.  That's NOT what I said.

---

 Of course you did. You said Policemen are not trained to give a shot of anything.   

 

I disagreed with that statement and gave an example.  I then said "Not that Naloxone would be useful in this case"

 

 

 

 

And trust me, if police were allowed to give shots of Naxalone, generic name Narcan, we'd have heard horrid news stories before now of how the police violated such and such a person and gave them a shot against their will.

And look! Here's a BOSTON article. Do they give by injection? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! They give it through the nose.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/30/police-use-narcan-to-reverse-heroin-overdoses/5063587/

As Boston celebrated its World Series victory last fall with a grand parade through downtown, a distraught young man burst through the crowd in search of police. But he didn't want Boston police. He wanted an officer from Quincy, a Boston suburb.

The man's girlfriend had overdosed on heroin. He had heard Quincy police carry naloxone, a drug that can reverse an opiate overdose instantly. Quincy officers, helping with security at the parade, administered the drug, reversed the overdose and saved the 20-year-old woman.

Since Quincy officers began carrying a nasal form of the drug, known commonly by its trade name, Narcan, in October 2010, they have administered the drug 221 times and reversed 211 overdoses, say Lt. Detective Patrick Glynn, commander of the narcotics unit and special investigations at the Quincy Police Department.

As opiate overdoses have soared nationwide, more police departments are taking a hard look at equipping their police officers and other first responders with naloxone instead of waiting for paramedics to arrive. Police are often the first to arrive at the scene, and experts say those early minutes can be the key to saving a life.

The public safety department in Espanola Valley, New Mexico in early 2013 became the first police agency in the southwest to equip its police and first responders with naloxone, says Chief Eric Garcia, director of public safety.

"It's a great tool to add to our arsenal," Garcia said. "It's not only weapons that we need to have. The bottom line for law enforcement is that we are there to protect and serve the public, to preserve life and property."

In Ocean County, N.J. when overdose deaths doubled from 53 in 2012 to 112 in 2013, Ocean County Prosecutor Joseph Coronato "looked at every option to address the problem," including tougher law enforcement, encouraging private companies to build rehab facilities and equipping officers with naloxone, spokesman Al Della Fave said.

The county will pay for the $25 nasal naloxone kits with money from the county's drug forfeiture fund, he said. "It'll be the drug dealers who will be paying for this," Della Fave said.

Ocean County will begin training its police officers in all 31 local departments to use naloxone in Febuary, Della Fave said. "The officers don't want to be standing there helpless waiting for EMS," he said.

An overdose of heroin or other opiates such as oxycodone or hydrocodone can depress breathing and leave the user unconscious. Untreated, the user can die.

Naloxone binds to the opioid receptors in the brain, displacing other drugs and reversing the effects, says Dr. Alexander Walley, an internist and addiction medicine specialist at the Boston University School of Medicine. Naloxone can be administered by injection into a muscle or as a nasal spray and lasts 30 to 90 minutes, he said. It won't reverse the effects of other types of drugs, such as cocaine or methamphetamine.

"There is zero risk. It's so safe I can squirt it up my nose right now and it won't do a thing to me," says Dr. Ken Lavelle, an emergency room physician and EMS medical director for departments in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. "There is very little downside to it for police and other first responders."

In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Health established a pilot program to distribute naloxone to friends and families of opiate addicts in 2007. By 2009, police and fire departments asked to participate.

Five departments now equip first responders with naloxone and many more have expressed interest, says Hilary Jacobs, director of the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services.

"Often they were the first people on the scene and they wanted to be able to do something that was effective," Jacobs said.

Police and first responders have reversed more than 300 overdoses statewide, Jacobs said. The department doesn't track whether some people have been reversed multiple times.

The toughest problem, Glynn says, was persuading drug users, their friends and family that they wouldn't get arrested if they call 911 to get help for an overdose. Massachusetts and most other states have Good Samaritan laws that protect people in medical situations.

Now drug users often flag down officers for help rather than running from them, Glynn said.

To be rescued by a police officer instead of being arrested "is a powerful thing," Jacobs said.

"We didn't anticipate how it would change the relationship between the police and the community, including the drug using community," Jacobs said. "There's a lot of compassion and a lot more respect going both ways. "

Heroin overdoses became an issue in the Quincy mayoral election seven years ago. In 18 months, 99 people had overdosed and died in Quincy and two neighboring communities.

"We needed to acknowledge the problem and come together as a community to deal with it," said Mayor Thomas Koch, who created a task force.

Koch first learned of Narcan during his campaign, when the parents of a young heroin addict recounted the terror of their son's overdose. Police arrived, but without the drug, they could only wait helplessly until the ambulance arrived. The paramedics arrived with naloxone and reversed the overdose.

Equipping police with naloxone made sense since they usually get to the scene first, Koch said.

"It's easy for the cynical person to say, 'Oh, they're druggies, they're junkies, let them die. But when you put a name and a face and a family to that, then it's a different story," Koch said. "Some people who go down this road will never come back, but if we can bring them back, there's always hope."

Ok sunshine. I'll take the word of someone on the internet who claims to have been a nurse. Meh.

I don't care whether you believe I'm a nurse or not. I can do a little research and find out what I need to know.

After talking to my imaginary family of cops, they agree that street cops don't give shots but many who work in the jails are trained to give injections. They are considered medical staff.

Whatever sunshine. You're the one who said I claimed to have a family of leos. You don't do well with nuance, wit, or sarcasm do you?

And where was this woman being held? In county jail or in a podunk police station waiting for a judge to hear her bail hearing or whatever. Most local little police station jails are manned by the police officers of that city. Now county jail is different.