User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 10:06:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 10:18:30 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. You don't call people with guns and the training to use them WHEN resistance or threats are present, unless you want to watch your love one get shot. My honest opinion on the best possible way to handle this, and I'm a small government guy remember that, is to make doctors report to family services a person who is under mental care and requires drugs/treatment and a guardian. Family services should evaluate the guardian for ability to provide required supervision to the patient. No different than child abuse or child neglect cases where the parents are evaluated and monitored. And if the guardian is deemed unreliable enough to ensure the patient remains medicated and treated then they should be remanded to a facility or another guardian of suitable responsibility. The willy-nilly hope they do the right thing approach doesn't work. Sorry about the responsible care givers that would have to be checked out but that's the price of the irresponsible society. It may not seem a very libertarian approach to this, but I'm looking at it from the POV of keeping the person of diminished capacity safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 10:20:58 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't call people with guns and the training to use them WHEN resistance or threats are present, unless you want to watch your love one get shot. My honest opinion on the best possible way to handle this, and I'm a small government guy remember that, is to make doctors report to family services a person who is under mental care and requires drugs/treatment and a guardian. Family services should evaluate the guardian for ability to provide required supervision to the patient. No different than child abuse or child neglect cases where the parents are evaluated and monitored. And if the guardian is deemed unreliable enough to ensure the patient remains medicated and treated then they should be remanded to a facility or another guardian of suitable responsibility. The willy-nilly hope they do the right thing approach doesn't work. Sorry about the responsible care givers that would have to be checked out but that's the price of the irresponsible society. It may not seem a very libertarian approach to this, but I'm looking at it from the POV of keeping the person of diminished capacity safe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. You don't call people with guns and the training to use them WHEN resistance or threats are present, unless you want to watch your love one get shot. My honest opinion on the best possible way to handle this, and I'm a small government guy remember that, is to make doctors report to family services a person who is under mental care and requires drugs/treatment and a guardian. Family services should evaluate the guardian for ability to provide required supervision to the patient. No different than child abuse or child neglect cases where the parents are evaluated and monitored. And if the guardian is deemed unreliable enough to ensure the patient remains medicated and treated then they should be remanded to a facility or another guardian of suitable responsibility. The willy-nilly hope they do the right thing approach doesn't work. Sorry about the responsible care givers that would have to be checked out but that's the price of the irresponsible society. It may not seem a very libertarian approach to this, but I'm looking at it from the POV of keeping the person of diminished capacity safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 10:44:00 AM EDT
[#4]
As a fat person myself, I think I'd rather risk getting shot than hit with a taser 9 times in 2 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 10:50:17 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Either way you are fucked. That's probably the correct outcome when you kill a guy on a welfare check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:00:43 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get it. I mean if the mentally ill person commits an assault on Fire/EMS then it is within LE's dominion. But the mental health system SHOULD BE required to inform the patient and/or guardians how things will go down if/when the patient has an episode. If the likelihood is high the patient will have one outside of a facility, then the facility is where they belong. Why does the medical system put patients at the risk of being killed? Because they are half-assing their responsibility to the patient. I'm not saying this would fully eliminate these incidents, but if the doctor looked me in the eye and said "there's a decent chance that your (insert loved one) could be seriously hurt or killed if they have an episode outside of the facility I'm not going to ignore that and neither will most people. Instead we rely on medication that the patient may not even take or if they take it they lose the capacity to reason and let them free range in a public full of irresponsible guardians and busy body 911 callers. It's no secret to their doctors that they're a ticking time bomb in most cases. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But we half ass treat mental illness and turn them loose on the public, then get cops to bat clean up where health care failed. I think that this is the second time that I've agreed with something you've posted. However, as somebody else has already pointed out, fire / EMS won't even approach a mentally ill person acting out until the scene has been made "safe" by law enforcement, meaning physically restrained. By default, law enforcement is going to be involved at some point. I get it. I mean if the mentally ill person commits an assault on Fire/EMS then it is within LE's dominion. But the mental health system SHOULD BE required to inform the patient and/or guardians how things will go down if/when the patient has an episode. If the likelihood is high the patient will have one outside of a facility, then the facility is where they belong. Why does the medical system put patients at the risk of being killed? Because they are half-assing their responsibility to the patient. I'm not saying this would fully eliminate these incidents, but if the doctor looked me in the eye and said "there's a decent chance that your (insert loved one) could be seriously hurt or killed if they have an episode outside of the facility I'm not going to ignore that and neither will most people. Instead we rely on medication that the patient may not even take or if they take it they lose the capacity to reason and let them free range in a public full of irresponsible guardians and busy body 911 callers. It's no secret to their doctors that they're a ticking time bomb in most cases. You can thank both the left and right for that here. The left doesn't want them couped up, the right wants smaller government. And the public suffers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:05:36 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can thank both the left and right for that here. The left doesn't want them couped up, the right wants smaller government. And the public suffers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But we half ass treat mental illness and turn them loose on the public, then get cops to bat clean up where health care failed. I think that this is the second time that I've agreed with something you've posted. However, as somebody else has already pointed out, fire / EMS won't even approach a mentally ill person acting out until the scene has been made "safe" by law enforcement, meaning physically restrained. By default, law enforcement is going to be involved at some point. I get it. I mean if the mentally ill person commits an assault on Fire/EMS then it is within LE's dominion. But the mental health system SHOULD BE required to inform the patient and/or guardians how things will go down if/when the patient has an episode. If the likelihood is high the patient will have one outside of a facility, then the facility is where they belong. Why does the medical system put patients at the risk of being killed? Because they are half-assing their responsibility to the patient. I'm not saying this would fully eliminate these incidents, but if the doctor looked me in the eye and said "there's a decent chance that your (insert loved one) could be seriously hurt or killed if they have an episode outside of the facility I'm not going to ignore that and neither will most people. Instead we rely on medication that the patient may not even take or if they take it they lose the capacity to reason and let them free range in a public full of irresponsible guardians and busy body 911 callers. It's no secret to their doctors that they're a ticking time bomb in most cases. You can thank both the left and right for that here. The left doesn't want them couped up, the right wants smaller government. And the public suffers. I'm as rabid a libertarian as you'll find and I agree. Mentally ill people don't make my heart bleed but it's wrong to euthanize them and wrong to let them free range, that only leaves institutions and guardianship for the ones that present a risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:11:27 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm as rabid a libertarian as you'll find and I agree. Mentally ill people don't make my heart bleed but it's wrong to euthanize them and wrong to let them free range, that only leaves institutions and guardianship for the ones that present a risk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But we half ass treat mental illness and turn them loose on the public, then get cops to bat clean up where health care failed. I think that this is the second time that I've agreed with something you've posted. However, as somebody else has already pointed out, fire / EMS won't even approach a mentally ill person acting out until the scene has been made "safe" by law enforcement, meaning physically restrained. By default, law enforcement is going to be involved at some point. I get it. I mean if the mentally ill person commits an assault on Fire/EMS then it is within LE's dominion. But the mental health system SHOULD BE required to inform the patient and/or guardians how things will go down if/when the patient has an episode. If the likelihood is high the patient will have one outside of a facility, then the facility is where they belong. Why does the medical system put patients at the risk of being killed? Because they are half-assing their responsibility to the patient. I'm not saying this would fully eliminate these incidents, but if the doctor looked me in the eye and said "there's a decent chance that your (insert loved one) could be seriously hurt or killed if they have an episode outside of the facility I'm not going to ignore that and neither will most people. Instead we rely on medication that the patient may not even take or if they take it they lose the capacity to reason and let them free range in a public full of irresponsible guardians and busy body 911 callers. It's no secret to their doctors that they're a ticking time bomb in most cases. You can thank both the left and right for that here. The left doesn't want them couped up, the right wants smaller government. And the public suffers. I'm as rabid a libertarian as you'll find and I agree. Mentally ill people don't make my heart bleed but it's wrong to euthanize them and wrong to let them free range, that only leaves institutions and guardianship for the ones that present a risk. Ironically, this editorial was in the paper this am |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:12:39 AM EDT
[#9]
If you call the cops to solve your problems, you best expect that they will be solved with the tools available to law enforcement: Handcuffs, tasers, arrest powers, and guns. If you are okay with this, fine. If you aren't, don't fuckin call the cops to solve your problems.
The only real issue I see here is that the cops were told that they were responding to a fight of some sort, not a straight up welfare check. Not sure why. And not really the fault of the cops, in any event. The only (tiny) thing I really see to blame the cops for is if the actually never ordered him to stop. It's too bad the kid is dead, it really is... But the cops have only the tiniest responsibility here, with the vast majority of the responsibility landing solely on the deceased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:12:44 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a fat person myself, I think I'd rather risk getting shot than hit with a taser 9 times in 2 minutes. A: No, no you would not. B: Fat is not as conductive, so the fatter you are, the less effect a properly deployed ECW will have on you. Drive stuns will still hurt and cause burns, of course, but there's really no justification I can see for using an ECW in that manner unless it is to get someone off of you, or to close the circuit if, for instance, only one probe hit and the other missed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:19:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rarely have I ever, ever agreed with Hugo. But in this case, he is spot on. Until this country takes a hard look at the growing issues with humanely treating the mentally ill, it will never get better. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: But we half ass treat mental illness and turn them loose on the public, then get cops to bat clean up where health care failed. Rarely have I ever, ever agreed with Hugo. But in this case, he is spot on. Until this country takes a hard look at the growing issues with humanely treating the mentally ill, it will never get better. One of my friends is a cop, another works with the mentally ill. Whenever they get together and talk shop, the list of "clients" for each overlaps about 50%. I understand why we closed the institutions. I really do, they were horror houses of abuse. And honestly, for a lot of mentally ill folks, the group home/medication thing does work. But society has no answer when it doesn't work besides a revolving door between various crisis care environments and law enforcement until something goes sideways and they get killed. How the fuck do you humanely treat someone who won't take their meds? I don't know the answer to that question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:31:58 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever been around mentally ill people on an episode? Who else is going to deal with them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. Happens all the time. To include misbehaving children. Shouldn't even merit a response, call center should be allowed to simply hang up. I know it won't happen but that's not a cop situation, and agencies should avoid them like the plague. Lobby the legislature if that's what it takes to get that bullshit off the LE plate. Have you ever been around mentally ill people on an episode? Who else is going to deal with them? Plenty of crazies wandering around my neighborhood. 98% of them are harmless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:41:21 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. Yeah, no. My powers to "help" the mentally ill consist of the ability to forcibly commit them to a hospital for a psych eval if I can establish reasonable cause that they meet one of three criteria: 1) Danger to others 2) Danger to self 3) Unable to care for themselves 1 is self explanatory and I will use force to accomplish it. 2 is a minefield of liability and there is no support from society, the department, or the court for roughing someone up while saving them from themselves. No thanks. 3 is super rare because unless you are literally dying of thirst or lying down in a bus lane and refusing to move you can care for yourself. I go to mental calls and do absolutely nothing all the time. If someone is being crazy and yelling at passers-by and generating 911 calls, guess what? He has a 1st amendment right to yell at people and where I work there is no disorderly conduct ordinance. I would say "I saw a crazy person and want you to check their welfare" is our most common call. Good for you, anonymous 911 calling idiot. If I even contact these people I roll my window down and ask "How you doing?" and if their response is anything other than "I'll kill you" or "I want an ambulance/detox/mental health practitioner" I say "Cool, have a good one." and leave. The police power to involuntarily commit someone is there so we can refer people in legitimate danger to a hospital. It does not make us the de facto crazy people removal and welfare check service. If you think someone needs help, fucking talk to them yourself, you can call an ambulance as well as I can. If they are presenting a danger, call the police. The only thing I do better than average people is investigate crimes and force compliance from resisting or assaultive people. I have the same "toolbox" for dealing with random crazy people as any random guy walking down the street. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:46:10 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, no. My powers to "help" the mentally ill consist of the ability to forcibly commit them to a hospital for a psych eval if I can establish reasonable cause that they meet one of three criteria: 1) Danger to others 2) Danger to self 3) Unable to care for themselves 1 is self explanatory and I will use force to accomplish it. 2 is a minefield of liability and there is no support from society, the department, or the court for roughing someone up while saving them from themselves. No thanks. 3 is super rare because unless you are literally dying of thirst or lying down in a bus lane and refusing to move you can care for yourself. I go to mental calls and do absolutely nothing all the time. If someone is being crazy and yelling at passers-by and generating 911 calls, guess what? He has a 1st amendment right to yell at people and where I work there is no disorderly conduct ordinance. I would say "I saw a crazy person and want you to check their welfare" is our most common call. Good for you, anonymous 911 calling idiot. If I even contact these people I roll my window down and ask "How you doing?" and if their response is anything other than "I'll kill you" or "I want an ambulance/detox/mental health practitioner" I say "Cool, have a good one." and leave. The police power to involuntarily commit someone is there so we can refer people in legitimate danger to a hospital. It does not make us the de facto crazy people removal and welfare check service. If you think someone needs help, fucking talk to them yourself, you can call an ambulance as well as I can. If they are presenting a danger, call the police. The only thing I do better than average people is investigate crimes and force compliance from resisting or assaultive people. I have the same "toolbox" for dealing with random crazy people as any random guy walking down the street. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. Yeah, no. My powers to "help" the mentally ill consist of the ability to forcibly commit them to a hospital for a psych eval if I can establish reasonable cause that they meet one of three criteria: 1) Danger to others 2) Danger to self 3) Unable to care for themselves 1 is self explanatory and I will use force to accomplish it. 2 is a minefield of liability and there is no support from society, the department, or the court for roughing someone up while saving them from themselves. No thanks. 3 is super rare because unless you are literally dying of thirst or lying down in a bus lane and refusing to move you can care for yourself. I go to mental calls and do absolutely nothing all the time. If someone is being crazy and yelling at passers-by and generating 911 calls, guess what? He has a 1st amendment right to yell at people and where I work there is no disorderly conduct ordinance. I would say "I saw a crazy person and want you to check their welfare" is our most common call. Good for you, anonymous 911 calling idiot. If I even contact these people I roll my window down and ask "How you doing?" and if their response is anything other than "I'll kill you" or "I want an ambulance/detox/mental health practitioner" I say "Cool, have a good one." and leave. The police power to involuntarily commit someone is there so we can refer people in legitimate danger to a hospital. It does not make us the de facto crazy people removal and welfare check service. If you think someone needs help, fucking talk to them yourself, you can call an ambulance as well as I can. If they are presenting a danger, call the police. The only thing I do better than average people is investigate crimes and force compliance from resisting or assaultive people. I have the same "toolbox" for dealing with random crazy people as any random guy walking down the street. "It's not a crime to be crazy" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:46:50 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
The United States Court of Appeals reviewed a lawsuit against Albuquerque officers who used a TASER™, largely in the pure “drive-stun” mode in their attempt to subdue a subject on a well-being check. The court found against the officers and noted in their decision the distinction between use of force during a well-being check versus use of force during an arrest. [i]
The court outlined the facts as follows: On March 21, 2011, Merlinda Perea called 911 and told the operator that her son, Perea, was on “very bad drugs” and that she was afraid of what he might do. Around the same time, a neighbor also called 911, reporting that Perea was pacing in his yard, clutching a Bible, and asking forgiveness of a higher power. [Officers] Baca and Jaramillo were sent to perform a welfare check. The officers were informed that they were responding to a verbal fight and that no weapons were involved. They were also informed that Perea suffered from mental illness and may have been on drugs. Upon arrival at the home, the officers were told that Perea recently left on his bicycle, that he was “acting up,” and that Merlinda Perea was afraid for Perea’s welfare. In separate patrol cars, Baca and Jaramillo began to search for Perea in case he was a danger to himself. The officers located Perea pedaling his bicycle. Perea saw the patrol car and began to pedal faster, at which point Jaramillo turned on his emergency lights. According to Baca, Perea did not stop, and instead pedaled through a stop sign without slowing down. The officers used their patrol cars to force Perea to pedal into a parking lot. Jaramillo left his vehicle to pursue Perea on foot. After a brief chase, Jaramillo pushed Perea off his bicycle. The officers did not tell Perea why they were following him or why he was being seized, and they never asked Perea to halt or stop. After pushing Perea off his bicycle, Jaramillo reached for Perea’s hands in an attempt to detain him. Perea struggled and thrashed while holding a crucifix. After Perea began to struggle, Baca told Jaramillo to use his taser against Perea. Jaramillo complied and first shot Perea in the chest with his taser on “probe” mode. Probe mode is used to subdue an intended target through electric shocks designed to cause immobility. When the initial shot proved ineffective, Jaramillo put the taser in “stun” or “contact” mode, which is used to gain the target’s compliance through the administration of pain. Jaramillo tasered Perea nine additional times, for a total of ten taserings in less than two minutes. At some point before the taserings stopped, Baca and Jaramillo were able to get Perea on the ground on his stomach, with both officers on top of him, effectively subduing him. After the taserings had concluded, Baca called an ambulance and a field supervisor to the scene as required by the Albuquerque Police Department taser policy. While waiting for the ambulance, the officers noticed that Perea had stopped breathing and was turning gray. The officers successfully performed CPR, and Perea began to breathe normally. However, when Perea heard the sirens from the approaching ambulance, he began to struggle and started to scream and ask God for forgiveness. Upon arrival, the paramedics attempted to treat and calm Perea, but he stopped breathing again and his pulse stopped. Perea was transported to the hospital and pronounced dead a short time later. More at link: http://llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2016_perea_v_baca.shtml It does not sound to me like either the taser or the restraining had anything to do with it as his heart attack happened after both had concluded. My bet would be whatever drugs he was on. If they did not tell him to stop I have a slight problem with this but still, turning on the overheads is a universal symbol for stop. I would say good taze. If the nutbar hadn't have ODd he would have ended up on a psych hold, tranquillized and released. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:55:50 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does not sound to me like either the taser or the restraining had anything to do with it as his heart attack happened after both had concluded. I don't think the article said that at all. It said that once they got done tasing him, subduing him, and calling an ambulance, they noticed he wasn't breathing. He could have stopped during the tasing, during the subduing, or during the ambulance call. Certainly seems like a crazy boot-licking stretch to say the tasing and subduing had nothing to do with it, especially since tasers are now apparently manufactured with warnings that repeated tasings in a short period can lead to death, like they appear to have done in this case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:58:02 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This isn't a Kobiashi Maru situation. Those officers screwed up royally. It was a welfare check. No allegation of, and no observed criminality at all. They had no business forcibly "apprehending" him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Either way you are fucked. This isn't a Kobiashi Maru situation. Those officers screwed up royally. It was a welfare check. No allegation of, and no observed criminality at all. They had no business forcibly "apprehending" him. They arguably had a duty to, he was acting in a manner that showed him to likely be a danger to himself and others, even his own mother said he needed help. Like I said if the nutbar hadn't have resisted he would have just been driven to the hospital and probably put on a temporary psych hold. Ironically doing so might have saved his life given that he ODd. Now imagine the opposite scenario, the cops are called by the "victims" mother who says he is on "dangerous" (the use of that word is important) drugs, has a history of mental illness and is pacing around the yard talking to himself and when they show up they find he has taken to a bike and is now wandering, without supervision, in parts unknown. When they find him he starts to flee and continues to act crazy, but for some reason the cops just shrug, say "oh well" and drive off. Later that day (shortly after they left) he has his heart attack and dies, or maybe the crazy ass hurts or kills someone or otherwise does something crazy. Now the cops get to answer why they didn't do anything to stop him when they had the chance, even though they KNEW he was on dangerous drugs, was mentally ill, acting eradically, and had fled from police. The press would eat it up and so would IA, because the police have a duty to act and by not doing so when it was so clearly warranted could well constitute a crime of omission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 11:58:07 AM EDT
[#18]
So I guess crazy folks get a pass to do whatever they want and LEO/First Responders have no recourse to bring them under control. Sweet! I know my excuse if I'm ever challenged by the popo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:06:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Another classic example of Don't Invite the Man Into Your Life.
Call guys with guns to check on your uncontrollable kid, what do you think is going to happen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:17:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A: No, no you would not. B: Fat is not as conductive, so the fatter you are, the less effect a properly deployed ECW will have on you. Drive stuns will still hurt and cause burns, of course, but there's really no justification I can see for using an ECW in that manner unless it is to get someone off of you, or to close the circuit if, for instance, only one probe hit and the other missed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a fat person myself, I think I'd rather risk getting shot than hit with a taser 9 times in 2 minutes. A: No, no you would not. B: Fat is not as conductive, so the fatter you are, the less effect a properly deployed ECW will have on you. Drive stuns will still hurt and cause burns, of course, but there's really no justification I can see for using an ECW in that manner unless it is to get someone off of you, or to close the circuit if, for instance, only one probe hit and the other missed. When you get heavy, laying on your stomach no longer agrees with your body, especially with your arms pulled behind you and two guys on top of your. Its bad, even without the juice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:17:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I guess crazy folks get a pass to do whatever they want and LEO/First Responders have no recourse to bring them under control. Sweet! I know my excuse if I'm ever challenged by the popo. Being crazy isn't against the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:19:29 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being crazy isn't against the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I guess crazy folks get a pass to do whatever they want and LEO/First Responders have no recourse to bring them under control. Sweet! I know my excuse if I'm ever challenged by the popo. Being crazy isn't against the law. No, but running from the police and resisting arrest is. Crazy folks tend to do this quite a bit in encounters with LE. Guess they get to act a fool all they want now... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:23:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, but running from the police and resisting arrest is. Crazy folks tend to do this quite a bit in encounters with LE. Guess they get to act a fool all they want now... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So I guess crazy folks get a pass to do whatever they want and LEO/First Responders have no recourse to bring them under control. Sweet! I know my excuse if I'm ever challenged by the popo. Being crazy isn't against the law. No, but running from the police and resisting arrest is. Crazy folks tend to do this quite a bit in encounters with LE. Guess they get to act a fool all they want now... Running isn't against the law unless there was a legal reason to stop you. Which just being crazy isn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:30:16 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:33:30 PM EDT
[#25]
My department would barbecue my ass ever lasting if I cycled a Taser ten times on a suspect. If the first three shots don't do it you need a better plan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:33:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Running isn't against the law unless there was a legal reason to stop you. Which just being crazy isn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I guess crazy folks get a pass to do whatever they want and LEO/First Responders have no recourse to bring them under control. Sweet! I know my excuse if I'm ever challenged by the popo. Being crazy isn't against the law. No, but running from the police and resisting arrest is. Crazy folks tend to do this quite a bit in encounters with LE. Guess they get to act a fool all they want now... Running isn't against the law unless there was a legal reason to stop you. Which just being crazy isn't. Like the mother calling the police and saying her crazy son is out of control? Sounds like a legal reason to stop the crazy little bastard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 12:51:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Running isn't against the law unless there was a legal reason to stop you. Which just being crazy isn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I guess crazy folks get a pass to do whatever they want and LEO/First Responders have no recourse to bring them under control. Sweet! I know my excuse if I'm ever challenged by the popo. Being crazy isn't against the law. No, but running from the police and resisting arrest is. Crazy folks tend to do this quite a bit in encounters with LE. Guess they get to act a fool all they want now... Running isn't against the law unless there was a legal reason to stop you. Which just being crazy isn't. So if I get a call by an anonymous person saying they saw a man with a gun in his waistband, I try to talk to that man and he runs, I chase him and he refuses to stop, I can't use any type of force to detain him because I haven't seen anything illegal happen right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:00:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree. But when he does something stupid and hurts himself or a third party everyone will blame the cops for not do something. I go back to my original statement "Either way you are fucked." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Either way you are fucked. This isn't a Kobiashi Maru situation. Those officers screwed up royally. It was a welfare check. No allegation of, and no observed criminality at all. They had no business forcibly "apprehending" him. Agree. But when he does something stupid and hurts himself or a third party everyone will blame the cops for not do something. I go back to my original statement "Either way you are fucked." He does something stupid and hurts himself - a very few people will even care about it enough, but yes his immediate family will hate the cops. He does something stupid and hurts someone else - people will rally and call for stupid policies and laws to be enacted, department will face political heat, city may have to pay for a nuisance lawsuit to go away. He gets extreme zappage to force compliance in a wellness check - city is going to pay through the nose. Individual officers are likely to be paying as well (note: court found Having found a violation of the 4th Amendment, the court went on to find that the law was clearly established at the time and thus the officers were also denied Qualified Immunity.) and possibly criminal charges to boot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:02:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I get a call by an anonymous person saying they saw a man with a gun in his waistband, I try to talk to that man and he runs, I chase him and he refuses to stop, I can't use any type of force to detain him because I haven't seen anything illegal happen right? IIRC, the courts have ruled that an anonymous report of a MWAG does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to engage in a seizure of an individual. so yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:09:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, the courts have ruled that an anonymous report of a MWAG does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to engage in a seizure of an individual. so yep. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if I get a call by an anonymous person saying they saw a man with a gun in his waistband, I try to talk to that man and he runs, I chase him and he refuses to stop, I can't use any type of force to detain him because I haven't seen anything illegal happen right? IIRC, the courts have ruled that an anonymous report of a MWAG does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to engage in a seizure of an individual. so yep. MWAG coupled with person matching a description of MWAG running from police contact does rise to the level of reasonable suspicion though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:10:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, the courts have ruled that an anonymous report of a MWAG does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to engage in a seizure of an individual. so yep. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if I get a call by an anonymous person saying they saw a man with a gun in his waistband, I try to talk to that man and he runs, I chase him and he refuses to stop, I can't use any type of force to detain him because I haven't seen anything illegal happen right? IIRC, the courts have ruled that an anonymous report of a MWAG does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to engage in a seizure of an individual. so yep. But if he then brushes past a person, making contact with, and causing the slightest amount of alarm to that person, then it's on like donkey Kong right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:17:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like the mother calling the police and saying her crazy son is out of control? Sounds like a legal reason to stop the crazy little bastard. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So I guess crazy folks get a pass to do whatever they want and LEO/First Responders have no recourse to bring them under control. Sweet! I know my excuse if I'm ever challenged by the popo. Being crazy isn't against the law. No, but running from the police and resisting arrest is. Crazy folks tend to do this quite a bit in encounters with LE. Guess they get to act a fool all they want now... Running isn't against the law unless there was a legal reason to stop you. Which just being crazy isn't. Like the mother calling the police and saying her crazy son is out of control? Sounds like a legal reason to stop the crazy little bastard. Is being crazy and "out of control" a crime? You have to define out of control. Has he assaulted someone or damaged property? Has he made suicidal statements? Is he armed, or just yelling at clouds? Yelling and screaming and acting "out of control" is not criminal activity nor is it a reason to seize someone just because it ruffles the feathers of non-crazy people. It is, at most, a consensual contact to ask "Hey bud, you need any help?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:18:44 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if I get a call by an anonymous person saying they saw a man with a gun in his waistband, I try to talk to that man and he runs, I chase him and he refuses to stop, I can't use any type of force to detain him because I haven't seen anything illegal happen right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So I guess crazy folks get a pass to do whatever they want and LEO/First Responders have no recourse to bring them under control. Sweet! I know my excuse if I'm ever challenged by the popo. Being crazy isn't against the law. No, but running from the police and resisting arrest is. Crazy folks tend to do this quite a bit in encounters with LE. Guess they get to act a fool all they want now... Running isn't against the law unless there was a legal reason to stop you. Which just being crazy isn't. So if I get a call by an anonymous person saying they saw a man with a gun in his waistband, I try to talk to that man and he runs, I chase him and he refuses to stop, I can't use any type of force to detain him because I haven't seen anything illegal happen right? Nothing I have said about not detaining crazy people for being crazy in any way implies that the long standing rules of reasonable suspicion and probable cause don't exist  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:20:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is being crazy and "out of control" a crime? You have to define out of control. Has he assaulted someone or damaged property? Has he made suicidal statements? Is he armed, or just yelling at clouds? Yelling and screaming and acting "out of control" is not criminal activity nor is it a reason to seize someone just because it ruffles the feathers of non-crazy people. It is, at most, a consensual contact to ask "Hey bud, you need any help?" Sweet. I'm sure the cops workload has just dropped dramatically because of your interpretation. They can now just discount those calls out of hand because there is no law being broken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:25:37 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sweet. I'm sure the cops workload has just dropped dramatically because of your interpretation. They can now just discount those calls out of hand because there is no law being broken. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Is being crazy and "out of control" a crime? You have to define out of control. Has he assaulted someone or damaged property? Has he made suicidal statements? Is he armed, or just yelling at clouds? Yelling and screaming and acting "out of control" is not criminal activity nor is it a reason to seize someone just because it ruffles the feathers of non-crazy people. It is, at most, a consensual contact to ask "Hey bud, you need any help?" Sweet. I'm sure the cops workload has just dropped dramatically because of your interpretation. They can now just discount those calls out of hand because there is no law being broken. Please explain to me what legal authority you think I have to detain someone who is is not committing a crime, not presenting a threat to themselves or others, and merely occupying public space/exercising their 1A rights while suffering from a mental illness? I can talk to them to inquire if they need aid. That's it. Anything further is a violation of their rights unless I have reasonable cause to involuntarily commit them. That's not my interpretation. That's the courts interpretation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:38:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please explain to me what legal authority you think I have to detain someone who is is not committing a crime, not presenting a threat to themselves or others, and merely occupying public space/exercising their 1A rights while suffering from a mental illness? I can talk to them to inquire if they need aid. That's it. Anything further is a violation of their rights unless I have reasonable cause to involuntarily commit them. That's not my interpretation. That's the courts interpretation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is being crazy and "out of control" a crime? You have to define out of control. Has he assaulted someone or damaged property? Has he made suicidal statements? Is he armed, or just yelling at clouds? Yelling and screaming and acting "out of control" is not criminal activity nor is it a reason to seize someone just because it ruffles the feathers of non-crazy people. It is, at most, a consensual contact to ask "Hey bud, you need any help?" Sweet. I'm sure the cops workload has just dropped dramatically because of your interpretation. They can now just discount those calls out of hand because there is no law being broken. Please explain to me what legal authority you think I have to detain someone who is is not committing a crime, not presenting a threat to themselves or others, and merely occupying public space/exercising their 1A rights while suffering from a mental illness? I can talk to them to inquire if they need aid. That's it. Anything further is a violation of their rights unless I have reasonable cause to involuntarily commit them. That's not my interpretation. That's the courts interpretation. Plus, I take anonymous calls with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:46:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I get a call by an anonymous person saying they saw a man with a gun in his waistband, I try to talk to that man and he runs, I chase him and he refuses to stop, I can't use any type of force to detain him because I haven't seen anything illegal happen right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I get a call by an anonymous person saying they saw a man with a gun in his waistband, I try to talk to that man and he runs, I chase him and he refuses to stop, I can't use any type of force to detain him because I haven't seen anything illegal happen right? That's exactly right, but I live in a free state, so, YMMV in NY. In fact, there's a precedent here in Utah about this: http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_5099999 A 74-year-old Korean War veteran was held at gunpoint and then tackled by Salt Lake City police officers after he refused to comply with orders to raise his hands above his head.
Miles Lund said he tried to tell the officers - who believed he was carrying a gun - that his war injuries rendered his right arm immobile. "But they just wouldn't listen," he said. Instead, according to witness accounts and a police report, at least three officers tackled the man, wrestling him to the ground at Liberty Park and wrenching his arms behind his back to handcuff him. Lund said at least one officer also kicked him in the ribs. When they found no gun - only a retired military police officer's badge - the officers let Lund go. "They didn't even apologize," said Lund, who suffered strains to his injured arm along with cuts and bruises. Lund said he is now also suffering a twitch in his left eye that Veterans Affairs doctors have been unable to diagnose. a short while later ... Lund v. Salt Lake City Corp By itself, mere possession of a firearm in public is not unlawful and may well represent the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Utah Constitution (recognizing the "individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes," subject to the power of the Legislature to define the "lawful use of arms."). See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008) ("There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.")
.... As articulated by the Utah Legislature, public policy in this State may fairly be read to condone and even encourage gun ownership and the lawful possession and carrying of firearms in public places. Salt Lake City's asserted governmental interest in its police officers' response to a report of a "man with a gun" in a public park cannot be weighed in isolation from this oft-emphasized public policy. In that context, there may well be more individual constitutional rights at stake than the Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. and then: SLtrib: City, vet settle excessive-force lawsuit TLDR: MWAG call, non-compliant subject, cop who beats up injured Korean war vet loses lawsuit, city settles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:47:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. That's funny, I thought I was a law enforcement officer, not a customer service representative. If he didn't commit a crime, it's really not my problem to fix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:49:22 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's funny, I thought I was a law enforcement officer, not a customer service representative. If he didn't commit a crime, it's really not my problem to fix. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nosey busy bodies and cops go together so well. Like peas and carrots, throw in a dash of mental illness and you have a party. Eta: I failed to note it was mom that called and not a neighbor. Still. Calling cops for help in a mental illness situation is dumb. Who should you call if you yourself can not handle the situation? I don't see it as "dumb" but rather a attempt to get help from people hired to help. The problem comes, in my opinion, in the recruitment of less than qualified people for the job, and the Department for not adequately training the officers. That's funny, I thought I was a law enforcement officer, not a customer service representative. If he didn't commit a crime, it's really not my problem to fix. Social worker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 1:53:20 PM EDT
[#40]
They looked too hard.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 2:01:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Baca and Jaramillo were sent to perform a welfare check. The officers were informed that they were responding to a verbal fight and that no weapons were involved.
These two statements contradict themselves. One is a drive by and check on the person, not a criminal act. The other could be DV or harassment related, a criminal act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 2:06:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This isn't a Kobiashi Maru situation. Those officers screwed up royally. It was a welfare check. No allegation of, and no observed criminality at all. They had no business forcibly "apprehending" him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Either way you are fucked. This isn't a Kobiashi Maru situation. Those officers screwed up royally. It was a welfare check. No allegation of, and no observed criminality at all. They had no business forcibly "apprehending" him. Bikes ARE considered cars for obeying traffic laws, he DID run a stop sign.... but pretty weak reason to taser him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 2:35:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please explain to me what legal authority you think I have to detain someone who is is not committing a crime, not presenting a threat to themselves or others, and merely occupying public space/exercising their 1A rights while suffering from a mental illness? I can talk to them to inquire if they need aid. That's it. Anything further is a violation of their rights unless I have reasonable cause to involuntarily commit them. That's not my interpretation. That's the courts interpretation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is being crazy and "out of control" a crime? You have to define out of control. Has he assaulted someone or damaged property? Has he made suicidal statements? Is he armed, or just yelling at clouds? Yelling and screaming and acting "out of control" is not criminal activity nor is it a reason to seize someone just because it ruffles the feathers of non-crazy people. It is, at most, a consensual contact to ask "Hey bud, you need any help?" Sweet. I'm sure the cops workload has just dropped dramatically because of your interpretation. They can now just discount those calls out of hand because there is no law being broken. Please explain to me what legal authority you think I have to detain someone who is is not committing a crime, not presenting a threat to themselves or others, and merely occupying public space/exercising their 1A rights while suffering from a mental illness? I can talk to them to inquire if they need aid. That's it. Anything further is a violation of their rights unless I have reasonable cause to involuntarily commit them. That's not my interpretation. That's the courts interpretation. So you attempt to talk to them, you determine their gaze is unsteady, they are acting irrationally,have difficulty speaking, are walking in and out of the roadway In a manner which could jeopardize their safety, and are possibly halucenating. This would meet the test of possiblly being a danger to themselves no? And could warrant detaining them for medical evaluation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2016 3:24:46 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you attempt to talk to them, you determine their gaze is unsteady, they are acting irrationally,have difficulty speaking, are walking in and out of the roadway In a manner which could jeopardize their safety, and are possibly halucenating. This would meet the test of possiblly being a danger to themselves no? And could warrant detaining them for medical evaluation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is being crazy and "out of control" a crime? You have to define out of control. Has he assaulted someone or damaged property? Has he made suicidal statements? Is he armed, or just yelling at clouds? Yelling and screaming and acting "out of control" is not criminal activity nor is it a reason to seize someone just because it ruffles the feathers of non-crazy people. It is, at most, a consensual contact to ask "Hey bud, you need any help?" Sweet. I'm sure the cops workload has just dropped dramatically because of your interpretation. They can now just discount those calls out of hand because there is no law being broken. Please explain to me what legal authority you think I have to detain someone who is is not committing a crime, not presenting a threat to themselves or others, and merely occupying public space/exercising their 1A rights while suffering from a mental illness? I can talk to them to inquire if they need aid. That's it. Anything further is a violation of their rights unless I have reasonable cause to involuntarily commit them. That's not my interpretation. That's the courts interpretation. So you attempt to talk to them, you determine their gaze is unsteady, they are acting irrationally,have difficulty speaking, are walking in and out of the roadway In a manner which could jeopardize their safety, and are possibly halucenating. This would meet the test of possiblly being a danger to themselves no? And could warrant detaining them for medical evaluation. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
