Diabetic having attack is ripped from her car by police

[RobertNashville]

If it's not okay to play "what if" since the car wasn't on fire, it's not okay to play "what if" about injuries that did not occur either. Either the accident was bad enough to worry about both or neither.

It's standard procedure to cuff drunk drivers. Hell, they even cuff guys after they shoot them. Handcuffs are the norm when it comes to suspected criminals and she was suspected of DUI. If you think the way they pulled her out of the car was violent, I'd hate to know what you think of what they have to do to restrain a combative suspect.

Are you really going to tell me it's "standard procedure" to violently pull someone out of vehicle that's just been in an accident? Because if you are then is PISS POOR PROCEDURE and it needs to change because it's idiotic.

 

What is so damn hard to understand that you don't move a potentially injured person and you sure as hell don't violently pull them out of a vehicle when they've just been in a wreck regardless of whether they are drunk going into diabetic shock or anything else. There was ZERO reason to violently pull that woman out of her car except for stupid, irresponsible cops being stupid and irresponsible.

Edited July 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[ted]

If it's not okay to play "what if" since the car wasn't on fire, it's not okay to play "what if" about injuries that did not occur either. Either the accident was bad enough to worry about both or neither.
It's standard procedure to cuff drunk drivers. Hell, they even cuff guys after they shoot them. Handcuffs are the norm when it comes to suspected criminals and she was suspected of DUI. If you think the way they pulled her out of the car was violent, I'd hate to know what you think of what they have to do to restrain a combative suspect.

What comic book have you been reading ..... ?

[RobertNashville]

So cops should now just politely monitor people acting irrationally until a medic comes around and not take into consideration anyone's safety?  The woman had already displayed multiple reasons for being considered dangerous.

 

maybe instead of securing her on the ground they could've just held her at gun point and not moved her... but then we would be talking about how those evil cops pointed a loaded gun at her instead.  bunch of silliness in this argument, I bet once the full video is released this story will die out just like the rest of them do.

 

Or maybe they could have turned her car off and held her in place in her seat instead of violently pulling her our of her vehicle until medical arrived (if they ever got around to calling them). There is noting "silly" in this argument other than those arguing that violently pulling this woman out of her car was justified because you simply don't move a potentially injured person unless there is no other choice and if you do have to move them you do it in a way to minimize any potential harm which means you don't pull them out of their vehicle, handcuff them behind their back and plant them face first on the pavement like they just shot someone.

 

 

Remember, the first rule of thumb is to never move a victim where neck or spinal injuries are suspected. Unless there is immediate danger of life and limb where they are, just do not move them. Call emergency services and comfort the victims as much as possible.

 

 

I'm all for supporting cops but these cops acted stupidly...they acted against the most basic principles of first aid and they deserve to be and I hope they are disciplined for doing so before they do this to someone else and kill them.

 

I'm not an expert in much but even though it was a while ago, after 20 years running as an EMT I do know I'm absolutely right with my view of this issue. 

 

I'm out.

Edited July 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[BigK]

Are you really going to tell me it's "standard procedure" to violently pull someone out of vehicle that's just been in an accident? Because if you are then is PISS POOR PROCEDURE and it needs to change because it's idiotic.
 
What is so damn hard to understand that you don't move a potentially injured person and you sure as hell don't violently pull them out of a vehicle when they've just been in a wreck regardless of whether they are drunk going into diabetic shock or anything else. There was ZERO reason to violently pull that woman out of her car except for stupid, irresponsible cops being stupid and irresponsible.

I think you are exaggerating the severity of the accident, the likelihood of her having injuries, and the degree of force used to remove her from the vehicle.

[RobertNashville]

I think you are exaggerating the severity of the accident, the likelihood of her having injuries, and the degree of force used to remove her from the vehicle.

I'm not exaggerating anything.  If you think you can look at a person and judge whether they have a spinal injury based on your perceived severity of the accident then you are fooling yourself at the victim's expense; anyone who has worked more than a few accident scenes knows just how foolish that is.  As to the degree of force they used ANY force was irresponsible and excessive because it was 100% unnecessary and 100% against even the most basic first aid.

 

I don't know why you want to dismiss the actions of these cops but their actions were absolutely wrong...absolutely irresponsible...absolutely stupid and there's not a chance in hell you are going to change my mind on this.

Edited July 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[BigK]

Cops don't cuff suspects for punishment. They cuff them to prevent them from escaping, harming someone, or harming themselves.

This lady was so disoriented that she tried to drive off more than once. If they saw no reason to suspect she was injured, then cuffing her was the right thing to do. Who's to say she couldn't be so disoriented that she wouldn't stagger into oncoming traffic or cut herself on broken glass?

I'm still not saying lessons don't need be learned from this event. I'm saying punishing the officers involved is overkill. They are cops, not EMT's. You are refusing to give them any benefit of the doubt. Edited July 26, 2013 by BigK

[Sam1]

 

 

I'm not an expert in much but even though it was a while ago, after 20 years running as an EMT I do know I'm absolutely right with my view of this issue. 

 

I'm out.

 

And without question I bet you are 100% correct from a medical standpoint and your experience demands respect.  But, these guys are not medical professionals, they are supposed ot be law enforcement professionals which require approaching situations from different thought processes and directions, with a different intent.

 

Their duties and responsibilities are completely different than yours if you showed up on scene.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If a person is conscious and raising hell then they might unavoidably get roughed up a bit, or worse. It is the real world and not a controlled environment. I realize crap happens.

 

Am not real beefed about this affair, just wondering-- Regardless whether there was an accident-- Even if a person happened to be nearly unconscious non-responsive drunk on their butt or drugged insensate-- Tossing an unconscious geezer around like samsonite luggage might cause injuries as severe as intentionally beating them up? Though even unconscious younger folk could be severely injured.

 

A conscious person could at least "steer the fall", tighten up the back muscles to protect the spine, or beg the ossifer "please don't break my arm"?

 

I'm very ignorant of law, but even if a person were so intoxicated that a judge/jury might put them in jail for years-- Isn't it the job of the judge/jury to determine punishment? Maybe there is some kind of law that authorizes police to apply "pre punishment" of tossing unconscious people around like third class freight, regardless what punishment the judge later decides? Dunno.

 

Heck, if "pre-punishment" of unconscious unresisting people is kewl, why not go ahead and mace her, taze her, then give her a few whacks with the nightstick for good measure?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=749iU2Zv1kw

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have watched the video over and over again. The way they remove her is not violent and is what was needed to gain control of a person who was acting disoriented. People who are disoriented, regardless of the reason, do crazy things and gaining control over them is paramount to prevent further injury to them as well as others. People say not to move her because of injuries but if she was already injured allowing her to keep moving can be just as damaging as subduing her. Then there is the fact you have to always assume they have a weapon in their vehicle and I do not want a person who is acting erratic to have access to a weapon.

 

She was not unconscience in the car because you can see her moving around inside her car at :44 and :49 while the officer is trying to break the window out. She moved her head as she was placed on the ground so she was conscience there as well. She was not conscience on the ground because once she was helped to her feet she planted her feet and she stood on her own. She was conscience during the whole event.

 

I agree the officers should have not left her face down on the pavement for several reasons. First was the heat of the ground because it was probably hot enough to be very discomfortable and maybe injure. Second having a person handcuffed AND face down restricts a persons ability to breath. It is well documented where people have died after being left face down with handcuffs on.

 

In the end I think the officers should receive some additional training for leaving her handcuffed on the pavement but not for how they handled it up to that point. They had to gain control of her for her safety, their safety as well as the safety of those around her. Leaving her in the car is not in control of her.

 

As far as law suits I hate the fact it is the taxpayers that almost always foot the bill. Rarely do the officers actually get held accountable when they do something wrong. Personally I would like the jurisdiction to be immune from law suits and the individuals be held accountable. But most people don't want that because there isn't a lot of money to be had from an officer. People want that multi million dollar settlement that the taxpayers pay for and the officers get away financially unaccountable for their actions. Or have the laws change so the officer(s) are the the first to pay followed by their supervisor, then the sheriff and finally the jurisdiction.

 

I have dealt with diabetics who were disoriented as well as those who have passed out from their blood sugar being too low. They do give off an odor that can easily be confused as alcohol on the breath. And the only real difference I have noticed is a drunk will slur their speech while someone in diabetic shock will have clear speech but saying stuff or acting in ways that do not make sense.

[RobertNashville]

I have watched the video over and over again. The way they remove her is not violent and is what was needed to gain control of a person who was acting disoriented.

Violent by who's standards?

 

Had she suffered any spinal/neck injuries as a result of the accident then what they did was far more than sufficiently violent to cause massive additional trauma to her spine or even cause significant damage when there had been none up to that point...she did not need to be and should not have been moved from her vehicle but if there had been imminent danger/they truly had to move her then there is a proper way to move a potentially injured person to limit risk of additional injury; these officers are either too stupid to know that or didn't care. Not moving a potentially injured person is as basic to first aid as "a gun is always loaded" is to basic firearm safety.

They had other options to get control of her and secure the vehicle - they chose not to use them - they deserve to be disciplined.

Edited July 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest dieselshadow]

Let's keep kicking this dead horse...

http://www.spacetimestudios.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14061&d=1343012360 Edited July 26, 2013 by dieselshadow

[Sam1]

 

They had other options to get control of her and secure the vehicle - they chose not to use them - they deserve to be disciplined.

 

There are always other options, but the job of a cop is to stop the threat as fast as possible.  As said before, I'll be the first to point fingers at the cops for doing dumb stuff, but I just don't see why there's outrage over this, except from the fact that every news agency is showing the same selectively edited video and drumming up an emotional response.

[RobertNashville]

There are always other options, but the job of a cop is to stop the threat as fast as possible.  As said before, I'll be the first to point fingers at the cops for doing dumb stuff, but I just don't see why there's outrage over this, except from the fact that every news agency is showing the same selectively edited video and drumming up an emotional response.

They also have a responsibility to not cause harm; something these cops were either never taught, forget, or didn't care about.

 

If you/others are convinced they had to move her then why didn't these cops at least move her in the proscribed way to move a potentially injured person???  Do they get a pass for that as well?

 

If folks are okay with cops ignoring the most basic rule of first aid (something I would think would be pretty important for a cop who probably routinely responds to auto accidents to know) then why don't we just ignore the "always assume a gun is loaded" rule of firearm safety...I mean, it's just a suggestion anyway.

Edited July 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[pitt2magic]

I was an EMT, am a Registered Nurse and also a Tactical Medic for the S.O.  I will not stand and defend these officers because I feel that their actions were wrong.  I watched an old episode of COPS the other night and saw two officers tase a guy that was not following commands after he was ejected from a car.  No S#*t is isnt following orders, who knows at this point what all is wrong with him.  While it is not feasible to have every officer trained to be an EMT,certainly they can spend one day in the academy teaching some common sense tactics when it comes to dealing with unresponsive people.

[RobertNashville]

I was an EMT, am a Registered Nurse and also a Tactical Medic for the S.O.  I will not stand and defend these officers because I feel that their actions were wrong.  I watched an old episode of COPS the other night and saw two officers tase a guy that was not following commands after he was ejected from a car.  No S#*t is isnt following orders, who knows at this point what all is wrong with him.  While it is not feasible to have every officer trained to be an EMT,certainly they can spend one day in the academy teaching some common sense tactics when it comes to dealing with unresponsive people.

I can't swear to it at this point as it's just been too long but in my former home state of Ohio I am pretty sure that before one could become a police officer (city, deputy sheriff, highway patrolman, etc) they were required to take and pass a pretty decent first aid course and had to retrain on a regular basis.

 

I may well be remembering incorrectly but I think that's right and it seems like a very good idea given that LEOs are often the first to arrive on the scene of someone needing medical help.

[pitt2magic]

I can't swear to it at this point as it's just been too long but in my former home state of Ohio I am pretty sure that before one could become a police officer (city, deputy sheriff, highway patrolman, etc) they were required to take and pass a pretty decent first aid course and had to retrain on a regular basis.

 

I may well be remembering incorrectly but I think that's right and it seems like a very good idea given that LEOs are often the first to arrive on the scene of someone needing medical help.

Pretty sure you are correct.  I am not a full time officer but a reserve deputy and my primary task is officer safety on call outs.  I do not know for certain what training our officers have exactly.  I do know that most of ours have AEDs in the trunks of their cars so one would assume that they did cover medical issues in training.  I know that officer safety has to be a key but certainly there is some way to mix in common sense to situations.  

[ted]

I think you are exaggerating the severity of the accident, the likelihood of her having injuries, and the degree of force used to remove her from the vehicle.

put your self in that persons spot . You don't know that , put the shoe on the other foot and that was you . If that is how you would like to be treated or your wife or teen aged child , when its a possibility you could be injured , and leave you in a wheel chair for the rest of your life , how would you look at it then . I bet you would have a different outlook , all because no one took that little extra precaution . Cops are very street smart most can tell what is going on in a blink of an eye . Some have a lot of common seance , some do not . It all boils down to how that police officer looks at it at that time , like a flip of a coin 50/50 chance your future is in the hands of the right police officer makeing that right call .

[Dolomite_supafly]

Fact of the matter was she was conscience, she was moving inside the car and not following commands. Under those same circumstances 99 out of 100 officers would respond by taking control of that person and would not wait around for EMS to show up. I have issue with them leaving her on the pavement but I have ZERO issue with how, when and why they removed her from her vehicle.
 

I can't swear to it at this point as it's just been too long but in my former home state of Ohio I am pretty sure that before one could become a police officer (city, deputy sheriff, highway patrolman, etc) they were required to take and pass a pretty decent first aid course and had to retrain on a regular basis.
 
I may well be remembering incorrectly but I think that's right and it seems like a very good idea given that LEOs are often the first to arrive on the scene of someone needing medical help.

Lets see. The incident happened in NM, we are in TN so how does Ohio fit into this? Heck, while we are at it lets cite some obscure law on the Chilean law books to prove that these officers are the most awful, heinous people on earth next to Hitler or Obama. After all an old diabetic women cannot possibly be a threat. Imagine, just for a moment, that there are more women carrying firearms today than probably ever before in history. And we have a women who is conscience but acting very erratic and the officers have ZERO clue whether she has a firearm. So the choice is let her continue to act erractically in her car, where she may have a firearm, or remove her from the car where she doesn't. I will choose to remove them from the vehicle every single time.
 
Also, the vehicle itself is a very powerful weapon and by all accounts she tried to drive off several times. Yes they can take the keys out of the ignition but not before gaining entry and doing so with a car that is attempting to leave the scene is very dangerous but someone like this must be stopped. And even then I can tell you from personal experience that trying to remove the keys from the ignition when the driver doesn't want you to can be very, very difficult. I tried just turning the ignition off but she turned the car back on and would try to drive away. I agian turned the car off and eventually got them out of the ignition but I wound up wearing a lot of that person's blood that day as I fought her to remove the keys from the ignition. She risked my life that day and affected my life for the next 6 months while I got tested because I was exposed to a significant amount of her blood. The entire time she was screaming she couldn't get another DUI. 
 
Robert, why are you condeming those who pose "what ifs" when you are doing the same thing. Yes, you have done it several times in this thread. You made sure to hold people accountable to a rule you, yourself, will not follow. Seems hypocritical that you are allowed to pose what ifs to support your OPINION yet tell everyone else they better not do the same. Someone said what if the car might catch on fire and you shot them down saying we are not playing the "what if" game then you keep talking about a spinal cord injury, which turned out to be another "what if".
 
Post #71:

There is no reason to play "what if'...the car wasn't on fire...they did not have to drag her out (pretty violently at that) from her vehicle just to turn it off...they did not have to drag her out to secure her until medical arrived...they did not have to drag her out and they most certainly didn't have to put her face down on the pavement in handcuffs.

If folks want to think these cops acted responsibly that's fine, I don't agree and never will.

 
And here you are taking an unnecessary pot shot at LE.

Or maybe they could have turned her car off and held her in place in her seat instead of violently pulling her our of her vehicle until medical arrived (if they ever got around to calling them).

 

[JAB]

I still would like to know why it was necessary to yank the woman from the car, prone her out on the pavement and cuff her in order to 'get control' of her.  I mean, she doesn't look like a bodybuilder, power lifter or track star so I doubt there is much chance she was going to come up out of the car like She Hulk and start tossing officers left and right nor was she going to hit the pavement running like Flo Jo and leave them all in the dust.

 

So she was attempting to drive away.  Fine - put the car in park, turn off the car and remove the keys from the ignition.  It is kind of hard to operate a vehicle that isn't running when you don't have the keys - especially when (according to the officers, themselves) the car was not drivable, anyhow.

 

Which brings up another point for those who want to posit that the accident wasn't severe enough to cause injuries.  How can an accident be so severe as to render at least one vehicle immobile but not severe enough to have the potential to cause neck/spine injuries?  That argument doesn't really make much sense, to me.

Edited July 26, 2013 by JAB

[Dolomite_supafly]

I still would like to know why it was necessary to yank the woman from the car, prone her out on the pavement and cuff her in order to 'get control' of her.  I mean, she doesn't look like a bodybuilder, power lifter or track star so I doubt there is much chance she was going to come up out of the car like She Hulk and start tossing officers left and right nor was she going to hit the pavement running like Flo Jo and leave them all in the dust.

 

So she was attempting to drive away.  Fine - put the car in park, turn off the car and remove the keys from the ignition.  It is kind of hard to operate a vehicle that isn't running when you don't have the keys - especially when (according to the officers, themselves) the car was not drivable, anyhow.

 

Which brings up another point for those who want to posit that the accident wasn't severe enough to cause injuries.  How can an accident be so severe as to render at least one vehicle immobile but not severe enough to have the potential to cause neck/spine injuries?  That argument doesn't really make much sense, to me.

Doesn't take a lot of strength to pull a trigger.

[NRA]

Some people just don't get it and never will :shrug:  

[RobertNashville]

Some people just don't get it and never will :shrug:

If you mean by "get it" that I'm supposed to understand why a cop, who probably is often is early on the scene of an accident, would violate what is the most basic rules of first aid then you are right because I'll never understand that kind of idiocy and irresponsibility.

[JAB]

Doesn't take a lot of strength to pull a trigger.

 

So the officers observed a firearm in her possession?  Or they should just assume than anyone involved in an automobile accident is an armed thug looking to 'take out' a cop?

[NRA]

So they should have waited for a back board and neck brace before they removed her from the car? 

Edited July 26, 2013 by NRA

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Fact of the matter was she was conscience, she was moving inside the car and not following commands. Under those same circumstances 99 out of 100 officers would respond by taking control of that person and would not wait around for EMS to show up. I have issue with them leaving her on the pavement but I have ZERO issue with how, when and why they removed her from her vehicle.

 

So if Mrs Dolomite were non-responsive in the same fashion, you would have no problemo them treating her the same way? What about your helicopter injuries which make me twinge to think about-- If something made you non-responsive, you would be kewl having your injuries stressed in the same fashion as on the video?

 

If that is the case, not my place to judge. My shoulders and back wouldn't want to risk that treatment even conscious, much less non-responsive, semi-conscious, or whatever you want to call it, where a person couldn't even try to "get ready for it". And I'm not near as bunged up as you got it. Maybe the law says I would have to be treated thataway if I was semi-conscious on the side of the road, doesn't make me feel any better about the prospect.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Lester Weevils