Diabetic having attack is ripped from her car by police

[RobertNashville]

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

 

Seems to me such equipment would be a good thing to have in a first responder's vehicle wouldn't it? In any case, how about they apply basic first aid principles and keep her still or, if they really have to move her, do it the right way?

 

While it's sure nice to have, you don't have to have expensive medical equipment to properly apply fist aid to an accident victim if you care enough to learn how to do it.

Edited July 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

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.

 
Then 99 out of 100 cops would be wrong to do that to an accident victim.
 
 
 

Lets see. The incident happened in NM, we are in TN so how does Ohio fit into this?

 
It doesn’t “fit into this” other than to ask someone who appeared to be knowledgeable whether LEOs, in general, do or are required to have decent first aid training…seems like a reasonable thing to discuss given that the cops in this video displayed an overwhelming lack of any first aid knowledge or a significant lack of concern for an accident victim.
 
 
 

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.

 
Fine, assume there was a firearm in the vehicle even thought there is zero indication that there was; if the only alleged alternative is to move her there is still is a proscribed/right way to move a potentially injured accident victim which these cops either didn’t know or didn’t care about.
 
 
 

Also, the vehicle itself is a very powerful weapon and by all accounts she tried to drive off several times.

 
That would be the vehicle that was so badly damaged it couldn’t be driven away, correct?
 
If the vehicle is that badly damaged how much of a threat can it be?
 
If the vehicle is that badly damaged wouldn’t that be a strong indication that the accident victim might have spinal/neck injuries and, therefore, either shouldn’t be moved at all or if they insist they have to move her, do so in the proscribed way to minimize the risk of further injury?
 
 
 

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".

 
Condemned?  You think I condemned Sam1 when I said...

There is no reason to play "what if'...

 
All I said was that there is no reason to play "what if" and I can't see how that statement is "condemming" anyone.  The car wasn’t on fire and if it had started to catch fire and the cops then had to move a potentially injured accident victim then they should do it the right way which is not dragging the person out of the vehicle.

Edited July 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Dolomite_supafly]

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.

 

The lady in the video was NOT unresponsive. She was conscience and not following the orders of the officers. You can see it in the video she is waving her arms in the car, she was moving her head as they put her on the ground then she stood on her own two feet when they lifted her back to her feet. She wasn't semi conscience on the side of the road. She was in control of a vehicle and not following the orders of an officer which if left be could have resulted in more injuries.

 

If I am conscience and not following the directions of an officer I have zero problem with them doing what they need to do to ensure their safety. If it causes me more injuries so be it. I will understand and not blame the officers for ensuring they were safe. In ensuring their safety they have also ensured mine.

 

I have zero issue with removing anyone from a vehicle who is conscience and not following directions. I have zero issue with them placing handcuffs on them, for everyone's safety, until they determine if there is a medical problem. Officers place handcuffs on people for the safety of the officer, the safety of the subject as well as the safety of everyone around. Would I have taken her to the ground? I honestly cannot say but she would have been placed in handcuffs as soon as humanly possible.

 

I do have issue with them leaving her on the pavement but no problem with removing her from the vehicle.

 

The biggest threat to ANY officer is someone behind the wheel, especially someone who is acting erratic and not following orders. You remove her from the vehicle and that is no longer a threat. And she continued to be a threat until they removed her because she tried to drive away several times. Had the officers left her in the vehicle and she ran over innocents then it would be, again, the officers fault.

 

If people think she is not at fault think again. She will be held responsible for the accident.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The lady in the video was NOT unresponsive. She was conscience and not following the orders of the officers. You can see it in the video she is waving her arms in the car, she was moving her head as they put her on the ground then she stood on her own two feet when they lifted her back to her feet. She wasn't semi conscience on the side of the road. She was in control of a vehicle and not following the orders of an officer which if left be could have resulted in more injuries.

 

If I am conscience and not following the directions of an officer I have zero problem with them doing what they need to do to ensure their safety. If it causes me more injuries so be it. I will understand and not blame the officers for ensuring they were safe. In ensuring their safety they have also ensured mine.

 

Maybe you are correct Dolomite. Kudos for integrity of not minding getting tore up in the same situation.

 

Seems a semantic problem on the word Not Responsive. Random senseless activity in response to instructions sounds Not Responsive to me. I worked around crazy people who could move around and make noise and didn't have a clue who they were or what the hell they were doing, and there was a higher priority on avoiding patient injury than avoiding staff injury. Of course staff didn't want to get messed up and took as careful precautions possible, but if you got bloodied you didn't get in trouble, but if the client got bloodied there was hell to pay, and possible criminal prosecution depending on the situation.

 

That was a "controlled environment" and I realize things are unavoidably looser in the real world, but it just doesn't look good to me.

[RobertNashville]

Maybe you are correct Dolomite. Kudos for integrity of not minding getting tore up in the same situation.

 

Seems a semantic problem on the word Not Responsive. Random senseless activity in response to instructions sounds Not Responsive to me. I worked around crazy people who could move around and make noise and didn't have a clue who they were or what the hell they were doing, and there was a higher priority on avoiding patient injury than avoiding staff injury. Of course staff didn't want to get messed up and took as careful precautions possible, but if you got bloodied you didn't get in trouble, but if the client got bloodied there was hell to pay, and possible criminal prosecution depending on the situation.

 

That was a "controlled environment" and I realize things are unavoidably looser in the real world, but it just doesn't look good to me.

Removing her from the vehicle was, and yes, it's just my opinion, totally unnecessary; I don't really care what most cops would do or even what they are trained to do; if doing what these cops did is SOP then it's poor SOP and needs to be changed.

 

That said, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why, if it was necessary to move this accident victim, did these officer do so with such disregard to potential injuries? There are ways to move a potentially injured accident victim that will minimize the potential of further injury (or causing injury where there was none before).

 

Is ignoring that basic rule of first aid SOP - do cops just treat every accident scene as if it's felony stop of an armed felon?

Edited July 27, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

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

Robert, No one is trying to change your mind. If you think the cops need to be fired, so be it; we get that. But you keep making arguments that the video and the woman’s own statements in the news interview do not support.

 

We get it that you were a volunteer EMT and that you are focused on the medical aspects of the situation. I would expect no less of a Doctor or a Nurse. But cops have different priorities at accident scenes. Highest priority; make the scene safe. As I said before that comes before medical treatment.

 

Part of making the scene safe in this situation was removing the driver from physical control of the vehicle. The woman was not unconscious; she said herself that she was conscious, but she was so disoriented that she couldn’t figure out how to open the door. The Officer said she was attempting to move the car. As someone else said when you hear hoof beats think horses; not zebras. It is unfortunate that this woman was having a reaction that made her appear drunk; but it is what it is.

 

I’m sure that if any of those cops thought the woman was injured they would have used due care. I’m guessing that there was nothing to suggest that. Was it necessary to leave her on the pavement? No, that’s why they got her up.

 

No one is suggesting that these cops get a commendation for their actions or that it could not have been handled better, but calling them idiots and saying they should be fired is not reasonable either. This woman, like all citizens that feel they have been wronged by the cops; has recourse. She can make a formal complaint and she has civil court available to her. I’m guessing it doesn’t go that far.

[RobertNashville]

Robert, No one is trying to change your mind. If you think the cops need to be fired, so be it; we get that. But you keep making arguments that the video and the woman’s own statements in the news interview do not support.

We get it that you were a volunteer EMT and that you are focused on the medical aspects of the situation. I would expect no less of a Doctor or a Nurse. But cops have different priorities at accident scenes. Highest priority; make the scene safe. As I said before that comes before medical treatment.

Part of making the scene safe in this situation was removing the driver from physical control of the vehicle. The woman was not unconscious; she said herself that she was conscious, but she was so disoriented that she couldn’t figure out how to open the door. The Officer said she was attempting to move the car. As someone else said when you hear hoof beats think horses; not zebras. It is unfortunate that this woman was having a reaction that made her appear drunk; but it is what it is.

I’m sure that if any of those cops thought the woman was injured they would have used due care. I’m guessing that there was nothing to suggest that. Was it necessary to leave her on the pavement? No, that’s why they got her up.

No one is suggesting that these cops get a commendation for their actions or that it could not have been handled better, but calling them idiots and saying they should be fired is not reasonable either. This woman, like all citizens that feel they have been wronged by the cops; has recourse. She can make a formal complaint and she has civil court available to her. I’m guessing it doesn’t go that far.

I appreciate your post and agree with the vast majority. just to be clear I think what Ive maintained is the the officers should be disciplined; I dont think that I said they should be fired although I don't really want to go back and read all six pages to make sure ofvthat.

I am still wondering...

When a cop arrives at the scene of an accident; especially one sufficient to disable the vehicle(s); isn't it reasonable for the responding cop(s) to assume that the people involved are injured and not just injured with obvious visible injuries but spinal/neck injuries?

If so and if they decide they must remove the victims (whether the movement is justified or not); why in the world would they grab and drag the person out of the car? Is is really unreasonable that they move the accident victim(s) in a way that minimizes the chance of injury; perhaps even life-changing injury? Edited July 27, 2013 by RobertNashville

[BigK]

As disoriented as she was, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was a stick shift and the engine just died without her foot on the clutch, who knows?

Regardless, the first/basic rule of first aid for medical responder may be to never move the victim, but the first/basic rule of law enforcement is probably to secure the scene. That includes suspected drunk drivers that have already tried to drive off after the wreck.

I wish she had the forethought to wear a medical-alert bracelet. Maybe we'd be talking about Zimmerman, Obama, or Jim Carey instead of how to armchair quarterback an accident scene.

[DaveTN]

I appreciate your post and agree with the vast majority. just to be clear I think what Ive maintained is the the officers should be disciplined; I dont think that I said they should be fired although I don't really want to go back and read all six pages to make sure ofvthat.

I am still wondering...

When a cop arrives at the scene of an accident; especially one sufficient to disable the vehicle(s); isn't it reasonable for the responding cop(s) to assume that the people involved are injured and not just injured with obvious visible injuries but spinal/neck injuries?

If so and if they decide they must remove the victims (whether the movement is justified or not); why in the world would they grab and drag the person out of the car? Is is really unreasonable that they move the accident victim(s) in a way that minimizes the chance of injury; perhaps even life-changing injury?

Unless there was a possibility of the car catching on fire or some other threat, I tried to get the people to remain in the position they were in until the professionals arrived. We automatically had an ambulance and the Fire Department, as well as a backup (mainly for traffic control) dispatched at the same time we were to all accidents that came in as personal injury accidents. Thankfully since I was in a large city if they weren’t there when I got there; it was usually only a few minutes. We had basic first aid training but were not EMT’s, those people were sent. About the only first aid I ever had to do was keep a person from moving, apply pressure to a massive bleed, or on a couple of occasions administer CPR (they both died).

 

I have handled accidents were I knew an injured driver was drunk and was going to be arrested. I did not handcuff them if they were being cooperative. I advised the dispatcher to send an officer to the hospital and notify hospital security they were not free to leave.

 

I have also had people try to drive away or become combative. I used whatever force it took to stop them from trying to move a vehicle, or whatever force was required to stop their resisting. That has included pulling them from vehicles and handcuffing them. A moving vehicle can become a deadly weapon at an accident scene. I’ve also had to forcefully restrain people in accidents that weren’t drunk, but were trying to move other victims in their vehicle.

 

Every incident is different and how it is handled is determined by the circumstances at that very moment. Being in a traffic accident is a traumatic experience and I have seen people flip out that were not drunk; especially in bad accidents where family members are severely injured or killed.

 

I hated working a traffic car but it was something we had to do until we had enough seniority to get our own district car. I have been in shootings and many brutal fights as a cop, but the only nightmares I have had about the job have come from traffic accidents.

[RobertNashville]

Unless there was a possibility of the car catching on fire or some other threat, I tried to get the people to remain in the position they were in until the professionals arrived. We automatically had an ambulance and the Fire Department, as well as a backup (mainly for traffic control) dispatched at the same time we were to all accidents that came in as personal injury accidents. Thankfully since I was in a large city if they weren’t there when I got there; it was usually only a few minutes. We had basic first aid training but were not EMT’s, those people were sent. About the only first aid I ever had to do was keep a person from moving, apply pressure to a massive bleed, or on a couple of occasions administer CPR (they both died).

 

I have handled accidents were I knew an injured driver was drunk and was going to be arrested. I did not handcuff them if they were being cooperative. I advised the dispatcher to send an officer to the hospital and notify hospital security they were not free to leave.

 

I have also had people try to drive away or become combative. I used whatever force it took to stop them from trying to move a vehicle, or whatever force was required to stop their resisting. That has included pulling them from vehicles and handcuffing them. A moving vehicle can become a deadly weapon at an accident scene. I’ve also had to forcefully restrain people in accidents that weren’t drunk, but were trying to move other victims in their vehicle.

 

Every incident is different and how it is handled is determined by the circumstances at that very moment. Being in a traffic accident is a traumatic experience and I have seen people flip out that were not drunk; especially in bad accidents where family members are severely injured or killed.

 

I hated working a traffic car but it was something we had to do until we had enough seniority to get our own district car. I have been in shootings and many brutal fights as a cop, but the only nightmares I have had about the job have come from traffic accidents.

Thanks for that explanation...I've got some images and nightmares too that will probably be with me for the rest of my life.

 

My apologies to anyone I offended...I guess I have stronger feelings about this subject than I would have thought.

Edited July 27, 2013 by RobertNashville

[BigK]

I hope none of us ever get offended over a civilized difference of opinion on here too.

 

I was in a 50 mph wreck in a Kia Spectra a few years back. A full-size truck tried to cross 2 lanes of traffic to get to the chicken lane to make a left turn. There was a car making a right into the same parking lot the truck was leaving. By the time the truck cleared the car to my right it was too late for me to avoid them. I locked up the wheels, but still broad-sided the truck right between the front/rear doors, flipping it up onto it's side.

 

My airbag and seat belt saved my life, probably. I got out and walked to the median practically uninjured, but somewhat sore, and called 911 for the girl in the truck (no seat belt). She climbed out the driver window (now up in the air) on her own and sat in the grass until the ambulance showed up. They still took her to the ER, which at the time didn't seem necessary.

 

I guess you never know?

[TMF]

My airbag and seat belt saved my life, probably. I got out and walked to the median practically uninjured, but somewhat sore, and called 911 for the girl in the truck (no seat belt). She climbed out the driver window (now up in the air) on her own and sat in the grass until the ambulance showed up. They still took her to the ER, which at the time didn't seem necessary.

I guess you never know?

I was behind one on an exit ramp off Briley that took it to too fast, hit the first post of the guard rail square and flipped a few times. Probably going 50-60. Got out to help, truck was laying on its side. Driver was not wearing a seatbelt. Windshield had a solid face print on the passenger side, with the driver contorted and semi-conscious on the pavement inside of the truck. I'm not a cop or an EMT. I took a 40 hour first responder course when I was 17 and remembered that you don't move someone with potential spinal injuries. So instead of trying to get him out of the truck in a more comfortable position I spoke to him through the windshield and explained why he needed to try to sit still as he may have neck/spinal injuries.

If I know this than cops should know this. As to how they removed her from the vehicle, I can't say for certainty they didn't act according to what they knew in the heat of the moment. When you factor in her attempting to move the vehicle and being unresponsive to commands I suppose there is a high chance that the officers would interpret that the way they did. What is inexcusable is how they took someone with potential injuries or potential medical issues and put her face down on the pavement, handcuffed and just walked away. I don't care if it was for 10 seconds or 10 minutes. There is no excuse that ANYONE could ever come up with for that. Once she was secure the officers' next priority of work is to safeguard from injury and assess what they can from the accident victim in terms of injury, not put her on the pavement and walk away. That move was punitive and needs to be addressed. Edited July 27, 2013 by TMF

[NRA]

will this horse ever die?

[BJB]

will this horse ever die?

Probably not

Bottom Line Gentleman, EMS should assess any and all MVA victims before being removed from the vehicle UNLESS they pose a risk to themselves or others by remaining in the car.

Edited July 27, 2013 by BJB

[Guest Keal G Seo]

will this horse ever die?

Eventually, but I am going to go full armchair quarterback here: Arrive on scene. Assess situation. Truck driver okay, car driver is conscious but unresponsive. Driver is attempting to flee. Driver appears impaired. Vehicle appears in in-operable condition.  Take action. Don't bust glass on potentially already injured person, passenger door. Unlock doors and reach across to take keys from the ignition...just in case assessment of condition of vehicle was wrong. Open driver's door. Re-assess. Woman still appears impaired. Not responding to commands. Flight is no longer an option. Woman does not appear to be a physical threat. However firearms maybe preset. Take a knee by the vehicle and try to reduce any movement until EMS arrives. EMS arrives and places victim on the gurney. Handcuff to gurney/backboard and either accompany to the hospital or radio charge(s) to notify hospital.

The point here is that there was another, among many others, option for how to handle this.The officer just chose the wrong path. As I have said before I am not for firing him but some serious discipline and training is needed here. As for lawsuits (if there is any actual injury) should fall on the officer first followed then by the city/county/state if there is no required training for motor vehicle accident first responders.

Since I have spinal injuries that have left me in a wheelchair I guess I am a bit more sensitive to them than the "Officers can do no wrong" crowd. As for whomever saying do what you have to to feel safe...I bet your attitude changes quite a bit when you are confined to a wheelchair and pissing and sh***ing in bags and getting pressure sores and are a burden on your family just so the cop could feel a bit safer. Heck I wager that you would change that attitude if all that happened was loss of use from your waist down without other problems common with that. Especially when everyone starts telling you that you were fine and even trying to drive away before they felt the need to pull you out the vehicle and exacerbate your injury.

Bottom line is this: EMS may be EMS but ALL first responders should have some basic first aid training (I doubt any medium police force doesn't, which means these guys just ignored it). Do not move anyone that has a potential internal injury!
Heck that is like 1st grader stuff. I remember learning this in 3 (THREE) different places: School (both grade school and when playing sports in high), Church and Boy Scouts.

[Spiffy]

If a person has a medical condition that can cause the death of an innocent person they should not be driving…. Period.

 

Was the guy in truck injured?

 

So we should stop all men driving after age 35 because they could have a massive heart attack outta the blue?

[Dolomite_supafly]

So we should stop all men driving after age 35 because they could have a massive heart attack outta the blue?

Having a heart attack is rarely known prior to the attack.

 

People are already prevented from driving if they have a known medical condition that could cause injury. Epileptics are not allowed to drive unless they have been seizure free for over a year. If a person knowingly has a medical condition, any condition, that could cause them to pass out behind the wheel they should not be allowed to drive.