|
Dead Reckoning posted:What should they have done differently given their orders and the resources on hand? It's just an unfortunate reality that the cops haven't been able to rapidly adjust to the new discovery just made in 2015, "mental illness." If only they had had more time to prepare resources like "better training" and "mental health professionals" in time. Edit: also Jesus "There have been plenty of videos in this thread of officers taking swings at prisoners for relatively minor resistance, you didn't see any of that here. In between taser uses, they tried to get her to comply." You're literally arguing that what they did isn't so bad because, sure, they may have electrocuted her to death, but at least they didn't use punches. Lemming fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Sep 15, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Lemming posted:they may have electrocuted her to death This is redundant. Electrocution = Electric Execution. You dont survive electrocution because if you do, you were not executed. You've just been shocked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If I wanted to scare the gently caress out of someone with schizophrenia I would get a bunch of dude in hazmat suits speaking through weird voice modulators to strap them to a chair. She pissed on the floor and covered herself and the walls of the cell with feces. But yeah your right, gently caress those guys for wearing protective equipment!  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:What should they have done differently given their orders and the resources on hand? Not killed her. Not trying to flippant. People who defend these things seem to like to list the steps A-Z, each of which was legal or "proper procedure" but when the final result is someone is dead that didn't need to die people can't be expected to say "step g they should have blah blah" or "At 3:17 in the video they did X instead of Y". If the end result is they killed her then something is wrong and it's impossible to expect anyone, even the cops involved to be able to point to one or three things that would have changed the outcome since it's almost never that simple. If I had to give some answer it would be wait. Most of these instances break down because the now dead person didn't comply fast enough and unless it's a ticking time bomb scenario what's wrong with just letting her calm down or call a nurse or in other cases give the person a minute and explain the situation instead of body slam because they didn't do something fast enough. A lot of the death by cop scenarios seem to stem from non-instant compliance and unless the person is an actual threat there's no need for this "didn't do what I said when I said it so tazer time".
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:She pissed on the floor and covered herself and the walls of the cell with feces. But yeah your right, gently caress those guys for wearing protective equipment! Yes, the cops that had bad training and no access to medical professionals should not have put on scary costumes so they could wrestle a mentally ill woman to the ground and taze her to death without having to touch something yucky.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In what way? The sherrifs didn't put on the suits for fun: she had a history of fighting with police and medical personnel, spitting, biting, and was peeing on the floor. If you read the report, they had the normally clothed officer ask her to leave the cell first, and she appeared initially compliant, but when he finished putting her handcuffs on, she tried to yank the restraints into the cell. That's when he called in the guys in tyvek suits. They continued to ask her to stop struggling, they weren't sadistic, they didn't beat her or kick her. There have been plenty of videos in this thread of officers taking swings at prisoners for relatively minor resistance, you didn't see any of that here. In between taser uses, they tried to get her to comply. As soon as they had her secured, they backed off and let the nurses examine her. Which part of their conduct do you think was excessive, brutal, or cruel? Yeah, it would probably have gone better if there was a trained psychologist on hand to try to talk her through it, but for sheriffs tasked with moving a combatitive prisoner, it didn't seem like they were out of line. What should they have done differently given their orders and the resources on hand? Without insulting you, I would just like to point out that you are in a very literal way, indicating that non-compliance of someone, who by definition of their disease literally can't discern reality, justifies homicide. If the people who had inflicted this on someone didn't have a title that included the word "Officer" in it, I would imagine "I followed protocol" wouldn't be enough to get you out of that poo poo heap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
"We kept telling the terrified, mentally ill woman to calm down and stop fighting us in between hurting her. Why didn't she just listen to us and not fight before we inflicted enough damage to kill her?" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
I think a big step would be banning tazers as a tool to force compliance. I don't think it's all that out there to say someone in pain, especially repeatedly is going to be thinking clearly, Your brain goes into "stop whatever is causing the pain" mode and surprise, you do something stupid and fight back. Triple for people with mental issues. If someone is on top of you twisting your arm to the point you're in a shitload of pain you're going to do whatever you can to stop that pain, severe enough and you'll even fight a cop to make it stop. They should be limited only to try and disable someone posing an actual threat not as a way to subdue someone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
That's what they are used for in many countries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Which? To disable a potential threat or as punishment/trying to force compliance? I'm assuming the former since this seems to be an American thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Lemming posted:without having to touch something yucky. Yeah, cause hepititus, aids, and other horrible diseases don't really exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Yeah, cause hepititus, aids, and other horrible diseases don't really exist. You seem to be confusing my disdain for a pack of killers for an indifference to peoples' safety. Far from it. The safest thing those thugs could have done for everyone would be to either have better training in advance or get people who knew what the gently caress they were doing to help. Which mental hospitals use HAZMAT suits to interact with patients? And what states are they in, so I can keep the gently caress away?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In what way? The sherrifs didn't put on the suits for fun: she had a history of fighting with police and medical personnel, spitting, biting, and was peeing on the floor. If you read the report, they had the normally clothed officer ask her to leave the cell first, and she appeared initially compliant, but when he finished putting her handcuffs on, she tried to yank the restraints into the cell. That's when he called in the guys in tyvek suits. They continued to ask her to stop struggling, they weren't sadistic, they didn't beat her or kick her. There have been plenty of videos in this thread of officers taking swings at prisoners for relatively minor resistance, you didn't see any of that here. In between taser uses, they tried to get her to comply. As soon as they had her secured, they backed off and let the nurses examine her. Which part of their conduct do you think was excessive, brutal, or cruel? Yeah, it would probably have gone better if there was a trained psychologist on hand to try to talk her through it, but for sheriffs tasked with moving a combatitive prisoner, it didn't seem like they were out of line. What should they have done differently given their orders and the resources on hand? In the video you can see that she was complying at first, until they put the wrist restraints on and open the door, then she starts saying "you promised you wouldn't kill me"; clear signs she has begun to panic. The officers response to this isn't to immediately de-escalate, but instead to pull her out of the cell, press her against the door with plastic riot shields, then yell at her to kneel, then when she won't do that, grabbing her legs and pulling them up so that she falls down head first on the ground (since her hands are restrained), then piling on top of her to restrain her legs. Frankly, McKenna's death was almost a foregone conclusion. Schizophrenic behaves irrationally -> Officers respond by donning hazmat suits, bring in riot shields -> This frightens schizophrenic, she behaves even more irrationally, refuses to follow orders -> Officers escalate force even more -> Schizophrenic becomes even more terrified, fights back -> Officers escalate force even more -> repeat until schizophrenic is killed It's not unreasonable to blame the officers who kept escalating force, rather then the terrified mentally ill woman who didn't behave rationally (big shocker, there). Only one side here has the power to stop the deadly cycle. The problem with our current system is that it essentially condemns severely mentally ill people to massive injury or death. In the current system, deescalation is either never used, or is only employed after absolute compliance has been achieved. And in order to get absolute compliance, extreme force is justified (and just  at "In between taser uses, they tried to get her to comply." Why the hell would tazing a panicking schizophrenic who is convinced- rightly- that she is about to be murdered make her MORE likely to comply?). The problem is, a severely mentally ill person by their very nature is often going to be unable to rationally respond to orders and commands, and indeed, may in fact become even more aggravated by them. Thus, by the time absolute compliance has been achieved, and de-escalation is okay to be used, the person is dead. When you focus on "well what's the problem with officers wearing hazmat suits? She was urinating on the floor, throwing it on officers." It's frustrating because it's a nitpicking, myopic point of view that refuses to ever step back and consider, from a overall perspective on How to Treat the Mentally Ill, is this really effective? Can tactics that lead to an inevitable escalation of force on both sides really be considered successful? Like, what is the goal here? To treat disturbed people, or to warehouse them and shrug when some of them die from tactics that you know will kill them? Ima Grip And Sip posted:She pissed on the floor and covered herself and the walls of the cell with feces. But yeah your right, gently caress those guys for wearing protective equipment! This is exactly what I'm talking about. When you isolate every detail of the case from the entire context it lets you ignore how the hazmat suits were just one part of the cycle of escalation/panic that meant McKenna was doomed. The goal here probably shouldn't even be charging these officers. If you did, then alright, they'd maybe be punished, but standard operating procedure would remain unchanged and it inevitably happens again to some other person. The entire system needs to change. This case is just one example of the futile way we "treat" mentally ill people in this country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
I don't see how it's wrong to wear a hazmat suit if her cell is literally covered in urine and feces. Like, are they supposed to just touch the poop? I do not agree with all the force being used but uh there are hazardous bodily fluids everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Which mental hospitals use HAZMAT suits to interact with patients? And what states are they in, so I can keep the gently caress away? You think she was in a hospital when this happened? Re-read the story, she was certainly not in a mental hospital. Holding facilities across the U.S.A, and the world, utilize hazard protective gear when dealing with (possibly)combative situations involving blood/urine/feces/etc. I get it that we're all mad that someone died horribly, but just for a second imagine working in a place were you might have to actually fight with a person that has any number of terrible diseases. And some prisoners actually try to infect guards regularly. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/18/nyregion/inmate-with-hiv-who-bit-guard-loses-appeal.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
codenameFANGIO posted:I don't see how it's wrong to wear a hazmat suit if her cell is literally covered in urine and feces. Like, are they supposed to just touch the poop? I do not agree with all the force being used but uh there are hazardous bodily fluids everywhere. you can just let her calm down. it's not like she's going anywhere. there's no reason to barge into a poop-smeared cell and force compliance from someone in the middle of a psychotic break a family friend has schizophrenia, and his mother/primary caregiver has told us all in clear terms to never call the cops if he's having a violent episode, because they will almost certainly kill him
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
codenameFANGIO posted:I don't see how it's wrong to wear a hazmat suit if her cell is literally covered in urine and feces. Like, are they supposed to just touch the poop? I do not agree with all the force being used but uh there are hazardous bodily fluids everywhere. Because they clearly have no idea what they're doing and full HAZMAT suits and talking through some sort of walkie talkie thing is scary as gently caress. In what universe is seeing four guys in those suits rush at you through a door going to do anything but be extremely terrifying? I mean look at this: http://newsone.com/3180956/new-video-shows-jail-incident-that-lead-to-natasha-mckennas-death/ quote:The jail has eliminated the use of tasers and a team from the department has devised a plan get those in the jail who are mentally ill into treatment. Anybody could have told you that their plan was stupid as gently caress. Why did it take someone dying for them to go back and say "Hm, maybe we have no idea what the gently caress we're doing here"? Mentally ill people aren't a new phenomenon. There are ways of dealing with sick people who are covered in feces and urine without going full-blown Ebola containment suits. It's like protests in Ferguson. When the cops rolled up in crazy vans and had people sitting on top of them with sniper rifles sweeping the crowd  Yeah, having all that gear and equipment makes them safer from an attack. It also freaks the gently caress out of the people who they're interacting with and is a factor in escalating the situation, which can actually make things more dangerous. spacetoaster posted:You think she was in a hospital when this happened? Re-read the story, she was certainly not in a mental hospital. I know she wasn't in a hospital. My point was that the suits they used were most likely not appropriate for the situation and most likely scared the woman more which made her resist more which scared the cops so they tased her more etc. Edit: If those suits were the right tool for the job they would probably be used in mental hospitals. From what I could tell, they're generally not used when interacting with patients. Again, please explain to me how barging into the room and wrestling to the ground a mentally ill woman like they did was safer than not doing that and waiting for people who have been professionally trained to deal with mentally ill people to say what they should do? Edit: The fundamental point here is that the people saying the cops hosed up here because they made a bad situation worse. They made it way more unsafe for everybody through what they did. Nobody is saying they should have joined in smearing poop on themselves. I understand that wearing a full blown Ebola hazmat suit makes you safer if you have to go and wrestle someone covered in poop, but in this situation, there was pretty clearly no pressing need to go in and wrestle someone covered in poop. Lemming fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Lemming posted:
Uh, no. I've never made that argument (and I would have waited too). I was just under the impression that you were having trouble understanding why anyone would wear that type of protective gear in a holding facility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
mainly it's because daddy government bought them all these cool toys to play with and when else are you going to pull out the full day glo radiochembiological dress up kit with scary darth vader mask? torturing a crazy woman to death is as good a time as any. really without the proper gear there's no real way to know if four grown men can overpower a naked helpless woman in the grip of mental illness
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Edit: The fundamental point here is that the people saying the cops hosed up here because they made a bad situation worse. They made it way more unsafe for everybody through what they did. Nobody is saying they should have joined in smearing poop on themselves. I understand that wearing a full blown Ebola hazmat suit makes you safer if you have to go and wrestle someone covered in poop, but in this situation, there was pretty clearly no pressing need to go in and wrestle someone covered in poop. Sorry to nitpick on this a bit, but human blood, feces and urine is an incredibly hazardous substance for one very simple reason: any infections that the person had are, by definition, able to infect other humans. You can get by with touching dog poo poo because microbes that make dogs sick are less likely to make you sick, but human feces is a whole different story. It's entirely justifiable to wear suits like that when dealing with a struggling person who could cause injury (and getting feces in an open cut is a horrible idea) from the perspective of proper protective equipment. That being said, your primary point that the situation was badly mishandled is entirely correct, and I would argue that they would have been better off waiting for a medical professional, and that there was absolutely no situation in which they should have entered her cell (after all, even if she were causing harm to herself, it's not like they didn't cause even more harm to her).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you can just let her calm down. it's not like she's going anywhere. there's no reason to barge into a poop-smeared cell and force compliance from someone in the middle of a psychotic break So what your telling me, Jail Officer Popular Thug Drink, is you left my *insert family member* sitting in a jail cell covered in their own feces, urine, blood, and contaminated clothing for several hours because while they were actively causing harm to themselves, you didn't want to interrupt the "psychotic break"? You made no attempts to remove or restrain them from further acts of harm against themselves because *reasons*? My lawyers will be in touch, but feel free to just send a check instead. Edit. The suits are by the very function are likely de-escalation. A normal person getting hit with, covered by, or smelling another's feces, urine, blood, etc. is likely to react in one of many different ways. If you have two layers on, and a mask so you can't smell anything, the fact that someone your dealing with is covered in an otherwise hazardous substance isn't going to bother you very much. Ima Grip And Sip fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Sorry to nitpick on this a bit, but human blood, feces and urine is an incredibly hazardous substance for one very simple reason: any infections that the person had are, by definition, able to infect other humans. You can get by with touching dog poo poo because microbes that make dogs sick are less likely to make you sick, but human feces is a whole different story. It's entirely justifiable to wear suits like that when dealing with a struggling person who could cause injury (and getting feces in an open cut is a horrible idea) from the perspective of proper protective equipment. I think the entire argument was about whether it was correct to wrestle versus wait it out, not whether protective equipment was appropriate when dealing with piss and poo poo all over the floor/person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:So what your telling me, Jail Officer Popular Thug Drink, is you left my *insert family member* sitting in a jail cell covered in their own feces, urine, blood, and contaminated clothing for several hours because while they were actively causing harm to themselves, you didn't want to interrupt the "psychotic break"? You made no attempts to remove or restrain them from further acts of harm against themselves because *reasons*? My lawyers will be in touch, but feel free to just send a check instead. hey if you can't hack it as a cop there are plenty of other do nothing government jobs that let you lord petty authority over people, though admittedly very few that let you scare the living poo poo out of the insane Ima Grip And Sip posted:Edit. The suits are by the very function are likely de-escalation. A normal person getting hit with, covered by, or smelling another's feces, urine, blood, etc. is likely to react in one of many different ways. If you have two layers on, and a mask so you can't smell anything, the fact that someone your dealing with is covered in an otherwise hazardous substance isn't going to bother you very much. i dont think you understand the fundamental concept behind deescalation. it does not involve putting on kit that makes it easier/safer for you to attack someone, hth boner confessor fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I think the entire argument was about whether it was correct to wrestle versus wait it out, not whether protective equipment was appropriate when dealing with piss and poo poo all over the floor/person. Yes, which is why my second paragraph deals with exactly that. I even mentioned that that was the "primary point."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Ima Grip And Sip posted:So what your telling me, Jail Officer Popular Thug Drink, is you left my *insert family member* sitting in a jail cell covered in their own feces, urine, blood, and contaminated clothing for several hours because while they were actively causing harm to themselves, you didn't want to interrupt the "psychotic break"? You made no attempts to remove or restrain them from further acts of harm against themselves because *reasons*? My lawyers will be in touch, but feel free to just send a check instead. Yes, jails like that should probably have some sort of system to get trained medical professionals on site quickly for the safety of everyone involved. That they had no plan in place at all from the start was a significant gently caress up. Also, the scenario you're making up is also a lot better than what actually happened, which makes what you're doing pretty silly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
The jail is already admitted their policies were flawed and are changing them, why are people defending behavior that not even the jail defends?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
/\ are they seriously changing their biohazard protocol? Or just changing the policy on further restraining someone who is already locked in a cell?Dirk the Average posted:Yes, which is why my second paragraph deals with exactly that. I even mentioned that that was the "primary point." Then what was the point of your first paragraph? PPE isn't really being questioned but you sure as hell came off like it was. The whole point being brought up is whether the cops in that situation acted appropriately in subduing a prisoner having a mental episode rather than considering the risks of hustling into the cell with facemasks and tyvek to restrain someone who wasn't stable to begin with. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:/\ are they seriously changing their biohazard protocol? Or just changing the policy on further restraining someone who is already locked in a cell? Petty much any agency that deals with prisons and jails is changing policy when it comes to the mentally ill who are non-compliant, in an enclosed space, and don't pose a threat to others. Waiting, persuasion and consultation with medical and psyche experts is supposed to be the norm. The use of pepper spray, much less tasers are strongly disfavored. The tyvek suits, well, seriously hep C and HIV in prisons are rampant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:/\ are they seriously changing their biohazard protocol? Or just changing the policy on further restraining someone who is already locked in a cell? They're changing their taser use policy for one. But lets not ignore why she was in jail in the first place: quote:Ms. McKenna, an African American woman with a 7-year-old daughter, had a history of erratic behavior but no serious criminal convictions. She was detained Jan. 15 after making a commotion in public, then struggling with Alexandria police officers who tried to restrain her. She punched one officer in the face and tried to bite others. So one department puts the clearly mentally ill woman in a hospital for punching their officer, then the next department uses the same incident to jail her for 8 days. Including 5 days in isolation, all pre-trial or bond hearing of course. Why did Fairfax county pick her up btw? quote:And then, she landed almost immediately back in police custody—not by harming anyone or committing any crime, but for walking into a grocery store, still in her hospital clothes, and calling the police to say she had been assaulted. That's right, she made the mistake of calling for help. Unfortunately, there was not to be had in Fairfax County. quote:Because she was psychotic, McKenna was put in an isolation cell away from other prisoners. She spent a week there waiting for Alexandria officials to come and get her. During this time, she turned violent, kicking, biting and spitting at officers. She was left alone inside four walls with nothing except an occasional check by jail officials. There was no outside recreation, not meals with others, only isolation. And to be clear, it wasn't a mental health team dispatched to her cell: quote:When McKenna stepped handcuffed from her cell, the Sheriff’s Emergency Response Team (SERT) took charge. You leave a mentally ill person in isolation for days, slap them around a few times, then try to tie them to a metal chair, shock them till they stop resisting then blame "excited delirium" when they die. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:They're changing their taser use policy for one. Is anyone defending straight-up abuse of a mentally unstable person? Or are we getting into one of those tailspins where someone saying "this was all hosed up" gets interpreted as "they didn't need those protective garments" which then gets met with "uh, yeah they did, that's normal procedure for any kind of biohazard" that morphs into "yeah they needed to tackle the prisoner' and so on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is anyone defending straight-up abuse of a mentally unstable person? Or are we getting into one of those tailspins where someone saying "this was all hosed up" gets interpreted as "they didn't need those protective garments" which then gets met with "uh, yeah they did, that's normal procedure for any kind of biohazard" that morphs into "yeah they needed to tackle the prisoner' and so on? You act as if it was ever anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is anyone defending straight-up abuse of a mentally unstable person? Or are we getting into one of those tailspins where someone saying "this was all hosed up" gets interpreted as "they didn't need those protective garments" which then gets met with "uh, yeah they did, that's normal procedure for any kind of biohazard" that morphs into "yeah they needed to tackle the prisoner' and so on? It seems that some are defending that nothing at all was wrong about the way the take down occurred, except her weak heart. But I don't enjoy putting words in other's mouths. For those that are interested this seems like a fairly exhaustive report: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/news/2015/report_of_investigation_of_in-custody_death.pdf quote:SERT came into physical contact with Ms. McKenna for the first time at the two minute four second (2:04 video) mark on the video. Deputies were able to secure her into the restraint chair approximately twenty-one minutes and five seconds (21:05 video) into the video. Ms. McKenna struggled with deputies for a period of approximately nineteen minutes and one Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
So a Black NYPD officer has just charged the Highway division of the the NYPD with being racist. http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/black-nypd-highway-blows-whistle-racism-article-1.2359060?cid=bitly Choice bits from the article quote:"In May of 2015 I came in with 82 summonses, which is well above the quota of 70 per month...After that I was not allowed to use an unmarked (car) to get me to stop being successful and to get me transferred out of highway," he charges in the complaint. I really love (wait no whats the opposite of that, hate, yes hate) that they no longer assigned this guy to a predominately black part of Queens, what did they think he was going to go easy on them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If I wanted to scare the gently caress out of someone with schizophrenia I would get a bunch of dude in hazmat suits speaking through weird voice modulators to strap them to a chair. What a strange pastiche of faux-medical techniques and outright torture. Kafka might have imagined it, then said to himself "nahh that's too outlandish."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So a Black NYPD officer has just charged the Highway division of the the NYPD with being racist. That is the allegation. I'm going to be honest here, but I'm not 100% sure on this one. This little choice phrase "a result of an allegation from a female motorist he ticketed who claimed he "flirted" with her" could mean anything from him giving her a ticket to full on sexual assault. Some people do file pre-emptive strikes. I'm not saying it is or it isn't true, but just because some cop's lawyer says something doesn't mean it holds more weight because you believe the activity goes on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
inkblot posted:You act as if it was ever anything else. Well for a while things were more cleanly spoken, but we weren't dealing with actually rolling around in poo poo while beating a mentally ill woman to death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Is anyone defending straight-up abuse of a mentally unstable person? Yes Dead Reckoning posted:...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Then what was the point of your first paragraph? PPE isn't really being questioned but you sure as hell came off like it was. The whole point being brought up is whether the cops in that situation acted appropriately in subduing a prisoner having a mental episode rather than considering the risks of hustling into the cell with facemasks and tyvek to restrain someone who wasn't stable to begin with. A lot of people don't quite understand exactly why PPE is important when dealing with bodily fluids - just interjecting that to point out that the facemasks and tyvek, as you just put it, are kind of necessary when you're dealing with someone who is hostile and covered in a biohazard. Can we just drop this derail though? We both agree that the actions taken by the police were out of line and that they handled the situation about as badly as it was possible to mishandle the situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
The only reason they *had* to move her that day was because they were tired of dealing with her, because she'd "thrown urine under the door" after being locked in a blank room with only a smock and a blanket for 5 days. This because they arrested her on a warrant supposedly* only issued to get her mental health care and because she foolishly called the police to report being assaulted. I'm sure they investigated the assault she reported too  And on top of all that, the reason she wasn't in a mental hospital was because police told multiple magistrates that she wasn't a danger to herself or others, repeatedly and over the disagreement of doctors. When she fled the hospital and they called the mobile crisis unit, well the mobile crisis unit just told the hospital to call the police. *She did hit the officer, but APD said they didn't want to press charges and only used the warrant to get a psych hold. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:15 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And on top of all that, the reason she wasn't in a mental hospital was because police told multiple magistrates that she wasn't a danger to herself or others, repeatedly and over the disagreement of doctors. When she fled the hospital and they called the mobile crisis unit, well the mobile crisis unit just told the hospital to call the police. Can you link an article that says this? It seems like the opposite of what usually happens with MH, jails would love to offload anyone with even a minor case of depression to the hospital, they just can't. Generally the problem with MH is that the police are not equipped to deal with it and if they do try to do something other than "stop resisting" they get jack poo poo unless the person is actively cutting her wrists or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 08:00
|
|