|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Except dogpiling a non-violent suspect until he suffocates can not by any stretch of the imagination be called a necessary medical intervention. Was Freddie Gray suffering from an acute case of verticalitis? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Dec 2, 2015 |
# ? Dec 2, 2015 02:17 |
|
|
# ? May 29, 2024 19:38 |
|
Frabba posted:What are the odds that this is legitimate? I found it through the Southern Poverty Law Center so I'm going to assume legit. They know their radicalized racists.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 02:19 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, so let's say that, because he has the equivalent of a Boy Scout's first aid merit badge, the officer applies a bad tourniquet to the leg, and it ends up having to be amputated. Is the officer liable for that? Why would the officer (or anyone else) be liable for providing reasonable first aid? Especially first aid that they're trained to give?
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 02:20 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I was responding to Falcon's general suggestion that police should have an affirmative legal duty to render medical assistance to suspects in custody. This came up earlier too, when someone was asking why the police don't perform first aid on the people they shoot. I'm not sure what the various state laws say about the matter, but I agree that they should have a duty to ensure that suspects receive adequate care. I just don't think it's necessarily wise to require the officers to provide that care themselves, for the reasons I outlined above. It might be possible to write some sort of Good Samaritan exception, but that requires accepting that police will be off the hook if they gently caress up treating the person they just shot. One thing that came out from a report following a grand jury investigation into the semi-recent death in custody of local Albany man Dontay Ivy is that quite a few police officers have had EMT training. But you don't even need that much to provide basic life support, and considering the circumstances police may be working under, perhaps EMT training should be added to their requirements. ETA: Sorry, didn't see your edit. I don't think what you're saying is true, because I am pretty sure that if I committed a crime, someone got fatally hurt during its execution, and died in spite of me attempting to subsequently save their life, it would still be considered a homicide.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 02:23 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I was responding to Falcon's general suggestion that police should have an affirmative legal duty to render medical assistance to suspects in custody. This came up earlier too, when someone was asking why the police don't perform first aid on the people they shoot. I'm not sure what the various state laws say about the matter, but I agree that police officers should have a duty to ensure that suspects receive adequate care. I just don't think it's necessarily wise to require the officers to provide that care themselves, for the reasons I outlined above. It might be possible to write some sort of Good Samaritan exception, but that requires accepting that police will be off the hook if they gently caress up treating the person they just shot. They should at least have a duty to immediately call paramedics to the scene. Hell, they should probably call paramedics to any arrest that involves any sort of violence on the off chance that the police or the arrested person caused an injury that is more serious than it looks. This should be doubly true of any officer involved shooting. It may also be worth it to have specialized units, similar to how firefighters have medical training/ambulances (I had an EKG from a firetruck once), as part of the police force that are trained to render immediate first aid and transfer injured people to hospitals.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 02:23 |
|
falcon2424 posted:Why would the officer (or anyone else) be liable for providing reasonable first aid? Especially first aid that they're trained to give?
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 02:31 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You really think no one ever tries to sue for medical mistakes? People can sue for anything. I'm asking why you'd think the person would a good case. If you press criminal charges, the "justification" defenses kicks in. If you sue, you'll need to overcome Good Samaritan laws AND qualified immunity.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 02:39 |
I'd personally favor just going ahead and making cops strictly liable for the physical health of anyone in their custody, with pre-existing conditions they couldn't have known about being an affirmative defense. Abusable, but in ways that result in less dead citizens than the current arrangement.
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 02:42 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, so let's say that, because he has the equivalent of a Boy Scout's first aid merit badge, the officer applies a bad tourniquet to the leg, and it ends up having to be amputated. Is the officer liable for that? Most states have Good Samaritan laws that limit the liability, and BSA hasn't taught tourniquets in a long long time. And cops do let people bleed to death before getting them medical care, so I think it'd be worth it.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 03:20 |
|
Javid posted:I'd personally favor just going ahead and making cops strictly liable for the physical health of anyone in their custody, with pre-existing conditions they couldn't have known about being an affirmative defense. Sounds good to me.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 04:47 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Most states have Good Samaritan laws that limit the liability, and BSA hasn't taught tourniquets in a long long time. And cops do let people bleed to death before getting them medical care, so I think it'd be worth it.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 07:49 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You really think no one ever tries to sue for medical mistakes?
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 07:58 |
Watermelon City posted:Someone is dying in front of you and you're scratching your chin going gee I don't know what's my liability? This is historically one of the reasons why duties to assist/rescue don't normally exist at common law, as well as the basis of a variety of other messy tort law concepts.
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 09:06 |
|
Watermelon City posted:Someone is dying in front of you and you're scratching your chin going gee I don't know what's my liability? Well yeah, if you save their life they can testify that they weren't doing whatever it is you decide to make up to justify shooting them.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 09:23 |
Of course he did!quote:A white Cleveland patrolman who shot a 12-year-old black boy carrying a pellet gun told investigators that he and his partner continuously yelled "show me your hands" before he fired the fatal shots, according to the officer's statement released by prosecutors Tuesday.
|
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 09:40 |
|
Ah frame by frame analysis. loving up football games and loving up justice.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 09:51 |
|
Remember, police are subject to the same legal system with the same resources as civilians. That's an assertion that was made in the last thread by a regular pro-cop poster.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 11:32 |
|
Now it's been awhile since I watched the video of the incident, but isn't everything this dude is saying completely contradicted by the video that shows the cruiser pull up abs the kid shot in less than 5 seconds
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 12:34 |
|
KomradeX posted:Now it's been awhile since I watched the video of the incident, but isn't everything this dude is saying completely contradicted by the video that shows the cruiser pull up abs the kid shot in less than 5 seconds Nonsense. I can fit three "show me your hands" in two seconds without breaking a sweat. That's like seven or eight repetitions in five seconds.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 12:49 |
|
KomradeX posted:Now it's been awhile since I watched the video of the incident, but isn't everything this dude is saying completely contradicted by the video that shows the cruiser pull up abs the kid shot in less than 5 seconds It is, which is why the statements were not 'sworn' so they cant be used in court.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 13:14 |
|
Grundulum posted:Nonsense. I can fit three "show me your hands" in two seconds without breaking a sweat. That's like seven or eight repetitions in five seconds. SHOMRANSOMEORANS *blam* *blam*
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 14:57 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You really think no one ever tries to sue for medical mistakes? So rather than have to deal with the occasional litigation, you think it is preferable to let someone bleed to death. That's pretty lovely.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 17:18 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:ETA: Sorry, didn't see your edit. I don't think what you're saying is true, because I am pretty sure that if I committed a crime, someone got fatally hurt during its execution, and died in spite of me attempting to subsequently save their life, it would still be considered a homicide. Watermelon City posted:Someone is dying in front of you and you're scratching your chin going gee I don't know what's my liability? DrNutt posted:So rather than have to deal with the occasional litigation, you think it is preferable to let someone bleed to death. That's pretty lovely. Like I said, it's workable, but it has the potential to create situations that I think people concerned about policing and justice would be unhappy with.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 22:26 |
|
Uh if the police deliberately kill someone while pretending to treat them, I don't think that would fall under Good Samaritan immunity if proven. For example Florida's statute: anyone who renders aid whether licensed or not yada yada "shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances." I doubt deliberately murdering someone is how an ordinary reasonably prudent person would act (note: I am not a doctor I could be wrong) so I don't think we have to worry about accidentally legalizing cops executing someone and claiming it's medical care (I mean aside from the de facto legality of cops murdering people now by letting them bleed out so they can't contradict the cop's testimomy). I don't see any way something like that would give police immunity to allegations that they murdered someone on purpose. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Dec 2, 2015 |
# ? Dec 2, 2015 22:40 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh if the police deliberately kill someone while pretending to treat them, I don't think that would fall under Good Samaritan immunity if proven. I think the main issue is neither calling the paramedics nor allowing others at the scene to administer medical care for injuries caused by officers. There is a perverse incentive for officers who criminally critically injure suspects to deny them medical care so they die rather than live to testify or sue. There should be a legal and/or procedural mechanism to avert this.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 22:48 |
|
Nothing I wrote had anything to do with the police knowingly and provably killing people unlawfully.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 22:57 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Nothing I wrote had anything to do with the police knowingly and provably killing people unlawfully. Dead Reckoning posted:No, I think letting the police treat people in their care under some sort of Good Samaritan-like immunity is perfectly workable, but I expect that there would be some pushback on that after the inevitable "suspect loses a limb due to substandard medical care but can't sue due to immunity" story, or allegations that police provided improper treatment to a shot suspect who dies after a questionable shoot so that he wouldn't live to tell his side of the story. There's no Good Samaritan law where anyone would have immunity to those allegations
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 23:35 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, I think letting the police treat people in their care under some sort of Good Samaritan-like immunity is perfectly workable, but I expect that there would be some pushback on that after the inevitable "suspect loses a limb due to substandard medical care but can't sue due to immunity" story, or allegations that police provided improper treatment to a shot suspect who dies after a questionable shoot so that he wouldn't live to tell his side of the story. Which would still be a step up from current SOP which seems to be magdump, shout at the dead/dying person and treat them like they're dangerous for an additional 5 minutes or so, then get on the phone to the police union.
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 23:51 |
|
DrNutt posted:Which would still be a step up from current SOP which seems to be magdump, shout at the dead/dying person and treat them like they're dangerous for an additional 5 minutes or so, then get on the phone to the police union. This is what literally happened when that NYPD officer shot that dude in NYCHA housing he called his partner than I actually think they're Union Rep, to figure this or while this dude bleed to death in a stairwell in November
|
# ? Dec 2, 2015 23:57 |
|
KomradeX posted:This is what literally happened when that NYPD officer shot that dude in NYCHA housing he called his partner than I actually think they're Union Rep, to figure this or while this dude bleed to death in a stairwell in November Yeah, that's what I was referencing. I think at the very least, with something like Tamir Rice, you could attempt to give some kind of aid rather than scream at the sister of the 12 year old kid you just blew away and prevent her from rendering aid or calling for help. If the Tamir Rice case can't get a conviction for those murderers, we should just burn the loving country down and start over. Nothing at this point is apparently beyond the pale.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 00:06 |
|
VitalSigns posted:There's no Good Samaritan law where anyone would have immunity to those allegations KomradeX posted:This is what literally happened when that NYPD officer shot that dude in NYCHA housing he called his partner than I actually think they're Union Rep, to figure this or while this dude bleed to death in a stairwell in November quote:Fliedner, the lead prosecutor in the case, did not mention the order in court Wednesday. He did say, however, that another report by the Daily News -- which claimed Liang texted his union representative right after the shooting -- was false.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 00:07 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That particular detail was denied by both the prosecutor and the union. The union rep thing is incorrect, true. What actually happened is just as bad though. They did not report the incident, at all, to anyone, for almost 20 minutes after it happened. First they spent two minutes arguing about which one of the two officers should call their supervisor to report the shot. These are quotes. "You call." "No, you call." In their defense, at the time they were unaware anybody had been shot. In their not-defense, when they did finally walk down a flight and realized that a man had been shot, they just sorta... kept on walking down the stairs. Presumably while whistling a nonchalant tune. Eventually, after other police were already on scene responding to residents' 911 calls, they finally decided to radio in what had happened. Source. The parts I mention are on page 7 and page 10.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 00:51 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Without a confession, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove that poor medical care was due to malice rather than incompetence (which is what Good Samaritan laws protect). Oh well yes you're right about that, it's not easy to prove, but this is still an improvement over the status quo. At least it's notionally possible to prove that the care did not meet the reasonably prudent standard, whereas right now it's completely legal to let a guy just bleed out. Dead Reckoning posted:I suppose you could require that every police officer hold an EMT-B cert, but good luck finding the money for that, especially in smaller departments. Federalize the police Then their funding won't depend on how randomly poor their town is and we can have federal Law Enforcement Division that investigates police shootings and charges them so there's no conflict-of-interest with the cop's friends investigating him and his DA buddy bringing it to a grand jury. And hey, making cops EMTs would almost certainly save lives even apart from the duty it would impose on them not to deliberately kill people with incompetent care, right?
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 01:17 |
|
I just did some cursory poking around, and it appears to cost $600-900 to obtain an EMT basic certification. Could not quickly find an answer to how much it costs to recertify and maintain the license. Additional Googling suggests that state and local law enforcement agencies employ about 1,000,000 people full-time. Assuming (perhaps generously) that all of those million are patrol officers, and that EMT licenses must be re-obtained at full cost every year, that's an annual expenditure of just under $1B to get every officer in the US EMT-certified. (Really, the annual cost will probably be substantially lower, since many full-time law enforcement personnel aren't patrol officers, and I am pretty sure EMT certs last for more than a year and don't need to be reobtained from scratch.) How much do we spend at a federal level on grants for former military equipment? Is it about that much, significantly more, or significantly less? Set aside the political feasibility for the moment; I was just curious about the economics.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 01:27 |
Grundulum posted:I just did some cursory poking around, and it appears to cost $600-900 to obtain an EMT basic certification. Could not quickly find an answer to how much it costs to recertify and maintain the license. Additional Googling suggests that state and local law enforcement agencies employ about 1,000,000 people full-time. Assuming (perhaps generously) that all of those million are patrol officers, and that EMT licenses must be re-obtained at full cost every year, that's an annual expenditure of just under $1B to get every officer in the US EMT-certified. (Really, the annual cost will probably be substantially lower, since many full-time law enforcement personnel aren't patrol officers, and I am pretty sure EMT certs last for more than a year and don't need to be reobtained from scratch.) How much do we spend at a federal level on grants for former military equipment? Is it about that much, significantly more, or significantly less? Where does the $600-900 go? Is it entirely to cover costs?
|
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 01:35 |
All of the above is why I favor strict liability unless it can be conclusively proven they could not have prevented whatever injury or death is at issue. No more benefit of the doubt. Burden of proof on the person with an entire union behind them is still pretty fair.
|
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 01:41 |
|
Also where are you finding $600 EMT-B courses, because it's like two grand minimum around here.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 01:44 |
VitalSigns posted:Federalize the police Then their funding won't depend on how randomly poor their town is and we can have federal Law Enforcement Division that investigates police shootings and charges them so there's no conflict-of-interest with the cop's friends investigating him and his DA buddy bringing it to a grand jury. And hey, making cops EMTs would almost certainly save lives even apart from the duty it would impose on them not to deliberately kill people with incompetent care, right? This would require a constitutional amendment and also be a very bad idea. Imagine a federalized police under the Trump administration- or Paul, or Nixon. Police powers is frustrating, but it's there for a good reason. Also, given congressional funding of federal agencies, the training still wouldn't happen, even if other regulatory and conflict of interest elements would be improved.
|
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 01:45 |
|
Yeah it was a joke, hence the devil smiley, I know it's unconstitutional currently. Although really I don't see how it could be any worse than police under various lovely governors and/or the local racist mayor. At least federal agencies are accountable to national politics. And anyway, President Nixon wasn't even able to stop the FBI investigation of himself, four or eight years just isn't long enough to build up enough cronies to completely ruin institutions, it'd have to be GOP dominance for a long long time before all the federal police agencies are their private stasi or whatever it is you're worried about. E: But I also think states' rights are poo poo. Sorry the south ruined it by being terrible in every way with every chance the constitution gave them, gently caress federalism let's have a real nation-state. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Dec 3, 2015 |
# ? Dec 3, 2015 02:00 |
|
|
# ? May 29, 2024 19:38 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah it was a joke, hence the devil smiley, I know it's unconstitutional currently. My objection to this would actually be the opposite of DV's: I would point out that incestuous local relations between police forces, municipal governments, and the judiciary are not uncommon in countries with strictly nationwide forces. At least in the US the levels of local, State, and National mean that you have a few forces independent of each other where the higher levels are less likely to be embroiled in lower-level corruption simply because they have limited authority in that area unless things go south. quote:E: But I also think states' rights are poo poo. Sorry the south ruined it by being terrible in every way with every chance the constitution gave them, gently caress federalism let's have a real nation-state. If anything international trends are towards more federalism and devolved legislation, not centralization. Just look at places like the UK or Spain, and there are many struggles over this in terms of how the EU is supposed to run as a whole. The US is singular in having tackled head-on many of these issues in the past, and while the way things are done here is not perfect, I am not sure that further centralization is the solution, especially with how gridlocked the central institutions are.
|
# ? Dec 3, 2015 02:12 |