Man calls paramedics, gets tasered by police instead


PDA






TargetTerror
June 17, 2007, 12:44 PM
http://www.waxahachiedailylight.com/articles/2007/05/20/dailylight/news/01-05-20-taser.txt


Waxahachie resident Allen Nelms says a call to 911 to get medical attention for his diabetic seizure got him Tasered by police instead.

He said he still has no answer as to why police broke down his door with their guns drawn before shooting him multiple times with a Taser as he lay in bed.

“One of the officers said I ‘lunged’ at him. I asked him, ‘How can I lunge at you from my back and on my bed?’ ” Nelms said in an interview with the Daily Light.
All he’s received, he said, is a one-paragraph statement from police that indicates the department concluded an investigation into his allegation of excessive force in less than five days, with Assistant Chief Brett Colston saying the officers operated within policy guidelines.

The 52-year-old partially disabled man - who also suffers from rheumatoid arthritis - was having a diabetic seizure during the early morning hours of April 28 when his girlfriend, Josie Edwards, called 911 to request paramedics.

“I respect the law and police but on this day I was a shooting target for them when I needed help,” Nelms said in his May 3 written complaint to the police department.
The couple’s statements indicate an officer came to the residence on Perry Avenue and inquired as to what was going on - and then called for backup.

Nelms told the Daily Light that he was in his bed in the couple’s bedroom when officers burst in with their guns drawn and yelling at him to get on the floor.

He said he told them he needed medical help, not the police, but officers continued yelling at him to get on the floor. He said he went to roll over to his right, with photographs indicating he was struck by Taser barbs on his left side, his back and his shoulder. He said he was handcuffed, with paramedics intervening when the officers began trying to yank the Taser barbs from his skin.
Paramedics removed the Taser barbs and then checked his blood sugar, with officers then releasing him from the handcuffs.

In her statement, Edwards, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease and is on oxygen, said an officer came to the door and asked her what was the matter before calling for backup and the paramedics.

She said about six or seven police officers kicked the front door in and stormed the back bedroom where she said she could hear one telling Nelms to get on the floor.
“Allen was shouting, ‘Please don’t do me like this. I just need help.’ Next thing I heard some ‘zing’ noise and Allen was shouting,” she wrote in her statement. “I asked what were they doing to him. One policeman replied, ‘We just took care of him.’

“After they did their shooting and laughing, they came out (of) the rooms. The paramedics had to pull out the Tasers,” she said.

After Nelms was Tasered, Edwards said officers asked her what she was doing there, with Edwards telling them it was her home and she lived there. She said the officers then questioned her about what time Nelms came home and if he was drunk or on drugs, if he ever got into fights or if he had hit her.
In her statement, Edwards said she told officers Nelms did none of that and that he was sickly. She also said she told the officers they had called for paramedics in the past because of his seizures.

Nelms told the Daily Light he has never had a problem in calling for paramedics before, and there is no history of his becoming violent when he is having a diabetic seizure.

Edwards noted the same in her statement, which was taken as part of Nelms’ complaint.
“Of the 16 years that we (have) lived here and called for paramedics, police decide to come and take over and try to almost kill the man,” she said in her statement. “They never asked any questions (like) did he have a heart pacer, they just wanted to have fun by shooting Tasers and handcuffing the man after he was shot,” she said.

Nelms said after he was checked over, the police and paramedics left. He was not transported, there was no arrest made nor charge filed.

After his complaint was closed, Nelms said he was referred by a city council member to Waxahachie attorney Rodney Ramsey, who told the Daily Light he has filed notice with the city on Nelms’ behalf to preserve all documentation and evidence relating to the incident.
“This police department has a bad history of disparate treatment on the east side,” Ramsey said. “They’re not treated fairly. They’re not treated justly.

“I bet the police wouldn’t kick in a white man’s door on Spring Creek at 4:30 a.m. and Taser him three or four times,” said Ramsey, saying he will seek justice on Nelms’ behalf.

“I don’t care if I make a dime on this case. I don’t care if this costs me money,” he said. “I want to know what policy says you can kick somebody’s door down and Taser them for asking for medical help. This is not going to happen in this town anymore.”
Ramsey said he wants the names of the officers involved in the incident and that he will renew his efforts to see a citizens review board of police established in the city of Waxahachie, saying that while the majority of the department’s officers are good officers, there are some whose actions are questionable.

In addition to what Ramsey cites as Civil Rights violations, he said what really disturbs him about the incident is that the officers were laughing about what happened.

“They better have everything they have on this,” he said. “There had better not be one piece of evidence that is shredded in this case.”
Nelms filed his complaint with the police department at 2:05 p.m. Thursday, May 3.

An internal affairs investigation was conducted, with Colston informing Nelms of its conclusion in a written response dated Wednesday, May 9.

“A review regarding your written complaint dated May 3, 2007, was conducted,” Colston wrote in a one-paragraph response. “After careful consideration of your allegations we have found that the officers were within our departmental policies regarding the use of a less than lethal force option (TASER) on you during an event at your residence on April 28, 2007.”
Because litigation has been threatened, little if any information is available for public release. A provision of the Open Records Act allows governmental agencies to withhold otherwise releasable materials under an exception of pending litigation.

As a result, in this case, such materials as dispatcher and radio communications and the use of force report in all likelihood will be withheld - as allowed by prior rulings of the state Attorney General’s Office.

A brief synopsis of the incident that is releasable by the department says only that officers responded to 720 Perry at about 4:30 a.m. April 28 in reference to a 911 hangup.
A Waxahachie Fire Department call record indicates a fire squad responded to the address on a “medical assist, assist EMS crew.” Fire personnel were notified at 4:44 a.m., arriving at 4:47 and clearing at 5:25 a.m.

“We acknowledge an incident occurred and allegations of excessive force made,” Police Chief Chuck Edge said. “We have looked into the incident and (because of Civil Service rules and the pending litigation Open Record exception) cannot talk about it any further.”

The Daily Light has requested a copy of the department’s policies on use of a less than lethal force option.

The Waxahachie Police Department acquired Tasers in late 2004. The weapons fire two small probes from up to 21 feet away and administer a 50,000-volt shock. The electrical charge disables a person’s ability to control his muscles, making coordinated activity all but impossible during the five-second duration of the impulse.

If you enjoyed reading about "Man calls paramedics, gets tasered by police instead" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 01:27 PM
I bet the police wouldn’t kick in a white man’s door on Spring Creek at 4:30 a.m. and Taser him three or four times,” said Ramsey, saying he will seek justice on Nelms’ behalf.


Don't you believe it!

On a side note, just another isolated incedent, nothing to see here folks move along.

Elza
June 17, 2007, 01:35 PM
All he’s received, he said, is a one-paragraph statement from police that indicates the department concluded an investigation into his allegation of excessive force in less than five days, with Assistant Chief Brett Colston saying the officers operated within policy guidelines.

Well, that certainly settles this matter. After all, we KNOW that the police would never lie about the situation. I’m certainly satisfied. (The words dripping with sarcasm!!)

FeebMaster
June 17, 2007, 01:39 PM
Why do you guys have to bash the police?

They made the best decision they could under the circumstances.

They just want to get home safe to their families.

Let's hear both sides of the story before we judge.


“I respect the law and police but on this day I was a shooting target for them when I needed help,” Nelms said in his May 3 written complaint to the police department.

We're doomed.

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 01:40 PM
There's obviously a WHOLE lot more to this story than what that newspaper write-up is telling.

GTSteve03
June 17, 2007, 01:42 PM
Why do you guys have to bash the police?

They made the best decision they could under the circumstances.

They just want to get home safe to their families.

Let's hear both sides of the story before we judge.
+1

Police in Atlanta shot and killed a 92 year old woman after breaking down her door, this guy should consider himself lucky he was only tazered.

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 01:44 PM
Ok McCall, what do you know that we don't?

tepin
June 17, 2007, 01:52 PM
ALL GOOD!
exigent circumstances
Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

Exigent circumstances may excuse failure to make an announcement or to wait for the occupant to refuse entry. United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F. 2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1993). The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of fact and law reviewed de novo. Id.

A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.

The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109. Section 3109 requires 'police officers [to] knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. Exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.' United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 830 (1991). Specifically, the court found that immediate entry was necessary 'for [the officers'] protection and the protection of others inside as well as to prevent the destruction of any drugs in defendant's possession or in the home.'

A simultaneous, no-refusal entry is permissible if at least 'mild exigent circumstances' were present. See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (mild exigency is sufficient to justify simultaneous knock/announce and entry if entry does not require physical destruction of property), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984); United States v. Whitney, 633 F.2d 902, 909 (9th Cir.'80) ('only a mild indication of exigency is required to excuse noncompliance with the `refusal of admittance' requirement of section 3109'), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1004 (1981).

When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry. See McConney, 728 F.2d at 1206; Whitney, 633 F.2d at 909-10.

Exigencies created by the government cannot be the basis for excusing compliance with the warrant requirement. See, e.g., United States v. Hackett, 638 F.2d 1179, 1183-85 (9th Cir.'80), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 (1981); United States v. Curran, 498 F.2d 30, 34 (9th Cir.'74). The rule has been applied only in cases where exigencies arose 'because of unreasonable and deliberate [conduct] by officers,' in which the officers ' consciously established the condition which the government now points to as an exigent circumstance.' See, e.g., Curran, 498 F.2d at 34 (emphasis added); Hackett, 638 F.2d at 1183; United States v. Calhoun, 542 F.2d 1094, 1102-03 (9th Cir.'76), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1064 (1977). an honest miscommunication is not a case where the government purposely tried to circumvent the requirements of section 3109. Cf. Hackett, 638 F.2d at 1184-85; Curran, 498 F.2d at 33-34.

Elza
June 17, 2007, 01:55 PM
Allow me to clarify my statement. I agree with McCall911 that there is more to this. But a “less than 5 day investigation” sounds a bit too quick. Sort of like “get rid of this quick and hope that it goes away.”

tepin
June 17, 2007, 02:00 PM
Cops were fishing for something in order to cite "Exigent circumstances"

...After Nelms was Tasered, Edwards said officers asked her what she was doing there, with Edwards telling them it was her home and she lived there. She said the officers then questioned her about what time Nelms came home and if he was drunk or on drugs, if he ever got into fights or if he had hit her.
In her statement, Edwards said she told officers Nelms did none of that and that he was sickly.

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 02:00 PM
Ok McCall, what do you know that we don't?

About this case? Not a thing!
I'm just like everybody else here--expressing an opinion.

runfrumu
June 17, 2007, 02:05 PM
i was feeling bad for them until she played the race card.

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 02:11 PM
Ok, cuz what I read said that ther was a 911 hang up call. tTe police showed up, called for EMS and backup,kicked in the door, tased the diabetic and interogated theguys common law wife.


Then laughed about it.


I thought you had read a different account, as this is the only account I have seen, this is the only account that I have to comment on.

Maybe the Waxahachie PD should release a copy of the investigation to the media so that the people(you know the ones they work for) could be reassured that the officers werewithin our departmental policies regarding the use of a less than lethal force option


I find it odd that they called EMS before they tased him which would lead me to think that they were aware it was a medical problem.

Again, I can only go by the report given since (because of Civil Service rules and the pending litigation Open Record exception) cannot talk about it any further.”

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 02:12 PM
Jeff White,

Was this man involved in "Criminal Activity" or was it yet another meteorite?

Jefferson

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 02:15 PM
Runfrumu, she probably thinks that police wouldn't kick in a white dudes door and tase him.

She probably never heard of Sal Culosi either. http://www.justiceforsal.com/

ebd10
June 17, 2007, 02:16 PM
i was feeling bad for them until she played the race card.


I grew up in the city of Detroit, so I've collected an entire deck of race cards from one source or another. However, in my observations of the police, there is definitely a difference in how they deal with black people in the ghetto and white people in suburbia. For that mattrer, there is a difference in how they deal with black people in the ghetto and how they deal with black people in the suburbia.

Like the old real estate dictum says, "Location, location, location."

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 02:22 PM
exigent circumstances
Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

Like I say, I don't know anything about the case but it could be that the above may apply.
It's sad and unfortunate but diabetic problems can cause the sufferer to be combative and violent, even when very sick. The police may have arrived at the request of the medics or even the 911 dispatcher, if the call generated some sort of uncertainty.
But, again, I don't know.

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 02:23 PM
Ok, cuz what I read said that ther was a 911 hang up call.

Okay, as a retired 911 dispatcher, I can tell you with 99.9 percent certainty that a 911 hangup call will bring the police every time, especially if the dispatcher does not make contact with the number after callback.

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 02:31 PM
He has a history of Diabetic difficulties for which he has called 911 before.
Why did this particular incident trigger the Thug Squad?
The couple’s statements indicate an officer came to the residence on Perry Avenue and inquired as to what was going on - and then called for backup.
That in and of itself is odd.
How can Tasering a sick man in bed be an acceptable use of force? By this same token, if the Thug Squad went into a hospital and Tasered a Comatose patient because he "did not respond to orders" it would be an acceptable use of force.
Let the LEO apologists commence.


Jefferson

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 02:37 PM
Thug Squad

:rolleyes:

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 02:44 PM
I fully understand where police will show up for a 911 hangup. They will also show up as a medical assist if there are officers available. What I don't understand is why did they show up, ask what was going on then call for backup and EMS at the same time(according to the article). Then they kicked in the door before the EMS arrived.

I was a police dispatcher for a period of about three months before I transferred into corrections. Why do you think I am wary of the police?

I have spend plenty of time around them in a noncivilian encounter capacity to know where thier mindset is.

win71
June 17, 2007, 02:45 PM
get medical attention for his diabetic seizure got him Tasered by police instead shooting him multiple times with a Taser as he lay in bed.
Well something is not right. Either that or the coppers need to turn up the juice on their tasers..........

Bailey Guns
June 17, 2007, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by: ebd10
I grew up in the city of Detroit, so I've collected an entire deck of race cards from one source or another. However, in my observations of the police, there is definitely a difference in how they deal with black people in the ghetto and white people in suburbia. For that mattrer, there is a difference in how they deal with black people in the ghetto and how they deal with black people in the suburbia.

And as a long-time police officer I can tell you there's definitely a difference in the way black people in the ghetto and white/black people in suburbia deal with the police.

I'll also state without hesitation that there is another version of the story...that of the police. Unfortunately, they can't really defend themselves in the court of public opinion because of the pending/potential lawsuit. Their side of the story will have to wait until the case makes it's way to court.

Been there, done that, too, and it wasn't fun even though I won. For 2+ years I had to listen to all the BS, lies, innuendo and falsehoods from people in my community about what happened in my case and just keep my mouth shut. It paid off in the end but it was not something I'd wish on most people.

I, for one, will not pass judgement on either side until a jury has heard the case and those of you that are should hope you're never placed in that situation.

There are lots of people out there that see a quick way to make a buck by suing someone and they'll say/do almost anything to get what they want. Not saying that's the case here...just saying it happens every day.

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 02:49 PM
I fully understand where police will show up for a 911 hangup. They will also show up as a medical assist if there are officers available. What I don't understand is why did they show up, ask what was going on then call for backup and EMS at the same time(according to the article). Then they kicked in the door before the EMS arrived.

Beats me what happened and why. That's why I said there was obviously a WHOLE lot more to the story than what appeared in the newspaper. (Which probably hasn't been the first time, and won't be the last.)

I am just sorry it happened to the poor man.

Powderman
June 17, 2007, 03:04 PM
For all those reading, there is something very wrong here. Let's see if everyone who is so quick to bash the cops can catch it....

Here's the first one. I'll even emphasize the points to concentrate on.

1. He said he told them he needed medical help, not the police, but officers continued yelling at him to get on the floor. He said he went to roll over to his right, with photographs indicating he was struck by Taser barbs on his left side, his back and his shoulder.

2. She said about six or seven police officers kicked the front door in and stormed the back bedroom where she said she could hear one telling Nelms to get on the floor.
“Allen was shouting, ‘Please don’t do me like this. I just need help.’ Next thing I heard some ‘zing’ noise and Allen was shouting,” she wrote in her statement. “I asked what were they doing to him. One policeman replied, ‘We just took care of him.’

So, for all you experts out there--what's wrong with this picture?

FeebMaster
June 17, 2007, 03:08 PM
How can Tasering a sick man in bed be an acceptable use of force? By this same token, if the Thug Squad went into a hospital and Tasered a Comatose patient because he "did not respond to orders" it would be an acceptable use of force.

Seriously, the guy was lucky they only tasered him.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=91556

bogie
June 17, 2007, 03:15 PM
Betcha I know what happened...

Dispatcher got the call, and either hit a typo, and tried to do a fast recall from the police end, or just completely screwed up...

I'd like to hear the call tho - If the guy was ranting and raving, it coulda sounded like a domestic...

However, I'm guessing that those cops had something in common with the cops here in Wentzville, who recently got issued tasers... When they tell you to "step out of the car," you had better move right smartly, or else you're gonna get zinged... They've got the things, and by golly, they wanna try 'em out...

I mean, the guy got hit three times? Isn't one supposed to pretty much do the trick?

IMHO, one of the issues here is the increasing militarization of our police forces, combined with an "us vs. them" mentality, which, of course, is not acknowledged by the departments' PR apparatus...

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 03:17 PM
1.
Quote:
He said he told them he needed medical help, not the police, but officers continued yelling at him to get on the floor. He said he went to roll over to his right, with photographs indicating he was struck by Taser barbs on his left side, his back and his shoulder.

2.
Quote:
She said about six or seven police officers kicked the front door in and stormed the back bedroom where she said she could hear one telling Nelms to get on the floor.
“Allen was shouting, ‘Please don’t do me like this. I just need help.’ Next thing I heard some ‘zing’ noise and Allen was shouting,” she wrote in her statement. “I asked what were they doing to him. One policeman replied, ‘We just took care of him.’

So, for all you experts out there--what's wrong with this picture?

Oh, there's quite a bit wrong with that picture!

But it's easy to see that Item 2 occurred before Item 1.

It's also easy to see that if he turned to his right, he was turning away from the police because he was tasered on his back and left side. I wonder why he would do that?

FeebMaster
June 17, 2007, 03:20 PM
It's also easy to see that if he turned to his right, he was turning away from the police because he was tasered on his back and left side. I wonder why he would do that?

Uhm, rolling out of bed to get on the floor like they told him to maybe?

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCall911
It's also easy to see that if he turned to his right, he was turning away from the police because he was tasered on his back and left side. I wonder why he would do that?

Uhm, rolling out of bed to get on the floor like they told him to maybe?

Then, if he was complying, the police shouldn't have tasered him.

But if that was the case then I wonder why he couldn't have gotten off the bed on the side where the police were instead of on the other side of the bed, away from them?

Elza
June 17, 2007, 03:29 PM
In reference to post #25 by Powderman :

OK, folks, help me out here. What am I not seeing?

Item 1.
He claimed he was lying on his back and tried to roll to the right. When I do this my left shoulder and back rise presenting the target as described.

Item 2.
The cops yell at him to “get on the floor”. He tries to roll onto his right side, exposing his left side and back, while at the same time telling them he only needs medical help. Then he gets tasered.

FeebMaster
June 17, 2007, 03:30 PM
But if that was the case then I wonder why he couldn't have gotten off the bed on the side where the police were instead of on the other side of the bed, away from them?

Big bed? That was the side he was on maybe?

Who says he was moving away from them anyway? Maybe the police were at the foot of the bed.

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 03:44 PM
How is this “One of the officers said I ‘lunged’ at him. even possible and still present the side and back as a target.
This officers began trying to yank the Taser barbs from his skin. is unnecessary and needlessly cruel especially with EMS on the scene.
This This police department has a bad history of disparate treatment on the east side is self explanatory.
The Thug Squad acted irrefutably badly. With events like this occurring with increasing regularity, is there any wonder as to why more and more of the general population is coming to recognize the "Us vs. Them" mindset and correctly figure out where their place in it is?

Jefferson

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 03:46 PM
Big bed? That was the side he was on maybe?

Who says he was moving away from them anyway? Maybe the police were at the foot of the bed.

Well, if you're standing over someone (like at the foot of the bed) and going to taser him while he's lying on his back and turning to his right side, how could you then hit them in the back, left shoulder, and left side?

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 03:58 PM
OK, folks, help me out here. What am I not seeing?

Item 1.
He claimed he was lying on his back and tried to roll to the right. When I do this my left shoulder and back rise presenting the target as described.

Item 2.
The cops yell at him to “get on the floor”. He tries to roll onto his right side, exposing his left side and back, while at the same time telling them he only needs medical help. Then he gets tasered.

I wish I knew, but there's a whole lot we're all not seeing from that newspaper story. It just doesn't make a great deal of sense, as presented. Something is being left out. Wonder what it could be and why?

FeebMaster
June 17, 2007, 04:15 PM
Well, if you're standing over someone (like at the foot of the bed) and going to taser him while he's lying on his back and turning to his right side, how could you then hit them in the back, left shoulder, and left side?

If you're standing at the foot of someone's bed and they roll to their right, their left side, left shoulder, and back are what is going to be presented to you.

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCall911
Well, if you're standing over someone (like at the foot of the bed) and going to taser him while he's lying on his back and turning to his right side, how could you then hit them in the back, left shoulder, and left side?

If you're standing at the foot of someone's bed and they roll to their right, their left side, left shoulder, and back are what is going to be presented to you.

Yes, but he was tasered three times. That means three different tasers, right? Does that mean that three police were standing over the man in the same place, all bunched up together? If they had approached from the foot of the bed, would they not have spread out?

Ah, too many questions for me!

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 04:56 PM
Anyway, I'm gonna leave y'all with it before the Mods slap the cuffs on this one.

Happy father's day, to all you fathers.

Doggy Daddy
June 17, 2007, 05:03 PM
Why would a thread about a taser gun get shut down?

A gun is a gun is a gun, right?

I could see (maybe) moving it to "Strategies and Tactics", since we have a question on how the taser was used and whether it should have been used at the time it was.

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 05:12 PM
You guys are arguing about which side a guy in his BED presented to the officers that tazered him. Does anyone doubt that he was tased in bed facing away from them?? The police said he lunged at them, wouldn't he be tased in his front parts???:eek:

And I'll even go as far to say that this person could have been well known to the police as a frequent flyer.

That still does not explain why they called back up and EMS at the same time, why he was tased while lying in his bed and why his old lady was questioned after they knew why he had called 911.

It certainly does not excuse laughing at him.


Now I know that if I called for ems and my local cops(yep, they know me well because I insist on being treated with dignity and I know my rights) show up, I'm not gonna ask em, I'm gonna tell em to leave, that I didn't call them and I don't want them in my house.

Since we are all speculating at this point, maybe indeed this guy has a history with the police and he didn't want them there and then things got out of control. Not too hard to imagine when you have a delerious diabetic person and a lot of alpha types running around.

FeebMaster
June 17, 2007, 05:15 PM
Yes, but he was tasered three times. That means three different tasers, right? Does that mean that three police were standing over the man in the same place, all bunched up together? If they had approached from the foot of the bed, would they not have spread out?

I guess it would depend on the layout of the room, but why would they have to be bunched together?

Rolling out of bed from your back to your right, the left side, left shoulder, and back are going to present the largest targets from almost anywhere a person is standing.

Even if he was rolling toward the police, his front would only be a target for the first half of the roll.


Does anyone doubt that he was tased in bed facing away from them??

Apparently.

geronimotwo
June 17, 2007, 07:03 PM
After his complaint was closed, Nelms said he was referred by a city council member to Waxahachie attorney Rodney Ramsey, who told the Daily Light he has filed notice with the city on Nelms’ behalf to preserve all documentation and evidence relating to the incident.

if i were to bring a complaint against the city, would i use an attorney recommended to me by a city council member?

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 07:07 PM
no, but you're paranoid :D


Jefferson

TallPine
June 17, 2007, 07:20 PM
Try as I might, I'm having a hard time imagining how the cops were justified in their use of force.

Only thing I can see is that if he was rolling away from them in the bed, maybe they thought he was reaching for a weapon...?

But that begs the question of why they were giving such orders to a bedridden man on an emergency medical call?

(around here, deputies often respond to an emergency medical call just to help out - sometimes they are the first on the scene, and I'm sure all the deputies have minimal first aid and CPR training)

gunsmith
June 17, 2007, 07:33 PM
I will wait for the other side of the story to come out

Erebus
June 17, 2007, 07:37 PM
The couple’s statements indicate an officer came to the residence on Perry Avenue and inquired as to what was going on - and then called for backup. As in ONE officer.

She said about six or seven police officers kicked the front door in and stormed the back bedroom where she said she could hear one telling Nelms to get on the floor. Am I the only one that has noticed this particular part. One officer arrived asked what was going on. He called for paramedics and backup. Why pray tell did 6 or 7 officers have to kick in the front door after this? Did she lock them out? If so why? And as an officer wouldn't you be on your toes if someone called for help and then locked you out?

There has got to be a rather LARGE detail missing here.

D.S. Ambrose
June 17, 2007, 08:07 PM
Am I the only one that has noticed this particular part. One officer arrived asked what was going on. He called for paramedics and backup. Why pray tell did 6 or 7 officers have to kick in the front door after this? Did she lock them out? If so why? And as an officer wouldn't you be on your toes if someone called for help and then locked you out?

There has got to be a rather LARGE detail missing here.

Yeah, but they called for medical assistance, not law enforcement. I'd be inclined to tell the officer that I don't want them in the house and that I would wait for the medics. You're well within your rights to do that, and that does not justify the LEO's breaking down your door. Asserting your rights is not probable cause. Even though you called FOR a medical reason, if you let the cops in your home, everything in their line of sight is fair game for them.

I wouldn't have let them in either. Now, to flip the coin, what, pray tell, could possibly be justification for breaking down the door on the LEOs' part? If the first responder had time to wait for backup, it couldn't have been too terribly urgent or life-threatening now could it?

Kentak
June 17, 2007, 08:14 PM
Here we go again--rushing to judgement and drawing conclusions based on a one-sided narrative that has more holes in it than a whole wheel of Wisconsin Swiss cheese.

K

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 08:18 PM
The combination of
ALS
Diabetes
Oxygen Therapy

mean that tasering was totally over the top. You probably could have put the guy down with a well thrown pillow.

Jefferson

bogie
June 17, 2007, 08:21 PM
Initial conversation may have gone something like this...

"He's so sick. He's just outta his head!"

Officer didn't question any further - overreacted.

walking arsenal
June 17, 2007, 08:22 PM
Why do you guys have to bash the police?

They made the best decision they could under the circumstances.

BS, A lot of COPs out there are not the friendly heros they used to be. Many just want to be the big man on campus which is a sad thing to see in what used to be a very honorable profession. I should know, thats why i left it.

Tazers are a bad idea and should be removed from the LE arsenal of tools. They allow for too many trigger happy cops to go nuts with no consequences.
Use your brains and you wont have to use anything else.

JohnBT
June 17, 2007, 08:35 PM
It appears there's more to the story. A lot more. Woman says we need help; man sticks his head out the front door & says we don't. Police say, "WTH"

Google can be found at www.google.com

It's fun, try it.

Quit believing the first version of every story that's posted.

Yeah, right. I'm not holding my breath.

John
______________________

"Officers were the first to arrive at the home located on 720 Perry. Edwards said she told them she needed medical help and Nelms said he stuck his head out the front door and said, 'We don't need the police."

That was when he said the officer called for back-up.

Nelms said he went back to bed and was lying down."

www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070606_mo_policetasering.20bcdeb9.html

______________________

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 08:40 PM
It is not a crime not to need the police.
It is not a crime to say so.
That first officer did not, apparently, ask the lady to explain what was going on. If he had, he would have just had the paramedics show up.
When I need paramedics for my heart condition, I don't need the police. I don't want them in my house ever. Certainly not without a warrant.

Jefferson

D.S. Ambrose
June 17, 2007, 08:52 PM
Okay JohnBT, so what? She said they needed medical help, he said they didn't need the police. Is this a crime now? Did I miss a law somewhere?

by BRETT SHIPP / WFAA-TV

WFAA-TV
Allen Nelms is still recovering from the Taser injuries.
Also Online

Brett Shipp reports

More from News 8 Investigates

WAXAHACHIE — A Waxahachie man says police kicked in his door and shot him with a Taser gun. Allen Nelms says he hasn't received any answers since.

At its core, Waxahachie is a postcard picture of serenity and Victorian charm, but some say those in charge of keeping the peace have actually disturbed it.

Nelms, 52, said he is still recovering from an invasion that took place at his home five weeks ago.

It was 4 a.m. in the morning when he said he became overcome with a diabetic seizure. His common-law wife, Josie Edwards, called 911.

Officers were the first to arrive at the home located on 720 Perry. Edwards said she told them she needed medical help and Nelms said he stuck his head out the front door and said, 'We don't need the police."

That was when he said the officer called for back-up.

Nelms said he went back to bed and was lying down.

"Three cops come in," he said. "I think it was three, three different lights, and ordered me to get on the ground and roll over."

Nelms said when he started to move the officers zapped him with a taser twice, and possibly a third time, on his stomach and back.

Edwards, who suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease, said she couldn't believe what was happening.

"I said, 'What are y'all doing to him?'" she said. "And I heard Al say, 'Oh, Oh,' just hollering real loud."

After he was hit by the tasers, paramedics arrived and tended to Nelms, and he said the officers left without explanation.

Nelms filed a formal complaint.

According to Waxahachie police policy, an "investigator is to contact the complainant," conduct a complete investigation to determine whether the allegations are "sustained" or "not sustained" and declare the officers "exonerated" or the complaint "unfounded."

But just three business days after the complaint was filed, Waxahachie police released their findings to Nelms declaring, "we have found that the officers were within our departmental policies" in subduing Nelms.

"The response that Mr. Nelms did receive is shameful," said Rodney Ramsey, an attorney.

Ramsey, a former Waxahachie officer, said it's clear to him that a thorough and proper investigation was never conducted.

"I assure you it would have been more than a three day investigation had it been the bank president or someone from the other side of town or some non-African American citizen," he said.

In fact, the only record of the incident is a brief report of officers responding to a 911 hang-up.

The officer in charge of the scene that night, Sgt. Ricky Wilson, was also the subject of another recent internal investigation in which Wilson was accused of violating department policies and lying to cover it up. It was the major first blemish in Wilson's 14 years as a cop.

No one from the Waxahachie Police Department will comment on the incident citing pending litigation, but Nelms said their silence is not acceptable and he plans to hold them accountable.

"They are going to have to find some better answer than that," he said. "I need a better answer than that."

geronimotwo
June 17, 2007, 09:21 PM
sometimes, in a form of diabetic shock, people can appear intoxicated and belligerant.

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 09:52 PM
I would just like to say that I think I guessed this one right on the button.
Thank you John BT for that link. Sometimes I even amaze myself.:D




Pacodelahya said,
Now I know that if I called for ems and my local cops(yep, they know me well because I insist on being treated with dignity and I know my rights) show up, I'm not gonna ask em, I'm gonna tell em to leave, that I didn't call them and I don't want them in my house.

Since we are all speculating at this point, maybe indeed this guy has a history with the police and he didn't want them there and then things got out of control. Not too hard to imagine when you have a delerious diabetic person and a lot of alpha types running around.



Still don't see why he was tazered though and the fact that the officer has already been found to be a LIAR does not look good for the cops.
Nice to see that they have one of thier own investigating and that the outcome of the investigation will prove the officers "exonerated" or the complaint "unfounded."


I guess guilty of malfeseance, dereliction of duty and assault aren't being considered.

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 09:58 PM
Officers were the first to arrive at the home located on 720 Perry. Edwards said she told them she needed medical help and Nelms said he stuck his head out the front door and said, 'We don't need the police."

In fact, the only record of the incident is a brief report of officers responding to a 911 hang-up.


(Okay, I'm back.)

So! Another newspaper article of the incident!
Aha! Now we learn that Mr. Nelms does come to the door when the police first get there to investigate the 911 hangup call!

That was when he said the officer called for back-up.

Nelms said he went back to bed and was lying down.

Of course! Who wouldn't call for backup? The officer had no way of knowing what was really going on! "Medical help" can involve a lot of things: A gunshot needs "medical help." A knifing needs "medical help." And Mr. Nelms just turned around and went back to bed? What's up with that? I thought he was having some kind of diabetic seizure!

Oh, this story is still like rotten sardines!


"Three cops come in," he said. "I think it was three, three different lights, and ordered me to get on the ground and roll over."

Nelms said when he started to move the officers zapped him with a taser twice, and possibly a third time, on his stomach and back.

I thought it was "six or seven" according to the first story!

And now the story has changed as to where on his body Mr. Nelms was tasered. First: Back, left shoulder, left side. Now: Stomach, back, and maybe some other area. Okay, no matter. No doubt he was tasered. If he was, then why was he tasered for just turning over? Turning over to do what?

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 10:09 PM
Ok, now you are really trying to stretch it. The wife said medical emergency, the husband said go away. Cops kicked in door and tased him.


They had no reason to be in the house!!!!!!!!!!! Where is the probable cause?


You call us police haters but you apologists are just as bad if not worse in trying to justify these saviors in blue. Please articulate to me with the accounts available to us why the police would think that a crime had been committed?

Go on, drive that wedge between us and them a little further. People defended the Atlanta cops until the FBI said they were guilty.

Google Sal Culosi. His killer had to take two weeks off with pay as punishment for having his gun "go off".

I don't even want to get started, I'll just say that you reap what you sow and if a police state is what some of you want then I guess that is what it is going to be. Just don't expect the rest of us to like it or put up with it.




The guy said he did not want the police in his home, they had no probable cause, they had already talked to both adults that lived there. They were criminally tresspassing and he should have repelled them with all means available.


Why did he need back up for a 52 year old diabetic with arthritis that was lying down???

budney
June 17, 2007, 10:13 PM
In her statement, Edwards, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease and is on oxygen... A brief synopsis of the incident that is releasable by the department says only that officers responded to 720 Perry at about 4:30 a.m. April 28 in reference to a 911 hangup.

OK, here's my theory. I've had patients with Lou Gehrig's disease, and they can speak quietly and indistinctly. I think she called, stated the problem, and hung up--and the 911 operator didn't understand the problem, and then reported it as a "hangup."

LEOs of course assume that a hangup is a hostage situation, so the officer arrived all amped up and ready to rumble. When he asked what the problem was, all he actually caught was "boyfriend" and "bedroom," so he called for backup and charged right in.

--Len.

Fulcrum of Evil
June 17, 2007, 10:20 PM
Why do you guys have to bash the police?

They made the best decision they could under the circumstances.

They just want to get home safe to their families.

Let's hear both sides of the story before we judge.

That's a <>poor trolling attempt. 2/10

Baba Louie
June 17, 2007, 10:21 PM
Pure speculation on my part. Female of the house says medical help is needed. Male of the houses says otherwise (No police needed) and closes door on them.

You're the Cop on the spot. What would you think? Domestic violence or disturbance? Male intimidating/over-riding female request?

It appears from my reading that Nelms rolled away from the officers who ordered him out of bed and maybe they couldn't see his hands (maybe they could, I wasn't there). Cops like to be able to see your hands for some strange reason.

Sounds like quite a brouhaha occurred. Won't speculate anymore, but it will be an interesting read to see what develops. Probably cost the local taxpayers some more moola in the long run.

JohnBT
June 17, 2007, 10:21 PM
No, that makes too much sense. You can't go getting logical on us and ruin all the good rants. ;)



"You call us police haters but you apologists are just as bad if not worse in trying to justify these saviors in blue. Please articulate to me with the accounts available to us why the police would think that a crime had been committed?"

Think it through, you'll figure it out yourself. It's not difficult. It has to do with a woman calling 911 and the man telling the cops to go away.

John

scurtis_34471
June 17, 2007, 10:25 PM
I smell bacon.

ziadel
June 17, 2007, 10:27 PM
*sigh*

There has got to be some accountability with these cops.

GTSteve03
June 17, 2007, 10:30 PM
Think it through, you'll figure it out yourself. It's not difficult. It has to do with a woman calling 911 and the man telling the cops to go away.
If I call 911 and say there's a burglar in my house, I'm gonna be :cuss: if the fire dept shows up instead.

Glockman17366
June 17, 2007, 10:34 PM
It's a damn shame, but most cops I've met have no business being cops...

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 10:35 PM
John BT, what I am having trouble with is after SHE said I need medical not cops and He said I need medical not cops(here's the tricky part) they kicked in his door, told him to roll off of his bed and tased him.

All the smarminess and sarcasm in the world is not gonna justify what they did.


Not to mention the fact that once again, they had justification to tase him but nothing to charge him with????

pacodelahoya
June 17, 2007, 10:50 PM
It has to do with a woman calling 911 and the man telling the cops to go away.



That's why they showed up JBT, again, why did they kick in his door, what was the articulated probable cause???

They talked to her first, she said medical please, they talked to him next, he said go away, medical please.

He was lying on his bed, why did he have to get on the floor??

I am still waiting.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



No warrant, no entry, they could have asked the woman to step outside so they could speak with her. If she didn't want to, then they would still have had to take a hike. I guess the Constitution really is just a piece of paper anymore.

bogie
June 17, 2007, 11:08 PM
Heh... Not just US cops...

http://www.break.com/index/cop-knocks-out-70-year-old-lady.html

Gotta tell you, I likely woulda done the same thing...

As for the case at hand, I think it's just a symptom of too many cops with _too much_ training...

Now, you ask, how can there be _too_ much training?

...I'm waiting.... Really...

Okay. Someone asked!

It's reinforcing paranoia. It's sending them into situations, not in condition yellow, or even dark orange, but in condition red, bordering on white hot... They've got adrenaline going, they've got a thousand different, sometimes contradictory yes/no decisions to make, they were trained according to the lowest common denominator using a training program crafted by lawyers instead of police, and then reindoctrinated via grapevine stories into how to "really" do things...

Add in overconfidence (I'm right, and you're not...), and maybe a bit of stubborness involving reconsidering any decisions, and you may have this case...

WeThePeople
June 17, 2007, 11:12 PM
Interesting how some threads get shut down and others just keep on rolling.

Shield529
June 17, 2007, 11:18 PM
My the hate grows.

Ok lets have a little fantasy.

Let say this is your daughter, that calls 911. Call is disconnected, she hangs up, ETC. Bottom line no information to the dispatcher. Police are dispatched. I arrive on scene. She yells that medical help is needed. This can mean any number of things. A man sticks his head out and yells that police are not needed. I say ok then, turn around, and leave. Now your daughter is still in the house and could be being beaten, raped, injured. But I just left because it was none of my business and I had no right to be there, (according to you Constitution experts).

Since this board is becoming more rabid with police hate and it seems no matter what choise is made its wrong, I know this will fall on deaf ear but WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO??????

Don't give this "good old day cop" BS. The cops back in the old days were uneducated racists known to unleash dogs on innocent protesters and kill civil right workers. They enforced segregation laws, so don't give me that they obeyed the Constitution.

This has become so far out of hand its insane. There are actully people on this board saying they would tell the police to leave if they showed up for an EMS call. I will be blunt you are liars!! If your kid is not breathing you will be D#%n glad when I show up and start CPR and stop bleeding until EMS shows up. If your family members heart fails and I show up with an AED, you will thank me. You will not be telling me to leave without a warrant.

The police are not the bad guy, TRY to get that in your head. Out of millons of citizen interactions every year very few go bad. Most of you on here have never had a bad encounter, you have just heard stories and taken them at face value. Guess what PEOPLE LIE. I have sat there and listen to people tell bald face lies to get officers in trouble. They even hold onto the lie after its been disproven.

Do the world a favor, meet some police, go on a ride along, attended a citizens academy, or better yet donate some time as a reserve. Education about the truth is key.

McCall911
June 17, 2007, 11:26 PM
Interesting how some threads get shut down and others just keep on rolling.

Yeah, this one was clearly way out of the box! :rolleyes:
I'm surprised it went on this long. ;)

It's over for me, anyway.

Noxx
June 17, 2007, 11:31 PM
Why do you guys have to bash the police?

Because I've known too many of them.

Cosmoline
June 17, 2007, 11:41 PM
They made the best decision they could under the circumstances.

How can you arrive at that conclusion? On the face of it it appears they screwed up, since they used force and no arrest was made and no charges filed.

FeebMaster
June 17, 2007, 11:41 PM
That's a piss-poor trolling attempt. 2/10

I just wanted to get the usual arguments out of the way early. It was at least a 7/10.


She yells that medical help is needed. This can mean any number of things.

The most likely of course being that medical help is needed.

Elza
June 17, 2007, 11:42 PM
JohnBT: Think it through, you'll figure it out yourself. It's not difficult. Attempting to get a point across using condescension and arrogance generally doesn’t get you very far. People tend to resent it and ultimately ignore you.

Powderman
June 18, 2007, 12:21 AM
OK, I think that my original intention--to make some of you think OBJECTIVELY for once--missed the mark entirely. Thus, I will explain.

First though, HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN TASED?

Some of you have mentioned that the officers allegedly "yanking the barbs out" was cruel and unusual.

You don't even feel it. How do I know?

Because as a requirement to be certify with the Taser, I elected to take the ride.

The FULL ride.

Some officers have the leads taped on. Others have them clipped on.

I got capped, with a regular duty issue Taser cartridge, at about 17 feet away. Right in the back. No, it's NOT pleasant.

Now, the explanation. Let's look at the first statement, where the "victim" alleges that he was tased in 3 different locations.

First of all, the Taser discharges TWO leads, both of them being #1 fish hooks. The barbs are small--they do NOT impede withdrawal from skin, just from clothing.

So, how does the guy get THREE hits from TWO leads?

Well, someone might say that he was Tased by three different officers.

Then, he'd have SIX different wounds.

Moreover, anytime you cross electrical leads, strange things happen. The alleged placement of the wounds mean that the bloodthirsty, taser wielding officers held their tasers LESS THAN 6 INCHES APART, STANDING SIDE BY SIDE.

Do I have you thinking yet?

Next, consider the statement of the woman. She said that she heard some "zing" noise.

A "zing" noise?

Tasers do NOT make that kind of noise. Period.

Anyone ever heard an air gun make a "zing" noise? The Taser probes are sent on their way by a compressed nitrogen cartridge. The "pop" is the same as that from a strong air gun--or even close to a suppressed .22.

When the gun is cycling through its charge, it "pops" repeatedly, at a high rate of speed. It does NOT "zing".

Now, let's all sit back and think.

Anyone remember posts where the majority of the people on this board decry the media's bias? Especially against gun owners?

Now, all of a sudden, they can be believed? When did THIS take place? I must have missed it.

Oh, and for some of you that have posted about "telling the police to go away, if you need medical attention", all I have to say is this:

Yeah.......right. Sure you will.

Don Gwinn
June 18, 2007, 12:32 AM
So, does anyone actually have any more information on this case? If not, I'm not really seeing any percentage in leaving this thing open. It veered off the High Road on the first page.

A few things I know from some experience:

1. A diabetic in trouble is not necessarily weak. I've grappled with a few, never one my size. They can be rough, and they don't care about your safety or theirs any more than a drunk if they're in the right state.

2. We actually had a patient attack a police officer and not remember it. I wasn't there for that call, but my partner was and was the one who eventually got the guy calmed down and convinced him to go to the hospital. That was a case with a cop who knew exactly what was happening and was trying to help.

3. The people who are saying he wouldn't have marks on his back from lunging toward an officer are assuming that the officer he moved toward would be the only one tasing him. Not necessarily true.

4. I have zero saves. I know several cops with more than one. Just last month a guy from the next podunk up the road brought a guy back from no breath, no pulse with an AED. If you're actually having an EMS emergency and you tell the cops to go away--well, that may be your right, but it's stupid unless you know the specific individual at your door is a danger. I don't like every cop around here, but I don't like every EMT or paramedic, either.

5. If your wife calls 911, then you stick your head out and tell the cops they aren't needed and they should go away, they're coming in. If you lock the door, they'll force it. Period. That is an EXCELLENT example of probable cause that could be articulated in court.

6. Renatta Frazier was a rookie cop with the Springfield, IL police department when she lost her job and was hung out to dry by the department. Her crime was that she was dispatched to a call in the city and, upon observing that the place was quiet and nothing appeared to be wrong, she left. It turned out that the caller was raped in that very building.
The department made it look like she could have stopped the rape; it turns out she couldn't, but only because it had already happened and was over by the time she pulled up. There was a huge lawsuit, race cards flew like confetti, and we're still dealing with the aftermath today.

7. Sometimes cops, like everyone else, do really stupid things that almost defy explanation. We aren't going to know if that happened in this case or not, but let's just admit it--some cops sometimes do brutal things. It's clearly possible that happened in this case. The only catch is that we don't actually know it did, and a lot of the "evidence" given to prove it has turned out to be suspect.

budney
June 18, 2007, 12:42 AM
Baba Louie has it nailed. Woman said, "Need medical attention"; man said, "We don't need no cops."

Cop thinks, "Someone's hurt, and the man wants cops to go away." Sounds to him like classic case of wife beating. The beater always says, "Everything's under control. We don't need no steenking cops." So he busts in thinking he's saving the girlfriend from an abuser.

Having (incorrectly) identified the man as a potential threat, anything he does short of strict compliance will be interpreted in the worst possible way. So the tazing was almost inevitable at that point.

That doesn't justify the LEO's actions, though. If he thought he'd found a domestic disturbance, he had reason to try and get to the bottom of it, but he escalated way too far too soon. Assuming the accuracy of the news reports posted so far, of course.

I also agree with others that the "diabetic seizure" part doesn't quite add up. If he was having a seizure, it's unlikely he could talk at all--he certainly wouldn't be sticking his head out windows telling cops to go away.

--Len.

Art Eatman
June 18, 2007, 12:57 AM
Don summed iot up pretty well, but the reason I'm closing this is because of the repetiveness of the speculation. Over and over and over and over with the same lack of knowledge of the "true facts" is a waste of bandwidth, regardless of whether or not the cops were right or wrong or the folks in the house were abused or were liars.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Man calls paramedics, gets tasered by police instead" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!