Joe Demko
Member
I guess I should start using smilies or switch to a less deadpan type of humor...
71 yo, unarmed blind woman hit with tazer, pepper spray-said to be "reasonable force"
- Thread starter Stebalo
- Start date
- Status
ojibweindian
Member
No Golgo, I just need to lighten up. Now that I get it, it's pretty funny!
Daniel T
Member
Huh. I guess no act of gross excessive force by the police, no matter how foul, will ever earn condemnation by some people.
nero45acp
Member
I am a RN who has worked in the mental health field for over 13 years, and I have taken care of many hundreds of confused and combative elderly men and women. I have been kicked, punched, bitten, and spat upon....not once have I found it necessary to mace, taze, or tackle the person to safely restrain them, in order to protect myself or others. Usually taking hold of their wrists will suffice, in some more extreme instances it was necessary to come up behind the person and take hold of them in a bear-hug, pinning their arms at their sides (you still have to watch their feet though).
It's blatantly obvious that these officers used excessive force. I wonder how they would feel if their elderly mother was treated in the same fashion?!?
nero
It's blatantly obvious that these officers used excessive force. I wonder how they would feel if their elderly mother was treated in the same fashion?!?
nero
oldfart
Member
Just as prisoners of war held in camps get "used" to the tactics of their guards, we in Portland have gotten used to our police. We don't like them. We don't trust them. We don't call them unless there's a body to pick up.
In the past year or so they've killed half a dozen or more people with never an officer getting indicted. The biggest punishment meted out was when officer Scott McCollister shot and killed an unarmed woman when she tried to drive away from him. He received a three-month suspension for allowing himself to be put in such a position that he had to use deadly force. The Chief of Police handled the case so poorly that he was forced to resign. Still, the woman is dead and officer McCollister is back on the job.
Just recently, two officers stopped a car for not signaling for 100 feet before making a turn. After a 28 second period, Officer Jason Sery shot the man to death. His excuse? he thought the man was reaching for a weapon. No weapon was found.
Two years ago a man from Mexico tried to get on a local bus. He dropped all his money into the fare-box but still didn't have enough to ride. The driver told him to get off the bus and when the man became angry, the driver called the police. Since he came from an area of Mexico where Spanish wasn't the predominant language, the officers couldn't talk to him, so they arrested him and took him to a local mental hospital. He naturally became upset and after awhile the hospital orderlies called the police back. When they arrived he had torn a brass bar from a door and was swinging it around. The police shot and killed him. All for a few cents of missing bus fare.
In each of these cases (and several others that I can't pick out of my memory right now) the officers were aquitted by Grand Juries. In each case the Grand Jury found that there was insufficient evidence to charge the officer with a crime.
But who gathers that evidence? Who presents it to the Grand Jury? Who benefits from such a finding? The answer to all three questions is the same: THE STATE. Not the people of the state, but THE STATE. That faceless entity that hides behind marble facades and mahogany desks guarded by state of the art computers and weapons in the hands of nearly-robotic licensed killers.
When the people do try to stand up and speak to THE STATE they're lucky to be ignored. For this little rant I expect I will enjoy a few more officers passing by my home, slowing down to see if I've done anything they can stop and talk to me about. I can only hope I signal far enough in advance or that my garbage cans are properly placed on the curb or that there are no red wagons in my yard.
But others are fighting back. Go to www.rosecitycopwatch.org and see what has the police department in a tizzy. In a city where power poles are covered with handbills and posters adverising punk-rock bands, the police have made it their job to tear these new posters down. Like cockroaches, they can't stand bright light.
In the past year or so they've killed half a dozen or more people with never an officer getting indicted. The biggest punishment meted out was when officer Scott McCollister shot and killed an unarmed woman when she tried to drive away from him. He received a three-month suspension for allowing himself to be put in such a position that he had to use deadly force. The Chief of Police handled the case so poorly that he was forced to resign. Still, the woman is dead and officer McCollister is back on the job.
Just recently, two officers stopped a car for not signaling for 100 feet before making a turn. After a 28 second period, Officer Jason Sery shot the man to death. His excuse? he thought the man was reaching for a weapon. No weapon was found.
Two years ago a man from Mexico tried to get on a local bus. He dropped all his money into the fare-box but still didn't have enough to ride. The driver told him to get off the bus and when the man became angry, the driver called the police. Since he came from an area of Mexico where Spanish wasn't the predominant language, the officers couldn't talk to him, so they arrested him and took him to a local mental hospital. He naturally became upset and after awhile the hospital orderlies called the police back. When they arrived he had torn a brass bar from a door and was swinging it around. The police shot and killed him. All for a few cents of missing bus fare.
In each of these cases (and several others that I can't pick out of my memory right now) the officers were aquitted by Grand Juries. In each case the Grand Jury found that there was insufficient evidence to charge the officer with a crime.
But who gathers that evidence? Who presents it to the Grand Jury? Who benefits from such a finding? The answer to all three questions is the same: THE STATE. Not the people of the state, but THE STATE. That faceless entity that hides behind marble facades and mahogany desks guarded by state of the art computers and weapons in the hands of nearly-robotic licensed killers.
When the people do try to stand up and speak to THE STATE they're lucky to be ignored. For this little rant I expect I will enjoy a few more officers passing by my home, slowing down to see if I've done anything they can stop and talk to me about. I can only hope I signal far enough in advance or that my garbage cans are properly placed on the curb or that there are no red wagons in my yard.
But others are fighting back. Go to www.rosecitycopwatch.org and see what has the police department in a tizzy. In a city where power poles are covered with handbills and posters adverising punk-rock bands, the police have made it their job to tear these new posters down. Like cockroaches, they can't stand bright light.
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
I can think of a better way.
"Good afternoon ma'am, I'm Officer 1*. It looks like you're haven't some trouble with these people."
"I think you're right ma'am, there is no need for them to behave this way"
"A red wagon? It's right over here. Is there anything else you are concerned about?"
"You're welcome, and it's no trouble at all, it's my job. " "I think I'll just wait here in case these men cause you any more trouble"
That's how you do it. The articals posted are biased crap, but that that in no way excuses the cops.
As an aside, my mother worked for years on a geriatric psych ward. One day a patient (age 80 or so) was being escorted by two techs (one on either arm) for some test. The patient changed her mind about going for the test and kicked one of the techs. Hard. In the back of the head. Some granny's are just a little more fiesty (and flexable) than others.
David
"Good afternoon ma'am, I'm Officer 1*. It looks like you're haven't some trouble with these people."
"I think you're right ma'am, there is no need for them to behave this way"
"A red wagon? It's right over here. Is there anything else you are concerned about?"
"You're welcome, and it's no trouble at all, it's my job. " "I think I'll just wait here in case these men cause you any more trouble"
That's how you do it. The articals posted are biased crap, but that that in no way excuses the cops.
As an aside, my mother worked for years on a geriatric psych ward. One day a patient (age 80 or so) was being escorted by two techs (one on either arm) for some test. The patient changed her mind about going for the test and kicked one of the techs. Hard. In the back of the head. Some granny's are just a little more fiesty (and flexable) than others.
David
Carlos
Member
Portland's finest.
Great post OldFart. Was nice meeting you and your wife last Saturday up in the hills.
The cops in this town make me sick. Same goes for any cop who would defend said cops' actions. The old woman never deserved treatment like this.
Great post OldFart. Was nice meeting you and your wife last Saturday up in the hills.
The cops in this town make me sick. Same goes for any cop who would defend said cops' actions. The old woman never deserved treatment like this.
dustind
Member
Most people do not look at the keys when they type. Any professional typist does not.
So Lets see: We as LEOs have been called to a scene where city employees are being attacked and harassed by an emotionally disturbed person... We Have to restrain her in some fashion. We have several options...so lets see which one will do the least damage:
We could beat her with batons (Breaking bones)
Use fists and brachial strikes (Breaking bones and doing brain damage)
Use OC that does not cause any physical harm and only causes temporary discomfort.
Or use a Taser that causes no physical damage and doesn't even have the duration of pain that the OC does...
How hard is it to see that by using the Taser, the officers were able to avoid having to strike her which could have broken bones and caused internal damage. Tasers are a wonderful tool bc they do not have lasting affects and they stop causing pain as soon as the user gets off the trigger. OC works in a similar fashion.
As an earlier poster stated, you can't just grab an old person and start applying forceful control tactics or you will break their arms and cause them to be hospitalized. Note that it does NOT say she went to the hospital. That should tell you something about her "Injuries" or lack thereof.
I am continually amazed at the level of idiocy I see in some of the sugestions as to dealing with this person... Throw a blanket over her head??? Riiiiiiight and when she suffocates or claimes that the police tried to kill her by suffocation? Try that one in court: "Officer why did you feel it nescesary to use LETHAL force on this woman?" Try walking a mile in the boots of the guys that have to deal with these situations and then I believe that your attitude might change. The officers used the least ammount of force that they could have used in order to gain compliance and that is how it is suposed to work.
We could beat her with batons (Breaking bones)
Use fists and brachial strikes (Breaking bones and doing brain damage)
Use OC that does not cause any physical harm and only causes temporary discomfort.
Or use a Taser that causes no physical damage and doesn't even have the duration of pain that the OC does...
How hard is it to see that by using the Taser, the officers were able to avoid having to strike her which could have broken bones and caused internal damage. Tasers are a wonderful tool bc they do not have lasting affects and they stop causing pain as soon as the user gets off the trigger. OC works in a similar fashion.
As an earlier poster stated, you can't just grab an old person and start applying forceful control tactics or you will break their arms and cause them to be hospitalized. Note that it does NOT say she went to the hospital. That should tell you something about her "Injuries" or lack thereof.
I am continually amazed at the level of idiocy I see in some of the sugestions as to dealing with this person... Throw a blanket over her head??? Riiiiiiight and when she suffocates or claimes that the police tried to kill her by suffocation? Try that one in court: "Officer why did you feel it nescesary to use LETHAL force on this woman?" Try walking a mile in the boots of the guys that have to deal with these situations and then I believe that your attitude might change. The officers used the least ammount of force that they could have used in order to gain compliance and that is how it is suposed to work.
Daniel T
Member
I am continually amazed at the level of idiocy I see in people who defend these criminals, and by "criminals", I mean the cops.
Batons? Brachial strikes? *** happened to things like locks and holds? If you can't control a lock or hold so that it doesn't break a bone, then you are a heavy-handed thug.
Batons? Brachial strikes? *** happened to things like locks and holds? If you can't control a lock or hold so that it doesn't break a bone, then you are a heavy-handed thug.
fix
Member
I am continually amazed by the blind loyalty displayed by law enforcement officers when one of their fellow officer's actions is called into question.
You don't know squat about defensive tactics. A Taser is much less likely to cause injury than a standing arm bar. The officers used the tools that were least likely to cause permanent injury. Feel free to illustrate how any other use of force would have caused less injury...oh wait, she WAS NOT INJURED! That was the whole idea and it worked.
Taipei Personality
Member
I saw harrassing a city employee in the initial article, but not attacking. Was a city employee in danger of being injured? Or was the Tasering and pepper spray a result of the woman's failure to immediately comply?
It seems in quite a few of these types of cases it would be more effective for the officers to back off a bit and re-evaluate the situation before simply forcing compliance. Perhaps the officers' dictum of maintaining absolute control is not always the best strategy?
It seems in quite a few of these types of cases it would be more effective for the officers to back off a bit and re-evaluate the situation before simply forcing compliance. Perhaps the officers' dictum of maintaining absolute control is not always the best strategy?
nero45acp
Member
As I said in an earlier post, as a RN on a psychiatric unit (13 years experience) I have had to physically restrain confused and violent elderly people many times...not once did I need to resort to such tactics as mace, tasers, ect...
Some of these elderly patients were taller and heavier than I am and on many occasions I had no assistance, and still I was able to restrain these individuals without excessive force. Don't give me that %&$#@* that the degree of force used by those officers was appropriate!
nero
Some of these elderly patients were taller and heavier than I am and on many occasions I had no assistance, and still I was able to restrain these individuals without excessive force. Don't give me that %&$#@* that the degree of force used by those officers was appropriate!
nero
thefitzvh
Member
Same 
, different toilet.
If said arm bar is applied by a heavy handed thug, yes
Old lady.... might have a weak heart, very likely considering her age.
Tasers have been known to cause minor heart attacks in victims with weak hearts.
What if she had one, and being in her old age, died?
But, I suppose I can't argue with you. The "thin blue line" at work, yet again.
James
, different toilet.If said arm bar is applied by a heavy handed thug, yes
Old lady.... might have a weak heart, very likely considering her age.
Tasers have been known to cause minor heart attacks in victims with weak hearts.
What if she had one, and being in her old age, died?
But, I suppose I can't argue with you. The "thin blue line" at work, yet again.
James
jimpeel
Member
And if the 71-year-old granny has a pacemaker ... ?
So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't...if we use our hands to grab the person, we are "Beating" them and manhandling an old woman. If we use a tool designed not to cause permanent injury like OC or a taser, we are JBTs... Just goes to show that some people will bitch no matter what you do. As to the Nurse, maybe in your area you can be nice and talk to EDPs, but the EDPs I have had to restrain were among the strongest peopel I have had to deal with. The running joke was that they had "Retard Strength" because it was as if they went full speed at all times feeling no pain. It was impossible to reason with them and they eneded up having to be overcome by sheer strength. Doing something like that to an old woman would lead to permanent injury which is why we like the taser. Again, it worked and she was NOT INJURED! It doesn't get much better than that...suspect goes home with no injuries after attacking a Police Officer!
glocksman
Member
Again, I ask why these police officers couldn't accomplish what the attendants in nursing homes and psych wards have to do every day-namely restrain one 70+ year old half blind woman without either resorting to mace and tasers or breaking bones.
Until you answer that question to my satisfaction, I place the blame squarely where it belongs-on the officers involved.
Until you answer that question to my satisfaction, I place the blame squarely where it belongs-on the officers involved.
As far as less-than-lethal force is concerned, spray and tasers are just fine, and probably preferable to smacking her with a baton. Here's the problem, though: Why bother physically restraining her at all? This is all based on the vast assumption that she needs restraining. Back off, talk a bit, and if she is still being difficult and initiates a physical attack on the city employees and/or police, then take her down just like they did. Somehow I don't see a one-eyed deaf woman being all that hard to simply back away from. As far as the info in the article, I don't see that she created an imminent threat ro herself or others. No threat, no force.
fix
Member
How about just backing off and asking her mother to help calm her down. What if that had been a screaming 10 year old girl? Would you spray her and use the taser on her for her own safety, because arm bars are soooooo dangerous? If you can't manage to get away from a blind woman who is not actively threatening anyone except you and your fellow officers (and I use the term "threatening" reluctantly), then I don't know what to say.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
If you don't count the false eye falling out of her head, that is.
If we are talking about which form of force the cops use on an old woman who is legally BLIND, yes. That's a pretty good hint that this wasn't a use-of-force kind of situation. What's she gonna do, kick your ass with sonar, Daredevil-style?
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
From what the article says, my nephew, current cop, step dad, retired cop, say that excessive force was used on this woman.
Both expressed other means of restraint, especially my nephew who's current beat includes a rather large retirement home where he is called to a couple of times a week for incidents of elderly people having fits.
What it boils down to is proper training which most departments don't have the funds for.
While this certainly does not represent most cops, the number of excessive force complaints are growing.
My nephews department had a 23% increase in complaints last year and he said almost all were justifed.
No officers were ever disciplined though in any of the cases.
The general public can't clean it up, it has to be done from the inside but will never happen much like the general Muslim population rising up and putting down the radical Muslim sect.
Both expressed other means of restraint, especially my nephew who's current beat includes a rather large retirement home where he is called to a couple of times a week for incidents of elderly people having fits.
What it boils down to is proper training which most departments don't have the funds for.
While this certainly does not represent most cops, the number of excessive force complaints are growing.
My nephews department had a 23% increase in complaints last year and he said almost all were justifed.
No officers were ever disciplined though in any of the cases.
The general public can't clean it up, it has to be done from the inside but will never happen much like the general Muslim population rising up and putting down the radical Muslim sect.
I've worked with and in a psychiatric population and facility. I've been a social worker. I've been a cop. I have been trained in crisis negotiation and outburst prevention and management. I am a DT instructor.
But one thing: I was'nt there, so I really cannot pass judgement one way or another based on media drivel. I cannot tell you what I my or may not have done. Was anybody hurt? No. So it is kinda hard to say the force was excessive. Tazers and OC prevent injury: the number of cases in which they have actually hurt someone are statistically insignificant. Restraining psych and Alzheimer's pts results in more injuries to staff than to them, the patients.
I do have one experience I'd bet most of you dont - a little scar from where a little old lady with Alzheimer's sliced me with a pair of scissors. Being the tough guy that I was no way I would use force against a little old lady. I wish I'd had OC or a Taser back then. Fortunately it was minor and fortunately I beat the scissors out of her hand instead of just shooting her. Less fortunate was another officer who recd 2nd degree burns after another little old lady threw the contents of a boiling teapot on him, ironically enough while he was there to check on her welfare. I get the feeling that many, many of you have led very sheltered lives.
This is an ugly mess and there is a distinct possibility that all parties involved could have handled it better, or at least differently. But 90% of you do not have a freakin clue.
But one thing: I was'nt there, so I really cannot pass judgement one way or another based on media drivel. I cannot tell you what I my or may not have done. Was anybody hurt? No. So it is kinda hard to say the force was excessive. Tazers and OC prevent injury: the number of cases in which they have actually hurt someone are statistically insignificant. Restraining psych and Alzheimer's pts results in more injuries to staff than to them, the patients.
I do have one experience I'd bet most of you dont - a little scar from where a little old lady with Alzheimer's sliced me with a pair of scissors. Being the tough guy that I was no way I would use force against a little old lady. I wish I'd had OC or a Taser back then. Fortunately it was minor and fortunately I beat the scissors out of her hand instead of just shooting her. Less fortunate was another officer who recd 2nd degree burns after another little old lady threw the contents of a boiling teapot on him, ironically enough while he was there to check on her welfare. I get the feeling that many, many of you have led very sheltered lives.
This is an ugly mess and there is a distinct possibility that all parties involved could have handled it better, or at least differently. But 90% of you do not have a freakin clue.
thefitzvh
Member
Nice. VEEERY professional.
I didn't see this lady brandishing a weapon... she was being indignant, and had hands laid on her. THEN she fought back. Whatever.
Absolutely pathetic...
James
- Status
