If it had been here in San Luis Obispo, California, the local PD would have donned riot gear, called for backup from adjoining agencies, loaded up the shotguns with non-lethal beanbags and overrun the property shooting at everybody. Then the SLO Sheriff's Department would have taken both old ladies into custody where they would die from a "drug overdose".
71 yo, unarmed blind woman hit with tazer, pepper spray-said to be "reasonable force"
- Thread starter Stebalo
- Start date
- Status
Taipei Personality
Member
sendec - I don't think any of us would argue that all little old ladies are harmless. If the woman in this account had truly shown violent tendencies, as opposed to simple non-compliance or harrassment, I don't believe anyone could rationally argue that some sort of physical response would not be appropriate.
Rather, I think the bone of contention is whether or not the use of force was even necessary or if this incident could have been better handled through non-violent means.
Rather, I think the bone of contention is whether or not the use of force was even necessary or if this incident could have been better handled through non-violent means.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Generally, where there's some element in dispute, or an incomplete story as to facts, I give the LEOs the benefit of the doubt.
What have we here? First, a 71-year-old and out-of-shape (from the picture), legally blind (which isn't the same as totally blind) and hard of hearing woman. A messy yard, with a history of complaints.
Since the city folks had dealt with her before, they knew she was hard of hearing and had difficulty seeing. That's a given, just from what was "straight reporting" in the articles.
LEO actions: Well, one judge sez, "Drop the charges." The city's attorneys then say it's worth $145,000 to get out from under going to trial. (This does not please the city's insurance company, but they may well have saved a bunch of money above the $145,000). And the Chief of Police sez things weren't done properly.
I find it pretty darned difficult to give these LEOs any benefit of any doubt.
What have we here? First, a 71-year-old and out-of-shape (from the picture), legally blind (which isn't the same as totally blind) and hard of hearing woman. A messy yard, with a history of complaints.
Since the city folks had dealt with her before, they knew she was hard of hearing and had difficulty seeing. That's a given, just from what was "straight reporting" in the articles.
LEO actions: Well, one judge sez, "Drop the charges." The city's attorneys then say it's worth $145,000 to get out from under going to trial. (This does not please the city's insurance company, but they may well have saved a bunch of money above the $145,000). And the Chief of Police sez things weren't done properly.
I find it pretty darned difficult to give these LEOs any benefit of any doubt.
thefitzvh
Member
But, Art.... "O-f-f-i-c-e-r S-a-f-e-t-y!"
Try it with me now...
OFFICER
SAFETY
That justifies all
James
Try it with me now...
OFFICER
SAFETY
That justifies all
James
I quess it will take awhile for me to get rid of the picture in my mind of a one eyed, deaf, 71yr old woman rolling around in the dirt after being tazed and pepper sprayed, with some big ole bubbas tring to cuff her. Anyway what happened to the glass eye? anyubody know.
12-34hom
Member
I'd say the fun meter is just about pegged on this one...
12-34hom.
12-34hom.
El Rojo
Member
Thank you to those of you who have remained civil. Chip Dixon, it is too bad you chose to remain on the low road and attack my location rather than my argument.
My point in carrying on this discussion is to get you to think about what we don't know and instead of trying the police based upon the little information we have, you think about it for a minute and really examine what we know and don't know. I am not saying that the officers are innocent or guilty because I wasn't there. What I am advocating is that you try and objectively look at the situation and rather than use a emotional filter to judge this situation, you think it through. So far I have seen very little objective evaluation and a whole lot of assumptions and false statements.
From the biased article.
From the non-biased article.
In fact, we have two completely different accounts from each side. We do know that the old lady had been served with an administrative warrant, but we don't know if that was her first contact with the city or her 1000th. We know the old lady claims that she wasn't able to read the warrant and wanted the "entire" warrant read to her. Does that mean she asked the guy to read it word for word? Hmmm, could she have been trying to dely this city guy's job and just trying to give him a hard time? Or was she honestly concerned her rights might be violated? I can't say. The city guy claims he explained it to her. Who is lying?
No one addressed the point I brought up before about the settlement. Would you settle for $145,000 (less after the lawyer's cut) if you knew you were right? Would you settle for anything less than having the officers fired? Why would you settle for only $145,000 if you are confident you were correct and they violated your rights? Might her motivation for suing in the first place been solely for making money? Is it possible she embelished her story in order to make her case sound better? How do we account for the three different stories we have heard here: the city guy's, the old lady's, the police officers'? How do you explain the guy who works for the city? Is he an evil jack booted thug too? Or is he just a guy who has a bad job of enforcing an unpopular city ordinance?
That is the only thing I find incredible about this story. We have basically two entirely different opinions on what happened here. So many people are so quick to blindly buy into the old lady's account. I just don't understand why. There is no objective questioning of the facts, just blind alligience to a general idea that the police are wrong and they are bad. Have you ever critisized anti-gunners for their emotional pleas absent of sound rationalization and critical monitoring? If so, why do you practice the same thing in this case?
Sure it is a 71 year old "blind" and "hard of hearing" woman. We finally saw a picture of her, she doesn't look that little to me. She looks like she has some meat on her bones. It is hard to tell how tall she is in the picture. Yet we have many people on here assume that she is an easily handled little old lady. I wonder how many people met their maker early because they assumed something? Maybe the cops used too much force. Maybe they used enough because we don't have any reports in this story of her being hospitalized. In fact the picture article says, "Crowder was cited for harassment and interfering with a peace officer." Does cited mean she was issued a ticket and released or does it mean she was arrested and spent some time in jail? I thought cited meant ticketed and released. So the cops used excessive force that didn't result in any type of permenant physical injuries. I am not saying that she didn't experience severe emotional trauma and that she was not psychologically damaged. I am also not saying she was. We don't know do we? We know what she claims. I also know she just settled for $145,000 with the city, so I don't know if her claims can be considered objective.
I guess I am just asking this. I know it is possible that these police used excessive force if the situation occured just as Old Lady Crowder claims. However, we have a conflicting account by the police. Instead of all of these blind accusations that the police are jack booted thugs and that granny did no wrong, I just ask you to consider that maybe granny had an agenda. Maybe a lawyer got a hold of her and helped her clean up her story a bit. Maybe she did exactly what she planned to do, make some money off of the city that had been trying to get her to clean up her yard. Maybe she baited the cops right into it. And maybe she could do that because her lawyer and her knew that just like many of you here, she would have been able to get the jury to believe her side of the story.
Am I asking something too absurd? Is it asinine to assume that the elderly are not capable of lying and of taking advantage of the system?
Whatever you think, the nice thing is there are good odds those two cops will handle a similar situation differently in the future. Sure some of you won't think so because the cops are evil. I know I won't change your mind. But there is a chance that the cops will take an easier hand in the future. And for those of you who disagree and believe those two jack booted thugs will continue to harrass grannies accross Oregon, you have only one person to thank for that. Yeah, Granny Crowder. She settled. I guess the $145,000 was worth letting those cops keep their job and not even receive a disciplinary for it. Strange how that works.
My point in carrying on this discussion is to get you to think about what we don't know and instead of trying the police based upon the little information we have, you think about it for a minute and really examine what we know and don't know. I am not saying that the officers are innocent or guilty because I wasn't there. What I am advocating is that you try and objectively look at the situation and rather than use a emotional filter to judge this situation, you think it through. So far I have seen very little objective evaluation and a whole lot of assumptions and false statements.
From the biased article.
Ok, so we have this innocent little granny who is only concerned about her red wagon, bite at hands that were placed on her. Is this or is this not an attack? Why would you bite at someone who placed hands on you, especially if you are not entirely sure who it is? What if it were her 91 year old mother trying to get her down? Since we are assuming she is totally blind and completely deaf for the most part, how did she know the hands on her were unfriendly? Oh because the cops were roughing her up? How do you know that? Do you know how the cops initially contact her? They yelled at her to come down, she ignored them. Again, did she ignore them or did she not hear them? We don't know. Only she knows.
From the non-biased article.
Now how did she know that officer Miller and Zajac had arrived? That is how can she acknowledge that she had one foot on the curb and one foot on the bumper of the trailer when the officers arrived? If she didn't know the cops were there or she didn't know they were cops, how would she know what she was doing when they arrived? In the biased article it states she tried to bite the unknown hands that were laid on her. Here it claims she tried to identify the unknown hands and was stuck "moments" later. What does moments later mean? 1 second, 2 seconds, several seconds? We don't know.
In fact, we have two completely different accounts from each side. We do know that the old lady had been served with an administrative warrant, but we don't know if that was her first contact with the city or her 1000th. We know the old lady claims that she wasn't able to read the warrant and wanted the "entire" warrant read to her. Does that mean she asked the guy to read it word for word? Hmmm, could she have been trying to dely this city guy's job and just trying to give him a hard time? Or was she honestly concerned her rights might be violated? I can't say. The city guy claims he explained it to her. Who is lying?
No one addressed the point I brought up before about the settlement. Would you settle for $145,000 (less after the lawyer's cut) if you knew you were right? Would you settle for anything less than having the officers fired? Why would you settle for only $145,000 if you are confident you were correct and they violated your rights? Might her motivation for suing in the first place been solely for making money? Is it possible she embelished her story in order to make her case sound better? How do we account for the three different stories we have heard here: the city guy's, the old lady's, the police officers'? How do you explain the guy who works for the city? Is he an evil jack booted thug too? Or is he just a guy who has a bad job of enforcing an unpopular city ordinance?
That is the only thing I find incredible about this story. We have basically two entirely different opinions on what happened here. So many people are so quick to blindly buy into the old lady's account. I just don't understand why. There is no objective questioning of the facts, just blind alligience to a general idea that the police are wrong and they are bad. Have you ever critisized anti-gunners for their emotional pleas absent of sound rationalization and critical monitoring? If so, why do you practice the same thing in this case?
Sure it is a 71 year old "blind" and "hard of hearing" woman. We finally saw a picture of her, she doesn't look that little to me. She looks like she has some meat on her bones. It is hard to tell how tall she is in the picture. Yet we have many people on here assume that she is an easily handled little old lady. I wonder how many people met their maker early because they assumed something? Maybe the cops used too much force. Maybe they used enough because we don't have any reports in this story of her being hospitalized. In fact the picture article says, "Crowder was cited for harassment and interfering with a peace officer." Does cited mean she was issued a ticket and released or does it mean she was arrested and spent some time in jail? I thought cited meant ticketed and released. So the cops used excessive force that didn't result in any type of permenant physical injuries. I am not saying that she didn't experience severe emotional trauma and that she was not psychologically damaged. I am also not saying she was. We don't know do we? We know what she claims. I also know she just settled for $145,000 with the city, so I don't know if her claims can be considered objective.
I guess I am just asking this. I know it is possible that these police used excessive force if the situation occured just as Old Lady Crowder claims. However, we have a conflicting account by the police. Instead of all of these blind accusations that the police are jack booted thugs and that granny did no wrong, I just ask you to consider that maybe granny had an agenda. Maybe a lawyer got a hold of her and helped her clean up her story a bit. Maybe she did exactly what she planned to do, make some money off of the city that had been trying to get her to clean up her yard. Maybe she baited the cops right into it. And maybe she could do that because her lawyer and her knew that just like many of you here, she would have been able to get the jury to believe her side of the story.
Am I asking something too absurd? Is it asinine to assume that the elderly are not capable of lying and of taking advantage of the system?
Whatever you think, the nice thing is there are good odds those two cops will handle a similar situation differently in the future. Sure some of you won't think so because the cops are evil. I know I won't change your mind. But there is a chance that the cops will take an easier hand in the future. And for those of you who disagree and believe those two jack booted thugs will continue to harrass grannies accross Oregon, you have only one person to thank for that. Yeah, Granny Crowder. She settled. I guess the $145,000 was worth letting those cops keep their job and not even receive a disciplinary for it. Strange how that works.
longrifleman
Member
El Rojo, you can come out here to flyover land and taser me for $145,000.
I agree we don't have nearly all the facts but it is hard to have much sympathy for grow men using any kind of force on blind old ladies. Unless she had some kind of weapon just back off and let everyone cool down.
As for the admin. warrant it is unlikely she hadn't been in contact with the city before this but that might have been part of the problem. Most people have had dealings with the type of low level bureaucrat that most likely handles that type of thing. Those jacka**es can drive anyone into a rage.
If she was arrested or just ticketed it wouldn't matter to me because it was most likely a "preemptive" arrest to head off the lawsuit. Don't try to tell me that isn't done to give the govt leverage if there is any excuse at all for even a minor charge. As in "OK lady, you drop the lawsuit we drop the charges".
I agree we don't have nearly all the facts but it is hard to have much sympathy for grow men using any kind of force on blind old ladies. Unless she had some kind of weapon just back off and let everyone cool down.
As for the admin. warrant it is unlikely she hadn't been in contact with the city before this but that might have been part of the problem. Most people have had dealings with the type of low level bureaucrat that most likely handles that type of thing. Those jacka**es can drive anyone into a rage.
If she was arrested or just ticketed it wouldn't matter to me because it was most likely a "preemptive" arrest to head off the lawsuit. Don't try to tell me that isn't done to give the govt leverage if there is any excuse at all for even a minor charge. As in "OK lady, you drop the lawsuit we drop the charges".
Nothing, absolutely nothing prevented these officers from doing this - "Maybe the cop would have been kind to this 71 year old lady and made sure her wagon wasn't in the trailer and helped assure her that she would be alright. " - except that it isn't the Portland PD's style of public interaction.
mountainclmbr
Member
The problem is that the JBT's...er I mean the good and kind Portland police did not burn her out. That is always best for officer safety.
My own experience with the cops I have known personally: 3 bad, 1 good (cops bragging about getting away with felonies = bad). My experience with cop response in crimes against me or my immediate family: 5 bad, 1 possibly good, but no feedback.
I have had cops say to me " I wouldn't want to show up to protect you".
My reply "cops never have for me, on three occasions, so why do I have to pay you?"
The cops seem to support more state totalitarian control and less personal freedom, except for themselves. The ones who don't still follow the Thin Blue Line of silence to protect the felons in their ranks.
I personally would rather deal with the crooks than the cops. That is a sad thing for me to say.
My own experience with the cops I have known personally: 3 bad, 1 good (cops bragging about getting away with felonies = bad). My experience with cop response in crimes against me or my immediate family: 5 bad, 1 possibly good, but no feedback.
I have had cops say to me " I wouldn't want to show up to protect you".
My reply "cops never have for me, on three occasions, so why do I have to pay you?"
The cops seem to support more state totalitarian control and less personal freedom, except for themselves. The ones who don't still follow the Thin Blue Line of silence to protect the felons in their ranks.
I personally would rather deal with the crooks than the cops. That is a sad thing for me to say.
Based on the article, it sounds like the police were out of control maniacs. I wasn't there, so I don't know what happnened.
What I will say is that I seldom believe anything that is printed in a "news" paper or reported as fact on the TV "news". There have been far too many times that I knew something and later read or watched the "news" story and couldn't believe it was supposed to be the same incident.
I know there are abuses of police power, but that article is highly suspicious to me. HIGHLY suspicious.
Along the same line, I had dinner one night with an LA city cop. He told me about two icidents he was involved in, and about the newspaper coverage of the events. He had me rolling on the floor when he said he read the article and said, This guy is out of control !!! He needs to be stopped !!!! Wait a minute, they are talking about me !!!!!
Obviously his side of the story differed greatly from the "news" story. After I got home I looked up the articles on-line. Sure enough, they left out most of the key details that his version contained. I also might add that the reason he was telling the story had nothing to do with the newspaper article, that was just a sideline to the story of the toughest woman he ever met (described in the article as a local salon owner).
This mirrors my experience in the 20+ years I have worked as a paramedic. The "news" story has almost nothing to do with what really happened, and I KNEW what happened. I was often the first one there and had close contact with everyone invovled. I also got a kick out of the stories they chose to cover and which ones were never mentioned.
What I will say is that I seldom believe anything that is printed in a "news" paper or reported as fact on the TV "news". There have been far too many times that I knew something and later read or watched the "news" story and couldn't believe it was supposed to be the same incident.
I know there are abuses of police power, but that article is highly suspicious to me. HIGHLY suspicious.
Along the same line, I had dinner one night with an LA city cop. He told me about two icidents he was involved in, and about the newspaper coverage of the events. He had me rolling on the floor when he said he read the article and said, This guy is out of control !!! He needs to be stopped !!!! Wait a minute, they are talking about me !!!!!
Obviously his side of the story differed greatly from the "news" story. After I got home I looked up the articles on-line. Sure enough, they left out most of the key details that his version contained. I also might add that the reason he was telling the story had nothing to do with the newspaper article, that was just a sideline to the story of the toughest woman he ever met (described in the article as a local salon owner).
This mirrors my experience in the 20+ years I have worked as a paramedic. The "news" story has almost nothing to do with what really happened, and I KNEW what happened. I was often the first one there and had close contact with everyone invovled. I also got a kick out of the stories they chose to cover and which ones were never mentioned.
El Rojo
Member
I am not familiar with that type of low level bureaucrat that handles those types of things. Last I checked everyone was different and its not a good idea to make a judgement based off of what I want to hear. For all we know it was a gardner who also gets clean up duty. That is what I am talking about though, refraining from jumping to conclusions.
Now, how realistic is that? I ask this in an honest way. Do you expect law enforcement to respond on scene and when someone doesn't respond to their requests, to back off and let things cool down? Should that be law enforcements general principle when responding to "non-life threatening calls"? To back off and let things cool down? Sort of like California's idea to not initiate high speed pursuits. If they run, let them go, whether it is for speeding or for murder? How should cops know to just back off and let things "cool down"? I ask this because when a cop shows up and doesn't remove a hostile subject from your business but because it is a 71 year old lady and she proceeds to wreak havoc on your grocery store because she is pissed, will you understand when the cops just back off and let her cool down? Now I understand in our situation the woman wasn't destroying anything. What would have happened if the cops allowed her to crawl around in the back of the trailer and she felt her hand right off on a piece of old tin? Or if she would have fell off the trailer because she is deaf and blind afterall? Would we ask why the cops didn't remove her from the trailer and then have her sue them and/or the city for not protecting the little old lady?
I guess both sides of this issue are looking for a little common sense, but unless you were there, you don't know what was common sense or not. We can sit and make assumptions and armchair quarterback this one all we want, but it still doesn't make you there. It still doesn't make you know the cops or the old lady. I just find it amazing that so many people instantly take her side without looking at her credibility and the facts and then they go so far as insulting and attacking me or anyone else who asks you to be fair in thinking this one through and insinuating that we are flawed in our thinking.
Longrifleman you were very civil and discussed the issues so this doesn't apply to you and many others.
Did these officers cause their employer $145,000? I am sure the insurance handled it as insurance is supposed to do. 2nd, you are assuming the cops did something wrong and that the little old lady is the poor defenseless little old lady the biased article wants you to think she is. Why does it seem so clear to me that even though the cops used OC and a taser on her, she is still fine and she still shares some of the responsibility for this? Not only that, she made $145,000 out of the deal because she "appears" to be so helpless and harmless. Is my filter flawed because I work in a prison full of con-artists and liars of all ages, sizes, and personalities? Is that why if I were a cop an 18 year old male and a 71 year old female that attemps to bite me, kicks me, and is not cooperative I would still do what I had to do to restrain him or her? Is it because I know a 18 year old can shank me just as easy as a 71 year old inmate? And FedDC has brought up a good point that I don't seem to remember being countered with anything but emotional pleas and what ifs. She walked away from the incident. She was not hospitalized. No matter how we view this "level of force", she was not injured. Sure she could have died of an heart attack, but you know what, she didn't!!! She walked away fine, with the exception of possible mental trauma, that we still aren't positive she suffered.
That is what it is. I work with inmates. I know this is all one big game. They will do what they have to do to win a battle or mess with you. I guess that is why I am so critical. I guess that if I ever get sued by an inmate for violating his law library rights or some other triviality, I can count on irrational, emotional jury members to find me guilty and to throw out anything that is presented contrary to the inmate's view. Why? Because I am an authority figure. I must have meant to deprive that guy of his rights because of my lust for power and control, as is typical of most low level bureaucrats like myself. Ah hell, everyone is a victim tonight, why not me too? I couldn't control myself, I was programed to be a jack booted thug. It is inherent in all prison teachers who possess low level bureaucratic authority over the helpless and downtrodden. So why blame me, I couldn't control myself anymore than the little old blind lady. We are all victims here today! We just don't have $145,000 like grandma does at this time. I need to start working on that.
sharpie613
Member
First off, I hope to never see the term "Retard strength" used on this forum again. Such terms do not help bolster your weak argument or are befitting of the spirit of the forum.
Now, as someone who works with special needs kids on a daily basis, I have seen some displays of strength that many of you would find totally unreal, such as 5 year olds that overpower adults. One of my current charges is a 9 year old boy that requires 2 adults, myself included, to fully restrain him. He overturns bookshelves and punches and kicks hard enough to dent walls. Now, 2 "civilians" can manage to control this boy without the use of OC, a tazer, or any other spiffy toys. He for damn sure is faster and stronger than a 71 year old half blind lady. This happened because the officers on the scene refused to swallow their pride and humor an old lady.
Wearing a badge does not mean that the public has to bow and scrape at your every whim. People who think otherwise are not "peace officers", but "law enforcement officers", the second term being an insult.
Garbage like is is going to be responsible for the start of the next civil war, mark my words.
Now, as someone who works with special needs kids on a daily basis, I have seen some displays of strength that many of you would find totally unreal, such as 5 year olds that overpower adults. One of my current charges is a 9 year old boy that requires 2 adults, myself included, to fully restrain him. He overturns bookshelves and punches and kicks hard enough to dent walls. Now, 2 "civilians" can manage to control this boy without the use of OC, a tazer, or any other spiffy toys. He for damn sure is faster and stronger than a 71 year old half blind lady. This happened because the officers on the scene refused to swallow their pride and humor an old lady.
Wearing a badge does not mean that the public has to bow and scrape at your every whim. People who think otherwise are not "peace officers", but "law enforcement officers", the second term being an insult.
Garbage like is is going to be responsible for the start of the next civil war, mark my words.
Ellery Holt
Member
I love the way so many of you are referring to one of the posted newspaper stories as the "biased article". Biased Article this, Biased Article that. HELLO?! Talk about redundant -- all articles are biased. Sheesh. []
For the contextual interpertation challenged here, the quoted text is a by-lined opinion piece by one of the Oregonian's columnists. You know, from the Opinion Pages of the paper and web page. Opinion is allowed in opinion essays, and it's not called bias there. And it's not intended to be read as a facts-only reporting, free from perspective or emotion. Nevertheless, Mr. Duin's essay is factually correct.
It makes me ill to read defense of the Portland thugs by way of stating that the reporting clearly can't be trusted because, look, it's clearly biased.
]For the contextual interpertation challenged here, the quoted text is a by-lined opinion piece by one of the Oregonian's columnists. You know, from the Opinion Pages of the paper and web page. Opinion is allowed in opinion essays, and it's not called bias there. And it's not intended to be read as a facts-only reporting, free from perspective or emotion. Nevertheless, Mr. Duin's essay is factually correct.
It makes me ill to read defense of the Portland thugs by way of stating that the reporting clearly can't be trusted because, look, it's clearly biased.
Why don't you describe to the group just how many hours of training you've had SPECIFIC to dealing with geriatrics who act out and then tell me how many people YOU guys require on the scene to place someone in medical restraints. Then don't forget to mention that a lot of your patients are in that unit due to MULTIPLE health problems and that most of them could be considered INFERM in addition to being elderly and in need of psychiatric care.
I agree that the cops shold be trained in every possible scenario that could come up. But, i also understand that it's not a possibility. The fact remains that whatever happened noone was badly injured. Wether the cops SHOULD have been there is a different discussion that we don't have ANY information on at all since the article didnt deign to give us those facts.
natedog
Member
She fits the description of a hardened criminal perfectly: a ferocious, free spirited woman, who, despite physical ailments (probably from a bar fight), tried to assault the police in order to keep her wagon (probably for running guns and drugs).
If you think this isn't a gross missuse of power, then you probably think that the Kent State shootings, Waco, and Ruby Ridge weren't, either.
If you think this isn't a gross missuse of power, then you probably think that the Kent State shootings, Waco, and Ruby Ridge weren't, either.
Last edited:
atek3
Member
Ummm, they do, each and every one.
atek3
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Uh, Mr. El Rojo, sir, your comment, "Ok, so we have this innocent little granny who is only concerned about her red wagon, bite at hands that were placed on her. Is this or is this not an attack?" is a serious jerk on my puzzlement chain:
Yes, it's an attack. Miz Granny Lady was attacked, and she responded with her teeth.
In other words, this thread has gotten well inside the city limits of Suctionville, and there ain't a lot of points left to score.
, Art
Yes, it's an attack. Miz Granny Lady was attacked, and she responded with her teeth.
In other words, this thread has gotten well inside the city limits of Suctionville, and there ain't a lot of points left to score.
, ArtTaipei Personality
Member
From what the article states, the woman did not attempt any violence until hands were placed upon her. A woman, deaf, blind or half-blind, is grabbed from behind by someone who she cannot immediately identify. A person in such a situation may well react because they think they are being attacked by persons unknown.
When the subject is on their own property, poses no threat to anyone, is not a flight risk, and the infraction is minor then yes, I would expect the officers to use discretion and back off to evaluate the situation. Why is the immediate escalation to hard hands necessary? If not to protect someone, even the subject, then it can only be that she did not immediately comply with the directives of the admin guy and/or the officers. Wouldn't it have been much better to not be so focused on immediate compliance, but gain eventual compliance anyway, by backing off and finding a different solution? "When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails . . ."
A violent trespasser is not relevant to this discussion.
As long as she was not driven by the officers into a dangerous situation why would they be held accountable? If they had driven a blind lady off of her own property into traffic then, yes, maybe they were negligent. I believe the courts have settled whether or not the police have an obligation to protect individual citizens from harm.
John G
Member
This thread is a wild ride.
To the people defending the Portland PD: I don't agree with your arguments, but you fight like tigers for what you believe. My hat is off to you.
To the people defending the Portland PD: I don't agree with your arguments, but you fight like tigers for what you believe. My hat is off to you.
nero45acp
Member
C_yeager
To answer your questions:
I have been trained in ACT (aggression control techniques) and TEAM techniques. Each of those techniques consisted of two eight hour training days (32 hours total) and a annual, required 4 hour TEAM training update (approx another 48 hours over the years) NONE of that training is specific for GERIATRICS! (I would assume these police officers have had some form of aggression management training at the academy and probably even from their specific department) So what's your POINT?
As to the physical condition of my patient's; we are a psychiatric only facility. We screen the patients before accepting them to our facility to ensure that they are PHYSICALLY STABLE. If they are not, they are referred to a medical hospital that also has a psychiatric unit. You can bet that the majority of our patients are not physically INFIRM. So again I ask YOU, what's your POINT?
Finally, as to how many staff do we use to put someone in medical restraints, the answer is as many as necessary (and available) to do the job safely (that means preventing injury to the patient and the staff). In my experience 3 people (one person on each arm and one person holding the patient's legs until the patient's wrists are restrained) is the minimum to put a struggling individual in 4 point restraints (one restraint for each extremity). Though as I stated in a earlier post, there have been many instances over the years where due to circumstances (the patient was striking myself or another patient and no other staff were in the immediate vicinity) I have had to temporarily restrain an elderly patient BY MYSELF. Usually grabbing the wrists (carefully) will suffice. Other times it has been necessary to "end-round" an especially violent patient and grab them in a from behind bear-hug, thus pinning their arms to their sides. (you still need to be careful of getting kicked) Then calling for assistance ( yelling I need some help here!). However, unlike these two cops we use physical intervention only as a LAST resort. Again I ask, your POINT?
No matter how anyone tries to white-wash it, the bottom line is these two cops used a level of force that was greater than the circumstances (as presented) warranted. I am reasonably certain that all of us would be livid if our mother or grandmother was treated in the same manner!
Finally, (I promise) despite being elderly, legally blind, HOH, and upset the women does bear some responsibility for her actions........that doesn't mean being maced and tazed!
nero
To answer your questions:
I have been trained in ACT (aggression control techniques) and TEAM techniques. Each of those techniques consisted of two eight hour training days (32 hours total) and a annual, required 4 hour TEAM training update (approx another 48 hours over the years) NONE of that training is specific for GERIATRICS! (I would assume these police officers have had some form of aggression management training at the academy and probably even from their specific department) So what's your POINT?
As to the physical condition of my patient's; we are a psychiatric only facility. We screen the patients before accepting them to our facility to ensure that they are PHYSICALLY STABLE. If they are not, they are referred to a medical hospital that also has a psychiatric unit. You can bet that the majority of our patients are not physically INFIRM. So again I ask YOU, what's your POINT?
Finally, as to how many staff do we use to put someone in medical restraints, the answer is as many as necessary (and available) to do the job safely (that means preventing injury to the patient and the staff). In my experience 3 people (one person on each arm and one person holding the patient's legs until the patient's wrists are restrained) is the minimum to put a struggling individual in 4 point restraints (one restraint for each extremity). Though as I stated in a earlier post, there have been many instances over the years where due to circumstances (the patient was striking myself or another patient and no other staff were in the immediate vicinity) I have had to temporarily restrain an elderly patient BY MYSELF. Usually grabbing the wrists (carefully) will suffice. Other times it has been necessary to "end-round" an especially violent patient and grab them in a from behind bear-hug, thus pinning their arms to their sides. (you still need to be careful of getting kicked) Then calling for assistance ( yelling I need some help here!). However, unlike these two cops we use physical intervention only as a LAST resort. Again I ask, your POINT?
No matter how anyone tries to white-wash it, the bottom line is these two cops used a level of force that was greater than the circumstances (as presented) warranted. I am reasonably certain that all of us would be livid if our mother or grandmother was treated in the same manner!
Finally, (I promise) despite being elderly, legally blind, HOH, and upset the women does bear some responsibility for her actions........that doesn't mean being maced and tazed!
nero
Edward429451
member
From what I can tell from the available info, the granny was attacked. You don't go laying hands on people for minor code enforcement.
Too bad the nice old lady isn't black, Portland would be in flames right now.
OT but relevant...As a white man, I'm disappointed that no riot started in her defense. I respect the black culture inasmuch as I know they would have burnt the town down in defense of one of their own.
We could learn from them in that respect.
This was a PR call and they arrogantly botched it.
Too bad the nice old lady isn't black, Portland would be in flames right now.
OT but relevant...As a white man, I'm disappointed that no riot started in her defense. I respect the black culture inasmuch as I know they would have burnt the town down in defense of one of their own.
We could learn from them in that respect.
This was a PR call and they arrogantly botched it.
Joe Demko
Member
To echo what nero45acp said, I worked in "treatment center" for adjudicated boys ages 13-18. These were young men who were in perfect physical health. The staff there, some of whom were female, managed to control and restrain (as necessary) these "troubled" young men without the use of tasers or OC and without injuring or killing any of them. I'm forced to agree with the conclusion that the disabled old lady ended up tasered and sprayed for no other reason than the officers felt disrespected by her lack of prompt obedience.
Edward429451
member
This statement is quite puzzling to me. Has it ever worked for anyone or is simply wishful thinking?
- Status
