Quantcast

Video doesn't tell the whole story, I'm sure...

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
86,796
25,331
media blackout
you'd think diabetic shock is something cops would be trained for... seeing how 1/3 of the adult population is obese and diabetes rates are skyrocketing
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,480
2,040
Front Range, dude...
I remember a block of instruction on diabetic shock in the Police Academy...about a 3 hour block IIRC. Came in the same week as CPR and First Aid.
 

SacredYeti

Monkey
Sep 12, 2011
156
0
San Diego, CA
And this is why people snap and blow a cop in half for nothing more than a thought passing thru their mind.

I really wish departments would tighten down and just have the integrity to fire the "bad eggs" instead of keeping them on because "they are great friends". Seems everytime a police officer gets murdered it's one of the good ones, and just takes one of the good ones away and leaves us with more ****bags.

Any action taken against the Sergeant on the scene?
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
I really wish departments would tighten down and just have the integrity to fire the "bad eggs" instead of keeping them on because "they are great friends". Seems everytime a police officer gets murdered it's one of the good ones, and just takes one of the good ones away and leaves us with more ****bags.

Any action taken against the Sergeant on the scene?
Where were the good cops here, pray tell?

Or is this like the Fullerton story where the homeless guy just happened to have every bad apple in the barrel beat him or watch him get beat to death? What are the odds of that happening?
 

SacredYeti

Monkey
Sep 12, 2011
156
0
San Diego, CA
Where were the good cops here, pray tell?

Or is this like the Fullerton story where the homeless guy just happened to have every bad apple in the barrel beat him or watch him get beat to death? What are the odds of that happening?
I love the cops in my area. Chula Vista PD has got some great people working for them, officers and admin. Unfortunately, we also have to deal with SDPD's shenanigans but that's a whole new can of s&*t.

@Rock Sorry 'bout that, just played the video and gave my $0.02
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,732
1,798
chez moi
Just a not-so-odd coincidence; case law on use of force is based on a very similar scenario:

U.S. Supreme Court
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Graham v. Connor

No. 87-6571

Argued February 21, 1989

Decided May 15, 1989

490 U.S. 386


Syllabus

Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and leave the store, followed Berry's car, and made an investigative stop, ordering the pair to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. Respondent backup police officers arrived on the scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat Graham's condition. During the encounter, Graham sustained multiple injuries. He was released when Conner learned that nothing had happened in the store. Graham filed suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents, alleging that they had used excessive force in making the stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." The District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict at the close of Graham's evidence, applying a four-factor test for determining when excessive use of force gives rise to a § 1983 cause of action, which inquires, inter alia, whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028. The Court of Appeals affirmed, endorsing this test as generally applicable to all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials, rejecting Graham's argument that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick test to his evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive.

Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.

(a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force, and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp. 490 U. S. 393-394.

(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.

(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

(d) The Johnson v. Glick test applied by the courts below is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. The suggestion that the test's "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances is rejected. Also rejected is the conclusion that, because individual officers' subjective motivations are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment terms "cruel" and "punishment" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the Fourth Amendment term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 490 U. S. 397-399.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
41,975
14,111
Portland, OR
Man I hated case law based instruction. Drydrydry...guaranteed to cure you sleep problems.
I like the idea of peer review "Given the same scenario with the same intel, how would others react" approach. Of course in this incident I would say others would have acted with more restraint rather than atomic knee drops.

But I'm not a cop.