Police, Paramedic, and Psych Patient Walk Into A Room...

[Kennedy 0]

Nope, not a joke this time. Psych Patient involuntarily
committed and charged, EMT arrested.

http://m.triblive.com/triblive/pm_5906/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=A5A927024BB423162782BBB8A50A8FBE?contentguid=OI4QmMfF

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/lifestyles/s_696821.html

Quote

The incident in question occurred on the morning of April 9 as police were trying to get a Lower Burrell woman to go to a hospital voluntarily. Her boyfriend reported he feared that she was suicidal because of text messages she had sent to him.

The woman, who allegedly had not been taking prescribed medication, refused an ambulance trip to Allegheny Valley Hospital because she feared she would lose her job. She became combative and tried to punch one of the officers after they told her that they would take her to the hospital anyway under an involuntary commitment order, police testified at Kerr-Rummel's preliminary hearing.

During a struggle with two officers, the woman fell to the floor but continued to be combative, police testified.

According to testimony and court documents, Patrolman Dominic Dileo pulled a stun gun from his belt and was preparing to shock the woman when Kerr-Rummel ran between the officers and grabbed the woman's arm, he said.

Patrolman John Marhefka Jr., who filed the charges, testified that the paramedic ″bumped″ into him and grabbed the woman with both hands, ″tugging at her violently.″

The officers said that because Kerr-Rummel forced herself between the woman and the officers, Dileo could not use his Taser. They said Kerr-Rummel ignored several orders to move out of the way and leave the room. The paramedic's actions, police said, allowed the woman to continue struggling, endangering herself, the officers and Kerr-Rummel.

Eventually, according to court documents, Kerr-Rummel left. The woman, who remained combative, was stunned with the weapon, arrested and taken to the hospital under an involuntary mental health commitment. She was charged with aggravated assault, harassment and resisting arrest.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rnicks 0]

Not enough information to go on, but it sounds ridiculous that they involuntarily committed this woman over text messages. She opted not to go in the beginning and it should have been left at that. She is an adult and makes her own decisions. There needs to be much more evidence than a worried boyfriend to involuntarily commit somebody. Just because she may have been prescribed meds doesn't mean she had an actual psych diagnosis. Doctors are way too quick too over medicate with psych issues. (She also could have been a nut job, the article is not very clear.) Sounds like another story of excessive police force.

[jakee 1,257]

I don't know how often it gets abused, but involuntary psychiatric commitment does seem to be something of a blind spot when it comes to individual rights (certainly in the UK, I guess in the US as well). When you're declared incompetent, or even just put on a temporary hold for evaluation, your rights don't actually apply to you, because you've been deemed incapable of using them.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rnicks 0]

When you're declared incompetent, or even just put on a temporary hold for evaluation, your rights don't actually apply to you, because you've been deemed incapable of using them.***

Exactly. Which is why there needs to be substantial evidence before declaring incompetency.

[Kennedy 0]

I was nodding and agreeing with you while I read what you wrote about there not being enough info in the article to make a solid decision one way or the other. Then I got to your last sentence. If you yourself said there isn't enough to know what happened, how can you say it "sounds like another story of excessive police force?"

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,405]

>If you yourself said there isn't enough to know what happened, how can
>you say it "sounds like another story of excessive police force?"

If the story is accurate, then the use of a tazer (or whatever stun device they were using) on a woman who is lying on the floor in her own home and posing no threat to others, is excessive force.

If the story's not accurate, then all bets are off, of course.

[Kennedy 0]

So a suicidal woman fighting with officers is "a woman lying in the floor of her own home" to you? No threat to anyone? I agree the article sucks based on lack of useful detail. But professionals on the scene, police and EMTs, determined she had to go. She fought the the officers. The EMT was squeamish about them using a taser. The trouble is too many people think wrestling with a person is safer than other use of force options. It's not, especially when the person appears suicidal. Cops do carry guns afterall.

If the involuntary commitment was the wrong choice, attack the decision first and them what followed. If it was the right decision, then they were right to tell her she needed to go, right to force her when she resisted, and right to use force to make it happen. Keep in mind that someone fighting with officers is a threat to themselves and others. Using "enough force eraly enough" prevents long drawn out affairs the have a higher probability of someone getting hurt.

Since there isn't enough in the article to determine whether involuntary commitment was the right hoice, how can you say the taser was excessive?
(unless you're one of those folks who thinks tasers are evil and all use of force is wrong)

ps- it's TASER, there's no Z in it. Thomas A Swift's Electric Rifle. For those who don't get the reference, google is your friend.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[TKE_440 0]

+1

I did the same thing.

[billvon 2,405]

>So a suicidal woman fighting with officers is "a woman lying in the floor
>of her own home" to you? No threat to anyone?

Per the article - correct. A woman lying and thrashing about on the floor of her own home is no threat to anyone outside the room. (And everyone there had the option to leave.)

>The trouble is too many people think wrestling with a person is safer
> than other use of force options.

Agreed. Leaving is a much better option in that case.

>Keep in mind that someone fighting with officers is a threat to
>themselves and others.

If they are on the floor and they are fighting merely because the officers are there, then no - they are not a threat to the officers if the officers leave.

Now, they may be a threat to THEMSELVES. And if you agree that it's OK to judge that someone is no longer competent to have normal civil rights in a situation like that, then it would make sense to arrest them (and/or use nonlethal force on them.)

Let's take it a step further. A cop comes into your home unannounced because he thinks he saw someone buy drugs near your home. You angrily confront him and tell him to leave. He tells you "fuck you, I'm a fucking cop." You tell him to leave again.

He knows you have guns, and he decides that an uncooperative furious man with guns in the house is a threat to himself and others. Does he have the right to confiscate your guns, arrest you and hold you until such time as you are adjudicated to not be a threat to yourself or others? Would the use of a TASER (with an S) be appropriate, so as to prevent you from drawing a weapon on him in your agitated state?

[rnicks 0]

A text message does not make a woman suicidal. There has to be more than just what the article says. That's why I said seems. The woman apparently only became combative after they tried to take her to the hospital. She stated she was fearful for her employment status. (My employment would certainly be affected if I just didn't show up. Especially because I was in the hospital. So that point is valid.) A police officer does have the right to take a person to the hospital. After a short time, I believe less than 72 hours, the case must go before a magistrate. Then very specific criteria take place to deem that person incompetent. The point is, a police officer would never try to commit a person over a text message. That does not deem her suicidal.

If the officers had not provoked her and respected her right not to go to the hospital, she likely would not have found herself in the situation where she needed to struggle and be tased. And btw, EMT's are NOT squeamish. they have seen it all. There is a reason that this one stood up to defend this woman.

I agree that the lack of info in the article makes it hard to say what was right. I agree with what you said for the most part, if the woman infact had been suicidal. But there was nothing in the article that led me to believe she was.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

So a suicidal woman fighting with officers is "a woman lying in the floor of her own home" to you? No threat to anyone? I agree the article sucks based on lack of useful detail. But professionals on the scene, police and EMTs, determined she had to go. She fought the the officers. The EMT was squeamish about them using a taser. The trouble is too many people think wrestling with a person is safer than other use of force options. It's not, especially when the person appears suicidal. Cops do carry guns afterall.

This sounds like a very similar situation to the granny tasering thread a short while ago. Billvon's pretty much hit the nail on the head - if they weren't there, they couldn't be threatened. You can't steal the gun of a cop who isn't there, and you can't be a threat to a cop who isn't there.

If the story is correct, they turned up to offer her a voluntary ride to the hospital for evaluation, and then decided to make her go. Is a cop, or paramedic (or anyone) able to decide that step is warranted and important enough to taser her over (less lethal, not non-lethal) in such a short time and under tense circumstances?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rnicks 0]

Unfortunately, yes, a police officer does have that power. However, in my previous post, I stated that there are strict laws in place to hold a person there and actually deem them incompetent. (I attended several of these hearings when I was doing research for my MSN.) But a police officer also has to have good reason for doing so and in this article they did not.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Unfortunately, yes, a police officer does have that power. However, in my previous post, I stated that there are strict laws in place to hold a person there and actually deem them incompetent. (I attended several of these hearings when I was doing research for my MSN.) But a police officer also has to have good reason for doing so and in this article they did not.

I didn't say power, I said ability.

As you say, just because you technically can order someone to the hospital it doesn't mean you should, and it certainly doesn't make you justified in tasering someone who just wants you to leave them alone.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rnicks 0]

I didn't say power, I said ability.***

Sheesh... here I am arguing semantics on dz.com between loads. I gotta stop logging in!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, yes, a police officer does have that power. However, in my previous post, I stated that there are strict laws in place to hold a person there and actually deem them incompetent. (I attended several of these hearings when I was doing research for my MSN.) But a police officer also has to have good reason for doing so and in this article they did not.

I didn't say power, I said ability.

As you say, just because you technically can order someone to the hospital it doesn't mean you should, and it certainly doesn't make you justified in tasering someone who just wants you to leave them alone.

When you live in police states like we do.... the police have extraordinary powers over civilians lives. Many of them are on their own little power trips and expect those around them to comply with their every whim. I think many of them are beyond paranoid of anyone else that is not in blue. We will continue to see abuse of power until there is a HUGE C change in the people who are hired as police.

[Skyrad 0]

Thats bizzare to say the least.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Thats bizzare to say the least.

Trust me.... NOTHING... that the police do nowadays surprise me in the very least. They are completely convinced of their infallibility to employ anything they deem compliance..... that if you see one you should immediately throw yourself on the ground to insure you are not shot on the spot for some obscure rule they have lodged in their fucking pea brains

The Seattle police shot and killed a man the other day after being observed whittling a piece of wood.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The Seattle police shot and killed a man the other day after being observed whittling a piece of wood.

DO NOT fuck with the timber industry.
That tree was somebody's momma.

[rnicks 0]

And even if the woman should have been taken to the hospital due to suicidal thoughts, excessive force was used. The advent of tasers was to protect the police officer without using lethal force. It was not designed to be used as a compliance method. Even if this woman was being resistant, I highly doubt she was able to overcome the officers and their advance training.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Unfortunately, yes, a police officer does have that power. However, in my previous post, I stated that there are strict laws in place to hold a person there and actually deem them incompetent. (I attended several of these hearings when I was doing research for my MSN.) But a police officer also has to have good reason for doing so and in this article they did not.

I work in a community mental health facility. There are not strict laws in place to deem a person incompetent. Particularly here in VA, after the Cho hearing, the process is a joke that does not respect civil rights.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[bigbearfng 9]

But a police officer also has to have good reason for doing so and in this article they did not.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Per the article - correct. A woman lying and thrashing about on the floor of her own home is no threat to anyone outside the room. (And everyone there had the option to leave.)

Yeah, right, except that no you're completely wrong. (

Quote

Now, they may be a threat to THEMSELVES. And if you agree that it's OK to judge that someone is no longer competent to have normal civil rights in a situation like that, then it would make sense to arrest them (and/or use nonlethal force on them.)

Ah, so it's a policy issue with you. Yes, I suppose anyone who thinks police or EMT instigated involutary commitments are wrong is going to be against any actions taken to effect one.

Quote

Let's take it a step further. A cop comes into your home unannounced because he thinks he saw someone buy drugs near your home. You angrily confront him and tell him to leave. He tells you "fuck you, I'm a fucking cop." You tell him to leave again.

Cool, I always wanted free money in terms of a lawsuit settlement against a complete jackass. First of all, seeing a possible crime in the vicinity of my house isn't even enough to get a warrant for legal entry, and is no where near enough to justify warrantless entry. Cursing me just makes the complaint that much easier to explain.

Quote

He knows you have guns, and he decides that an uncooperative furious man with guns in the house is a threat to himself and others. Does he have the right to confiscate your guns, arrest you and hold you until such time as you are adjudicated to not be a threat to yourself or others? Would the use of a TASER (with an S) be appropriate, so as to prevent you from drawing a weapon on him in your agitated state?

Well, seeing as he's breaking the law and I'm given no indicator of mental health issues beyond being furious at someone breaking into my home, no he doesn't have the right to arrest me or seize private property. Try your analogy again with legal circumstances, and these might almost be difficult questions. As it is all you've put in your example is an officer that isa huge liability for his department.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If the story is correct, they turned up to offer her a voluntary ride to the hospital for evaluation, and then decided to make her go. Is a cop, or paramedic (or anyone) able to decide that step is warranted and important enough to taser her over (less lethal, not non-lethal) in such a short time and under tense circumstances?

If anyone is able, it would be law enforcement and EMTs. They have to make some of the most important decisions on Earth in a split second, and it has to stand up to the examination of dozens of lawyers who have years to nit pick every little thing. Forget green, it's not easty being blue.

In this case, without being there or having audio or somebody stating she made specific comments that led the to believe she was about to kill herself, then I can't say the officers were right or wrong. The fact that they arrested an EMT when no one was injured makes me question their decisions. That seems outside the realm of reasonable to me, without additional info. (could have handled it inter-departmentally via complaint or supervisor sit-down, etc)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I think many of them are beyond paranoid of anyone else that is not in blue.

Jeane, how many jobs are there out there where people want to kill you for what you wear to work? Nearly all officers know that most folks out there really are decent folks, but that any single person they meet might now be.

Quote

We will continue to see abuse of power until there is a HUGE C change in the people who are hired as police.

You have any suggestions on how to do that? Officers are just like doctors - most don't want their children to follow in their footsteps, even if it's a family tradition. Paying them like the janitor but expecting them to know law better than a lawyer, couseling better than a shrink, fight better than Jackie Chan, and shoot better than Phoebe Ann Mosey is going to lead to some disconnect between expectations and reality.

Quote

A Policeman is a composite of what all men are, mingling of a saint and sinner, dust and deity.

Culled statistics wave the fan over the stinkers, underscore instances of dishonesty and brutality because they are "news". What they really means is that they are exceptional, they are unusual, they are not not commonplace.

Buried under the frost is the fact: Less than one-half of one percent of policemen misfit the uniform. That's a better average than you'd find among clergy!

What is a policeman made of? He, of all men, is once the most needed and the most unwanted. A strangely nameless creature who is "sir" to his face and "fuzz" to his back

He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won.

But...If the policeman is neat, he's conceited; if he's careless, he's a bum. If he's pleasant, he's flirting;if not, he's a grouch.

He must make an instant decisions which would require months for a lawyer

But...If he hurries, he's careless; if he's deliberate, he's lazy. He must be first to an accident and infallible with his diagnosis. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and, above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp. Or expect to be sued.

The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesn't hurt. He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without being "brutal". If you hit him, he's a coward. If he hits you, he's a bully.

A policeman must know everything-and not tell. He must know where all the sin is and not partake.

A policeman must, from a single human hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon and the criminal- and tell you where the criminal is hiding.

But...If he catches the criminal, he's lucky; if he doesn't, he's a dunce. If he gets promoted, he has political pull; if he doesn't, he's a dullard. The policeman must chase bum leads to a dead-end, stake out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it happen-but refuses to remember.

He runs files and writes reports until his eyes ache to build a case against some felon who will get dealed out bu a shameless Shamus or an honorable who isn't honorable

The policeman must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy and a gentleman.

And, of course, he'd have to be genius....For he will have to feed a family on a policeman's salary.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

If anyone is able, it would be law enforcement and EMTs.

Yeah, with their degrees in psychiatry and all

Do you want to have an ideagasm?