OT: Pharmacists and Politics

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
WVUPharm2007 said:
I've posted one time in this thread. I didn't post anyone's name or address. I think you are confused.
Click to expand...

If you indeed did not post anyone's name or address, then I apologize !!
Members don't see this ad.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
I've posted one time in this thread. I didn't post anyone's name or address. I think you are confused.
Click to expand...

my bad. But to my defense, you supported Sparda and that made me confused this early in the morning on a Saturday. So it is your fault !!!! :) jk

my apology again.
 
Man, f- these cops. They just go murdering people left and right. I saw in some news that they did some totally f-ed up stuff and people died. This was in the NEWS. It must be completely true and unbiased.

They're almost as bad as those NECC pharmacists. They put poison into people spine medicines so they'd die. The news told me that. They were using dirty needles like heroin addicts and working in a sewer or something.

I remember when I was a little kid some pharmacist gave my mom penicillin and told her to give it to me. I got this terrible rash and could have died! F- pharmacists! They're all murderers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Alright, I'll admit I shouldn't have posted information on his family. The way I saw it, posting info on the family would allow media to contact them.

The problem is the way policing is done in America. Officers are taught to be tough and establish authority at the beginning of any encounter rather than being nice and friendly to everyone. I was at a protest a couple of years ago and one cop approached me and started the conversation by saying "hey you, take your ****ing mask off" and then asked me for ID for no reason. Right there, he's putting me on the defensive. Or when police officers are being video recorded by people when they are arresting someone else. Often times, they will approach the people taking videos and demand that they shut off their camera or turn in their camera and ask them for ID.

Check out this video from where this magician is playing a prank on a cop. The way the cop reacted was inappropriate. There's no need to grab the guy by his hand or shove him against the wall.

 
The reason they are tough up front is because you never know when the guy you're going to interact with is a sociopath and will try to kill you. One of my coworkers at a max security prison had a man try to stab him his first day on the job. He had done nothing to the man, never spoken to him, never seen him before. The guy just liked trying to kill guys in uniform. That guy used to be out on the street before he got life. One of the nicest inmates I ever had to deal with always had a smile on his face, was polite, and was a brilliant conversationalist. He also buried nine strangers he had killed, for fun, in his yard.

How would you be if you were in a cop's shoes?

You'll never know until you try.
 
jafx said:
The reason they are tough up front is because you never know when the guy you're going to interact with is a sociopath and will try to kill you. One of my coworkers at a max security prison had a man try to stab him his first day on the job. He had done nothing to the man, never spoken to him, never seen him before. The guy just liked trying to kill guys in uniform. That guy used to be out on the street before he got life. One of the nicest inmates I ever had to deal with always had a smile on his face, was polite, and was a brilliant conversationalist. He also buried nine strangers he had killed, for fun, in his yard.

How would you be if you were in a cop's shoes?

You'll never know until you try.
Click to expand...

What about this guy? This is how cops should be.

 
Last edited:
Sparda29 said:
What about this guy?

Click to expand...


That has no bearing whatsoever on what I stated. Interjecting unrelated material to support your position does not in any way undermine the foundation of the position I have stated. I'm offering you insight into something you do not understand. That's me educating you. You are attempting to support your agenda regardless of reality. That's you being stubborn. There is a fine line between ignorance and stupidity.
 
jafx said:
That has no bearing whatsoever on what I stated. Interjecting unrelated material to support your position does not in any way undermine the foundation of the position I have stated. I'm offering you insight into something you do not understand. That's me educating you. You are attempting to support your agenda regardless of reality. That's you being stubborn. There is a fine line between ignorance and stupidity.
Click to expand...

I do not think Sparda29 is being stupid. He has probably by now, realized that he was wrong posting all those information online. That was probably why he started this thread. He already knew he was wrong.

As I am reflecting on this, it is all about face. It is hard to admit that you are wrong on anything, esp when the majority of people is "attacking" the person and his/her position. Most people wants to be "superior" and dominate the conversation/argument. Nobody wants to lose face or to appear "inferior".

I think we should be more civil (including me) to bring out the cooperation from the opposite side of the conversation. They would more likely to accept your viewpoint (if you are right) and admit that they are wrong this way. Just my 2 cents :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You obviously didn't read very carefully. A video taken from a cell phone captured a background conversation where one of the eyewitnesses states that the guy was running toward the cop.

A 290 pound guy running at you, who has already assaulted you once, is capable of and exhibiting deadly force intent.

That's a justifiable kill. I'd do the same, no matter what the skin color was. 290 pounds of angry criminal is enough to kill anyone.
 
jafx said:
You obviously didn't read very carefully. A video taken from a cell phone captured a background conversation where one of the eyewitnesses states that the guy was running toward the cop.

A 290 pound guy running at you, who has already assaulted you once, is capable of and exhibiting deadly force intent.

That's a justifiable kill. I'd do the same, no matter what the skin color was. 290 pounds of angry criminal is enough to kill anyone.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, it is a justifiable shooting, not a justifiable kill. He should have been aiming for the legs to limit mobility. Shoot once then re-evaluate the situation. Don't keep shooting until the guy stops moving.

Plus, why do they just stand around waiting after the shooting instead of administering first-aid to the person they shot?

I wonder how many cops out there are former military. While I respect the military for the sacrifices they've given, former soldiers are not fit for duty as police officers. Soldiers have already been taught to shoot to kill, treat all as enemy combatants, etc. Not exactly good qualities for a police officer to have.
 
The eyewitnesses said that the cop walked up to the kid and shot him in the head execution style. And the autopsy agrees.

Dr. Michael Baden indicated in his report that Brown was shot six times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Two of the gunshots were to the head, including one to the top of the skull. The skullshot was the final one delivered as it was clearly fatal. A gunshot to the top of the head seems to indicate that Brown was leaning down or on his knees when that shot was delivered. This lends credence to eyewitness accounts that the officer shot Brown execution-style at the end of the confrontation.
Click to expand...

The dude was 6'4" and has a wound going down form the top of his skull. How that happens in self defense I'll never know.

The police are too damn militarized. They are out there doing seek and destroy missions rather than protecting and serving.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The shot to the top of the head may also indicate he was rushing at the cop with his head tilted forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'll just leave this here.

10392459_10105598931603001_2527037258550879241_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
WVUPharm2007 said:
The eyewitnesses said that the cop walked up to the kid and shot him in the head execution style. And the autopsy agrees.



The dude was 6'4" and has a wound going down form the top of his skull. How that happens in self defense I'll never know.

The police are too damn militarized. They are out there doing seek and destroy missions rather than protecting and serving.
Click to expand...

BTW, to everyone who says don't bash cops because you never know when you'll need one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
 
Sparda29 said:
If that's the case, it is a justifiable shooting, not a justifiable kill. He should have been aiming for the legs to limit mobility. Shoot once then re-evaluate the situation. Don't keep shooting until the guy stops moving.

Plus, why do they just stand around waiting after the shooting instead of administering first-aid to the person they shot?

I wonder how many cops out there are former military. While I respect the military for the sacrifices they've given, former soldiers are not fit for duty as police officers. Soldiers have already been taught to shoot to kill, treat all as enemy combatants, etc. Not exactly good qualities for a police officer to have.
Click to expand...
If you do anything that warrants you being shot, it also warrants you being killed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is why you wait for ALL of the facts to come our before you jump to irrational conclusions based on initial media reports. We just don't know what happened. All we know is that a young black man is dead. We don't know the officer did or why he did it. If the guy was down on his knees and was shot in the head, why was there no powder residue? We just don't know. Was the shooting justified and if it was justified did the officer use more force than was necessary? Did the officer start the confrontation or did the victim?
Even the pathologist, Michael Baden, hired by the family said NO conclusions could be drawn yet:

Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found.One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said. Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.
Click to expand...

The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.
Click to expand...

Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds. “This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

He stressed that his information does not assign blame or justify the shooting.​
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html

More facts will come out as the investigation continues. Let's all take a breath and just wait for ALL of the facts. OK. Maybe this cop is a no good racist looking to cap a black kid. Maybe this was no good criminal kid hooped on speed. Maybe it was just a combustible confrontation gone bad. Maybe it's a mixture of all three. I don't know neither does anybody posting here. In a few weeks or months all of the facts will dribble out. What will not be disputed is the community behaved abysmally. There is no excuse for rioting and looting, NONE. The Police also behaved foolishly. They should have gotten as much information out as quickly as possible. They certainly appear to have over reacted. They fomented the mob by not releasing information in a timely manner and putting out information that cast the victim in a bad light. They should not have left his body there as long as they did. There are mo winners here. Only losers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Old Timer said:
This is why you wait for ALL of the facts to come our before you jump to irrational conclusions based on initial media reports. We just don't know what happened. All we know is that a young black man is dead. We don't know the officer did or why he did it. If the guy was down on his knees and was shot in the head, why was there no powder residue? We just don't know. Was the shooting justified and if it was justified did the officer use more force than was necessary? Did the officer start the confrontation or did the victim?
Even the pathologist, Michael Baden, hired by the family said NO conclusions could be drawn yet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html

More facts will come out as the investigation continues. Let's all take a breath and just wait for ALL of the facts. OK. Maybe this cop is a no good racist looking to cap a black kid. Maybe this was no good criminal kid hooped on speed. Maybe it was just a combustible confrontation gone bad. Maybe it's a mixture of all three. I don't know neither does anybody posting here. In a few weeks or months all of the facts will dribble out. What will not be disputed is the community behaved abysmally. There is no excuse for rioting and looting, NONE. The Police also behaved foolishly. They should have gotten as much information out as quickly as possible. They certainly appear to have over reacted. They fomented the mob by not releasing information in a timely manner and putting out information that cast the victim in a bad light. They should not have left his body there as long as they did. There are mo winners here. Only losers.
Click to expand...

This is the one thing I don't get. Why does it take forever for EMS to reach the scene in these cases? Or why don't the officers begin medical treatment on the suspect as soon as the threat is gone?
 
Sparda29 said:
This is the one thing I don't get. Why does it take forever for EMS to reach the scene in these cases? Or why don't the officers begin medical treatment on the suspect as soon as the threat is gone?
Click to expand...

Agreed the authorities did not cover themselves with glory. But let's just wait it out. All of this will come out.....
 
Sparda29 said:
This is the one thing I don't get. Why does it take forever for EMS to reach the scene in these cases? Or why don't the officers begin medical treatment on the suspect as soon as the threat is gone?
Click to expand...
I assume it's the same reason police show up to 911 medical calls: you need backup to make sure you are safe while administering aid. But, that's just a guess.
 
zelman said:
I assume it's the same reason police show up to 911 medical calls: you need backup to make sure you are safe while administering aid. But, that's just a guess.
Click to expand...

Well, as a former combat medic I can tell you it's basic triage. You don't waste your time trying lifesaving measures on a guy who's brains are splattered out on the ground behind him and has no pulse. What are you going to tourniquet, his neck?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
jafx said:
Well, as a former combat medic I can tell you it's basic triage. You don't waste your time trying lifesaving measures on a guy who's brains are splattered out on the ground behind him. What are you going to tourniquet, his neck?
Click to expand...
I was going to make a jokey response, but someone died, so....I won't.

I think the question was in general why don't police administer first aid after they shoot someone.
 
zelman said:
I was going to make a jokey response, but someone died, so....I won't.

I think the question was in general why don't police administer first aid after they shoot someone.
Click to expand...

Primarily? Because of all the ridiculous lawsuits that people get away with in the US. Hell, people have even sued doctors for saving their lives; what a great society. When I was a soldier at Ft. Sam in medic school we were instructed NOT to perform emergency medical care on civilians if we were out in public and something happened, because of previous lawsuits.
 
zelman said:
I was going to make a jokey response, but someone died, so....I won't.

I think the question was in general why don't police administer first aid after they shoot someone.
Click to expand...
Probably a matter of securing the location. If you just shot somebody, any friend/relative of theirs is probably not going to be too pleased with you, and may blindside assault you while you're tending to the injured.
 
Ackj said:
Probably a matter of securing the location. If you just shot somebody, any friend/relative of theirs is probably not going to be too pleased with you, and may blindside assault you while you're tending to the injured.
Click to expand...
this is true - although like the previous person said - I am guessing it was very obvious that Mr Brown was deceased, and there was no saving his life - kind of like when my EMT friend showed up to a call of a person vs train and the first question they asked was "where is his head?" -followed by "This was not an EMS call, you gotta call the morgue."
 
jafx said:
Well, as a former combat medic I can tell you it's basic triage. You don't waste your time trying lifesaving measures on a guy who's brains are splattered out on the ground behind him and has no pulse. What are you going to tourniquet, his neck?
Click to expand...

I guess not in this case since I read the bullet hit this kid in the eye then traveled thru the face out the neck and down into the chest. (Never understood this about getting shot, I always thought it was in one direction and it gets lodged in the same area or comes out the other side.)

I'm referring more to the case in NYC where the cops used an illlgal chokehold to bring down a 350 lb dude who was just yelling at them to stop harassing him every time they see him. He had just broken up a fight between two guys and the cops approached him because he was apparently selling loose cigarettes. (I didn't even know it was illegal to sell loose cigarettes. Why the **** is this even a law that's being enforced? If someone asks me if I have a cigarette and I do, I usually charge them $.50-$1. There used to be guys right next to my pharmacy school in Harlem who would walk around and say "Newport, Malboro, Camel, etc as you walked by." )

After they brought him down, he started saying I can't breathe, cops ignored the statement and continued to arrest him until he passed out. When EMS got there, they were just standing around doing nothing as the guy died.
 
Both of them were probably being dinguses.

Cops get to murder people that are minor threats to them though. That's just how it is in America.

I love how the explanation is still that the kid ran, head completely down for some bizarre reason, at a cop with a gun. I can't fathom anyone being that idiotic. But that's apparently enough to satisfy everyone. Something isn't right with any of the explanations. None of them make any damn sense. Hence, I suspect everyone is lying, the truth is in the middle, and everyone is being shady. And that the cop still probably overplayed his hand. Still seems kind of shot the kid because he could to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
WVUPharm2007 said:
Both of them were probably being dinguses.

Cops get to murder people that are minor threats to them though. That's just how it is in America.

I love how the explanation is still that the kid ran, head completely down for some bizarre reason, at a cop with a gun. I can't fathom anyone being that idiotic. But that's apparently enough to satisfy everyone. Something isn't right with any of the explanations. None of them make any damn sense. Hence, I suspect everyone is lying, the truth is in the middle, and everyone is being shady. And that the cop still probably overplayed his hand. Still seems kind of shot the kid because he could to me.
Click to expand...

This is just conjecture, but I vote for the double tap. The guy is running at you full force, you've already put four in his arm and he doesn't stop, you next shoot him in the eye, his head begins to drop as the double tap hits the head. I know back when I was at the range my double tap was within 1 inch of the original shot. If the guys head recoils back after being shot in the eye, it would then drop forward, and the next bullet would hit the head.
 
jafx said:
This is just conjecture, but I vote for the double tap. The guy is running at you full force, you've already put four in his arm and he doesn't stop, you next shoot him in the eye, his head begins to drop as the double tap hits the head. I know back when I was at the range my double tap was within 1 inch of the original shot. If the guys head recoils back after being shot in the eye, it would then drop forward, and the next bullet would hit the head.
Click to expand...

A taser would have worked just as well.

Shootings like this are the reason when incidents like the "Officer Dinkheller vs Crazy Vietnam Veteran" happen, it just doesn't really bother me.



Apparently, this video is shown to new officers as a "what not to do" video and to use force earlier.

PS: What happened to the cop here was really ****ty. Him shooting this guy would have been totally justified. He could have started to use force much earlier by tackling the guy or using his nightstick when he first ran up to him. Most situations would probably have not gone down this way though, the Vietnam veteran in this case knew what he was doing and was tactically trained well.
 
Last edited:
Just so you know, people on drugs or alcohol do not react the same to tazers. Some people also have a high tolerance. I could take a 500,000 volt shock shield for over 60 seconds without losing muscle control when I was a correctional officer, more than enough time to kill the person trying to taze me.. Watch at 2:00 on this video. This is another example of you not know what you're talking about because you lack training. You don't know what you're talking about, just like they shouldn't try to tell you how to compound meds. Quit acting like you know more than a cop.

 
Last edited:
jafx said:
Primarily? Because of all the ridiculous lawsuits that people get away with in the US. Hell, people have even sued doctors for saving their lives; what a great society. When I was a soldier at Ft. Sam in medic school we were instructed NOT to perform emergency medical care on civilians if we were out in public and something happened, because of previous lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Just because the US Army tells you to do something stupid doesn't mean you have to do it.
 
SELDANE said:
Just because the US Army tells you to do something stupid doesn't mean you have to do it.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes I did. That would be disobeying a direct order. If your CO feels like it, it would be within his power to put you in confinement without pay for years. I.E. the brig.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't speak.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92_1.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92_2.htm

(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If a direct order goes against a moral conviction or common sense then the order does not have to be followed. Please refer to the case of Lieutenant Calley and the My Lai Massace. And by the way, I too served in the US Army and know what I'm talking about.
 
SELDANE said:
If a direct order goes against a moral conviction or common sense then the order does not have to be followed. Please refer to the case of Lieutenant Calley and the My Lai Massace. And by the way, I too served in the US Army and know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
If "moral conviction" stood up in a court martial, nobody would be convicted. Common sense might, but I don't think that applies in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not performing in an emergency situation because you might be sued (according to the US Army) flies in the face of common sense.
 
One could argue that it absolutely lines up with common sense, if you have any medical training good Samaritan laws do not apply to you and you can be held liable in the event that you make a mistake. As property of the US government, you can be held accountable for your conduct in or out of uniform. Common sense would dictate to let the chips fall where they may.

Do a Google search for "sued for saving life." It's not like there's not precedence.
 
If brown was rushing at the officer and the officer started to shoot, wouldn't there be a blood trail?

I think the evidence will show whether the officer acted lawfully.

That being said, it sucks to be a cop. Dealing with the general public is already bad. Imagine dealing with the psychopaths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
jafx said:
One could argue that it absolutely lines up with common sense, if you have any medical training good Samaritan laws do not apply to you and you can be held liable in the event that you make a mistake. As property of the US government, you can be held accountable for your conduct in or out of uniform. Common sense would dictate to let the chips fall where they may.

Do a Google search for "sued for saving life." It's not like there's not precedence.
Click to expand...
So, in the event of a medical emergency what "kicks in" your reasoning of Good Samaritan laws or your instinctive training as a medic? I'm sorry, I don't follow your argument.
 
jafx said:
... if you have any medical training good Samaritan laws do not apply to you ...
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if this is true? This does not match my understanding of Good Samaritan laws.

Also people have been sued for not intervening when they could have - so really damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is pretty simple really - intervene where you have the training to do so by offering assistance. Just offer. If the person is not able to give consent, for example is unconscious, that is implied consent. At least that is how my CPR training went.
 
owlegrad said:
Does anyone know if this is true? This does not match my understanding of Good Samaritan laws.

Also people have been sued for not intervening when they could have - so really damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is pretty simple really - intervene where you have the training to do so by offering assistance. Just offer. If the person is not able to give consent, for example is unconscious, that is implied consent. At least that is how my CPR training went.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the level of your previous training can bring into doubt the reasonableness of any mistakes made.

What if a surgeon goes to the scene of an accident and in the midst of the carnage pulls the driver from the car inadvertently causing the full amputation of a partially dissected limb? Couldn't the driver then argue in court that it was unreasonable for a surgeon, who sees carnage every day, to make that mistake? The reasonableness of a mistake creates rebuttable presumption to the immunity of the good Samaritan law. They are not perfect. People have sued and won in the face of good Samaritan laws. The laws are all over the place because there isn't a federal law. There is different case law in every state.

Like you said, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

http://www.netplaces.com/first-aid/one-for-the-road/good-samaritan-laws-in-your-state.htm

There's a good write-up on it.
 
owlegrad said:
Does anyone know if this is true? This does not match my understanding of Good Samaritan laws.

Also people have been sued for not intervening when they could have - so really damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is pretty simple really - intervene where you have the training to do so by offering assistance. Just offer. If the person is not able to give consent, for example is unconscious, that is implied consent. At least that is how my CPR training went.
Click to expand...

At least in my jurisdiction, if you offer assistance up to the limits of your training, you are shielded by Good Samaritan law. So for most pharmacists, it would be providing CPR or first aid. It would NOT include administering an Epipen to someone who doesn't have an RX for it - this is a common example that is often cited. But a pharmacist could assist a patient with using his or her legally prescribed Epipen.
 
All4MyDaughter said:
At least in my jurisdiction, if you offer assistance up to the limits of your training, you are shielded by Good Samaritan law. So for most pharmacists, it would be providing CPR or first aid. It would NOT include administering an Epipen to someone who doesn't have an RX for it - this is a common example that is often cited. But a pharmacist could assist a patient with using his or her legally prescribed Epipen.
Click to expand...
I've already gone over this. If you need to give someone an epipen, just give them a flu shot first. Then it's covered by protocol.
 
It has never been nor will it ever be appropriate to administer an epipen to a patient who hasn't been prescribed it outside of immunization protocol. Call 911. Is that too complicated to understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

P
Walgreens seeks provider status for pharmacists: CEO
Replies
3
Views
576
projektreverb
P
sunnyandseventytwo
Favorite songs about pharmacists
Replies
14
Views
1K
Xenophylia
Xenophylia
P
3 things future pharmacists should know about the profession Three Walgreens pharmacists share stories
Replies
7
Views
1K
Dred Pirate
Dred Pirate
M
Costco pharmacists?
Replies
15
Views
4K
owlegrad
owlegrad
sunnyandseventytwo
For all you pharmacists working retail today
Replies
4
Views
1K
RxPreceptor
RxPreceptor
Top