Solution: Train cops to use curare tipped blow darts and intubate the aggressor after they're down.
At least they would have some chance of survival!
Solution: Train cops to use curare tipped blow darts and intubate the aggressor after they're down.
Using Ketamine or net? I missed that and was great for a laugh. Why not a pillow. Why not just using harsh words. How about a water pistol.
Guy comes at me with a knife. I pull out my syringe of ketamine. He stabs me while I stab him with ketamine. I would be dead 5 minutes before he feels the affects.
Net. How in gods name are you going to deploy a net in 5 secs when he is running at you. I can't believe how asinine some people are.
So this is an example of maddening police behavior.
This woman was on her way to pick up her child. She encountered a protest and was told to turn around. While turning around the police bust open the windows of the car and pull her and her 2 year old child out. She was injured, taken to the hospital and separated from her child for hours. Then the fraternal order of the police posted videos stating that this child was just found wandering the streets and the police protected the child.
So now this woman likely has a hospital bill, has a car repair bill from the police smashing the windows and the trauma that her and her child had to endure.
Absolutely ridiculous.
What you saw can not be the solution all the time.
I am not so closed minded to believe there is not a better way to handle this. But thanks for bullying people to accept the status quo and stop pushing for improvement.
What you saw can not be the solution all the time.
I am not so closed minded to believe there is not a better way to handle this. But thanks for bullying people to accept the status quo and stop pushing for improvement.
I find it very interesting that on a medical forum, no one is mentioning the obvious: It was the medical system's failure to help this mentally ill man that ultimately led to his death.
I haven't read up on this specific case, but appears to be the routine story of a person struggling with mental health issues, out in society, a danger to himself and others, and the family has no recourse other than to call for help AFTER the person becomes violent. If they call for assistance BEFORE the person turns violent, they are told by the police that there is nothing that they can do to intervene. The police's role in these cases is only to deal with people who have escalated to violence, often times AFTER a family member has been injured or murdered.
When an ambulance is called to collect a mentally ill person who is lashing out, the police are sent as well, for the protection of the first responders. The idea that we can just send a social worker to the scene is a fantasy, and he or she would be put in the same dangerous situation. Perhaps a psychiatric physician should be dispatched to the scene? Would you support one of your own profession being the sacrificial lamb in this case? You think the psychiatrist has a magic wand to turn a violent schizophrenic into a passive and complaint person with just words? What would they do in this case?
The shortcomings of our mental health care system is a stain upon all of our medical professions. Something needs to be done to improve and expand our mental health care system. More money. More inpatient services. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing "Oh, he fell through the cracks of the system" after a case like this, or a family member being killed, or a mass shooting, or... Lots of fingers being pointed at the police, but, I say, look in the mirror, people. We failed this man, and now he is dead.
she needs a lawyer. Taxpayers will owe her millions for what appears to be another colossal police screwup. But. They’re the ‘thin blue line’. The ‘only thing between order and anarchy’. So. It is what it is.
Nice post.
The reason no one talks about these issues on here is because this forum leans strongly right and wealthy, and is enamored with the cult of "personal responsibility."
it will likely require a complete revamping of the system. How they’re recruited. How they’re trained. How they’re monitored. External review of events. Community policing. Living in the communities they police. And it’ll all be done against their will.
the response here, from physicians, should be proof enough. Yes, their jobs are dangerous. Yes, they should protect themselves. Yes, they aren’t trained well enough and aren’t paid enough. And yes, too many die at their hands.
Nice post.
The reason no one talks about these issues on here is because this forum leans strongly right and wealthy, and is enamored with the cult of "personal responsibility."
I think our little family is what we would like our politicians to be and that is pretty social liberal but fiscally conservative. There are a handful of extremers that show their heads here and there but I would take a very big leap that most on here are the true definition of moderates.This is interesting snd it’s not a knock one way or the other. My view (admittedly right leaning) is that there is a left slant to the forum. I’m not saying I’m right or you are wrong just an interesting observation that we could observe a different slant one way or the other.
Exactly. I've shot deer literally in the heart with a fairly large rifle round (.30-06 if you're curious) and they'll still make it a good 50 yards before dropping.
Still, put a bullet through both lungs and the heart and they’ll drop fairly quickly.
The shot becomes more difficult with the deer shooting back at you. I wasn't saying that it's impossible to drop after being shot once in the right place, or that someone's instinct wouldn't be to go to ground after being hit. My point was that it's not fair assume that these things will happen and that it's not "out of the norm" for it to not be immediately apparent that they've been shot a few times, especially if they don't go to ground right away.
This is interesting snd it’s not a knock one way or the other. My view (admittedly right leaning) is that there is a left slant to the forum. I’m not saying I’m right or you are wrong just an interesting observation that we could observe a different slant one way or the other.
if the victim is armed and there’s an imminent threat of attack police should defend themselves and those in danger.
most of the people we’ve discussed here have been unarmed.
all of this is irrelevant to my comment about the aerobic capacity of deer.
Literally chuckled out loudsince you quoted me I’ll only say I’m very liberal socially but conservative fiscally. And I believe Donald Trump was sent here by satan, so there’s that. But since we mostly discuss social issues here my liberalism shines brighter.
I disagree with your reasoning as to why no one else brought up my point. I wrote the post, and most members here would label me as "strongly right," I would be classified as wealthy, and I very strongly believe in the concept of 'personal responsibility.'
I think the reason that no one else made the point is:
1) because it is easier to find blame in 'others' rather than in 'one of our own.' It's easier for us not to examine or discuss the shortcomings within the medical profession/mental health care system ('our own'). We don't want to draw attention to a failure of 'one of us,' especially when this failure persists year after year, decade after decade.
No, it's easier to turn the conversation to criticize 'the other,' the police. It's actually evolutionary psychology to rally around your own tribe, your own profession, your own family, your own race. It's probably one of the reasons that these discussions about policing go off the rails and into 2 distinct camps.
and
2) I tend to think about things from a different angle than most people, and I'm not afraid to show that.
A large percentage of very mentally ill people (especially ones who would be prone to violence without treatment) don't exactly have Blue Cross Blue Shield. Maybe you're different, but the vast majority of "strongly right, wealthy, 'believe in personal responsibility'" types would vote R in a heartbeat if it meant they would save a dollar on taxpayer funded mental health screening and services.
But it was non-lethal and appeared to be intended as such. The point is that there are many instances where police are going out of their way to not fire 25 rounds immediately at a suspect wielding a knife, and more broadly the point is that the police are not applying non-lethal force (or an attempt at non-lethal force) consistently.
The video you linked was in Australia (completely different societies and different policing styles), and also the knife-wielding man was not coming at any of those officers. Apples to oranges. If you want to compare racial outcomes you must first control the confounders like the videos taking place in completely different countries with different societal problems (much more guns and violent crime in the US) and different policing styles. The video serves as a better example to contrast American vs Australian policing rather than alleged racial discrepancies.
He absolutely is walking towards them. And he attempts to do so multiple times, in fact. And he attempts to stab through the driver side window of the unmarked police SUV that's trying to block him. Additionally, Australia has plenty of perceived and/or actual problems with racial disparities in law enforcement and criminal justice, however it's toward Aboriginal peoples. The fact that they may have different policing styles is not mutually exclusive with also having elements of racial bias.
So do you have a video of Australian cops shooting a black person under similar circumstances? If so, then you might have an argument. But as it stands you are just contrasting the differences between American and Australian policing methods. In most other western countries the cops are far less trigger happy in general, regardless of race of individual.
I have no idea how the majority of "strongly right, wealthy, 'believe in personal responsibility'" types feel about mental health care funding, and with all due respect, neither do you.
It's very clear that you think it is fully within the rights of cops to take lives, especially what you call "BLM/thugs."
Your dog whistle is loud, and you are the problem.
I don't get your point. Can you explain?typical liberal nonsense with pointing out what the source is first. i don't know or care what the daily caller is this is actual footage. The error which you and others willfully make is to overlook looting and destruction of property because "peaceful protests" of police violence is occuring at the same time. Interesting that almost every city with your so called peaceful protests there is destruction, rioting and looting that joins it.
Typical left leaning statement. If you don't agree then you are racist. Easiest way to shut a conversation down using the racist card. Nice Cancel culture comment.
The left calls the right intolerant but deep down most know the left are the most intolerant group. They will accept if you agree. If not, then use the cancel card and shut down any conversation.
Typical left leaning statement. If you don't agree then you are racist. Easiest way to shut a conversation down using the racist card. Nice Cancel culture comment.
The left calls the right intolerant but deep down most know the left are the most intolerant group. They will accept if you agree. If not, then use the cancel card and shut down any conversation.
I have no idea how the majority of "strongly right, wealthy, 'believe in personal responsibility'" types feel about mental health care funding, and with all due respect, neither do you.
I only know what I personally believe: That I would support FREE mental health care (in an expanded and improved form with more inpatient beds) and FREE substance abuse rehabilitation programs (in expanded form with more inpatient beds) for all US citizens. If we could have a national 'moon shot' to tackle these 2 issues--mental health and addiction--society could take a huge leap forward, IMO. Would it be 100% effective? Probably not. But it is an investment and an endeavor that I believe has merit. I do not, however, believe that medical care is a right or that full free medical care should become the law of the land. I feel that mental health and addiction programs are sorely lacking and insufficient, and lead to many of society's problems. I would like to see them expanded and made available at no cost to those in need. If that takes special funding via my tax dollars, I'd have no problem with that.
Edited to add: I would like the above proposed program, and all government run programs, to be transparent about its costs and spending and the books to be open to public audits. I wouldn't want any shenanigans to go on like DeBlasio's wife who has taken all of that mental health funding with absolutely no results to show for it. Where has that money gone?
The talking point of "shutting down conversation" is typically perpetuated in support of hateful and bigoted ideas.
A tolerant and open society REQUIRES a degree of intolerance *OF INTOLERANCE.* Like, y'know, bigotry, fascism, homophobia, etc.
Honest question: was Reagan the one who started getting rid of the long term asylums? Having done quite a bit of moonlighting at the local psych hospital, I think doing away with those has definitely harmed a certain segment of the severely mentally ill population.We do have an indication of how Republicans feel about the mentally ill. Jimmy Carter passed the mental health systems act in 1980. Reagan gutted it and has historically gotten credit for abolishing mental health care in the US. In my opinion mental health care in this country has never recovered.
We also know the severely mentally ill also have serious other issues. Poverty. Homelessness. Drug abuse. There currently is no good federal system for them in this country. Not since Reagan. By and large, in my opinion, they depend heavily on local programs geared at getting them jobs, homes, and medications for their illness.
Honest question: was Reagan the one who started getting rid of the long term asylums? Having done quite a bit of moonlighting at the local psych hospital, I think doing away with those has definitely harmed a certain segment of the severely mentally ill population.
Honest question: was Reagan the one who started getting rid of the long term asylums? Having done quite a bit of moonlighting at the local psych hospital, I think doing away with those has definitely harmed a certain segment of the severely mentally ill population.
I wasn't specifically referencing this guy. I worked about 1 weekend a month for right at a year. There were 3 patients that I admitted every other time I was working. They'd get admitted, stabilized, and discharged. Then they'd stop going to outpatient appointments, not get their haldol deconoate, decompensate and come right back.totally agree. If you are so severely mentally ill that there’s a good chance you can’t stop yourself from charging multiple LEOs with a knife.... All the officer training in the world won’t save your life. But long term asylum might.
she needs a lawyer. Taxpayers will owe her millions for what appears to be another colossal police screwup. But. They’re the ‘thin blue line’. The ‘only thing between order and anarchy’. So. It is what it is.
Typical incoherent left speak when a debate is lost to twist it into, "look at me and my moral high ground so that makes you intolerant and I can't listen anymore". Typical left woes is me attitude. Carry on. Nothing I said was intolerant. If you are looting or you have a knife slashing people, then you are likely a thug. Call it intolerant but I am sure you would be the 1st to call 911 if someone with a knife was knocking on your door.The talking point of "shutting down conversation" is typically perpetuated in support of hateful and bigoted ideas.
A tolerant and open society REQUIRES a degree of intolerance *OF INTOLERANCE.* Like, y'know, bigotry, fascism, homophobia, etc.
Typical incoherent left speak when a debate is lost to twist it into, "look at me and my moral high ground so that makes you intolerant and I can't listen anymore". Typical left woes is me attitude. Carry on. Nothing I said was intolerant. If you are looting or you have a knife slashing people, then you are likely a thug. Call it intolerant but I am sure you would be the 1st to call 911 if someone with a knife was knocking on your door.
Deinstitutionalization was largely driven by changing attitudes towards the mostly terrible conditions and outright abuse endured by patients in asylums, and the well-meaning but naive/wrong belief that new antipsychotic drugs could cure mentally ill people, permit shifting treatment to outpatient settings, and allow the patients to lead normalish (or at least harmless) lives. I wouldn't lay their demise at the feet of stingy Republicans. It was mostly a result of enlightened and well meaning people engaged in a social justice experiment, before being a SJW was trendy. Just about everyone thought closing the asylums was the right thing to do.Deinstitutionalization started in the 60s and 70s in CA, but picked up steam big time nationally with Reagan.
who are you talking about in terms of bigotry, fascism, homophobia? What “dog whistle” or racism are you talking about on this thread.
I saw some very good factual arguments about this specific situation from a right/conservative perspective... regarding when lethal force is necessary and then some statements that all riots should be condemned... which I *hope* we can all agree on as sane people.
And then you start ranting about dog whistles and bigotry and racism?
You started with a reasonable question (later devolved into describing me as "ranting," regrettably) so I'll answer it.
Look at the title of this thread and the first post. This is nominally about how terrible it is that there are riots after police shootings of black people. This thread focuses primarily on police use of lethal force, but coded racist language has entered freely, with users at conflating BLM, "thugs," rioters, "destroying their own community," citing the Daily Caller, etc. Those are racist dog whistles. They point to black people being the cause of this problem (nominally, riots), rather than seeking to understand or explain. Focus on condemning riots is not a useful line of inquiry - only a select few anarchists etc don't condemn violence against people or property. "Lamenting" riots does little to explain why they happen or how they might be managed or prevented, just like few on the right wanted to understand why Colin Kaepernick was taking a knee. Citing a white nationalist outlet like the Daily Caller inflames this.
Call it intolerant but I am sure you would be the 1st to call 911 if someone with a knife was knocking on your door.
And Kaepernick peacefully taking a knee was roundly criticized by the so called “patriots” on the right. I don’t know what form of protest would be acceptable to these people.
Their own protest is the only form that's acceptable it would seem...And Kaepernick peacefully taking a knee was roundly criticized by the so called “patriots” on the right. I don’t know if any form of protest would be acceptable to these people. For them police abuse and misconduct is not an issue, just like COVID is a left wing hoax.
View attachment 321916
![]()
A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the County-Level in the United States, 2011–2014
A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that...journals.plos.org