Up here in Oregon, the citizens have questioned the behavior of police officers lately such as a few of what were considered unnecessary killings. Here is one more case. What do you think? Should she have been tazered? Could there have been other ways to handle the situation?



A local family is questioning why a woman having a diabetic seizure would have to be tackled and shocked by police.

Authorities said officers went to the home on Northeast 76th Avenue to assist paramedics in dealing with a violent person suffering from some type of diabetic episode.

Brandi Hess and her family said she’s been what’s called a very brittle diabetic nearly her entire life.

Even with food and insulin, Hess’ family said her blood sugar will drop dangerously low, and nearly every time that happens, she becomes irrational and combative.

The family said doctors have not been able to find a way to help her manage the disease any better.

According to authorities, Hess was having one of those episodes on Saturday night when she allegedly punched one of the officers without provocation.

Police said the officer was kicked several times in the stomach and groin and a firefighter punched twice while they struggled with Hess.

Authorities said the office used the Taser gun in an effort to stop the fight.

"The next thing I know, I woke up on the floor right here in front of my coffee table. I had a bunch of people on top of me," said Hess. "My left arm was -- well my whole body was in a lot of pain because I had 8 to 9 people on top of me and my left arm was in a lot, a lot of pain. I was really confused because I didn't know what had happened."

After the Taser was deployed, emergency personnel was able to give medical treatment to Hess.

Police said Hess, the officer and firefighter appeared to be unhurt.

When people get combative with police they tend to get tazered. They did what they were supposed to.

Sounds okay to me in that situation.

I'm confused. Are people mad because they cops aren't all knowing psychics?

What other way could there be? She got physical and the police had no choice but to Taze her.

If the paramedics were called and the police called to assist in subduing the lady. They would of realised that she was ill.
I just cant see the justification in using a tazer on an old lady who was having a fit of a sort. She couldnt help what was happening to her. The police should of just dealt with the situation without using such things.
But yeah this is just my opinion.

So all diabetics are old people now? She is 26.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/i....xml&coll=7

I guess they were just supposed to let her attack them until she was done? Think about it this way, if they had not used the taser on her, how long would her episode have gone on before they could safely treat her? She was in serious need of medical help.

What would have been said if they had done nothing and allowed her rampage to coninue and she died from this? They would have been wrong then too.

Yep, Williams, remember that saying "You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't."

When I first heard about it on the news, I thought "How wrong of them to do that", but after I read the article, I realized that's the only way they could've handled it so she wouldn't hurt herself or other people. I'll give you an example.

There are many people in this country who suffer from low blood sugar aka Hypoglycemia, and for many people, their blood sugar can crash (like it did for the woman in the article). When this happens, they are unaware it's from their hypoglycemia, and they exhibit the same thing the lady did. Sometimes they can get violent.

I knew of a man who was married and refused to eat breakfast and only had a cup of coffee for lunch. His main meal was dinner. Whenever his blood sugar would crash, he'd verbally and physically attack his wife. Despite many attempts by the wife to get up and fix breakfast for him or pack his lunch, he would refuse. Should his behavior also be allowed to continue then? I think not. I bet had she had a tazer gun, she would have loved to tazer this guy.

This type of behavior and the cause occurs more often than people think. We just heard about it in the news because she was a diabetic.

I have been beat up more than once by folks that are hypoglycemic...There is nothing quite as surprising as a grandmother that curses a blue streak and then catches you with a right hook to the jaw...

It is unfortunate, but when folks get into that state they can be incredibly strong and combative. I don't think the police were out of line; she looked like she was a big girl and not someone I would want to try and wrestle with which would end up hurting her a lot more than just the tazer...

That's sick and disgusting.
Those police officers should all be tazered five times each in public, and dismissed.

Why?

If you re-read the article you'll see that this poor lady had to be restrained one way or the other.....Unfortunately her fits were too violent and uncontrollable, so they had to do something....

Luckily no one was hurt....I'm sure everyone involved was upset by the incident.....

In most States any police officer who carries a tazer must fist be tazed so they know what it feels like. People having reactions to blood-sugar issues can become increasingly violent very very fast; I know because I'm one of them. I've never harmed a person while flipping out but I've broken/destroyed private property and not all of it was my own I regret to say. While a quick shot of thorozine (sp?) would have been ideal in the situation a taze or two is just as good at subduing a person who is blood-sugar crazy.

I'm glad that no one was hurt as well, but from what I've seen tazering simply doesn't make a person docile. After being tazered they tend to convulse and jerk around uncontrollably. I think if the paramedics were competent, they should have known how to handle the situation and get her under control using insulin or a form of sedative.

You are incorrect. On many levels.

The paramedics cannot just "give insulin", first off that will kill a person with low blood sugar, secondly how exactly are they supposed to get an IV started(not easy to do I can assure you) on a woman who is trying to beat the heck out of you? (not easy to do I can assure you). You also cannot sedate a hypoglycemic person.

The only thing you can do is wait for the person to go unconscious and hope they don't hurt themselves or anyone else, or you can try to restrain them hoping that you do not harm them or yourself trying to do that.

Paramedics do not carry weapons, and deal with diabetic emergencies every single day, so I don't see where you get off trying to determine their competency. The police did the tazing, and yes tazers do take the fight right out of you.

Right, not insulin, but glucose. Paramedics would be very familiar with this kind of diabetic fit.

But



They did not *have* to tazer her. That's the most wrong thing I can think of doing to someone having diabetic shock. They're lucky they didn't kill her. The women needed gently restrained and glucose given. Fits can be violent and uncontrollable.

It galls me that people think it is ok, no problem, to tazer someone. Something *had* to be done?!! We are not sheep that need to be "controlled". Please get off my planet. Go back in time and live in Nazi Germany. When they come into your house and tazer you, I guess the rest of us will pay no attention.

How do you gently restrain someone who is hitting and kicking the sh*% out of you? If you know please tell us cause I'm sure alot of people would like to know.

Your comparing us to Nazi Germany??? I think the Nazi's would do a LOT worse than "tazer" someone.

It is unfortunate that the police had to tazer her to subdue her. I guess the real question should be, did they try everything in their power before tazering? If so, then they had no choice. Diabetic or not, if you are getting violent you shouldn't be able to get away with it. She might not have known what she was doing, but you can't let someone run around kicking people in the stomach and groin and just hope they'll wear themselves down. And don't think that I am not sympathetic to diabetics, my mother is a severe diabetic and I understand exactly how wierd they can get when their blood sugar drops. Some even get paranoid, I've seen it first hand, but in my opinion, if the cops tried everything, then they did their job.

I have to admit that I am very sceptical of Tasers and there use.

I have had a look on You Tube and there seems to be quite a few incidents where a Taser was not necessary, because a person is suffering a medical complication means that the "professionals" involved should have the resources and abilities to resolve these challenges without resorting to violence, I don’t think that the families that live with Diabetics who suffer with similar medical symptoms resort to using a Taser! If the Police had no Taser what would they have done?

I also think it's a valid comment to mention that when a diabetic suffers one of these episodes they are unable to make a rational decision until the Blood Sugar Level has been stabilised, to put it simply they are not in control.

I have a friend that works in a "Hospital" for the criminally insane and they do not use Tasers to subdue these very resourceful and strong violent evil men, as I mentioned before there are alternatives.

I thought the use of a Taser was a novel approach to treating Diabetes and maybe it could be applied to these following medical conditions as well

Schizophrenia
Epilepsy
ADHD
Allergic Reaction
Toxic Seizure's
Tourettes
Trauma/Shock

Just because a member of society can legally electrocute another member of society does not mean they should or its morally correct to do so!

I'm a diabetic (type one since childhood for all you ignorant people that think only old and fat people get it), and this kind of thing is scary for me to hear, although I live in Ireland and they don't taser people here thank god. I never get violent when my blood sugar is low, just shaky and kind of pale looking. Please, never give a diabetic that has passed out insulin. You will kill them. If they have passed out try and rub honey or syrup around their gums. or if you can't manage that then wait for the paramedics to come.

Well their is one more thing I don't think you are taking into consideration. Let's say the police tried to us another method, physical restraint ( as letting her go on with her episode could have also endangered herself), and during the restraint she was hurt (broken bone, bruises... etc)... then the police have to face a police brutality charge, and people would have said there had to be another way. Many times when people go into these episodes the adrenalin produces extreme strength, as remember they can't comprehend hurting themselves to stop short of their actions. Seems to me the safest way to avoid that would have been the tazer.

I guess I'll try to clarify. Tazering is a violent life-threatening act upon someone. It's like shooting a gun, hitting, striking. Restraining someone is a non-violent act. Especially if done to give glucose or to stop someone from hurting themselves.

I'm sorry but the police putting themselves in the face of someone in a diabetic fit is just asking for trouble and inflaming the situation. They needed fewer people trying to "help" and more sanity. It is not the job of the police to make sure everyone is calm and sheeple. No one in the article was having the sh*t kicked out of them. She did not need to be "subdued". She was not a criminal. This was not a drug fit that would give super strength. She needed quieted and restrained. People not helping should have left. Those capable of applying restraint (not weaklings) and glucose should have remained. If you can't see the difference, I don't know how else to describe it.

As for comparisons to Nazi's, you're missing the point. It's extraordinary state violence against people to subdue them who do need it. Of course the Nazi's did worst. But the idealogical threat that people who loose it, need to be subdued with VIOLENCE is very fascist. Worse, you don't even seem to be aware that you have fascist ideas.

I can't believe Tazering is used in a civilized society

Have you ever been a Police Officer? An EMT or paramedic? Anything that would have put you in a situation like this? I have a feeling most of the people saying that tazering was totally unnecessary and wrong have never been in such a situation themselves. It seems as if all they have done is read the symptoms of diabetic shock and came up with the idea that given a few strong buddies and a syringe full of glucose could have saved the day and no tazering would be necessary. It would be really great if all the cops and paramedics out there were brawny guys and had the Matrix like ability to dive at the wildly flailing person, stick the needle in the right place(after sterilizing the injection site of course), injecting the glucose and withdrawing both themselves and the needle with no harm done to either party. Wouldn't it be nice if it was that simple?

Lets look at this. The police were CALLED in to by the paramedics. This means the person was violent beyond what the paramedics could handle. They called for backup and the police came to help. The police just did show up, swagger around and then decide to tazer someone for sh**s and grins. That doesn't happen. I'm constantly amazed at how most people view police officers. Arresting a criminal=good guys. Running radar=assholes. Using something beyond pool noodles and pillows to subdue someone=cocky egotistical idiots on power trips.

Any ways the police show up after being called in. Then she proceeds to punch and kick several of the officers and a firefighter. Any odd change this was from them trying to restrain her? I'm sure they weren't just standing around offering their groins up to be kicked by this woman.

Next step here. Police called in for backup. They cant physically restrain her. Given the situation and may or may not know that this is diabetes related a decision had to be made. The woman poses a threat to herself and those around her. In this state no one can calm her down. If they know its diabetic shock they could wait till she passes out and hope she or anything/one else doesn't get hurt in the meantime. Another option is the tazer which the officers have been trained in using. The tazer can take the fight out of her and enable the paramedics/officers to restrain/treat her. The tazer in most cases is not life threatening and poses little side effects from what I know. If it didn't I'm sure they wouldn't be using them. Given this info the officers made the decision and the woman is no worse for wear. According to the article the woman was unhurt. No harm no foul. Why do people have a problem with this?

What would have happened with the alternatives? As marialo stated. What if they tried to forcefully physically restrain her? What if they broke an arm? What if they smothered/suffocated her which does happen sometimes? Instead of complaining about the tazer you would be complaining about the physical restraint and be asking if there wasn't another way.

Another option is to let her burn out and pass out. What if she hit her head and died? What if the shock progressed into something more serious? Again you would be complaining and asking wasn't there something they could have done?

Specifically for StoneAgeQueen- This is a civilized society. That is why police officers don't carry blackjacks or saps anymore and have the use of batons pretty well regulated. Had this situation happened years ago this women would have probably been hit on the back of the head with a sap and rendered unconscious. What part of using a non lethal tool to keep a violent woman from hurting herself of anyone else is uncivilized exactly?

Ninjadude you happen to be wrong. Tazers are not like "shooting a gun, hitting or striking". Tazers are classified as non lethal and are used as such. You don't see future police officers shooting each other with firearms in the classrooms just so they know what its like to be shot do you? No of course not. Shooting a gun is permanent and often lethal. There is no winging a person like you see in the movies. If the trigger is pulled it is meant to kill period. Hitting or striking while violent is often non lethal as long as its in moderation. Mind you officers are getting into more and more trouble even striking a criminal once while the criminal is striking the officer. That is why pepper/chemical sprays and tazers have been developed. Its a standardized level of non-lethal force that can be applied by any officer.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if violent people could be brought under control with kisses and hugs? If our SWAT team vans could be filled not with body armor, weapons and trained men but fluffy pillows, kitty cats and good psychotherapists? If police officers could replace their sidearm with a tape player capable of playing sappy songs and various feel good sayings that would make any violent person want to just hug the officer?

The only person here that seems to have "been there and done that" is FluffyBunny. The words of someone that has seen this stuff in real life and dealt with it hold a lot more weight than the keyboard commandos here that haven't. In his opinion nothing that was done was out of line or wrong. Anyone looking at the situation that lives in reality would think the same.


Kevin

Notice the words "most cases" and "little side effects" and "from what I know". You have a lot more faith in tazers than many Americans outside of the south. The plain and simple fact is not the police perceived lethality. I'm sure they didn't MEAN to hurt her by tazering. But it is state VIOLENCE with a weapon fostered on a person that is not called for. You can claim all the justification for it you want but it's still violence. Let's play this game, what would the police have done without a tazer available - shot her? Then maybe you'll see the fallicy of what your advocating. Have you seen the video of the college student begging for his life at Berkley after being repeatedly tazered by rent-a-cops simply because he didn't have id and didn't move fast enough?

She is NOT a criminal. She has a medical condition. She did not purposefully hit anyone. It's such a slippery slope you're on. What would they have claimed if she had a heart attack and died from the tazer? This has happened. What if she has suffered muscle or brain damage? Will they cover her medical costs - not! They and you would claim oh well, these things happen - she was just some violent sick person anyway. It was not necessary. A tazer is a violent weapon. You go on about SWAT and non-lethality and weapons - I said no such thing. Weapons are certainly required by the police. This woman was not a criminal! She was sick. and not on drugs. We do not live in a police state and she did not need a weapon used.

And yes diabetic shock can be a very stressful situation. If this is the new SOP for handling it, we need some serious changes in this country. It just galls me that so many think this is ok. Next you'll be tazered for protesting or jay-walking or dropping trash.

People were getting the shi*t kicked out of them.

It is a shame that it had to come down to this. But unfortuantley it did. You cannot safely, for either the patient ot the medical personell ,admister glucose to a comabtitive persont that is not subdued in one form or another. I used to wrok in an ER. I have seen it happen and I have actually had my nose broken by a diabetic patient that had low blood sugar that was combatative. Luckily, we were able to restrain her to the gurney with a bed sheet. I highly doubt that could have been done in this case. I really hate that it came to this but I dont' see that they had a choice. If they had just let her go on and her BS dropped even further and she died, what would have been said then? They would have been crucified for not doing more than they did. This was a no win situation either way you look at it.

I've been in this situation and she could of either been tazered or she could have done more damage to herself. The cops aren't that worried about they're own well being, they could handle her in a fight. Even if they were able to pin her down her fighting would have injured herself. So yes there are many many ways this could have been handled but this was the least violent one. There was a chance she could be killed... but we take chances like that everyday....

If I go into hypoglycemic shock and you are present please taze me if you need to. Otherwise I might hurt you and break your stuff. Tazing will not effect my blood-sugar one iota.

I know some posters in this thread boast to know more than trained medical professionals (also represented in this thread yet blown off) but if you give me insulin while I'm in shock you will kill me.

I know that some of you just read the highlights of the OP and cruise through the replies because ya just can't wait to post your little head off so I'll just add....again.... that this was not an old woman but a woman of 26 years.

While the police officers reaction in many ways was understandable if you can sympathise with their scruple, it was also incorrect!.

ha haaa, i too am another one of those diabetics .

First off a little background info about metabolism so you can understand the basis of my points.

When a diabetic is having a hypoglycemia, it means that their blood sugar is becoming too low for their body to function properly.

Our bodies need sugar like a car needs petrol. It is converted to (i think?) Glucogen and Glycogen. The Glycogen is stored in our muscles in order for them to be able to move and the Glucogen is transported via our blood to our brains also, where the sugar is broken down into various compounds that create electrical impulses in our brain to be able to think. EVERY thought and movement is controlled by our blood sugar levels.

If a human body has no blood sugar it can not function, move or think, it has no control. The muscles twitch (the shakes) because they are unable to contract and it is the last moments before the onset of coma where the tinyest of glucagen levels are draining away. This means that the muscles become weak.

Before a diabetic gets to this stage there is a stage where we can act a bit funny which gradually deteriorates before it could get to the stage where some of us become "aggressive" seeming or "unreasonable". The aggressive movements are the last rushes of sugar passing through the system, they are almost automatic movements, the body trying to assert life.

My point is, that while they might appear fearsome to the novice, this is a ridiculus idea. All you have to do is wait till they run out of enough sugar (petrol) that their movements hold little force. There is no argueing with this, its how the body works. There should have been NO restraining, her aggression were her bodies last automated movements for survival. Any meaning she attatched to her movements would have been meaningless for her brain was not working either. The police assumed she was being aggressive towards them, when her body was just fighting for its life...its SO sad!!!

From the perspective of "does the means justify the ends" ???

These police were COMPLETELY tazer happy without doubt! You see to subdue a diabetic who is having a hypoglycemia in many ways is the EXACT opposite of what they should have been doing. A diabetic who is having a hypoglycemia is losing blood sugar>>>function>>>coma>>>death!!!! When you call for help when a diabetic is having a hypoglycemia you are not doing it to subdue them, you are doing it to try and renew them, restore their energy levels, and concsiousness.

You see, because i've had diabetes since i was three i KNOW that she cant of been so bad to justify the use of a tazer simply because of the fact that she would have lost movement and strength in time for definate!

In saying this i am not denying that up until this transition her aggressive and still quite powerful behaviour might not have been some danger to the people involved in the situation. I am merely stating that if facts were considered in the moment, they would have not aggrevated her (and lowered her blood sugars even more quickly each movement at this stage brings them lower and closer to coma) further by trying to restrain, but just stood back and allow her to calm down and get to the inevitable slightly weaker state (closer to coma yes) but FAR more appropriate for treatment.

Once you get the glucose to a semi concsious diabetic recovery is noticable within minutes.

Anyway, this whole point leads me to the question...Why were these facts not considered?

I feel there is an information gap within this issue and that is the root of this situation. How trained/experienced were the paramedics. How were the police involved briefed before they intervened.

SO, what should they have done?

1. Turn up keep distance.
2. Constant re-assurance and show of concern, "how are you feeling" etc
3. NO IMMEDIATE DIRECT PERSUASION to "take sugar" this would have felt threatening if she didnt know their names.

(some of you may argue, "well if she was bolting about swinging at everything then" BLAH, yeah i get your point, but this would not have lasted!!!!! ITS IMPOSSIBLE!!!! talking to her calmly would have diverted her away from aggression. Becoming confrontational, panicked and defensive just could have very easily looked aggressive especially to a brain that is frightened and unable to think)

4. By asking her how she feels, they would have been helping what little thought she had left to consider her health and safety.

(D)"tired"....(P)"well do you think you might need some sugar honey?"

5. At this point the aggression would have definately ceased and with gentle persuasion she would allow you into her comfort zone and assist her in taking some glucose gel or glucogon injection.

Coming back to the police and Paramedics, perhaps if they were aware of the other ways of handling it and had protocals they would have carried them out which therefore highlights a problem in society with its training of these services. Perhaps this sort of knowledge is something that doesnt first come to your mind when in that situation unless it is something you have lived with for a long time like myself and the other diabetics who aggree in this discussion.

Right or wrong, I'm sure the first thing that came to the police mind was aggression>>> danger>>> zzapp...."tazer happy" as i said...sigh, its understandable...incorrect but understandable...

nn23

nn23, thanks for this post. It's what i've been trying to say to the tazer happy folks in this thread. You don't advocate any restraint and sound like you have much more experience with this. I stand corrected on that point. I'm worried that this is the standard op for police when they encounter this situation. I don't find it understandable at all - when all it requires is education. But then we have the posters in this thread - so it seems perfectly understandable to them. Hopefully they now see it as wrong as well.

Please do not confuse police and paramedics.

I'd like to make it very clear that paramedics do not carry any weapons, cannot tazer people, and cannot order the police to do so. We do not have access to such things, and any tazering is up to the police.

Our policy during a dibetic emergency is to use calm reassuring voices to talk to the diabetic to try and help them understand the situation. We are only allowed to use physical restraint if the person is a threat to themselves(i.e. walking into traffic) or to us(a right cross to the noggin). In those cases we only have to wait a couple of minutes until they are so far gone we can start an IV with glucose.

Having been on hundredes of diabetic emergency calls I have never had to do any more than lightly hold a persons arms at their side who tried to swing at us(you learn to dodge quickly in the back of an ambulance), I will say however that I disagree that talking to the person will always keep a diabetic calm. As their blood sugar drops they can get rather agitated...some do, some don't, but not knowing the entire situation I have no idea how the police came to the conclusion to tazer her.



There will be times when there will be a need to restrain a person, so I think "any restraint" is not accurate.

I just heard that she and her dad now want to sue the police department. I also saw her on the 6:00 news a few days ago, showing the ugly marks that were left on her upper arm as a result of the tasering. They call it "dermatological impairment."

Fluffybunny, what do you think will happen if she decides to sue?

I read the original post a few days ago and I keep trying to figure out what was bothering me the most about this story beside the obvious (Sick women getting tazed).

A family calls for help, and paramedics show up. Were they not trained for this situation? How long do the seizures last, that after struggling with the paramedics, she was still seizing while they waited for the police to show up? Why couldn't everyone step away from her, let her thrash about ALONE.

I guess what I am trying to say is I have a big problem with a women getting tazered in her own house by the police and her crime was having a seizure?!?

Come on, after she had kicked and punched a couple of these "public servants", they aren't trained enought to step back and let her seize, rather she hurts herself or not. How does a paramedic, who has been trained to save lives, make quick medical decisions, etc. let a cop, who has pledged to protect and serve taze his "patient"? I am at a loss of words or either I can't get them out of my head and on this computer screen.

NN23, I have had type one diabetes since the age of six, twenty years, and I agree with everything you just said. My mother has had to look after me during bad lows before and she was horrified at this article. Anyone that agrees with the tazering has no idea about diabetes and specifically hypoglycemia.

ha ha yeahhh nice one SAQ its GREAT to come across someone who knows what i'm on about, its a mad world

ermmmm, just gotta straighten this out ....



I think you may have missed the context of what i was saying, earlier in my peace i wrote...



hmmm, i was trying to highlight the point that they did not work well together in this situation and my reference to protocals and training included educating services on how they can work together.

The police would have needed some sort of briefing from the paramedics in this situation or any medical situation they are called into in order to evaluate and form a plan of action. This is why i simply question the possibility that perhaps the paramedics did not conduct their briefing accurately enough for the police to be able to make an appropriate plan of course of action. I also do not understand how the paramedics would have advocated such a silly way of handling a situation, and this lack of understanding is perpetuated from my first hand experiences with these circumstances and not ignorance.

I actually was unable to see how i had confused police with paramedics, but if my post still reinforces your oppinion of this let us view it from the perspective that my "confusion" is a product of this event for had it not occured and i had not read this topic i would have never of entered this train of thought (i do not recall stating that i believed that the paramedics had tazered the girl?... ) .

ha haaa, nevermind i hope the girl wins her sue-age and the money that the police have to pay out teaches them to go easy on the old tazers.

(uh oh, now i've brought the old compensation debate into it )

NICE ONE!!!

nn23

Mariola, hiya ,

I do not know who is who in your quote, but seeing as ninjadude is kind of on the same wavelength as my line of thinking in this situation, i am assuming that you are the red writing, i apologise if i have this wrong.

You appear to have perhaps missed some of the points i was trying to make in my first post that are actually very relavant in this "should they" or "shouldnt they of" argument.

The aggressive episode of the hypoglycemia would not have lasted very long!!! her heart would not have SUDDENLY stopped! This is misinformation you are using. She would have become limp because her muscles had no sugar left in them to move and would have started to gently not violently shake for a short while before entering a coma, this would have been a good time to intervene for it can last for up to an hour and in some cases two (it has with me).

Yes, maybe her aggression was endagering herself, but infact by challenging her aggression they were endagering her EVEN more anddd not just because of the tazers there are other reasons.

By challenging her, they caused her to panic and fight even more, when you are low in blood sugar any movement you make pushes the blood sugars down further very quickly bringing her closer to a coma.

Stress is actually something that isnt given enough consideration in relation to diabetes. It is often that stress can cause mass and sudden fluctuations in blood sugar levels for a diabetic, so by challenging her they were putting her at even more risk.

Even if they were trying to restrain her for her own good, she was confused because she was unable to coordinate her thoughts and movements and did not understand that these people were trying to help her. This must have been very frightening for her indeed. If there are people who appear to be threatening and attacking you, you have to defend yourself in some way, so their methods would have actually perpetuated her panicked aggression in the first place, which also resulted in her being in more danger.

If they had left her alone and re-assured her and kept her talking with simple and caring questions from a safe distance i am certain she would have calmed down enough to allow them to enter her bounderies.

I believe that the only chance of her falling out of a window in this situation (as your quote stated) would have been out of panic from feeling as though there were a load of thugs trying to get her....perhaps there were ha haaa dont be fooled by the uniform...tazer happy, thats what i say.

NICE ONE
nn23

The problem with using a Taser on someone with Diabetes is those with Daibetes often have higher risks of cardiovascular health issues, and using a taser on someone with cardiovascular issues can be potentially dangerous. Maybe she can sue in court for excessive force and potentially putting her life at risk, get a nice payout from the government.

Ok lets look at the article piece by piece and pick some things apart shall we? We also have to look at the earlier articles about this incident. It seems that the more time has passed the more the diabetic woman, her roommate and family have attempted to vilify the officers. Not surprising when you're thinking about a lawsuit. This is the land of the free and home of the lawyer after all.

First off "Even with food and insulin, Hess’ family said her blood sugar will drop dangerously low, and nearly every time that happens, she becomes irrational and combative." Well now doesn't that kind of throws the whole idea of sitting down next to her, giving her constant reassurance, asking her how she is and not forcing sugar on her out the window doesn't it? Think about it. If your own family is classifying you as irrational and combative that probably means you are these things beyond the point of denial. Wouldn't family be the best option in trying to calm this person down and get her help? Don't you think family would have tried all these feel good answers and got her the help she needs? IF your family is classifying you as "irrational and combative" don't you think that maybe they have seen you break things, become violent towards them and basically flip out? Now if the family was quoted as saying "she was always passive and gentle and maybe just a little edgy" then maybe we could second guess the view of the police that she was violent and what not. A family that loves you will always paint you in a better light that what you are so when family calls you" irrational and combative" and you act towards and are perceived by the police to be "irrational and combative" there is a pretty good chance you are. To me this has totally ruled out the option that nice words and a smile could have kept her calm long enough for the paramedics to give her the glucose.

Ok next we find out this was not a it seems but a stun gun. Bit of a difference. It seems as if some people have the idea that she was just a little combative, the police swaggered in scaring her into an even more combative mood, the officers started ordering her around or pushing her around and then she takes a few swings at the officers. Then the officer drops back, takes aim with the (the kind that shoots darts attached to wires), fires and then zaps her into submission. This is not what happened. If you read the article the officer was punched without provocation. If I can guess something here for a sec its that the officer was trying to talk to her in a nice civil way and get her to calm down. This is the only reason he would be close enough to get punched. You don't walk right up to someone you think might pose a threat to you. That makes no sense. He was probably talking to her and she reached out and punched him. Then the struggle began. The woman, a police officer and a firefighter all got into this struggle. There is a good chance they were caught off guard when she basically attacked. They start struggling with her trying to get her off of them or to physically restrain her. I'm sure both the firefighter and officer know that if they grab an arm and try to pin it or the like they stand a good chance of breaking something. Wrist, arm, etc . Perhaps they didn't think this. Either way this officer has a non-lethal weapon at his side which he has been trained to use in such situations. A stun gun is a contact weapon. You have to be up close and personal to use it. Knowing that this woman has a medical condition causing this fit, she is fighting and probably getting the best of him because of the level of force he feels he can use, then he makes a decision to use his non-lethal weapon to gain control and get her medical help. What is wrong with this decision? From what we can discern the officer was not being forceful, she attacked, the officer used a non-lethal weapon to stop the and get her the medical attention she needed. How many people out there saying that this was totally and that a few calm words would have rendered her compliant would be wildly screaming for someone to do something when this woman punches you in the jaw and proceeds to attack?

All in all this probably lasted 10-20 seconds. I cant see it lasting much longer from her punching the officer till she was on the ground under control. This was a fast decision made by the officer and in my opinion for the better. She has no long lasting injuries from the stun gun. Sure she showed her mildly bruised arm bearing a few rather small burn marks to the papers and news crew so the world(and potential jurors) can see it for themselves. These are minor injuries people. Compare that to a broken arm or wrist. The stun gun did its job and she is no worse for wear really. It is classified as non-lethal for a reason. According to this article http://www.azcentral.com/specials//article...rlist24-ON.html
there have been only 167 cases of death following someone being in about 15 years. Call it about 11 deaths per year. That is just looking at it as if all the death were related and according to medical examiners they were NOT. How many accidental deaths a year are there from the crap doctors pull in the name of medicine? I found an article claiming 1318 people died from lightening strikes in 15 years. You can not tell me that a handful a deaths that can be solidly attributed to the act of means that no officer should ever use them. Lets take this idea further. How many people die a year from being forcefully restrained? How many people do speeding police cars kill every year? How many die from getting struck with batons or fists? How many die from the act of fleeing officers and being arrested aggravate a pre-existing condition and cause death? Using this idea that are bad and unnecessary and using a broad brush stroke it means that batons, fists, the act of cuffing someone, the act of forcefully restraining them, chasing a criminal etc should not be used because of their "astronomical" death count. This is where my mentions of SWAT vans filled with fluffy pillows etc came from. In my experience people that have a problem with are the same people that think if we outlaw guns, take weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens, police officers and everyone else this world with magically be a better place. They are the same people that think the lack of kind words and feel good ideas are the only difference between a criminal and a law abiding citizen. That police shouldn't have firearms, pepper spray, hand cuffs, batons etc just because of their potential to inflict harm.

Somehow I get the feeling that certain people believe that if they were in the same situation that they could have done so much better. Never having any training beyond the . Never being in that real life situation. Never going to be in that situation. Yet they feel they could have done so much better with out the "violence". If you think you can do better go to school, become a cop, paramedic or fireman and use your superhuman god-like infallibility and super keen judgement and intelligence to go save the world. Until you have been there you have no right to accuse any public servant on the scene there of anything but doing their job to the best of their ability.

Regardless of how much we talk discuss this now that the family is going to sue we all know the outcome. The officer will be put on leave and probably fired when the family wins 20 million dollars(or whatever a few minor wounds and bruised pride or worth these days) from the state. This is how it works. Situation happens, officers react, family sues, media spins it and vilifies officers and the state is forced to do things like fire the officers, pay large sums of money and tie the hands of our public servants with more and more red tape and rules just in the hopes of making the feel good cry babies of the world feel safer. You couldn't pay me enough to be a police officer, paramedic or firefighter these days. How are you supposed to do your job when someone somewhere out there will find fault with your decisions and prove it in court? I just couldn't do it. My hat is off to those out there that do day in and day out.

I really should be in bed....

Kevin

Kevin you really need some valium man. But you do bring up some interesting points. wrong but interesting.

Your first point, her family. My brother in law is a big guy. Diabetic. He is a great guy. But yeah, with low blood suger he can get combative and belligerent. I and no one in our family would want him tazered or stun gunned. So I guess that would contradict what you beleive about diabetic families.

If the officer was afraid for his life, a stun might be ok. But then he should not have been in that situation in the first place. As nn23 suggests, let the fight subside. You seem big on the "without provocation" - she was having a diabetic problem. Intent on her part doesn't enter into it. I agree that they may have been caught off gaurd and that's the problem - a lack of planning, there was time, they basically failed to do their job.

Your justification for 11 deaths a year is unbelievably callous. If any of these people were diabetic, that's just criminal. This was someone who was sick. Since a solution could be attained without a stun gun, a death would be unnecessary and thus the government and people should pay millions. You talk as if you're at war with the general public and a number of deaths is an acceptable risk. No it's not. Most especially when it is AVOIDABLE and UNNECESSARY! It is a logical fallacy to then move onto police brutality and weapons and swat in general. I don't think one single person has said anything like that on this thread. This is about a sick woman and a police overreaction.

A number of people who have been in this very situation have posted. And yes they think they could have done better. Public servants are not infallible. They do make mistakes. You seem to be advocating that they are perfect and we should never question their actions and always do what they say without question. In the US it is our responsibility to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen.

nn23 has outlined that yes, doing nothing maybe the right course. There was time. Unthinking action was not required. I more suspect that someone panicked that should have known better. I'm not a police officer or paramedic. I have great respect for what they do and what they have to know. It is a VERY hard job with a LOT of stress. And even in this case, if they didn't know, there are people to ask. If this person had been high instead of diabetic, it wouldn't even be a story. That's the problem, they knew she was diabetic and still flubbed it up.

I'm not sure firing is the answer. But yeah I do think some money will change hands. Hopefully some better training will occur as well. Something like "unnecessarily firing your supposedly non-lethal weapon at sick person". You know I seem to remember a story a while back about the police shooting some kid that was suicidally depressed whose family called police for help and they killed him. This case brings that to mind as well. It made me never want to call the police.

Hi Kevin A, just a few thoughts about your post

1.)I do not see how this point relates to whether the officer should have tazer/stunned the girl or not, it appears to be an attempt on your own part to villify the girl and the family even if this was not your intention....i see your point about media spin though, perhaps you are suggesting that we have been manipulated by this spin and have vilinised the police within this debate? hmmm, well in my first reply i started it by saying:
and i also said: I am unable to see how these points villify the police so i am unable to make sense out of what you have written in relation to this topic. I stated it was a problem of society, and my "tazer happy" remark is trying to draw attention to the fact that they're decisions were not truely mindful...i myself never labelled the police as villinous, there actions were simply incorrect as i said in the first quote.

2.)I do hope you were not refering to me with this remark!....
andand I included that one to show you as someone who has , not tazered/stunned but in the situation where i needed to be treated, and because the public services handled the situation correctly, restraint was not needed. My is what governs the point and the knowledge to which it is based within my quotes.

This actually takes me onto an issue about the public services and their training that relates to your argument here. My interests in this topic were not only inspired/affiliated by the fact that i have 23 years first hand everyday experience with every aspect of type one diabetes including public service involvement as a sufferer, but also the fact that in my job i work very closely with all the public services and their actions! This statement of yours undermines the human experience that the public services need to be knowledgable on in order to interact with these different situations correctly.

This is a very new perspective that is gradually being integrated into the training of all public services in Britian. Basically the idea is that there is a-lot to be learnt from service users to help avoid incidents like this occuring and there are various tested methods/models that are now being incorporated into all the training and management of public services via the input of regular service users like this girl. The research and now the implementation is proving to have very successful results.

To be continued .....

3.) hmmm, i shall break it down.
a )hmmm, i do hope you did not write this with relation to anything i had written. I do not remember making a "whole idea" of sitting down next to her...
andlet me say that once more

b ) HA HAAAA if this was with reference to anything i said then you COMPLETELY missed the point...the science bit!AGAIN i said:This statement is based on the physiology of diabetes. They should have as i already said kept a difference and wait for her to inevitably weaken enough for her to have no energy for aggression. To somebody with my experience this is obvious, indicating AGAIN without exact or assumptive implication to any particular party, that it was a matter of bad training (communication) that led to this mistake.

4.) Does the families discription of her state as "irrational and combative" (in this response stated in point 3) justify the police actions? Despite this being a quote, you yourself make a point about media spin. Its very easy to change the context to which a statement is made. When i say "police actions" i am not simply refering to the tazering, my points about this issue seem to be missed.........Maybe this will help you to see that its all a matter of perception, the police officer may have been quite civil, but also failed to recognise the possibility that she may not have been in a state where she could comprehend their usual civilities.

well... and The police werent to know this because.... (incidently, i should have put "public services involved" when asking "How trained/experienced were the paramedics" .) With that statement i was not criticising their actions but the actual education which goes to what i was saying earlier that in the u.k. this has already been covered as an issue with new techniques being used to help change attitudes rather than add red tape. I re-affirmed this point aswell

to be continued...AGAIN (more to come)

5.) This is getting tiring ....
Levels of force he feels he can use...why not just stand back and wait fro her to go to the next stage?...because he did not KNOW, he was not trained enough to know how to deal with this situation/was not putting his training into practice/was misinformed. His actions were incorrect!

6.) Proceeds to attack?

7.) like the officers at the time you perhaps fail to consider the trauma that a diabetic fit has on its victim. Things arnt hunky dory when the blood sugars are better, i usually am affected to some extent for a couple of days afterwards, its a terrifying experience simply without feeling mistakenly or not as if you have been judged and attacked. justifyed or not, these are awful things to live with and it is not her fault she has diabetes, she should not have to live with this feeling, i feel that this is probably more of what her lawsuit is about personally for her, but as with all these cases you have to maximise your resources wisely (hense the burn pictures) to get people to relate.

8.)...who are they? i dont feel good about this at ALL! I wonder how good the officer felt when he had finally zapped her into unconsciousness... probably very relieved. This term is insulting and could be twisted and thrown at anyone within this debate.

I agree with some of your last statement however...my hat comes off to those who do their job properly but still have to cope with the stigma created by those who do not. I feel sorry for those who make mistakes as i have made many myself and i hope that they learn from these mistakes, rather than try to justify them as so many do. Infact as you said, the police force will probably fire this officer and all that, but by doing this they are failing to learn or take any responsiblity for what happened. This is not the girls fault but as i pointed out many times is a problem within society ha haaaa "phew" finished.

NICE ONE!!!
nn23

PS, just realised...ha haaa, i could of simply changed the colours of the two view points rather than breaking into three to use quotes ha ha...oh well

Know it for next time in it! ha haaa

HA HAAAA, i think i probably need some too

Ok let me try to get some of these points here.

Ninjadude I will ignore the valium comment and a few others. Any ways I never said her family would want her tazered or stun gunned. No family would ever want that to happen to a loved one. I don’t believe that “diabetic families” as you put it would want a member tazered anymore than a non diabetic family would. What I meant by my family mentions above was that she was irrational and combative just as the family is quoted as saying. I mentioned this because we can not venture away from the fact that her actions are what sparked this incident. I'm well aware she did not know what she was doing and she was suffering from a medical condition but regardless of that she was combative. Correct? This is not an instance of the police saying she was violent and the family saying she was such a good girl, always quiet and never was “violent”. The family admits she can be irrational and combative. The police describe her actions as irrational and combative. Both sides are in agreement on this and there is no argument here. Again I know this was all due to a medical condition and she was not aware of what she was doing. I have understood this since the beginning. One question no body seems to want to ask is how has the family dealt with this before? Not how it should have been done but how they have dealt with it in the past when it has gotten to this point?

As for the 11 deaths and me being callous and illogical. I will add here that some of my statements have nothing to do about what people have posted here but opinions you can find if you look at all the chatter elsewhere about this incident. Regardless I posted this 11 deaths a year(and its even smaller than that. Probably half that number) number to show why stun guns and tazers are considered non-lethal. Somehow I feel like I'm just repeating myself here more than anything but these are incredibly low numbers in the grand scheme of things. How may die per year due to “accepted” police action? My whole point is that stun guns/tazers(regardless of their right or wrong use in this case for a sec) have a place on the bat belt of officers. According to what I have found they have a solid track record that does contain a few unfortunate incidents ending in death. Can the same not be said about other police practices that are “acceptable” and are perceived as totally non-lethal? Perhaps I just cant get my point across effectively? I don't know.

I do not believe that public servants are infallible. Not in the least bit. They are human and make the same mistakes as the rest of us would. They are not perfect. We should question things that the powers that be do and we do not agree with. That’s part of what makes this country what it is(or was but lets not go there). Again the only people that seem to be infallible are those that seem so sure they could a better job than the police officer, fireman or paramedic in any given situation but get to sit behind a computer screen and never prove it. This doesn’t necessarily have to do with anyone here but with those having the knee jerk opinion that these newspaper articles seem to want us to have. The automatic no matter what the situation and what really happened the police are bad, made a bad mistake and what not opinion.

Perhaps doing nothing would have worked out? Is that standard procedure for paramedics to follow though? Sit back, wait for unconsciousness and then give medical attention? In one variation of the article the officer was told by firefighters that this woman needed treatment right away or else she will go into a coma. I'm not saying this firefighter/paramedic was wrong. I'm not looking for someone to blame. There was a reason they believed this woman needed subdued and treated. Perhaps the firefighter has had someone slip into a coma under his care. Maybe he thought that nothing but immediate action would result in a diabetic coma. No one here knows exactly what experiences the firefighter and police officers have had with diabetics. Maybe they have had a bad run of things and don't want another person suffering problems while they think they could do something. We really don't know.


Firing is not the answer but it will likely happen. It always seems as if it does when some department comes under fire for something. Money will no doubt change hands. Again it always does it seems. Is more training required? That doesn't seem like a bad idea. Make it a SOP for hostile diabetics and be done with it. That way the next time an officer, firefighter or paramedic gets a call about a diabetic having this problem they will know what to do and we wont be sitting her debating their actions. Instead we will debate the SOP and the cycle continues. If they decide that waiting until unconscious someone will have a problem with it. I'm sure there are enough medical cases on the books showing unconsciousness till coma or death happened incredibly quickly and that waiting is not the answer. The the physical restraint debate. Then another taser debate perhaps.

I will answer nn23s comments and that below. This post is long enough.

Agreeing to respectfully disagree,

Kevin

This might take a while. Forgive me if I don't get to it all tonight.

To Nn23,

1. Sorry about that. It was late for me and I should have left that. True enough that it doesn't really relate to the questions presented here. I just found it interesting that the more interviews they family and room mate give get more and more elaborate it seems. In my attempt to question and bring up the idea that they were vilifying the officer I made similar accusations. I will state that it seems common enough for stories to change as times goes on, your story gets more play and more media shows up. If the family is wanting to sue for money it kind of takes away from the idea that they just want to save other people from similar situations doesn't it? I will stop there. I will leave this part be and we will have to see if this goes to court or if anything at all comes from this situation. I do think there is media spin on this story though. They want a reaction that will get people talking and buying papers. Again I'm straying from the topic. Lets leave the idea that anyone in particular(certainly no one here) is trying to make a villain out of the police officer. Lets move on.

2. What I meant is someone that had been in the place of the firefighter, paramedic or police officer. You have been a diabetic and know that side of it. What about people on the other end of this story? My point was it seems as if only one firefighter that has dealt with many diabetics in this state has chimed in. Has there been anyone else? There is a record of some diabetics getting violent while in this state. I think that shows that someone, certain diabetics out there, can get violent and sustain this long enough to pose a threat to themselves or others around them. How long should they have waited to do something? How long would it have been till she passed out? We really don't know. You have your history that you have lived through and what others have posted in dealing with some diabetics. There have been the posts about people dealing with other diabetics that end up turning violent. I don't think this shows that you know she couldn't have been this bad when other post experiences with other diabetics that show she could be. But if she was that bad couldn't they have stepped back and waited till she burned out? We are back to the question of is waiting the right answer? Doesn't seem like it was to the people on site during this situation. What are the odds of complications from restraint, tazering and waiting all compared to each other? Which has the lowest chance of complications and poses the highest safety and security for all involved?

3.4.Maybe 5.? Nn23 you have first hand experience with diabetes but how many times have you yourself been in the situation as this woman? Have you ever turned violent? Girty1600 seems to realize a diabetic like them can turn violent and that any means including tazering is acceptable to keep them from hurting someone. At least I'm hoping their post was serious. Also can someone become more and more “immune” to it and generally last longer in this confused state? If she has life long experience with this and she has slipped into this time and time again is it possible that this gray area between just not feeling well and to depleted to move last longer with her than most diabetics? From what I've been reading it seems that symptoms and time lengths vary from person to person. I'm understanding this correctly? While you yourself Nn23 have not been violent(I don’t think at least) other diabetics have. Look at Jules22871s comment about getting their nose broken by a diabetic patient. The level of aggression and confusion varies from person to person like the rest of the symptoms. But we are not discussing this point I don’t think. Diabetics can get violent in this state. I believe its safe enough to call that fact from what I've read. Does this necessarily mean the diabetic needs provocation in order to get violent? No it does not. Im sure there is a protocol somewhere about not leaving the person alone once you get onsite. Someone had to watch her. Does that mean from across the room or sitting next to them? We know space is good in situations but would this combative person rush their watcher? That seems possible to me that there is a chance it could happen. Did it? No but it seems possible.


You say “The aggressive movements are the last rushes of sugar passing through the system, they are almost automatic movements, the body trying to assert life”. It doesn’t seem to me as if aimed punches and kicks/knees(they read like they were aimed) hitting their mark are just automatic movements. I could see how flailing about or just reaching out for someone could be get confused with violent movements but it doesn’t seem as if her actions were random. They seem to be purposeful and meant to cause harm. I am not sure if you mean that some of these automatic movements can be kicks and punches or not? Maybe its late and I'm not reading you right and you do not mean at all that her actions were these automatic movements. Theres a chance I'm getting this mixed up.

6. Well if someone punches you the normal reaction is to make space don't you think? No provocation also equals attack in my mind. Any ways someone punches you and you try and make space between them and you. But the article seems to describe a tussle. I think(think as in my opinion from reading the article) that the distance between them was kept close. Could the officer not retreat? Did she follow? Was no attempt made by either party to retreat and make space? I don't know.

7. I'm sure her emotional trauma comes into play somewhere along the line. Lawsuit or other wise.

8. I meant the people always wanting officer fired, money paid, etc etc . The ones that truly believe public servants should never make mistakes. The ones that believe police officers shouldn't be armed. The people that complain no matter what. Even when the person was a criminal. the officer followed procedure and things ended well. The ones that feel good when "their voice" is heard and they "make a difference".

To sum up a SOP for this type of instance is needed but I don't think it will keep people from debating it. Someone will always disagree with it at some point. Eventually someone will get hurt from officers following procedure and then we will debate again. Will some training and a standard procedure help things out? I'm sure it would. Hopefully someone can get something on the books soon. It will keep officers out of some trouble and take the decision making out of the hands of people there on the scene. Is that necessarily correct? I dont know if all decisions need made before a given instance.

Is it unfortunate she needed tazered? Yes I can agree with that more or less. Was it needed given the situation and how things played out? Yes I feel the officer made the right final decision of tazering after other decisions(right or wrong) were made. Could it be handled "better" in the future? If future instances can end without officers or the like being assaulted and someone getting tazered then yes. Who wouldn't want a nice happy ending? Do I think tazers have their place as non-lethal weapons and in the hands of police officers? Yes I feel they have their place and are a standard level of force that any officer can use once trained and experiencing it themselves.

Agreeing to respectfully disagree(on some things),

Kevin

HA HAAA, this is such a complex and personal discussion, i needed to rest myself from it for a few days

HA HAAA agreed, were all victims of the constructs of society at the end of the day.


You make some very good and practical points here Kevin. I am impressed and pleased you have obviously given this a great deal of research. You are right, with experience i myself have been able to stay just about conscious when the mmls of sugar in my blood have been 0.9 before, which is VERY low indeed. But i was floppy at this point and unable to do anything with any force because my muscles had become weak. So yes this is a facter. But forceful blows are not possible technically unless you have the feul in your muscles (sugar) to enact them. But you are right, nothing is impossible. As far as protocol goes your right it is a bit disenabling. And as i have said all along, i can understand what they did without advocating it.

When i said that these movements are like automatic i also spoke about how the mind worked with it. To imagine an automatic movement on its own you would think of the electricuted frog legs, or a doctor testing your reflexes. I wished that i had encompassed correctly the dualism between the low blood sugar in the body aswell as the brain. While the consciousnous is still there the last rushes of sugar will create the movements combined with uncoordinated and irrational thought process' which would have given her movements their direction and justification.

I am uncertain as to how aware an officer might have been of this at the time or whether they were giving it any consideration. We shall never know if being aware of this and knowing how to respsond according would have made a difference. As for family knowledge, my family know more than others and they know enough, but they do not know as much as doctors or myself. It is often assumed that because they have lived with it for a long time their experience means they know how to deal, but i have learnt as far as many other situations go, this is not the case.

I wonder if her consistent aggressive behaviour when she is hypo has come as a result of dealing with it in the wrong way? This does not encompass mistreatment or nastynous, sometimes it is the sillyest of things that can create/trigger a behavioural response. Ha ha, i'm wondering into new territory back to the debate.