Deputy Trying To Remember What Made Him Sick

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: Scoot_4_20
He probably didn't want to seem like he was wimping out.


Same excuse used by most people before they got thier DUI.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.
It's no different than a drunk driver. If he had enough sense to still operate a vehicle, he has enough sense to pick up the mic and call for help. Wether alki or drugs or something else, he was still intoxicated. As a former deputy myself, he should have known better.

As part of your training, do they drug you up and then make you practice good judgment?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.
Same excuse used by most people before they got thier DUI.

I thought DUI was more of a punishment for having taken the drugs prior to doing something that might endanger others. In other words, when you're on drugs, you're not in your right mind by definition, so what you are punished for is the decision to take the drugs in the first place. On that basis, because this officer did not make the decision to take the drugs that messed him up, I don't see how the DUI analogy works.

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Dang you mean you can't taste the stuff like they do on TV?


It sounds to me like this one did.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: mcrn
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Dang you mean you can't taste the stuff like they do on TV?


It sounds to me like this one did.


Funny as it sounds, even some newer shows do this. Somehow I doubt a real LE person is sticking an index finger in and tasting an unknown whitish chemical no matter the circumstances. Real men of genius.

 

[urchin]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.


Again, in the officers OWN WORDS he said he knew something was affecting him. He should have called for assistance. Period.


This is what he said AFTER the fact when the contaminant was gone.

During the time he was being influenced by this [censored] he was not clear headed, so it is no surprise that he may have reacted illogically and indeed did. I'm not saying his choice to drive back to the station was correct, but it is understandable under the circumstances. The issue occurred in the line of duty dealing with low life addicted scum/dealer that couldn't care less about who HE injures.

AGAIN, THE OFFICER DID NOT WILLINGLY ACCEPT THIS NARCOTIC ELEMENT INTO HIS PERSON.

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: urchin
Originally Posted By: Tim H.


Again, in the officers OWN WORDS he said he knew something was affecting him. He should have called for assistance. Period.


This is what he said AFTER the fact when the contaminant was gone.

During the time he was being influenced by this [censored] he was not clear headed, so it is no surprise that he may have reacted illogically and indeed did. I'm not saying his choice to drive back to the station was correct, but it is understandable under the circumstances. The issue occurred in the line of duty dealing with low life addicted scum/dealer that couldn't care less about who HE injures.

AGAIN, THE OFFICER DID NOT WILLINGLY ACCEPT THIS NARCOTIC ELEMENT INTO HIS PERSON.


So he says. The only thing that gets me is they said the dog was sick too or I would not believe a word this officer said. If something like this happened to us and we got pulled over would the cop accept this answer from any of us? NOPE!

 

[urchin]

Originally Posted By: mcrn

So he says. The only thing that gets me is they said the dog was sick too or I would not believe a word this officer said. If something like this happened to us and we got pulled over would the cop accept this answer from any of us? NOPE!


What part of "in the line of duty" don't you get?

The officer had no choice about dealing with said scum bag. It's his JOB. Nobody is forcing you to be near a toxic bum like this guy.

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Tim H.
It's no different than a drunk driver. If he had enough sense to still operate a vehicle, he has enough sense to pick up the mic and call for help. Wether alki or drugs or something else, he was still intoxicated. As a former deputy myself, he should have known better.

As part of your training, do they drug you up and then make you practice good judgment?
No, but it's crammed down your throat that if you are in no shape to drive, either by last nights party, fatigue, or medical issue (such as dizziness, vertigo, etc), that you do not operate equipment and consider yourself 10-7 (out of service). This is because your judgement cannot be compromised at any time during your service or on-duty time. It's also just plain commen sense.

 

[greenaccord02]

They need to get that clown out from behind the wheel and let him drive a desk for a year or two before chancing him employing that kind of bad judgment again. After all that talk about "don't drink and drive" this idiot decides he's going to drive around town all faded off some unidentified substance. Great example, [censored].

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: urchin
Originally Posted By: mcrn

So he says. The only thing that gets me is they said the dog was sick too or I would not believe a word this officer said. If something like this happened to us and we got pulled over would the cop accept this answer from any of us? NOPE!


What part of "in the line of duty" don't you get?

The officer had no choice about dealing with said scum bag. It's his JOB. Nobody is forcing you to be near a toxic bum like this guy.

Correct. While the officer had no choice as to what or how he was exposed, he should have called for back up and had another officer take possession of the suspect, and had himself transported to a hospital. Can you just imagine what would have transpired if he passed out at the wheel and hit an oncoming car and killed the occupants of that vehicle, not withstanding himself and his passenger? As a cop he is held to a higher standard. This is why I said he should know better.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.
No, but it's crammed down your throat that if you are in no shape to drive, either by last nights party, fatigue, or medical issue (such as dizziness, vertigo, etc), that you do not operate equipment and consider yourself 10-7 (out of service). This is because your judgement cannot be compromised at any time during your service or on-duty time. It's also just plain commen sense.

Of course.

And what happens when the brain that stores those instructions is messed up?

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Of course.

And what happens when the brain that stores those instructions is messed up?

Ok. Let me break it down to your level of understanding, because obviously I'm not explaining this right.. One, he is a trained, certified officer. He is trained In matters like this, this is why officers are held to a higher standard than most. Two, if he was smart/conscious enough to know something wasn't right with him, and smart/conscious enough to operate his vehicle, and smart/conscious enough to remember the incident with as much clarity as he has shown, then he should know better. I can't simplify it any more than that.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.
One, he is a trained, certified officer. He is trained In matters like this, this is why officers are held to a higher standard than most.

You said earlier that the training does not include being drugged up and then asked to exercise good judgment. I'm pretty sure that that by definition means he was not "trained" for this situation.

You did say he was probably TOLD what to do, but I'm sure you understand that that's quite a different thing from being TRAINED.


Originally Posted By: Tim H.
Two, if he was smart/conscious enough to know something wasn't right with him, and smart/conscious enough to operate his vehicle, and smart/conscious enough to remember the incident with as much clarity as he has shown, then he should know better. I can't simplify it any more than that.

He was smart/conscious enough to piece things together AFTER the fact. We don't know how much of it was remembered accurately and how much was pieced together from his memories plus what he learned after-the-fact -- or how much of it comes from distorted memories or hallucinations.

As for driving, I'm sure you also know that it's second nature to most people, let alone to a LEO.

All we know with any level of certainty is that something he inhaled messed up his brain and affected his judgment. That means he couldn't be counted on to make good judgments. Are there people in the world who could go through the same thing and do better than this officer? I'm sure there are. Maybe you're one of them, Tim. That would make you exceptional, not typical.



Thinking about it now, if you're right, there should be a documented standard that shows clearly that a LEO is expected to exercise proper judgment even while under the influence of a mind-altering substance, and is liable for all actions performed under said influence. No? That wouldn't make it right, but at least it'd ground this debate somewhat. If you could post a link, I'd love to read it.

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
You said earlier that the training does not include being drugged up and then asked to exercise good judgment. I'm pretty sure that that by definition means he was not "trained" for this situation.

You did say he was probably TOLD what to do, but I'm sure you understand that that's quite a different thing from being TRAINED.


You are trained in several areas concerning many different things, including chemical and biological hazards, and WHAT TO DO in the event you are affected by them. Take for example the use of deadly force. Officers are trained in it's use, and what to do under fire, Just because an officer may never get fired upon in his career, does not mean he has not been trained to react a certain way when it happens.. How many times have you ever in your life heard "If it weren't for my training I would have never been able to ____."


Originally Posted By: d00df00d
He was smart/conscious enough to piece things together AFTER the fact. We don't know how much of it was remembered accurately and how much was pieced together from his memories plus what he learned after-the-fact -- or how much of it comes from distorted memories or hallucinations.


And he was smart/concious enough to arrest the guy, put him in the car, make sure the dog was in the car, handcuffs on, seat belt fastened to the suspect, calling in to dispatch that he was on his way in with suspect, starting and ending mileage .. All this takes cognative thinking. And since he was the only one at the scene, how could he learn anything more than his collapes at the station if he was not aware of his surroundings?

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
As for driving, I'm sure you also know that it's second nature to most people, let alone to a LEO.

All we know with any level of certainty is that something he inhaled messed up his brain and affected his judgment. That means he couldn't be counted on to make good judgments. Are there people in the world who could go through the same thing and do better than this officer? I'm sure there are. Maybe you're one of them, Tim. That would make you exceptional, not typical.

Thinking about it now, if you're right, there should be a documented standard that shows clearly that a LEO is expected to exercise proper judgment even while under the influence of a mind-altering substance, and is liable for all actions performed under said influence. No? That wouldn't make it right, but at least it'd ground this debate somewhat. If you could post a link, I'd love to read it.


I am sure even my "exceptional" autopilot ( read: second nature) would not get me around much if I were as messed up as you make him out to be. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any drunk driving accident's, would there? I am not saying he was not affected by whatever chemical he had come in contact with, but that in this case he KNEW he was affected, but also had enough rationalisation about him to do several cognative functions apparently unaffected. As for proper judgment, the training LEO's recieve is a myriad of different scenarios. Are you saying that since he was 'affected' by something that if he hit and killed someone, as stated in my earlier example, that he would not be liable because he "didn't have correct judgment"? I can't help but wonder if your outlook would change if someone close to you had this scenario happen to them..

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.
You are trained in several areas concerning many different things, including chemical and biological hazards, and WHAT TO DO in the event you are affected by them. Take for example the use of deadly force. Officers are trained in it's use, and what to do under fire, Just because an officer may never get fired upon in his career, does not mean he has not been trained to react a certain way when it happens.. How many times have you ever in your life heard "If it weren't for my training I would have never been able to ____."

No argument there.

We may simply be arguing about terminology on this point. To me, training involves actually practicing in a situation that approximates the real thing. If all that's happening is that recruits are being told what to do in certain situations, I don't consider that training. Thinking about it now, though, I can see how that might not be the common understanding...


Originally Posted By: Tim H.
And he was smart/concious enough to arrest the guy, put him in the car, make sure the dog was in the car, handcuffs on, seat belt fastened to the suspect, calling in to dispatch that he was on his way in with suspect, starting and ending mileage .. All this takes cognative thinking. And since he was the only one at the scene, how could he learn anything more than his collapes at the station if he was not aware of his surroundings?

Good points. In that case, given that he had accomplished all that, maybe he figured himself to be competent enough to drive. Possible, no?

It certainly isn't unheard of for a drug to leave a person with a hugely inflated sense of what they can do without disrupting their other senses.


Originally Posted By: Tim H.
Are you saying that since he was 'affected' by something that if he hit and killed someone, as stated in my earlier example, that he would not be liable because he "didn't have correct judgment"?

That's possible. It's also well within the realm of possibility that the person driving the chemical-laden car could be found liable for that death. This is what my law-minded friends tell me.


Originally Posted By: Tim H.
I can't help but wonder if your outlook would change if someone close to you had this scenario happen to them..

Interesting question. I hope I never have to find out.