Posted on 05/07/2006 12:43:59 PM PDT by seowulf
DKA is a result of very high blood sugar. If you've got a serious DKA episode, it can indeed manifest itself as drunkenness. This incident, however, was caused by low blood sugar.
Incidents like this are why diabetics NEED to wear something that identifies them as such -- a diabetes bracelet is the best way.
LOL! Well, not for that reason.
However, diabetic lows like this one can happen very rapidly, and it helps immeasurably if somebody can identify you as diabetic, so that the proper treatment can be started.
However, in this case it's possible that seeing such a bracelet might have clued in this cop that there might be a medical reason. Or not -- he could just be a jackass thug.
Hm. How many "howevers" does one short post need?
Do you know anything about diabetes (not a flip question). Even if one tests blood sugar just before driving, one can find oneself in a hypoglycemic state ("a low") shortly thereafter. Pushing the sugars too high can be just as bad.
You might as well say that anyone who has a heart condition (or a heart) should be banned from driving - because they might have a heart attack and end up driving in a catatonic state. I'll turn my driver's license in after you do.
If they're taking their meds, they're safer than those who are on the verge of their first one and don't know it.
"Even if one tests blood sugar just before driving, one can find oneself in a hypoglycemic state ("a low") shortly thereafter."
You're making a real strong case to take driver's licenses away from all diabetics.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=suspend10e&date=20060510&query=officer+suspended
Looks like the department didn't like his actions, either
And based on what we now know, the cop was totally wrong. Can you see that? Can't you see that the cop should have known THEN what we know NOW?
If they're taking their meds, they're safer than those who are on the verge of their first one and don't know it.
I made no case whatsoever that diabetics should have to turn in their drivers licenses. After all, my license was granted based on my demonstrated capability to handle a motor vehicle. The fact that I subsequently became diabetic does not alter the fact that I have demonstrated competence in driving.
If statistics showed that men named Robert were more prone to being involved in injury accidents (whether at fault or not), would you give up your license? I have to take my sugars into account when I drive (I often test just before leaving work if I am not sure they're in the proper range for safety), but that is simple another factor to count in the whole scenario.
BTW - the sudden (unanticipated) crash of one's sugar is rare, but can happen. But so can being hit by a fuselage section of a passing aircraft womewhere deep in the Iowa cornfields. Neither is a good likelihood.
Which actions? Tasering a diabetic hypoglycemic woman? Well, duh! Even I concluded that the use of the Taser was "improper under THOSE circumstances."
Of course, we know NOW she was diabetic. Don't we look smart compared to the dumb cop who, at the time, thought she was drunk and unresponsive to his commands?
We'll see if the department changes its policy regarding the use of tasers on anyone who appears drunk and unresponsive. And we'll see how many cops are injured or kiiled as a result.
In the meantime, diabetics are free to drive (and crash and kill) because its not their fault if they can't deal with their problem. We need to be understanding and accomodating. Will you be taking up a collection to cover the expenses of the driver she rear-ended?
Let me explain: I have really really bad luck. Both when I was in training in our Sheriff's office AND when I was in seminary I was sick on the day they did the "telling the future" class and practicum. Consequently I've spent my adult life stumbling along trying (and failing) to give the appearance of having a clue.
Chicks dig the helpless thing, sometimes ...
AS I said, I have no problem with lifting the license of someone like my daughter who has epilepsy. I'm delighted that the medications have improved so much that now you only have your license lifted for 6 months after a seizure while it used to be a year.
So I guess I'm suggesting it's the probability of suddenly losing control that sometimes justifies lifting a license. Once that's established, then it's a matter of comparing probabilities. Or is there something wrong with my thinking?
One person not discussed in this conversation is the person whom the victim (?) rear ended. Who pays for damage to her car and her neck? Who should pay? How bad was the rear-ending?
When I got rear ended, I was fine, but it sho' 'nuff shortened my 8 foot truck bed pretty much. Didn't do a whole lot for the trailer hitch either.
Then the guy in court says I stopped too fast! So I should have stopped more slowly and hit the guy in front of me? Why does reason go out the window when traffic and cops are involved?
Be that as it may, I'm not getting any smarter by reading your posts.
You want to argue this both ways. In one post, you excuse this woman's behavior by saying that, "Even if one tests blood sugar just before driving, one can find oneself in a hypoglycemic state ("a low") shortly thereafter" -- implying that even if a diabetic is constantly testing (which we do NOT know is the case here) they may still end up behind the wheel, hypoglycemic, and kill someone.
Then, in the very next post, you claim the odds of this happening, however, are comparable to the odds of "being hit by a fuselage section of a passing aircraft". So, what is it? Not worth mentioning because it's so rare, or do we need to understand this occurring because, despite a diabetic's best efforts, hey, these things happen?
"If statistics showed that men named Robert were more prone to being involved in injury accidents (whether at fault or not), would you give up your license?"
Oh, please. That's worse than your heart attack example.
My point is this. If people with a condition can be medicated so they're safe to drive, I say let them drive. This applies to diabetics, heart attack victims, and men named "Robert". If a diabetic is irresponsible, does not monitor their blood sugar, and brings about an episode while driving, they need to take responsibility for what happens because of that.
Now, if, as you say, these things happen even if the diabetic is doing everything right, then I say we need to revisit the issuing of licenses to diabetics.
Upon review, I am realizing this. But what I have read from the Officer's report is fairly damning.
2. In all seriousness and w/o looking to tangle: could step-by-step your way from breaking the passenger side window, addressing the driver and having her look away to getting her cuffed? We have driver's side door locked and window up, and our hero is looking through the passenger side window. I'm assuming he can't see her hands. Please take it from there. (If you have to, you can call me incompetent. I just got cussed out by the boss, so I'm hardened. I just want to visualize the technique. I ususally get yelled at for exposing myself to too much danger, so I want to get it where our hero is being prudent.)
I have done this type of extraction on mentally ill and chemically altered persons several times.
- You observe the subject's actions for any sign of aggression or weapons (In this case none here so far).
You enter the passenger side (In this case, a window break was necessary).
- You continue to watch the subject closely for any sign of weapons or aggression as you approach to check the subject for injuries or illness. You continue to communicate with the subject to see if there is any acknowledgment of your presence.
- If possible, you unlock the driver's door.
You have EMS do a quick evaluation from the driver's side while you are prepared to restrain IF NECESSARY.
- If there is any sign of aggression or weapons, you disengage and decide how best to escalate to keep all parties as safe as possible.
-If the subject becomes violent or produces a weapon, you use the necessary force to deal with the situation.
In this case, it seems we had a possibly injured or ill subject in the passive resistance stage who was dealt with by the Officer with an intermediate weapon.
If this scenario produces such fear from an Officer as to produce this type of response, I don't want this Officer responding to my aid. I may have to legally use force on the Officer to protect innocents from injury.
In past lives I have been police academy trained, carried a commission, a state certified police defensive tactics instructor, PPCT instructor, Monadnok instructor, Non-Violent Crisis Intervention instructor and have developed Use of Force policies.
All of my training and experience tells me that this use of force is the kind of thing that will get you fired, sued and possibly criminally charged. I can't count the times I have been warned by, law enforcement trainers, specifically not to skip to this level of force when there is passive resistance and no weapons noted. I have disciplined Officers for leapfrogging to this level of force.
I am mystified that this, as reported and backed up by the Officer's own report, is seen as possibly reasonable force. Even if she was intoxicated, I don't see this as even close to reasonable force. And I likely have as many documented uses of force on Free Republic as anyone. Likely more. Most of which were dealing with mentally ill and chemically altered subjects.
If this is how law enforcement is being trained today, I can't see how ANYONE could work in the field with a conscience that allows them to sleep at night. This says we're one step from simply clubbing or shooting anyone who doesn't give an Officer a satisfactory answer in any interaction. No exaggeration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.