Posted on 05/07/2006 12:43:59 PM PDT by seowulf
REDMOND - The Redmond Police Department is facing a $1 million lawsuit after a woman says an officer used his Taser on her during a medical emergency.
Video from the police car camera shows that something was wrong with Leila Fuchs last July when police pulled her out of her car. For nearly 10 minutes when officers first pulled up, they say she remained unresponsive.
"She's just gotten into this collision at Redmond Way and 145th -- small accident," said defense attorney James Egan.
But he says it's the decisions an officer made when Fuchs wouldn't unlock her door that has them suing the department.
Egan says his client was suffering from a diabetic episode when medics tried to get her attention.
"So the medic brings a window hammer here," Egan says, pointing to the video.
Then, Egan says an officer took matters into his own hands.
"He bashed in the passenger side window, opened the door, and immediately ordered her to open her driver side door," Egan said. "Even according to (the officer), she was dazed, catatonic, and non-responsive. At that point, he pulls his Taser out, and says if she doesn't open it, he will shoot her."
Egan says the officer used his gun and hit Fuchs with 50,000 volts of electricity.
"He didn't shoot her for one second," Egan said. "He shot her for the full five seconds… and caused her to stiffen and scream, according to his police report as this happened, and here she was suffering a medical emergency."
Police reports claim officers could initially smell the odor of alcohol in the car, but after they got Fuchs out and did a breath test, they determined there was no trace of alcohol found.
"He jumped the gun... literally," Egan said. "And that's when he tried to electrocute someone he apparently thought was intoxicated."
Calls to the Redmond Police about the video and the lawsuit were not immediately returned Saturday evening. Police records, though, back up the fact that the Taser was used and that Fuchs did not have any traces of alcohol in her system.
I just can't imagine anyone on FR saying something deliberately provactive. Riiiiight.
So you think banning everyone over 50 will solve both the hazardous driver and dependence on oil problems, eh? I can tell you're not in my part of California. Around here, there are thousands of under-50 wackos behind the wheel causing all kinds of accidents and near-accidents. They're driving without licenses or insurance, because they aren't supposed to be here in the first place. And don't even get me started on how many times some chickie about smashes into me while I'm in a crosswalk, because she's checking her makeup or text messaging her boyfriend while driving.
Nah that was totally just kidding. (but it was a quarter of those over 50, not all of 'em.)
I was saying that there are some medical conditions which are known to have some likelihood of leaving somebody suddenly unable to control an automobile. Some types of epilepsy within 6 months of the last seizure would serve as an example.
I was also recalling a very sad accident near my rural home where an elderly gentleman had a catastrophic heat attack, crossed the road and drove into a car. He and the equally nice elderly gentlemen in the other car both died.
SO I was wondering if there might be numbers, probabilities, whatever, that could lead to appropriate "pulling" of a driving license in some demographics.
My understanding is that laws of reason do not generally apply to California, however. Your mileage definitely may vary.
Would you let me know what city you live in, so I can move there? Alternatively, could you clone and send yourself to every jurisdiction in America?
My daughter has seizures. After a seizure, she is disoriented and confused for some time and cannot speak coherently. This could easily be taken for drunkenness or drug use.
There you go. Internal investigation came out against the egomaniac, and he was suspended without pay for a week. Got off pretty easy AFAIC.
After reading through the posts more carefully, I stand corrected on the diagnosis. Doesn't change my assessment, though. The officer used ridiculously excessive force. OTOH, on what do you base your repeated assertion that Fuchs was driving deliberately impaired? Without that, you have no argument whatsoever. It's possible she didn't even know she was diabetic; happened to a friend of mine here who almost wrecked his car on a busy road when his eyesight began to fail suddenly. Turned out he's been misdiagnosed as having Crohn's when he was really diabetic.
Please tell me you're not a physician.
Without re-reading, I'm pretty sure she knew she had some meatbolic disorder. She'd had a hypoglycaemic incident before.
I'm responding here to 'deliberately impaired'. So my daughter goes driving and she doens't know she's oging to have a seizure but she knows she had seizures fewer than 6 months ago. Is there a moral problem with that?
I am NOT saying a person with diabetes is exactly similar. Far from it. I'm wondering, just wondering, about a threshold for LIKELIHOOD of suddenly losing the ability to control a vehicle. I think it's agreed that the threshold is higher than "deliberate impairment", and I think that's acceptable. I just wonder how much higher it should be and how we decide.
On second thought I kind of like it. "I used to have a meatbolic disorder, but then I quit eating Italian food." It works!
Cops all over the nation are having a blast with these tasers...citizens may as well get used to it because they are here to stay and will certainly keep us all in line.
Thank you for that precise and well-documented statement. That will certainly clear the air on the subject of law-enforcement in a society which aspires to freedom. When did you leave your job with the mainstream (aka "drive-by" ) media?
It is interesting the my friends in the city PD say that they get more compliance when they reach for their TASER, because the gang-bangers knew that they were extremely unlikely to shoot them but they were more likely to TASER them.
No, but I play one on FR.
"The officer used ridiculously excessive force."
Well, ley's say he was excessively cautious.
Ridiculously excessive force would lead one to believe that she was beaten to within an inch of her life. Rodney King comes to mind when you use a phrase like ridiculously excessive force. Certainly you wouldn't deliberately try to inflame readers of this thread by using a phrase like ridiculously excessive force, would you?
Now, she is a diabetic. This means she is on medication. This means she owes it to me, to you, to my family, and everyone else on the road to be sure to treat her condition before she gets behind the wheel. She got lucky. She could have killled someone. That's all I'm saying.
I think she was lax in treating her condition. I think it was 100% her fault that she went hypoglycemic. I think she needs to take personal responsibility for the accident and what happened afterwards. Which is what I would say in the jury room.
IF you're saying that she is properly treating her condition, yet things like his will happen anyways, then we need to look at the licensing requirements for diabetics.
I'm beginning to understand why you so vehemently defend the behavior of this man when even his fellow police officers and superiors won't.
In the robertpaulsen version of America, anyone who could possibly ever get ill from anything had better not be allowed to drive. High BP? Sorry, might have infarction someday while driving, so best deny the license. Allergies? What if they sneeze while behind the wheel? Oops, too risky. Pregnant women might go into premature labor. Heck, why not just ban all women, since we have menstrual cycles and menopause (something tells me you'd think that was a grand idea.) People with colds might have to wipe their noses! Arthritics might stiffen up! And let's not forget those people with bad teeth. What if a sudden jab of pain distracts them? What if, what if, what if?
In the robertpaulsen America, police should shoot first and ask questions later. After all, he ordered her, dammit! Would you have stood by your man if that were a gun in his hands, rather than a taser?
I think she was lax in treating her condition. I think it was 100% her fault that she went hypoglycemic. I think she needs to take personal responsibility for the accident and what happened afterwards. Which is what I would say in the jury room.
Let me get this straight: my 40-something friend here, who went into a diabetic coma while driving on a busy highway, was absolutely at fault for not having the precognition to treat his condition--even though he had been misdiagnosed and medicated for the previous 5 years as having Crohn's disease instead?
I've asked before just where you got your evidence that Fuchs was in any way negligent in treating her condition. Your lack of an answer then, and laughably stubborn refusal to let go of such a baseless argument, tells me all I need to know about your viewpoint of such cases. Don't tell me, let me guess--the woman whose husband beats her up is just asking for it, right?
I'll repeat what I said earlier. 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 women with PMS. If a diabetic is irresponsible, does not monitor their blood sugar, and thus brings about an episode while driving, they need to take responsibility for what happens because of that.
"Let me get this straight: my 40-something friend here, who went into a diabetic coma while driving on a busy highway, was absolutely at fault for not having the precognition to treat his condition--even though he had been misdiagnosed and medicated for the previous 5 years as having Crohn's disease instead?"
This analogy doesn't even come close to what happened in the above article. But I suppose you think it's similar, huh?
"I've asked before just where you got your evidence that Fuchs was in any way negligent in treating her condition."
I thought the answer was obvious. She crashed her car and was hypoglycemic. Does that sound like a diabetic who is "treating their condition"? If so, let's all get off the road!
"I'm beginning to understand why you so vehemently defend the behavior of this man when even his fellow police officers and superiors won't."
Defend? No. Again, I'll repeat. His excessive caution needs to be addressed. Perhaps further training is in order. Perhaps some time off. I don't know.
Cops are using them around the nation: on grandmas, pregnant women, children, you name it. google it and learn for yourself the ongoing abuse. Btw, many have been killed by the tasering cop/s.
This is indeed well documented if you wish to read and learn about it...
I remember a case where we stopped a man for driving erratically--he'd sideswipped a car right next to the police substation at 8:33 AM.
We brought him in, and got him to blow on the breathalyzer.
0.00 BAC.
We got him to the hospital as fast as we could--we figured that anyone that out of it without any booze had a serious problem. Severe hypoglycemia, and he was right as rain after treatment. (Kind of embarrassed about hitting the parked car, though.)
Sorry. I am not a police officer. I am police academy trained, was a police defensive tactics instructor of various certifications and once carried a police commission while working for a private entity. Worked in health care security management for many years.
I realized after I read his article that he had it figured exactly right. Officers do what they've been trained to do. If they had been trained properly in the use of that piece of equipment, they wouldn't be in jail right now.
I should have known better than to come here. hahaha
Be safe.
Funny how they can just get a shot and be right back in the ballgame. Last one I had was a heroine overdose, I didn't think the guy was going to live till rescue got there.
They arrived, gave the guy a shot of something and he came to. Started to be a real horses ass after he came around too.
Of course I'd use Judo on a catatonic person. I'm like Austin Powers baby... JUDO CHOP!
Oh Behave... YEAH!
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.