Of course, that was not really a point in question. No one believed that the police deliberately killed a man by taser.
To make matters less clear, the man did not die directly from the taser, but rather suffocated while being restrained by the police. One witness said that Woodland police officers, “dog-piled” the man.
The cause of Abrahams’ death was “positional asphyxia.” According to a report in the Sacramento Bee this is a condition often that is associated with deaths that occur during restraint by law-enforcement officers.
“There are certain positions that cause you to expire.” [Woodland Police Lt. Charlie] Wilts said. “The coroner’s report doesn’t say that police compressed Mr. Abrahams to death.” Wilts said it is easy for those who weren’t there to second-guess the officers, but it would be wrong to do so.
“Who am I to say Mr. Abrahams was not acting aggressively toward the officers?” he asked.
A key finding is that he had no drugs or alcohol found in his system that would lead him to be non-responsive. It was simply a matter that he was mentally disturbed.
Abrahams suffered from bouts of mental disturbance and acting on advice from his psychologist he checked himself into the Safe Harbor Crisis House in Woodland after suffering anxiety. He then walked away the next morning. The staff first called his psychologist. His psychologist described him as not dangerous and then the police were called but he became combative.
Police then hit him with batons and fired Taser guns three times in an attempt to subdue him.
Reaction to this report has been mixed. The Bee quotes, Johnny Griffin, a civil rights attorney.
Johnny Griffin III, a well-known civil rights lawyer, is representing Abrahams’ parents, Rosemary and Cecil Abrahams of Davis.
He said that while police may have had no homicidal intent, their actions were deliberate.
“They intentionally Taser- ed him multiple times,” Griffin said. “They intentionally dog-piled him. It was this intentional conduct that resulted in his death.
“All those facts support our position that the officers’ use of force was unwarranted,” he said.
Griffin has filed a claim with the city as a precursor to a lawsuit.
“I’m hopeful that city of Woodland will take full responsibility for the officers’ conduct and resolve this case without causing the Abrahams family to go through the pain of protracted litigation,” he said.
Yolo County Supervisor Matt Rexroad had a very different response on his blog.
“Life is messy. From my point of view it is unlikely that the Abraham family lost anything that can truly be replaced. Will $1 million of taxpayer money bring back their son? No Is it reasonable to assume that their son would have been a huge economic success considering that facts we have from the newspapers? No. The Abrahams have lost something that can’t possibly be replaced. The life of their son.
People like the Abraham’s attorney will fuel the public debate by pointing to the fact that the officers used their tasers and than officers used force. That seems like a pretty good way to take down a 300 pound man to me.
The Woodland Police Department did act purposefully. They acted in a manner that law enforcement officers do under those circumstances. It is difficult to come to any firm conclusions about their actions if you weren’t there to judge the situation. I for one don’t think that the taxpayers of Woodland owe the family any large amount of money at all. They may have some costs associated with this incident but it is not a major amount of money and it is not going to un-ring the bell.”
While I agree that the Abrahams family lost something far more precious and something that they cannot replace, I respectful disagree with Mr. Rexroad here in terms of the manner in which law enforcement acted here.
First of all, no has suggested that the police intentionally tried to kill Mr. Abrahams. The question is whether they responded to this situation appropriately. That does not change if he had died directly from the taser shots or indirectly after being immobilized from the taser shots and then “dog-piled.”
In fact, one might argue that the secondary cause of death being asphyxiation is even more on them because they bear responsibility for his health and well being after immobilizing him with a taser shot.
But even before we get to that point, we still need to ask whether they operated appropriately by firing the taser in the first place. He was not on drugs or alcohol. He was mentally disturbed. They received the call from the treatment center and should have known this. Hence is non-responsiveness should have been apparent. Should they have gone for the taser? Should they have attempted to talk him down for longer. He had a pencil. He was described by his psychologist as not dangerous. He had no criminal record. Why shoot the taser at that point? Why not call in his psychologist or at least place a call there?
I have talked to various law enforcement people on this issue. All of them stressed that they were not there, but they are increasingly concerned with how quickly officers go to solutions like the taser rather than use other tools and resources at their disposal.
Clearly the issue of the use of the taser is one that must be resolved first by the legal process.
Law enforcement officers in my view are responsible for his welfare the second they have him under their control. To what extent did the tasering contribute to this man dying of asphyxiation? To what extent did the act of “dog-piling” contribute? The cause of death may be accidental, that does not mean that officers do not bear responsibility. If subjects in their custody die from asphyxiation at times, why are police officers not trained to avoid those type of positions?
This is a tragic situation made all the worse because it seems it could have been avoided at multiple points in time. The courts will have to determine whether the use of a taser was appropriate. And the courts will have to also determine whether it was reasonable for the police to have foreseen that the position that they put the individual could have caused death.
I think a lot of people remain concerned about the use of the taser in a situation where you have a non-compliant individual who is mentally incapacitated. We will see what the legal system holds in this tragic death.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“I respectful disagree with Mr. Rexroad here in terms of the manner in which law enforcement acted here…”
DPD: MR. Rexroad deserves NO repect for his overtly destainful,insensitive and racially-tinged remarks that pander to his true political base. What IS it with your “lovefest” with this guy?
“I respectful disagree with Mr. Rexroad here in terms of the manner in which law enforcement acted here…”
DPD: MR. Rexroad deserves NO repect for his overtly destainful,insensitive and racially-tinged remarks that pander to his true political base. What IS it with your “lovefest” with this guy?
“I respectful disagree with Mr. Rexroad here in terms of the manner in which law enforcement acted here…”
DPD: MR. Rexroad deserves NO repect for his overtly destainful,insensitive and racially-tinged remarks that pander to his true political base. What IS it with your “lovefest” with this guy?
“I respectful disagree with Mr. Rexroad here in terms of the manner in which law enforcement acted here…”
DPD: MR. Rexroad deserves NO repect for his overtly destainful,insensitive and racially-tinged remarks that pander to his true political base. What IS it with your “lovefest” with this guy?
I’ll lay it out very simple for you. The guy has become a friend to me. He has been extremely helpful to my gaining key information of things going on in this community whether it be at the county level or elsewhere. And more importantly, he has always been honest with me and he has never played games with me, which is more I can say than a lot of people.
He and I often do not agree on issues, and we can respect that. The guy works and has a tremendous heart.
Now that I’ve laid out my reasoning… let’s hear yours.
In his comments, I saw nothing that was racially tinged. I also disagreed with his bottom line but I think he made a reasonable point that his family lost something that could not be replaced, how is that insensitive? He sides with the police on this, that is an intellectually supportable position that I fundamentally disagree with, but how does make him disdainful and insensitive?
I’ll lay it out very simple for you. The guy has become a friend to me. He has been extremely helpful to my gaining key information of things going on in this community whether it be at the county level or elsewhere. And more importantly, he has always been honest with me and he has never played games with me, which is more I can say than a lot of people.
He and I often do not agree on issues, and we can respect that. The guy works and has a tremendous heart.
Now that I’ve laid out my reasoning… let’s hear yours.
In his comments, I saw nothing that was racially tinged. I also disagreed with his bottom line but I think he made a reasonable point that his family lost something that could not be replaced, how is that insensitive? He sides with the police on this, that is an intellectually supportable position that I fundamentally disagree with, but how does make him disdainful and insensitive?
I’ll lay it out very simple for you. The guy has become a friend to me. He has been extremely helpful to my gaining key information of things going on in this community whether it be at the county level or elsewhere. And more importantly, he has always been honest with me and he has never played games with me, which is more I can say than a lot of people.
He and I often do not agree on issues, and we can respect that. The guy works and has a tremendous heart.
Now that I’ve laid out my reasoning… let’s hear yours.
In his comments, I saw nothing that was racially tinged. I also disagreed with his bottom line but I think he made a reasonable point that his family lost something that could not be replaced, how is that insensitive? He sides with the police on this, that is an intellectually supportable position that I fundamentally disagree with, but how does make him disdainful and insensitive?
I’ll lay it out very simple for you. The guy has become a friend to me. He has been extremely helpful to my gaining key information of things going on in this community whether it be at the county level or elsewhere. And more importantly, he has always been honest with me and he has never played games with me, which is more I can say than a lot of people.
He and I often do not agree on issues, and we can respect that. The guy works and has a tremendous heart.
Now that I’ve laid out my reasoning… let’s hear yours.
In his comments, I saw nothing that was racially tinged. I also disagreed with his bottom line but I think he made a reasonable point that his family lost something that could not be replaced, how is that insensitive? He sides with the police on this, that is an intellectually supportable position that I fundamentally disagree with, but how does make him disdainful and insensitive?
“but how does make him disdainful and insensitive?….”
There is about the same chance as a snowball in hell that Rexroad would have made a public statement like “…is it safe to assume that he would have been a great economic success in life….?” if this victim were one of US in terms of race and class. Rexroad presents his argument as the victim’s family attempting to get paid for the death of their son, insensitive and destainful. We all understand that this is always trotted out to thwart the concept of fiscal penalty adding to the pressure for accountability of the offical perpetrators/agencies in question. Your first response to my question being “this guy has become a friend” does clarify the “lovefest”(hyperbole, for effect) issue.
“but how does make him disdainful and insensitive?….”
There is about the same chance as a snowball in hell that Rexroad would have made a public statement like “…is it safe to assume that he would have been a great economic success in life….?” if this victim were one of US in terms of race and class. Rexroad presents his argument as the victim’s family attempting to get paid for the death of their son, insensitive and destainful. We all understand that this is always trotted out to thwart the concept of fiscal penalty adding to the pressure for accountability of the offical perpetrators/agencies in question. Your first response to my question being “this guy has become a friend” does clarify the “lovefest”(hyperbole, for effect) issue.
“but how does make him disdainful and insensitive?….”
There is about the same chance as a snowball in hell that Rexroad would have made a public statement like “…is it safe to assume that he would have been a great economic success in life….?” if this victim were one of US in terms of race and class. Rexroad presents his argument as the victim’s family attempting to get paid for the death of their son, insensitive and destainful. We all understand that this is always trotted out to thwart the concept of fiscal penalty adding to the pressure for accountability of the offical perpetrators/agencies in question. Your first response to my question being “this guy has become a friend” does clarify the “lovefest”(hyperbole, for effect) issue.
“but how does make him disdainful and insensitive?….”
There is about the same chance as a snowball in hell that Rexroad would have made a public statement like “…is it safe to assume that he would have been a great economic success in life….?” if this victim were one of US in terms of race and class. Rexroad presents his argument as the victim’s family attempting to get paid for the death of their son, insensitive and destainful. We all understand that this is always trotted out to thwart the concept of fiscal penalty adding to the pressure for accountability of the offical perpetrators/agencies in question. Your first response to my question being “this guy has become a friend” does clarify the “lovefest”(hyperbole, for effect) issue.
DPD, you have become one of the progressives who has had the wool pulled over your eyes by Rexroad. Yes, he’s friendly. yes, he’s charming. But he’s toxic. His views are so conservative they border on fascist. Does he support anti-abortion ballot measures? yes. Did he work for the most morally-bankrupt person in the country, Robert Perry, the one behind the funding of the Swift Boat attacks? yes. Yes, he’s very open in his views, but those views are nothing but toxic. Now, he’s threatening to ‘go after’ advertizers of a publication he disagrees with. He’s an aggressive jerk who deserves no respect at all, regardless of how nice he is to you. You have to look at the big picture of what he does, what he works for and against, and how underhanded he is when he wants something. He refers to those on public assistance as the ‘worst people’. Are those yoru values? But, he’s so nice! You seem to have no problem if he throws you a bone about peripheral growth in Davis. He cares squat about Davis and so it is an easy vote for him with no negatives. Fine. But let me draw attention to your October 31, 2006 post:
“I’m of the belief that there are NO non-partisan races. The Republicans have understood this for a long time. In the 1970s, they devised a way to groom and recruit candidates from the ground up–a farm system to use sports parlance. In order to run candidates for the State Legislature or Congress that will be successful, you need a good crop of quality candidates who are well known at the local level and seasoned at local “non-partisan” offices.
Folks, Jeff Reisig is 34 years old, Matt Rexroad is 38 years old. Do you really believe that they are going to be content to stay in these offices for long? These guys are going to be prime candidates for Assembly, State Senate, Congress, etc. Democrats in this county will have helped the future members of Congress for the Republican Party.”
Just remember you have become one of the enablers, and in the meantime we get his wrong-headed pro-conservative, anti-union, anti-gay votes. Thanks.
2010 can’t come soon enough. Let’s get a real candidate for Woodland.
DPD, you have become one of the progressives who has had the wool pulled over your eyes by Rexroad. Yes, he’s friendly. yes, he’s charming. But he’s toxic. His views are so conservative they border on fascist. Does he support anti-abortion ballot measures? yes. Did he work for the most morally-bankrupt person in the country, Robert Perry, the one behind the funding of the Swift Boat attacks? yes. Yes, he’s very open in his views, but those views are nothing but toxic. Now, he’s threatening to ‘go after’ advertizers of a publication he disagrees with. He’s an aggressive jerk who deserves no respect at all, regardless of how nice he is to you. You have to look at the big picture of what he does, what he works for and against, and how underhanded he is when he wants something. He refers to those on public assistance as the ‘worst people’. Are those yoru values? But, he’s so nice! You seem to have no problem if he throws you a bone about peripheral growth in Davis. He cares squat about Davis and so it is an easy vote for him with no negatives. Fine. But let me draw attention to your October 31, 2006 post:
“I’m of the belief that there are NO non-partisan races. The Republicans have understood this for a long time. In the 1970s, they devised a way to groom and recruit candidates from the ground up–a farm system to use sports parlance. In order to run candidates for the State Legislature or Congress that will be successful, you need a good crop of quality candidates who are well known at the local level and seasoned at local “non-partisan” offices.
Folks, Jeff Reisig is 34 years old, Matt Rexroad is 38 years old. Do you really believe that they are going to be content to stay in these offices for long? These guys are going to be prime candidates for Assembly, State Senate, Congress, etc. Democrats in this county will have helped the future members of Congress for the Republican Party.”
Just remember you have become one of the enablers, and in the meantime we get his wrong-headed pro-conservative, anti-union, anti-gay votes. Thanks.
2010 can’t come soon enough. Let’s get a real candidate for Woodland.
DPD, you have become one of the progressives who has had the wool pulled over your eyes by Rexroad. Yes, he’s friendly. yes, he’s charming. But he’s toxic. His views are so conservative they border on fascist. Does he support anti-abortion ballot measures? yes. Did he work for the most morally-bankrupt person in the country, Robert Perry, the one behind the funding of the Swift Boat attacks? yes. Yes, he’s very open in his views, but those views are nothing but toxic. Now, he’s threatening to ‘go after’ advertizers of a publication he disagrees with. He’s an aggressive jerk who deserves no respect at all, regardless of how nice he is to you. You have to look at the big picture of what he does, what he works for and against, and how underhanded he is when he wants something. He refers to those on public assistance as the ‘worst people’. Are those yoru values? But, he’s so nice! You seem to have no problem if he throws you a bone about peripheral growth in Davis. He cares squat about Davis and so it is an easy vote for him with no negatives. Fine. But let me draw attention to your October 31, 2006 post:
“I’m of the belief that there are NO non-partisan races. The Republicans have understood this for a long time. In the 1970s, they devised a way to groom and recruit candidates from the ground up–a farm system to use sports parlance. In order to run candidates for the State Legislature or Congress that will be successful, you need a good crop of quality candidates who are well known at the local level and seasoned at local “non-partisan” offices.
Folks, Jeff Reisig is 34 years old, Matt Rexroad is 38 years old. Do you really believe that they are going to be content to stay in these offices for long? These guys are going to be prime candidates for Assembly, State Senate, Congress, etc. Democrats in this county will have helped the future members of Congress for the Republican Party.”
Just remember you have become one of the enablers, and in the meantime we get his wrong-headed pro-conservative, anti-union, anti-gay votes. Thanks.
2010 can’t come soon enough. Let’s get a real candidate for Woodland.
DPD, you have become one of the progressives who has had the wool pulled over your eyes by Rexroad. Yes, he’s friendly. yes, he’s charming. But he’s toxic. His views are so conservative they border on fascist. Does he support anti-abortion ballot measures? yes. Did he work for the most morally-bankrupt person in the country, Robert Perry, the one behind the funding of the Swift Boat attacks? yes. Yes, he’s very open in his views, but those views are nothing but toxic. Now, he’s threatening to ‘go after’ advertizers of a publication he disagrees with. He’s an aggressive jerk who deserves no respect at all, regardless of how nice he is to you. You have to look at the big picture of what he does, what he works for and against, and how underhanded he is when he wants something. He refers to those on public assistance as the ‘worst people’. Are those yoru values? But, he’s so nice! You seem to have no problem if he throws you a bone about peripheral growth in Davis. He cares squat about Davis and so it is an easy vote for him with no negatives. Fine. But let me draw attention to your October 31, 2006 post:
“I’m of the belief that there are NO non-partisan races. The Republicans have understood this for a long time. In the 1970s, they devised a way to groom and recruit candidates from the ground up–a farm system to use sports parlance. In order to run candidates for the State Legislature or Congress that will be successful, you need a good crop of quality candidates who are well known at the local level and seasoned at local “non-partisan” offices.
Folks, Jeff Reisig is 34 years old, Matt Rexroad is 38 years old. Do you really believe that they are going to be content to stay in these offices for long? These guys are going to be prime candidates for Assembly, State Senate, Congress, etc. Democrats in this county will have helped the future members of Congress for the Republican Party.”
Just remember you have become one of the enablers, and in the meantime we get his wrong-headed pro-conservative, anti-union, anti-gay votes. Thanks.
2010 can’t come soon enough. Let’s get a real candidate for Woodland.
Rexroad’s throw-away one-liner about the family losing something precious inserted in the overwhelming bulk of his argument is a well-worn political tract technique.
What is not being discussed is the fact that these civil penalty lawsuits are usually the only way that a thorough investigation in the process of legal Discovery of is revealed.
Rexroad’s throw-away one-liner about the family losing something precious inserted in the overwhelming bulk of his argument is a well-worn political tract technique.
What is not being discussed is the fact that these civil penalty lawsuits are usually the only way that a thorough investigation in the process of legal Discovery of is revealed.
Rexroad’s throw-away one-liner about the family losing something precious inserted in the overwhelming bulk of his argument is a well-worn political tract technique.
What is not being discussed is the fact that these civil penalty lawsuits are usually the only way that a thorough investigation in the process of legal Discovery of is revealed.
Rexroad’s throw-away one-liner about the family losing something precious inserted in the overwhelming bulk of his argument is a well-worn political tract technique.
What is not being discussed is the fact that these civil penalty lawsuits are usually the only way that a thorough investigation in the process of legal Discovery of is revealed.
Matt said “Will $1 million of taxpayer money bring back their son? No Is it reasonable to assume that their son would have been a huge economic success considering that facts we have from the newspapers? No.”
I was on a jury trial in a wrongful death suit in which we were asked to assess exactly that. We were presented with two different ‘expert’ opinions; each went through the methodical process of evaluating the potential earnings of an individual. The background, education, and history of the individual is one of the factors each expert mentioned. They came to very different conclusions, and then it was up to us to resolve it. The point is, anyone who dies has a value that can be quantified, but the process is subjective. The fact that their son cannot be replaced does not mean there is no valid compensation for their loss.
Being an advertiser in the publication Matt is “threatening,” I look forward to our conversation. I always enjoy talking to him.
Matt said “Will $1 million of taxpayer money bring back their son? No Is it reasonable to assume that their son would have been a huge economic success considering that facts we have from the newspapers? No.”
I was on a jury trial in a wrongful death suit in which we were asked to assess exactly that. We were presented with two different ‘expert’ opinions; each went through the methodical process of evaluating the potential earnings of an individual. The background, education, and history of the individual is one of the factors each expert mentioned. They came to very different conclusions, and then it was up to us to resolve it. The point is, anyone who dies has a value that can be quantified, but the process is subjective. The fact that their son cannot be replaced does not mean there is no valid compensation for their loss.
Being an advertiser in the publication Matt is “threatening,” I look forward to our conversation. I always enjoy talking to him.
Matt said “Will $1 million of taxpayer money bring back their son? No Is it reasonable to assume that their son would have been a huge economic success considering that facts we have from the newspapers? No.”
I was on a jury trial in a wrongful death suit in which we were asked to assess exactly that. We were presented with two different ‘expert’ opinions; each went through the methodical process of evaluating the potential earnings of an individual. The background, education, and history of the individual is one of the factors each expert mentioned. They came to very different conclusions, and then it was up to us to resolve it. The point is, anyone who dies has a value that can be quantified, but the process is subjective. The fact that their son cannot be replaced does not mean there is no valid compensation for their loss.
Being an advertiser in the publication Matt is “threatening,” I look forward to our conversation. I always enjoy talking to him.
Matt said “Will $1 million of taxpayer money bring back their son? No Is it reasonable to assume that their son would have been a huge economic success considering that facts we have from the newspapers? No.”
I was on a jury trial in a wrongful death suit in which we were asked to assess exactly that. We were presented with two different ‘expert’ opinions; each went through the methodical process of evaluating the potential earnings of an individual. The background, education, and history of the individual is one of the factors each expert mentioned. They came to very different conclusions, and then it was up to us to resolve it. The point is, anyone who dies has a value that can be quantified, but the process is subjective. The fact that their son cannot be replaced does not mean there is no valid compensation for their loss.
Being an advertiser in the publication Matt is “threatening,” I look forward to our conversation. I always enjoy talking to him.
“Did he work for the most morally-bankrupt person in the country, Robert Perry, the one behind the funding of the Swift Boat attacks? yes.”
Actually he did not. He’s only met the guy once. His only connection to the guy is that his firm worked with the guy on something that had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads.
“Did he work for the most morally-bankrupt person in the country, Robert Perry, the one behind the funding of the Swift Boat attacks? yes.”
Actually he did not. He’s only met the guy once. His only connection to the guy is that his firm worked with the guy on something that had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads.
“Did he work for the most morally-bankrupt person in the country, Robert Perry, the one behind the funding of the Swift Boat attacks? yes.”
Actually he did not. He’s only met the guy once. His only connection to the guy is that his firm worked with the guy on something that had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads.
“Did he work for the most morally-bankrupt person in the country, Robert Perry, the one behind the funding of the Swift Boat attacks? yes.”
Actually he did not. He’s only met the guy once. His only connection to the guy is that his firm worked with the guy on something that had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads.
I am a registered Republican, to make sure my vote counts in the primary. However, I consider myself at heart an Independent, and will vote for whoever I think is the best qualified. More often than not I will vote conservative, but I have voted for Democrats before.
Personally, I have not cared much for Rexroad, but he is no better or worse than most of the politicians in this county. That being said, his position in this case is wrongheaded, and highly insensitive IMHO. I understand the oblique reference to the financial worth of the victim – but it implies that the worth of a person is in the $ they can generate. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy. I assume this was said in reference to whether Woodland should cough up any money to recompense the family for their loss. It was still a callous thing to say at a time when the family is freshly grieving.
Here is the problem with Rexroad’s position as far as I am concerned. Despite the coroner’s finding of positional asphyxiation, directly caused by the police, Rexroad is unwilling to allow for the possibility the police were overzealous. I would remind him about the chokeholds the Los Angeles police used to use, and how that tactic has been outlawed as overly aggressive and dangerous to subdue a suspect.
Instead of the usual knee-jerk reaction of circling the wagons, by hope is the Woodland police and City Council will take a hard look at their technique of “dog-piling”. Was it really necessary in this case? Can law enforcement get some training from Mental Health Services in how to better handle someone who is mentally unstable at the moment, but who does not have a long criminal history of any kind?
The reason I am doubtful that such excessive force was needed, is because I have seen other cases in which the police will bend over backward to accommodate any suspect with mental illness, including those with a loaded firearm.
Often a mentally disturbed person will be holed up in some apartment, by himself, refusing to come out, sometimes with a loaded weapon. A good police force will do everything in their power to end things peacefully, and with as little violence as possible.
My gut feeling is the Woodland Police Force is small, and uses a one-size-fits-all approach – something they need to rethink. Nor have I heard an apology from the police force, which is in order no matter whether they were at fault or not. Common decency should impel them to at least say they regret the death of this young man. Perhaps they have, but I am unaware of any such statement.
Matt, if that were your son, would you be so quick to come down on the side of law enforcement? Think long and hard about that one, before you answer. Anecdotally, I have heard from family members of those with mental illnesses, they will do almost anything in this county to keep their disabled children away from the police. They are in absolute dread of something like this happening to their child. The Woodland Police’s reputation precedes them, just as the Davis Police, something we are trying to rectify in our town thank goodness.
Woodland may have different problems than Davis, such as more violent crime. I have no idea, because oftentimes Davis crime stats are underreported. Nevertheless, law enforcement should always evaluate their policies, continually trying to make things better.
Had a witness not seen the dog-piling incident, I suspect this family would have been left in the dark as to why their son died. I doubt very much law enforcement would have admitted what they did, but would have instead instituted the “blue wall of silence”.
Law enforcement is a dangerous business, and officers put their lives on the line every day, as we have seen recently, unfortunately. But that does not relieve law enforcement of its responsibility to make sure their capture techniques are as humane as possible without putting the lives of officers or the public at risk.
This particular “suspect” was known to have no criminal background, did not have a weapon (unless you want to call a pencil a weapon, a hard explanation to swallow in any circumstance), was not threatening anyone in the public that we know of.
So am I to understand the police could not handle a young obese adult, showing clear signs of disorientation and distress, without resorting to physical violence of immense proportion? My feeling as a parent and compassionate human being is that law enforcement ought to at least make the effort to see if there isn’t a better way. What say you Rexroad?
I am a registered Republican, to make sure my vote counts in the primary. However, I consider myself at heart an Independent, and will vote for whoever I think is the best qualified. More often than not I will vote conservative, but I have voted for Democrats before.
Personally, I have not cared much for Rexroad, but he is no better or worse than most of the politicians in this county. That being said, his position in this case is wrongheaded, and highly insensitive IMHO. I understand the oblique reference to the financial worth of the victim – but it implies that the worth of a person is in the $ they can generate. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy. I assume this was said in reference to whether Woodland should cough up any money to recompense the family for their loss. It was still a callous thing to say at a time when the family is freshly grieving.
Here is the problem with Rexroad’s position as far as I am concerned. Despite the coroner’s finding of positional asphyxiation, directly caused by the police, Rexroad is unwilling to allow for the possibility the police were overzealous. I would remind him about the chokeholds the Los Angeles police used to use, and how that tactic has been outlawed as overly aggressive and dangerous to subdue a suspect.
Instead of the usual knee-jerk reaction of circling the wagons, by hope is the Woodland police and City Council will take a hard look at their technique of “dog-piling”. Was it really necessary in this case? Can law enforcement get some training from Mental Health Services in how to better handle someone who is mentally unstable at the moment, but who does not have a long criminal history of any kind?
The reason I am doubtful that such excessive force was needed, is because I have seen other cases in which the police will bend over backward to accommodate any suspect with mental illness, including those with a loaded firearm.
Often a mentally disturbed person will be holed up in some apartment, by himself, refusing to come out, sometimes with a loaded weapon. A good police force will do everything in their power to end things peacefully, and with as little violence as possible.
My gut feeling is the Woodland Police Force is small, and uses a one-size-fits-all approach – something they need to rethink. Nor have I heard an apology from the police force, which is in order no matter whether they were at fault or not. Common decency should impel them to at least say they regret the death of this young man. Perhaps they have, but I am unaware of any such statement.
Matt, if that were your son, would you be so quick to come down on the side of law enforcement? Think long and hard about that one, before you answer. Anecdotally, I have heard from family members of those with mental illnesses, they will do almost anything in this county to keep their disabled children away from the police. They are in absolute dread of something like this happening to their child. The Woodland Police’s reputation precedes them, just as the Davis Police, something we are trying to rectify in our town thank goodness.
Woodland may have different problems than Davis, such as more violent crime. I have no idea, because oftentimes Davis crime stats are underreported. Nevertheless, law enforcement should always evaluate their policies, continually trying to make things better.
Had a witness not seen the dog-piling incident, I suspect this family would have been left in the dark as to why their son died. I doubt very much law enforcement would have admitted what they did, but would have instead instituted the “blue wall of silence”.
Law enforcement is a dangerous business, and officers put their lives on the line every day, as we have seen recently, unfortunately. But that does not relieve law enforcement of its responsibility to make sure their capture techniques are as humane as possible without putting the lives of officers or the public at risk.
This particular “suspect” was known to have no criminal background, did not have a weapon (unless you want to call a pencil a weapon, a hard explanation to swallow in any circumstance), was not threatening anyone in the public that we know of.
So am I to understand the police could not handle a young obese adult, showing clear signs of disorientation and distress, without resorting to physical violence of immense proportion? My feeling as a parent and compassionate human being is that law enforcement ought to at least make the effort to see if there isn’t a better way. What say you Rexroad?
I am a registered Republican, to make sure my vote counts in the primary. However, I consider myself at heart an Independent, and will vote for whoever I think is the best qualified. More often than not I will vote conservative, but I have voted for Democrats before.
Personally, I have not cared much for Rexroad, but he is no better or worse than most of the politicians in this county. That being said, his position in this case is wrongheaded, and highly insensitive IMHO. I understand the oblique reference to the financial worth of the victim – but it implies that the worth of a person is in the $ they can generate. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy. I assume this was said in reference to whether Woodland should cough up any money to recompense the family for their loss. It was still a callous thing to say at a time when the family is freshly grieving.
Here is the problem with Rexroad’s position as far as I am concerned. Despite the coroner’s finding of positional asphyxiation, directly caused by the police, Rexroad is unwilling to allow for the possibility the police were overzealous. I would remind him about the chokeholds the Los Angeles police used to use, and how that tactic has been outlawed as overly aggressive and dangerous to subdue a suspect.
Instead of the usual knee-jerk reaction of circling the wagons, by hope is the Woodland police and City Council will take a hard look at their technique of “dog-piling”. Was it really necessary in this case? Can law enforcement get some training from Mental Health Services in how to better handle someone who is mentally unstable at the moment, but who does not have a long criminal history of any kind?
The reason I am doubtful that such excessive force was needed, is because I have seen other cases in which the police will bend over backward to accommodate any suspect with mental illness, including those with a loaded firearm.
Often a mentally disturbed person will be holed up in some apartment, by himself, refusing to come out, sometimes with a loaded weapon. A good police force will do everything in their power to end things peacefully, and with as little violence as possible.
My gut feeling is the Woodland Police Force is small, and uses a one-size-fits-all approach – something they need to rethink. Nor have I heard an apology from the police force, which is in order no matter whether they were at fault or not. Common decency should impel them to at least say they regret the death of this young man. Perhaps they have, but I am unaware of any such statement.
Matt, if that were your son, would you be so quick to come down on the side of law enforcement? Think long and hard about that one, before you answer. Anecdotally, I have heard from family members of those with mental illnesses, they will do almost anything in this county to keep their disabled children away from the police. They are in absolute dread of something like this happening to their child. The Woodland Police’s reputation precedes them, just as the Davis Police, something we are trying to rectify in our town thank goodness.
Woodland may have different problems than Davis, such as more violent crime. I have no idea, because oftentimes Davis crime stats are underreported. Nevertheless, law enforcement should always evaluate their policies, continually trying to make things better.
Had a witness not seen the dog-piling incident, I suspect this family would have been left in the dark as to why their son died. I doubt very much law enforcement would have admitted what they did, but would have instead instituted the “blue wall of silence”.
Law enforcement is a dangerous business, and officers put their lives on the line every day, as we have seen recently, unfortunately. But that does not relieve law enforcement of its responsibility to make sure their capture techniques are as humane as possible without putting the lives of officers or the public at risk.
This particular “suspect” was known to have no criminal background, did not have a weapon (unless you want to call a pencil a weapon, a hard explanation to swallow in any circumstance), was not threatening anyone in the public that we know of.
So am I to understand the police could not handle a young obese adult, showing clear signs of disorientation and distress, without resorting to physical violence of immense proportion? My feeling as a parent and compassionate human being is that law enforcement ought to at least make the effort to see if there isn’t a better way. What say you Rexroad?
I am a registered Republican, to make sure my vote counts in the primary. However, I consider myself at heart an Independent, and will vote for whoever I think is the best qualified. More often than not I will vote conservative, but I have voted for Democrats before.
Personally, I have not cared much for Rexroad, but he is no better or worse than most of the politicians in this county. That being said, his position in this case is wrongheaded, and highly insensitive IMHO. I understand the oblique reference to the financial worth of the victim – but it implies that the worth of a person is in the $ they can generate. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy. I assume this was said in reference to whether Woodland should cough up any money to recompense the family for their loss. It was still a callous thing to say at a time when the family is freshly grieving.
Here is the problem with Rexroad’s position as far as I am concerned. Despite the coroner’s finding of positional asphyxiation, directly caused by the police, Rexroad is unwilling to allow for the possibility the police were overzealous. I would remind him about the chokeholds the Los Angeles police used to use, and how that tactic has been outlawed as overly aggressive and dangerous to subdue a suspect.
Instead of the usual knee-jerk reaction of circling the wagons, by hope is the Woodland police and City Council will take a hard look at their technique of “dog-piling”. Was it really necessary in this case? Can law enforcement get some training from Mental Health Services in how to better handle someone who is mentally unstable at the moment, but who does not have a long criminal history of any kind?
The reason I am doubtful that such excessive force was needed, is because I have seen other cases in which the police will bend over backward to accommodate any suspect with mental illness, including those with a loaded firearm.
Often a mentally disturbed person will be holed up in some apartment, by himself, refusing to come out, sometimes with a loaded weapon. A good police force will do everything in their power to end things peacefully, and with as little violence as possible.
My gut feeling is the Woodland Police Force is small, and uses a one-size-fits-all approach – something they need to rethink. Nor have I heard an apology from the police force, which is in order no matter whether they were at fault or not. Common decency should impel them to at least say they regret the death of this young man. Perhaps they have, but I am unaware of any such statement.
Matt, if that were your son, would you be so quick to come down on the side of law enforcement? Think long and hard about that one, before you answer. Anecdotally, I have heard from family members of those with mental illnesses, they will do almost anything in this county to keep their disabled children away from the police. They are in absolute dread of something like this happening to their child. The Woodland Police’s reputation precedes them, just as the Davis Police, something we are trying to rectify in our town thank goodness.
Woodland may have different problems than Davis, such as more violent crime. I have no idea, because oftentimes Davis crime stats are underreported. Nevertheless, law enforcement should always evaluate their policies, continually trying to make things better.
Had a witness not seen the dog-piling incident, I suspect this family would have been left in the dark as to why their son died. I doubt very much law enforcement would have admitted what they did, but would have instead instituted the “blue wall of silence”.
Law enforcement is a dangerous business, and officers put their lives on the line every day, as we have seen recently, unfortunately. But that does not relieve law enforcement of its responsibility to make sure their capture techniques are as humane as possible without putting the lives of officers or the public at risk.
This particular “suspect” was known to have no criminal background, did not have a weapon (unless you want to call a pencil a weapon, a hard explanation to swallow in any circumstance), was not threatening anyone in the public that we know of.
So am I to understand the police could not handle a young obese adult, showing clear signs of disorientation and distress, without resorting to physical violence of immense proportion? My feeling as a parent and compassionate human being is that law enforcement ought to at least make the effort to see if there isn’t a better way. What say you Rexroad?
Anonymous 9:43, my original post stands. Rexroad did work with Robert Perry. Your post says as much. I never said Rexroad worked on the Swift Boat campaign. He worked with the man, Robert Perry, who was behind the campaign. The Economic Freedom Fund was another of ‘Swift Boat’ Perry’s projects, and Rexroad worked on it. The EFF targeted Democrats and was behind a series of automated push polls that violated Indiana law. So, Rexroad worked for Perry, and Perry funded the Swift Boat as well as other front groups. Any questions? You are the company you keep. Rexroad’s company stinks.
Anonymous 9:43, my original post stands. Rexroad did work with Robert Perry. Your post says as much. I never said Rexroad worked on the Swift Boat campaign. He worked with the man, Robert Perry, who was behind the campaign. The Economic Freedom Fund was another of ‘Swift Boat’ Perry’s projects, and Rexroad worked on it. The EFF targeted Democrats and was behind a series of automated push polls that violated Indiana law. So, Rexroad worked for Perry, and Perry funded the Swift Boat as well as other front groups. Any questions? You are the company you keep. Rexroad’s company stinks.
Anonymous 9:43, my original post stands. Rexroad did work with Robert Perry. Your post says as much. I never said Rexroad worked on the Swift Boat campaign. He worked with the man, Robert Perry, who was behind the campaign. The Economic Freedom Fund was another of ‘Swift Boat’ Perry’s projects, and Rexroad worked on it. The EFF targeted Democrats and was behind a series of automated push polls that violated Indiana law. So, Rexroad worked for Perry, and Perry funded the Swift Boat as well as other front groups. Any questions? You are the company you keep. Rexroad’s company stinks.
Anonymous 9:43, my original post stands. Rexroad did work with Robert Perry. Your post says as much. I never said Rexroad worked on the Swift Boat campaign. He worked with the man, Robert Perry, who was behind the campaign. The Economic Freedom Fund was another of ‘Swift Boat’ Perry’s projects, and Rexroad worked on it. The EFF targeted Democrats and was behind a series of automated push polls that violated Indiana law. So, Rexroad worked for Perry, and Perry funded the Swift Boat as well as other front groups. Any questions? You are the company you keep. Rexroad’s company stinks.
the point of large settlements like that is really more to make behavior like that of the woodland PD, that resulted in a man not only getting tortured – which is, after all, what tasers are used for, more often than not – but killed as well, so financially painful to the city that the city is forced to the PD act differently, to avoid further fines in the future.
slapping them on the wrist will not get a change in behavior. a big fine might, especially in todays’ cratering economic climate for cities. that is as it should be, since the killing of a citizen, when it was nowhere near a situation that threatened the lives of the officers, is a grave offense, and must be treated as such.
police are not an occupying army, they are public servants, and they must not use force on the public as a first resort, whenever they feel like it. were a citizen to do the same sort of thing, we’d be trying them for murder; were such a thing done to a police officer, no doubt rexroad would be singing a far different tune.
rexroad can be both a nice guy and have pretty reprehensible political positions. the two aren’t really in conflict. he deserves respect as a human being, but as an elected official, his political views are fair game for debate.
the point of large settlements like that is really more to make behavior like that of the woodland PD, that resulted in a man not only getting tortured – which is, after all, what tasers are used for, more often than not – but killed as well, so financially painful to the city that the city is forced to the PD act differently, to avoid further fines in the future.
slapping them on the wrist will not get a change in behavior. a big fine might, especially in todays’ cratering economic climate for cities. that is as it should be, since the killing of a citizen, when it was nowhere near a situation that threatened the lives of the officers, is a grave offense, and must be treated as such.
police are not an occupying army, they are public servants, and they must not use force on the public as a first resort, whenever they feel like it. were a citizen to do the same sort of thing, we’d be trying them for murder; were such a thing done to a police officer, no doubt rexroad would be singing a far different tune.
rexroad can be both a nice guy and have pretty reprehensible political positions. the two aren’t really in conflict. he deserves respect as a human being, but as an elected official, his political views are fair game for debate.
the point of large settlements like that is really more to make behavior like that of the woodland PD, that resulted in a man not only getting tortured – which is, after all, what tasers are used for, more often than not – but killed as well, so financially painful to the city that the city is forced to the PD act differently, to avoid further fines in the future.
slapping them on the wrist will not get a change in behavior. a big fine might, especially in todays’ cratering economic climate for cities. that is as it should be, since the killing of a citizen, when it was nowhere near a situation that threatened the lives of the officers, is a grave offense, and must be treated as such.
police are not an occupying army, they are public servants, and they must not use force on the public as a first resort, whenever they feel like it. were a citizen to do the same sort of thing, we’d be trying them for murder; were such a thing done to a police officer, no doubt rexroad would be singing a far different tune.
rexroad can be both a nice guy and have pretty reprehensible political positions. the two aren’t really in conflict. he deserves respect as a human being, but as an elected official, his political views are fair game for debate.
the point of large settlements like that is really more to make behavior like that of the woodland PD, that resulted in a man not only getting tortured – which is, after all, what tasers are used for, more often than not – but killed as well, so financially painful to the city that the city is forced to the PD act differently, to avoid further fines in the future.
slapping them on the wrist will not get a change in behavior. a big fine might, especially in todays’ cratering economic climate for cities. that is as it should be, since the killing of a citizen, when it was nowhere near a situation that threatened the lives of the officers, is a grave offense, and must be treated as such.
police are not an occupying army, they are public servants, and they must not use force on the public as a first resort, whenever they feel like it. were a citizen to do the same sort of thing, we’d be trying them for murder; were such a thing done to a police officer, no doubt rexroad would be singing a far different tune.
rexroad can be both a nice guy and have pretty reprehensible political positions. the two aren’t really in conflict. he deserves respect as a human being, but as an elected official, his political views are fair game for debate.
“I was on a jury trial in a wrongful death suit…”
Don…I believe that most of us understand how “compensation” for a wrongful death is played out in the courtroom. what IS the issue, in regard to Rexroad’s insensitivity is that he makes a point of PUBLICLY raising the issue of the minimal dollar value of this victim on his blog.
“I was on a jury trial in a wrongful death suit…”
Don…I believe that most of us understand how “compensation” for a wrongful death is played out in the courtroom. what IS the issue, in regard to Rexroad’s insensitivity is that he makes a point of PUBLICLY raising the issue of the minimal dollar value of this victim on his blog.
“I was on a jury trial in a wrongful death suit…”
Don…I believe that most of us understand how “compensation” for a wrongful death is played out in the courtroom. what IS the issue, in regard to Rexroad’s insensitivity is that he makes a point of PUBLICLY raising the issue of the minimal dollar value of this victim on his blog.
“I was on a jury trial in a wrongful death suit…”
Don…I believe that most of us understand how “compensation” for a wrongful death is played out in the courtroom. what IS the issue, in regard to Rexroad’s insensitivity is that he makes a point of PUBLICLY raising the issue of the minimal dollar value of this victim on his blog.
“he deserves respect as a human being….”
What the …. does this mean? ALL human beings deserve respect whatever they say or do?… the ultimate in moral relativism?
“he deserves respect as a human being….”
What the …. does this mean? ALL human beings deserve respect whatever they say or do?… the ultimate in moral relativism?
“he deserves respect as a human being….”
What the …. does this mean? ALL human beings deserve respect whatever they say or do?… the ultimate in moral relativism?
“he deserves respect as a human being….”
What the …. does this mean? ALL human beings deserve respect whatever they say or do?… the ultimate in moral relativism?
Isn’t that the premise behind the Christian notion of “love the sinner, hate the sin.” The idea of separate the act from the individual. If so, that’s the opposite of moral relativism.
Isn’t that the premise behind the Christian notion of “love the sinner, hate the sin.” The idea of separate the act from the individual. If so, that’s the opposite of moral relativism.
Isn’t that the premise behind the Christian notion of “love the sinner, hate the sin.” The idea of separate the act from the individual. If so, that’s the opposite of moral relativism.
Isn’t that the premise behind the Christian notion of “love the sinner, hate the sin.” The idea of separate the act from the individual. If so, that’s the opposite of moral relativism.
Dictionary definition of “respect”:
to consider worthy of high regard. No.. while every human being may be included in the concept of Christian love, respect may not be an automatic part of the program.
Dictionary definition of “respect”:
to consider worthy of high regard. No.. while every human being may be included in the concept of Christian love, respect may not be an automatic part of the program.
Dictionary definition of “respect”:
to consider worthy of high regard. No.. while every human being may be included in the concept of Christian love, respect may not be an automatic part of the program.
Dictionary definition of “respect”:
to consider worthy of high regard. No.. while every human being may be included in the concept of Christian love, respect may not be an automatic part of the program.
Going to respond to Matt Rexroad again:
“I am getting trashed by a few people over at Davis Vanguard for my post below regarding the damager due to the Abraham family from the taxpayers of Woodland.
You can see the post from DPD and the comments here.
My statements stand. They have a civil rights attorney involved that it not seeking any sort of real damager for the family of the victim. He will be seeking to turn this case into something much bigger — some sort of conspiracy by the Woodland Police Department to deny civil rights. That is not the caase.
You can talk about a life being invaluable and all kinds of other stuff but the reality is that we value a life all the time.”
I bolded a key section there because I think Matt both has and misses a point. It is probably not a conspiracy that the Woodland Police Department would have to deny civil rights. I agree with that point.
However, I think it does reflect something bigger than a single incident. It is the representative that some police officers are too quick to resort to a use of force and that at times that use of force is both unjustified and has unfortunate consequences. That is the real question that the legal system will have to weigh.
The issue of damages I think is a bit of a red herring anyway. The purpose of the suit is to force the police department to take responsibility for their actions. There is no other recourse at this time.
Going to respond to Matt Rexroad again:
“I am getting trashed by a few people over at Davis Vanguard for my post below regarding the damager due to the Abraham family from the taxpayers of Woodland.
You can see the post from DPD and the comments here.
My statements stand. They have a civil rights attorney involved that it not seeking any sort of real damager for the family of the victim. He will be seeking to turn this case into something much bigger — some sort of conspiracy by the Woodland Police Department to deny civil rights. That is not the caase.
You can talk about a life being invaluable and all kinds of other stuff but the reality is that we value a life all the time.”
I bolded a key section there because I think Matt both has and misses a point. It is probably not a conspiracy that the Woodland Police Department would have to deny civil rights. I agree with that point.
However, I think it does reflect something bigger than a single incident. It is the representative that some police officers are too quick to resort to a use of force and that at times that use of force is both unjustified and has unfortunate consequences. That is the real question that the legal system will have to weigh.
The issue of damages I think is a bit of a red herring anyway. The purpose of the suit is to force the police department to take responsibility for their actions. There is no other recourse at this time.
Going to respond to Matt Rexroad again:
“I am getting trashed by a few people over at Davis Vanguard for my post below regarding the damager due to the Abraham family from the taxpayers of Woodland.
You can see the post from DPD and the comments here.
My statements stand. They have a civil rights attorney involved that it not seeking any sort of real damager for the family of the victim. He will be seeking to turn this case into something much bigger — some sort of conspiracy by the Woodland Police Department to deny civil rights. That is not the caase.
You can talk about a life being invaluable and all kinds of other stuff but the reality is that we value a life all the time.”
I bolded a key section there because I think Matt both has and misses a point. It is probably not a conspiracy that the Woodland Police Department would have to deny civil rights. I agree with that point.
However, I think it does reflect something bigger than a single incident. It is the representative that some police officers are too quick to resort to a use of force and that at times that use of force is both unjustified and has unfortunate consequences. That is the real question that the legal system will have to weigh.
The issue of damages I think is a bit of a red herring anyway. The purpose of the suit is to force the police department to take responsibility for their actions. There is no other recourse at this time.
Going to respond to Matt Rexroad again:
“I am getting trashed by a few people over at Davis Vanguard for my post below regarding the damager due to the Abraham family from the taxpayers of Woodland.
You can see the post from DPD and the comments here.
My statements stand. They have a civil rights attorney involved that it not seeking any sort of real damager for the family of the victim. He will be seeking to turn this case into something much bigger — some sort of conspiracy by the Woodland Police Department to deny civil rights. That is not the caase.
You can talk about a life being invaluable and all kinds of other stuff but the reality is that we value a life all the time.”
I bolded a key section there because I think Matt both has and misses a point. It is probably not a conspiracy that the Woodland Police Department would have to deny civil rights. I agree with that point.
However, I think it does reflect something bigger than a single incident. It is the representative that some police officers are too quick to resort to a use of force and that at times that use of force is both unjustified and has unfortunate consequences. That is the real question that the legal system will have to weigh.
The issue of damages I think is a bit of a red herring anyway. The purpose of the suit is to force the police department to take responsibility for their actions. There is no other recourse at this time.
Is it Rexroad’s comments that are the issue here? The use of the taser? Both maybe?
Has anyone here actually read the FULL Coroner’s report? Reviewed all the facts of this case? Or are we simply discussing the what was published in the newspapers and seen on our televisions?
My point:
There are just so many facts in a case like this that it is hard to determine what really happened unless you have access to ALL the information.
What did the officers actually KNOW when they arrived?
Did this person do something to APPEAR dangerous?
Does a lack of criminal history make someone less dangerous? Does actually having a criminal history make someone necessarily more dangerous?
Some of the witnesses gave short accounts to newspaper and television reporters. What did all the witnesses say? Did they see all of what happened, or just bits and pieces?
Someone suggested that the police should have reasoned with this person longer. Well DID they try? Do WE know?
Unless I sat down and got to read ALL the documents, statements, and forensic examinations, I could not pass judgment on something as complex as this. Not just on some media reports and the statements of an attorney who is trying to reach a settlement (no offense intended toward Mr. Griffin, but it IS HIS JOB to provide good representation). Even after all the facts come out, many such cases cause debate amongst the experts for months and years.
We as human beings tend to jump to conclusions when presented with stories of tragedy. That is our nature. We want to blame SOMEONE.
The only thing I can conclude from reading about this incident is that someone died and the aftermath has to be awful for the family AND the officers involved. There will be NO winners in all of this.
And by the way:
About the first posting…EVERYONE deserves respect. Isn’t what this BLOG is about? Respecting different perspectives and trying to gain a more diverse view of any issue?
Well maybe or maybe not.
WU: “the point of large settlements like that is really more to make behavior like that of the woodland PD … to act differently, to avoid further fines in the future.”
This is an interesting and complex question, the answer to which I believe is not what you assert.
If you consider a private actor (individual or company) which either will have to directly pay the money to the victim that the court orders or will have to pay much higher insurance rates upon the award, then I think your logic holds: that actor will change his behavior, because he has a good incentive to do so. But, if he believes that this was an isolated incident and the court was mistaken in its judgment, even a private actor will not change his behavior.
In the case of public employees, much of the private incentive-based logic breaks down. The players involved won’t make any payments — the taxpayers will foot the bill.
The principal question that needs to be considered here is this: did the Woodland cops violate the policy of their city by their actions in this case?
If they did, then there is no reason to presume the policy will be changed. However, it is possible that the city of Woodland will punish the cops who violated the policy or it will send the message to other cops in Woodland that such violations in the future will result in punishment. Of course, being government and having well-insulated unionized employees, it is far more likely that the cops involved, even if they violated city policy, will not be punished and the message of future punishments will be lost on other cops in Woodland.
Alternatively (and in my opinion more probable), the WPD did not violate department policy: although the outcome was terrible in this particular case, they were likely acting in a manner which has proved over time to be safest for the cops and the community*, and because of that, it doesn’t make good sense to change the policy, despite the terrible result to Mr. Abraham. The only way your scenario would hold true would be if the cops here upheld WPD policy and higher-ups determined that the policy itself was unwise.
A secondary question which needs to be considered is this: If the city of Woodland’s insurance company is forced to pay some millions of dollars to the decedent’s heirs, but the commanders in the WPD believe that their officers actions were warranted in this case, how would the large award affect departmental policy or the behavior of the officers?
I think the answer is clear: it wouldn’t. As such, I don’t reach your same conclusion, that “large settlements … make behavior like that of the woodland PD … to act differently.”
* I’m refering, here, to the policy of dog-piling on Mr. Abraham, which (it sounds like) was the reason he could not breathe and therefore died. My guess is that they have used this tactic safely and successfully hundreds of times when trying to restrain a very large and out of control person, but because of the particular state of Mr. Abraham’s health, it resulted in this tragedy.
Is it Rexroad’s comments that are the issue here? The use of the taser? Both maybe?
Has anyone here actually read the FULL Coroner’s report? Reviewed all the facts of this case? Or are we simply discussing the what was published in the newspapers and seen on our televisions?
My point:
There are just so many facts in a case like this that it is hard to determine what really happened unless you have access to ALL the information.
What did the officers actually KNOW when they arrived?
Did this person do something to APPEAR dangerous?
Does a lack of criminal history make someone less dangerous? Does actually having a criminal history make someone necessarily more dangerous?
Some of the witnesses gave short accounts to newspaper and television reporters. What did all the witnesses say? Did they see all of what happened, or just bits and pieces?
Someone suggested that the police should have reasoned with this person longer. Well DID they try? Do WE know?
Unless I sat down and got to read ALL the documents, statements, and forensic examinations, I could not pass judgment on something as complex as this. Not just on some media reports and the statements of an attorney who is trying to reach a settlement (no offense intended toward Mr. Griffin, but it IS HIS JOB to provide good representation). Even after all the facts come out, many such cases cause debate amongst the experts for months and years.
We as human beings tend to jump to conclusions when presented with stories of tragedy. That is our nature. We want to blame SOMEONE.
The only thing I can conclude from reading about this incident is that someone died and the aftermath has to be awful for the family AND the officers involved. There will be NO winners in all of this.
And by the way:
About the first posting…EVERYONE deserves respect. Isn’t what this BLOG is about? Respecting different perspectives and trying to gain a more diverse view of any issue?
Well maybe or maybe not.
WU: “the point of large settlements like that is really more to make behavior like that of the woodland PD … to act differently, to avoid further fines in the future.”
This is an interesting and complex question, the answer to which I believe is not what you assert.
If you consider a private actor (individual or company) which either will have to directly pay the money to the victim that the court orders or will have to pay much higher insurance rates upon the award, then I think your logic holds: that actor will change his behavior, because he has a good incentive to do so. But, if he believes that this was an isolated incident and the court was mistaken in its judgment, even a private actor will not change his behavior.
In the case of public employees, much of the private incentive-based logic breaks down. The players involved won’t make any payments — the taxpayers will foot the bill.
The principal question that needs to be considered here is this: did the Woodland cops violate the policy of their city by their actions in this case?
If they did, then there is no reason to presume the policy will be changed. However, it is possible that the city of Woodland will punish the cops who violated the policy or it will send the message to other cops in Woodland that such violations in the future will result in punishment. Of course, being government and having well-insulated unionized employees, it is far more likely that the cops involved, even if they violated city policy, will not be punished and the message of future punishments will be lost on other cops in Woodland.
Alternatively (and in my opinion more probable), the WPD did not violate department policy: although the outcome was terrible in this particular case, they were likely acting in a manner which has proved over time to be safest for the cops and the community*, and because of that, it doesn’t make good sense to change the policy, despite the terrible result to Mr. Abraham. The only way your scenario would hold true would be if the cops here upheld WPD policy and higher-ups determined that the policy itself was unwise.
A secondary question which needs to be considered is this: If the city of Woodland’s insurance company is forced to pay some millions of dollars to the decedent’s heirs, but the commanders in the WPD believe that their officers actions were warranted in this case, how would the large award affect departmental policy or the behavior of the officers?
I think the answer is clear: it wouldn’t. As such, I don’t reach your same conclusion, that “large settlements … make behavior like that of the woodland PD … to act differently.”
* I’m refering, here, to the policy of dog-piling on Mr. Abraham, which (it sounds like) was the reason he could not breathe and therefore died. My guess is that they have used this tactic safely and successfully hundreds of times when trying to restrain a very large and out of control person, but because of the particular state of Mr. Abraham’s health, it resulted in this tragedy.
Is it Rexroad’s comments that are the issue here? The use of the taser? Both maybe?
Has anyone here actually read the FULL Coroner’s report? Reviewed all the facts of this case? Or are we simply discussing the what was published in the newspapers and seen on our televisions?
My point:
There are just so many facts in a case like this that it is hard to determine what really happened unless you have access to ALL the information.
What did the officers actually KNOW when they arrived?
Did this person do something to APPEAR dangerous?
Does a lack of criminal history make someone less dangerous? Does actually having a criminal history make someone necessarily more dangerous?
Some of the witnesses gave short accounts to newspaper and television reporters. What did all the witnesses say? Did they see all of what happened, or just bits and pieces?
Someone suggested that the police should have reasoned with this person longer. Well DID they try? Do WE know?
Unless I sat down and got to read ALL the documents, statements, and forensic examinations, I could not pass judgment on something as complex as this. Not just on some media reports and the statements of an attorney who is trying to reach a settlement (no offense intended toward Mr. Griffin, but it IS HIS JOB to provide good representation). Even after all the facts come out, many such cases cause debate amongst the experts for months and years.
We as human beings tend to jump to conclusions when presented with stories of tragedy. That is our nature. We want to blame SOMEONE.
The only thing I can conclude from reading about this incident is that someone died and the aftermath has to be awful for the family AND the officers involved. There will be NO winners in all of this.
And by the way:
About the first posting…EVERYONE deserves respect. Isn’t what this BLOG is about? Respecting different perspectives and trying to gain a more diverse view of any issue?
Well maybe or maybe not.
WU: “the point of large settlements like that is really more to make behavior like that of the woodland PD … to act differently, to avoid further fines in the future.”
This is an interesting and complex question, the answer to which I believe is not what you assert.
If you consider a private actor (individual or company) which either will have to directly pay the money to the victim that the court orders or will have to pay much higher insurance rates upon the award, then I think your logic holds: that actor will change his behavior, because he has a good incentive to do so. But, if he believes that this was an isolated incident and the court was mistaken in its judgment, even a private actor will not change his behavior.
In the case of public employees, much of the private incentive-based logic breaks down. The players involved won’t make any payments — the taxpayers will foot the bill.
The principal question that needs to be considered here is this: did the Woodland cops violate the policy of their city by their actions in this case?
If they did, then there is no reason to presume the policy will be changed. However, it is possible that the city of Woodland will punish the cops who violated the policy or it will send the message to other cops in Woodland that such violations in the future will result in punishment. Of course, being government and having well-insulated unionized employees, it is far more likely that the cops involved, even if they violated city policy, will not be punished and the message of future punishments will be lost on other cops in Woodland.
Alternatively (and in my opinion more probable), the WPD did not violate department policy: although the outcome was terrible in this particular case, they were likely acting in a manner which has proved over time to be safest for the cops and the community*, and because of that, it doesn’t make good sense to change the policy, despite the terrible result to Mr. Abraham. The only way your scenario would hold true would be if the cops here upheld WPD policy and higher-ups determined that the policy itself was unwise.
A secondary question which needs to be considered is this: If the city of Woodland’s insurance company is forced to pay some millions of dollars to the decedent’s heirs, but the commanders in the WPD believe that their officers actions were warranted in this case, how would the large award affect departmental policy or the behavior of the officers?
I think the answer is clear: it wouldn’t. As such, I don’t reach your same conclusion, that “large settlements … make behavior like that of the woodland PD … to act differently.”
* I’m refering, here, to the policy of dog-piling on Mr. Abraham, which (it sounds like) was the reason he could not breathe and therefore died. My guess is that they have used this tactic safely and successfully hundreds of times when trying to restrain a very large and out of control person, but because of the particular state of Mr. Abraham’s health, it resulted in this tragedy.
Is it Rexroad’s comments that are the issue here? The use of the taser? Both maybe?
Has anyone here actually read the FULL Coroner’s report? Reviewed all the facts of this case? Or are we simply discussing the what was published in the newspapers and seen on our televisions?
My point:
There are just so many facts in a case like this that it is hard to determine what really happened unless you have access to ALL the information.
What did the officers actually KNOW when they arrived?
Did this person do something to APPEAR dangerous?
Does a lack of criminal history make someone less dangerous? Does actually having a criminal history make someone necessarily more dangerous?
Some of the witnesses gave short accounts to newspaper and television reporters. What did all the witnesses say? Did they see all of what happened, or just bits and pieces?
Someone suggested that the police should have reasoned with this person longer. Well DID they try? Do WE know?
Unless I sat down and got to read ALL the documents, statements, and forensic examinations, I could not pass judgment on something as complex as this. Not just on some media reports and the statements of an attorney who is trying to reach a settlement (no offense intended toward Mr. Griffin, but it IS HIS JOB to provide good representation). Even after all the facts come out, many such cases cause debate amongst the experts for months and years.
We as human beings tend to jump to conclusions when presented with stories of tragedy. That is our nature. We want to blame SOMEONE.
The only thing I can conclude from reading about this incident is that someone died and the aftermath has to be awful for the family AND the officers involved. There will be NO winners in all of this.
And by the way:
About the first posting…EVERYONE deserves respect. Isn’t what this BLOG is about? Respecting different perspectives and trying to gain a more diverse view of any issue?
Well maybe or maybe not.
WU: “the point of large settlements like that is really more to make behavior like that of the woodland PD … to act differently, to avoid further fines in the future.”
This is an interesting and complex question, the answer to which I believe is not what you assert.
If you consider a private actor (individual or company) which either will have to directly pay the money to the victim that the court orders or will have to pay much higher insurance rates upon the award, then I think your logic holds: that actor will change his behavior, because he has a good incentive to do so. But, if he believes that this was an isolated incident and the court was mistaken in its judgment, even a private actor will not change his behavior.
In the case of public employees, much of the private incentive-based logic breaks down. The players involved won’t make any payments — the taxpayers will foot the bill.
The principal question that needs to be considered here is this: did the Woodland cops violate the policy of their city by their actions in this case?
If they did, then there is no reason to presume the policy will be changed. However, it is possible that the city of Woodland will punish the cops who violated the policy or it will send the message to other cops in Woodland that such violations in the future will result in punishment. Of course, being government and having well-insulated unionized employees, it is far more likely that the cops involved, even if they violated city policy, will not be punished and the message of future punishments will be lost on other cops in Woodland.
Alternatively (and in my opinion more probable), the WPD did not violate department policy: although the outcome was terrible in this particular case, they were likely acting in a manner which has proved over time to be safest for the cops and the community*, and because of that, it doesn’t make good sense to change the policy, despite the terrible result to Mr. Abraham. The only way your scenario would hold true would be if the cops here upheld WPD policy and higher-ups determined that the policy itself was unwise.
A secondary question which needs to be considered is this: If the city of Woodland’s insurance company is forced to pay some millions of dollars to the decedent’s heirs, but the commanders in the WPD believe that their officers actions were warranted in this case, how would the large award affect departmental policy or the behavior of the officers?
I think the answer is clear: it wouldn’t. As such, I don’t reach your same conclusion, that “large settlements … make behavior like that of the woodland PD … to act differently.”
* I’m refering, here, to the policy of dog-piling on Mr. Abraham, which (it sounds like) was the reason he could not breathe and therefore died. My guess is that they have used this tactic safely and successfully hundreds of times when trying to restrain a very large and out of control person, but because of the particular state of Mr. Abraham’s health, it resulted in this tragedy.
“About the first posting…EVERYONE deserves respect. Isn’t what this BLOG is about? Respecting different perspectives and trying to gain a more diverse view of any issue?”
This blog is about giving everyone the ability to express their point of view. It does not call for “respecting” all points of view which, on its face, is a dangerous form of intellectual mushy-headedness.
“About the first posting…EVERYONE deserves respect. Isn’t what this BLOG is about? Respecting different perspectives and trying to gain a more diverse view of any issue?”
This blog is about giving everyone the ability to express their point of view. It does not call for “respecting” all points of view which, on its face, is a dangerous form of intellectual mushy-headedness.
“About the first posting…EVERYONE deserves respect. Isn’t what this BLOG is about? Respecting different perspectives and trying to gain a more diverse view of any issue?”
This blog is about giving everyone the ability to express their point of view. It does not call for “respecting” all points of view which, on its face, is a dangerous form of intellectual mushy-headedness.
“About the first posting…EVERYONE deserves respect. Isn’t what this BLOG is about? Respecting different perspectives and trying to gain a more diverse view of any issue?”
This blog is about giving everyone the ability to express their point of view. It does not call for “respecting” all points of view which, on its face, is a dangerous form of intellectual mushy-headedness.
As a resident of Woodland, I have no problem with the way the police handled this matter.
A large (300 pound) person acting aggressively is not usually thought of as a person with a mental disorder who also has a physical disorder that would cause them to die if dog-piled.
No, a large person acting aggressively here usually means someone who is on drugs and is looking to cause trouble. Someone who is used to using their size to push other people around who is finally at the end of a 3 day meth binge and is out of control- maybe they want to shoot a Highway Patrolman…hey, it happens.
Woodland is not Davis. The police and the people deal with different issues. If we see an old skinny guy with long hair who hasn’t shaved for a while, we think “Oh, that guy lives at the Hotel Woodland, and he is on some sort of government assistance.” In Davis you might think, “Oh, that is an eccentric academic genius.”
So before anyone raises a cry of fascism regarding Matt’s views, just realize that he is thinking about the safety of the residents in Woodland.
The two cities and local morality are very different. We aren’t fascist, just realistic. Davis has it’s own type of economic fascism going on that really needs to be dealt with, but since it is your children who will suffer, not ours, we’ll leave you to it.
As a resident of Woodland, I have no problem with the way the police handled this matter.
A large (300 pound) person acting aggressively is not usually thought of as a person with a mental disorder who also has a physical disorder that would cause them to die if dog-piled.
No, a large person acting aggressively here usually means someone who is on drugs and is looking to cause trouble. Someone who is used to using their size to push other people around who is finally at the end of a 3 day meth binge and is out of control- maybe they want to shoot a Highway Patrolman…hey, it happens.
Woodland is not Davis. The police and the people deal with different issues. If we see an old skinny guy with long hair who hasn’t shaved for a while, we think “Oh, that guy lives at the Hotel Woodland, and he is on some sort of government assistance.” In Davis you might think, “Oh, that is an eccentric academic genius.”
So before anyone raises a cry of fascism regarding Matt’s views, just realize that he is thinking about the safety of the residents in Woodland.
The two cities and local morality are very different. We aren’t fascist, just realistic. Davis has it’s own type of economic fascism going on that really needs to be dealt with, but since it is your children who will suffer, not ours, we’ll leave you to it.
As a resident of Woodland, I have no problem with the way the police handled this matter.
A large (300 pound) person acting aggressively is not usually thought of as a person with a mental disorder who also has a physical disorder that would cause them to die if dog-piled.
No, a large person acting aggressively here usually means someone who is on drugs and is looking to cause trouble. Someone who is used to using their size to push other people around who is finally at the end of a 3 day meth binge and is out of control- maybe they want to shoot a Highway Patrolman…hey, it happens.
Woodland is not Davis. The police and the people deal with different issues. If we see an old skinny guy with long hair who hasn’t shaved for a while, we think “Oh, that guy lives at the Hotel Woodland, and he is on some sort of government assistance.” In Davis you might think, “Oh, that is an eccentric academic genius.”
So before anyone raises a cry of fascism regarding Matt’s views, just realize that he is thinking about the safety of the residents in Woodland.
The two cities and local morality are very different. We aren’t fascist, just realistic. Davis has it’s own type of economic fascism going on that really needs to be dealt with, but since it is your children who will suffer, not ours, we’ll leave you to it.
As a resident of Woodland, I have no problem with the way the police handled this matter.
A large (300 pound) person acting aggressively is not usually thought of as a person with a mental disorder who also has a physical disorder that would cause them to die if dog-piled.
No, a large person acting aggressively here usually means someone who is on drugs and is looking to cause trouble. Someone who is used to using their size to push other people around who is finally at the end of a 3 day meth binge and is out of control- maybe they want to shoot a Highway Patrolman…hey, it happens.
Woodland is not Davis. The police and the people deal with different issues. If we see an old skinny guy with long hair who hasn’t shaved for a while, we think “Oh, that guy lives at the Hotel Woodland, and he is on some sort of government assistance.” In Davis you might think, “Oh, that is an eccentric academic genius.”
So before anyone raises a cry of fascism regarding Matt’s views, just realize that he is thinking about the safety of the residents in Woodland.
The two cities and local morality are very different. We aren’t fascist, just realistic. Davis has it’s own type of economic fascism going on that really needs to be dealt with, but since it is your children who will suffer, not ours, we’ll leave you to it.
In my opinion you actually illustrated why the police did not act properly.
First, the police were called by the facility who should have provided them with critical information.
Second, the police perhaps treated the mentally disturbed man as though he were on drugs. That’s a problem, because you probably need to handle the situation differently.
Better training and better handling of this situation could have avoided the problem. The decision to use force when they did must at the very least be questioned and explored. This is of course not the job of the coroner. So we shall see what the report looks like from the Woodland Police themselves.
In my opinion you actually illustrated why the police did not act properly.
First, the police were called by the facility who should have provided them with critical information.
Second, the police perhaps treated the mentally disturbed man as though he were on drugs. That’s a problem, because you probably need to handle the situation differently.
Better training and better handling of this situation could have avoided the problem. The decision to use force when they did must at the very least be questioned and explored. This is of course not the job of the coroner. So we shall see what the report looks like from the Woodland Police themselves.
In my opinion you actually illustrated why the police did not act properly.
First, the police were called by the facility who should have provided them with critical information.
Second, the police perhaps treated the mentally disturbed man as though he were on drugs. That’s a problem, because you probably need to handle the situation differently.
Better training and better handling of this situation could have avoided the problem. The decision to use force when they did must at the very least be questioned and explored. This is of course not the job of the coroner. So we shall see what the report looks like from the Woodland Police themselves.
In my opinion you actually illustrated why the police did not act properly.
First, the police were called by the facility who should have provided them with critical information.
Second, the police perhaps treated the mentally disturbed man as though he were on drugs. That’s a problem, because you probably need to handle the situation differently.
Better training and better handling of this situation could have avoided the problem. The decision to use force when they did must at the very least be questioned and explored. This is of course not the job of the coroner. So we shall see what the report looks like from the Woodland Police themselves.
“This is of course not the job of the coroner….”
The County coroner’s report that the victim died of asphyxiation,due to what will be claimed was a sanctioned “dog-piling” police procedure , WITHOUT mention of the possibility(which would leave no post-mortem evidence) that multiple taser jolts can percipitate a cardiac arrest,is not surprising as this would strengthen the liability case against the officers and County.
“This is of course not the job of the coroner….”
The County coroner’s report that the victim died of asphyxiation,due to what will be claimed was a sanctioned “dog-piling” police procedure , WITHOUT mention of the possibility(which would leave no post-mortem evidence) that multiple taser jolts can percipitate a cardiac arrest,is not surprising as this would strengthen the liability case against the officers and County.
“This is of course not the job of the coroner….”
The County coroner’s report that the victim died of asphyxiation,due to what will be claimed was a sanctioned “dog-piling” police procedure , WITHOUT mention of the possibility(which would leave no post-mortem evidence) that multiple taser jolts can percipitate a cardiac arrest,is not surprising as this would strengthen the liability case against the officers and County.
“This is of course not the job of the coroner….”
The County coroner’s report that the victim died of asphyxiation,due to what will be claimed was a sanctioned “dog-piling” police procedure , WITHOUT mention of the possibility(which would leave no post-mortem evidence) that multiple taser jolts can percipitate a cardiac arrest,is not surprising as this would strengthen the liability case against the officers and County.
“As a resident of Woodland, I have no problem with the way the police handled this matter.”
Political problem for Rexroad,the professional Republican political operative: How to maintain the support of the above Woodland constituency as his base while attempting to appeal to Davis voters, who in recent times have had a controlling influence on Yolo District politics? This is a critical strategy in advancing his political career?
“As a resident of Woodland, I have no problem with the way the police handled this matter.”
Political problem for Rexroad,the professional Republican political operative: How to maintain the support of the above Woodland constituency as his base while attempting to appeal to Davis voters, who in recent times have had a controlling influence on Yolo District politics? This is a critical strategy in advancing his political career?
“As a resident of Woodland, I have no problem with the way the police handled this matter.”
Political problem for Rexroad,the professional Republican political operative: How to maintain the support of the above Woodland constituency as his base while attempting to appeal to Davis voters, who in recent times have had a controlling influence on Yolo District politics? This is a critical strategy in advancing his political career?
“As a resident of Woodland, I have no problem with the way the police handled this matter.”
Political problem for Rexroad,the professional Republican political operative: How to maintain the support of the above Woodland constituency as his base while attempting to appeal to Davis voters, who in recent times have had a controlling influence on Yolo District politics? This is a critical strategy in advancing his political career?
“… multiple taser jolts can percipitate a cardiac arrest, is not surprising as this would strengthen the liability case against the officers and County.”
Given that Mr. Abraham did not have a heart attack or any other measured ill-health effects from being tasered, your comment makes no sense to me. It sounds as if regardless of the evidence you want to put in a dig on the use of tasers.
He died of asphyxiation, due to(according to the coroner) the dog-piling tactic (and presumably his poor aerobic condition).
“… multiple taser jolts can percipitate a cardiac arrest, is not surprising as this would strengthen the liability case against the officers and County.”
Given that Mr. Abraham did not have a heart attack or any other measured ill-health effects from being tasered, your comment makes no sense to me. It sounds as if regardless of the evidence you want to put in a dig on the use of tasers.
He died of asphyxiation, due to(according to the coroner) the dog-piling tactic (and presumably his poor aerobic condition).
“… multiple taser jolts can percipitate a cardiac arrest, is not surprising as this would strengthen the liability case against the officers and County.”
Given that Mr. Abraham did not have a heart attack or any other measured ill-health effects from being tasered, your comment makes no sense to me. It sounds as if regardless of the evidence you want to put in a dig on the use of tasers.
He died of asphyxiation, due to(according to the coroner) the dog-piling tactic (and presumably his poor aerobic condition).
“… multiple taser jolts can percipitate a cardiac arrest, is not surprising as this would strengthen the liability case against the officers and County.”
Given that Mr. Abraham did not have a heart attack or any other measured ill-health effects from being tasered, your comment makes no sense to me. It sounds as if regardless of the evidence you want to put in a dig on the use of tasers.
He died of asphyxiation, due to(according to the coroner) the dog-piling tactic (and presumably his poor aerobic condition).
“Given that Mr. Abraham did not have a heart attack or any other measured ill-health effects from being tasered….
Disruption of the heart’s biological electrical rhythm pacemaker resulting in cardiac arrest induced by multiple electrical taser shocks has no autopsy findings. It does not have the medical stigmata at autopsy of what is commonly referred to as a “heart attack” which is most commonly caused by coronary vessel occlusion.
“Given that Mr. Abraham did not have a heart attack or any other measured ill-health effects from being tasered….
Disruption of the heart’s biological electrical rhythm pacemaker resulting in cardiac arrest induced by multiple electrical taser shocks has no autopsy findings. It does not have the medical stigmata at autopsy of what is commonly referred to as a “heart attack” which is most commonly caused by coronary vessel occlusion.
“Given that Mr. Abraham did not have a heart attack or any other measured ill-health effects from being tasered….
Disruption of the heart’s biological electrical rhythm pacemaker resulting in cardiac arrest induced by multiple electrical taser shocks has no autopsy findings. It does not have the medical stigmata at autopsy of what is commonly referred to as a “heart attack” which is most commonly caused by coronary vessel occlusion.
“Given that Mr. Abraham did not have a heart attack or any other measured ill-health effects from being tasered….
Disruption of the heart’s biological electrical rhythm pacemaker resulting in cardiac arrest induced by multiple electrical taser shocks has no autopsy findings. It does not have the medical stigmata at autopsy of what is commonly referred to as a “heart attack” which is most commonly caused by coronary vessel occlusion.
“Second, the police perhaps treated the mentally disturbed man as though he were on drugs. That’s a problem, because you probably need to handle the situation differently.”
Interesting point DPD. Couple of questions here:
How should the police have handled this?
People who are drunk, under the influence of some drugs, and (in rare cases) in some type to manic state of their mental illness can all exhibit similar dangerous behaviors. They can act enraged,and be completely unresponsive to any commands, reason, or painful stimuli.
From what I read about this thing, it sounded like it unfolded in minutes.
I guess I would like to hear if anyone has suggestions on HOW it could have been handled different given the circumstances.
“Better training and better handling of this situation could have avoided the problem. The decision to use force when they did must at the very least be questioned and explored.”
Have to respectfully agree and disagree on this one.
ANY force that results in a human being’s death should be explored.
Since all the facts on this have not been released, I think that you are way too premature to say that better training and handling would have avoided this situation.
Can you say EXACTLY what was done wrong or could be done better?
What areas would you focus training on?
Are there EFFECTIVE training methods out there to get the results you are looking for? In other words, are you asking to turn a cop into some type of field psychologist who can make these type of quick assessments?
I am not trying to show any contempt for you blog. I think this is a good discussion. I am just throwing out some food for thought.
“Second, the police perhaps treated the mentally disturbed man as though he were on drugs. That’s a problem, because you probably need to handle the situation differently.”
Interesting point DPD. Couple of questions here:
How should the police have handled this?
People who are drunk, under the influence of some drugs, and (in rare cases) in some type to manic state of their mental illness can all exhibit similar dangerous behaviors. They can act enraged,and be completely unresponsive to any commands, reason, or painful stimuli.
From what I read about this thing, it sounded like it unfolded in minutes.
I guess I would like to hear if anyone has suggestions on HOW it could have been handled different given the circumstances.
“Better training and better handling of this situation could have avoided the problem. The decision to use force when they did must at the very least be questioned and explored.”
Have to respectfully agree and disagree on this one.
ANY force that results in a human being’s death should be explored.
Since all the facts on this have not been released, I think that you are way too premature to say that better training and handling would have avoided this situation.
Can you say EXACTLY what was done wrong or could be done better?
What areas would you focus training on?
Are there EFFECTIVE training methods out there to get the results you are looking for? In other words, are you asking to turn a cop into some type of field psychologist who can make these type of quick assessments?
I am not trying to show any contempt for you blog. I think this is a good discussion. I am just throwing out some food for thought.
“Second, the police perhaps treated the mentally disturbed man as though he were on drugs. That’s a problem, because you probably need to handle the situation differently.”
Interesting point DPD. Couple of questions here:
How should the police have handled this?
People who are drunk, under the influence of some drugs, and (in rare cases) in some type to manic state of their mental illness can all exhibit similar dangerous behaviors. They can act enraged,and be completely unresponsive to any commands, reason, or painful stimuli.
From what I read about this thing, it sounded like it unfolded in minutes.
I guess I would like to hear if anyone has suggestions on HOW it could have been handled different given the circumstances.
“Better training and better handling of this situation could have avoided the problem. The decision to use force when they did must at the very least be questioned and explored.”
Have to respectfully agree and disagree on this one.
ANY force that results in a human being’s death should be explored.
Since all the facts on this have not been released, I think that you are way too premature to say that better training and handling would have avoided this situation.
Can you say EXACTLY what was done wrong or could be done better?
What areas would you focus training on?
Are there EFFECTIVE training methods out there to get the results you are looking for? In other words, are you asking to turn a cop into some type of field psychologist who can make these type of quick assessments?
I am not trying to show any contempt for you blog. I think this is a good discussion. I am just throwing out some food for thought.
“Second, the police perhaps treated the mentally disturbed man as though he were on drugs. That’s a problem, because you probably need to handle the situation differently.”
Interesting point DPD. Couple of questions here:
How should the police have handled this?
People who are drunk, under the influence of some drugs, and (in rare cases) in some type to manic state of their mental illness can all exhibit similar dangerous behaviors. They can act enraged,and be completely unresponsive to any commands, reason, or painful stimuli.
From what I read about this thing, it sounded like it unfolded in minutes.
I guess I would like to hear if anyone has suggestions on HOW it could have been handled different given the circumstances.
“Better training and better handling of this situation could have avoided the problem. The decision to use force when they did must at the very least be questioned and explored.”
Have to respectfully agree and disagree on this one.
ANY force that results in a human being’s death should be explored.
Since all the facts on this have not been released, I think that you are way too premature to say that better training and handling would have avoided this situation.
Can you say EXACTLY what was done wrong or could be done better?
What areas would you focus training on?
Are there EFFECTIVE training methods out there to get the results you are looking for? In other words, are you asking to turn a cop into some type of field psychologist who can make these type of quick assessments?
I am not trying to show any contempt for you blog. I think this is a good discussion. I am just throwing out some food for thought.
A piling on of several officers on this large man is an unlikely sole cause of his death.
In any event, he would have been still breathing when near-unconscious from decreasing blood oxygen levels. I would assume that the officers would then have gotten off of him and put restraints on him,allowing him to breath more freely.
A piling on of several officers on this large man is an unlikely sole cause of his death.
In any event, he would have been still breathing when near-unconscious from decreasing blood oxygen levels. I would assume that the officers would then have gotten off of him and put restraints on him,allowing him to breath more freely.
A piling on of several officers on this large man is an unlikely sole cause of his death.
In any event, he would have been still breathing when near-unconscious from decreasing blood oxygen levels. I would assume that the officers would then have gotten off of him and put restraints on him,allowing him to breath more freely.
A piling on of several officers on this large man is an unlikely sole cause of his death.
In any event, he would have been still breathing when near-unconscious from decreasing blood oxygen levels. I would assume that the officers would then have gotten off of him and put restraints on him,allowing him to breath more freely.
Well, it seems that I have stirred something up here.
It is really a question of damages. The effort to “make people whole” is something that is nearly impossible. It is my opinion that people are often seeking a remedy that money can’t provide.
Punitive damages is something that I have always had a problem with. I realize that is not exactly what we are talking about here — but it is close.
It has always appeared wrong to me that one plaintiff would profit from the “punishment” of an entity that committed what is close to a criminal act against society. If a product or action is dangerous and the plaintiff has been “made whole” with economic and other damages — then I don’t think they should also keep punitive damages as well.
Answers to other questions —
I don’t know Abraham’s race. My comments don’t involve that.
I am fiscal and social conservative.
I have never met Robert Perry.
I look forward to speaking with Don — to show him the error of his ways.
I have never made a serious appeal to the voters of Davis. See Dunning column from earlier this week.
As to the “insensitive” nature of my comments — tell that to the family attorney. The guy is trying to posture in the press with the City — in order to get more tax dollars for his client.
This guy is not trying to “fix” anything. He is going for the dough.
Well, it seems that I have stirred something up here.
It is really a question of damages. The effort to “make people whole” is something that is nearly impossible. It is my opinion that people are often seeking a remedy that money can’t provide.
Punitive damages is something that I have always had a problem with. I realize that is not exactly what we are talking about here — but it is close.
It has always appeared wrong to me that one plaintiff would profit from the “punishment” of an entity that committed what is close to a criminal act against society. If a product or action is dangerous and the plaintiff has been “made whole” with economic and other damages — then I don’t think they should also keep punitive damages as well.
Answers to other questions —
I don’t know Abraham’s race. My comments don’t involve that.
I am fiscal and social conservative.
I have never met Robert Perry.
I look forward to speaking with Don — to show him the error of his ways.
I have never made a serious appeal to the voters of Davis. See Dunning column from earlier this week.
As to the “insensitive” nature of my comments — tell that to the family attorney. The guy is trying to posture in the press with the City — in order to get more tax dollars for his client.
This guy is not trying to “fix” anything. He is going for the dough.
Well, it seems that I have stirred something up here.
It is really a question of damages. The effort to “make people whole” is something that is nearly impossible. It is my opinion that people are often seeking a remedy that money can’t provide.
Punitive damages is something that I have always had a problem with. I realize that is not exactly what we are talking about here — but it is close.
It has always appeared wrong to me that one plaintiff would profit from the “punishment” of an entity that committed what is close to a criminal act against society. If a product or action is dangerous and the plaintiff has been “made whole” with economic and other damages — then I don’t think they should also keep punitive damages as well.
Answers to other questions —
I don’t know Abraham’s race. My comments don’t involve that.
I am fiscal and social conservative.
I have never met Robert Perry.
I look forward to speaking with Don — to show him the error of his ways.
I have never made a serious appeal to the voters of Davis. See Dunning column from earlier this week.
As to the “insensitive” nature of my comments — tell that to the family attorney. The guy is trying to posture in the press with the City — in order to get more tax dollars for his client.
This guy is not trying to “fix” anything. He is going for the dough.
Well, it seems that I have stirred something up here.
It is really a question of damages. The effort to “make people whole” is something that is nearly impossible. It is my opinion that people are often seeking a remedy that money can’t provide.
Punitive damages is something that I have always had a problem with. I realize that is not exactly what we are talking about here — but it is close.
It has always appeared wrong to me that one plaintiff would profit from the “punishment” of an entity that committed what is close to a criminal act against society. If a product or action is dangerous and the plaintiff has been “made whole” with economic and other damages — then I don’t think they should also keep punitive damages as well.
Answers to other questions —
I don’t know Abraham’s race. My comments don’t involve that.
I am fiscal and social conservative.
I have never met Robert Perry.
I look forward to speaking with Don — to show him the error of his ways.
I have never made a serious appeal to the voters of Davis. See Dunning column from earlier this week.
As to the “insensitive” nature of my comments — tell that to the family attorney. The guy is trying to posture in the press with the City — in order to get more tax dollars for his client.
This guy is not trying to “fix” anything. He is going for the dough.
Matt Rexroad: “As to the “insensitive” nature of my comments — tell that to the family attorney. The guy is trying to posture in the press with the City — in order to get more tax dollars for his client. This guy is not trying to “fix” anything. He is going for the dough.”
Your insensitivity is not excused by another’s. Furthermore, the attorney is doing his job, what he was paid to do by the victim’s family. Are you telling me it is wrong for the family to want some sort of “justice” or recompense for what happened? Then you really don’t want change, just lock-step agree with any police tactics currently approved.
“Punitive damages is something that I have always had a problem with. I realize that is not exactly what we are talking about here — but it is close.”
You and a lot of other people have a problem with money damages, but it has been about the only thing that brings about change. At one time chokeholds were used by law enforcement, until the lawsuits started rolling in.
Another comment, on a different thread. If you remember Rodney King, he was tasered a number of times. When he didn’t “comply”, he was beaten again and again with batons. I watched that videotape many times, and noticed something.
When King was repeatedly tasered, it appeared to me as if he was having almost a normal physical reaction of trying to escape the pain. If he had laid quietly, I don’t think the collective officers’ adreniline would have allowed them to stop, even tho they are supposedly trained to do so. It is not an easy thing to do to stop a beating when adreniline is pumping.
Again, I repeat to Mr. Rexroad, if that were your son, wouldn’t you want law enforcement to at least make an effort to see if there wasn’t a better way to handle things? Typically law enforcement circles the wagons, and fires back at criticism with plausible deniability. In this case, unfortunately for them, there was a witness to the “dog-piling” technique being used.
I want an investigation into the technique of “tasering” and “dog-piling”, so that one more mentally ill person does not have to be killed to be properly subdued. Why is that not something we should all wish for and try to attain?
To the person that asks how do you subdue a 300 lb mentally ill person, I have seen it done. Good police forces who are well trained can talk someone who is mentally ill out of foolish actions, to an amazing degree.
I watched some footage of an incident, in which a mentally unbalanced person with a gun sat on a chair in the middle of the street. If the police had a right to shoot a suspect for being a danger to the public, this was it. Yet SWAT held off. First they tried to reason with the guy. When that didn’t work, a sniper actually shot the gun out of the suspect’s hand.
When law enforcement knows a suspect is mentally ill, which in the Woodland case the police did, and that he had no criminal record, which I THINK they did, and there was no appreciable weapon involved (a pencil), then it might have been worth trying some less drastic technique than “dog-piling”.
If you don’t think “dog-piling” is dangerous, think again. It does kill suspects every year, because I’ve read about it in the papers. If police had any good sense or training, they would know that to dog-pile onto an obese person would be overly dangerous, putting on more pressure to organs than the fat already does. I, as a layperson, know enough about this from watching documentary’s on the morbidly obese.
An honest investigation needs to happen, into the use of tasering and dog-piling. And a search for better alternatives needs to be undertaken.
Matt Rexroad: “As to the “insensitive” nature of my comments — tell that to the family attorney. The guy is trying to posture in the press with the City — in order to get more tax dollars for his client. This guy is not trying to “fix” anything. He is going for the dough.”
Your insensitivity is not excused by another’s. Furthermore, the attorney is doing his job, what he was paid to do by the victim’s family. Are you telling me it is wrong for the family to want some sort of “justice” or recompense for what happened? Then you really don’t want change, just lock-step agree with any police tactics currently approved.
“Punitive damages is something that I have always had a problem with. I realize that is not exactly what we are talking about here — but it is close.”
You and a lot of other people have a problem with money damages, but it has been about the only thing that brings about change. At one time chokeholds were used by law enforcement, until the lawsuits started rolling in.
Another comment, on a different thread. If you remember Rodney King, he was tasered a number of times. When he didn’t “comply”, he was beaten again and again with batons. I watched that videotape many times, and noticed something.
When King was repeatedly tasered, it appeared to me as if he was having almost a normal physical reaction of trying to escape the pain. If he had laid quietly, I don’t think the collective officers’ adreniline would have allowed them to stop, even tho they are supposedly trained to do so. It is not an easy thing to do to stop a beating when adreniline is pumping.
Again, I repeat to Mr. Rexroad, if that were your son, wouldn’t you want law enforcement to at least make an effort to see if there wasn’t a better way to handle things? Typically law enforcement circles the wagons, and fires back at criticism with plausible deniability. In this case, unfortunately for them, there was a witness to the “dog-piling” technique being used.
I want an investigation into the technique of “tasering” and “dog-piling”, so that one more mentally ill person does not have to be killed to be properly subdued. Why is that not something we should all wish for and try to attain?
To the person that asks how do you subdue a 300 lb mentally ill person, I have seen it done. Good police forces who are well trained can talk someone who is mentally ill out of foolish actions, to an amazing degree.
I watched some footage of an incident, in which a mentally unbalanced person with a gun sat on a chair in the middle of the street. If the police had a right to shoot a suspect for being a danger to the public, this was it. Yet SWAT held off. First they tried to reason with the guy. When that didn’t work, a sniper actually shot the gun out of the suspect’s hand.
When law enforcement knows a suspect is mentally ill, which in the Woodland case the police did, and that he had no criminal record, which I THINK they did, and there was no appreciable weapon involved (a pencil), then it might have been worth trying some less drastic technique than “dog-piling”.
If you don’t think “dog-piling” is dangerous, think again. It does kill suspects every year, because I’ve read about it in the papers. If police had any good sense or training, they would know that to dog-pile onto an obese person would be overly dangerous, putting on more pressure to organs than the fat already does. I, as a layperson, know enough about this from watching documentary’s on the morbidly obese.
An honest investigation needs to happen, into the use of tasering and dog-piling. And a search for better alternatives needs to be undertaken.
Matt Rexroad: “As to the “insensitive” nature of my comments — tell that to the family attorney. The guy is trying to posture in the press with the City — in order to get more tax dollars for his client. This guy is not trying to “fix” anything. He is going for the dough.”
Your insensitivity is not excused by another’s. Furthermore, the attorney is doing his job, what he was paid to do by the victim’s family. Are you telling me it is wrong for the family to want some sort of “justice” or recompense for what happened? Then you really don’t want change, just lock-step agree with any police tactics currently approved.
“Punitive damages is something that I have always had a problem with. I realize that is not exactly what we are talking about here — but it is close.”
You and a lot of other people have a problem with money damages, but it has been about the only thing that brings about change. At one time chokeholds were used by law enforcement, until the lawsuits started rolling in.
Another comment, on a different thread. If you remember Rodney King, he was tasered a number of times. When he didn’t “comply”, he was beaten again and again with batons. I watched that videotape many times, and noticed something.
When King was repeatedly tasered, it appeared to me as if he was having almost a normal physical reaction of trying to escape the pain. If he had laid quietly, I don’t think the collective officers’ adreniline would have allowed them to stop, even tho they are supposedly trained to do so. It is not an easy thing to do to stop a beating when adreniline is pumping.
Again, I repeat to Mr. Rexroad, if that were your son, wouldn’t you want law enforcement to at least make an effort to see if there wasn’t a better way to handle things? Typically law enforcement circles the wagons, and fires back at criticism with plausible deniability. In this case, unfortunately for them, there was a witness to the “dog-piling” technique being used.
I want an investigation into the technique of “tasering” and “dog-piling”, so that one more mentally ill person does not have to be killed to be properly subdued. Why is that not something we should all wish for and try to attain?
To the person that asks how do you subdue a 300 lb mentally ill person, I have seen it done. Good police forces who are well trained can talk someone who is mentally ill out of foolish actions, to an amazing degree.
I watched some footage of an incident, in which a mentally unbalanced person with a gun sat on a chair in the middle of the street. If the police had a right to shoot a suspect for being a danger to the public, this was it. Yet SWAT held off. First they tried to reason with the guy. When that didn’t work, a sniper actually shot the gun out of the suspect’s hand.
When law enforcement knows a suspect is mentally ill, which in the Woodland case the police did, and that he had no criminal record, which I THINK they did, and there was no appreciable weapon involved (a pencil), then it might have been worth trying some less drastic technique than “dog-piling”.
If you don’t think “dog-piling” is dangerous, think again. It does kill suspects every year, because I’ve read about it in the papers. If police had any good sense or training, they would know that to dog-pile onto an obese person would be overly dangerous, putting on more pressure to organs than the fat already does. I, as a layperson, know enough about this from watching documentary’s on the morbidly obese.
An honest investigation needs to happen, into the use of tasering and dog-piling. And a search for better alternatives needs to be undertaken.
Matt Rexroad: “As to the “insensitive” nature of my comments — tell that to the family attorney. The guy is trying to posture in the press with the City — in order to get more tax dollars for his client. This guy is not trying to “fix” anything. He is going for the dough.”
Your insensitivity is not excused by another’s. Furthermore, the attorney is doing his job, what he was paid to do by the victim’s family. Are you telling me it is wrong for the family to want some sort of “justice” or recompense for what happened? Then you really don’t want change, just lock-step agree with any police tactics currently approved.
“Punitive damages is something that I have always had a problem with. I realize that is not exactly what we are talking about here — but it is close.”
You and a lot of other people have a problem with money damages, but it has been about the only thing that brings about change. At one time chokeholds were used by law enforcement, until the lawsuits started rolling in.
Another comment, on a different thread. If you remember Rodney King, he was tasered a number of times. When he didn’t “comply”, he was beaten again and again with batons. I watched that videotape many times, and noticed something.
When King was repeatedly tasered, it appeared to me as if he was having almost a normal physical reaction of trying to escape the pain. If he had laid quietly, I don’t think the collective officers’ adreniline would have allowed them to stop, even tho they are supposedly trained to do so. It is not an easy thing to do to stop a beating when adreniline is pumping.
Again, I repeat to Mr. Rexroad, if that were your son, wouldn’t you want law enforcement to at least make an effort to see if there wasn’t a better way to handle things? Typically law enforcement circles the wagons, and fires back at criticism with plausible deniability. In this case, unfortunately for them, there was a witness to the “dog-piling” technique being used.
I want an investigation into the technique of “tasering” and “dog-piling”, so that one more mentally ill person does not have to be killed to be properly subdued. Why is that not something we should all wish for and try to attain?
To the person that asks how do you subdue a 300 lb mentally ill person, I have seen it done. Good police forces who are well trained can talk someone who is mentally ill out of foolish actions, to an amazing degree.
I watched some footage of an incident, in which a mentally unbalanced person with a gun sat on a chair in the middle of the street. If the police had a right to shoot a suspect for being a danger to the public, this was it. Yet SWAT held off. First they tried to reason with the guy. When that didn’t work, a sniper actually shot the gun out of the suspect’s hand.
When law enforcement knows a suspect is mentally ill, which in the Woodland case the police did, and that he had no criminal record, which I THINK they did, and there was no appreciable weapon involved (a pencil), then it might have been worth trying some less drastic technique than “dog-piling”.
If you don’t think “dog-piling” is dangerous, think again. It does kill suspects every year, because I’ve read about it in the papers. If police had any good sense or training, they would know that to dog-pile onto an obese person would be overly dangerous, putting on more pressure to organs than the fat already does. I, as a layperson, know enough about this from watching documentary’s on the morbidly obese.
An honest investigation needs to happen, into the use of tasering and dog-piling. And a search for better alternatives needs to be undertaken.
Matt:
On punitive damages. I understand your point there, what I guess I don’t understand from your point of view is if we do not allow for punitive damages, how can we hold public officials, in this case the police, and public agencies, accountable civilly for their actions?
Matt:
On punitive damages. I understand your point there, what I guess I don’t understand from your point of view is if we do not allow for punitive damages, how can we hold public officials, in this case the police, and public agencies, accountable civilly for their actions?
Matt:
On punitive damages. I understand your point there, what I guess I don’t understand from your point of view is if we do not allow for punitive damages, how can we hold public officials, in this case the police, and public agencies, accountable civilly for their actions?
Matt:
On punitive damages. I understand your point there, what I guess I don’t understand from your point of view is if we do not allow for punitive damages, how can we hold public officials, in this case the police, and public agencies, accountable civilly for their actions?
Ok — So define dog piling in a way that doesn’t happen on football fields all over America every Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the fall.
Clearly you have never tried to restrain someone.
Matt Rexroad
Ok — So define dog piling in a way that doesn’t happen on football fields all over America every Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the fall.
Clearly you have never tried to restrain someone.
Matt Rexroad
Ok — So define dog piling in a way that doesn’t happen on football fields all over America every Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the fall.
Clearly you have never tried to restrain someone.
Matt Rexroad
Ok — So define dog piling in a way that doesn’t happen on football fields all over America every Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during the fall.
Clearly you have never tried to restrain someone.
Matt Rexroad
“I have never met Robert Perry.”
…but. Matt Rexroad, have you ever worked FOR or WITH operations that he headed up??
“I have never met Robert Perry.”
…but. Matt Rexroad, have you ever worked FOR or WITH operations that he headed up??
“I have never met Robert Perry.”
…but. Matt Rexroad, have you ever worked FOR or WITH operations that he headed up??
“I have never met Robert Perry.”
…but. Matt Rexroad, have you ever worked FOR or WITH operations that he headed up??
Is there factual information available for answers to the following:
Did Mr. Abraham die at the scene? How long were they dog-piling him? Did he receive CPR and emergency mouth-to mouth ventilation when it was NOTICED that he was unconscious and not breathing?
Is there factual information available for answers to the following:
Did Mr. Abraham die at the scene? How long were they dog-piling him? Did he receive CPR and emergency mouth-to mouth ventilation when it was NOTICED that he was unconscious and not breathing?
Is there factual information available for answers to the following:
Did Mr. Abraham die at the scene? How long were they dog-piling him? Did he receive CPR and emergency mouth-to mouth ventilation when it was NOTICED that he was unconscious and not breathing?
Is there factual information available for answers to the following:
Did Mr. Abraham die at the scene? How long were they dog-piling him? Did he receive CPR and emergency mouth-to mouth ventilation when it was NOTICED that he was unconscious and not breathing?
When King was repeatedly tasered, it appeared to me as if he was having almost a normal physical reaction of trying to escape the pain.
King was not repeatedly tasered. He was shot once with a low-powered taser dart and the wire remained in his skin until he was finally handcuffed and hog-tied.
According to King’s own deposition given in his civil case, he never felt anything from the taser after the initial sting of the dart. He never removed it, nor did the police.
Source: Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD by Lou Cannon, published by Times Books, Random House, Inc., New York, New York, 1997.
When King was repeatedly tasered, it appeared to me as if he was having almost a normal physical reaction of trying to escape the pain.
King was not repeatedly tasered. He was shot once with a low-powered taser dart and the wire remained in his skin until he was finally handcuffed and hog-tied.
According to King’s own deposition given in his civil case, he never felt anything from the taser after the initial sting of the dart. He never removed it, nor did the police.
Source: Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD by Lou Cannon, published by Times Books, Random House, Inc., New York, New York, 1997.
When King was repeatedly tasered, it appeared to me as if he was having almost a normal physical reaction of trying to escape the pain.
King was not repeatedly tasered. He was shot once with a low-powered taser dart and the wire remained in his skin until he was finally handcuffed and hog-tied.
According to King’s own deposition given in his civil case, he never felt anything from the taser after the initial sting of the dart. He never removed it, nor did the police.
Source: Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD by Lou Cannon, published by Times Books, Random House, Inc., New York, New York, 1997.
When King was repeatedly tasered, it appeared to me as if he was having almost a normal physical reaction of trying to escape the pain.
King was not repeatedly tasered. He was shot once with a low-powered taser dart and the wire remained in his skin until he was finally handcuffed and hog-tied.
According to King’s own deposition given in his civil case, he never felt anything from the taser after the initial sting of the dart. He never removed it, nor did the police.
Source: Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD by Lou Cannon, published by Times Books, Random House, Inc., New York, New York, 1997.
“I want an investigation into the technique of “tasering” and “dog-piling”, so that one more mentally ill person does not have to be killed to be properly subdued. Why is that not something we should all wish for and try to attain?”
-Do you honestly think that anyone wished for this incident to result in the death of a human being?
-As far as I know, there is always an investigation when someone dies. Why else would there be a Coroner’s report everyone is talking about?
“To the person that asks how do you subdue a 300 lb mentally ill person, I have seen it done. Good police forces who are well trained can talk someone who is mentally ill out of foolish actions, to an amazing degree.”
-I am sure this is always the desired outcome, and this was probably great police work. Just because you witnessed an incident like this does not mean EVERY incident can be resolved through negotiation. Every event is different and I don’t think you can come up with a formula that is bound to work every time in these situations. If a suicide counselor fails to talk their patient out of suicide does that meant they are bad at what they do? Do you know if these officer tried to talk to Abraham?
“I watched some footage of an incident, in which a mentally unbalanced person with a gun sat on a chair in the middle of the street. If the police had a right to shoot a suspect for being a danger to the public, this was it. Yet SWAT held off. First they tried to reason with the guy. When that didn’t work, a sniper actually shot the gun out of the suspect’s hand.”
-I am not totally familiar with the Woodland case (other than what was in the news), but what you are describing sounds completely different. You are criticizing the Woodland Police for using a taser and “dog-piling” in a situation that, unfortunately and surprisingly, turned deadly. This video you saw sounds like a stand-off that lasted for some time (at least long enough for a SWAT team and snipers to arrive). The two sound worlds apart.
“When law enforcement knows a suspect is mentally ill, which in the Woodland case the police did, and that he had no criminal record, which I THINK they did, and there was no appreciable weapon involved (a pencil), then it might have been worth trying some less drastic technique than “dog-piling”.
-Well from the newspaper articles it is obvious the tasers did not work. You say the “dog piling” is bad. So what can the police do to get someone under control who decides to resist? What would be something less drastic?
You said this person is mentally ill. Can some mentally ill people still pose a threat?
You wrote that you THINK the officers must have known this person has no criminal history. Why do you think that? Does that matter? Should the police be more apt to use physical force against someone WITH a criminal history? Can’t a person without a criminal history be threatening?
“I want an investigation into the technique of “tasering” and “dog-piling”, so that one more mentally ill person does not have to be killed to be properly subdued. Why is that not something we should all wish for and try to attain?”
-Do you honestly think that anyone wished for this incident to result in the death of a human being?
-As far as I know, there is always an investigation when someone dies. Why else would there be a Coroner’s report everyone is talking about?
“To the person that asks how do you subdue a 300 lb mentally ill person, I have seen it done. Good police forces who are well trained can talk someone who is mentally ill out of foolish actions, to an amazing degree.”
-I am sure this is always the desired outcome, and this was probably great police work. Just because you witnessed an incident like this does not mean EVERY incident can be resolved through negotiation. Every event is different and I don’t think you can come up with a formula that is bound to work every time in these situations. If a suicide counselor fails to talk their patient out of suicide does that meant they are bad at what they do? Do you know if these officer tried to talk to Abraham?
“I watched some footage of an incident, in which a mentally unbalanced person with a gun sat on a chair in the middle of the street. If the police had a right to shoot a suspect for being a danger to the public, this was it. Yet SWAT held off. First they tried to reason with the guy. When that didn’t work, a sniper actually shot the gun out of the suspect’s hand.”
-I am not totally familiar with the Woodland case (other than what was in the news), but what you are describing sounds completely different. You are criticizing the Woodland Police for using a taser and “dog-piling” in a situation that, unfortunately and surprisingly, turned deadly. This video you saw sounds like a stand-off that lasted for some time (at least long enough for a SWAT team and snipers to arrive). The two sound worlds apart.
“When law enforcement knows a suspect is mentally ill, which in the Woodland case the police did, and that he had no criminal record, which I THINK they did, and there was no appreciable weapon involved (a pencil), then it might have been worth trying some less drastic technique than “dog-piling”.
-Well from the newspaper articles it is obvious the tasers did not work. You say the “dog piling” is bad. So what can the police do to get someone under control who decides to resist? What would be something less drastic?
You said this person is mentally ill. Can some mentally ill people still pose a threat?
You wrote that you THINK the officers must have known this person has no criminal history. Why do you think that? Does that matter? Should the police be more apt to use physical force against someone WITH a criminal history? Can’t a person without a criminal history be threatening?
“I want an investigation into the technique of “tasering” and “dog-piling”, so that one more mentally ill person does not have to be killed to be properly subdued. Why is that not something we should all wish for and try to attain?”
-Do you honestly think that anyone wished for this incident to result in the death of a human being?
-As far as I know, there is always an investigation when someone dies. Why else would there be a Coroner’s report everyone is talking about?
“To the person that asks how do you subdue a 300 lb mentally ill person, I have seen it done. Good police forces who are well trained can talk someone who is mentally ill out of foolish actions, to an amazing degree.”
-I am sure this is always the desired outcome, and this was probably great police work. Just because you witnessed an incident like this does not mean EVERY incident can be resolved through negotiation. Every event is different and I don’t think you can come up with a formula that is bound to work every time in these situations. If a suicide counselor fails to talk their patient out of suicide does that meant they are bad at what they do? Do you know if these officer tried to talk to Abraham?
“I watched some footage of an incident, in which a mentally unbalanced person with a gun sat on a chair in the middle of the street. If the police had a right to shoot a suspect for being a danger to the public, this was it. Yet SWAT held off. First they tried to reason with the guy. When that didn’t work, a sniper actually shot the gun out of the suspect’s hand.”
-I am not totally familiar with the Woodland case (other than what was in the news), but what you are describing sounds completely different. You are criticizing the Woodland Police for using a taser and “dog-piling” in a situation that, unfortunately and surprisingly, turned deadly. This video you saw sounds like a stand-off that lasted for some time (at least long enough for a SWAT team and snipers to arrive). The two sound worlds apart.
“When law enforcement knows a suspect is mentally ill, which in the Woodland case the police did, and that he had no criminal record, which I THINK they did, and there was no appreciable weapon involved (a pencil), then it might have been worth trying some less drastic technique than “dog-piling”.
-Well from the newspaper articles it is obvious the tasers did not work. You say the “dog piling” is bad. So what can the police do to get someone under control who decides to resist? What would be something less drastic?
You said this person is mentally ill. Can some mentally ill people still pose a threat?
You wrote that you THINK the officers must have known this person has no criminal history. Why do you think that? Does that matter? Should the police be more apt to use physical force against someone WITH a criminal history? Can’t a person without a criminal history be threatening?
“I want an investigation into the technique of “tasering” and “dog-piling”, so that one more mentally ill person does not have to be killed to be properly subdued. Why is that not something we should all wish for and try to attain?”
-Do you honestly think that anyone wished for this incident to result in the death of a human being?
-As far as I know, there is always an investigation when someone dies. Why else would there be a Coroner’s report everyone is talking about?
“To the person that asks how do you subdue a 300 lb mentally ill person, I have seen it done. Good police forces who are well trained can talk someone who is mentally ill out of foolish actions, to an amazing degree.”
-I am sure this is always the desired outcome, and this was probably great police work. Just because you witnessed an incident like this does not mean EVERY incident can be resolved through negotiation. Every event is different and I don’t think you can come up with a formula that is bound to work every time in these situations. If a suicide counselor fails to talk their patient out of suicide does that meant they are bad at what they do? Do you know if these officer tried to talk to Abraham?
“I watched some footage of an incident, in which a mentally unbalanced person with a gun sat on a chair in the middle of the street. If the police had a right to shoot a suspect for being a danger to the public, this was it. Yet SWAT held off. First they tried to reason with the guy. When that didn’t work, a sniper actually shot the gun out of the suspect’s hand.”
-I am not totally familiar with the Woodland case (other than what was in the news), but what you are describing sounds completely different. You are criticizing the Woodland Police for using a taser and “dog-piling” in a situation that, unfortunately and surprisingly, turned deadly. This video you saw sounds like a stand-off that lasted for some time (at least long enough for a SWAT team and snipers to arrive). The two sound worlds apart.
“When law enforcement knows a suspect is mentally ill, which in the Woodland case the police did, and that he had no criminal record, which I THINK they did, and there was no appreciable weapon involved (a pencil), then it might have been worth trying some less drastic technique than “dog-piling”.
-Well from the newspaper articles it is obvious the tasers did not work. You say the “dog piling” is bad. So what can the police do to get someone under control who decides to resist? What would be something less drastic?
You said this person is mentally ill. Can some mentally ill people still pose a threat?
You wrote that you THINK the officers must have known this person has no criminal history. Why do you think that? Does that matter? Should the police be more apt to use physical force against someone WITH a criminal history? Can’t a person without a criminal history be threatening?
Respectfully, whether the attorney ” is going for the dough” is immaterial. I do not know too many professionals who work for free. It seems that a law suit will be the primary deterrent to sweeping the incident “under the carpet”. However, its legal for the family to file a claim and seek compensation for their loved one’s death without a political motive.
I find it disgusting that Mr. Rexroad feels that he is in a position to devalue this person’s worth. Nice guy or not, it seems rather arrogant. It also detracts from the real issue.
The fact of the matter is a man is dead.
There was ample information available to authorities about his mental health status so that the officers could make an ” informed decision” (regarding how best to deal with him). Whether that blame belongs with the facility not properly reporting information and/or the Woodland Police Department not being adequately trained, I don’t know. Being mentally ill is not a crime, last I learned. However, viewing a person with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be.
Respectfully, whether the attorney ” is going for the dough” is immaterial. I do not know too many professionals who work for free. It seems that a law suit will be the primary deterrent to sweeping the incident “under the carpet”. However, its legal for the family to file a claim and seek compensation for their loved one’s death without a political motive.
I find it disgusting that Mr. Rexroad feels that he is in a position to devalue this person’s worth. Nice guy or not, it seems rather arrogant. It also detracts from the real issue.
The fact of the matter is a man is dead.
There was ample information available to authorities about his mental health status so that the officers could make an ” informed decision” (regarding how best to deal with him). Whether that blame belongs with the facility not properly reporting information and/or the Woodland Police Department not being adequately trained, I don’t know. Being mentally ill is not a crime, last I learned. However, viewing a person with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be.
Respectfully, whether the attorney ” is going for the dough” is immaterial. I do not know too many professionals who work for free. It seems that a law suit will be the primary deterrent to sweeping the incident “under the carpet”. However, its legal for the family to file a claim and seek compensation for their loved one’s death without a political motive.
I find it disgusting that Mr. Rexroad feels that he is in a position to devalue this person’s worth. Nice guy or not, it seems rather arrogant. It also detracts from the real issue.
The fact of the matter is a man is dead.
There was ample information available to authorities about his mental health status so that the officers could make an ” informed decision” (regarding how best to deal with him). Whether that blame belongs with the facility not properly reporting information and/or the Woodland Police Department not being adequately trained, I don’t know. Being mentally ill is not a crime, last I learned. However, viewing a person with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be.
Respectfully, whether the attorney ” is going for the dough” is immaterial. I do not know too many professionals who work for free. It seems that a law suit will be the primary deterrent to sweeping the incident “under the carpet”. However, its legal for the family to file a claim and seek compensation for their loved one’s death without a political motive.
I find it disgusting that Mr. Rexroad feels that he is in a position to devalue this person’s worth. Nice guy or not, it seems rather arrogant. It also detracts from the real issue.
The fact of the matter is a man is dead.
There was ample information available to authorities about his mental health status so that the officers could make an ” informed decision” (regarding how best to deal with him). Whether that blame belongs with the facility not properly reporting information and/or the Woodland Police Department not being adequately trained, I don’t know. Being mentally ill is not a crime, last I learned. However, viewing a person with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be.
“Being mentally ill is not a crime, last I learned. However, viewing a person with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be.”
All this is very true, but is that what happened here?
Seeing someone with a mental health condition as INHERENTLY dangerous would mean that he or she would be considered dangerous due to that very condition alone. Perhaps this person considered dangerous based on his behavior and not his mental illness. Perhaps it was a combination of acts, responses, and circumstances.
“Being mentally ill is not a crime, last I learned. However, viewing a person with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be.”
All this is very true, but is that what happened here?
Seeing someone with a mental health condition as INHERENTLY dangerous would mean that he or she would be considered dangerous due to that very condition alone. Perhaps this person considered dangerous based on his behavior and not his mental illness. Perhaps it was a combination of acts, responses, and circumstances.
“Being mentally ill is not a crime, last I learned. However, viewing a person with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be.”
All this is very true, but is that what happened here?
Seeing someone with a mental health condition as INHERENTLY dangerous would mean that he or she would be considered dangerous due to that very condition alone. Perhaps this person considered dangerous based on his behavior and not his mental illness. Perhaps it was a combination of acts, responses, and circumstances.
“Being mentally ill is not a crime, last I learned. However, viewing a person with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be.”
All this is very true, but is that what happened here?
Seeing someone with a mental health condition as INHERENTLY dangerous would mean that he or she would be considered dangerous due to that very condition alone. Perhaps this person considered dangerous based on his behavior and not his mental illness. Perhaps it was a combination of acts, responses, and circumstances.
“Seeing someone with a mental health condition as INHERENTLY dangerous would mean that he or she would be considered dangerous due to that very condition alone. Perhaps this person considered dangerous based on his behavior and not his mental illness. Perhaps it was a combination of acts, responses, and circumstances.”
We don’t necessarily know all the facts. What we do know is the victim was not anyone with a criminal background. We also know he was mentally ill. Would it hurt the police to investigate the possibility there is a better way to handle the mentally ill, exhibiting strange/antisocial behavior, than exterminating them?
“Seeing someone with a mental health condition as INHERENTLY dangerous would mean that he or she would be considered dangerous due to that very condition alone. Perhaps this person considered dangerous based on his behavior and not his mental illness. Perhaps it was a combination of acts, responses, and circumstances.”
We don’t necessarily know all the facts. What we do know is the victim was not anyone with a criminal background. We also know he was mentally ill. Would it hurt the police to investigate the possibility there is a better way to handle the mentally ill, exhibiting strange/antisocial behavior, than exterminating them?
“Seeing someone with a mental health condition as INHERENTLY dangerous would mean that he or she would be considered dangerous due to that very condition alone. Perhaps this person considered dangerous based on his behavior and not his mental illness. Perhaps it was a combination of acts, responses, and circumstances.”
We don’t necessarily know all the facts. What we do know is the victim was not anyone with a criminal background. We also know he was mentally ill. Would it hurt the police to investigate the possibility there is a better way to handle the mentally ill, exhibiting strange/antisocial behavior, than exterminating them?
“Seeing someone with a mental health condition as INHERENTLY dangerous would mean that he or she would be considered dangerous due to that very condition alone. Perhaps this person considered dangerous based on his behavior and not his mental illness. Perhaps it was a combination of acts, responses, and circumstances.”
We don’t necessarily know all the facts. What we do know is the victim was not anyone with a criminal background. We also know he was mentally ill. Would it hurt the police to investigate the possibility there is a better way to handle the mentally ill, exhibiting strange/antisocial behavior, than exterminating them?
LOOKING you are absolutely right!!!! Any organization (private or public) should set aside resources to find better ways of doing business. Police are no different.
The best medicine practices often evolve from terrible diseases. The deadliest accidents often inspire cutting edge engineering. With that said, you can never eliminate the chances of something like happening again. All you can do is minimize the probability.
I completely agree with your perspective on this but there is world of difference between what YOU are saying, and those trying to assume the police handled this in a substandard manner. We just don’t know.
LOOKING you are absolutely right!!!! Any organization (private or public) should set aside resources to find better ways of doing business. Police are no different.
The best medicine practices often evolve from terrible diseases. The deadliest accidents often inspire cutting edge engineering. With that said, you can never eliminate the chances of something like happening again. All you can do is minimize the probability.
I completely agree with your perspective on this but there is world of difference between what YOU are saying, and those trying to assume the police handled this in a substandard manner. We just don’t know.
LOOKING you are absolutely right!!!! Any organization (private or public) should set aside resources to find better ways of doing business. Police are no different.
The best medicine practices often evolve from terrible diseases. The deadliest accidents often inspire cutting edge engineering. With that said, you can never eliminate the chances of something like happening again. All you can do is minimize the probability.
I completely agree with your perspective on this but there is world of difference between what YOU are saying, and those trying to assume the police handled this in a substandard manner. We just don’t know.
LOOKING you are absolutely right!!!! Any organization (private or public) should set aside resources to find better ways of doing business. Police are no different.
The best medicine practices often evolve from terrible diseases. The deadliest accidents often inspire cutting edge engineering. With that said, you can never eliminate the chances of something like happening again. All you can do is minimize the probability.
I completely agree with your perspective on this but there is world of difference between what YOU are saying, and those trying to assume the police handled this in a substandard manner. We just don’t know.
As I previously stated, " viewing someone with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be a crime."
That was a general statement that I stand by.
We can "perhaps.." this into infinity regarding specifics. However, until all the facts are determined, we are left with one that is truly overwhelming: this person is dead. Reportedly, he was determined NOT to be a danger to self or others by his psychiatrist (or psychologist); he voluntarily went to an outpatient mental health facility; and the fact is that by law he can voluntarily walk himself out. Some concern on the part of the mental health staff elicited a call to the police.
What transpired between his leaving the outpatient facility and dying remains to be explored with facts as they surface, not conjecture.
In general, one preventive solution:
When working with a mentally ill person who is " acting out" it is imperative that a person be knowledgable & skilled at not escalating/exascerbating an encounter. This goes back to effective training and supervision, whether you are a police officer or mental health professional. This is successfully done in locked and unlocked facilities on a daily basis.
As I previously stated, " viewing someone with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be a crime."
That was a general statement that I stand by.
We can "perhaps.." this into infinity regarding specifics. However, until all the facts are determined, we are left with one that is truly overwhelming: this person is dead. Reportedly, he was determined NOT to be a danger to self or others by his psychiatrist (or psychologist); he voluntarily went to an outpatient mental health facility; and the fact is that by law he can voluntarily walk himself out. Some concern on the part of the mental health staff elicited a call to the police.
What transpired between his leaving the outpatient facility and dying remains to be explored with facts as they surface, not conjecture.
In general, one preventive solution:
When working with a mentally ill person who is " acting out" it is imperative that a person be knowledgable & skilled at not escalating/exascerbating an encounter. This goes back to effective training and supervision, whether you are a police officer or mental health professional. This is successfully done in locked and unlocked facilities on a daily basis.
As I previously stated, " viewing someone with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be a crime."
That was a general statement that I stand by.
We can "perhaps.." this into infinity regarding specifics. However, until all the facts are determined, we are left with one that is truly overwhelming: this person is dead. Reportedly, he was determined NOT to be a danger to self or others by his psychiatrist (or psychologist); he voluntarily went to an outpatient mental health facility; and the fact is that by law he can voluntarily walk himself out. Some concern on the part of the mental health staff elicited a call to the police.
What transpired between his leaving the outpatient facility and dying remains to be explored with facts as they surface, not conjecture.
In general, one preventive solution:
When working with a mentally ill person who is " acting out" it is imperative that a person be knowledgable & skilled at not escalating/exascerbating an encounter. This goes back to effective training and supervision, whether you are a police officer or mental health professional. This is successfully done in locked and unlocked facilities on a daily basis.
As I previously stated, " viewing someone with a mental illness as being inherently dangerous should be a crime."
That was a general statement that I stand by.
We can "perhaps.." this into infinity regarding specifics. However, until all the facts are determined, we are left with one that is truly overwhelming: this person is dead. Reportedly, he was determined NOT to be a danger to self or others by his psychiatrist (or psychologist); he voluntarily went to an outpatient mental health facility; and the fact is that by law he can voluntarily walk himself out. Some concern on the part of the mental health staff elicited a call to the police.
What transpired between his leaving the outpatient facility and dying remains to be explored with facts as they surface, not conjecture.
In general, one preventive solution:
When working with a mentally ill person who is " acting out" it is imperative that a person be knowledgable & skilled at not escalating/exascerbating an encounter. This goes back to effective training and supervision, whether you are a police officer or mental health professional. This is successfully done in locked and unlocked facilities on a daily basis.
ANON, I completely agree with your statement that mental health patients should not be viewed as “inherently” dangerous. I am just not convinced that was a problem in this case.
According to the Daily Democrat, the Attorney General’s Office are conducting their own investigation. I am sure that between the inquiries and pending litigation, there will be sufficient fact finding pertaining to this tragic event.
ANON, I completely agree with your statement that mental health patients should not be viewed as “inherently” dangerous. I am just not convinced that was a problem in this case.
According to the Daily Democrat, the Attorney General’s Office are conducting their own investigation. I am sure that between the inquiries and pending litigation, there will be sufficient fact finding pertaining to this tragic event.
ANON, I completely agree with your statement that mental health patients should not be viewed as “inherently” dangerous. I am just not convinced that was a problem in this case.
According to the Daily Democrat, the Attorney General’s Office are conducting their own investigation. I am sure that between the inquiries and pending litigation, there will be sufficient fact finding pertaining to this tragic event.
ANON, I completely agree with your statement that mental health patients should not be viewed as “inherently” dangerous. I am just not convinced that was a problem in this case.
According to the Daily Democrat, the Attorney General’s Office are conducting their own investigation. I am sure that between the inquiries and pending litigation, there will be sufficient fact finding pertaining to this tragic event.
“This goes back to effective training and supervision, whether you are a police officer or mental health professional. This is successfully done in locked and unlocked facilities on a daily basis.”
Good point!!!
So how many times do The Woodland Police deal with mentally ill people without any violence or incident every week? Month? Year? Could it be that these incidents don’t get any media attention because they are so routine?
“This goes back to effective training and supervision, whether you are a police officer or mental health professional. This is successfully done in locked and unlocked facilities on a daily basis.”
Good point!!!
So how many times do The Woodland Police deal with mentally ill people without any violence or incident every week? Month? Year? Could it be that these incidents don’t get any media attention because they are so routine?
“This goes back to effective training and supervision, whether you are a police officer or mental health professional. This is successfully done in locked and unlocked facilities on a daily basis.”
Good point!!!
So how many times do The Woodland Police deal with mentally ill people without any violence or incident every week? Month? Year? Could it be that these incidents don’t get any media attention because they are so routine?
“This goes back to effective training and supervision, whether you are a police officer or mental health professional. This is successfully done in locked and unlocked facilities on a daily basis.”
Good point!!!
So how many times do The Woodland Police deal with mentally ill people without any violence or incident every week? Month? Year? Could it be that these incidents don’t get any media attention because they are so routine?
If I asphyxiated a mentally ill family member while trying to control that person, I would be in jail. It would be up to a jury to decide whether I was criminally negligent or guilty of manslaughter in the heat of the moment. If I claimed I was helping him, I doubt any jury would take that claim very seriously. All of the police involved should be arrested and prosecuted, preferably by the federal government, since Yolo County’s judicial system is so corrupt. It is appalling that the police rationale that they had to kill him to help him is just accepted without question. They were obviously not there to help him. This man keeps being described as mentally disturbed, but I don’t think so. He is also described as seeking help for anxiety. If everyone occasionally overcome by anxiety were considered mentally disturbed, the whole world would be a mental ward. Also disturbing is the dismissive attitude toward the value of the man. He was an educated man on his way to becoming an attorney, not a bum, but because he admitted to an emotional problem, suddenly he is a worthless bum? Abrahams was respected within the legal community and at the Yolo County law library which he frequented in the course of his work. No obvious mental disturbance was evident. If his life were to be valued purely economically as suggested, there is no reason to believe he would not have become a very successful attorney and it would be fair to value his life in the multiple millions. It wasn’t the alleged mental disturbance which cost him his life, but racist anger and arrogance by ignorant police when Abrahams asserted his civil right to keep on walking down the street without interference from them. Obey me unquestioningly or die! Is that the law enforcement regime under which you wish to live? Is that how free you want to be in this falsely advertised as free society? It was Ricardo Abrahams’ education which cost him his life. He knew the police had no legal right to stop him and he asserted that right. For knowing his rights and invoking them, the police killed him. Abrahams was a voluntary patient, and as such, had the legal right to leave the clinic and continue on unmolested by the police, who had no probable cause to stop him and no legal right to do so. The fact that the clinic made an unlawful request of the police is no excuse. They should have known better than to interfere in a civil matter of this nature. The fact that a man asserted his civil rights is no reason to believe he could be a danger to himself. Indeed, he did not endanger himself. The police endangered him, and under that standard, should have taken themselves into custody and delivered themselves to the mental ward on Cottonwood for evaluation. Testosterone overdose, megalomaniacal egotism, sadistic abuse of authority . . . .? I have no doubt whatsoever that there was a criminal conspiracy to violate Abrahams’ civil rights as well as other civilly actionable federal causes for civil rights violations. The clinic conspired with the police in unlawfully trying to stop him. At minimum, Woodland is guilty of failure to properly train the police, who should have known the attempted stop was unlawful. Let’s also not forget that Abrahams was denied the use of the public sidewalk and killed because of an apparent disability, which violates the ADA and state civil rights laws as well. The hicks and rednecks of Woodland should pay for this until they bleed, because that is the only way the Woodland Police Department will be changed into a civilized agency.
If I asphyxiated a mentally ill family member while trying to control that person, I would be in jail. It would be up to a jury to decide whether I was criminally negligent or guilty of manslaughter in the heat of the moment. If I claimed I was helping him, I doubt any jury would take that claim very seriously. All of the police involved should be arrested and prosecuted, preferably by the federal government, since Yolo County’s judicial system is so corrupt. It is appalling that the police rationale that they had to kill him to help him is just accepted without question. They were obviously not there to help him. This man keeps being described as mentally disturbed, but I don’t think so. He is also described as seeking help for anxiety. If everyone occasionally overcome by anxiety were considered mentally disturbed, the whole world would be a mental ward. Also disturbing is the dismissive attitude toward the value of the man. He was an educated man on his way to becoming an attorney, not a bum, but because he admitted to an emotional problem, suddenly he is a worthless bum? Abrahams was respected within the legal community and at the Yolo County law library which he frequented in the course of his work. No obvious mental disturbance was evident. If his life were to be valued purely economically as suggested, there is no reason to believe he would not have become a very successful attorney and it would be fair to value his life in the multiple millions. It wasn’t the alleged mental disturbance which cost him his life, but racist anger and arrogance by ignorant police when Abrahams asserted his civil right to keep on walking down the street without interference from them. Obey me unquestioningly or die! Is that the law enforcement regime under which you wish to live? Is that how free you want to be in this falsely advertised as free society? It was Ricardo Abrahams’ education which cost him his life. He knew the police had no legal right to stop him and he asserted that right. For knowing his rights and invoking them, the police killed him. Abrahams was a voluntary patient, and as such, had the legal right to leave the clinic and continue on unmolested by the police, who had no probable cause to stop him and no legal right to do so. The fact that the clinic made an unlawful request of the police is no excuse. They should have known better than to interfere in a civil matter of this nature. The fact that a man asserted his civil rights is no reason to believe he could be a danger to himself. Indeed, he did not endanger himself. The police endangered him, and under that standard, should have taken themselves into custody and delivered themselves to the mental ward on Cottonwood for evaluation. Testosterone overdose, megalomaniacal egotism, sadistic abuse of authority . . . .? I have no doubt whatsoever that there was a criminal conspiracy to violate Abrahams’ civil rights as well as other civilly actionable federal causes for civil rights violations. The clinic conspired with the police in unlawfully trying to stop him. At minimum, Woodland is guilty of failure to properly train the police, who should have known the attempted stop was unlawful. Let’s also not forget that Abrahams was denied the use of the public sidewalk and killed because of an apparent disability, which violates the ADA and state civil rights laws as well. The hicks and rednecks of Woodland should pay for this until they bleed, because that is the only way the Woodland Police Department will be changed into a civilized agency.
If I asphyxiated a mentally ill family member while trying to control that person, I would be in jail. It would be up to a jury to decide whether I was criminally negligent or guilty of manslaughter in the heat of the moment. If I claimed I was helping him, I doubt any jury would take that claim very seriously. All of the police involved should be arrested and prosecuted, preferably by the federal government, since Yolo County’s judicial system is so corrupt. It is appalling that the police rationale that they had to kill him to help him is just accepted without question. They were obviously not there to help him. This man keeps being described as mentally disturbed, but I don’t think so. He is also described as seeking help for anxiety. If everyone occasionally overcome by anxiety were considered mentally disturbed, the whole world would be a mental ward. Also disturbing is the dismissive attitude toward the value of the man. He was an educated man on his way to becoming an attorney, not a bum, but because he admitted to an emotional problem, suddenly he is a worthless bum? Abrahams was respected within the legal community and at the Yolo County law library which he frequented in the course of his work. No obvious mental disturbance was evident. If his life were to be valued purely economically as suggested, there is no reason to believe he would not have become a very successful attorney and it would be fair to value his life in the multiple millions. It wasn’t the alleged mental disturbance which cost him his life, but racist anger and arrogance by ignorant police when Abrahams asserted his civil right to keep on walking down the street without interference from them. Obey me unquestioningly or die! Is that the law enforcement regime under which you wish to live? Is that how free you want to be in this falsely advertised as free society? It was Ricardo Abrahams’ education which cost him his life. He knew the police had no legal right to stop him and he asserted that right. For knowing his rights and invoking them, the police killed him. Abrahams was a voluntary patient, and as such, had the legal right to leave the clinic and continue on unmolested by the police, who had no probable cause to stop him and no legal right to do so. The fact that the clinic made an unlawful request of the police is no excuse. They should have known better than to interfere in a civil matter of this nature. The fact that a man asserted his civil rights is no reason to believe he could be a danger to himself. Indeed, he did not endanger himself. The police endangered him, and under that standard, should have taken themselves into custody and delivered themselves to the mental ward on Cottonwood for evaluation. Testosterone overdose, megalomaniacal egotism, sadistic abuse of authority . . . .? I have no doubt whatsoever that there was a criminal conspiracy to violate Abrahams’ civil rights as well as other civilly actionable federal causes for civil rights violations. The clinic conspired with the police in unlawfully trying to stop him. At minimum, Woodland is guilty of failure to properly train the police, who should have known the attempted stop was unlawful. Let’s also not forget that Abrahams was denied the use of the public sidewalk and killed because of an apparent disability, which violates the ADA and state civil rights laws as well. The hicks and rednecks of Woodland should pay for this until they bleed, because that is the only way the Woodland Police Department will be changed into a civilized agency.
If I asphyxiated a mentally ill family member while trying to control that person, I would be in jail. It would be up to a jury to decide whether I was criminally negligent or guilty of manslaughter in the heat of the moment. If I claimed I was helping him, I doubt any jury would take that claim very seriously. All of the police involved should be arrested and prosecuted, preferably by the federal government, since Yolo County’s judicial system is so corrupt. It is appalling that the police rationale that they had to kill him to help him is just accepted without question. They were obviously not there to help him. This man keeps being described as mentally disturbed, but I don’t think so. He is also described as seeking help for anxiety. If everyone occasionally overcome by anxiety were considered mentally disturbed, the whole world would be a mental ward. Also disturbing is the dismissive attitude toward the value of the man. He was an educated man on his way to becoming an attorney, not a bum, but because he admitted to an emotional problem, suddenly he is a worthless bum? Abrahams was respected within the legal community and at the Yolo County law library which he frequented in the course of his work. No obvious mental disturbance was evident. If his life were to be valued purely economically as suggested, there is no reason to believe he would not have become a very successful attorney and it would be fair to value his life in the multiple millions. It wasn’t the alleged mental disturbance which cost him his life, but racist anger and arrogance by ignorant police when Abrahams asserted his civil right to keep on walking down the street without interference from them. Obey me unquestioningly or die! Is that the law enforcement regime under which you wish to live? Is that how free you want to be in this falsely advertised as free society? It was Ricardo Abrahams’ education which cost him his life. He knew the police had no legal right to stop him and he asserted that right. For knowing his rights and invoking them, the police killed him. Abrahams was a voluntary patient, and as such, had the legal right to leave the clinic and continue on unmolested by the police, who had no probable cause to stop him and no legal right to do so. The fact that the clinic made an unlawful request of the police is no excuse. They should have known better than to interfere in a civil matter of this nature. The fact that a man asserted his civil rights is no reason to believe he could be a danger to himself. Indeed, he did not endanger himself. The police endangered him, and under that standard, should have taken themselves into custody and delivered themselves to the mental ward on Cottonwood for evaluation. Testosterone overdose, megalomaniacal egotism, sadistic abuse of authority . . . .? I have no doubt whatsoever that there was a criminal conspiracy to violate Abrahams’ civil rights as well as other civilly actionable federal causes for civil rights violations. The clinic conspired with the police in unlawfully trying to stop him. At minimum, Woodland is guilty of failure to properly train the police, who should have known the attempted stop was unlawful. Let’s also not forget that Abrahams was denied the use of the public sidewalk and killed because of an apparent disability, which violates the ADA and state civil rights laws as well. The hicks and rednecks of Woodland should pay for this until they bleed, because that is the only way the Woodland Police Department will be changed into a civilized agency.
I am not surprised to see again that the gang in uniform committed crimes. It is not just a lake of training that somebody in uniform can not differ between people with mental disability and normal and healthy persons. It is more than this: it is disrespect and violence readiness by police. The state gives them uniform and guns and send them to street. Most of them are not educated and even did not attend school regularly. The second reason is that we face in Yolo county with some sort of republican mafia, which holds the key position in public life. Beginning with Jeff Reisig as DA to Judges like Basha and Rosenberg, who serves corporations for long time. The yolo county bog is meanwhile wellknown for its reckless and fascism. Gestapo and SS would feel happy here. Here is just a lack of concentration cam, which we would have long time ago if they were not afraid of public opinion.
willy
I am not surprised to see again that the gang in uniform committed crimes. It is not just a lake of training that somebody in uniform can not differ between people with mental disability and normal and healthy persons. It is more than this: it is disrespect and violence readiness by police. The state gives them uniform and guns and send them to street. Most of them are not educated and even did not attend school regularly. The second reason is that we face in Yolo county with some sort of republican mafia, which holds the key position in public life. Beginning with Jeff Reisig as DA to Judges like Basha and Rosenberg, who serves corporations for long time. The yolo county bog is meanwhile wellknown for its reckless and fascism. Gestapo and SS would feel happy here. Here is just a lack of concentration cam, which we would have long time ago if they were not afraid of public opinion.
willy
I am not surprised to see again that the gang in uniform committed crimes. It is not just a lake of training that somebody in uniform can not differ between people with mental disability and normal and healthy persons. It is more than this: it is disrespect and violence readiness by police. The state gives them uniform and guns and send them to street. Most of them are not educated and even did not attend school regularly. The second reason is that we face in Yolo county with some sort of republican mafia, which holds the key position in public life. Beginning with Jeff Reisig as DA to Judges like Basha and Rosenberg, who serves corporations for long time. The yolo county bog is meanwhile wellknown for its reckless and fascism. Gestapo and SS would feel happy here. Here is just a lack of concentration cam, which we would have long time ago if they were not afraid of public opinion.
willy
I am not surprised to see again that the gang in uniform committed crimes. It is not just a lake of training that somebody in uniform can not differ between people with mental disability and normal and healthy persons. It is more than this: it is disrespect and violence readiness by police. The state gives them uniform and guns and send them to street. Most of them are not educated and even did not attend school regularly. The second reason is that we face in Yolo county with some sort of republican mafia, which holds the key position in public life. Beginning with Jeff Reisig as DA to Judges like Basha and Rosenberg, who serves corporations for long time. The yolo county bog is meanwhile wellknown for its reckless and fascism. Gestapo and SS would feel happy here. Here is just a lack of concentration cam, which we would have long time ago if they were not afraid of public opinion.
willy
“The second reason is that we face in Yolo county with some sort of republican mafia, which holds the key position in public life. Beginning with Jeff Reisig as DA to Judges like Basha and Rosenberg, who serves corporations for long time.”
Rosenberg is a long time Democrat!
“The second reason is that we face in Yolo county with some sort of republican mafia, which holds the key position in public life. Beginning with Jeff Reisig as DA to Judges like Basha and Rosenberg, who serves corporations for long time.”
Rosenberg is a long time Democrat!
“The second reason is that we face in Yolo county with some sort of republican mafia, which holds the key position in public life. Beginning with Jeff Reisig as DA to Judges like Basha and Rosenberg, who serves corporations for long time.”
Rosenberg is a long time Democrat!
“The second reason is that we face in Yolo county with some sort of republican mafia, which holds the key position in public life. Beginning with Jeff Reisig as DA to Judges like Basha and Rosenberg, who serves corporations for long time.”
Rosenberg is a long time Democrat!
“Also disturbing is the dismissive attitude toward the value of the man. He was an educated man on his way to becoming an attorney, not a bum, but because he admitted to an emotional problem, suddenly he is a worthless bum? Abrahams was respected within the legal community and at the Yolo County law library which he frequented in the course of his work. No obvious mental disturbance was evident. If his life were to be valued purely economically as suggested, there is no reason to believe he would not have become a very successful attorney and it would be fair to value his life in the multiple millions.”
I suspect Rexroad commented on this person (the victim) not being particularly valuable because he was not doing well in law school. Ergo he probably would not have been a lawyer. However, he could have chosen another perfectly fine career, including one as a police officer if he so chose!
And by the way, a garbage collector is a valuable member of society. Just ask folks who have experienced a garbage strike! But Rexroad is trying to argue he doesn’t want the city of Woodland to pay this family a dime for any recompense for their son’s death – bc the victim supposedly wouldn’t have been worth that much monetarily. Rexroad has an interesting philosphy in life – certainly not one I subscribe to, and I am a registered Republican!
“Also disturbing is the dismissive attitude toward the value of the man. He was an educated man on his way to becoming an attorney, not a bum, but because he admitted to an emotional problem, suddenly he is a worthless bum? Abrahams was respected within the legal community and at the Yolo County law library which he frequented in the course of his work. No obvious mental disturbance was evident. If his life were to be valued purely economically as suggested, there is no reason to believe he would not have become a very successful attorney and it would be fair to value his life in the multiple millions.”
I suspect Rexroad commented on this person (the victim) not being particularly valuable because he was not doing well in law school. Ergo he probably would not have been a lawyer. However, he could have chosen another perfectly fine career, including one as a police officer if he so chose!
And by the way, a garbage collector is a valuable member of society. Just ask folks who have experienced a garbage strike! But Rexroad is trying to argue he doesn’t want the city of Woodland to pay this family a dime for any recompense for their son’s death – bc the victim supposedly wouldn’t have been worth that much monetarily. Rexroad has an interesting philosphy in life – certainly not one I subscribe to, and I am a registered Republican!
“Also disturbing is the dismissive attitude toward the value of the man. He was an educated man on his way to becoming an attorney, not a bum, but because he admitted to an emotional problem, suddenly he is a worthless bum? Abrahams was respected within the legal community and at the Yolo County law library which he frequented in the course of his work. No obvious mental disturbance was evident. If his life were to be valued purely economically as suggested, there is no reason to believe he would not have become a very successful attorney and it would be fair to value his life in the multiple millions.”
I suspect Rexroad commented on this person (the victim) not being particularly valuable because he was not doing well in law school. Ergo he probably would not have been a lawyer. However, he could have chosen another perfectly fine career, including one as a police officer if he so chose!
And by the way, a garbage collector is a valuable member of society. Just ask folks who have experienced a garbage strike! But Rexroad is trying to argue he doesn’t want the city of Woodland to pay this family a dime for any recompense for their son’s death – bc the victim supposedly wouldn’t have been worth that much monetarily. Rexroad has an interesting philosphy in life – certainly not one I subscribe to, and I am a registered Republican!
“Also disturbing is the dismissive attitude toward the value of the man. He was an educated man on his way to becoming an attorney, not a bum, but because he admitted to an emotional problem, suddenly he is a worthless bum? Abrahams was respected within the legal community and at the Yolo County law library which he frequented in the course of his work. No obvious mental disturbance was evident. If his life were to be valued purely economically as suggested, there is no reason to believe he would not have become a very successful attorney and it would be fair to value his life in the multiple millions.”
I suspect Rexroad commented on this person (the victim) not being particularly valuable because he was not doing well in law school. Ergo he probably would not have been a lawyer. However, he could have chosen another perfectly fine career, including one as a police officer if he so chose!
And by the way, a garbage collector is a valuable member of society. Just ask folks who have experienced a garbage strike! But Rexroad is trying to argue he doesn’t want the city of Woodland to pay this family a dime for any recompense for their son’s death – bc the victim supposedly wouldn’t have been worth that much monetarily. Rexroad has an interesting philosphy in life – certainly not one I subscribe to, and I am a registered Republican!