Cops Injecting Drugs into suspects

[dc dalton]

Well now I know I woke up in bizzaro land, seems Nashville police are using sedatives on suspects:

http://www.wsmv.com/news/16844880/detail.html#-

Now while I agree they need to be able to control the most unruly ones this just smacks a bit too much of Soviet Russia.

My friend reminded me of when that soviet sub sank a few years ago, All the wives and family were crying in public, on TV, and there was some woman walking through the crowd giving out injections without being asked. she would just walk up to a particularly hysterical person, slide the hypo into their shoulder, and walk on.

dunno, getting mighty creepy out there

[PisnNapalm]

80% of people experience amnesia? The legal implications are huge. If the accused can't remember the events, how can they properly defend themselves in court?

[Dredly]

Interesting... drug em or beat the shit out of em... ehh just shoot em and save the state the money

[pex]

80% of people experience amnesia? The legal implications are huge. If the accused can't remember the events, how can they properly defend themselves in court?

Anecdotal experience says amnesia covers a period only after the drugs take effect, so a person would only be at a disadvantage for anything that occurred after they were sedated.

We've got electrochemical systems, so if you say a tazer is alright, Versed is probably just as alright. Of course there are groups contraindicated for each, and you can't know which groups are just by looking at them.

Without knowing if Versed has an intramuscular route, I can't see how needlework could ever be effective. Having a sharp pointy object that can break off or poke random things doesn't sound like a good idea either.

I also have no idea how they're dosing. By weight is the first common dosage indicator. The next is genes that provide the ability to process. No idea how they decide either of those. There's obviously a different level of effect per concentration of drug.

[Delco Sig]

Anecdotal experience says amnesia covers a period only after the drugs take effect, so a person would only be at a disadvantage for anything that occurred after they were sedated.

We've got electrochemical systems, so if you say a tazer is alright, Versed is probably just as alright. Of course there are groups contraindicated for each, and you can't know which groups are just by looking at them.

Without knowing if Versed has an intramuscular route, I can't see how needlework could ever be effective. Having a sharp pointy object that can break off or poke random things doesn't sound like a good idea either.

I also have no idea how they're dosing. By weight is the first common dosage indicator. The next is genes that provide the ability to process. No idea how they decide either of those. There's obviously a different level of effect per concentration of drug.

Arguing for the side of Taser, the drug needs to wait for EMTs to arrive and (according to the gist I got from the article) make the call to actually use drugs. They said the person had to be suffering from hyper mania or something. If he's just on drugs, there could be dangerous effects. If the suspect is immediately violent and unruly, you need to put them down NOW, not wait 10-15 minutes for EMTs. Also, I don't see how someone can take a Taser hit and not drop; I've never heard of that. I'm willing to bet he wasn't hit with both probes and/or it was a malfunctioning Taser. I've seen bulls get shot with these things and drop like stones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9lFgwjQjKA (we're going to ignore the fact that this is an anti-Taser ad. They're proven safe on people. Most people who get hit by them willingly say they're really not that bad. You're fine 30 seconds after you get hit.)

[LittleRedToyota]

We've got electrochemical systems, so if you say a tazer is alright, Versed is probably just as alright.

i say a taser is OK.

i say involuntary administration of drugs is most certainly not OK (outside of a hospital/involuntary commitment setting).

a taser does not alter your state of mind, and its effects last for a very limited time.

a few minutes or even seconds after being tased, you are back to normal...fully aware of what is happening to you.

with drugs, that is not the case. anyone could do anything to you, and you probably would not even remember it.

also, you pretty much already have to be under some amount of control to adminster the drugs. the taser can be administered from a distance to a subject who is not at all under control. that is not the case with drugs. in order to adminster the drugs, the person has to already be under some degree of control.

basically, a taser allows a subject to be temporarily (very temporarily) brought under control from a safe distance so he can be restrained. involuntary administration of drugs via needle does not do this. so, the argument that makes use of a taser reasonable starts to fall apart when it is applied to involuntarily drug administration via a needle.

[billt]

They're going to end up killing someone and find themselves at the a$$ end of a 7 digit law suit which they will most likely lose. I can't believe how stupid some of these police departments are. The taxpayers will wind up paying. One way or another. Bill T.

[pex]

a taser does not alter your state of mind, and its effects last for a very limited time.

a few minutes or even seconds after being tased, you are back to normal...fully aware of what is happening to you.

I should probably read more on tasers.

In the meanwhile, consider:
Electroconvulsive therapy given for various psychological illnesses yet is not administered by sticking an electrode right into the brain. The electricity comes from the outside. How much concern should we have that being electrocuted is affecting the brain?

I certainly don't think the Versed plan is a good idea.

[Rule10b5]

That's fucking insane.

You have non-doctors administering an incredibly powerful drug, in a pre-measured dose, into agitated and uncontrollable people who haven't had any kind of a work-up, and outside of a medical setting.

Oh, and if you give it Versed to someone who's drunk or on another "downer" you can kill him.

And it'll retard a baby if the dose is high enough.

What do you think a pre-measured dose that'll put down a 220 lb man will do to 110 lb. woman who's had 2 drinks?

And what are they going to do to deal with those cases, which are inevitable? Are they going to train the officer on the signs of an OD, and issue him pre-measured shots of a benzo antagonist that he has to administer every couple of minutes, just in case, and until the medics show up?

I don't know why they're treating Versed like candy; it's a freight-train of a drug. Do a little research. It's incredibly dangerous in untrained hands, and the long term implications (on memory) from even one good sized dose were enough that I declined it during a colonoscopy. It was insanely painful, but I want nothing to do with that drug.

The other problem is that it's just another cop "toy." They issue you the gear, you're going to want to use it.

[LittleRedToyota]

In the meanwhile, consider:
Electroconvulsive therapy given for various psychological illnesses yet is not administered by sticking an electrode right into the brain. The electricity comes from the outside. How much concern should we have that being electrocuted is affecting the brain?

i wouldn't equate being tased with being elecrocuted. nor is it the same as electroconvulsive therapy.

for me, there is one giant issue regarding tasers that the detractors have never been able to address, imho: every single police officer who uses a taser gets tased as part of the training. not a single one of them has died. as far as i know, not a single one of them has ever had any ill effects outside of something like a minor injury as a result of falling down after being tased.

to me, this is pretty strong empirical evidence that tasers are the safest alternative currently available for subduing uncooperative subjects.

also, tasers have been used on many, many uncooperative subjects. the number of them who have experienced any significant ill effects is statistically insignificant...and, in all--or at least nearly all--of those cases that i have actually read about, the subject had cocaine or some other powerful drug in their system at the time or was in some other way systemically compromised.

a better alternative to tasers will likely be developed one day, but i don't think it has been yet. tasers are safer and have fewer bad side-effects than batons, OC, joint locks, etc. and the alternative of "do nothing" just plain does not exist sometimes.

at first glance, a taser seems cruel, i agree. i mean, the concept of electrically shocking someone to gain compliance is, well, shocking. but, if you accept the fact that there are some instances where *something* must be done to subdue the subject, you then move onto asking "well, any method is going to be unpleasant, but what is the method that offers the least likelihood of harm to either the officer or the subject?"

imho, the answer to that question is currently "a taser".