Med school apologizes to students "triggered" by a test question

[deleted688779]

Oh spare me. These are cops. They're held to a higher standard, the same way docs are held to a higher standard. And if that's your argument then these cops need WAY more training. Absolutely crazy to think otherwise. Compare a cops training to that of a resident.

Agreed

As for the Atlanta case. These cops should never have been called to the scene. It's a drunk guy sleeping. No need to have armed officers called.

No. Just no. You’re probably a respectable person. But no.

This was my thought initially when I relied on the news; they used words like “light scuffle” or “sleeping man”. This changed when I watched the entire body cam footage. Watch the body cam.

First of all he shouldn’t be driving drunk in the first place. Mr. Brooks was sleeping in the middle of a drive through. Drive through. Not the parking lot. Meaning he likely had no intention of sobering up before driving to who knows where and potentially harming others while DUI. The police officer woke him up and he QUICKLY FELL BACK ASLEEP. The officer proceeded to be incredibly polite and professional. Up until the the point Mr. Brooks resisted arrest, I could confidently say I would prefer that officer over any of the ones I’ve interacted with (went to school in a police heavy neighborhood). Not to mention he managed to free himself from TWO officers who kept a repeating “stop resisting” and stole a taser while being repeatedly told to “hands off the taser”. And then finally FIRED the taser while already being a distance ahead of the officer.

I don’t think the shooting was justified but let’s not fool ourselves with the “just a drunk guy sleeping” narrative. I honestly want to know what you think should’ve been done if the cops should not to be called.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[frenchyn]

Oh spare me. These are cops. They're held to a higher standard, the same way docs are held to a higher standard. And if that's your argument then these cops need WAY more training. Absolutely crazy to think otherwise. Compare a cops training to that of a resident.

As for the Atlanta case. These cops should never have been called to the scene. It's a drunk guy sleeping. No need to have armed officers called. Not to mention, he was shot in the back. Lol. In. The. Back. Total threat you must be, to threaten someone as you're running away. Let's be real here. He's being charged for murder because he shot the guy. In the back.

The defund the police movement is a misnomer in many aspects. Don't defund them, but move the money around. We're asking cops to do way too much. They don't need to be called for fake money being used, they don't need to be called for a passed out drunk guy, they don't need to be called for homeless people, drug addicts, etc etc. And the cops that remain, should be trained much better.

Just curious, if you don’t think I should call the police if there is a drunk guy falling asleep in front of my property, who would deal w it? You? myself as a female? just leave him there and worst case die?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Native Americans actually are killed by the police at a higher rate than any other race --> history or current? Yes, it is serious question. Sorry I am unaware of this...I rarely see it being discussed...

Yes, they are. It is almost never discussed. They have basically been oppressed since we got here, and yet we’ve just decided it’s okay. I’ve been called racist for pointing that out because I was not prioritizing black lives.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Agreed


No. Just no. You’re probably a respectable person. But no.

This was my thought initially when I relied on the news; they used words like “light scuffle” or “sleeping man”. This changed when I watched the entire body cam footage. Watch the body cam.

First of all he shouldn’t be driving drunk in the first place. Mr. Brooks was sleeping in the middle of a drive through. Drive through. Not the parking lot. Meaning he likely had no intention of sobering up before driving to who knows where and potentially harming others while DUI. The police officer woke him up and he QUICKLY FELL BACK ASLEEP. The officer proceeded to be incredibly polite and professional. Up until the the point Mr. Brooks resisted arrest, I could confidently say I would prefer that officer over any of the ones I’ve interacted with (went to school in a police heavy neighborhood). Not to mention he managed to free himself from TWO officers who kept a repeating “stop resisting” and stole a taser while being repeatedly told to “hands off the taser”. And then finally FIRED the taser while already being a distance ahead of the officer.

I don’t think the shooting was justified but let’s not fool ourselves with the “just a drunk guy sleeping” narrative. I honestly want to know what you think should’ve been done if the cops should not to be called.

He actually hit the officer with the taser. The officer didn’t drop his taser and pull out his firearm until he was hit by the taser barb. It is very much not open and shut, but given that he had been hit by one of the taser barbs, I’d say that leans on the side of justified.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I certainly care if he's attacking the police officers, although in this case it was my understanding that he was running away, got shot in the back, and then they didn't give him any medical attention for several minutes, which would be despicable. I'll have to read more about the nuances of it.

Your understanding is incorrect. He assaulted them and then fled. While he was running he fired a taser behind him and hit one of the officers, who then dropped his own taser and drew his firearm in self defense.

Whether or not the gave him medical attention is another issue and is irrelevant to whether the shooting was justified. If you want to only talk about what is relevant to the shooting, then stick to the events leading up to it.

 

[TRPMinus]

Oh spare me. These are cops. They're held to a higher standard, the same way docs are held to a higher standard. And if that's your argument then these cops need WAY more training. Absolutely crazy to think otherwise. Compare a cops training to that of a resident.

As for the Atlanta case. These cops should never have been called to the scene. It's a drunk guy sleeping. No need to have armed officers called. Not to mention, he was shot in the back. Lol. In. The. Back. Total threat you must be, to threaten someone as you're running away. Let's be real here. He's being charged for murder because he shot the guy. In the back.

The defund the police movement is a misnomer in many aspects. Don't defund them, but move the money around. We're asking cops to do way too much. They don't need to be called for fake money being used, they don't need to be called for a passed out drunk guy, they don't need to be called for homeless people, drug addicts, etc etc. And the cops that remain, should be trained much better.

I'm sorry, but did you just say that the police shouldn't be called for people attempting to use counterfeit bills? I mean you are entitled to your opinion but wow.....

 

[Espressso]

It wasn’t a guy sleeping off fatigue at a rest stop, it was a guy so altered he parked his car in the driving lane and customers had to drive around him. It’s absolutely a great time to call cops.

they also treated him very nicely for a thorough sobriety check and got attacked when they tried to cuff him. He won a 2v1 fight and stole a taser which he was pointing at them when hewas shot. This is not as simple as “shot in the back =murder”.

counterfeiting is also absolutely a reason to call cops

Last point first: counterfeiting was the reason the cops were called for Floyd. That resulted in a unnecessary death. My point is, that's a nonviolent crime. I think a lot of nonviolent crime doesn't need to be dealt with by armed police officers. In the MN case, they didn't even use the guns. But the outcome was the same: state-sanctioned violence for a nonviolent crime.

First point: You're right, on all of that. I'm trying to make the argument that police officers aren't the best people to deal with drunk unarmed average people. I think you, other attendings, nurses, social workers, all better options to deal with a drunk human. You are able to deal with them in a deescalation-oriented manner. Specifically to ATL case. Look, the guy deserves a long jail sentence for attacking a cop. No question about it. But he's dead now. And in my eyes, that's an unnecessary death at the hands of the state.

Average training time for police is 13-19 weeks, some of the better trained forces do 6 months but that’s the exception. They definitely need better training, both in dealing with life & death situations as well as issues like psychiatric disorders, Alzheimer’s, etc.

Police/fire/EMS is who people call when they don’t know what to do. If a situation would be handled better by a psychologist or social worker, then 911 dispatch needs to be able to contact them and send them where they’re needed.

I don't envy police officers at all. The friends that I have who serve as officers, man, I don't know how they do it. They lack a lot of the support systems you'd think would be in place for people who work in that line of work. The training needs to be leveled up, and it needs to continue. From my understanding, when you become a police officer, there are no physical or mental examinations that occur after. Once you're in, you're in. I don't think this is right. At the very least, you'd think these cops deserve to have psychological support, especially after episodes of gunfire, loss of life, etc. etc.

I am not comparing the training. I am comparing the reaction time between someone who is exposed to the situation prior or multiple times vs someone who is rarely exposed to it. Obviously the more you are exposed to XYZ, the faster you know to handle it.

How do you know the police should have never been called to the scene or should not be called due to the homeless people, drug addicts, etc????? Again I don't know the whole story, but he may be causing noise? it may be about his safety? You think it is safe for a person to live on the street at night? Drug addict may overdose? homeless person may be doing drugs? I even have patients found out unresponsive by police who otherwise would have die? You obviously in no position to decide whether or not that should respond to those...most of the times may be useless but there are few where their response will be useful..and I don't know if there is a way to really justify that...

You also forgot the part where the guy turned around and taz the police lmao...I disagree with the part where shooting at the back too...obviously it would have been better if he shot the leg...but again that split second...is it his first time shooting someone? not every is born as a sniper you know...

Lol, I'm not forgetting the part that he tazed the police. Again, I think the guy deserves to be in prison, for a long time. I've read reports that he had an outstanding warrant out for his arrest and if that's the case, even more reason he deserves to be in jail. But he's not. He's dead now. Also, from my understanding the offending officer has had over 12 reports of police misconduct. I'd have to find the link for that though.

And my argument that cops shouldn't be called for everything they are called for is simple: Non violent crimes often don't need to be responded with by violent state actors. It's really that simple. Are there exceptions, yes, of course. But you can't tell me that a cop is the best trained person we have as a society to deal with someone in an alley w/ needle track marks up and down their arms, strung out on heroin. There has to be a better way. We're losing too many lives to police officers for this to be sustainable.

A drunk falls asleep in my driveway, I call the cops. I tell him to go, he either doesn't go or he gets in his car a drives drunk away. Both bad outcomes.

You're right. I totally agree with your comment. My point, although not conveyed well, was about the notion that we need armed police officers for frequently unarmed and nonviolent crimes. I think we can all agree that anytime we add firearms to the equation, the chances of accidental death increases. I think we can't cherry pick where that notion works. We can't that's true in the average US household, but not on the streets with police officers. When you call a cop to the scene, there is a non-zero chance that someone dies. I don't think it necessarily has to be that way. That's my point.

Agreed

No. Just no. You’re probably a respectable person. But no.

This was my thought initially when I relied on the news; they used words like “light scuffle” or “sleeping man”. This changed when I watched the entire body cam footage. Watch the body cam.

First of all he shouldn’t be driving drunk in the first place. Mr. Brooks was sleeping in the middle of a drive through. Drive through. Not the parking lot. Meaning he likely had no intention of sobering up before driving to who knows where and potentially harming others while DUI. The police officer woke him up and he QUICKLY FELL BACK ASLEEP. The officer proceeded to be incredibly polite and professional. Up until the the point Mr. Brooks resisted arrest, I could confidently say I would prefer that officer over any of the ones I’ve interacted with (went to school in a police heavy neighborhood). Not to mention he managed to free himself from TWO officers who kept a repeating “stop resisting” and stole a taser while being repeatedly told to “hands off the taser”. And then finally FIRED the taser while already being a distance ahead of the officer.

I don’t think the shooting was justified but let’s not fool ourselves with the “just a drunk guy sleeping” narrative. I honestly want to know what you think should’ve been done if the cops should not to be called.

You're right, he wasn't just a drunk guy sleeping. Those words are more of an overarching example I was trying to use to convey the point that I don't believe cops should be called for every single thing they are currently called for.

Just curious, if you don’t think I should call the police if there is a drunk guy falling asleep in front of my property, who would deal w it? You? myself as a female? just leave him there and worst case die?

I never said I don't think you should call 911/the police. My argument here is that as a society, we rely on the police too much. We expect too much. In your example, if you feel unsafe you should definitely call 911 and they should send officers over. To protect you and serve you. That's the original point, right? What I think we've drifted away from - as a society - is the protecting and serving part.

In the case of Brooks in ATL. Who did the cops serve in that situation? The people/bystanders were driving around his car, still getting their food. The Wendys was a bit disrupted, so you can make the case that the cops protected and served the company there. But at what costs? I'm by no means making an excuse for him attacking a cop. GA has stand your ground laws if I'm not mistaken. You can kill if you're in danger. The guy was running away though. At that point, in that moment, how much of a threat was he?





---

I think I responded to everyone. I don't mean to be argumentative by any means. I understand my original comment is touchy and I probably didn't convey it well to begin with, that's my bad. I do enjoy these discussions though.

 

[Espressso]

I'm sorry, but did you just say that the police shouldn't be called for people attempting to use counterfeit bills? I mean you are entitled to your opinion but wow.....

Haha, yes I did. I used to work in a liquor store. We dealt with this a lot. I've had to call the cops a lot for this crime. It's really a nonviolent crime. Cops can be called for it, sure. But cops should not be escalating violence when they arrive. Can we agree on that?

 

[Espressso]

Lol, I seem to have really riled people up. I mean no harm by my comments. Just a discussion that I enjoy having.

For the record, I think a lot of my opinions on these topics stem from one main belief: anti-capital punishment. I am really against all forms of capital punishment and when I see police officers killing citizens, often unarmed, often for nonviolent crimes, a lot of my opinions on it come back to the idea that I don't believe the State should be killing people in these circumstances.

 

[bananafish94]

Responsibility for what? She didn’t say anything inappropriate in the quotes I saw

Responsibility for actions? Words? Doesn't matter if it's inappropriate or not. You said "activist gets them talking enough to quote them not 100% backing all the talking points" as if she was relentlessly needled into saying something. Not quite, she made a public Facebook post on her own volition.

I mentioned the history to show he has a track record of crimes and might therefore be more motivated to not be apprehended

Again, doesn't matter. I truly do not care what somebody's history is in these situations, not like the police would even know it - it's always some ex post facto commentator trying to justify the situation by assassinating the victim's character. Someone's criminal history and theoretical psychological state should have no bearing on whether or not police should use lethal force against them.

altered which means cops can’t assume he’ll make rational and safe decisions

Seems like an awfully slippery slope to me.

he was pointing a weapon at the cops (while running) when he got shot. I don’thave the full timeline of how long it took to give medical care but it’s important to note that securing the scene and weapons are the first priority and must be accomplished first, one of the officers was later diagnosed with a concussion, and the adrenaline surge of a situation like that can induce a shock like state. Care is not going to be Immediate. Once they have secured the weapons and checked on the officers, if they refused care to the suspect they absolutely should be charged criminally for that, I haven’t seen enough information to make that accusation yet. Have you?

I can clearly see the arguments for this being justified and I honestly haven't made my mind up about this but you're inserting unnecessary information (criminal history, intoxication) and withholding necessary information to further your own agenda here. The man was objectively shot twice in the back as he was running away, and I'm fairly sure that that's 99% of the rationale behind the outrage in this particular case. As for the medical care, maybe I need to read more about it, but failure to provide care for two minutes sounds like an awfully long time after shooting somebody three times.

 

[Mochi2020]

I think you, other attendings, nurses, social workers, all better options to deal with a drunk human. You are able to deal with them in a deescalation-oriented manner. Specifically to ATL case. Look, the guy deserves a long jail sentence for attacking a cop. No question about it. But he's dead now. And in my eyes, that's an unnecessary death at the hands of the state.


Just curious, how do you know if the drunk human don't have a gun? No offense but none of the above person "attendings, nurses, social workers" are equipped or want to sign up for a job responding to a random drunk guy on the street lmao...we don't even feel safe at the hospital with these individuals...knowing they don't have a gun with them....let alone some random drunk guy...also just because of one case...one bad outcome...n=1....you think police should not respond to a drunk human...

But if you want to respond to drunk guy (not sure if you are med student, resident or attending), let us know...we will call you next time instead of police...

 

[Espressso]

I think you, other attendings, nurses, social workers, all better options to deal with a drunk human. You are able to deal with them in a deescalation-oriented manner. Specifically to ATL case. Look, the guy deserves a long jail sentence for attacking a cop. No question about it. But he's dead now. And in my eyes, that's an unnecessary death at the hands of the state.


Just curious, how do you know if the drunk human don't have a gun? No offense but none of the above person "attendings, nurses, social workers" are equipped or want to sign up for a job responding to a random drunk guy on the street lmao...we don't even feel safe at the hospital with these individuals...knowing they don't have a gun with them....let alone some random drunk guy...also just because of one case...one bad outcome...n=1....you think police should not respond to a drunk human...

But if you want to respond to drunk guy (not sure if you are med student, resident or attending), let us know...we will call you next time instead of police...

Lol I'm med student. And you don't know if they don't have a gun. But too often we see police officers respond with excessive force leading to unnecessary death. And then we find out after the fact that they don't have a gun. Can we agree that this is an issue and not sustainable? If so, we should be trying to do better as a society. My argument is that relying on cops as much as we do, isn't the right answer.

Medical staff doesn't feel safe in the hospital with those individuals. Yeah, but notice how they never kill them?

 

[Mochi2020]

Lol I'm med student. And you don't know if they don't have a gun. But too often we see police officers respond with excessive force leading to unnecessary death. And then we find out after the fact that they don't have a gun. Can we agree that this is an issue and not sustainable? If so, we should be trying to do better as a society. My argument is that relying on cops as much as we do, isn't the right answer.

Medical staff doesn't feel safe in the hospital with those individuals. Yeah, but notice how they never kill them?

Too often...you are making generalization...Don't you see what is happening with society nowadays? A protest turn into a violence crime...properties were damaged...You think people will have the gut and want to risk their lives to deal w homeless, drunk guy, or drug addict themselves? I DON'T...

You can not compare hospital setting with the street dark with no one around lmao...and we don't kill them because guess what...we usually call securities and there are usually at least 10+ people in the BRIGHT room, somewhat controlled environment...these patients 100% sure without gun...totally different setting lmao...even so, we still don't feel safe...let alone a cop respond to a random drunk guy at midnight on the street with very few people around...

 

[bananafish94]

Last point first: counterfeiting was the reason the cops were called for Floyd. That resulted in a unnecessary death. My point is, that's a nonviolent crime. I think a lot of nonviolent crime doesn't need to be dealt with by armed police officers. In the MN case, they didn't even use the guns. But the outcome was the same: state-sanctioned violence for a nonviolent crime.

I completely agree. Personal example, I was accused for paying for a meal at a restaurant with a fake bill. I have no earthly idea why, maybe it looked too new or something? It was very much real. Anyway, all that happened was they made me pay with a card. Police were not involved, and even if they were is this really something that needs to be dealt with by officers armed to the teeth? It just seems so absurd to me.

 

[deleted480308]

Last point first: counterfeiting was the reason the cops were called for Floyd. That resulted in a unnecessary death. My point is, that's a nonviolent crime. I think a lot of nonviolent crime doesn't need to be dealt with by armed police officers. In the MN case, they didn't even use the guns. But the outcome was the same: state-sanctioned violence for a nonviolent crime.

First point: You're right, on all of that. I'm trying to make the argument that police officers aren't the best people to deal with drunk unarmed average people. I think you, other attendings, nurses, social workers, all better options to deal with a drunk human. You are able to deal with them in a deescalation-oriented manner. Specifically to ATL case. Look, the guy deserves a long jail sentence for attacking a cop. No question about it. But he's dead now. And in my eyes, that's an unnecessary death at the hands of the state.



I don't envy police officers at all. The friends that I have who serve as officers, man, I don't know how they do it. They lack a lot of the support systems you'd think would be in place for people who work in that line of work. The training needs to be leveled up, and it needs to continue. From my understanding, when you become a police officer, there are no physical or mental examinations that occur after. Once you're in, you're in. I don't think this is right. At the very least, you'd think these cops deserve to have psychological support, especially after episodes of gunfire, loss of life, etc. etc.




Lol, I'm not forgetting the part that he tazed the police. Again, I think the guy deserves to be in prison, for a long time. I've read reports that he had an outstanding warrant out for his arrest and if that's the case, even more reason he deserves to be in jail. But he's not. He's dead now. Also, from my understanding the offending officer has had over 12 reports of police misconduct. I'd have to find the link for that though.

And my argument that cops shouldn't be called for everything they are called for is simple: Non violent crimes often don't need to be responded with by violent state actors. It's really that simple. Are there exceptions, yes, of course. But you can't tell me that a cop is the best trained person we have as a society to deal with someone in an alley w/ needle track marks up and down their arms, strung out on heroin. There has to be a better way. We're losing too many lives to police officers for this to be sustainable.




You're right. I totally agree with your comment. My point, although not conveyed well, was about the notion that we need armed police officers for frequently unarmed and nonviolent crimes. I think we can all agree that anytime we add firearms to the equation, the chances of accidental death increases. I think we can't cherry pick where that notion works. We can't that's true in the average US household, but not on the streets with police officers. When you call a cop to the scene, there is a non-zero chance that someone dies. I don't think it necessarily has to be that way. That's my point.




You're right, he wasn't just a drunk guy sleeping. Those words are more of an overarching example I was trying to use to convey the point that I don't believe cops should be called for every single thing they are currently called for.




I never said I don't think you should call 911/the police. My argument here is that as a society, we rely on the police too much. We expect too much. In your example, if you feel unsafe you should definitely call 911 and they should send officers over. To protect you and serve you. That's the original point, right? What I think we've drifted away from - as a society - is the protecting and serving part.

In the case of Brooks in ATL. Who did the cops serve in that situation? The people/bystanders were driving around his car, still getting their food. The Wendys was a bit disrupted, so you can make the case that the cops protected and served the company there. But at what costs? I'm by no means making an excuse for him attacking a cop. GA has stand your ground laws if I'm not mistaken. You can kill if you're in danger. The guy was running away though. At that point, in that moment, how much of a threat was he?





---

I think I responded to everyone. I don't mean to be argumentative by any means. I understand my original comment is touchy and I probably didn't convey it well to begin with, that's my bad. I do enjoy these discussions though.

A drunk driver that beats 2 cops, steals a weaponand fires it at them is a threat

 

[deleted480308]

I completely agree. Personal example, I was accused for paying for a meal at a restaurant with a fake bill. I have no earthly idea why, maybe it looked too new or something? It was very much real. Anyway, all that happened was they made me pay with a card. Police were not involved, and even if they were is this really something that needs to be dealt with by officers armed to the teeth? It just seems so absurd to me.

Yes it needs cops. Because if it was fake it’s theft. The problem in the floyd case wasn’t calling cops on a counterfeit, it was cops crushing the air out of a handcuffed man.

 

[frenchyn]

Lol I'm med student. And you don't know if they don't have a gun. But too often we see police officers respond with excessive force leading to unnecessary death. And then we find out after the fact that they don't have a gun. Can we agree that this is an issue and not sustainable? If so, we should be trying to do better as a society. My argument is that relying on cops as much as we do, isn't the right answer.

Medical staff doesn't feel safe in the hospital with those individuals. Yeah, but notice how they never kill them?

We obviously can’t kill them even though they are violent but guess what we do at the hospital...”social intubation”...we give them drugs and intubate them to keep themselves and ourselves safe...police can’t do that...n obviously it never escalates to the point of killing...but we put them down lol...now if a patient strangle you...would you not want to fight back? This does happen at the hospital lol.

 

[Espressso]

A drunk driver that beats 2 cops, steals a weaponand fires it at them is a threat

That is going to be what decides this case, for sure. I definitely see your side. My point is though, when he's running away, he's no longer a threat.
Again though, the guy deserved jail, and for a long time. But I don't think he deserves death.

I respect the hell out of you brother @sb247, but we'll have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Espressso]

Yes it needs cops. Because if it was fake it’s theft. The problem in the floyd case wasn’t calling cops on a counterfeit, it was cops crushing the air out of a handcuffed man.

But again it gets back to the violent vs non-violent crimes. There's a reason we separate robbery vs. armed robbery. The latter being more serious in the eyes of the law, right?

And in the Floyd's case, we have to ask why these cops did that? What is it that's allowing cops to think they can even do that? Is it a cultural thing? A police union thing (this is a big part IMO).

If we were in a society where non violent crime isn't dealt with such a heavy handed blow that is police officers, those cops would never have been in the position to crush the air out of a handcuffed man.

 

[Espressso]

We obviously can’t kill them even though they are violent but guess what we do at the hospital...”social intubation”...we give them drugs and intubate them to keep themselves and ourselves safe...police can’t do that...n obviously it never escalates to the point of killing...but we put them down lol...now if a patient strangle you...would you not want to fight back? This does happen at the hospital lol.

Of course it does, lol, I was actually attacked on my psych rotation this year. So if police can't do that, our only other option is to... kill them? Surely there is a better middle ground?

 

[frenchyn]

That is going to be what decides this case, for sure. I definitely see your side. My point is though, when he's running away, he's no longer a threat.
Again though, the guy deserved jail, and for a long time. But I don't think he deserves death.

I respect the hell out of you brother @sb247, but we'll have to agree to disagree here.

HTH is he not a threat if he took the police taser turn around and tased the police lol?

Of course it does, lol, I was actually attacked on my psych rotation this year. So if police can't do that, our only other option is to... kill them? Surely there is a better middle ground?

we don’t kill patients...we intubate patients if they are too violent and dangerous to themselves and ourselves...police can’t do that...

 

[deleted480308]

That is going to be what decides this case, for sure. I definitely see your side. My point is though, when he's running away, he's no longer a threat.
Again though, the guy deserved jail, and for a long time. But I don't think he deserves death.

I respect the hell out of you brother @sb247, but we'll have to agree to disagree here.

If I can beat a cop and then run away with his taser while firing it at him, then your bar for “dangerous” is pretty freaking high

 

[deleted480308]

But again it gets back to the violent vs non-violent crimes. There's a reason we separate robbery vs. armed robbery. The latter being more serious in the eyes of the law, right?

And in the Floyd's case, we have to ask why these cops did that? What is it that's allowing cops to think they can even do that? Is it a cultural thing? A police union thing (this is a big part IMO).

If we were in a society where non violent crime isn't dealt with such a heavy handed blow that is police officers, those cops would never have been in the position to crush the air out of a handcuffed man.

You don’t fix bad culture with bad laws.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Last point first: counterfeiting was the reason the cops were called for Floyd. That resulted in a unnecessary death. My point is, that's a nonviolent crime. I think a lot of nonviolent crime doesn't need to be dealt with by armed police officers. In the MN case, they didn't even use the guns. But the outcome was the same: state-sanctioned violence for a nonviolent crime.

Actually they were called because he was acting super weird and scary AND trying to use a counterfeit. He was high AF.

But that’s not super relevant because another cop wouldn’t have killed him. The dingus who killed George Floyd knew him. He also had a history of profiling black customers at the club he worked at, and he had beef with Floyd.

 

[Espressso]

HTH is he not a threat if he turn around and race

we don’t kill patients...we intubate patients if they are too violent and dangerous to themselves and ourselves...police can’t do that...

Yes police can't intubate. I get that. We're in agreeance there.

So what can police do? Is the only other option to shoot and kill? Man I didn't like Biden saying to shoot people in the leg instead but like... come on now. That would be better than firing rounds into the dudes back, no?

 

[Espressso]

Actually they were called because he was acting super weird and scary AND trying to use a counterfeit. He was high AF.

But that’s not super relevant because another cop wouldn’t have killed him. The dingus who killed George Floyd knew him. He also had a history of profiling black customers at the club he worked at, and he had beef with Floyd.

Right, and two other cops helped, and a third cop watched. See, this problem is more complex than a dingus cop who knew Floyd. And yeah he was high. Even more reason to not kill him. A drug addict, killed by a police officer. Horrible stuff.

 

[frenchyn]

Yes police can't intubate. I get that. We're in agreeance there.

So what can police do? Is the only other option to shoot and kill? Man I didn't like Biden saying to shoot people in the leg instead but like... come on now. That would be better than firing rounds into the dudes back, no?

Well if the dude did not take his taser than maybe he could have used it instead of gun? As far as I know it is his only choice...now do I advocate for violence? NOPE...but unless you are in that situation and your sympathetic nervous system tell you there is a threat, you don’t understand what it feels like...

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yes police can't intubate. I get that. We're in agreeance there.

So what can police do? Is the only other option to shoot and kill? Man I didn't like Biden saying to shoot people in the leg instead but like... come on now. That would be better than firing rounds into the dudes back, no?

Actually no. In most departments, it is against policy to shoot people anywhere other than center mass. Firearms are not a less than lethal option. If you are shooting it is because deadly force is required. Shooting someone in the leg is A) really, really hard under stress, B) creates needless suffering, and C) creates a potential for collateral damage.

 

[Damson]

@bananafish94 your argument that because it's a sensitive career + the nation is heated about it, she should keep her "controversial" opinions private

Okay then when is it a good time for her to talk about it?

Even before the floyd incident, people are shutting up because they don't want to be subject to public scrutiny and scorn. When others wave a club at you threatening to destroy your livelihood, of course you're going to back off.

Last year, a decade ago, two decades ago - whatever point in time we return to, there will always be heated discourse over some social issue. Yet, controversial or not, anytime one speaks publicly about something important, someone's feelings WILL be hurt anyway. Even statements like "you are responsible for your actions" will offend someone. There's no way to avoid this. It's important we open our minds and ears to contrary viewpoints in order for us as a society to discover the truth. And it is precisely in the middle of George Floyd protests that someone who disagrees with the ideologies espoused by BLM (abolish the police department) to speak up, so that we can find out whether or not we're supporting the right cause.

I was watching a video a while back by Chubbyemu on yt. He cited an example off the top of his head in order to support the main point he was making, but it made me feel ****ty personally for a moment because it was exactly something I did. I let my offense fade and concentrated on his lecture, because I know that 1. he didn't mean to offend me 2. i'm here to listen and think, not to take everything personally.

It's important to be mentally flexible. No matter how correct I think I am, it's still important that I hear what someone who disagrees has to say, no matter who you are or what occupation you have. Because in anything I believe with certainty, I can certainly be wrong about it. @bananafish94 Sensitive career, hurt feelings, heated nation...are counterproductive, unacceptable reasons to silence anyone. Your comments show us that you are a kind, empathetic person, which we appreciate. But it is not always right nor feasible to avoid offense. Do not cross the line into "you hurt our feelings with your opinions? it's okay for us to intentionally sabotage your life."

Define "offended." If someone makes an ignorant joke with racist or sexist overtones, that's one thing. It might be offensive, but I certainly wouldn't want to go after somebody's career over that and would probably disagree with anyone who did. But what if someone posts some horrible tirade about a certain race on Facebook and uses all sorts of racial slurs? Also offensive. But I think there are legitimate concerns about this person working in a job like a doctor or a teacher.

No. If you've been doing the job just fine, you can do the job.

 

[frenchyn]

Right, and two other cops helped, and a third cop watched. See, this problem is more complex than a dingus cop who knew Floyd. And yeah he was high. Even more reason to not kill him. A drug addict, killed by a police officer. Horrible stuff.

More reason to not kill him...from your responses, I can tell you lack real life and clinical experience...wait until you have one of those bath salt patients...

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Right, and two other cops helped, and a third cop watched. See, this problem is more complex than a dingus cop who knew Floyd. And yeah he was high. Even more reason to not kill him. A drug addict, killed by a police officer. Horrible stuff.

Have you ever met someone on PCP? Being high is definitely not a reason in and of itself to not have to shoot someone. That’s ridiculous.

And just because more than one person was involved doesn’t mean it’s more complicated. You’re reaching.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes police can't intubate. I get that. We're in agreeance there.

So what can police do? Is the only other option to shoot and kill? Man I didn't like Biden saying to shoot people in the leg instead but like... come on now. That would be better than firing rounds into the dudes back, no?

Sure sounds like you have no real firearm experience, that’s harder than it sounds and it’s inappropriate to shoot to slow someone down. It’s either important enough to stop them to risk killing them or you don’t fire

 

[deleted480308]

Right, and two other cops helped, and a third cop watched. See, this problem is more complex than a dingus cop who knew Floyd. And yeah he was high. Even more reason to not kill him. A drug addict, killed by a police officer. Horrible stuff.

But none of our laws supported that killing, nothing needs to change except actually applying laws to the cops that already exist

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

But none of our laws supported that killing, nothing needs to change except actually applying laws to the cops that already exist

And better screening processes in hiring. That dude shouldn’t have been hired and should have been fired the first time he had a racial issue.

 

[deleted480308]

Right, and two other cops helped, and a third cop watched. See, this problem is more complex than a dingus cop who knew Floyd. And yeah he was high. Even more reason to not kill him. A drug addict, killed by a police officer. Horrible stuff.

Being on drugs doesn’t grant someone immunity or make them harmless so I don’t actually agree with what it seems you are implying here

floyd was murdered, but the generalized principle you are pushing here isn’t true

 

[Mass Effect]

It also isn’t just people sick of marginalized people speaking. Everyone is for that and change is needed. PC and cancel culture has just gone too far and is absurd. Like saying Chick-fil-A is “cancelled” because they donated to a political person you don’t like. In what way does that affect their delicious chicken? People can do whatever they want obviously but the guilt tripping for shopping at a business is insane

This is a perfect example of why these issues are controversial -- people don't quite understand them but get upset about them. Chick-Fil-A donates money to anti-LGBT causes. Patrons don't want to line the pocket of the guy who then turns around and props up powerful people who can then make laws against the LGBT community. Boiling it down to a game of likesies is why these discussions (and cancel culture) exist.

 

[Mass Effect]

I agree, but it's more the mindset that is propagating these kinds of sentiments that bothers me. We're living in a society where everyone wants free speech-- unless you disagree with them, in which case you're a "heartless cu** and should unfriend me", as one person I used to go to college with so eloquently put. When did we get to a point where people automatically cast you out if you disagree with them? I can't tell you the amount of posts I've seen, from "friends", along these lines: "if you think xyz, unfriend me right now because you're a racist and are the worst part of society".

You're confusing free speech with the requirement that friends stay your friends even if they disagree with you. There is no such requirement. Free speech is alive and well and will be for the rest of our lives. It states that there will be no government backlash for opinions. It does not say others must be kind to you for your opinions.

Example: I had a Muslim friend around 9/11. We were friends with this other guy who went balls to the walls afterwards and praised the anti-Muslim crime we saw in the US (including the murder of a few US Muslims as revenge). My Muslim friend ended the friendship and he had every right to do that. He doesn't have to entertain a friend saying such things, no matter how upset he is about the attacks. Your friends have a right to be upset if you stay silent and likewise, you have every right to unfriend them for not respecting your boundaries and right to stay silent. But for some, silence is complicit. It doesn't make them bad people for feeling that way. This issue is the hill they want to die on and they have a right to make that choice. Anyone not with them is against them and they have a right to make that choice too.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

You're confusing free speech with the requirement that friends stay your friends even if they disagree with you. There is no such requirement. Free speech is alive and well and will be for the rest of our lives. It states that there will be no government backlash for opinions. It does not say others must be kind to you for your opinions.

Example: I had a Muslim friend around 9/11. We were friends with this other guy who went balls to the walls afterwards and praised the anti-Muslim crime we saw in the US (including the murder of a few US Muslims as revenge). My Muslim friend ended the friendship and he had every right to do that. He doesn't have to entertain a friend saying such things, no matter how upset he is about the attacks. Your friends have a right to be upset if you stay silent and likewise, you have every right to unfriend them for not respecting your boundaries and right to stay silent. But for some, silence is complicit. It doesn't make them bad people for feeling that way. This issue is the hill they want to die on and they have a right to make that choice. Anyone not with them is against them and they have a right to make that choice too.

I agree with you, but I think the point is that people shouldn’t have their jobs threatened or have people harass and be aggressive with them because of it. Not posting about it on Facebook makes you as complicit as making your profile picture a black box solves racism.

 

[Mass Effect]

We obviously can’t kill them even though they are violent but guess what we do at the hospital...”social intubation”...we give them drugs and intubate them to keep themselves and ourselves safe...police can’t do that...n obviously it never escalates to the point of killing...but we put them down lol...now if a patient strangle you...would you not want to fight back? This does happen at the hospital lol.

What backwards hospital intubates violent patients? I'd like to know so I can properly address my malpractice suit.

 

[Mass Effect]

I agree with you, but I think the point is that people shouldn’t have their jobs threatened or have people harass and be aggressive with them because of it. Not posting about it on Facebook makes you as complicit as making your profile picture a black box solves racism.

But companies have a right to do as they see fit. Isn't that the commonly accepted argument (which I agree with)? So if I'm the boss and my employee did something ridiculous, like the white woman in Central Park just before the Floyd murder, I'm going to decide the bad press she brings me is not worth it. I'm going to save my business.

I mean the bottom line is that everyone has an opinion. Others get to judge your opinion in this day and age of cameras and printscreen shots. You could say the sky is blue and people would have an opinion. It's just part of being human. If your opinion gets your employer into hot water, you will likely pay the professional consequences and it doesn't really matter what that opinion is. Companies don't want the liability.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

But companies have a right to do as they see fit. Isn't that the commonly accepted argument (which I agree with)? So if I'm the boss and my employee did something ridiculous, like the white woman in Central Park just before the Floyd murder, I'm going to decide the bad press she brings me is not worth it. I'm going to save my business.

I mean the bottom line is that everyone has an opinion. Others get to judge your opinion in this day and age of cameras and printscreen shots. You could say the sky is blue and people would have an opinion. It's just part of being human. If your opinion gets your employer into hot water, you will likely pay the professional consequences and it doesn't really matter what that opinion is. Companies don't want the liability.

Yes I agree. Let me be more clear. What I mean is that people shouldn’t be afraid that their Facebook friends are going to bully them over choosing not to post or to post. They shouldn’t have to worry that someone will contact their medical school trying to get them in trouble because they said people shouldn’t be rioting and didn’t post enough about George Floyd for that person’s liking (this actually happened—not to me, thank God).

I think that is what they are talking about. Like I said earlier, she should have known not to post anything given the public nature of her job. But if people did the above less, she likely wouldn’t have had a problem. Companies are now terrified of being “canceled” or blasted and will come down on anyone that might be a PR problem even if what they said isn’t actually racist.

 

[frenchyn]

What backwards hospital intubates violent patients? I'd like to know so I can properly address my malpractice suit.

I obviously can’t tell you The hospital name but I worked at more than one...and they both do...it happens it ICU...withdrawal and tox patients...the worst one I have is one max out on propofol, fen, precedex, versed and 10 of Valium Q1 and trust me, he is wide awake...how can you do all these without intubating the dude?

One pulled out his IO...what would you do? Let him hurt himself and staffs? Then you get sue by both patients and staffs lol...

Good luck w addressing your lawsuits

 

[TRPMinus]

Haha, yes I did. I used to work in a liquor store. We dealt with this a lot. I've had to call the cops a lot for this crime. It's really a nonviolent crime. Cops can be called for it, sure. But cops should not be escalating violence when they arrive. Can we agree on that?

Sure, it's totally a nonviolent crime and nobody should ever be shot, beaten, etc. for counterfeiting. Do you know of any cases where people actually get shot or beaten for counterfeiting? Or any other low-level crime on a routine basis? The problem is not with the police or "state sanctioned violence", it is with specific individuals like Derek Chauvin who give a lot of fantastic officers a bad name.

The other problem with everything in the media right now is that people instantly absolve people like Floyd, Brooks, Reed, etc. of any wrongdoing and paint them as a pillar of their community after they get shot. I disagree with conferring sainthood upon death even if the shooting is determined to be unjustified. Believe it or not, the police and the suspects can both be wrong in the same case: the suspect for being an dingus/fighting with/shooting at police and the police for using excessive force. Just because one screws up, it doesn't absolve the other of all their sins. This applies to police and suspects alike.

In the ATL case, the police did not escalate the violence. If you watch the video, the suspect started a fight with police and stole their taser. I don't know how I feel about the fact that they shot him, but it's hard to outright state that they "killed him for no reason" when he shot at them with a taser. Also, do you shoot firearms at all? Hitting a stock-still human leg at 10 yards with a 9mm pistol requires a measure of skill. Hitting a running human in the leg at 15 yards in the heat of the moment is nigh-on impossible. If you are advocating for police to stick to their training, that means aiming for the body/chest. Again, I lean towards saying that they shouldn't have shot him, particularly since he was running away. But if I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of police officers who are trying to do their job and protect themselves, not on the side of a drunk in the Wendy's drive thru who fights police and tries to tase them.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

In the ATL case, the police did not escalate the violence. If you watch the video, the suspect started a fight with police and stole their taser. I don't know how I feel about the fact that they shot him, but it's hard to outright state that they "killed him for no reason" when he shot at them with a taser.

The officer was originally chasing him with his taser out. He dropped it and drew his firearm after being hit by the barb of the taser. Definitely a justified reason to shoot. Running away is irrelevant. If I’m running away but shoot behind me I can still kill people, and he was obviously still a threat since he managed to hit the officer with the taser barb.

 

[TRPMinus]

Lol I'm med student. And you don't know if they don't have a gun. But too often we see police officers respond with excessive force leading to unnecessary death. And then we find out after the fact that they don't have a gun. Can we agree that this is an issue and not sustainable? If so, we should be trying to do better as a society. My argument is that relying on cops as much as we do, isn't the right answer.

Medical staff doesn't feel safe in the hospital with those individuals. Yeah, but notice how they never kill them?

We don't have to kill them because if they are that much of a threat, we call the police and bomb them with haldol and ativan. The police have the nasty job of dealing with the most unpredictable and violent people. But if a patient ever attacked me in the hospital, you better believe I'm gonna defend myself.

 

[TRPMinus]

The officer was originally chasing him with his taser out. He dropped it and drew his firearm after being hit by the barb of the taser. Definitely a justified reason to shoot. Running away is irrelevant. If I’m running away but shoot behind me I can still kill people, and he was obviously still a threat since he managed to hit the officer with the taser barb.

I agree after learning this. I wish some people could be put in that situation themselves before they get to just hand down judgment. How would you like to be tased and your life put in jeopardy, kill someone out of self-defense, and then have the entire country berate you, take away your job, and threaten you with prison? What a nightmare

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I agree after learning this. I wish some people could be put in that situation themselves before they get to just hand down judgment. How would you like to be tased and your life put in jeopardy, kill someone out of self-defense, and then have the entire country berate you, take away your job, and threaten you with prison? What a nightmare

Yeah. It’s easy once you’ve been in situations like that. The first time I had someone do something threatening to me while on duty and I had to decide in a split second whether to draw and fire was right after the Ferguson riots (which was another justified shooting). I hesitated, and thank God it ended up not costing me my life. But given what went down I would totally have been justified in shooting.

I think I probably would have been a little protected by it being in the military, but I’m not sure. I was fortunate to be able to de-escalate every situation I was in with words and a little physical presence. I’m just glad I never have to be in that position again because your life isn’t safe just because you survived the encounter.

 

[Mass Effect]

Yes I agree. Let me be more clear. What I mean is that people shouldn’t be afraid that their Facebook friends are going to bully them over choosing not to post or to post. They shouldn’t have to worry that someone will contact their medical school trying to get them in trouble because they said people shouldn’t be rioting and didn’t post enough about George Floyd for that person’s liking (this actually happened—not to me, thank God).

We can say that about anything though. I shouldn't have to worry that me making 15 posts in a day about this issue because it's important to me will make others talk badly about me. I shouldn't have to worry that defending a person's right to be offended about something and orchestrate a boycott will have people up in arms about me. The same is true on both ends.

I think that is what they are talking about. Like I said earlier, she should have known not to post anything given the public nature of her job. But if people did the above less, she likely wouldn’t have had a problem. Companies are now terrified of being “canceled” or blasted and will come down on anyone that might be a PR problem even if what they said isn’t actually racist.

People will do what people will do and they've been doing it forever. It's not a new thing. It's just amplified because of social media. It used to be that only celebrities lost endorsements/jobs for things they said/did. Social media has made a celebrity out of everyone who does something idiotic.

I obviously can’t tell you The hospital name but I worked at more than one...and they both do...it happens it ICU...withdrawal and tox patients...the worst one I have is one max out on propofol, fen, precedex, versed and 10 of Valium Q1 and trust me, he is wide awake...how can you do all these without intubating the dude?

One pulled out his IO...what would you do? Let him hurt himself and staffs? Then you get sue by both patients and staffs lol...

So you're talking about agitated withdrawal. And yes, they do often have to intubate because of the meds, but they're not intubating to keep you safe. They're giving the drugs to keep the patient (and everyone else) safe and the drugs then necessitate intubation. The way you worded it is very misleading and not accurate.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

We can say that about anything though. I shouldn't have to worry that me making 15 posts in a day about this issue because it's important to me will make others talk badly about me. I shouldn't have to worry that defending a person's right to be offended about something and orchestrate a boycott will have people up in arms about me. The same is true on both ends.

I agree. That’s my point

People will do what people will do and they've been doing it forever. It's not a new thing. It's just amplified because of social media. It used to be that only celebrities lost endorsements/jobs for things they said/did. Social media has made a celebrity out of everyone who does something idiotic.

Right except saying people should stop rioting isn’t something that would have cost anyone their job until recently. That is relatively new.

 

[deleted688779]

Right except saying people should stop rioting isn’t something that would have cost anyone their job until recently. That is relatively new.

Been threatened to be "canceled" because I made a comment suggesting people respect the wishes of those who do not wish to protest, especially if they are living with the elderly, because the pandemic isn't gone lol.