Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fine. Then the problem will continue, because if you keep doing the same thing, you will not get a different result.
What "problem" are you talking about? The fool that Overdosed on LSD? From what I can see the police did everything in there power to restrain this moron so the EMT,s could take him to the hospital in an attempt to save his life!
He died TWO HOURS later of an OVERDOSE according to the OP,s own news story.
What "problem" are you talking about? The fool that Overdosed on LSD? From what I can see the police did everything in there power to restrain this moron so the EMT,s could take him to the hospital in an attempt to save his life!
He died TWO HOURS later of an OVERDOSE according to the OP,s own news story.
Bill
I am talking about generally.
In 1993, only 11% of Americans had "very little" respect for the police. Now it's 16%.
In 2004, 64% of Americans had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of respect for the police. Now it's only 52%. Barely half of Americans.
That's great if in your area nothing is necessary!
Nowhere -- NOWHERE -- did I suggest national campaigns. Like politics, all "policing" is local.
Sorry, I was asking if you proposed this. The thing is, when a case like those we've seen in the news recently hits national media, then using your suggestion of doing more PR has been criticized. Depts and towns have been accused of making statements, or certain decision for PR purposes. Sadly, they can't win.
I do agree that there are times when some officers are too stern in trying to control the situation - such as your personal example. However, they are given the training as to how to take control of investigations or situations, and how they communicate during the event is by using some standard verbiage and some that is subjective - based on their interpretation of the needs of the situation. I once had a young officer get like that with me when I was attempting to enter a shopping area that unbeknownst to me was being secured. I followed up my conversation with the officer by calling his supervisor who admitted the officer was too gung ho in this situation. He agreed to talk with him and I was satisfied.
Sorry, I was asking if you proposed this. The thing is, when a case like those we've seen in the news recently hits national media, then using your suggestion of doing more PR has been criticized. Depts and towns have been accused of making statements, or certain decision for PR purposes. Sadly, they can't win.
I do agree that there are times when some officers are too stern in trying to control the situation - such as your personal example. However, they are given the training as to how to take control of investigations or situations, and how they communicate during the event is by using some standard verbiage and some that is subjective - based on their interpretation of the needs of the situation. I once had a young officer get like that with me when I was attempting to enter a shopping area that unbeknownst to me was being secured. I followed up my conversation with the officer by calling his supervisor who admitted the officer was too gung ho in this situation. He agreed to talk with him and I was satisfied.
I understand what you're saying.
The time for good public relations is not so much when the **** hits the fan, because then it does look like you're just putting a fake spin on things. The time for PR is all the time before that when you build up good will. And then when the **** hits the fan (and it always does), far more people are willing to say, "Hey, they usually do a really good job, so I'm not going to go crazy over this one incident", or at least listen with more of an open mind to the follow-up of an incident.
I remember one time I was working my way through paperwork and didn't look carefully enough at a teacher's purchase order, which the teacher hadn't filled out correctly. I quickly signed off on the purchase order, and sent it off for processing. When the order came in, my finance secretary said, "I think we have a problem". She pointed out that I had overlooked that the shop teacher had not carried over totals, so while the bottom line looked okay, in reality we had ordered supplies that should have been put out for bid. I jumped in my car and drove over to the finance office and went into the head finance officer's office. "I think I've made a terrible mistake, and you're going to chop my head off". She listened to my tale and started laughing. She said, "Well, first of all, we hadn't notified principals yet, but we changed the rules the other day, and the amount of your order is now within the total of what does not need to be put out for bid. But, V----, you wouldn't get in trouble for this anyway, because you've built up, over time, a reputation for being honest and straight forward, just like you are being today. The principals who get in trouble are those who make this type of mistake and then try to cover it up when it comes to light, as it always does. Then, it's too late. So just keep doing what you do."
The time for good public relations is not so much when the **** hits the fan, because then it does look like you're just putting a fake spin on things. The time for PR is all the time before that when you build up good will. And then when the **** hits the fan (and it always does), far more people are willing to say, "Hey, they usually do a really good job, so I'm not going to go crazy over this one incident", or at least listen with more of an open mind to the follow-up of an incident.
I remember one time I was working my way through paperwork and didn't look carefully enough at a teacher's purchase order, which the teacher hadn't filled out correctly. I quickly signed off on the purchase order, and sent it off for processing. When the order came in, my finance secretary said, "I think we have a problem". She pointed out that I had overlooked that the shop teacher had not carried over totals, so while the bottom line looked okay, in reality we had ordered supplies that should have been put out for bid. I jumped in my car and drove over to the finance office and went into the head finance officer's office. "I think I've made a terrible mistake, and you're going to chop my head off". She listened to my tale and started laughing. She said, "Well, first of all, we hadn't notified principals yet, but we changed the rules the other day, and the amount of your order is now within the total of what does not need to be put out for bid. But, V----, you wouldn't get in trouble for this anyway, because you've built up, over time, a reputation for being honest and straight forward, just like you are being today. The principals who get in trouble are those who make this type of mistake and then try to cover it up when it comes to light, as it always does. Then, it's too late. So just keep doing what you do."
I got it. Really, this is Community Policing - building relationship and trust. It used to work well the UK. Not sure if they still do it over there.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,548 posts, read 12,525,568 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Successful lawsuits usually mean you are in the wrong, and while there are frivolous lawsuits, more often where there's smoke there's fire.
There is typically no 'successful lawsuit', since the city usually settles instead of going through the time consuming and much more expensive route of fighting the suit even though the city knows they'd probably win. There's usually no smoke and no fire, and the majority of these cases are frivolous. Even when a person, or one of their family members, is clearly in the wrong and gets injured or killed because of their own actions, the first thing they, or their families, do is lawyer up and eventually get a settlement off of the backs of the city taxpayers. Just watch, in this particular case the family will sue and the city will settle, even though, as it appears, the guy died because of his own actions. The family had lawyered up almost immediately, probably even before the guy died.
Quote:
Suing people costs money, so most won't do it unless there is some basis for it.
Most will do it since the cases are usually settled, even though in many of the cases the fault is 100% on the person who was injured or killed. Lawyers salivate over these types of cases--easy money!!
Quote:
But let me ask you this -- will good community relations result in more or fewer lawsuits?
It doesn't matter how good or bad community relations are, suing has become the go to way of making easy money. IF the cities would start fighting many of these cases in the court room, regardless of the extra time and dollar costs, many of the cases would probably be won by the cities and it might stop the majority of these frivolous lawsuits leaving only the true suits to be filed.
People no longer take responsibility for their actions or the actions of their family members. Suing and getting a settlement has become too lucrative.
In 1993, only 11% of Americans had "very little" respect for the police. Now it's 16%.
In 2004, 64% of Americans had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of respect for the police. Now it's only 52%. Barely half of Americans.
The presidents approval rating is only 45%, congress is like 17%. Support for any authority is currently in the toilet.
In no small part to our glorious leader Obama's efforts to increase class and racial strife.
IMHO
There is typically no 'successful lawsuit', since the city usually settles instead of going through the time consuming and much more expensive route of fighting the suit even though the city knows they'd probably win. There's usually no smoke and no fire, and the majority of these cases are frivolous. Even when a person, or one of their family members, is clearly in the wrong and gets injured or killed because of their own actions, the first thing they, or their families, do is lawyer up and eventually get a settlement off of the backs of the city taxpayers. Just watch, in this particular case the family will sue and the city will settle, even though, as it appears, the guy died because of his own actions. The family had lawyered up almost immediately, probably even before the guy died.
Most will do it since the cases are usually settled, even though in many of the cases the fault is 100% on the person who was injured or killed. Lawyers salivate over these types of cases--easy money!!
It doesn't matter how good or bad community relations are, suing has become the go to way of making easy money. IF the cities would start fighting many of these cases in the court room, regardless of the extra time and dollar costs, many of the cases would probably be won by the cities and it might stop the majority of these frivolous lawsuits leaving only the true suits to be filed.
People no longer take responsibility for their actions or the actions of their family members. Suing and getting a settlement has become too lucrative.
Even though he was in the hospital he was still technically in police custody. If he'd survived then, once the hospital released him, he would have either gone to jail or been ticketed and released.
on the whole of your post.
It probably isn't an easy task to 'control a drugged out wacko'. The cops have to take steps to insure that the guy would not endanger his own life, the lives of the paramedics and the lives of the cops. He was probably acting up and they had no choice but to restrain him. There may have been a solid reason why they laid him face down on the gurney. If he was laid on his back and strapped down on the gurney, if he was puking he could have asphyxiated--then the armchair cowboys in here would be screaming that the cops shouldn't have put him on his back. No matter how they handled it there would be someone ranting about it.
Wondering if the guy made his own LSD, being a chemist and all. Yeah, nice of that guy to have that stuff in his house with a small child there.
I was taken to ER one time for a hard blow to the head. They strapped me into a contraption to keep my neck and back immobile due to risk of spinal injury (unnecessary, IMO). I wasn't on drugs, but I was concussed, and very nauseous and dizzy. I think I would have preferred being hogtied and transported facedown in that condition, as I did fear throwing up and not being able to move.
Asphyxiation while under the influence could easily occur, and has....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. And it generally works here when it's done well.
