Can 'excited delirium' get cops off the hook?

Can 'excited delirium' get cops off the hook?

www.newscientist.com

physicians use the term to describe a state in which a person becomes agitated and combative, with superhuman strength and skyrocketing body temperature. However, the American Medical Association does not recognise the disorder, which has led to claims that it does not exist and is merely an excuse used by police.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.officer.com
www.exciteddelirium.org

[edit on 8-8-2009 by bonsaisert]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by bonsaisert]

This took me by surprise, it almost sounds plausible...

Could this be a product of the soon to be hyper-fascist society in which we may be heading towards or simply an excuse and perhaps justification for police brutality.

Need I remind you of the term "Suicide by Cop"... Orwellian New Speak much?


Comments & Thoughts please.

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If it works for them, then in theory it should work for me if I ever run or resist.

Well, judging by the cops around here, it's acutally called Roid Rage!

It seems the days of the balding fat county sheriff are gone!

In my neck of the woods, all the cops I've seen lately have been 25-45 years old and look like they spend hours and hours in the gym.

Has anyone else noticed this?!?

[edit on 8-8-2009 by breakingdradles]

This doesn't get the police off for beating on someone. It explains why some people die when in custody. This is especially a problem when someone has been using drugs, especially coc aine. They may run amok. The police get hold of them and subdue them. Then the prisoner dies without any apparent abuse or symptoms other than sudden death.

The question is whether dying of this "excited delirium" can excuse the police of misconduct, and the answer is "probably". In many of these cases, the victim doesn't die as a result of any misconduct on the part of the police. He dies because he was on some drug, and he was running, struggling, fighting, etc. It overloads his body, the heart gives out, and he dies. This can also happen without the drugs, but it is more common if someone is taking them.

The problem as I see it is not that these cases show any police misconduct. What it shows is that proper police procedure is not how this situation should be handled. In my opinion, if you've got someone who's intoxicated and delirious on anything (including alcohol), you assume it's a medical emergency until you know otherwise. Take them to the ER and have them checked out. Even alcohol can kill someone, if he overdoses.

The mere act of handcuffing someone can result in their death by suffocation, especially if they're delirious. For more disturbed prisoners, police will sometimes use a "four-point" restraint, where both hands and feet are tied down (or tied together). That is actually dangerous in many cases. For example, if you're tied down to a cot and you need to vomit, you may not be able to get it out of your mouth since you can't lean over. You can suffocate. People who are intoxicated often need to vomit, so if you tie the guy up you're just asking for trouble. Yet this is considered proper procedure in many departments.

One of the problems is that we keep treating delirious people as though they were bad, when in fact they're experiencing a medical emergency.

Originally posted by tamusan
If it works for them, then in theory it should work for me if I ever run or resist.

This is the most logical thing that could be said about this.

Somehow I doubt I as a citizen could use this as a defense though. I think it's funny that cops raging and doing horrible things has become so common place that we have to think of a phrase in other to make it an acceptable regular thing. Especially one as desensitized and politically correct as "excited delirium". Sounds like a five year old at a birthday party, not a cop killing innocent citizens doesn't it?

reply to post by tamusan


"Suicide by cop" is not an Orwellian expression. It simply means doing things that are likely to get you killed by being shot by a policeman. For example, if you show a weapon (even a fake one) and start running towards the cops telling them you're going to kill them all, it is to be expected that you won't survive the encounter. Point a weapon at the police, expect them to have a very negative reaction that will include you dying. Start shooting people at random, same thing. It's as simple as that. The police are almost certainly going to shoot you, which has serious health consequences.

"Suicide by cop" does *not* refer to getting killed by a vicious or even a nervous cop. In one infamous case, a woman was shot and killed because she had something in her hand. It was a cell phone. The cop panicked or perhaps hated certain people, and killed her. That was *not* "suicide by cop".

reply to post by chiron613


Thanks for the explanation of "excited delerium". I thought that it was an excuse for police behavior.

I was not talking about suicide by cop in my last post...

A brief excerpt of an old debate in which the OP's "excited delerium" figured prominently....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(Maxmars v Zaimless: The Taser, Should It Be Banned? )

posted on 25-8-2008 @ 03:27 PM

During this argument you quoted … It does not say that they died because of the Taser. … it makes no direct statement such as ' the Taser killed my (fill in the blank)'…

It does not say they died because of the Taser because, at the time, they had been legally blocked from making that assertion, since all the tools of corporate law have been brought to bear protecting the manufacturer of this misrepresented weapon. Their argument hands us the logic that the ‘contributing factors’ of the so-called “excited delirium”, drugs in the suspects system, or unknown medical conditions, are the ‘cause’ of death, an empty theory that seeks to circumvent the presence of the Taser in the equation. Most of us have seen this tactic used before, tobacco, faulty mechanical devices, and poorly-tested pharmaceuticals. In the courtroom they had succeeded in using all the tools they have been granted as corporate citizens to eliminate their liability until recently, (June 2008 Heston v. City of Salinas, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 05-03658 JW,).

In fact, Taser International, Inc. had asked the court to dismiss the claims of the Heston family, contending that (1) Robert Heston’s death was not reasonably foreseeable, (2) its product is not inherently dangerous, and (3) it had no duty to warn of the dangers of its product.
I draw attention to number 3. ”.. it had no duty to warn of the dangers of its product.”
Is it any wonder they are still trying to squirm away from liability?

The jury found that TASER International knew or should have known that its [Taser] was dangerous because prolonged exposures to the device poses a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The jury also found that TASER International failed to adequately warn purchasers of its device of the risks associated with its use.

There are a number of points to consider in the 'excited delerium" defense... not leas among them is the fact that the taser is implemented under nearly universal policy as a non-lethal means to excerise control over an indvidual. The user of the device is expected to asses whether the person is exhibiting signs "excited delirium", a poorly defined state which no medical authority since the 19th century has accepted as real.

Could this then apply to victims and criminals too?

Or are cops an exception?

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by chiron613

 

Thanks for the explanation of "excited delerium". I thought that it was an excuse for police behavior.

I was not talking about suicide by cop in my last post...

Of course "excited delerium" is an excuse for police behavior, just like when a cop pulls a gun and shoot the dude, but then claims that they thought they were using a taser. Both are obvious excuses for police behavior, but people buy them.

Why do people buy stuff that is obviously made up?? I can't tell you that, since you're not supposed to know.

Originally posted by chiron613
reply to post by tamusan

 

For example, if you show a weapon (even a fake one) and start running towards the cops telling them you're going to kill them all,

You do that to me and it isn't going to take a cop to kill you. I'll do it myself.

I'm not a cop, but I understand where this "excited delerium" comes from. I've experienced it. The military calls it a "combat high". It is a reaction by your body to a situation in which you can be killed or injured. When this happens, time seems to slow down. Time doesn't slow, your mind speeds up and you think faster. When the situation passes, there is a period of time that your body is returning to a normal state and you are not thinking clearly.

reply to post by chiron613


It seems you replied to the wrong person.

Of course suicide by cop is not Orwellian in the sense that it featured in the book 1984 however it is Orwellian in the sense that this neuro linguistic manipulation goes on constantly under the watching eyes of the government and private corporations.

When you can be shot down by police and then on official documents it claims that you commited suicide we are seeing coruption on the most basic of levels...the level of language & if you can't see it...Well then it worked.

"Excited Delirium" sounds like a pervesion of the evolutionary term "Fight or Flight" Which is exactly the same minus people in uniforms with weaponry.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by bonsaisert]

reply to post by mr-lizard


Good point I think if one of us tried using the "excited delirium" excuse in court they would end up claiming that either "only police can get it" or "Its not excited delirium you're just unstable"