Nice case of biased reporting.
Note the real issue wasn't a heart attack at all, but him having a seizure. While it's obvious he didn't intentionally attack the cops that's no doubt how they perceived it.
-
Features
Wife calls 911 for husband having heart attack, police show up and break his back
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
Nice case of biased reporting.
Note the real issue wasn't a heart attack at all, but him having a seizure. While it's obvious he didn't intentionally attack the cops that's no doubt how they perceived it.
laughing dog
Contributor
The real issues are that
1) the police mistakenly thought someone having a seizure was attacking them, and
2) that they broke his back while subduing him.
zorq
Veteran Member
You are right it isn't obvious that this guy didn't intentionally attack the cops because ... HE DIDN'T ATTACK ANYONE AT ALL IN ANY WAY WHTSOEVER! ( Unless leaning against a wall is now a deadly form of attack....
) You are so blind to your worship of authority that you can't help but to invent excuses for them. Check your preconceptions and read the article again.
A mistake is a mistake. The phrase "an honest mistake" is a redundancy. There is no way for a mistake to be anything other than an honest mistake; if it is not an honest mistake, it is not a mistake.
I question what was relayed to the officers responding by the first responders. There are two classes of ambulances and there training differs. Some ambulances and first responders are EMTs some are paramedics. There is a very different level of training between the two classes. In California the ambulances are actually labeled if they are paramedic, which is the higher classification. Some EMTs are well trained, some not so much. The basic requirements for the certification are not very high. I worked as a lifeguard in a supervisor position and had to have training one level below EMT; I was not adequately trained for any ambulance duty, and was about 40 hours short of EMT certification.
zorq
Veteran Member
Eh, I think there are all kinds of mistakes. Like easily avoidable mistakes and practically unavoidable mistakes. Or innocous mistakes and catastrophic mistakes. Not every mistake is the same. This mistake was easily avoidable and caused quite a bit of damage. It doesn't compare to people 1000 years ago thinking the earth is flat. That is an honest mistake. This mistake was egregious.
Zorq, I agree there are little mistakes and egregious mistakes. That was not my admittedly pedantic quibble. My quibble was with "honest mistake." If it was not an "honest mistake" it was not a mistake, it was deliberate. If it was a mistake, big or little or egregious, it was an honest mistake. My quibble, and it is a very minor quibble, was saying it was "a mistake but not an honest mistake." I think what was meant was a comparison of degree of error, but the mistake/honest mistake dichotomy bothered me.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,388
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Incitement by a complete idiot. If white collar criminals got treated the same way as drug dealers, he'd be talking otherwise.
It's pretty obvious he's a criminal. Hopefully the cops will listen to that speech and rough him up when they come for him.