Officer Cleared In Shooting
Report Outlines History Of Mental Illness
Posted: August 6, 2011 at 5:33 a.m.
ROGERS — A Rogers police officer was justified in the fatal shooting of a woman after she charged him and another officer with a knife, according to a report from Van Stone, Benton County prosecuting attorney.
The report and audio and video of the Monday incident were released Friday. Officer Vence Motsinger shot Fallon Frederick, 30, three times with a 9mm Glock Model 17, according to the report. Initial reports said the gun was a .40-caliber Glock.
According to the report, Frederick apparently suffered from mental illness that had worsened recently.
The video was captured from the store’s security camera. The audio was captured by a device carried by one of the officers.
According to a news release from the Rogers Police Department three officers will remain on leave pending an administrative investigation, which is department policy.
Shooting Report
To view surveillance video, hear audio of the 911 call and read the reports Click Here
According Stone’s report, Frederick entered the Shell Superstop at 1845 S. Eighth St. at 10:36 a.m. She asked to use the store’s phone to call 911.
According to the report, Frederick was riding in a car with her boyfriend, Michael Palumbo, on Monday morning. She had been living with Palumbo in Gateway for several months, he told police.
Palumbo told investigators Frederick became agitated, so Palumbo dropped her off near the intersection of Eighth Street and Pleasant Grove Road, about two miles from the gasoline station.
Frederick took a knife from the car, according to Stone’s report.
In the security footage, Frederick appeared agitated. At one point she displayed a knife, which scared the clerk, according to Stone’s report.
Frederick told 911 operators she was being followed and requested officers. When the dispatcher asked for more information, Frederick hung up.
She placed a second 911 call and again requested officers.
After hanging up, she opened the knife, a 9-inch buck knife with a 4-inch blade, and moved away from the entrance, according to the report.
Sgt. Scott Clifton arrived on the scene first. Also inside the store were another customer, the clerk and a second employee, according to the report.
The clerk warned Clifton that Frederick was armed; Clifton saw the knife and drew his gun.
Clifton told Frederick he was there to help her and told her to drop the knife.
Frederick said she didn’t believe Clifton, who was in full uniform, was a police officer, according to the report.
Then Cpl. Nick Torkelson arrived at the store.
Clifton told Torkelson to use his stun gun to subdue Frederick, and told Frederick to calm down and drop the knife.
Torkelson approached Frederick from around the aisle. Motsinger arrived at the store and followed Torkelson up the aisle.
Torkelson told Frederick he would not have to use the stun gun if she dropped the knife, according to the report.
Frederick said she was a paranoid schizophrenic and did not believe the men were police officers. The officers continued to order Frederick to drop the knife.
Torkelson fired his stun gun, but Frederick blocked one of the prongs with her purse.
Frederick charged at the officers with her knife raised, according to the report.
The officers backed down the aisle.
Torkelson fell. Motsinger fired three shots at Frederick, striking her in the upper left chest, her left thigh and her forearm, according to the report. One bullet went through Frederick’s heart and aorta, according to Stone’s report.
Tim Parker, a Eureka Springs lawyer who had represented Frederick, said earlier this week he was concerned about the circumstances of the shooting.
“I just don’t understand how police, as heavily armed as they are now, could use deadly force,” Parker said. “She wouldn’t hurt a fly. I can’t say what went through the officer’s mind who shot her. I haven’t seen the tape.”
Parker was out of the office Friday and not available for comment.
Stone’s report offers some details about Frederick’s struggle with mental illness.
Frederick sought treatment for hallucinations and paranoia over the last two years, according to the report.
Frederick checked herself in to Northwest Medical Center-Springdale in 2010, complaining of auditory hallucinations that had worsened following methamphetamine use, according to the report.
She was treated for methamphetamine-induced psychosis and left the hospital, according to the report. The report noted Palumbo said he was unaware of Frederick recently using any drugs.
Frederick sought treatment for the same symptoms July 29 at Mercy Medical Center in Rogers, according to the report.
“She was medicated by hospital personnel, and it was noted that her ‘symptoms resolved’ after receiving medication,” according to the report.
She was prescribed medication, but Palumbo told investigators Frederick did not fill the prescription.
Palumbo also said the couple decided Frederick would seek help at Ozark Guidance in Springdale. The couple decided to spend the weekend together and seek help the next week.
“Palumbo stated that as long as he had known Frederick, she had complained of hearing voices in her head and of being fearful that others were trying to kill her,” according to the report.
An autopsy was performed by the State Medical Examiner. Toxicology reports are pending, according to the report.
(Advertisement)
« Previous Story
Meth Dealers Sentenced
A federal judge sentenced a group of drug dealers Friday on charges involving conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and related crimes. Read »
Next Story »
Football Fundraiser Raises Issues
A Rogers High School football fundraiser meant to raise money to pay for a lineman sled, summer camps and uniforms also raised questions about proposed purchases and the ci... Read »
Comments
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
Justified! Wow, what a surprise!
Posted by: Oldearkie
August 6, 2011 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tragic! Seems like this could and should have been resolved without a shooting death.
Posted by: John23
August 6, 2011 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
The officer was faced with a person charging with a knife. There is no reason he should not have been cleared.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 6, 2011 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Not justified. She had mental problems. Why did she have to die? 3 Officers, one woman...come on now....................
Posted by: bonnielpearson08061145
August 6, 2011 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RE "Not justified. She had mental problems."
If she hadn't had mental problems, would the shooting have been justified? How is a policeman supposed to know the difference? A dangerous person is a dangerous person.
It's a shame that she was shot and killed. It's also a shame that she seems to have more of a support network online now than she had when she could have been helped. You can help more people now by contacting your state and federal legislators about the folly of cutting funding for medical and mental health programs.
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 6, 2011 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Where were her caretakers if she was so disabled? No more funding for responsibilities that don't fall on the taxpayer and no more excuses for recognizing that this cop was doing his job.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 6, 2011 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tankersley101--
It takes funding to provide places where mental illness can be diagnosed and treated. Many people don't have the resources to go to hospitals that have mental health diagnosis and treatment (and not all of them do), and a lot of private insurance excludes mental health.
As you can see in this case-- and many others-- there is social value in providing such services. Not putting a policeman in the position of shooting somebody is valuable. (The policeman will probably require mental health services as a result of this incident.) Not using the limited resources of multiple police organizations for such investigations is worth money. Not putting the public through the expense and distraction of an investigation is worth money.
You need to think more in terms of systems than in terms of individual programs and expenses that you disapprove of.
Now, if you'd just get over to that tax thread and answer fayfreethinker's question...
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 6, 2011 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
It wasn't just 3 officers and one woman inside the store. There were other people in there as well, and their lives were in danger. I wonder what the reaction would be after the stun gun did not work, if Frederick had charged and stabbed one of those people. Blaming the police for not doing more to protect innocent people?
Posted by: JimM
August 6, 2011 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey Alpha,
I know EXACTLY was the mental bill is after shooting someone who requires it. Additonally, so called "social action" is not alway the responsibilty of the US Government.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 6, 2011 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tankersley101--
Since our government is charged with providing the framework of a safe, productive society, and since we members of our society are the government, it is appropriate for the government to engage in "social action" as needed. It clearly is needed here.
Systems, my lad: systems.
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 6, 2011 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
It would be nice if there was some additional training for the police to deal with mentally ill. This is unfortunate and probably avoidable.
3 full grown men with tazers, night sticks, flash lights and vests on 1 90 lb woman with a 4" blade knife??? Not blaming anyone but it does seem a little over the top to shoot her in the store with other innocent people in the store.
Posted by: new423a
August 6, 2011 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha,
Perhaps the social acion taken by the brave officer was just the ticket.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 6, 2011 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
So glad the deceased's family and estate have an attorney.
.
Now we can possibly get something other than a police version of events.
.
Ever wonder why this paper always takes the police version of a story and that's it?
.
Posted by: cdawg
August 6, 2011 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tankersley101--
RE "Perhaps the social acion taken by the brave officer was just the ticket."
Only if you believe that government should be inefficient, authoritarian, and out of control.
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 6, 2011 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cdawg- it is not just "a police version" as you say. The store had video of the incident or did you not read the articles that have been written. The thing is she charged two officers with a knife and when one of them fell, opening himself up to attack, the other one fired. This is exactly what the state statute says about the use of deadly force and when it can be used. It was completely justified and it won't matter how many attorneys they have.
JimM and Tankersley I agree with both of you on this situation.
As far as new423a is concerned, did you not read the article where they tried to use the taser and it had no effect, unfortunately both probes did not make contact with her. A bullet resistant vest will not stop an edged weapon so it does not matter that they were wearing their vests.
Posted by: nikki1105
August 6, 2011 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sorry but if a vest can stop a bullet then it will stop a blade from a 90lb woman if you actually take time to look at where the woman was and the cops beside/behind her then cop rushing her you will see nothing threatening going on with her even the dasboard cam showed she was calm with the cops not threatening their lifes!!!!!!! i mean come on she was not acting threatening at all. yes it was very stupid to not put the knife down but some people get scared and don't do the smart thing but no reason that i seen nor heard that justified shooting her 3 times, just a trigger happy cop cause 3 cops with tazers,mace, would of took care of her without shooting her not once not twice but 3 times!!!!!!!!
Posted by: curtisfslinkard
August 6, 2011 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Maybe the "Tank" is a cop wannabee ?
Posted by: Oldearkie
August 6, 2011 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Keep one thing in mind. The officer was cleared by the prosecutor because he did not violate any laws. What many of you are talking about is woulda, coulda, shoulda. Also consider that the officer fired to protect the life of another. Many of you are basing your opinions from unrealistic fantasies of what you think cops can do. Walker Texas Ranger would have round house kicked the knife away. They are not the Mutant, Ninja, Gil Grissom, TJ Hooker, Walker Texas Rangers you imagine. There is a reason all those people are fictional tv characters. I feel for the family of the deceased and the officer who will always have this memory. Avoidable tragedy certainly, but a lot a people failed the lady in this one not just the police.
Posted by: BCGuy
August 6, 2011 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Arkie,
"Maybe the "Tank" is a cop wannabee ?" Nope, I thankfully use MUCH bigger weapons than cops.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 6, 2011 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alpha,
The officer was subject to review. I wouldn't call that out of control.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 6, 2011 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tankersley101--
Killing mentally-disturbed citizens is out of control compared to taking steps to see that they have access to mental health care.
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 6, 2011 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Actually the vest might not stop the knife, it would slow it down. The vest is designed to stop blunt force trama (a bullet), not a sharp pointed weapon(a knife).
Posted by: ozarkhog
August 6, 2011 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I have found that the people that protest the police the most, are usually the most ignorant of the facts and circumstances of the incident they are upset about in the first place.
Why would you speak on a subject when you don't have all the information? It must be exhausting running people down and jumping to conclusions without being armed with the facts.
Sounds to me like the old saying came true again
" The empty kettle makes the most noise"
Posted by: BanjoBill
August 6, 2011 at 6:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tax payers pay for many things. They pay for shells and gas and the car. They pay for pratice. Now tell me tankersley101 why a center shot was due when a leg shot would of done just as well? Did she have wings? Officers spend alot of time training. Are you telling me the training failed?
Posted by: flatspots479
August 6, 2011 at 11:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
You can't "what if" the officer in terms of determining fault.
However, we can have more creative training. More night stick, tazer, and mace training.
If you want a perfect solution, you'll have to pay the money for the training and simulators $$$$$.
This was a loose loose situation for the emotions of the cop and the perp. I hope the cop recovers well and the perp's family is understanding.
Posted by: SFret
August 7, 2011 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flatspots, officers train because in incidents like these they are physically unable to take the shot that you are speaking of. There are certain things that happen to a person when they are in fear. Even if that fear is the fear of being in a postition of taking human life. Google the facts so you won't need to take my word for it. Thats what I did.
Posted by: BCGuy
August 8, 2011 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
As an aside, I note Tankersly101's objections to funding more mental health care, as well as his general objections to any type of "socialist" agenda evidenced by his posts on other threads. I also note his complete support for law enforcement. It strikes me as hypocritical and disengenuous and here's why - The Government takes money from wealthier people under threat of imprisonment (taxes) and uses that money to run government agencies that helps society at large (socialism). Tankersly seems to object to that concept. But THAT IS HOW THE POLICE ARE FUNDED, as well as the roads, the mail, the military, etc. Things Tankersly doesn't mind at all, I'm sure. So he and all the other Tea-baggers are NOT opposed to the concept of socialism, just some kinds of socialism.
Posted by: Amicus
August 9, 2011 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
So, how many of the challengers on this blog are ready to put their lives at risk everyday as our Police Officers are? It is real easy to arm-chair-quarterback this.....If you had someone threatening you with a knife and not heading your commands, would you really take the risk to interrogate them as to their mental state???? Come on people...if you cannot adhere to commands from an authority figure and are threatening theirs and others lives, then the outcome is designed by you! Alpha has some solid comments about pre-intervention, but when it is confrontational, we don't have time for psycho evaluation. A sad loss of life, but certainly justified to protect and defend......
Posted by: commonsense96
August 10, 2011 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsense96--
Well stated-- thank you.
Mental health is complex, and maintaining it in society requires a complex system. The most available component of that system-- the help and support of Ms. Frederick's friends and family-- was not able to prevent a tragedy. That is not necessarily the fault of anybody other than Ms. Frederick, and it certainly is not the fault of the police.
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 10, 2011 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
If someone comes at a police officer with a weapon, they deserve to be shot (center mass in the chest... to death), period.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 11, 2011 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
For all those that disagree with my last post, put yourself in the place of that offcier, or my place as working in a south Fayettville grocercy store several years ago as a teenage grocercy store clerk at midnight 12 years ago.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 11, 2011 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I see alot of CSI, TJ Hooker, and A-Team watchers are commenting on this thread.
Alot of ignorance surrounds the training and the "can do's" and "can't do's" of police work. The biggest myth is the "shoot em in the arm or leg" theory. It's hard enough to hit a large moving target, and she was RUNNING AT THE OFFICERS with the knife raised ready to plunge into the neck, head, upper chest where the vest offers zero protection. The ballistic vest is just that, for ballistics (firearm propellants) NOT knives. That is a separate vest which is not suitable for daily hour after hour wear. Besides, who is going to stand there and let themselves get stabbed? A private citizen is allowed to shoot someone who is threatening them with a knife, why in the heck is a police officer catching grief for doing the same thing??????
The real story is, they were dealing with an irrational person who was armed. They did what they HAD to do, not what they WANTED to do. If they wanted to just kill her, they could have just shot her and not even attempted a taser. You people knocking the officers need to remember when you are in trouble who you are screaming to come rescue you.
Posted by: KnightWatchman
August 11, 2011 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KW, this woman believed in the police in her darkest hour and she was killed for it by the storm troopers. Why haven't we seen pictures of this terrible weapon she was brandishing?
Posted by: Oldearkie
August 11, 2011 at 11:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Arkie: This woman shouldn't have been holding a knife when the POLICE OFFICERS arrived. As for the knife, you should have watched the news, I think channel 5, 24/51 and 40/29 had the video from the store as well as an interview with Van Stone, the Benton County Prosecutor, who showed the knife. A LARGE buck knife. Go check the archives on their sites, I am sure they are still there. But thanks for the "Storm Troopers" comment, it shows you have no respect for those guys doing a thankless job. Keep up the hate!
Posted by: KnightWatchman
August 12, 2011 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
It's a shame and a disgrace that instead of a tazer they would choose to pull a revolver. If they had fore thought to pull a gun why not a tazer. they seem awfully quick to shoot instead of other options which tax payers have paid for. They need to remember that person is a life and a taxpayerwho helps to pay their salary.This state seems to have alot of police shooting people instead of the other way around.
Posted by: coco50
August 12, 2011 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Coco, and it's a shame and disgrace that you didn't read the article before commenting. Had you done so, you would have seen that a taser was used and failed.
Are you suggesting that people should start shooting the police?
Posted by: nwlocal
August 12, 2011 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Oldearkie….it is clear you always wanted to be a police officer. You have a history of second guessing the police. I fully understand after reading your comments why the brotherhood would not want someone of your caliber. In the world of law enforcement there are big guns like 45 caliber and nice assault rifles. There are also little guns like 9 MM and 38 caliber. Sometimes for the fun of it brotherhood will rate each other as either a big gun or a little gun. You my friend would only rate as a single tube blow gun!
Now Arkie go out in the world and have a nice day……
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
August 12, 2011 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
For those critical of me: it's it's too bad you are too cowardly to even show your own picture instead of a faceless dummy. Maybe you are cops? Stay hidden so you may comment in anonymity.
Posted by: Oldearkie
August 12, 2011 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
No old-arkie, no cop just a dummy but a smart dummy. O by the way old-arkie, you want me to stay hidden. The last thing you would want to run into is a real man who is not afraid to admit he is a dummy.
Now again, go out into the world and have a good day.
Shrek
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
August 12, 2011 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
You're too easy. Did you get that from your mother? You could do well by getting someone to read your comments before posting them that is smart enough to spell. A GED would be good enough.
Posted by: Oldearkie
August 12, 2011 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Shrek: This is getting boring now. It is so typical of bully's to threaten force. Are you sure you aren't a cop? Do you still hit your wife and kids? This all started because of the moose of a woman, 95 pounds, 30 (?) years old with mental problems who believed in the police and was murdered for it. She also had a knife and that was esclated by the police to a gun fight. Be childish now as your avatar name is. Bye now.
Posted by: Oldearkie
August 12, 2011 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Oldearkie: I apologize for not making it back until now.
What does anonymity have to do with the comments made?
Yours are better because you choose to show some picture of yourself?
I care not to, so my comments are worthless?
You, sir, are a little too full of yourself.
She pulled a knife on a police officer, the officer attempted the taser, which did not work, she charged at them with the knife raised (Did you go look at the knife yet?) and the officer responded with deadly force when faced with deadly force.
If you think a knife is NOT deadly force, please check and see how many people actually died of stabbings in 2010. You might be surprised to know the knife is a powerful weapon. The officers reacted correctly and with due force.
In all my 40 years I have not yet had a bad dealing with a police officer. Hmmm, maybe because I DONT BREAK THE LAW!!!!
Posted by: KnightWatchman
August 14, 2011 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ok everyone - I fully expect the earth to crack open and swallow me when I say this, but after watching the video, repeatedly, stopping frames, etc, I am going to say that was a justified shooting and I would have done the same thing. The attempted tasing really pissed her off, and she CHARGED down that aisle with the knife raised. Looked like a fast zombie out of a movie.
Posted by: Amicus
August 16, 2011 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Amicus--
Of all the nerve-- forming an opinion based on study and evaluation of evidence. How dare you come to such a specific conclusion, without resorting to generalization or character assassination?
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 16, 2011 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LOL, Nice one Alpha_Cat.
Amicus, the earth won't open up here. People want to scream Police Brutality! and Murder! at any occasion, even the justified ones. But us with common sense tend to take a second look before passing judgement, or at least looking at the evidence.
Posted by: KnightWatchman
August 16, 2011 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I have been critical of police shootings in the past, and have been accused of "forming an opinion without knowing all the facts". Perhaps that criticism has some validity. What made this one easier was Van Stone's decision to make all this PUBLIC. That is a great precedent, and I strongly urge it for all such incidents. Really clears things up.
Posted by: Amicus
August 17, 2011 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I read thru a number of these postings and have yet to see one reference that her "mental illness" was due to "methamphetamine-induced psychosis". This simply means she was a meth head to the extent of making herself crazy. The basis for so many of the arguments above doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I would caution anyone who has not been in the officer’s position against judging his actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulan...
Posted by: ADT
August 17, 2011 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I've read the article, and most of the postings.
It's a shame that this incident had to result in *yet another* shooting death. Yes, the woman was armed..she charged with a knife...the officers tried a taser first, unsuccessfully...there were other people in the store...she was at very very close range.
All of these factors add up to "AOJ", as one will learn in a concealed carry course, or "Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy." She had the ability to cause serious injury with the knife; she had the opportunity, and used it; and she was indeed placing others in jeopardy by her actions. Also, she was closer than the officers could remove themselves from her charge. So...justified.
Here's what nags at my thinking, and I suspect this might be a factor in the thinking of others who have commented here:
>if a citizen shot someone on the same conditions, how closely would the investigating law enforcement scrutinize the existence of "AOJ", and would the bar be raised a little higher? It seems like when a citizen shoots, they have much less support from law enforcement. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail...when you fight crime, everything looks like a crime...even if it's the use of deadly force in self-defense.
>are officers not trained in self-defense to minimize the use of *deadly* force to stop a knife attack? A knife is much different from a gun. We all loved the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when Harrison Ford dropped the fancy sword wielder with one shot, but... 3 men, one woman...I just wonder a bit about how these 3 couldn't have tripped her/body slammed her to disable and disarm her without causing her *death* by firearm, 3 shots at that. How much panic was at play here, vs. necessary deadly force? We *must* ask these questions if we don't want to live in fear of police over-use of deadly force.
My brother in law is trained in the martial arts. He was approached outside a convenience store by some young punks with a gun pointed at him; he had only a couple of seconds to think/act. He rushed the kid, disarmed him, sat on him. No one died. Luck? Maybe. Point is, if you do *not* have a deadly weapon on you, you might be more inclined to use other means of intervention. When you're wearing the badge, you don't *have* to be as creative. Maybe we agree to be OK with that. Maybe we don't, and decide to invest in a little martial arts training for the officers. But I understand why the shooting--shootingS--make folks uneasy.
On another note, I hail from the field of mental health. Someone here asked "Where were her caregivers if she was so impaired?" Lordy lordy...you know not of what you speak! Alphacat is right: support funding for mental health--it is horribly underfunded for adults; much more if available for kids.
Posted by: SPA
August 20, 2011 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SPA,
The officer did his job. Funding for mental health has nothing to do with that. Your knowledge of mental health does not mean I don't know what I am talking about. My field has dealt with a significant amount of mental health issues. Throwing money at problems is not the end all be all.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 20, 2011 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tankersley101--
RE "Throwing money at problems is not the end all be all."
Nobody has suggested that money be thrown at anything. Providing funding for programs that keep individuals and society safer, and allow the police to expend their limited resources on problems that cannot be solved by funding of any sort, is "fiscally conservative".
One could easily get the impression from your posts that spending is automatically evil if you lack the perception to understand the need for it. As a beneficiary of funding for the military, you should be aware that spending is often necessary, regardless of whether we all like the underlying reason for it.
You still haven't answered the questions.
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 20, 2011 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha,
So support for more funding for something is not looking to throw more money at something? And still, everyone paying a equal percentage of taxes is not good, fair, or otherwise correct? Ok, got it. You're still on the left and I'm still on the right.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 20, 2011 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha,
So, me getting payed to do my job is a "benifit." Ok.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 20, 2011 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tankersley101--
RE "So support for more funding for something is not looking to throw more money at something?"
Funding is clearly inadequate, and as such is wasteful because it isn't getting optimal results. Funding at a level that can get better results per dollar makes sense. I'm not suggesting "throwing"; I'm suggesting wiser spending.
RE "And still, everyone paying a equal percentage of taxes is not good, fair, or otherwise correct?"
I have shown that a flat tax is not fair by both indirect and direct analogy, as well as by practical example, and I have answered your every objection to my demonstration. You still haven't shown that a flat tax is fair. If the fairness of a flat tax is evident, as you appear to claim, then you should be able to make your case with more than mere assertion. Please do so in the relevant thread.
RE "So, me getting payed to do my job is a "benifit." Ok."
Insofar as having a job is a benefit compared to not having one, yes. The public paid your military salary. Would you have had that job if the public had not paid for your position, equipment, food, supplies, housing, and job-related transportation? As for "benefit" as it applies to additional considerations, you get health care and-- though it is not entirely evident-- a college education that the public has paid for.
Did you serve in Iraq? If so, then note that funding mental health services at a level that allows better care (family involvement training, ongoing monitoring and treatment) is as great a benefit to the safety and well-being of society as paying you to go to the wrong country under false pretenses to "protect" us from a danger that came from everywhere but Iraq. Justified or not, a greater number of mentally-ill people have been killed by the police in Northwest Arkansas than of the whole population that have been killed by terrorists.
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 20, 2011 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha,
Your analogies don't mean squat. As far as relevant threads go, take your own advice.
You said, "Justified or not, a greater number of mentally-ill people have been killed by the police in Northwest Arkansas than of the whole population that have been killed by terrorists." That is unfounded and rediculous. How many people were killed on 9/11 exactLy. Are you saying that FPD or the Sherrif's Department have unlawfully taken out thousands of folks?
Also, have you been to Iraq? Then what do you know?
Yes I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan several times to do my job. And yes, the taxes fund my employer who in turn pays me to do a job. Would you have prefered for me to have been drafted? According to everything I have studied, I prefer to put my life on the line next to decently paid (depending on the critic) volunteers; and I think most of America would agree with me; I know my peers do.
NWA law enforcement officials are heroes and need to quit being villianized over a brave officer doing his duty.
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 20, 2011 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tankersley101--
RE "Your analogies don't mean squat."
How so? Prove it in the relevant thread.
RE "That is unfounded and rediculous. How many people were killed on 9/11 exactLy. Are you saying that FPD or the Sherrif's Department have unlawfully taken out thousands of folks?"
Not at all-- that is an unfounded and ridiculous question. I should have kept in mind that you are either somewhat slow or rather hasty, and said "...a greater number of mentally-ill people have been killed by the police in Northwest Arkansas than of the general population of Northwest Arlansas that have been killed by terrorists." I gave you credit for being able to catch the parallel in the phrasing. Silly me.
RE "Would you have prefered for me to have been drafted?"
No, I would prefer that you not react to every type of spending as if it is automatically wasteful.
RE "According to everything I have studied, I prefer to put my life on the line next to decently paid (depending on the critic) volunteers; and I think most of America would agree with me; I know my peers do."
I agree with you, too. And I thank you-- again-- for your service. I registered for the draft, even though I was 4F, and I considered auditioning for one of the service bands, as Col. Arnald Gabriel (USAF) suggested I do. However, the all-volunteer military has its own problems.
RE "NWA law enforcement officials are heroes and need to quit being villianized over a brave officer doing his duty."
Note that I concur that the shooting was justified. It also was unfortunate and (as it might well have been prevented) unnecessary. Adequate funding for mental health care is a separate issue from the justification for this shooting.
Posted by: AlphaCat
August 20, 2011 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha,
I thank you for your service. I too agree that the shooting was unfortunate and tragic. I still believe that funding have nothing to do with the issue here.
V/r,
Tank
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 20, 2011 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
*has*
Posted by: Tankersley101
August 20, 2011 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Flatspot-
I could not tell if anyone responded to your suggestion that a "leg shot done just as well?" Look at police procedure: No police agency teaches "shoot to wound." The training did not fail this officer. The officer was shooting to stop the threat.
If you must use deadly force, you don't use wounding force (police or citizen). Sometimes trained personnel miss under stress. Police and armed citizens are trained to shoot center mass. Police also are taught the 21-foot rule: An average person can cover this distance before an officer can react, draw and shoot.
The simple test here is what would you do if someone came at you with a knife? Try to reason with an unstable person, soil your pants, flee?
It would appear you are just arguing the opposite side for sport, since no reasonable person (and the District Attorney is an arbiter of this standard) would take up your positions.
---why a center shot was due when a leg shot would of done just as well?
Posted by: TomHoneycutt
August 21, 2011 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Perhaps police agencies should consider training in "shoot to wound" when that would suffice. One does not always have to use *deadly* force to stop violent attacks. When a citizen uses deadly force, they are subjected to much second-guessing by law enforcement.
The 21 ft. rule is also taught to civilians who apply for concealed carry permits. But we're also taught that shooting someone to death should be avoided at all costs and that even if technically justified, it does not protect you from lawsuit and much scrutiny. Shooting is the very last thing you do and you can expect to be investigated if you do.
Most folks in this discussion seem to be asking Why could 3 male police officers in close range to the female civilian not managed to disable her without deadly force? I think it's a legitmate question and I'm glad that in America, we have the freedom to ask it without being carted away, ourselves. I suspect that is what the deceased's family's legal team will ask, and it will be interesting to see how a jury considers the question.
Someone asked, What would you do if someone attacked you with a knife? In a situation where they have only a knife, and me and my 2 companions all have firearms? Sounds like most folks here are saying they'd try to disable vs. shoot to kill. Might be different if we'd already failed to stop with a stun gun though. If we must kill to stop our own serious injury, I hope like hell we're not charged with a crime ourselves.
Posted by: SPA
August 23, 2011 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Re: the deadly force vs. wounding force discussion -
I'm reading about the arrest of what's being called "The Dougherty Gang", the 3 siblings who went on a crime spree starting in Florida and ending in Colorado after a high speed chase and shots fired at the pursuing officers. These three are have up to 76 charges pending against them, including attempted murder and bank robbery, and fired an AK-47 at officers. How did Colorado state police handle it? They set out stop-sticks and when the female aimed at the officers, shot her *in the leg.* All 3 were subdued, arrested, and are in custody--alive. "This gang was very willing to engage law enforcement in a firefight," said FBI Special Agent Phil Niedringhaus.
Kinda makes you re-evaluate the "clearing" of Officer Motsinger in the use of deadly force against Fallon Frederick, doesn't it?
Posted by: SPA
August 23, 2011 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Oh, wait, it gets better:
" One of the brothers — it was unclear which — was arrested near the car and *another was arrested after citizens tackled him* about a mile from the crash just north of Walsenburg", according to an article in the Pueblo Chieftain.
This was a violent young man whom the tackling citizens were aware of as an "armed and dangerous" criminal who had just escaped from a police barricade! Citizens just *tackled* him!
Couldn't the 3 male police officers have tackled Ms. Frederick? I'm sorry...the more I think about this the more outrageous it seems to me that this officer was *cleared.* Something's just a little too loosey goosey here for my taste, and if she were any of our family members, we should be asking a lot of questions about this clearing. How ironic; she's paranoid and delusional and asked the store clerk to call the police to help her, which the clerk does, and they shoot her *three times* and to *death.*
Posted by: SPA
August 23, 2011 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SPA,
The reason "shoot to wound" doesn't work is that in a split second decision to shoot, precise aiming does not happen, especially at close range. The firearm is brought up pointed(probably without even looking down the sights) center, and fired. Even in this case, 2 of 3 shots were to the arm and leg.
I would be willing to bet in the Colorado case the shot to the leg was -not- an intentional leg shot, but a shot that happened to strike the leg. Similarly, in the case of tackling, it does not sould like the subject was being actively agressive at that point. And likely, as he just ran a mile, was already out of breath and spent on energy and did not put up much of a fight.
Neither example correlates with the Rogers incident. The suspect (not the clerk) called the police, and they came - in uniform and in marked squad cars. She then told them that she didn't believe they were the police. Many times, she was asked to put the knife away so they could help - she did not comply. When they attempted and failed to taze her, she charged with a knife.
At this point, the officers attempted to back away from her. In backing away, one of the officers falls over backwards, and is now on the ground. She continues to move forward toward the officers.
At this point, keep in mind this is a very confined area. They are boxed in between 2 walls, a shelf, and the female charging with a knife. It was not a situation where they could surround and attempt to disarm her - they were all on top of each other with no where to move.
So, one officer on the ground, everyone stacked up on each other with little movement room, and she is still coming at them with a knife held overhead. If he didn't shoot, the officer on the ground would have likely been severely injured or worse. His ballistic vest, with the knife would have sliced through like butter anyway, only covers his chest. Gut, head, arms, legs, groin - all exposed.
Had she been shot in the leg and fallen forward, same possible scenario of striking the officer on the ground with the knife, as well as with an injured suspect (no gaurantee that she would survive a shot to the leg, major arteries there). Same possibility with a shot to the arm.
A terrible and sad situation by all accounts, but it is by no means as simple as "three armed officers should have been able to disarm a female with a knife". There are many more complex variables to the incident, and I appreciate the release of information on the part of the PD and Van Stone's office to help understand how the conclusion was come to.
As for myself, after reviewing the reports, listing to the 911 tapes, the dash cam audio, and the store surveillance footage I have no doubt that Ofc. Motsinger saved the other officer that day.
Posted by: nwlocal
August 23, 2011 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WHY DONT YOU ALL GO GOOGLE MAN SHOT BY ROGERS POLICE GOING TO MAIL BOX HE WAS SUICIDAL AND HAD A GUN DIDNT SEE HIM POINT IT ONCE THE TRIGGER HAPPY ROGERS AR POLICE RAN UP ON HIM AND SHOT HIM NO WARNING NO PUT THE GUN DOWN NO IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS POLICE JUST GUNNED HIM DOWN IS THIS WHAT WE SHOULD DO GO-AHEAD AND KILL SOMEONE THAT THINKS THEY ARE BEING FOLLOWED AND ARE IN DANGER OR GO AHEAD AND SHOT THEM DOWN BECAUSE THEY ARE READY TO DIE ISNT THAT ASSISTING THE SUICIDE? PRETTY SURE THIS IS NOT HOW YOU SHOULD HELP THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT MOST. SO ALL YOU GOTTA DO TO KILL YOURSELF THESE DAYS ARE CALL THE ROGERS POICE THEY'LL BE THERE WITH FINGERS ON THE TRIGGER!! WHAT ABOUT THE LITTLE BOY THAT THEY SHOT NO ONE MENTIONS ALL THE POLICE MURDERS THAT HAVE HAPPENED RECENTLY LETS NOT FORGET THEY WERE ALL MENTALLY ILL!! SIGN THE PETITION AT CHANGE.ORG TO GET THE ROGERS POLICE INVESTIGATED. ITS SO BAD THE STORE I WORK AT HAD A SHOPLIFTER AND I DID NOT CALL THE COPS NOR WOULD I EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!! I DONT WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A TRIGGER HAPPY GOOD OLE BOY KILLING SOMEONE...AGAIN!
Posted by: tiffnstuff
August 23, 2011 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
http://www.5newsonline.com/videobeta/...
Posted by: tiffnstuff
August 23, 2011 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nwlocal, guess we just have to agree to disagree about this one. I think this case smacks of "panic" and over-reaction.
Unlike you, I'm not "willing to bet" that the bullet fired in Colorado was intended to kill the woman. If the officers there had acted like the officers here so often seem to do, they'd have kept shooting once she was down...more than one bullet. God knows they had plenty of reason to do that! But they didn't. Therein lies the difference between the Colorado officers and the Rogers officer.
At the very least, it's *high time* that police officers got serious training in how to handle the mentally ill...how to recognize paranoia and delusions and how *not* to react to it. Demanding that they put their weapon down while standing there in uniforms and guns is NOT effective and generally always results in a dead citizen who wasn't a criminal...they were sick and needed the right kind of intervention.
Posted by: SPA
August 23, 2011 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I'm ok to agree to disagree. Was just attempting to give some insight into some of the why's that you asked.
You said that demanding an armed person put their weapon down is not effective, what would you recommend?
Posted by: nwlocal
August 26, 2011 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Well, I do have some observations and recommendations about what officers should do *first* based on the facts of this case as I've seen them presented in this article, and based on my knowledge of mental illness. This is long, so I'll have to post in two posts. Here are my thoughts:
The woman's behavior was obviously erratic; this was observed by the store clerk, and is captured on video. Also, when the officer arrived, he saw her behavior. From what we know of this situation, I feel safe in saying that her behavior was not a "normal" presentation under the circumstances, meaning, she had not attempted to rob the store, or any individuals, she was just agitated and fearful without any apparent reason or without an attempt to attack anyone. I've seen the mentally ill in these states before, and a trained officer would see it for what it is and *know* that she was not just a violent criminal--she was mentally ill and once you know that, you switch gears.
The first thing you do is try to become as SMALL as you can become--quiet, calm, non-threatening. Asking her to 'drop the knife' isn't in and of itself wrong, but *how it's asked is quite crucial.* And if she says she doesn't believe you are a police officer, then you know that your authority is not perceived by her--to her, you may be her greatest fear. So, the object is to be as non-threatening as possible and DE-escalate the situation. When she told them she did not believe that they were really police officers, that was their 2nd or 3rd clue that she was paranoid and delusional. So, you GET SMALL. Repeating demands "many times" that she drop her weapon escalated her paranoia and fear and increased risk for everyone. Obviously, things went quite downhill from there. For the officers, it was a one-track mind: "Get the weapon." But when you *know* that the person you are dealing with is mentally unstable---and her actions made that clear--then you need to go about it differently than how you'd go about it with, say, the Colorado clan. One size of intervention does not fit all.
The simple fact that the officers are in uniform will make them more threatening. There is nothing they could do about that short of go away and come back dressed as a civilian, but they should speed-dial a trained plainclothes to step up while they step back and keep a watch *from a reasonable distance.* Unless she were holding one of the store employees hostage, or threatening them, there was no immediate risk--remember, she'd *asked* for the police, she just didn't believe that's who/what they were.
Posted by: SPA
August 26, 2011 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Part 2 (final):
This woman did not want to hurt people. She wanted to keep herself safe from harm, and that's a huge difference. She needed calming and reassurance—that would DE-escalate the situation. She did not try to hurt anyone until she was charged by the officer with the taser. Then, in her state of mind she *knew* they were "the bad guys." They confirmed her greatest fear by rushing her and nothing they could do at that point would put that genie back into the bottle.
Though probably well-meaning—I hope they were well-meaning and not just on a Rambo trip—they went about this all wrong. This is why I say they need training on how to handle mental illness. Sometimes, taking your time is exactly what you need to do. That's why they have negotiators on police forces, and if the Rogers police dept. doesn't have one now, maybe they'll get one...and preferably, one trained to handle and recognize the mentally ill, and one who can train the rest of the force how to recognize obvious signs of paranoia and delusion.
So, if nothing else, maybe this woman’s death will serve as a springboard for the department to get the help *it* needs to provide more competent service to the community. The mentally ill will always be with us. When they do scary things in public—and they will, and they will—then it is optimal community service for our police force to recognize the obvious signs of paranoid/delusional behavior, and have the training to know how to respond more appropriately.
Posted by: SPA
August 26, 2011 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
You people are talking out of your, well, I can't say that word here.
You have NO idea what it is to be a police officer, how to encounter an ARMED and DANGEROUS person. You want to look at movies and say "see, they can do it, why can't you"
This is no movie. It's real life. Your darn tootin panic set in, she was attempting to stab them with a knife. a LARGE knife no less. What ? you would have stood there and gotten SMALL and said, please, let's talk, please, let me help, please don't do that honey.
Walk in those officers shoes. Train how they train. The chick in Colorado was shot in the leg because the officer MISSED!
Posted by: KnightWatchman
August 26, 2011 at 10:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SPA….when I go to a Walmart Supercenter for the wife, I often need assistance from an associate to locate something. Often the associate would ask me if there was any thing else he/she could help with. My response is usually yes, why don’t you just follow me around the store and when I need assistance I can just turn to you and ask. I have thought about asking Walmart to post associates at the entrance for that reason, just to escort dummies like me around.
Maybe we could post some SPA’s at all the police/sheriff agencies in the US so the SPA’s could go along with all the patrol personnel and evaluate every life threaten event and make recommendations for law enforcement. That way like me in a Walmart store I could easily not make a wrong isle choice, law enforcement would not make a call that aloud Monday morning quarterbacks like you could write about.
But knowing what most SPA’s in the world are made of. I have this feeling when the rubber hits the road you SPA’s will run off and ask to be called after the threat is over.
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
August 28, 2011 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I agree that police officers have difficult jobs. That's just one reason why special training is required,and I'm suggesting that the training should include knowing how to handle different situations with more than one approach (Rambo.) One size of intervention does not fit all. According to what I have read in the paper, seen on video cam recording, and read from others accounts, I stand by my opinion that the Rogers force is lacking in training in how to handle the mentally ill, and at least 2 citizens that I know of are now dead when death could have been avoided, if they'd known more than one approach.
Actually, some cities police forces *do* seek and offer training for their officers in how to handle the mentally ill, and my suggestions are not unique to me; they are commonly known to those of us who have worked with the mentally ill. Again, that's what negotiators are for, and they are often quite effective in preventing unnecessary civilian *and* officer deaths. Falon Frederick was not committing a crime, but it does sound as if she were floridly psychotic in public and when the police saw her weapon which she had for self-defense in her mind, they fell back on the core approach that most law enforcement uses in criminal situations, and clearly, *it was ineffective.*
When/if a police force decides that it can be OK with civilian deaths on as regular a basis as we're reading about them in the paper, that's disturbing. The AR Democrat Gazette ran a really fine article on this, and even to this conservative paper, it's clear that there are concerns about the large number of civilian deaths by police officer in NW Arkansas. If this woman's family pursues litigation, I wish them luck in procuring changes within the Rogers police department, and if they do not, I hope the department will be big enough to seek improvement on it's own.
Posted by: SPA
August 29, 2011 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Having a weapon for self defense is still having a weapon. Especially out in public. She committed a crime even before she attacked the officers - at which time she committed a second crime.
Posted by: nwlocal
August 29, 2011 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Here are a few links for those of you who want to believe that it is not possible for a police force to learn more appropriate interventions for the mentally ill. The first link/article is a good one because it shows the partnership necessary between the PD and other community stakeholders, from consumers of mental health services to treatment providers and national advocacy/education groups like the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (that's "ill"...the type in this page makes a capital i look like a lower case l.)
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/523...
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/COMIO/Uploadfi...
http://psychservices.psychiatryonline...
Taking responsibility as a community for developing more effective and less deadly law enforcement approaches with the mentally ill citizen is commendable, and is indicative of a higher order of thinking. Is our community up to the task?
Posted by: SPA
August 29, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tank, watch those overgeneralizations:
"If someone comes at a police officer with a weapon, they deserve to be shot (center mass in the chest... to death), period."
Suppose the someone is ten years old and the weapon is an 8" stick.
Or the person is falling-down drunk and the weapon is a saucepan.
I simply mean you need to think through and qualify statements like the above.
Posted by: Coralie
August 29, 2011 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
"she was RUNNING AT THE OFFICERS with the knife raised"
I haven't seen the video. Is this true or not?
Posted by: Coralie
August 29, 2011 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OK, reading more of the above it does seem to be accurate, but not until later in the encounter..
SPA makes very good sense, as usual, and is misunderstood by those who think in black/white, either/or, good/bad, no shades of gray.
Posted by: Coralie
August 29, 2011 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SPA/Coralie....you are too educated in academics. Both of you write and express you thoughts well, but street academics is most likely the most important education one can have. Lets try this. The both of you need to do one thing. Go to Rogers Police Department and ask to do a ride along with officers. Don’t do just one ride, do several at different times. Let the officers put you out front a few times and lets see how you handle “real life issues under the pressure you are about to get your butt kicked or someone else’s life is in danger and you come to realization that talking is not working”.
Go on try it.
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
August 29, 2011 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Excuse me, Shrek, but I am an 81-year-old woman unskilled in personal combat or the use of firearms. Therefore it would not be a good idea for me to actively participate in police work.
However, I have known some very good cops and some not so good cops, and I also note that here in NWA we seem to have a higher rate of these shootouts than in some other places.
SPA seemed to me to have some knowledge about how to deal with mentally disturbed people. I myself have had some personal experience dealing with drunks. There are techniques that police should be taught about how to deal with people with diminished capacity..
My comment to Tank had to do with his making overstatements..
Posted by: Coralie
August 30, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I've been reading this thread for some weeks now. Some of you, on both sides, don't know what you're talking about.
I was a police officer here in Northwest Arkansas for 14 years, both in uniform and in plainclothes. I am now a criminal defense lawyer in Benton County. I have had to make the shoot-or-don't decision before; I'm glad I never had to pull the trigger.
I have viewed the surveillance video from the store. Officer Motsinger was completely justified in his use of deadly force to end the threat presented by this armed assailant.
It is, however, a true shame that Ms. Fredrick's mental health problems and the lack of care for (and about) those led to her being in the position she found herself the day she was justifiably killed.
Maybe that's just how it is out here in the real world. Maybe we all here in America should come to the realization that life is pretty cheap; after all, we do still love capital punishment here in Arkansas, don't we?
Posted by: GeneralJackTRipper
August 30, 2011 at 11:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
This is a huge problem in this area. If hospitals would get people appropriate help instead of pushing them back out the doors, this would not happen. This is just another reminder that there is not enough help in this area for people with psychiatric problems. This woman was just at the hospital before this happened, and another time before that. Chances are, she had asked for help, just didn't actually get the right help that she needed.
Posted by: thepejsas
August 31, 2011 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I will actually say something else. I am a nurse and have worked in hospitals where we had people on meth and other illicit drugs come into our emergency rooms. People that are under the effects of some of these drugs including meth, cocaine, PCP, and others can be very dangerous. I have seen 90-100 pound people that required 4-5 nurses to hold them down or restrain them. I have also seen a 95 year old woman who takes 2-3 people to restrain. This being said, just because a person is small, old, or young does not mean that they should have just used a stun gun!!! I really hate that this woman lost her life. Unfortunately, our society has wronged her in more than one way. And, I think what is worse than her being killed is her going and trying to get help at a hospital and not getting any.
Posted by: thepejsas
August 31, 2011 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I have read that police have to deal with domestic disputes, drunks, and mentally unbalanced people much more often than with the "armed robber" scenario.
So they too bear the brunt of inadequate mental health services.
Tankersley's comment bothered me because the military perspective is not or should not be the same as the police perspective.
Posted by: Coralie
September 1, 2011 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ok Coralie so your are old. That does not stop you from riding along. You seem to judge from your side of the thin blue line. Try something that your mother and father most likely said to you when you ware growing up, “Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes."
Try on a pair, your age should have nothing to do with it.
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
September 1, 2011 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
First thing,a 4inch knife is a lethat weapon no matter who has it in their hand. Makes no difference if it is a 250lb man or a 90lb woman. Second it is more than capable of pentrating police body armor which is not designed or intented to stop a knkife blade and has limited body coverage. Police are not trained to shoot someone in the arm or leg. That is a complete falacy. Law enforcement is and has always been trained to shoot center mass period. A shot to the leg or arm could always result in a severed or damaged artery which could still result in death from a bleedout. Get your facts you overeducated idiots before you armchair quarterback the guys who are saving your worthless ass everyday by putting themselves in harms way.Get a clue.
Posted by: gunny55
September 2, 2011 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Shrek, you're making this into a an either/or situation. I don't think I was doing so much criticizing as suggesting, and the same with SPA.
There are psychological techniques for dealing with out-of-control people, they are not just "talking," and it is likely some local police depts could use more training in this.
Years ago I witnessed a cop in NYC who had the good sense to evaluate an argument between husband and wife and know that it was not going to escalate into violence (which it didn't).
In Florida my children played with the children of a young cop who I saw drained and exhausted after trying to rescue a kid who drowned in a bayou.
But you are so defensive and combative that you want to make a big fight with people who actually have a fairly moderate position.
Posted by: Coralie
September 2, 2011 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
No Coralie not defensive or combative, just real. First they are not cops! Try police officer, deputy, law enforcement etc. I am pleased you just happen to be around a police officer who settled an argument between a husband and wife. I wonder though, did the wife have a big knife and was she charging the husband?
It is not I who likes to be defensive or combative Coralie. You should try looking into a mirror. I have the understanding of how things go south fast and if you are really in your 80's then life should have taught you a few lessons of reality.
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
September 2, 2011 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Excuse me, Mr. Shrek, Sir.
Are you by chance a retired police officer?
If you will stop the insulting ad hominem, I will try to use more formal language. Deal?
My point was that the NYC law enforcement officer used some psychological know-how to evaluate the situation, not that he "settled it."
Actually the young law enforcement officer in Florida didn't continue that long in his career as a police law enforcement officer because, I think, he was too sensitive and caring for the job. Not the typical authoritarian personality.
He became a truckdriver.
Posted by: Coralie
September 3, 2011 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Yes Ms. Coralie, I am a retired police officer from one of the largest metropolitan police departments and I do have a difficult time listing to educated people like you, using slang words such as COP. You see I have been at several law enforcement funerals in which officers were killed in the line of duty. I am not as old as you are but very close and even with age the memories of fallen law enforcement comrades to this day lingers in my head. Along with the memories of the wives, children, mothers, dads, friends, and their tears, it never goes away. Never!
You see Ms. Coralie, I have walked in the shoes of those law enforcement personal who are so easily judge by you and others who have never been in the heat of battle. I agree that training is important but trust my experience there are times that all the training in the world would not change the out come such as the event we have been reading in the local news.
You seem to want to focus on the police officers and fault them for the death of the lady in the above story. I see it differently. The fault lies at the feet of those who knew the lady before the day of her death. Like the attorney who knew her so well. Well did he really know her? If so, then could there not be fault or the lack of training in his world? If someone really knew her then how could someone so paranoid run free? Where is the criticism of those who should have known she had issues? Why is a person who is in need of help, pass by so many who should have know she had issues only to leave her in the hands of law enforcement to deal with?
In my heart I feel pain for all the law enforcement officers and their love ones who were call to duty the day of this shooting. Try to understand this will never, never leave their memory. Again trust my experience, they morn for the lady and feel for her love ones.
Shrek
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
September 3, 2011 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Shrek--
I am not aware that police personnel are usually offended by the word "cop". In my experience, many policemen in all ranks refer to themselves and each other as "cops"; "neighborhood cop", "cop on the beat" and other such references are used by them and others without ill will from either group.
Certainly any name or title can be used as an epithet, and in that respect "cop" is not unique. If somebody really means ill, it doesn't matter what they call you-- "cop" or "officer"-- the message will probably get across. I didn't perceive any ill intention on the part of Coralie, so I was surprised that you objected to her use of the word "cop".
Thank you.
Posted by: AlphaCat
September 3, 2011 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha_cat……..your assumption is correct on both fronts. There are law enforcement personnel who recognize that referring to ourselves as ”cops” bring down the level of professionalism that many before us have struggled to achieve. And through out the years the use of COP has become common among civilians. We are at fault for the free use of the word cop. I do take offense when I hear law enforcement called “cops” and it really bothers me when as you say members of rank use that slang. I also know the use of COP is not going away. That does not keep me from condemning the use of the word; especially in a serious discussion of did law enforcement use the right level of force. Using the word cop during these talks in itself sheds a dark light on us and gives an outsider a perspective from the beginning we are not professionals.
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
September 4, 2011 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Shrek--
If it is any relief to you, I think most members of the law-abiding public (and most policemen) use "cop" affectionately, with no thought that it can be considered a pejorative term.
The word "cop" is an informal reference to a policeman, according to the several dictionaries I checked. As such, it is not appropriate for use in formal or professional writing or speaking, as you say. None of the dictionaries indicated that it is used as a pejorative. (I do not have access to the Oxford English Dictionary, which would note any pejorative connotations.) However, as most of the people who post here are not law-enforcement professionals, and this is hardly a formal venue, I think you might expect too much. Since I try to write in an appropriate tone, I will take this into consideration in future comments, and will continue to refer to policemen in an appropriate manner.
Posted by: AlphaCat
September 4, 2011 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Alpha_cat…
Again you have correct points. And yes I do take some things to seriously. Just my nature but I do disagree somewhat with you about a statement in your above blog. You reference “this is hardly a formal venue”. Formal, no! Venue, yes! With pain I read some nasty blog’s said about the three Rogers Police Offers who where, as I said before, called to duty. When I read something that my years of experience tell me is not the case, I do get defensive and I will offer no apology. Some of the above bloggers are just that bloggers who are police haters until they find themselves in need of help. I can point out a few bloggers who are educated and hopefully full of common sense. Such as yourself and Coralie! I often find myself wishing I had the level of knowledge you and some others have but there are times I am smarter and when those time come I speak out.
I appreciate your last post and I do understand at times “cop” is used affectionately, but that does not stop me from interjecting my attitude. Just ask Fox News how many letters and emails they have gotten from me reference using the word COPS.
Sherk
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
September 4, 2011 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Shrek--
Where were you a policeman?
It is a rare treat to be able to have a reasonable discussion on this site. Thank you.
Posted by: AlphaCat
September 4, 2011 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Thank you, Alpha_cat....
Washington, D.C. in the 60's and 70's
Posted by: OldWiseManOnceSaid
September 4, 2011 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Ah-- experience on the front lines, then.
Posted by: AlphaCat
September 4, 2011 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
This video I think speaks for itself regarding knife vs. gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJ...
The officer did the right thing, and with the distances they had to work with, I'd say they should consider themselves lucky for not being cut.
Posted by: Spenny
September 8, 2011 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
An 18 year veteran of the New Castle, Delaware police department was just stabbed to death by a criminal on September 16th. Solid proof again that an edged weapon is a deadly weapon.
The guy was found breaking into cars and was approached by a citizen, who was stabbed and in critical condition. The guy ran and a Sgt., the 18 year veteran, attempted to arrest him without using lethal force. Bad decision. Someone with a knife is just as dangerous as someone with a gun. Wake up America.
Posted by: KnightWatchman
September 17, 2011 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.