When a Cop Needs Help

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was said that the kid was on drugs of some nature...and had the strength to do pushups with the SRO on his back....
And it was also said, in the original post by the person who was actually there, "Needless to say the SRO was pissed. He wanted to handle this himself and never lost control." Again, just because you don't have the cuffs on doesn't mean you don't have control.
The SRO was wrong; of that there is no doubt.
What there is no doubt of is that any claims that the SRO did not have control are an exercise in fiction, and contradict the facts as we know them. The SRO who was involved said he did not need any help. The witness reporting the incident said the SRO never lost control. I'll tend to accept the word of those who were there and actually know something about what was going on as opposed to someone who is just making things up as they go.
 
The SRO never had control...that's why he was STILL fighting with the kid and TRYING to get to his mace when the two teachers intervened.

According to what has been posted here, the SRO never actually subdued the kid.
We don't know what would have happened had the two teachers not intervened, but I doubt it would have went well for anyone.

Again, if help is readily available, only an idiot would try to subdue another person, who is on drugs, one-on-one.
There's simply no reason for it except poor judgement and an inflated ego.
Why refuse the help?
And it's not like the help was being offered from some stranger off the street...the help was being offered from a faculty member of the school where the SRO works.
The SRO was wrong, plain and simple.
By refusing help he was increasing the chances of injuring himself, the suspect, and the surrounding students in the hall.
 
Not to muddle up any more, but perhaps the SRO was worried about the "what if" situations:
Like, what if a teacher who helps is injured? Would that open up a lawsuit?
What if the assisting teacher moves the kid into a position to gain access to a weapon?
What if....

It's a fairly dynamic situation, and while the officer may have been able to use the help, sometimes, they also have other things to worry about than the obvious here. While the kid was able to keep doing push-ups with the officer on his back, that says that the kid would have had more energy to expend towards another person if he wasn't having to push the officer up as well. Who knows how it could have turned out, but at least it turned out with no injuries.
 
I've assisted officers a few times around here...but it's really only been after an accident to move around barriers or help put up some tape. I'd like to think I would help out if at all possible though.
 
A suspect is never under control until the handcuffs are on. Sometimes an extra hand or sitting on a suspect provides just the amount of assistance needed to get the cuffs on. It also saves both the suspect and the officer from further injury. There is no way an Officer is weighing any factors of civil liability when he is wrestling with a suspect.
 
The SRO never had control...that's why he was STILL fighting with the kid and TRYING to get to his mace when the two teachers intervened
That is directly contradicted by all the information we have. The officer said he didn’t need any help, and the witness says the officer had things under control. I've fought with a number of suspects trying to get them into the right position or situation, but I had control of them while I was fighting. Sometimes you fight on in order to reduce the chance of injury or damage.
According to what has been posted here, the SRO never actually subdued the kid.
Perhaps that is because before he could do so, or felt the situation was right, others intervened. And again, subdued is very different from controlled.
We don't know what would have happened had the two teachers not intervened, but I doubt it would have went well for anyone.
And I doubt the officer would have had much trouble. You seem to want to make worst-case assumptions that fly in the face of the evidence provided.
Why refuse the help?
Because it is not needed and increases the chance that there will be problems.
The SRO was wrong, plain and simple.
Nonsense, plain and simple. Once again, to quote from the original witness to the incident, “He wanted to handle this himself and never lost control.”
By refusing help he was increasing the chances of injuring himself, the suspect, and the surrounding students in the hall.
Again, a wild assumption that goes against the evidence, so I’ve just got to ask at this point---Just how many people have you had to cuff up as part of executing an arrest? What experience in this field gives you such a base of expertise? Or are you just talking through your hat?
 
Again, a wild assumption that goes against the evidence, so I’ve just got to ask at this point---Just how many people have you had to cuff up as part of executing an arrest? What experience in this field gives you such a base of expertise? Or are you just talking through your hat?
Here's the experience that I base my opinions on....

In my younger and wilder days I have had my own experiences with police.
I've been detained before, I've been arrested and cuffed before, I've been jailed three times, I fought police unsuccessfully before, and I've fought police successfully and escaped before.

I served for six years in the U.S. Army and am a Gulf War vet, and sometimes processed Iraqi prisoners during that war.

And for the last nine years I have worked in the ER of a large hospital where I routinely deal with drunks, druggies, crazies, and angry combative patients.
And being a male hospital worker, hardly a week goes by that I don't have to help restrain and strap down a patient to a stretcher, or prevent a patient from hurting themselves or others.
And we don't have the luxury of having pepperspray, a baton, a tazer, and a service pistol at our disposal.
AND we are legally obligated to make every effort to NOT hurt the patient...even if the patient is trying his best to hurt us.

So, based upon my personal experience, I maintain that only a total idiot would refuse any available help when confronting a combative person...especially one on drugs...especially in a hallway crowded with other kids!

And I can also tell you that until the combative person is firmly secured in cuffs or restraints, that person is NOT under control.

Some folks aren't even under control while cuffed...
Not too long ago we had a sheriff's deputy bring in a prisoner for treatment and the prisoner kicked the deputy and ran like crazy through the hospital until we could catch him and strap him down.
He injured one nurse in the process.
 
Here's the experience that I base my opinions on....
OK, unless I'm wrong none of that experience involves executing arrests and subduing criminals as part of a legal apprehension.
And we don't have the luxury of having pepperspray, a baton, a tazer, and a service pistol at our disposal.
AND we are legally obligated to make every effort to NOT hurt the patient...even if the patient is trying his best to hurt us.
So the restraints placed on you and your actions are not at all similar to those that LE faces.
So, based upon my personal experience, I maintain that only a total idiot would refuse any available help when confronting a combative person...especially one on drugs...especially in a hallway crowded with other kids!
Well, I would so that your personal experience does nothing to provide you with any expertise or experience in the situation that was described.
And I can also tell you that until the combative person is firmly secured in cuffs or restraints, that person is NOT under control.
Well, having actually BTDT, I can also tell you that is pure nonsense. I have had many suspects under control before they were cuffed or put in other restraints.
Some folks aren't even under control while cuffed...
True, and the other side of that coin is that some folks are under control without being cuffed.
 
Nonsense, plain and simple. Once again, to quote from the original witness to the incident, “He wanted to handle this himself and never lost control.”
I'm sure that the SRO did want to handle it himself without help...he let his pride affect his judgement.

As for him never losing control...we simply don't know if that's true or not.
Just because the witness felt that he had not loss control, that does not make it a fact.
And even if the SRO THOUGHT he had contol, again, that does not make it a fact.

Often humans truely believe that they have a situation under control when, in fact, they don't.
And often humans will claim to others that they have a situation under control when, in fact, they don't.
Apparently, the two teachers who intervened did not think that the SRO had things under control...otherwise why would they have felt the need to intervene?



David, believe whatever you like.

I suspect that you are or were a police officer and your posts are a clear example of the "blue wall".

Taking that in to account, I certainly don't expect for you to admit that the SRO did not have things under control.
It's just another manifestation of the inflated cop ego.

Many cops have this mentality that unless you're a cop, you will not be able to effectively assist, and in fact, you will just screw things up and make the situation worse...it's just pride and ego interferring with intelligence and logic.
Military personnel often have the same attitude...I know I did when I was a Soldier.

There was simply NO reason for the SRO to refuse help from a faculty member who was already there on the scene.
And the SRO was very lucky that several friends of the suspect were not in that hallway...otherwise the SRO would have probably had the crap kicked out of him.
And had the two teachers not intervened, he might have had the crap kicked out of him anyway.
Luckily for the SRO, we'll never know.
 
Last edited:
Help !?!?!? an LEO !?!?!?

This is what it states in Utah according to,

Title 76 Chapter 2, Justification for Use of Force.

Utah Code Section 76-2-40476-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force. (1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using ...
le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02024.htm - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force.
(1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force when:
(a) the officer is acting in obedience to and in accordance with the judgment of a competent court in executing a penalty of death under Subsection 77-18-5.5(3) or (4);
(b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
(i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to others if apprehension is delayed; or
(c) the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
(2) If feasible, a verbal warning should be given by the officer prior to any use of deadly force under Subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c).

Amended by Chapter 51, 2004 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_02024.ZIP 2,262 Bytes

-------------------------------------------------------

Would I ???
Yes, if the situation calls for it and in direct communication with the LEO.
 
David, believe whatever you like.
Thank you. I will believe the statements of those who were there at the scene as opposed to someone with no actual knowledge of the event.
Taking that in to account, I certainly don't expect for you to admit that the SRO did not have things under control.
No need to admit something that is contradicted by the facts.
It's just another manifestation of the inflated cop ego.
Let's see now. You were not there, your claims are contradicted by those that were there, and you admit that you have no training/experience/ expertise in doing what was done, yet you seem to think your view is the only right one. Seems to me the inflated ego does not ride on the cop.
There was simply NO reason for the SRO to refuse help from a faculty member who was already there on the scene.
The fact that you continue to chant that mantra indicates how little you understand about the dynamics of some of these situations.
Luckily for the SRO, we'll never know.
And luckily for you there is no penalty for engaging in wild flights of imagination. Your entire argument is based on a series of ifs, maybes, and could haves. I prefer to deal with reality.
 
No need to admit something that is contradicted by the facts.
FACTS?

Here are the facts:
1. The SRO was trying to subdue a suspect.
2. The suspect was actively resisting the SRO's efforts.
3. Two teachers joined in the altercation on the side of the SRO and against the suspect.
4 Eventually, the suspect was subdued.

What is NOT a fact is the notion that the SRO had control of the situation.

Just because the witness felt that he had not loss control, that does not make it a fact.
And even if the SRO THOUGHT he had contol, again, that does not make it a fact.

Often humans truely believe that they have a situation under control when, in fact, they don't.
And often humans will claim to others that they have a situation under control when, in fact, they don't.
Apparently, the two teachers who intervened did not think that the SRO had things under control...otherwise why would they have felt the need to intervene?

Have you ever witnessed a situation where someone told you they had things "under control" when you knew that they did not?

I have.
And I'll bet everybody on this forum has.

Don't confuse facts with opinions.


...and you admit that you have no training/experience/ expertise in doing what was done,...
Wrong.
The SRO wrestled a person to the ground until two others intervened and help subdue that person.
I do that routinely in our ER.
There's nothing the SRO did in this particular instance that I don't do on a regular basis...except haul the guy off to jail.
 
Last edited:
Yes, facts. The evidence of what was actually occurring according to statements of those at the scene as opposed to an untrained individual imagining things on the internet.
What is NOT a fact is the notion that the SRO had control of the situation.
No, that is an assumption on your part that is contradicted by the statements of those at the scene and actually involved.
Just because the witness felt that he had not loss control, that does not make it a fact.
I would suggest it is far more factual than any after-the-fact fictions that you might think up. There is no evidence to contradict the claim of the person involved, thus his statement can be taken at face value (factual). That is a pretty standard rule of law, and of logic, and quite reasonable, no matter how much you might disagree.
And even if the SRO THOUGHT he had contol, again, that does not make it a fact.
And even though you THINK the SRO did not have control, that doesn’t make it a fact. The fact is that personal claims are considered factual (such as eyewitness testimony) until or unless contradicted by evidence. So yes, the statement by the SRO and the witness can be considered as facts.
The facts are pretty simple:
1. The SRO said he didn’t need any help.
2. The witness says the SRO had things under control.
3. The BG was subdued and cuffed. Whether that was the result of the two teachers interfering in the arrest or not is unknown.
It looks pretty simple--there is nothing in the KNOWN FACTS that indicates the officer needed any assistance, there is ample evidence that he did not. Anything beyond that is pure assumption.
Apparently, the two teachers who intervened did not think that the SRO had things under control...otherwise why would they have felt the need to intervene?
Because they did not understand the situation? Because they wanted to show off? Because they were afraid? Because they wanted to help so they could brag about it later? Who knows? I prefer to work with the factual information available, not guess and make things up. FWIW, I've had several incidents where good folks have wanted to get involved and I had things under control. I even lost a suspect once because a good Samaritan "helped out" without understanding what was going on.
Don't confuse facts with opinions.
You might want to try that yourself, as your entire argument is an opinion that is contradicted by the facts as presented. Your opinion is that the SRO did not have things under control, even though the facts are that he said he did. Your opinion is that the SRO did not have the BG under control, even though the facts are that the witness says he did. Your opinion is that the SRO needed help. Your opinion is that the two people jumping in to assist were needed. Your opinion is that the SRO let his ego get in the way of asking for help when he needed it. None of those opinions have a bit of factual support for them.
No, right. You apparently have never made an arrest, have never cuffed someone as the result of an arrest, and so on. You might have wrestled with some patients in the hospital. Trust me, that is very different than fighting a BG to arrest him. And yes, I’ve done both. By your own admission, “And we don't have the luxury of having pepperspray, a baton, a tazer, and a service pistol at our disposal. AND we are legally obligated to make every effort to NOT hurt the patient...even if the patient is trying his best to hurt us.” A very different set of dynamics than when subduing a subject as part of an arrest. So, once again, your personal experience does nothing to provide you with any expertise or experience in the situation that was described.
There's nothing the SRO did in this particular instance that I don't do on a regular basis...except haul the guy off to jail.
That you would make such a statement indicates how little you understand the issue. If you think the dynamics of using force to execute an arrest only differ from controlling an unruly patient based on where the subject goes after the incident, you have much to learn. I’m sure that you know a lot about some techniques of changing a bedpan or flipping a patient or giving a sponge bath that LE would not know. You might want to give the police the same courtesy and recognize that they know a lot about controlling and subduing a BG that you don’t know.
 
Yes, facts. The evidence of what was actually occurring according to statements of those at the scene as opposed to an untrained individual imagining things on the internet.
So you consider "witness statements" to be facts?
Well, that certainly explains alot.:rolleyes:
I hope you're not a lawyer or a judge!

No, that is an assumption on your part that is contradicted by the statements of those at the scene and actually involved.
Not really.
One witness (our poster) felt that things were under control, but two others (the two teachers) obviously did not share that opinion.

There is no evidence to contradict the claim of the person involved, thus his statement can be taken at face value (factual). That is a pretty standard rule of law, and of logic, and quite reasonable, no matter how much you might disagree.
No evidence except that the subject was not subdued until the two teachers entered in to the fray.
You do a really poor job of cherry picking the "facts".

So yes, the statement by the SRO and the witness can be considered as facts.
This is possibly the dumbest thing I have read lately.
"Yes you honor, I witnessed the whole thing, so what I say must be the undisputed facts".:barf:
Again, I sure hope you're not a lawyer or a judge.

The BG was subdued and cuffed
.
Read the original text again...their is no mentioning of the suspect being cuffed when the two teachers joined in.
In FACT, he was doing push-ups with the SRO on his back...rather hard to do while "cuffed and under control"!

You might want to try that yourself, as your entire argument is an opinion that is contradicted by the facts as presented.
I'm now convinced that you don't have much of a grasp on the definition of the word "fact".

No, right. You apparently have never made an arrest, have never cuffed someone as the result of an arrest, and so on.
You might have wrestled with some patients in the hospital.

I have seized and flex-cuffed Iraqi POW's....
and many many times I have subdued and placed patients in leather wrist restraints...
but I guess that does not count since I was not actually "arresting" them, right?
What a lame argument.:barf:
Trust me, that is very different than fighting a BG to arrest him.
The SRO was wrestling a school kid...not "fighting a BG".:rolleyes:
This is nothing different from what I do every week.

AND we are legally obligated to make every effort to NOT hurt the patient...even if the patient is trying his best to hurt us.” A very different set of dynamics than when subduing a subject as part of an arrest.
Are you saying that a safety resource officer in a school is under NO obligation to try and NOT injure a child that he is attempting to take into custody?
That you would make such a statement indicates how little you understand the issue.
And it's obvious that you don't understand ALOT of things.

I have to ask...how old are you?

I’m sure that you know a lot about some techniques of changing a bedpan or flipping a patient or giving a sponge bath that LE would not know.
I don't handle bedpans and I don't give sponge baths.

Do you think that I'm a nurse?


It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
 
So you consider "witness statements" to be facts?
No, I consider witness statements to be considered factual until some actual evidence counters them. That is the way it works, and yes, a lawyer or judge will tell you the same. That is why we get people on the witness stand and ask them what they saw (when appropriate), to help establish the facts of a case. That you fail to understand the process is rather telling.
One witness (our poster) felt that things were under control, but two others (the two teachers) obviously did not share that opinion.
Actually you don’t know that, as you don’t have the statements of the two who interfered. And of course you have conveniently left out the person that matters the most, the officer making the arrest.
No evidence except that the subject was not subdued until the two teachers entered in to the fray.
You keep making that assumption, but there is nothing to support it in any of the facts available to us. And the statements that we do have contradict that claim.
You do a really poor job of cherry picking the "facts".
Perhaps that is because I don’t pick them, I simply take what is there and do not indulge in these flights of fantasy you seem to want to go on.
This is possibly the dumbest thing I have read lately.
That you would consider it dumb says volumes about your lack of understanding. Of course, the fact that you have taken it out of context to try to make a point also shows your dishonest. Let’s look at the ENTIRE statement: “The fact is that personal claims are considered factual (such as eyewitness testimony) until or unless contradicted by evidence. So yes, the statement by the SRO and the witness can be considered as facts.”
Read the original text again...their is no mentioning of the suspect being cuffed when the two teachers joined in.
Perhaps you should do the reading. The BG was cuffed. I didn’t say he was cuffed before or after anything. The BG was cuffed. Period. Because of that, we cannot know if he would have been cuffed without the interference of the two other men. But he was cuffed. If he had never gotten cuffed that would be some evidence that the SRO did not have control.
I'm now convinced that you don't have much of a grasp on the definition of the word "fact".
Fine. Feel free to explain where any of the facts I have offered should not be considered as facts. Until you manage to do so, I’ll assume you are just tossing around statements without anything to support them, as we have seen you do regularly here.
What a lame argument.
If it is so lame, you should be able to point out where it is factually wrong. So far, you haven’t done that.
but I guess that does not count since I was not actually "arresting" them, right?
It might count for something, but it has no bearing on “You apparently have never made an arrest, have never cuffed someone as the result of an arrest, and so on.” If you’ve ever made a single-person arrest where you have had to wrestle with a suspect and cuff him, let us know. Until then, you are only playing in your own imagination.
The SRO was wrestling a school kid...not "fighting a BG".
LOL!!! You might want to check the facts. I know you don’t like them, but they are there. To quote, “...our SRO (School Resource Officer) had to take a 19 year old student into custody. The student was on some type of drug and halfway down the hallway attacked the SRO in front of me.” Attacked by a 19 year old on drugs. Sounds like a BG to me. Of course, if it was just “wrestling with a school kid” it sort of demolishes this idea that the two other teachers needed to interfere also, doesn’t it? You need to figure out what your argument is.
Are you saying that a safety resource officer in a school is under NO obligation to try and NOT injure a child that he is attempting to take into custody?
No, I didn’t say that. You might want to try to address what was said instead of making things up.
And it's obvious that you don't understand ALOT of things.
Very true. However, the dynamics of arrest, custody and control are one of the things I have a pretty good grasp of.
I have to ask...how old are you?
And then I will ask...how old are you, and why does it matter? I realize that you are desperately trying to discuss anything except the actual evidence and facts available in this scenario, but that seems out of place even for you.
I don't handle bedpans and I don't give sponge baths.
If you say so. Maybe your the janitor. Or a clerk. Heck, you mght even be teh Head of Surgery. It doesn’t much matter. You also don’t make arrests or know much about them, apparently.
It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
Again, anytime you wish to regale us with a discussion of your LE experience, I’ll be glad to listen. I can at least address this topic from a position of experience and training, as opposed to just reading about it on the internet. Of course, the fact that you find it obvious that I don't know what I'm talking about is just further evidence of how little you understand the issue.

BTW, any chance you could get back to discussing the topic instead of trying to discuss me??
 
And, over the last week or so, we're getting exactly what out of this thread?

Other than a ringside seat for a rather stagnate debate, not much.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top