South Florida police, completely out of control.

[redrumloa]

:pissed: :pissed:

Two inicidents within the last couple days, I don't see ANY excuse for. Makes me freakin angry :pissed:

The first, and worst:
Mexican immigrant shot in head by BSO officer (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cgomez12nov12,0,6756318.story)

That article doesn't cover every detail. Apparently this guy was unarmed and was shot in the head. I don't see any explaination for this incident, the cop better be prosecuted :-x

Boy, 6, shot by police with Taser at Miami elementary school (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1112ctaser,0,3263372.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines)
WTF? Yes this boy is disturbed, but a taser? What f^&*&ing cop can't subdue a 6 year old without the use of a taser??

I'm pissed :pissed:

[Wilse]

@Jim:

I'm not surprised you're annoyed - I am too.

Using a tazer on a six year old? FFS.... :roll:

[X-ray]

A different perspective on the taser incident:

I have the dubious honour of holding the current record for the most stab wounds seen and X-rayed in one night at our trauma unit in JHB. That total is 22, of which only two victims were stabbed by the same individual. The tools used ranged from knives, to broken bottles, to wooden staves and even metal beams.

Now besides the cases I have seen where the victim received a penetrating injury due to an assault, I have also seen hundreds of cases where an incision has been caused accidentally or intentionally by the person holding the sharp item, or damaging a blunt item that subsequently became sharp. Many of these individuals have been mentally disturbed and have harmed themselves so severely that if they didn't come to us they would have bled out. This applies to anyone who is old enough to hold and use a utensil.

Now, let's look at it objectively. What were the motives of the child? We don't know. What were the results: several incisions in the facial area already. He had proved to himself and to the witnesses that he was capable of causing himself severe harm. While I doubt that the little boy could have posed much threat to the police, I want you to consider how it would look if they stood by and let him slice one of his carotid arteries or perhaps scoop out an eye.

"But the kid is only six, the big strong policemen should easily have been able to overpower him," you might say.

Well, yes, they could have overpowered him, but the likelihood is that either the kid or one of the policemen would have been cut. Even a very small piece of glass can reach the flexi carpi radialis and it doesn't take much force to sever that, and then the policeman might be out of a job. Or the kid could damage any one of his flexors while the struggle for the glass ensues. He could do the radial artery at the same time. People have been more seriously hurt putting their hand ONCE through house glass, never mind struggling with an enraged kid for a piece of glass that he is already holding.

Now for a little tip about tasers and why I think it was a good choice for this case:

1) It disrupts the neural pulses and is therefore likely to make the kid drop the glass. Even if he doesn't drrop it, he can't use it because he has nno motor control.
2) It is non-lethal. The only question that will arise in this case is whether the taser involved had a manual delivery system (produces a current as long as a trigger is pressed) or if it produces a shock of x magnitude every time. If it is the latter and it is found that the magnitude of the shock exceeds the recommended limits of target body mass, the policeman will be in trouble. The article doesn't say if there were any effects that lasted beyond the acute phase.
3) Other non-lethal solutions (currently used on adults) are not suitable for use agaist a child at close range, especially if he is holding a piece of glass. You may find it interesting that several police agencies in the US are exploring as many non-lethal options as they can. When I was in Denver they were even evaluating modified paintball guns firing ampoules of powderised pepper. At close range you can take an eye out with that. What else have the police got to use? 'Bean bags', fired from a 12 gauge, personal restraint nets (not good in a school office and doesn't prevent the kid from cutting himself), 'glue bags' (could cause burns to the face and can be harmful at close range).

Here's a little experiment for you: get a polystyrene cup and cut it in half. Smear some shampoo (or any other gel-like stuff that won't stain) on the edges and then give it to your nephew or similar young relative. Tell him you are going to try to take it off him, and you will give him a bit of money if he can wipe some of that shampoo onto you. What do you think the odds are? Do you want to make the same bet and add the proviso that he only has to wipe it on himself to win?
And how confident would you be in trying to take it away from the kid if he isn't even your nephew, and he is disturbed and cannot be reasoned with?

It's very different then, isn't it? I wouldn't bet on being able to take a piece of glass away from a six year-old kid without either one of us getting seriously hurt, and I have certain training that gives me an advantage.

[redrumloa]

@X-ray

While I understand your opinion, I'd still have to disagree. Yes this child is mentally disturbed. But still at 6 years old this child could have been overpowered by a trained police officer. If the cop was affraid, he/she should not be a cop. Don't get me wrong, I'm waiting for full details before I call for this cop to be hung, but it looks real bad.

[Wain]

Overpowering ability isn't the issue, it's how quickly the kid can hurt himself further, I'm quite capable of jamming something from my hand into several possible areas of my body while you take the two steps necessary to get to me.

I can't blame a police officer for not wanting to take that risk and for using a (quite likely) much less dangerous solution. It's not like he's taking glee in shocking a kid over and over like some sadist.

[Wilse]

@X-ray:

I was under the impression that using a tazer on someone of that age could be bad for the heart, although I (obviously) am pretty ignorant in this area.

Also, I'd imagine the sudden jolt from one of those things could have a psychological effect on a six year old but, again, this is not an area I'm experienced in, so I could be way off.

My instincts just say 'WRONG' but I know that's not a valid excuse..

[redrumloa]

@Wain

We are talking about a 6 year old, I think you guys might be losing sight of this. How much can this kid weight? Probably about 40 pounds. As a father of 4, all of which are/were fairly tall for their age, I can say the typical 6 year old is tiny. Police are trained for hand to hand combat and various methods to take people down. Also a shard of glass is not a firearm, or even a knife.

There's been alot of bad press lately about various police departments lately in south Florida. In each case it seems the police are going waaay overboard with excessive force. Another example was a cop responding to a call, and shooting a dog in the head. The problem is the dog was inside a fence and was no danger to the cop.

Don't get me wrong, I give police the benefit of the doubt, usually. My father was in law enforcement until he retired last year. But this looks bad. I'm going to watch this case closely. If the details come back that the kid was 200 pounds, or something else odd I'll back off.

[GadgetMaster]

There will always be a few trigger happy incompetents in every police force. The multiple instances could be a coincidence or it could be something to do with one getting off the hook lightly and letting the the others think that they can act irresponsibly and literally get away with murder.

Its imperative that there is a thorough investigation though, otherwise it will send out the wrong message. Things are bad enough for people already without having an additional fear of law enforcement officers.

[seer]

Police are trained for hand to hand combat and various methods to take people down.

Trained for hand to hand combat with strong people, so you could argue they might hurt the kid if they tried to subdue him.

[X-ray]

@ Red

If there is a general trend in South Florida for police to be heavy-handed, that is a separate issue and I can't comment on it. What I am commenting on is the manner in which the policeman resolved the situation. I thought about it all last night and I honestly cannot come up with a better solution. On paper and to the lay person it might seem an easy prospect to overpower the kid, and the fact that he 'only' has a shard of glass may seem a paltry concern. But I promise you it is no joke. In some instances it is more dangerous than a knife. It has no obvious fracture pattern and is just as likely to snap at the base and sever all the kid's tendons as it is to fracture in two pieces during a struggle. And I promise you there would have been a struggle.

@ Wilse

I thought about the psychological ramifications of shocking the kid too. And these are other ramifications to consider (from the viewpoint of the kid):

1) An up-close struggle with an adult policeman in which one or both of you gets cut.
2) The loud bang of any other non-lethal solution such as a shotgun firing a bean bag, and the impact of that projectile (much more painful than a jolt from a taser, and can bruise or even fracture small limbs).

But the worst one is an addition to (1) above, in the case of the kid being cut. I don't know how many of you have been involved in the treatment of a young child in hospital, after he has sustained trauma. These kids are terrified. They are subjected to inspection and attention from all manner of strangers and their strange equipment. Let's say the kid got off lucky and all he did was give himself a cut with a minor nerve injury. Here's what he has to endure:

1) Undressing, cardiac monitor, blood pressure cuff, physical examination by the trauma team and then X-ray.

2) After review of the X-ray he must then be examined by the paediatric orthopaedic surgeon, and then (provided there are no fractures) the plastic surgeon.

3) He then has to go to theatre where it is likely that he will have an encounter with an anaesthetist's needle. He is then exposed to all the risks associated with being anaesthetised. It may not go smoothly, or he may develop cardio-respiratory problems. A general anaesthetic is a big deal for a young kid like that.

4) They will clean out the wound, cauterize any small 'bleeders' and then try to find any pieces of glass that may be embedded in the wound (small pieces of house glass do not show up on X-ray so this could be a protracted fishing expedition). After that the plastic surgeon must sort out the nerve: there is no guarantee the kid will get full sensation/motor control back.

5) The second worst risk the kid faces is the possible development of an infection. This could range from a simple wound infection to a serious MRSA infection or a septicaemia. He is at the mercy of the ward staff in this regard.

All in all he is looking at several days in the hospital just to fix the damage he sustained from a shard of glass. Even if it all goes smoothly, I'm sure you will agree with me that there are two 'evils' here and the taser is definitely the lesser of the two.

If it was me, I would have tasered the kid. I am pretty certain that the policeman played all the scenarios out in his mind and came to that conclusion, based upon what he reasonably assumed the least damage to the kid would be.

Edit: fixed a few typos

[Wilse]

@X-ray:

So, no chance of him having cardiac arrest or anything then?

If not, I bow to your superior knowledge. :-) Like I said, something in me just sounded an alarm when I read that, so I'm happy to be corrected, as it was based on instinct, rather than knowledge.

I don't know how many of you have been involved in the treatment of a young child in hospital, after he has sustained trauma.

Not personally but I do hear many stories, due to my girlfriend working as radiographer in a children's hospital (She's there now actually).

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

I can't find any evidence of a single taser discharge being responsible for cardiac arrest, but then there is not much literature to do with taser discharges in children. And even in adults, there always seem to be extended variables involved. Two examples (one had a simultaneous drug load, the other was hit 7 times while restrained already):

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Oct-08-Fri-2004/news/24943985.html

On-going tests have failed to prove that a taser can cause a cardiac arrest in the absence of a pre-existing medical condition or in the presence of narcotics:

http://wcco.com/siteSearch/local_story_041122454.html

Incidents have been reported where a person has died of cardiac/multi-organ complications, but these have not been attributed to the shock, and could easily be explained by subsequent restraint and medical management:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/0731tasermesa31.html

A little bit more about how they work and the safety of use:

http://www.keme.co.uk/~mack/Electronic.htm

And now for safe Joules/kg and paediatric defibrillation doses:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/107/25/3250

They recommend 2J per Kilogram for a child defibrillation but have clinical evidence to suggest that even adult doses have been effective in the past. To put this in perspective, a taser uses less than 2J in total, and the jolt is not applied by pads directed at the heart.

A couple of other things: the taser manufacturer has stated that the taser is safe for use against children and the elderly (although they obviously don't state that in bold, because of the negative connotations). Also, if a defibrillator shock is the standard by which we measure shocks that have a known effect on the heart, then we are talking several hundred times the Joules that are 'dumped' into the body by a taser, even if we consider a paediatric defibrillator, as discussed in my last link.


"...but I do hear many stories, due to my girlfriend working as radiographer in a children's hospital (She's there now actually)..."

Here are a couple of things your missus will appreciate:

1) Going back to the control panel to expose (after painstakingly positioning the kid), and finding that the kid has followed you to see what you are doing.

2) Kid won't drink the barium for the cardiac studies. Demands a sweet first.

3) Kid says she won't look for the little birdie (in the X-ray light beam diaphragm) because her older brother told her there is no such birdie.

4) Kid starts screaming as soon as she sees the radiographer. (Okay maybe that applies more to me than your missus)

[Karlos]

@X-Ray

I have to say my initial reaction was similar to Reds'.

Whilst I accept your analysis, which is based on a far larger physiological knowledge base than mine, a question I might ask is, did the officer responsible for the stun know that the device was safe in this context?

If I do something without full knowledge of the potential consequences, which I can guess may be harmful or even lethal, but can later be demonstrated to be harmless, one cannot conclude that my initial judgement was sound. Hence, unless the officer had knowledge comparable to yours before making his decision, he cannot really be vindicated by that knowledge afterwards; for all he may have known (assuming he didn't have your level of knowledge), the stun shot could possibly even kill the child.

I guess that's why I can't help feeling a level of dismay.

[KennyR]

The boy, who was not identified, was shocked by police with 50,000 volts of electric current during the Oct. 20 incident at Kelsey Pharr Elementary School, according to The Associated Press.

Pffh, I hate when the press has no clue what it's talking about. The volt is a unit of electric potential, not current.

High voltages temporarily disrupt nerve impulses by throwing the sodium ion gate that transmits them into chaos. High currents create heat and burn flesh, not the same. 50,000 V is nothing - you can get zapped with three times that taking nylon underpants out the dryer. 50,000 V at 300 amps, though, will turn you into charcoal. Generally alternating currents are more dangerous than direct current, since they have far more potential for stopping the human heart (especially at 50 hertz, the UK and European supply frequency!). As far as I know, tasers use a DC charge with a current in the milliamps (or even microamps).

What we have to remember too that there are nerves in the body that can't afford to be disrupted, and which control essential body functions. Normally these are very well shielded and a standard taser hit is not a threat to them, hence the lack of fatalities. I don't like the idea of shooting any kid with a taser, but as long as its not the heart, head, or spinal column, as X-ray says its usually safer than physically subduing them. Hey, at least they didn't mace the kid. :)

[Karlos]

@Kenny

As we used to say, "it's the volts that jolts, but the mills* that kills..."

*technically incorrect as unless a several milliamp current were applied to some really sensetive place it would be amps that kill, but you get the idea ;-)

[KennyR]

Karlos wrote:
*technically incorrect as unless a several milliamp current were applied to some really sensetive place it would be amps that kill, but you get the idea ;-)

Technically you could convulse someone's muscles hard enough with a low current shock so they would snap their own spine. Let's hope the Florida police don't figure out that one.

[Karlos]

@Kenny

Perhaps I should have used the word "targetted" rather than "sensetive", but this is basically what I meant. Usually large currents are deadly, but creative application of smaller currents obviously could be...

[X-ray]

What Kenny, Seer and Wain have said is correct

@ Karlos

The police officer won't usually have an in depth understanding of the effect of the taser (I don't profess to either, but I should know a little more than the police officer about medical matters in general). The onus will be on the manufacturer to test their tasers and determine what the safe parameters are for their usage. They then present the tasers to the police department (who may ask for independent tests to be carried out) and then the police department will draw up guidelines for the use of the tasers, based on the scientific data for them. The guidelines will enable the police department to establish protocols to make sure the taser doesn't get used in such a way as to be dangerous to the operator and the target.

So we could say that the policeman is protected by his department's protocols for the usage of the taser, provided that he also:

1) took every precaution to use the taser according the instructions (not shooting the barbs into the target's eyes or genitals).

2) took into account the general variables asociated with the scene. If he tasered the kid while he was on a balcony or ledge, that would be dangerous.

So in this case the question arises: does the police department in question have a minimum age for targets suitable to be tasered, as set out in their protocol? If the answer is that they do have a minimum age, and it was greater than 6, then the policeman is guilty of not following protocol. Now this is where it gets interesting, because if he didn't follow protocol he will have to justify why not. And this is where the onus is on the policeman to present the facts (as he knew them to be at the time of the incident), and explain how he arrived at the risk assessment that he did, and also how he felt that it was the only course of action available to him. In this case I would expect that he had an understanding of the manufacturer's parameters (fortunately it would seem that a 6 year old can be safely tasered according to those parameters) otherwise he certainly could be accused of using a device outside of police protocols, with no idea of the consequences. So he may have known that he coudn't have permanently harmed the child, but that doesn't mean he would be saved a disciplinary procedure for breach of protocol.

[Karlos]

@X-Ray

Well, what I meant is that the officer shoun't need to know as much as yourself, but should know (as you say) if the device is suitable for deployment against a child, as according to the manufacturers info / police department guidelines.

Using it in the absence of such knowledge could be construed as highly reckless.

[X-ray]

@ Karlos

In the atmosphere of frivolous law suits in the USA, I am willing to bet that the policeman was certain he would either be covered by department protocol or the manufacturer's guidelines.

[Karlos]

Probably. It still seems a tad, I dunno, excessive?

[X-ray]

@ Karlos

It was the most effective way to prevent the kid from hurting himself or anybody else. In fact I don't know of any other non-lethal means to immobilise the kid. I have been thinking about this and I can't suggest an alternate course of action. What do you reckon?

[Karlos]

Stick a TV & McD happy meal in front of him?

/deadpan

In all honesty I expect you are right.

X-ray wrote:
@ Karlos

It was the most effective way to prevent the kid from hurting himself or anybody else. In fact I don't know of any other non-lethal means to immobilise the kid. I have been thinking about this and I can't suggest an alternate course of action. What do you reckon?

Maybe some kind rapid-acting of tranquilizer dart? Would that have been a better solution?

[Karlos]

Well, I'm pretty sure any tranquilizer can be lethal if given in excess. Darting a child with an adult dose could be deadly in itself. I didn't think this type of thing is generally carried by the police either :-?

[redrumloa]

@X-Ray

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. I've seen the kid interviewed now on the news, and there is no deep cuts on his face. This is an average size 6 year old, meaning tiny. Turns out the cop was a woman, can't say I'm terribly surprised.

An outstreched arm would have been a far better alternative. The time it took to aim and set up a taser she could have reached out and grabbed his arm.

I know you disagree, and you seem to be quite knowledgable but I still disagree stronly. I need to stand a 6 year old next to you, just to get the a real grasp on the size and have a conversation, to get an idea of mental development at this age. If 6 isn't too young, what is? What if a 1 year old grabs a sharp object and cuts himself?

[smerf]

Hi,

@KennyR,

Totally agree with your first reply.

Nice reply,

smerf,

@red,

cmon red, so the cop was a female, this does not mean that she can't do her job, if you think that is so, there is a small little black haired police officer here in Panama City I would like you to meet, and when she speaks you listen. I think that this police woman did what she taught was right for the circumstances.

smerf

[redrumloa]

There's been another incident of a cop using a taser. This time it's a cop shooting a 12 year old girl with a taser in the back as she ran away. Her crime? She was skipping school and allegedly drinking at a pool. In this case the cop is getting disciplined. The one with the 6 year old boy, they are still backing the officer.

I recorded a news clip about the newest incident, but they mention the other case and show the 6 year old. It's 12MB and located HERE (http://anachronismindustries.com/temp/taser.mpg) until bandwidth gets too crazy.

[redrumloa]

I think that this police woman did what she taught was right for the circumstances.

No way in hell. Ive had time to think about it, and there is more information out now. This was not the right action period, and this woman should not be a cop. This is a freakin 6 (SIX) real old, probably 40 pounds soaking wet carrying a jumbo tub of Lincoln Logs.

[X-ray]

@ mdma

Tranquilizer darts are not fast-acting and carry more risk than a taser. It takes a while to 'sedate' somebody, even if you have the optimal venous cannula access already installed. In the case of the tranquilizer dart, the drug is intramuscular, not intravenous so the effect is even more delayed. Lastly, the dose has to be carefully prepared according to the weight of the subject being sedated. That is why game park rangers must know the weight of the animal they are darting. As a matter of interest you aren't the only one who suggested tranquilizer darts: it has been suggested by television viewers in response to two incidents where police in the UK have shot dead suspects who were thought to be armed.

@ red

I'm trying to reason with you based on the knowledge I have of close quarter tactics, the danger of sharp objects, the unpredictable fracture pattern of house glass, and the most mysterious variable of all: the disturbed 6 year old kid.

Here's the bottom line: nobody is questioning the ability of the police officer to subdue and disarm a 6 year old kid. What I am questioning here is "at what cost to the child (and possibly the policeman)?"
I can take a piece of glass away from any kid (and a great many adults too), but I can't guarantee that the kid won't get seriously hurt while I do it. I can't even guarantee that I won't get cut either. And even if I could guarantee that no harm would come to me (maybe a handy pair of chainmail gloves in the car), I could not guarantee that no harm would come to the kid.

How do you propose that the policewoman should have acted?

[Dan]

I think distance is the biggest factor here?
From how it usually went when fighting with my three year younger sister as a kid(and somebody grabbed a breadknife or scissors) :-P

[redrumloa]

What I am questioning here is "at what cost to the child (and possibly the policeman)?"

That's my point. The time it took to unholster the taser gun, set it up aim and fire, she could have reached out and grabbed his wrist. Also what would be more frightening to a 6 year old? A uniformed female approaching him with an open hand, or a gun shaped object being raised in his direction?

How do you propose that the policewoman should have acted?

No way in hell a 6 year old's reflexes would be greater than a properly trained officiers. She should have walked up to him and grabbed the hand the shard of glass was in, and raised the hand above his body so he could not cut himself or the officer. Next she should have delivered a sharp spank to his rear end.

[FluffyMcDeath]

redrumloa wrote:

Boy, 6, shot by police with Taser at Miami elementary school (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1112ctaser,0,3263372.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines)
WTF? Yes this boy is disturbed, but a taser? What f^&*&ing cop can't subdue a 6 year old without the use of a taser??

I'm pissed :pissed:

Here's another tazing story. Maybe you've already seen this one : Miami-Dade so in your part of the world again.

link. (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/10170605.htm?1c)


A Miami-Dade police officer used a Taser to stop an unarmed, 12-year-old girl who was running away from him after she was caught skipping school, police acknowledged Friday night.

[redrumloa]

@FluffyMcDeath

Yup, see my ~3rd to lasy post. I posted the video online. this cop is getting disciplined.

[X-ray]

Red said:

"...The time it took to unholster the taser gun, set it up aim and fire, she could have reached out and grabbed his wrist..."

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is neither true nor applicable to the situation from a tactical point of view. My draw speed is 1 second on a good day and 2,5 seconds on a bad day. And that is a 9mm pistol in a holster (the inside hip type), with a T-shirt covering it so it can't be seen. I don't know if the cop had the taser in her hand while she asked the kid to drop the glass, or whether it was in her holster, but both ways she had an advantage over me because her holster is external. But all this a moot point because she could not simultaneously have been within arm's reach and at a comfortable firing range.

you also said

"...She should have walked up to him and grabbed the hand the shard of glass was in, and raised the hand above his body so he could not cut himself or the officer. Next she should have delivered a sharp spank to his rear end..."
-------------------------------------------------------

This is the problem: you don't understand the variables here. The kid was disturbed and enraged. He wouldn't be standing there sheepishly holding the glass like a kid who has been caught holding an ice-cream he has just liberated from the cooler. He won't be standing there in a kung-fu pose, or holding the glass out for easy accessibility. He'll be jumping about like a maggot on a hot-plate and he'll be damned if he lets anyone take his glass.
Let's say the cop is lucky. She manages to grab the kid's arm. Let me ask you this: where exactly is the best place to grab a kid's arm while he is holding a shard of glass? If she grabs for his hand and wrist, she may close the kid's fingers tight onto the glass, and that's a potential interview with a plastic surgeon. If she grabs for below the wrist..well..try this for yourself: hold your right hand palm up and open and then grab it tightly below the wrist with your left hand. See what happens? Your right hand closes because you have externally pressed all the flexors. Not cool if you're holding a nice piece of glass. So what's left? The upper forearm. And you gotta get to it without the kid giving you or himself a nick with the glass.

The reason you are outraged by this taser incident is because you are viewing this situation as if it was static and is if the child was a meek and mild family member. The situation was volatile and negotiations with the kid had failed. He had already hurt himself and the cop chose the safest way to resolve the situation. There's no room for fancy kung-fu moves or any kind of grab or slick pinning move. I tell you someone would definitely have been hurt and the odds are stacked against the kid in that situation.

For your interest: giving the kid a sharp smack on his behind after his arm has been grabbed would be frowned upon by the law and could invite a case of assault against the officer.

[redrumloa]

@X-ray

You are making alot of assumptions here. Anyhow no way we are going to agree here. Let me just leave with this.

For your interest: giving the kid a sharp smack on his behind after his arm has been grabbed would be frowned upon by the law and could invite a case of assault against the officer.

Yes and that's one of the really screwed up about the PC BS in this country. Using a taser on a 6 year old is fine, but a spank on the behind is criminal.

[Cymric]

@red:

Is it that hard to admit you might not have a full insight into the situation, and thus rather childishly try to brush away X-ray's many very sensible observations as being 'many assumptions'?

You were not there, so your assumptions are as good as his, only you lack X-ray's professional insight into what stab wounds can do to mere human flesh. I must say that I dislike the idea of tasering a six-year old, but so far your proposal on how to handle an enraged disturbed child by relying on speed and professional training and then smartly spanking the child sounds a teensy bit simplistic and naive to me, especially given X-ray's remarks.

I'm willing to be corrected: I suggest to report to your local police station and enlist as the new crisis manager for handling enraged children carrying stabbing weapons. If there is a news item about the cop known to insiders as 'Redrumloa' whose miraculous method of just quickly walking in, grabbing the child, and then spanking sense into them is taking the nation by storm, I will be the first to apologize in public for having doubted you.

Until then: it is easy to see just another trigger-happy hunk of nerves not cut out to be a cop. You know that this story will stoke the fires regarding excessive force to an intensity sufficient to melt iron, and that lawyers will do their utmost best to make the most money out of the situation. But perhaps, just perhaps, the cop was right in her assessment. If that turns out to be the case, will you then grace us with your apology saying that you were a bit quick to jump to a conclusion...?

@X-ray:
Man! How do you cope with seeing humans stabbed to smithereens all the time? Doesn't the sight... well, get to you sometimes?

[GadgetMaster]

redrumloa wrote:

Yes and that's one of the really screwed up about the PC BS in this country. Using a taser on a 6 year old is fine, but a spank on the behind is criminal.

The police state is coming !

Be afraid!....be very afraid!....

[Wilse]

X-ray wrote:
@ Wilse


"...but I do hear many stories, due to my girlfriend working as radiographer in a children's hospital (She's there now actually)..."

Here are a couple of things your missus will appreciate:

1) Going back to the control panel to expose (after painstakingly positioning the kid), and finding that the kid has followed you to see what you are doing.

2) Kid won't drink the barium for the cardiac studies. Demands a sweet first.

3) Kid says she won't look for the little birdie (in the X-ray light beam diaphragm) because her older brother told her there is no such birdie.

4) Kid starts screaming as soon as she sees the radiographer. (Okay maybe that applies more to me than your missus)


Check, on all four points. She often bribes kids with stickers to get them to drink barium.

[redrumloa]

@Cymric

There must be a langauge barrier here, or I am simply not making myself clear enough. You read my post and came to a conclusion way off what I typed, or at least meant to type.

[X-ray]

@ Cymric

Stabs and lacerations don't bother me as much as they used to. We had a spate of disembowelments at one time and the trauma surgeon relished the task of showing the medical students the difference between small and large bowel, as seen lying on the trolley next to the fully-conscious patient. That doesn't get to me. Gunshots don't get to me anymore either. However there are two things that bother me (and always will):

1) Burns. The smell of burnt flesh and the way the skin hangs off the limb is something you have to experience to understand. It is sickening, there is no other way I can describe it. Also, once a certain percentage of surface area is burnt, the patient is on borrowed time. They may be talking and might even be conscious, but they will die from lung and kidney complications.

2) Grief. You can toughen yourself up and get used to any kind of trauma but the relatives' reactions when they find out that the patient won't make it or has already died, is something that makes me extremely uncomfortable. I suspect part of it is because we can do nothing. You can set a broken bone and patch a gunshot wound but what do you tell a sobbing relative? How do you tell a grown man, who is crying, that it's all going to be okay? It's not going to be okay, and that is what I can't get used to.


Edit: I also have a tough time with ordinary vomit. Can't take it. It's the smell and the texture. I had a tacit agreement with my colleagues that they should call me to do some of the things they don't like (such as cleaning blood off the machine) and in return they could help me out by taking care of "Operation Vanishing Vomit"

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

"...Check, on all four points. She often bribes kids with stickers to get them to drink barium..."

That reminds me of what happened one day in the resuscitation bay at home. I was working with a fiery 'no nonsense' female radiographer (she was a senior and I was still junior). We were doing standard trauma X-rays on a guy who had been in a traffic accident. There were several foreign casualty officers watching on the sidelines, and one of them wasn't wearing a lead apron. Everytime we stepped behind the control panel to do the X-ray, this guy would duck out of a side door or hide behind someone who did have an apron.

After a while this ducking and diving irritated my colleague and she told him rather sternly that instead of playing 'dodge the photons' he should put on an apron like everyone else, because he was now 'getting on her tits'. Well, he didn't listen and refused to wear the apron. The team leader saw this and told her to just go about her job as usual and not wait for the guy to take cover.
Well, you know what happened, don't you...the guy wasn't quick enough and got exposed. My colleague didn't say anything, just processed the films. When she came back with the films she found the guy who had been exposed, and put one of those stickers on him (the sort you give to kids) with a picture of a smiling teddy bear on it, with his skeleton showing through.
The comment on the sticker is "I was brave, I had an X-ray today".

:lol:

[Cymric]

Edit: I also have a tough time with ordinary vomit. Can't take it. It's the smell and the texture. I had a tacit agreement with my colleagues that they should call me to do some of the things they don't like (such as cleaning blood off the machine) and in return they could help me out by taking care of "Operation Vanishing Vomit".
Many thanks for your reply. Sad as it may sound, I burst out laughing when I read this, although I sympathise wholly. I cannot stand the smell of vomit either, it makes me decidedly queesy myself.

Personally, although I have not received any medical training, I think I would have a tough time with anything dealing with eyes (can't stand shows where eye surgery is shown) or skin laesions, resulting from things like bubonic plague or human pox. (And with that I don't mean the smallpox-variety!) Tropical diseases often come with the most revolting of skin conditions; one reason I keep well away from the book with (ahem) beautiful colour plates on them which my dad once bought. Exception: burns can be horrific and ghastly, but they don't really scare me. Although I of course have never smelt them the way you described.

I suppose there is some truth in it that after a while you can get used to the most gruesome of injuries. I do not look up pictures on Ogrish for fun, but when I saw a few way back when all I could do was stare in morbid fascination at what was once a living human being, and thank modern medicine for being able to do a great deal to patch people up these days.

[Wilse]

When she came back with the films she found the guy who had been exposed, and put one of those stickers on him (the sort you give to kids) with a picture of a smiling teddy bear on it, with his skeleton showing through.
The comment on the sticker is "I was brave, I had an X-ray today".


:lol:
Sue gave out the very same stickers when she worked in Leeds.

[Wilse]

I think I would have a tough time with anything dealing with eyes

Might that help explain your signature? ;-)