Hacker News Reader

Medical professionals do refuse! If you remember Alex Wubbels a nurse who refused to do a blood draw stating that she would not unless the patient was under arrest, a warrant had been issued or the patient had consented.

She was arrested, although not charged and was later apologized to. The cop was fired and it also lead to Utah changing its blood draw laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_University_of_Utah_Hospit...

The cops involved went back to where they killed Elijah McCain and posed for a group photo, reportedly re-enacting his death.

This is the behavior I’d expect from a serial killer.

Edit: they then distributed or showed this photo to the rest of the precinct. We know because a whistleblower notified the media. To my eye, this means that they expected the rest of the precinct to approve of this behavior, which is extremely alarming.

This shouldn’t be alarming. This is consistent with the behavior we’ve been seeing all year. This is status quo.

It should be alarming - it's important not to get used to such abhorrent behavior, just because it's the status quo.

I cannot maintain a state of alarm for years on end.

The difference between our points is the subtle difference between alarm and surprise. I’d contend that one can be alarmed even if they’re not surprised; although even I am inclined to admit that this is pretty low value pedantry on my part.

> The cops involved went back to where they killed Elijah McCain and posed for a group photo, reportedly re-enacting his death

What compels someone to do that?

Nothing compels them. It is who they are. And they are not alone in being like this.

The better question is, why are so many people in positions of authority like this?

I believe the positions naturally draws people who are bullies. Not that all of them are, but the power over, and respect from the general population is probably very attractive to people who get a kick out of being asshole. Also, while I can't confirm the prevalence, there's a ton of anecdotes you here about shady hiring practices. There's the now popular story about a department refusing to hire people who had too high an IQ, and a friend told me how a department in a large city was attempting to recruit his cousin, despite him being diagnosed bipolar.

That is way beyond what I would consider bullying or asshole behaviour.

> Also, while I can't confirm the prevalence, there's a ton of anecdotes you here about shady hiring practices. There's the now popular story about a department refusing to hire people who had too high an IQ

this is not just anecdotal, and has even been tested in court[0].

0. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...

Another police department got caught bending down the notches on their police badges as a way of signifying how many kills a given officer had, and even had a ceremony for officers first kill. Reports say at least 25% of the precinct participated, probably most knew.

American police live in what we call a “siege” mentality; they believe that they’re the only thing protecting society from chaos and crime. This results in a belief that their actions are inherently just, and that any criticism risks exposure of society to the chaos they’re barely holding back.

It’s not a convincing pitch when viewed in the light of blatant police brutality, but it appears to be what they believe.

Racism. They were celebrating their victory.

take your pick of "us vs them", "thin blue line", or "own the libs"

>This is the behavior I’d expect from a serial killer.

Yes, they're police in the United States...

Minor correction: the victim's name is Elijah McClain.

Minor correction: it was not the same police officers, although from the same police department.

I work as a paramedic, and on occasion have to sedate folks. I have never (and will never) sedated someone at the request of the police. I can think of two occasions where the decision to sedate was a discussion between the cops and I (trying to come up with alternatives). It's also common for me to ask the police for assistance physically restraining someone in order to make the sedation process safer. That's as far as the involvement of the police should go. I agree 100% with your assessment of Elijah McCain's killing.

That being said, sedation is an important tool, and often the safest course of action for a patient that would otherwise be a danger to themselves or others. A prolonged fight can be fatal for someone who is pushing their body further than it should go.

It definitely has to be done correctly though, and given the number of cases where it was very clearly done incorrectly, I do think changes need to be made.

Agreed. Police should have less powers, not more.

Don't forget psych evaluations - with the implication that they should be found unfit for release. This one is a favorite of "cops" that don't actually have authority to arrest people or no probable cause for it.

It's unquestionably a lynching. But this is what this perverted culture tolerates. Rather than the public participating in the lynching directly, it has hired professional lynchers.

True, and I think there are lot of deniers of how the racist history of the US influences its racist present.

The mindset that permits people to shrug off the killing of Elijah McClain, and assume he must have done something to deserve it, is the same that celebrated public lynchings.

Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? Especially not the ideological flamewar style? We're trying for something other than scorched earth here.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful.

They're being completely civil. This does not at all sound like an "ideological flame war."

Racism in society isn't an ideologocal point. It's reality. They're pointing out facts that are uncomfortable.

If the "spirit" of HN is truly about intellectual curiosity around things that relate to tech and entrepreneurship, then HN needs to embrace the fact that society ultimately rules over all -- most certainly tech and business.

I fear that your comment here and re-direction to "the rules" is a censorship attempt because this is an uncomfortable thing go think about. Is HN a place where discussion about social problems that infect all of tech, business, and entrepreneurship not allowed? Is talking about racism "ideological"?

Usually I'm responding to an account's recent history, not just one comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24253754, for example, affects the priors.

HN has been having lots of discussion about racism, just as the rest of society has been (or rather, societies, since many countries are represented here). If your question ("Is HN a place where discussion about social problems [is] not allowed") comes up, that can only be because of unfamiliarity with the history. If you want to get more familiar, HN Search is a great resource (see the box at the bottom of every page).

The process of how we moderate political and ideological topics on HN is pretty stable by now. If you want to know what it is, check out the past explanations at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... There's a lot there; you could start with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902396.

People often feel like their most-important topic is under-represented or outright suppressed on HN. Even the most common topic feels "censored" to some people (see e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23624962). This is an unfortunate consequence of frontpage space being the scarcest resource on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

On the other hand: at least they are asking medical professionals instead of giving shots themselves.

Because that would be blatantly illegal? Never stopped crappy police officiers to do crappy things but hey.

Which is what would start happening if professional medical associations banned the practice.

You say that like its a positive. It would be much more straightforward to prosecute an officer injecting ketamine. The medical "professionals" are catspaws.

It's used as a treatment for drug overdoses ("excited delerium") which appears to be why it was used here. Of course it's a catch-all term, there's no way to tell offhand just what street drugs someone is on. There has to be a reason it took half a dozen people to hold him down.

Also, there's no mention in this article of police directing the paramedics to do anything. Can you point me to what gave you that idea?

Where in the world did you hear that Elijah McClain was having a drug overdose before the police showed up?!

No one has said that. You are fabricating.

I said that's what ketamine is used for. I never said he was on drugs, as I do not know that. I only said that it's not normal to need a bunch of people to hold someone down.

> It's used as a treatment for drug overdoses ("excited delerium") which appears to be why it was used here.

Why does it “appear” that way?

Please edit your post rather than spreading misinformation.

Those on the scene certainly thought this was the case, which is basically the only reason they use that drug in the first place in the context of an arrest. I don't claim to know one way or another whether they were right, but I would note that dying of a heart attack is inconsistent with ketamine as the cause.

Maybe they gave him too much, but the article leaves one to conclude that this was somehow related to his death even though it never actually says so.

I did get this from Wikipedia, 'After McClain was restrained more officers arrived and audio of the conversation records them saying that McClain was "acting crazy", that he was "definitely on something", and that he had attacked them with "incredible, crazy strength" when they tried to restrain him.'

They did not use the words, 'he was on drugs', but there is a strong implication based on the audio that this is what the police were claiming.

> There has to be a reason it took half a dozen people to hold him down.

This is the kind of rationalization that gets policies like this instituted. Having to be held down by six people isn't a requirement for being diagnosed with "excided delirium," anything is sufficient, because it's not a falsifiable diagnosis. The look in someone's eye can be enough. Talking back can be enough.

Also, by "enough," I mean enough for people who are already reactionaries of the law and order type to rationalize it. If it happened to a hypothetical white guy in some office complaining about his tax bill (who also showed no aggression and only tested positive for trace amounts of marijuana), could you imagine that people would still be alluding to "some reason" why "excited delirium" was actually a cool and reasonable diagnosis?

I mean, this is a violinist massage therapist who volunteered at animal shelters. This event is just more evidence that video will neither save you nor avenge you. You're as likely to be able to keep law enforcement from injecting ketamine into you on a whim as you are to keep law enforcement from being able to search your person or your car. With "There has to be a reason it took half a dozen people to hold him down," the reaction justifies itself.

Well, we'll see when it's examined in court. I see no reason to assume that these particular cops overreacted, either, but yet here we are.

And for what it's worth, the reason could be that they overreacted--everything has a reason and I made no claims about what reasons that might be.

"Excited delirium" is a pseudo-scientific term used by police to justify their use of excessive force: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/chokehold-police-exci...

It's a catch-all term to describe people who have likely overdosed on various stimulants. To argue that it's non-specific is to argue that the police have no way of knowing what medical conditions underlie the problem.

That's why they summon medical professionals, as was done here and in other similar cases.