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?
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.
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.
That's why they summon medical professionals, as was done here and in other similar cases.
No one has said that. You are fabricating.
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.
Why does it “appear” that way?
Please edit your post rather than spreading misinformation.
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.