California Cops Tased a Man Having a Seizure, Then Booked Him on Bogus Charges To Cover Their Mistake
Bruce Frankel was tased by a police officer in 2022 after his fiancee called 911 seeking medical help. Now he's suing.

In August 2022, Bruce Frankel's fiancee dialed 911 after Frankel began having a grand mal seizure. But instead of receiving medical help, a police officer burst into Frankel's home and tased him. Making matters worse, police engaged in an attempt to cover up their mistake by launching bogus charges against Frankel.
Frankel has now launched a lawsuit against the officers who tased him, arguing that their actions clearly violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The ordeal began in the early morning hours of August 29, 2022, when 61-year-old Frankel began having a grand mal seizure in his home in San Anselmo, California. His fiancee, named in the complaint as Alice, awoke to Frankel's gasping and called 911, telling the operator that Frankel was having trouble breathing.
As she waited for medical help to arrive—still on the phone with 911—Frankel's seizure stopped, but he remained disoriented. The complaint notes that he was now entering the "postictal stage of the seizure, when the brain is recovering, but the victim remains unaware of his surroundings and unable to understand directions."
Shortly after, Officer Kevin Sinnott of the Central Marin Police Authority arrived, and he rushed into Alice and Frankel's bedroom, attempting to restrain Frankel.
Sinnott "wrestled [Frankel] onto the bed, and attempted to handcuff him," the suit reads. "Just 25 seconds after his arrival, Sinnott's voice became angry, and he shouted to [Frankel], 'Stop. Stop fighting with me.' Alice responded loudly and emphatically: 'He's unconscious.' Sinnott argued with her: 'He's not unconscious. He's fighting.' Alice later warned, 'You're going to break his neck.'"
Sinnott then tased Frankel, causing him to hit his head on the bedroom furniture. Soon after, two more police officers and three EMTs arrived. Frankel was handcuffed and taken to a local hospital, still delirious.
The lawsuit alleges that the officers attempted to cover up their use of force by pinning false charges on Frankel. According to the complaint, one questioning officer "blatantly lied to [Frankel] in a final attempt to trick him into making an incriminating statement," telling him that "when the officer got there you started attacking him."
The suit also claims that Sinnott falsely told one of Frankel's doctors that he was "squaring up" to fight him when he arrived, slowing down Frankel's eventual seizure diagnosis.
Frankel was eventually booked into the Marin County Jail on charges of resisting arrest and battery. Afterward, he was released "still wearing nothing but his underwear and a disposable hospital outfit; he had no wallet, phone or money," the complaint states. "He did not remember Alice's phone number in the jail and they would not help him contact her, so he walked in his hospital slippers about a half mile to a gas station," where workers helped him call a taxi.
While the Marin County District Attorney's office eventually refused to formally file charges against Frankel, he has still suffered lasting harm from his treatment by police. In addition to the physical injuries he sustained from Sinnott's use of force, Frankel spent over $10,000 fighting the police's attempts to have him prosecuted.
Officers "submitted the false reports or caused them to be submitted in an effort to smear [Frankel's] reputation, preoccupy him with a criminal case, intimidate him, and prevent him from pursuing claims against them for improper and excessive use of force," the complaint states, adding that police "acted willfully with the wrongful intention of injuring [Frankel] and for an improper and evil motive amounting to malice."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How is it that Democratic municipalities always have the most vicious police?
My guess is population density. The more people , the more police feel threatened by numbers. Big city cops always seem to have a "seiged" them vs us mentality that makes them act awfully.
Or maybe police attract authoritarian control freaks and you odds of getting one is better in high population areas.
San Anselmo is a *very* wealthy smallish suburban town in Marin County about 20 minutes north of SF.
It’s pretty much Wealthy Progressive Central.
You are blaming police actions on population density?!? What can we blame your stupidity on lack of brain density?
Population density is 100% the reason for increased authoritarianism in this country. Where tf have you been?
Cops like to call us non cops "civilians".
I am no fucking civilian. I served my country. Just because I'm not in the army now doesn't mean I'm a fucking civilian.
Cops see themselves as an occupying army and they are soldiers in a war against us. Is it any wonder they act the way they do.
Pretty much this.
Fuck off you partisan nitwit. Fucking partisan clowns are the real threat
You must be in the postictal stage of your comment seizure.
Can't disagree with that. It's always "Horrible Thing Happens" immediately we get "It's the Demopublicans fault, their policies encourage this behavior!" Then "No, it's the Republicrats who defended the Frizindorph Mengloofa and that made all this happen!"
Fuck both of them. It's because human nature doesn't handle absolute authority very well.
In other words "just another day in police reality"
Was that wrong?
Better training shirley needed
Shortly after, Officer Kevin Sinnott of the Central Marin Police Authority arrived, and he rushed into Alice and Frankel's bedroom, attempting to restrain Frankel.
All of the other shit aside, why was Sinnott in the house/bedroom?
Do you lose all rights if you call 911?
Maybe the police claim that call for medical help is probable cause to believe a crime is in progress, which means they can legally force their way in. I'd tell the to go fuck themselves until an ambulance arrived.
I would venture it falls under exigent circumstances.
Apparently when you dial 911 you somehow agree to all the constitutional protections you normally have are tossed out the window and the cops can rape you and it's all just routine.
Moral of the story: If you call 911 for medical help and the police arrive, do not open the door. Tell them you're waiting for life-savers, not life-takers.
What a shocking story!
Unprecedented story where government agents charged someone twice!
Is there a precedent where a 61-year-old man having that type of seizure has been ruled by a court to have the protected right not to be attacked and falsely arrested in that exact color private residence?
That's funny but also sad. I wonder when people will stop believing a few bad apples
Nope. There is all but 24/7 pro cop propoganda on TV. Any time day or night you can watch cops violate constitutional rights and learn that the first guy to say he has rights is the guilty one.
“I wonder when people will stop believing a few bad apples”
People need to be constantly reminded that the original saying is “A few bad apples spoil the whole barrel.“
Rot is contagious. Unless it is excised quickly it spreads.
That is a serious truth.
Want to know why people want to defund the police...look no further
OK, so let's talk about grand mal seizures for a minute.
Because, NGL, that's the weirdest GMS I've ever seen. I'm not an authority on the subject by any means - but typically seizures patients aren't upright and ping-ponging off the walls. Also, they have a tendency to soil themselves. Neither is the case here. Even if these cops missed the main event and were only present during the postictal phase (full disclosure, I had to look that up) - they apparently should have walked in on a guy on the floor, confused, maybe even still unconscious, but at best trying to gain his bearings.
Now, that's me considering what I saw after having the googles to look up a few things on the subject - even knowing it was medically concluded that the guy, in fact, had a seizure. But what do we think some beat cop knows about a GMS? Do we expect him to recognize one when they see it, or identify what phase of the seizure the guy's in? Should they be able to identify it when it presents very inconsistent with typical cases of what a layman might recognize as a GMS?
Which means I can kind of understand him tasing the guy.
Now, after the fact finding out that he was, in fact, having a seizure and concocting a story to justify his actions - rather than just admitting, "How the heck should I have known he was having a seizure?! That, in no way, looked like a seizure to me!" - well, I get that such an admission would be dangerous in this day and age, but... honesty is the best policy bro. Always.
Which means I can kind of understand him tasing the guy.
Is your implication that if you don't know what's going on in a situation it is reasonable to just start tasing people? What the actual fuck?
With a suspect who by all appearances refuses to comply with reasonable de-escalation orders to diffuse the situation? Yes.
STOP HAVING A SEIZURE!! :uses tazer:
STOP RECOVERING FROM A SEIZURE!! :uses tazer again:
STOP THRASHING AROUND IN PAIN!! :uses tazer again:
...
Oh yeah, makes sense to me too.
Why would you expect a cop to recognize someone having a seizure when he's showing no indication of having a seizure?
I don't, but neither do I expect a cop to react without understanding what might actually be going on. Because (and I know this is far-fetched) the cop might act under assumptions that turn out to be untrue and needlessly injure or kill people as a result.
I don’t, but neither do I expect a cop to react without understanding what might actually be going on.
Problem is that road has another direction. And standing around with your thumb up your butt trying to get a full and crystal clear picture of what's actually going on before taking any action could get you, them, or someone else killed.
If you see a guy on fire, do you stand around and try to see if he's wearing flame-retardant clothing, or look around for a camera to see if it's a controlled stunt? No, you tackle him to the ground - maybe hurt him in doing so - but make priority #1 to get the flames out.
I'm actually kinda reminded of this scene from, well, who doesn't love this movie:
https://youtu.be/oR3kOaeNpTo
It's an honest mistake. (Afterwards it was police brutality, but we loved and laughed at it, didn't we.)
Yep, cops need to shoot first, shoot some more and then maybe ask a few questions if anyone is left alive.
Riggs didn't even draw his firearm.
If you see a guy on fire, do you stand around and try to see if he’s wearing flame-retardant clothing, or look around for a camera to see if it’s a controlled stunt? No, you tackle him to the ground – maybe hurt him in doing so – but make priority #1 to get the flames out.
If I see a guy on fire, my first act would be to get a fire extinguisher. Making physical contact with someone on fire would be way down the list.
lol, how long you going to let him burn while you search around for one?
Good question. I honestly don't know. Nevertheless, unlike Officer Cuffsalot, my first move does not involve tackling anyone. Also, unlike Officer Cuffsalot, I'm not paid to put my life on the line for anyone else.
Well let's say you were so that you don't use that as a copout.
You're an officer. Guy's on fire. Walk me through your steps on putting him out and getting him to safety.
Even if I were paid to risk my life, SCOTUS has said I’m not obligated to. But I would have a fire extinguisher in the back of my cruiser, so I'd go and get it.
Your cruiser is downstairs, outside, hopefully locked, and will take precious time that our burning victim clearly does not have.
It's not so easy, is it, MMQ'ing a cop.
It’s curious how you continue to add details to the hypothetical encounter so as to force me into a single action path of which you approve.
Maybe the elevator is also out and I’m forty flights up, right? And there’s no fire hose handy, and the fire hasn’t triggered the sprinkler system, and aliens from Alpha Centauri are preventing me from doing anything except tackle the guy like you insist, right? How much more improbable do you think you need to make your example in order to attempt to prove your point?
Maybe the elevator is also out and I’m forty flights up, right?
Ooh, that's good. Imagine that's in play too.
The point, which you must ultimately concede (though, something tells me your pride prevents it), is that sometimes use of force is appropriate, if not absolutely necessary for a cop. Sometimes tackling the guy IS the best option available. Sometimes it's the taser.
You're certainly unwilling to put yourself in a cop's shoes to MMQ how you would have done it better. And, absent that, you're just doing the same thing you're accusing me of - inventing variables to rationalize your conclusion.
How long do you let a guy burn, Chip?
I won't deny that sometimes use of force, even lethal force is appropriate. It just wasn't in the situation described in the article. Your laughable attempts at justifying it are insufficient to sway me, and I would hope would also be insufficient to sway any jury involved.
How was it not? Again, altered state, unresponsive, and in danger to himself/others.
What would you have done instead supercop? Wait outside for him to calm down and come to? How long until you put the flames out?
Because they are supposedly well trained not only in shooting people but in medical emergencies and recognizing when people are in medical distress. As first responders they are supposed to do more than just shoot people. The last thing you want people to say during a medical crisis is "Holy Fuck! The cops are here!"
Language.
Nobody was shot here. You are clearly not operating in reality.
May I suggest perhaps curbing the drug use?
He's so pro cop he'd be proud to be ass raped by a cop. He'd consider it an honor.
Are you assuming my gender? You're going to apologize for that, right?
This was a medical emergency call, not a domestic violence call.
I reckon there are quite a few medical conditions where the subject is unable to respond to police directives, or is otherwise confused.
Yea, and some of them are being high as a kite - which, watch the video, this guy totally looked liked that at casual glance (as opposed to on the ground twitching and drooling in soiled undies) - and druggies are pretty well known for going from zero to aggro when even slightly challenged.
Cops aren't doctors. They can't diagnose a suspect on the scene. Their directive is to subdue, secure, and diffuse. Bring the ten down to a one.
We see this same sort of thing, unfortunately, when cops have to confront someone autistic. From their point of view, they've got a non-compliant subject ignoring all of their commands.
I mean, what do you think they should do instead? "Sir, can you please inform me if you're in some kind of medical state?" I don't think you'll get very useful answers from someone having a seizure or an autistic episode.
Maybe the cop should have just gone right to lethal force. Dead people don't fight when you try to handcuff them, right?
That seems unnecessary. He's unarmed, in an altered state, and uncooperative. The stunner was the best choice for subduing him.
Obviously not, since the guy was able to resist enough to be arrested for assault. Dead people do not resist.
We've already addressed the problems with his arrest.
Try to stay focused please.
Presumes without evidence that it was necessary to subdue him in the first place.
Why did they need to subdue him?
Because he wasn't responding to commands to de-escalate the situation. Granted, he couldn't - but the cops had no way of knowing that. Again: subdue, secure, diffuse.
Look, I've told this anecdote before and I'll tell it again - one night a buddy and I were out at a party. Afterwards, we were walking home and we cut through a little side trail that abutted an elementary school. Well, unknown to us, a report had been made of something nefarious going down at or around that elementary school. So, while harmlessly walking near the school grounds (not even on the property itself), we were suddenly confronted by a half-dozen cops in tac gear, guns drawn, barking orders. We were held at gunpoint, frisked (my buddy's folding knife was taken, as was my zippo), cuffed until our identities could be confirmed (ie. subdued and secured), and then our stuff returned as we were told to get the heck out of there.
Excessive? Maybe. Understandable? Sure. We weren't criminals and we were engaged in no wrongdoing - but the cops were amped up clearly expecting trouble (because apparently some real trouble had been reported), and if that helped bring it all down a few notches (at least with regard to me and my buddy), then is that really so unreasonable? Frankly, I would have even understood it if they sat us both down against the fence and kept one of their guys posted over us until the all clear.
It's not the indignity or rights-deprivation you're trying to make it out to be. Now, granted, if they'd tased us that might be a different story. But we were cooperative and understood their orders, and thus complied with them. When they have someone who doesn't, and can't/won't comply - well, they've still got to figure out how to subdue and secure.
If you expect cops to be able to do their job without containing the situations in which they find themselves, then you're not being realistic or reasonable about the job they're charged with doing.
What appears to be a glaring difference in your story and the article is that the reason for police presence in your story was 'possible crime in progress' and not 'medical emergency in progress.'
Again, watch the video. That does not look like a medical emergency in progress. It doesn't even look like a seizure in progress. We've been over this.
I mean, what do you think they should do instead? “Sir, can you please inform me if you’re in some kind of medical state?”
What did the 911 dispatcher tell Officer Dipshit? The wife apparently called emergency services to say her husband was having problems breathing. Was that detail communicated, or was it left to Officer Dumbass to assume that a murderer was on the loose?
The wife apparently called emergency services to say her husband was having problems breathing.
Watch the bodycam footage. When they entered, was that scene anything like what his wife described?
Watch the bodycam footage. When they entered, was that scene anything like what his wife described?
Nope, but what was happening there that would make someone think "I'd better get the handcuffs out"?
Can't exactly handcuff him easily if he's flailing around and bouncing off the walls. Hence why it goes subdue, secure, diffuse.
Well, the solution is simple. When calling 911 ask for anyone but the police to come out. Firemen, dog catchers, ambulances, the mayor, crime scene catering trucks, the coroner and a fucking clown car while your at it. Just no cops whatsoever.
Language.
Also, google the term "first responders." And bear in mind that cops are the most in motion and quickest on scene. Certainly more than firemen, dog catchers, ambulances, or the mayor.
Can you be even slightly realistic for even two seconds? Is that a thing you're capable of?
That doesn't answer my question. I'll repeat it.
What was happening there that would make someone think “I’d better get the handcuffs out”? Stumbling around one's own bedroom isn't illegal, nor is it so imminently dangerous to others that the person doing it needs to be immediately and forcibly restrained, does it? It's not as if the guy was waving around a weapon either. He was half naked and empty handed.
Articulate the imminent threat such a situation presents that renders immediate and forceful restraint vital.
Or admit you cannot.
Follow-up: Stumbling around one’s own bedroom isn’t illegal,
I should add that it's also not sufficient evidence of the likelihood that a crime is being committed as to constitute probable cause.
What was happening there that would make someone think “I’d better get the handcuffs out”?
I did answer this once already. There was a man in a clearly altered state, unresponsive to commands, and acting in a way that is potentially dangerous to himself or others.
But you know what? Tell you what Monday – you go ahead and quarterback it. You’re the cop. Start from the beginning. You’ve arrived on scene at this call. Walk us through your process step-by-step. And don’t skip anything – if you’re going to take a particular action, let us know. If you’re going to draw something from your belt - from radio to spray to zipties - tell us what and when. If there’s any announcements you’re going to make or any conversations you’re going to have with anyone on scene, articulate them fully.
Go.
I did answer this once already. There was a man in a clearly altered state, unresponsive to commands, and acting in a way that is potentially dangerous to himself or others.
False. Your initial answer was that the guy couldn't easily be handcuffed because he was flailing around. It did not address at all what was happening to make forcible restraint necessary. Your second attempt merely referenced the first. Again, stumbling around in one's own home is neither a crime nor by itself is indicative that a crime may have taken place. So no probable cause.
Also, anyone is a 'potential' threat to themselves or others. Anyone could pick up a rock or improvise a weapon from any nearby object at any time. That's not sufficient reason to handcuff anyone who approaches me. You need to articulate a credible and immediate threat to justify use of force. A half-naked unarmed stumblebum doesn't qualify. Try again.
If you can articulate a sufficient answer to the question of "What was happening to merit the cop's immediate escalation to forcible restraint" then I will indulge your request. Barring that, I'll accept it if you say you cannot provide a justification for his actions.
Your initial answer was that the guy couldn’t easily be handcuffed because he was flailing around.
Yes, flailing around in a clearly altered state, unresponsive to commands, and acting in a way that is potentially dangerous to himself or others. For pete's sake, are you being dense on purpose?
A half-naked unarmed stumblebum doesn’t qualify. Try again.
Sure it does. We do that all the time. Check out one of those rare times they go clear out a bunch of drug-addled hair-trigger zombies. Most of the time they go straight to zip-ties because they know they don't have enough handcuffs to go around.
They have to assert control over the scene to lower the level of emergency. This means subduing the people who are unresponsive to commands.
“What was happening to merit the cop’s immediate escalation to forcible restraint” then I will indulge your request.
For the umpteenth time: Flailing around in a clearly altered state, unresponsive to commands, and acting in a way that is potentially dangerous to himself or others. For pete's sake, are you being dense on purpose?
Now, tell me how you would have handled it different. Go on supercop, regale me.
Well, first thing I do if I get a call saying a single individual is having a medical emergency is stop by the police armory for a hundred pairs of handcuffs, a barrel of zip ties, and a wheelbarrow to tote it all around in. Sure, the call from dispatch may have said 'single person, medical emergency,' but that doesn't mean there's not a thousand drug-addled armed murderers on the loose.
Then I wait for SWAT to be dispatched. It might be so dangerous to go there alone that fully kitted-out backup is necessary. Once the department's Bearcat has flattened the house and swept the area for landmines and IEDs, then I can go in and investigate if what the dispatcher said was true, or if the person who called 911 was trying to lure a single police officer to their death.
Be serious. Imagine you're a cop, out on patrol, you get the call, and that's what you walk into. What do you do?
I'm being as serious as you are when you claim a half naked unarmed guy who can't stand up straight is so immediate a threat that probable cause permits the cop to wrestle him to the ground and handcuff him. If that's a threat, then everything is, and Officer Chippah will act accordingly.
No, be actually serious. You just entered that room, with that guy. Your partner's behind you, your radio is functioning, and there's another woman in the room.
Describe how you handle the situation. For real. Stop playing games.
Again, I'm being as serious as you are. I say that because the idea that the guy in the video was any kind of threat is laughable.
We're not talking about whether he's a threat. You're changing the argument.
We're talking about whether he's in a clearly altered state, unresponsive to commands, and acting in a way that is potentially dangerous to himself or others.
You seem very avoidant of addressing that scenario - this very scenario at issue - because...?
We’re not talking about whether he’s a threat. You’re changing the argument.
Your words: We’re talking about whether he’s in a clearly altered state, unresponsive to commands, and acting in a way that is potentially dangerous to himself or others.
IOW, a threat. Who’s changing the argument?
Fool, you're attempting to equate the terms for purpose of their rhetorical value.
If you're about to stick your hand on a hot stove without realizing it, that is a dangerous situation. If you want to call it a "threat" - as in evidencing hostile intent - then you're being intentionally foolish.
Play semantic games if that's the only card you have left. It doesn't change the fact that he was altered, unresponsive, and dangerous to himself/others - necessitating his subduing.
And since you can't (won't) explain how you would have done ANYTHING even slightly different, semantics are all you have left.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13270875/cops-Taser-financial-planner-epilepsy-seizure-horrified-fianc-handcuff-lies-hospital-resisting-arrest.html
From the article:
"Sinnott reportedly wrote in his police report that Mr Frankel had been actively resisting him for more than two minutes during the encounter, and that he had used the Taser to get him to comply.
The officer is also said to have claimed that he feared for his safety and that he warned Frankel twice that he was going to Tase him."
If Officer Coward "feared for his safety," as he claims, then I have two questions for you.
1) Does that mean the cop perceived the husband as a threat?
2) Do you think a half naked, unarmed guy stumbling around his own bedroom is a credible threat?
Don't rely on reporting to tell you what happened. Go watch the video for yourself. I provided it. Uncut and uncensored.
I'd expect with all the fucking money spent on cops that they have training to recognize medical situations. Not to be a paranoid fuck and shoot first, shoot some more, reload and keep shooting until there is no chance that anyone could possibly hurt the cop.
Do you remember the deadly acorn incident they reported on a little while ago? Where the cops unloaded into the squad car becaue an acorn fell on the cop? Yeah, that stellar example of how well those idiots were trained.
Language.
None of what you described happened here. What are you talking about? Nobody was shot, let alone repeatedly.
"Cops aren’t doctors. They can’t diagnose a suspect on the scene."
Then they shouldn't enter the scene of a medical emergency without an EMT present.
Oh yes, that's brilliant.
Let's swap out "grand mal seizure" for "choking/bleeding to death."
"Officer, do something!"
"Sorry lady, gotta wait for the guys in the ambulance. They'll be here eventually."
Yea. Because you're operating in reality. Right. *eyeroll*
Let’s swap out “grand mal seizure” for “choking/bleeding to death.”
“Officer, do something!”
“Sure thing, I’ll handcuff him, taze him if he resists, and maybe charge him with a crime afterwards!!”
Better?
If they're choking or bleeding to death, chances are they're not bouncing off the walls in what very easily could be perceived as an altered state of consciousness. They're already subdued as evidenced by the fact that they're in the middle of dying.
Nice try though.
Bah, that could just be an act. Oldest trick in the book, right? That red liquid could just be ketchup and the 'victim' is trying to sucker the cop into not thinking they're dealing with a potential threat to themselves or others. Best to handcuff-taze-charge the guy first, just in case.
Is that what you'd say about the fellow in the present video? Putting on an act?
Sure, why not? Cops have claimed to mistake anything in someone's hands for a weapon they're about to use in order to justify use of lethal force, so this seems more plausible than anything else I've heard. Maybe Officer McCuffsalot believed the guy was faking just so he could get to a hidden bazooka he had stashed in his bedroom closet.
So then we should assume all people potentially dangerous to themselves or others are just putting on an act.
Do you see how progressively (lol, pun) stupid your position becomes as you continue to run down the rabbit hole that follows from your bogus arguments?
So then we should assume all people potentially dangerous to themselves or others are just putting on an act.
Once again, everyone is potentially dangerous. And since everyone is, then that seems to be the case, since someone who can’t remain standing on their own is so severe and imminent a threat that they need to be forcibly restrained.
Mis-thread.
Once again, everyone is potentially dangerous.
Not if they're responding to commands and, in doing so, de-escalating the scene such that force isn't required.
That wasn't the case here. Again:
https://www.ktvu.com/video/1435413
WATCH IT. LISTEN.
"Stop" at least a dozen times. Unresponsive.
"Stop fighting," at least eight times. Unresponsive.
"Hands behind your back," at least six times.Unresponsive.
"Get on your stomach." Twice. Unresponsive.
EVEN THE WIFE IS SAYING, "Don't fight please!" "They're trying to help you!" Unresponsive.
This goes on for FOUR MINUTES until he breaks out the taser. And then he STILL keeps fighting.
Then MORE commands to stop, freeze, stop fighting, lay on your stomach, stop resisting. put your hands behind your back. Unresponsive. ALL IGNORED.
This guy refused to be subdued. And yea, maybe that's a result of a medical episode - but the cop STILL has to find a way to subdue him.
And the wife even apologizes to the police!
So, again - MMQ it if you think you could have done it better. Go for it.
I don't try to SUBDUE him, because there's no need. He's not a threat (i.e., a potential danger to himself or others). He's a guy who can't keep his balance who is trying to stand up. Every time he tries to stand up, just push him back onto the bed. He clearly couldn't keep his balance on his own, so pushing him back onto the bed is easy. No need to get into a wrestling match over this. Stand in front of him, and when the guy tries to stand up, push him onto the bed. Repeat as needed. Keep talking to the wife until EMS shows up and they can deal with him.
Right about here is where your 'but what if' statements start, right?
Wow, you really didn't watch the video, did you. You're just operating 100% on assumptions and prejudices.
Let me know when you watch it. This was not even remotely a mere case of someone unable to keep balance. Even his own wife recognized that.
But thanks for finally providing your MMQ. Completely detached from the reality of the situation as it was.
First thing the guy says is “leave me alone. Please leave me alone.” Guy is in his own home, unarmed, doing nothing illegal. Cop starts wrestling. Cop’s in the wrong. Period, end of story. Done.
You’re just operating 100% on assumptions and prejudices.
Seems like that's what the cop was doing, at least according to your justification. The cop was assuming there was a threat, or a danger present in that bedroom. And you're saying it's perfectly okay to do that.
The cop made no attempt whatsoever to assess the situation before engaging. He almost immediately put his hands on a person who wasn't doing anything illegal, or threatening, or even dangerous to anyone other than, perhaps, himself. And what was the husband in danger of? Falling down in his own bedroom. Not a crime. The cop did not de-escalate or defuse the situation AT ALL. He in fact did the exact opposite.
And you're defending that, vehemently.
The cop was assuming there was a threat, or a danger present in that bedroom. And you’re saying it’s perfectly okay to do that.
Why wouldn't it be when you've got an altered, unresponsive person actively fighting you?
The cop made no attempt whatsoever to assess the situation before engaging.
Ah, you've finally entered the mind-reading stage of it all then, haven't you. That's good, I was waiting for that. You now assert you know perfectly what the cop was thinking as you MMQ his actions. That's brilliant, and definitely not illustrative of your assumptions and prejudices. Wink wink.
Why wouldn’t it be when you’ve got an altered, unresponsive person actively fighting you?
Because the cop was the aggressor. The cop initiated the contact and the conflict. First words out of the husband’s mouth were “Leave me alone. Please leave me alone.” The husband wasn’t ‘actively fighting’ the cop until AFTER Officer Hulkster went right in for a wrestling match without assessing the situation whatsoever. That’s not de-escalation at all.
Now I have to wonder if you watched the video.
Also, mind reader, how does the cop know the husband is in an 'altered state'? Maybe that's the husband's default state due to some preexsting medical condition. Is the cop a mind reader?
First words out of the husband’s mouth were “Leave me alone. Please leave me alone.”
"Oh, OK. Bye then."
Tell me you wish the police didn't exist at all without telling me you wish the police didn't exist at all.
Also, mind reader, how does the cop know the husband is in an ‘altered state’?
For the umpteenth time: the fact that, by all appearances, he had no comprehension or capability of understanding the lawful commands to stand down being made by the officer.
Either way, the guy was obligated to stand down. By choice, or by force. Whether he couldn't or wouldn't via the former, thus necessitated the latter.
"“Oh, OK. Bye then.”"
No, but how about "Ma'am, can you tell me what's going on here?" You think that's too much to ask for from someone who is supposed to be trained in de-escalation?
"For the umpteenth time: the fact that, by all appearances, he had no comprehension or capability of understanding the lawful commands to stand down being made by the officer."
Selective edit much? You seemed to ignore the sentence right after the one you quoted. Maybe that’s the husband’s default state due to some preexisting medical condition. You expect the cop to know this automatically upon entering the room? I don't, but I do expect the cop to pause and ASSESS THE SITUATION before entering Punisher Mode.
You like hypothetical situations? What if the husband had severe Parkinson's disease and the cop kept shouting "No sudden moves"? Perfectly moral act to tackle/taser/arrest the guy?
"Either way, the guy was obligated to stand down. By choice, or by force. Whether he couldn’t or wouldn’t via the former, thus necessitated the latter."
Another badge-kisser lie. The orders the cop were giving in this situation were unlawful. Once again, for the umtpeenth time, the husband WAS IN HIS OWN HOME DOING NOTHING ILLEGAL.
I get that such an admission would be dangerous in this day and age, but… honesty is the best policy bro. Always.
If you're a cop, telling the truth is a sure way to get fired.
Only because we live in an age of hopelessly ignorant highly reactive internet lynch mobs.
Anyone's at fault except the cops. Never the cops fault. Right. An acorn falls on a cop so he and his partner unload their pistols into his car. Clearly it's it's squirrel at fault.
I never said the cop was blameless. Do you even pay attention to who you're replying to, or is it just some kind of shoot from the hip kind of thing? (Because that would be hi-lar-ious.)
"hopelessly ignorant highly reactive"
But enough about the cop in the video.
And you. Maybe you should be a cop. You certainly seem to think you can do their job better than they can.
I suspect I'm braver than at least some of them. For example, I wouldn't be fearful of an unarmed pudgy sextuagenarian in his boxers who can't keep his balance.
So how would you handle him then? Make him a nice cup of cocoa and whisper soothing words while stroking his hair?
You seem to think that the officer was scared. Like fear was the motivating factor here. I know you adamantly refuse to watch the video to see what actually happened (because doing so would obliterate every argument you've made on the subject to date) - but if you ever decide to, go ahead and cue up the exact point in the video where you think the officer exhibited fear of this man. I'll wait.
I said already I wouldn't have 'handled' him. There was no need. He wasn't a threat or a danger to anyone, except perhaps to himself from falling over. I ask the wife what's going on and maybe when I have more accurate info I act on that. Unlike you, I don't consider a wrestling match to be an effective de-escalation strategy.
I watched the video as far as I needed to, and once the cop screwed up everything past that is irrelevant. And he screwed up pretty damn fast. As to Officer Cuffsalot being scared, that's what was reported. The cop lied to say the guy was 'squaring up ' to fight him to others when they arrived. I'd love to read the police report on this encounter because I strongly suspect the cop will cite the husband as some sort of threat (the magic words are, almost verbatim, "I reasonably feared for my life" any time there's a UOF incident.)
Furthermore, the cop likely KNEW he had screwed up since he felt the need to lie about the encounter and slap a fraudulent battery charge on the husband in order to justify his actions.
Why were cops sent to a medical incident?
Odds are the cop was closer being out driving around than the ambulance station. So he showed up first and fucked everything up.
Again, why was a cop dispatched at all to a medical distress call that did not involve obvious violence (stab wound, gunshot wound)?
If he wasn't explicitly dispatched why did he show up?
If he wasn’t explicitly dispatched why did he show up?
How is anyone supposed to know the difference between a mostly peaceful seizure and the other kind?
(You know who has two index fingers and can point the blame at more than one person or group of people at once?)
You call 911 and say you're having a medical emergency. You say what kind of emergency. The person working the phone, depending on the budget the 911 office has, may received first responder medical training or may have watched a lot of doctor shows on TV.
To explain how I know something about this, I almost got a job as a 911 operator in a mid sized South Dakota town. I know some medical stuff, mainly because of all the shit wrong with me. In the end they didn't hire me because of those medical issues. I had reached the interview stage so there were a few hoops I had jumped through and of course filled out a rather large application. At no point did they ask about my medical knowledge, first aid qualifications, CPR training or anything of the sort. They didn't seem to worry if I knew anything. Mostly they were concerned how I would handle working through snow emergencies and such.
Odds are good the 911 operator didn't know what a seizure was, much less the variety the wife was talking about. Odds are the operator just sent out a general call to police, fire, and ambulance. The homeowners just got unlucky and wound up with a cop who was way undertrained as a first responder and the rest of the crews showed up far later.
People expect that cops know everything from watching cop shows. In those shows the cops are portrayed as a step below Superman. So the 911 operator probably assumed they were getting a much more qualified person on site. Also the operator probably couldn't convey anything useful about the man's medical condition because they didn't understand the woman on the phone.
Puts a whole new spin on "Dial 911 and die."
As I said elsewhere, I'd really like to know what the 911 dispatcher said to Officer McCuffnstuff. Unless the woman didn't speak any English whatsoever, I fail to see how the 911 operator couldn't glean enough information from the call to say there was a medical emergency taking place and not, say, an armed murderer on the loose.
This is so frustrating. The cops obviously didn't know what they were getting into. So now they are going to get sued. Talk about injustice. This guy Frankel questioned their authoritay, and he got the tase. The cops would have been justified in shooting him because since this criminal was successfully resisting a much younger man. Cops get to go home at night. He is lucky that the DA didn't prosecute, and this is how he shows gratitude, a lawsuit against cops that used restraint instead of totally justified deadly force.
Don't want to get tazed like a thug, don't have a seizure like a thug.