Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
Mary Mitchell goes to town today with an article about Chicago police officers Tasing an 82-year-old woman.
The Illinois Department of Aging (who knew?) received an anonymous tip that Lillian Fletcher, alone in her West Side home, needed help; they dispatched the police to do well-being check. When police got to Fletcher's door, she refused to let them in, and when they pushed their way in, she got a hammer.
Police spokeswoman Monique Bond tells a slightly different version of events:
Workers with the city's Department on Aging were making what is called a "well being check" at Fletcher's home on the city's southwest side... "The woman was seen at the window with a hammer in her hand, swinging it back and forth," Bond said. The social workers called police. A landlord opened the door with a key and when the officers stepped inside, the woman was swinging the hammer, Bond said.
Either way, the police told her to stop, she didn't, and they Tasered her. They took her to Mt. Sinai Hospital for treatment, where she was hospitalized for five days.
Fletcher's granddaughter, Traci Taylor, told Mitchell that her grandmother is schizophrenic and suffers from dementia. She also says that her grandmother is still complaining about pain and a burn on her abdomen from the October 29 incident, and that doctors told her that her grandmother should be treated by a neurologist because she has fluid on her brain. We can't tell if Mitchell and Taylor are saying that the fluid is a result of the Tasing--electric shocks have been linked to disrupting heartbeats, but we're not finding anything linking Tasers to hydrocephalus.
Mitchell's story loses us, though:
Obviously, there are times when a Taser should be used to keep the peace. And disabling an out-of-control person is better than shooting that person and asking questions later.But in Fletcher's case, police officers showed extremely poor judgment. Even if she didn't look elderly, there was no question she was mentally disturbed.
How do these police officers justify using such force on an elderly woman? Where was their compassion?
First, that's not obvious--plenty of people disagree that Tasers should ever be used. Second, if Mitchell says "disabling and out-of-control person" is fine, doesn't Tasering someone who's obviously mentally disturbed fall within that category? Third, if she's going to concede that Fletcher might not have looked elderly, then how can she wonder how the officers would justify their use of force? Wouldn't they say "She didn't look that old, and she was mentally disturbed and swinging a hammer at us"?
Look, we're obviously not advocating the Tasering of 82-year-old women. Tasers are dangerous and can be extra dangerous if they're used on someone's who's on drugs or has a heart condition. But how are police supposed to assess that at the scene, theoretically in life-or-death situations?
Pic of the Advanced Taser M26s via DGG Taser. Those are the ones the CPD uses.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Right on Margaret, black woman got a hamma in the hands and you say send 'er to the chair. White man kills his wife like Scott Peterson and you say "aw, he was such a handsome man. Who knew he was that pyscho?"
I'm jus sayin.
there is nothing more threatening than old women and hammers. she deserved it.
our police department is WAY out of control. they seem to be under the impression that they can get away with anything, probably because they usually do
Oh, you're so right SPOOK. Unlike the other Spook who is just a mean racist. He never offers
any serious comments, unlike you who clearly take Chicagoist seriously.
Hey what are you up to later big guy, I got a copy of Birth of A Nation, its not exactly a Minstrel show, he he he, but they do use black face. Sho Nuff! he he he ha ha did I sat it right SPOOK? Shhooo Nuff! You do it better, but maybe you can teach me!
P.s I like the way you copied the mean Spook's picture of Bush, but used Jesse Jackson Jr with it! Wow Clever! Why don't you edit your profile to make fun of him that way too! He He. Don't worry I'll let you get away with it, he he. No matter how much he complains, he he ha ha
Look, we're obviously not advocating the Tasering of 82-year-old women. Tasers are dangerous and can be extra dangerous if they're used on someone's who's on drugs or has a heart condition. But how are police supposed to assess that at the scene, theoretically in life-or-death situations?
Would you like to rephrase that?
How did police handle situations like that prior to the prevalence of tazers, and without resorting to shooting the individual?
If they are trained well, they should be able to resolve the situation without having to do either. Tasers have enabled them to take the easy way out via this "safe" form of neutralizing an individual brutality.
And since cops become cops voluntarily, they can always quit if they don't like having to use their brains.
The old lady, while wearing shimmering 1980's-era harem pants, shouted "Hammer time!" Then she did dome killer dance spins.
Can't touch this!
Before there were tasers, cops disabled people by clubbing them over the head with their nightsticks or shooting at their kneecaps. Look, either way, the outcome isn't pretty. Policework isn't cut and dry....there is not always a solution that is going to please everyone.
Don't tase me, sonny?
Fancypants1 you are 1 whacky pants. Enough with the rote, "subtleties of police work" defense. Anyone who can't subdue an octogenarian without tasing them should be laughed out of the precinct station (and then beaten like a drum). I'm reminded of six Florida rent-a-cops who couldn't subdue a loud undergrad (jackass) without tasing him. Seems to me a dangerous job should require you pass a test that proves you aren't a complete pussy.
I've smashed my thumb with a framing hammer before which I suspect is more than the woman had on her person. Hurts like hell but then so would torturing an old woman, at least for people in possession of emotions and a respect for their elders.
An 82 year old lady is a threat to a gun wielding cop?? PUH....LEEEZZZ...
Next time the cops have some violent freak with a weapon, instead of following procedure and using their tasers, they can call Huge first, since he's such a tough character. I'm sure he won't mind a couple of hammer blows to the head--only a complete "pussy" would avoid a hammer to the skull on the job.
I agree with the comment above by Mr. Rection. Any legit cop should be able to knock the hammer out of the hands of a spindly 82 year old woman.
I suggest (no sarcasm here) that instructions be given to officers that if the subject has the appearance of being elderly (e.g., over 65 years of age) then you simply do NOT use a taser. Policemen have functioned for a very long time WITHOUT tasers. I think that they can avoid using them in old folks.
Totally right Ward, they should have bashed her over the head with their nightsticks like cops used to do. Much better.
Sure, don't taser the schizophrenic woman with a hammer!!!
Let her bash herself or one of the officers.
If she bashed her own head in, cops would get blamed, too.
It's a no win situation. The cops probably saved her life by zapping her before she clawed her schizophrenic eyeballs out.
I'm sure her family is seeing dollar signs. They could care less about their grandma OBVIOUSLY if the dept of aging has to check on her and the family lets her live alone KNOWING she has schizophrenia and dementia. I think the cops should zap the family members, too, for allowing that woman to live on her own.
I think this qualifies as an appropriate amount of force. If they had to jump in and lay hands on her to wrestle the hammer out of her hands, more harm could have been done. And while I agree that more police should learn how to diffuse situations without violence, reasoning has a limited effect on those not in their right minds.
If you can't outrun a Romero zombie you deserve to die.
If you can't find some way of peacefully disarming an old lady swinging a hammer, you deserve to be hit.
Why do you have to bring poor disenfranchised zombies into this?
I'm on the side of the zombies. I think they need a voice.
Not the fast moving zombies, they are a bad reflection on the Zombie race!
I'm under going intellectual virtigo on this, tasing old ladies( even in MC Hammer pants- funny) is clearly wrong, but seems like CPD could prevent deaths and extreme harm that accompanies police guns, night sticks, beat downs, etc. It gets down to training. I know in some places only sargeants have tasers. I don't know I go back and forth on this. Interesting to think about how order is preserved in England by police who generally don't have guns. Whats that say about our culture?
Oooh, Land of the Dead particularly resonated, didn't it? I loved it too, but the zombies were still gonna eat the people that sympathized with them.
Really though, are you comparing the lady to a zombie?
Number 6 I am certainly not going to diverge to Zombies, rumor has it that George Romero has a yes yes yes yall another Zombie film on the way!
I just hope he dosen't allow for too much evolution, ie "zombielution" with the news batch of zombies.
But back to the cop, it will be interesting to see what the "new and improved" office of professional standards does with this?
If I had hammer
I'd hammer in the morning
I'd hammer in the evening
All over this Laaaaaaand
Don't tase me bro!!!!
Sorry, has that joke already been made?
The cops probably saved her life by zapping her before she clawed her schizophrenic eyeballs out.
Yeah that makes sense, she's lived 82 years obviously now would be the time that she'd decide to 'claw her eyeballs out', retard. They should have just pretended she was a nice young polish girl who refused to serve them, then the situation would have been handled.
O.K who's with me? Navin for Alderperson!
Instead fundrasing with living room coffies, we could have living room Beeries!
Romero's zombolution is starting to look a lot like Americans today. I think the cops who tased this lady are zombolutionaries.
But back to the cop, it will be interesting to see what the "new and improved" office of professional standards does with this?
They won't.
Go read the use of force guidelines second city cop posted. Taser on somebody with who is armed and actively resisting in a manner that creates a good chance of bodily harm is totally by the book.
Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You ask why it was necessary for the police to tase her if some lesser force would have sufficed?
Well, why not ask the family and social workers why they didn't use the lesser force? If its so freaking easy, why were the police called? Oh, because somebody (the family, the social workers) felt there was a threat the required a response from the police.
Talk her down? Block the hammer with something else? Do it yourselves.
And the best is anyone suggesting that the police should have reasoned with the woman. Hellooooo, how in the world do you reason with someone who is insane?
Honestly, if its so easy, maybe we ought to let the ghetto police itself so we can save ourselves the lawsuit hits.
Or maybe the police shouldn't be responding at all to these things that so many people do not believe require the presence of armed officers, or the use of arms carried by the armed officers.
JP2, could you consider for a moment that Chicago Police might need training in dealing with the mentaly ill? Currently the majority of officers are not trained as of yet.
If you google St. Paul Minnesota for instance, you can read about how all police officers are trained by professionals in the field of this scope. Problems are down and shootings of mentally ill patients have not occurred for some time in ST.Paul.
The person responsible for the successful Minnesota program? A now former St. Paul Cop who killed a mentally ill person early in his career and understood that the person would've been alive, had he had proper training.
p.s Ferdy indeed indeed
Romero's Zombies and the people always on the verge of extinction was both amazing horror and amazing social commentary. The original Night of the Living Dead was banned in most Southern States for obvious reasons when it came out,
Here's my take on the wonderful "Land of the Dead"
http://ferdyonfilms.com/2006/01/land-of-the-dead.php
Oh I'm sure they do, but that does not address my points. If she was not such a danger, than why does the family or the social workers need them there?
If she's mental, than almost by definition she is not committing a crime for which she could (or should) be convicted. Which leaves us with police being called merely for, what, their weapons in case they are needed?
If the weapons are not necessary, than the family or the social workers can handle it, right? Plus, social workers should presumably be dealing with mentals (including this particular mental). Why not give them the training, and leave calling the police for when a convictable crime is being committed (i.e., with people who aren't crazy as the offenders), or for when the mere use of extra weapons (like tasers, or guns) would appear to be required.
Either way, the attacks on the officers for doing this are absolutely outrageous, completely ironic, and entirely hypocritical. If you don't have a use for their weapons, and if there is no convictable crime being committed, than don't call them. Let the families handle it themselves.
"If you can't outrun a Romero zombie you deserve to die."
hahahahahaah it's so, so true and so, so funny
Navin, do you know anything about schizophrenia or dementia?
Or retardation for that matter?
Here's a medical journal quote for you:
"Self-mutilation (SM) has been defined as 'painful, destructive and injurious acts upon the body without the apparent intent to commit suicide' [1]. It is commonly encountered in psychiatric setups in patients suffering from schizophrenia, depression, personality disorders, and mental retardation"
What the hell do you think grandma was doing?
(Besides wondering why her family never visits until they see dollar signs from the police dept)
Why do you think they called a "well being check" in the first place? You don't add to a confused person's well being by burning her with a taser.
Usually a "Check Well Being" call for the CPD involves actually checking the mere existence and life of a subject. After the subject is found to be alive and in somewhat reasonable condition, they are told to call whoever is worried about them.
However, the CPD does not merely have a duty of care for the the well being of an individual. They also have a duty of care for the well being of those endangered by the individual (e.g., the social worker, or the police themselves). Thus, the hammer thing makes this story a bit more than a story about that poor helpless defenseless 82 year old insane woman.
Not sure what the right answer here is that any of you are proposing, or if any of you are even proposing anything, let alone a right answer.
Perhaps we can agree that the police should not be called by the department of aging to confront elderly insane people? I'm sure the police would be quite happy to adopt that policy. Or perhaps the department of aging can be equipped with madd judo skills in case they have to disarm their wards. Than, again, the police owuld not need to be called by the department of aging to confront elderly insane people.
JP2, it’s just not that simple.
Look at the Humboldt Park case where the mother’s 250 pound bipolar son was hold up in his bed room threatening to kill himself.
The mother called the cops, which is what she was supposed to do. The kid ended up being shot and killed by a cop trying to get him out the room. I'm not blaming the cops. It’s about the fact that Chicago does not adequately train officers to handle these situations and that’s a fact.
And it’s also about sensitivity.
Personal story. The day after- two Christmases ago, I was at my Ex’s condo when her down stairs neighbor’s brother an Indian doctor (from India) came upstairs and asked us to call the police on his nephew, her son, who was mentally disabled due to a car accident years ago.
We called the police and I knew enough to ask for a Sergeant because the kid was mentally challenged. Two police officers came first and lead him out to the Paddy Wagon with no shoes on in zero degree weather! I mentioned it to the officers and was informed that it wasn’t "part of their job". The Sergeant a second after and I informed him of the situation. He said to the officer “Go get June Bug some shoes” Needless to say the boy's name wasn’t June Bug.
Training, its all about Training with over 20 million people in America with mental problems the CPD needs to train OUR Officers
p.s Grow up Dorr! It’s not about one Zombie! It’s about thousands of those dead things out there!
It’s about being surrounded in a shopping mall because "When There Is No More Room in Hell, The Dead Shall Walk The Earth!"
Its about landing your helicopter in what was a scenic Florida Town- before the dead came back to life- to desperately look for a few remaining survivors, and saying “Hellooo!” in your mega phone, only to bring thousands of them including one in a high school band Marshall hat's, your way! That’s what its about!
Spook, it is sorta that simple. The police are called to transport people to mental facilities.
They are damned if they do deal with the mentals, and they are damned if they don't. They are damned for letting the bipolar girl from California out of Area 1 last year (the community was given a pass after the community promptly set upon and killed the girl).
They are damned for subduing those who present a threat to them.
They are called millions of times a year. Everyone wants to second guess, but nobody has a better suggestion on what they should do.
Sensitivity? Should they have sung granny a lullaby to get the hammer out of her? What the hell does sensitivity have to do with subduing a threatening subject (with a deadly weapon in hand)?
The two officers and the sergeant could have handled your situation better. Than again, if its one of 30 incidents you were handling in an 8 hour tour, would you be kind and gentle to everyone? To anyone?
The sarcasm and distance is part of that job. The shoe thing I'd probably still hope would have been handled by the sergeant, but it sounds like it was.
And, again, what exactly would you train OUR officers to do? Because if it doesn't involve something that has to do with them being police officers, than perhaps the police should not be called (or sent). Which I'm sure would be perfectly fine with the police.
Unfortunately, the police, like teachers, are being asked to handle an abundance of social problems that have nothing to do with why they chose their careers in the first place. Our social fabric and social safety net is in shreds, our misguided attempts to "liberate" mentally ill people has led to more homelessness, and more people are off their meds because they can't afford them (not to mention, they don't like the side effects).
Maybe teachers and cops shouldn't have to deal with social problems. But that's how things are today. So they better get some training or they better help get some people in office who will correct some of these social ills so they don't have to pick up the pieces.
I think I'm gonna stick with Zombies.
I finally saw 28 Weeks later on DVD last weekend. See what happends when you introduce kids to a movie? You destroy it like fire to a zombie. for 28 Weeks, two kids did to this movie, what even fast moving zombies couldn't, ruin it!
I'm totally with Spook. I think sensitivity is the key answer to any of our major socio, political, economic, dating relations. Humberto Eco says (if you don't want to go back to Socrates) that the ability to consider the "other", in other words to put yourself in somebody elses shoes, gives you the main foundations of ethics to therefore carry on in the best way possible any role that you play in society. And if we haven't develop that ability it's not because we are assholes but because we live in a system that doesn't teach us to.
If they put themselves in that somebody else's shoes, they would need to shut off their rational thought, grab a hammer, and start confronting a uniform that the entirety of society was supposed to have learned not to confront from their moment of first cognizance all the way to their 82nd birthday.
So the officers virtually step into the crazy geriatric's head, put down the hammer, raise their arms and agree to go peacefully and, what exact benefit do they get for engaging in this exercise?
You guys are way too fuzzy. You talk about ethics and compassion and training and, yet, nobody seems to have even the beginning of a suggestion as to what the officer's should have done.
Should they have responded in the first place?
Should they have left without doing anything once they verified that the crazy old lady was alive?
Should they turn their backs on the crazy old lady once she wielded a weapon?
Maybe throw pillows at her?
They could have a rule that force will not be used on the elderly, but at least two officers have been shot, one killed and one paralyzed for life, by elderly nuts in Chicago in the last 15 years. So it seems that your compassion could get a working man killed.
I know I was doing cheap rhetoric but I really think that sensitivity is a key issue for many of the problems we face. I don't know if the cops did right or wrong with the old lady but they usually go wrong.
I never mentioned compassion. It has a religious connotation that I don't like.
And please don't compare the one officer who got killed because many, many CHILDREN (not old folks who already did what they wanted with their lives) had been KILLED (shot in the back) by these officers.
Would you mind naming some instances of where "they usually go wrong" or of the "many CHILDREN... KILLED (shot in the back) by these officers) unjustly?
The dead officer's name is Marques, and the paralyzed officer's name is Mullen.
I doubt to the core of my being the truth of anything you have said, and I doubt you can even imagine what it is like walking in the shoes of those you condemn.
Moreover, I am stilly waiting for the constructive suggestion of what one should do when confronted by a weapon-wielding octagenarian.
Dryline
wasted rhetoric? Perhaps in this situation, but certainly not cheap especially in these times
and JP2 perhaps the cop could have timed and grabbed the hammer, I mean the watch word is Octagenarian. I wasn't there, but it was interesting how in ST Paul trained officers are able to talk down possible confrontations because irrational people often go by voice reflections and patterns. But I guess this would never work if its just about "policing" people as oppossed to service.
I don't think any one is "blanketly" condeming. But you ask us to not use any critical engagement at all. If a Chicago Cop does it, it must be right, is your mentality.
Spook, your last statement is incorrect entirely. In fact, it turns on its head my accusation that to some of you, if a Chicago Cop does it, it must be wrong THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY GUIDANCE ON HOW THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED PROPERLY.
If I could have used bigger font, I would have.
Timed and grabbed the hammer? Perhaps not, also. You see, you are hedging this suggestion here. Let us not hedge my dear friend. Let us provide solid unequivocal guidance to replace the use of force model, or perhaps overhaul the 9-1-1 system that would allow officer's to be sent to confront a gentlewoman, or perhaps ensure that only suicidal people who are willing to take an occasional hammer to the head join the CPD. There has to be an answer here for all of you.
Please, put your heads together, and provide the answer. Otherwise, can we perhaps wait for more facts if any?
I still have no idea what St. Paul has to do with policing the west side, but I have to wonder how St. Paul Minnesota in any way provides a comparable experience to that which confronts a Chicago officer so lowly and unclouted as to be assigned to a patrol car, and so unworthy as to be assigned to some situations that would seem not to ever (in the opinion of some here) justify the use of those tools that we provide for them.
Talk down? Possibly. Are we sure that these officers did not try?
Service? What exact service were they there to provide anyway?
You and I (I believe) have a somewhat similar and complete dislike of the Mayor and the system, and perhaps for many of the same reasons. If there is a common ground (again, between you, me and Ferdy), perhaps we could all acknowledge that the badge and the gun were not what was required for this particular situation. Once at such a dry spot in this swamp, perhaps we could agree that sending these officers on such a call was not the best use of this particular governmental resource. Or, on the other hand, you and others might say, even though you agree that this is an inappropriate use of this resource, Chicago should still try to make the best of it and make sure thousands of officers are at least somewhat skilled in nonviolently confronting mentals of all sorts.
But if you have followed what I have been saying, it is not that I will not judge or criticize what a Chicago cop does. Rather, I will wait until I have adequate knowledge before I would so much as presume to even guess the circumstances they face. As you may imagine, the difference between the two is rather large, but given the right information, I will be the first to criticize an action taken by an police officer in Chicago if I believe it is so warranted.
It does seem, on its face, that we ought to wait for all the facts to come in before judging the actions of the police. However, my husband, who worked with the homeless for 10 years, has talked several people, some of whom were mentally ill or high, out of shooting him. Obviously, there are some techniques that work in more dire situations than an old lady with a hammer. I'd like to see police learn those techniques so we don't have to worry about mentally ill people being mistreated because cops (or social workers) have means to subdue them by force. I don't think that's so unreasonable.
I wonder what people would be saying if the police left the crazy old broad alone and left and then the 82year old nut went and got all midevil on the social worker, oh its all the police fault the social worker should have been protected you just cant leave a crazy women alone she could hurt someone or herself either way lets blame the po po. How about the crazy broads family that has her living by herself and the sends social workers and police to check on her. Im sure they were all to busy at work.
All Right Chicagoist, now here this. No more stories that question possible police abuse. Clearly reporting like this is not needed and is unfair to all police officers.
Hey, if all we are going is asking questions, than what is the harm? The only questions I saw were my own, asking the gallery for what the officers were supposed to do, if not that.
Which reminds me to ask Ferdy, did your husband have a gun pointed at him my multiple different subjects on multiple different occasions, or was it something less than that?
Did he call the police and sign a complaint?
Because that sort of trauma is, statistically speaking, the kind of thing that does not happen to the median police officer even once in a full career. Hope your husband is doing something less stressful now in any case.
It happened three times, all different people in different circumstances. He did contact the police in one instance to have the man removed from the shelter.
I have to wonder, then, if you're right about most police never facing the barrel of a gun, why do we hear about police shooting people or mourn all the policemen killed in the line of duty? It seems to me that deadly force on either side of the law happens enough. Are you suggesting that because most cops don't face the threat of being shot that they don't know what to do? If so, then why do you suggest that training is not a solution?
What should the cops have done. Two against one. One distracts the old lady, the other disarms her. They talk to her for as long as it takes to get her to calm down. They throw a blanket over her head. They shine a light in her eyes and disarm her when she closes them. How's that?
But what exactly happened three times? If your husband called the police having had a gun pointed at him in a shelter, I would imagine the police would do more than merely remove the offender from the shelter. And how in the world would it be a good idea to leave a deranged and/or addicted person with a gun out and on his way after such a deranged and/or addicted person pointed a gun?
Which is to say, although you did not answer directly, I have to infer now that you are not saying that someone actually pointed a gun at your husband, and that the threat which your husband talked down was somewhat more implied.
We hear about police shooting people because the police are sent constantly to deal with criminals with guns. Friday and Saturday nights on the west side in the summer are filled with "shots fired" and "person shot" calls. Dope spots put up security. Kids (in my view justifiably in many cases) fear for their lives and walk around with guns. The police are the ones who are tasked over and over with confronting people with guns.
The police are trained to so something when facing the barrel of a gun, much like our military. That is, they are trained to shoot. Not so much as a "drop it" is required. Once someone knowingly and intentionally points a gun at a badge, what right do they have to exist in the society protected by that badge?
But that would appear to be comparing my apples to your lemons, as I am reading your husband's actions as being those taken not in the fact of a gun.
I like the distracting suggestion (seriously), but who is to say they did not? The blanket idea is probably a good one too, as long as there is a blanket handy. A bright light is probably not available to an officer these days.
But the distracting and a blanket I like. Perhaps you would be good at disarming deranged people without shocking them.
No, they were real guns. And yes, the shelter guy was taken into custody. The other times, he was confronted on the street by a guy from the shelter (he got away quickly, so maybe that one doesn't really count). A third time was a drug dealer who was trying to collect money from a guy my husband was sharing a house with. That was all talking him out of it. The only bullet he didn't dodge was the one his ex-wife put into him. That why there's a book about terrorists called "Shoot the Women First"!
You are absolutely right that the police are trained in the use of force. That's why we're suggesting that because the role of the police has changed so much that their training needs to keep pace with the times.