Routine medical call ends in gun battle

[Erick Gelhaus]

Back in the early 90s, many ODs were rather combative (came back fighting) once Narcan was administered. With the frequency of opioid ODs and the advent of nasal Narcan, I have had questions about whether or not today's suspects / patients are again coming back in a combative, assaultive state after administration. Have been told the effect is softer; however that hasn't been what I've seen.

Strongly believe in making use of restrained detention prior to administration of the Narcan. Events like this only reinforce that - albeit for somewhat different reasons.

[TGS]

Back in the early 90s, many ODs were rather combative (came back fighting) once Narcan was administered. With the frequency of opioid ODs and the advent of nasal Narcan, I have had questions about whether or not today's suspects / patients are again coming back in a combative, assaultive state after administration. Have been told the effect is softer; however that hasn't been what I've seen.

There's been some observations that Narcan isn't working as well as it used to against current opioids.

What's true is that it isn't working as well, but that's because of improper administration and not the current efficacy of Narcan or the opioids its used on.

Lots of people don't push it correctly, so instead of atomizing it runs down the nasal passage to the back of the throat as a liquid and doesn't do anything. That's the reason that the nation is seeing more "failures" or "soft" effects.

[Erick Gelhaus]

There's been some observations that Narcan isn't working as well as it used to against current opioids.

What's true is that it isn't working as well, but that's because of improper administration and not the current efficacy of Narcan or the opioids its used on.

Lots of people don't push it correctly, so instead of atomizing it runs down the nasal passage to the back of the throat as a liquid and doesn't do anything. That's the reason that the nation is seeing more "failures" or "soft" effects.

Fair enough, it makes sense.

[txdpd]

Maybe that is how it works in Texas, but certainly not in the state I am from, and probably not in Wisconsin where this happened either by the way they acted(maybe someone from that area can enlighten us). At my local area we cannot arrest someone that calls in for help during an OD. They are not a suspect, they are a medical patient. If we happen to find anything laying around when we show up, or perform an officer safety searching find something the worst we can do is confiscate it and have it destroyed.

While most of us understand the danger in these calls, we still have new guys that want to use the shiny narcan kit they were issued and hurry to these calls to "help".

As for the title, I pulled that from the video.

He didn’t call for help and he refused medical treatment. If I’m reading the Washington statute correctly, intoxicated individuals can be taken into protective custody.

If you went to a call like that, and you had an individual that was dying of an opiate overdose in a public place and then given Narcan, would you let him leave the scene on his own?

If he’s truly free to leave the scene after refusing medical treatment, it’s a medical issue. If he was never truly free to leave then it’s a police matter with alternative outcomes in lieu of arrest. I don’t think there are too many departments out there that would think it was reasonable of their officers to let someone like the susp wander off and start ODing again, or creating a big unknown.

I also know there are departments and officers out there that play the “lets hope everything works out game” and would cut that guy loose. Officers that do that are playing fast and loose with their careers, because they are the low hanging fruit.

Back to the video the susp refused medical treatment and he was essentially detained, and I don’t think anyone watching that video would believe that the police were going to let the suspect leave on his own. Diplomacy failed, it’s an arrest situation and it was time to handle up and make an arrest. Whether it’s public intoxication/inebriation, protective custody or some type health evaluation, it’s time.

[TGS]

If you went to a call like that, and you had an individual that was dying of an opiate overdose in a public place and then given Narcan, would you let him leave the scene on his own?

If he’s truly free to leave the scene after refusing medical treatment, it’s a medical issue. If he was never truly free to leave then it’s a police matter with alternative outcomes in lieu of arrest. I don’t think there are too many departments out there that would think it was reasonable of their officers to let someone like the susp wander off and start ODing again, or creating a big unknown.

"Policing is regional". There's something like 40 states at this point that have OD immunity laws on the books. The OD immunity laws obviously vary state to state, so much so that it's hard to discuss this as a general concept. In some states, someone who ODs has total immunity from criminal prosecution for that act and being a drug abuser does not qualify to place the person in protective custody. In many, it's more nuanced. In some states like yours, there's no such concept whatsoever.

In other words: there's quite a few states where a person can OD, get a complimentary shot of Narcan from their favorite travelling bar, and then do so again multiple times in the same day. In some places, a cop has no choice but to let the person leave the scene.

[rathos]

You hit the nail on the head. My county does a needle exchange and allows these guys to walk away after a shot of narcan. Go further north and they have places the junkies can go to shoot up and don't even require a needle exchange, they simply let the junkies throw out the needles and they clean them out of the gutter in the early morning hours. We have had guys that get multiple narcan shots in one night.

"Policing is regional". There's something like 40 states at this point that have OD immunity laws on the books. The OD immunity laws obviously vary state to state, so much so that it's hard to discuss this as a general concept. In some states, someone who ODs has total immunity from criminal prosecution for that act and being a drug abuser does not qualify to place the person in protective custody. In many, it's more nuanced. In some states like yours, there's no such concept whatsoever.

In other words: there's quite a few states where a person can OD, get a complimentary shot of Narcan from their favorite travelling bar, and then do so again multiple times in the same day. In some places, a cop has no choice but to let the person leave the scene.

[AMC]

You've got multiple issues here coming together to create a shitstorm. On the one hand you have the increasingly tolerant or therapeutic approach to illegal narcotics, which may or may not be justified depending on a number of factors. Simultaneously we have a movement to de-fang law enforcement. My department yesterday sent out a notice that we will be aggressively recruiting returned Peace Corps volunteers.....because that's what our city thinks the ideal officer. This is not a joke, by the way.

I've told my trainees for a long time that it takes a unique combination of personality traits to make a good police officer. Even in my current role I remind them that being a good shooter doesn't make you a good cop, but a good cop better damn well be a good shooter. We need to be the guy in the news story who picked up the kid who missed the school bus and drove him to school. Who found out that it was the kids birthday, and the kid wasn't having a party....who then organized his team mates to arrange a party for the kid. And we also need to be the guy who will fly like the wind to that school when the call of an active shooter comes in....who will aggressively hunt down the shooter, and ruthlessly shoot him in the face with a rifle if that's what it takes to save innocent lives. We need to be both of those things to do our job....but right now a segment of our society thinks only the first half is necessary. Two years and six months left....

[UNM1136]

"Policing is regional". There's something like 40 states at this point that have OD immunity laws on the books. The OD immunity laws obviously vary state to state, so much so that it's hard to discuss this as a general concept. In some states, someone who ODs has total immunity from criminal prosecution for that act and being a drug abuser does not qualify to place the person in protective custody. In many, it's more nuanced. In some states like yours, there's no such concept whatsoever.

In other words: there's quite a few states where a person can OD, get a complimentary shot of Narcan from their favorite travelling bar, and then do so again multiple times in the same day. In some places, a cop has no choice but to let the person leave the scene.

OD immunity is less the issue here than observation-response. Even if the locale is tolerant of ODs, as @Dagga Boy pointed out, while the dude was out of it, before the hose draggers started rescusitation there should have been ample opportunity to frisk, including ripping the belt line, and even handcuffing as necessary. The OD and the the dope may not exist legally, but the risk is still there. No harm addressing the risk before shithead gets narcan by a frisk. Hell, locally the hose draggers won't even begin pt/ax until PD has rendered the scene safe.

CIT cops are still cops first, with a longer time scale.

pat

[TGS]

OD immunity is less the issue here than observation-response. Even if the locale is tolerant of ODs, as @Dagga Boy pointed out, while the dude was out of it, before the hose draggers started rescusitation there should have been ample opportunity to frisk, including ripping the belt line, and even handcuffing as necessary. The OD and the the dope may not exist legally, but the risk is still there. No harm addressing the risk before shithead gets narcan by a frisk. Hell, locally the hose draggers won't even begin pt/ax until PD has rendered the scene safe.

CIT cops are still cops first, with a longer time scale.

pat

Totally agree, nothing to do with what I wrote though.

[UNM1136]

Totally agree, nothing to do with what I wrote though.

You are right, I was intending to add, not correct, and posted too quickly. Sorry, it was a long night at work after a long day with little sleep.

pat