[Lowell Goudge]

I'll bet they didn't expect the deputy to put him in the front seat, but that's no excuse. I read that the deputy transporting him was put on administrative duty along with the two involved in the actual shooting. All the other articles only say it was just the two and I am 99% sure that I saw the other deputy on patrol Friday.

And what about those who told the deputy he was non violent. Are they on administrative leave too? Seems wrong to only blame those at the sharp end, when others were apparently at fault in the first place due to lack of communicating

[ASheffield]

And what about those who told the deputy he was non violent. Are they on administrative leave too?

They were from th Crisis Center so I'm not sure about them.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I'm surprised that a modern police department would allow an involuntarily-committed mental patient to be transported without restraints. Taking somebody into custody for an involuntary psychiatric evaluation is no different from effecting an arrest, in terms of safety issues. The big difference is that the person your are taking for an evaluation is not necessarily a criminal, so you want to try to help them maintain their dignity if possible and when practical, but not at the expense of safety.

And handcuffs serve to protect both the officer and the person being handcuffed, as can be seen in this unfortunate example. Anytime you are taking away somebody's freedom and forcing them to go somewhere against their will, their is a strong potential for violent resistance. And the only reason that you take somebody in for an involuntary evaluation is because you have reason to believe they are are a "threat to themselves or others". Otherwise, the police would have no reason to be involved.

At my department, road supervisors carry a restraint belt. It is basically a wide leather belt with a metal ring in front. You put the belt around the person's waist and handcuff them in front, passing the chain of the handcuffs through the metal loop. That way they don't have their hands uncomfortably behind their back like a criminal, but they are still restricted from raising or lowering their arms or extending their arms away from their body. Officers have the option to use the belt when they are taking somebody in for an involuntary evaluation. If the person is cooperating, they will be offered to be handcuffed in front with the belt. Otherwise, the arms go behind the back. But the department SOP states that anybody you are transporting involuntarily must be restrained.

I won't pass judgement on the propriety of the shooting, since I was not there. And I don't trust any news story to have all the facts. I've seen too many simple cases where the news media got it all wrong, so I certainly would not trust them too completely in anything this chaotic.

I will say though that anytime you engage in fighting with a police officer, there is a chance you will be shot and killed. Think about it. If an officer has his gun out and is pointing it trying to subdue a dangerous person, then what is he going to do if that person disregards verbal orders and attacks the officer? The officer can't just drop his gun on the ground and try to go hands on, since the weapon can be picked up by the resister. But will the officer have sufficient time to safely holster and secure his weapon, and then still be able to respond to the attack before it arrives? It depends on the distances involved and how quickly things move, but in many cases the answer will be no.

But above all else, the officer cannot allow himself to be overpowered, since his weapon can then be taken from him and used against him, his partners, and the public. What would you do if you were squaring off with a crazed person who you thought might kill you if he got his hands on your weapon? If you are a police officer and your gun is not out but you're losing the fight, then you might want to think about trying to shoot the person if you want to make it home to your family that night. That's one of the reasons that officers work out and train, so they don't find themselves faced with that life and death decision. You have no way of knowing if the person you're fighting is just going to leave you alone when he gets you down, or if he's going to go for your gun. Again, I wasn't there so I can't comment on any specifics, but these are the thoughts that go through my mind when I read something like this.

And no, I've never heard of any kind of federal law or regulation dictating that every officer carry flex cuffs. What would even be the purpose of such a requirement? Sure, there are occasional situations where they could come in handy, but that's true of a million different things that police are not required to have with them at all times.