3 ms·

> Medics checked him out each time, and cleared him. Are you suggesting Medics aren't to be trusted now too? As with all medical professionals, they are not to

> Medics checked him out each time, and cleared him. Are you suggesting Medics aren't to be trusted now too? As with all medical professionals, they are not to be trusted to be omniscient. Clearing him for release is not the same thing as guaranteeing that he had no dangerous injuries.

dpark 11y ago
> Clearing him for release is not the same thing as guaranteeing that he had no dangerous injuries. Isn't that almost exactly what clearing him for release means? What else are the medics "clearing him" for if not the absence of major/dangerous injuries? I suppose they cannot "guarantee" the lack of injury, but they certainly would have checked for evidence of traumatic brain injury. It's possible that they missed something, but this is currently unjustified paranoia with nothing behind it except distrust toward the police.
- 0xcde4c3db 11y ago
  It's the closest thing to a guarantee that they are able to give, which is substantially limited by the information, time, and equipment they are able to obtain. As someone with a chronic medical condition that was misdiagnosed for ~20 years, I admit to having biases about this sort of thing, but I can assure you that my doubts are not limited to police-involved situations or EMTs.
  - dpark 11y ago
    Sure, medics make mistakes. I don't buy all this conspiracy stuff about the police killing Ian Murdock, though. That narrative doesn't make much sense, partly because the family is asking for privacy rather than loudly demanding justice as you might expect from family members of a murdered man. But also, the alternative is nutty. The police just randomly assaulted him twice at two different times, then called the medics both times and filed false reports about what happened? Not only does this make absolutely no sense, but seems pretty easy to dismantle if false. Murdock claims that the police attacked him in his home twice. The police claim that he was attempting to break into two different homes. Which of these is more likely? Someone supposedly reported him both times. At least one medic saw him. Are these people in on the conspiracy or made up (seems easy to confirm that these are real people)? This is tragic, and it is entirely possible that Ian Murdock was a victim of abuse by the police during his arrest/while in custody, but it also seems like Ian Murdock had some sort of mental break before all this happened (I seriously doubt this was all the result of just alcohol use). Given the (presumed) suicide, I wonder if he had some long term mental illness. He very well might have been delusional or psychotic during all this.
    - fao_ 11y ago
      > don't buy all this conspiracy stuff about the police killing Ian Murdock, though. I actually didn't state that police killed Ian Murdock, just that his (presumed) suicide could have been the result of the emotional trauma from the beatings. I can not speak for anyone else.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

dpark 11y ago

> Clearing him for release is not the same thing as guaranteeing that he had no dangerous injuries. Isn't that almost exactly what clearing him for release means? What else are the medics "clearing him" for if not the absence of major/dangerous injuries? I suppose they cannot "guarantee" the lack of injury, but they certainly would have checked for evidence of traumatic brain injury. It's possible that they missed something, but this is currently unjustified paranoia with nothing behind it except distrust toward the police.

0xcde4c3db 11y ago
It's the closest thing to a guarantee that they are able to give, which is substantially limited by the information, time, and equipment they are able to obtain. As someone with a chronic medical condition that was misdiagnosed for ~20 years, I admit to having biases about this sort of thing, but I can assure you that my doubts are not limited to police-involved situations or EMTs.
- dpark 11y ago
  Sure, medics make mistakes. I don't buy all this conspiracy stuff about the police killing Ian Murdock, though. That narrative doesn't make much sense, partly because the family is asking for privacy rather than loudly demanding justice as you might expect from family members of a murdered man. But also, the alternative is nutty. The police just randomly assaulted him twice at two different times, then called the medics both times and filed false reports about what happened? Not only does this make absolutely no sense, but seems pretty easy to dismantle if false. Murdock claims that the police attacked him in his home twice. The police claim that he was attempting to break into two different homes. Which of these is more likely? Someone supposedly reported him both times. At least one medic saw him. Are these people in on the conspiracy or made up (seems easy to confirm that these are real people)? This is tragic, and it is entirely possible that Ian Murdock was a victim of abuse by the police during his arrest/while in custody, but it also seems like Ian Murdock had some sort of mental break before all this happened (I seriously doubt this was all the result of just alcohol use). Given the (presumed) suicide, I wonder if he had some long term mental illness. He very well might have been delusional or psychotic during all this.
  - fao_ 11y ago
    > don't buy all this conspiracy stuff about the police killing Ian Murdock, though. I actually didn't state that police killed Ian Murdock, just that his (presumed) suicide could have been the result of the emotional trauma from the beatings. I can not speak for anyone else.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]