This message was self-deleted by its author

[MADem]

170. Your anecdote is NOT evidence, and my thinking is not "muddled," thank you very much.

Let me address your principal gripe--that the guy wasn't being committed to a mental hospital.

Yes, he was--all reports say that the staff of the assisted living facility consulted with his family and got an INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT ORDER for him. Here:

http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/article/327473/81/Man-95-dies-after-being-shot-with-beanbags

and here: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-28/news/chi-autopsy-bean-bag-rounds-fired-by-police-killed-park-forest-man-95-20130728_1_park-forest-taser-bean-bag-rounds

Competent people have the absolute right to refuse ordinary medical treatment. A staff of an assisted living facility can't force the guy to go get a wart removed or take antibiotics or even get chemotherapy. They CAN, though, "involuntary commit" a person when they are displaying signs of mental incompetence (which can happen as a consequence of stroke, for example), or, if the person is senile or has other cognitive issues, they can obtain authorization from a family member holding court-ordered power of attorney over the individual owing to their incompetence. Something on those lines is what was happening in this case, even if you do not choose to believe it. Either a court order was obtained after consultation with a family member, or a family member already holding a court-ordered power of attorney authorized transport of this gentleman.

The staff did get authorization from the family to proceed with the commitment, too.

A written statement issued by Emily Powell, executive director of the center, said Warna displayed “unusually aggressive behavior” about 6:30 p.m., so they called his family and paramedics to transfer him to a hospital for further care.

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/21604323-418/death-of-man-95-tasered-by-police-is-ruled-a-homicide.html

He was being transported BECAUSE he was exhibiting "unusually aggressive behavior"--not because he needed a mole examined or a chest cold treated.

The police arrived at nearly quarter to nine PM, and they called the family after he started getting aggressive at six thirty PM, so we aren't talking about just a few moments of pique, here. This went on for a couple of HOURS.

For information on how Illinois handles these matters, read this: http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=209&Itemid=144

The Illinois law will allow for the placement in treatment of anyone who, because of the nature of his or her illness, is unable to understand his or her need for treatment and who, if not treated, is at risk of suffering or continuing to suffer mental deterioration or emotional deterioration, or both, to the point that the person is at risk of engaging in dangerous conduct.

The Illinois law also expands the definition of “dangerous conduct” to include threatening behavior or conduct that places another individual in reasonable expectation of being harmed, or a person's inability to provide, without the assistance of family or outside help, for his or her basic physical needs so as to guard himself or herself from serious harm.

As for your 95 year old athlete, he looks like he has spinal degeneration, no matter when he started his fitness regime. Have a look at the pictures of the fellow at the link I provided, as counterpoint--he looks, as I said, twenty years younger at least. Genetics do play a role.

I've given you examples of hale and hearty people in their nineties, you keep going back to "your guy" because he backs up your thesis. Bottom line--"your guy" wasn't involved in this tragedy. He's one guy--he's not Earnest Borgnine, who was vigorous up until he experienced renal failure at 95, nor is he this guy, another "elderly athlete" who is also 95: http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a-95-year-old-record-setters-rules-to-run-by or this woman: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/running-strong-sprinter-america-ida-keeling-12961984

And you can be "suspicious" and "bet" all you want, but you just don't know. I just think that people who believe that a policeman who INTENDED to kill a guy would go to the trouble to use "non lethal" (and I put that in quotes for obvious reasons, as the end result of use was homicide) means rather than using a cheap chunk of lead to just take the guy out, have a bias. I know the police aren't saints in many situations, but they didn't come off the street after hearing a disturbance in this case. They were called by the ambulance crew--the ambulance crew that has EXPERIENCE in transporting combative patients. The ambulance crew that COULD NOT HANDLE this guy, who had been displaying "unusually aggressive behavior" for an excess of two hours.

It would be nice if the police had a way to immobilize people carrying weapons without zapping them or beating on them with beanbag bullets. Of course, if they come up with something like that, people will object to that as well and fear misuse.

As for your "back dated reports" it's harder to do that now, with computerization. It's not unreasonable to assume that a report was filed by computer from the cruiser, after the man was subdued and transported. See, he didn't die on the scene, so your assumption that the police "back dated" stuff is just not logical. After he was transported, the police were probably breathing a MASSIVE sigh of relief and patting themselves on the back, PLEASED that they didn't have to use a bullet and kill the guy; when they were finished with the guy, they had talked to him, and he'd been sent off to the hospital. He went to one hospital, and then another, and he died in the wee hours of the following morning. Had the hospitals he was transported to done a more thorough examination of the man and realized he had internal bleeding, they very likely could have saved him.