Even if the police have every reason in the world to arrest someone and the person is injured or gets injured in the arrest, the police are still supposed to provide emergency first aid. At least that's the way I understand it.
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-tape ... rner-case/You can see police prop Garner up on his right side, which officers say they did to help him breathe.
"Guys, clear the sidewalk... EMS is coming down the sidewalk," an officer says on the tape.
What you don't see is any apparent urgency on the part of the police, even though Garner would die less than an hour later.
"Sir, EMS is here, okay?" an officer tells Garner. "Answer their questions, okay?" A bystander says, "He can't breathe."
It's more than four minutes into the video before an EMS worker arrives and checks Garner's wrist for a pulse. She then checks his neck.
As I understand it, putting Eric on his side was probably the right thing. For example, one aspect of the 1989 Hillsborough tragedy is that unconscious victims would have been much better off if they had been placed on their sides. (if an unconscious person is placed on their back, the throat can have a tendency to close) And add to the side position a gentle to modest chin lift and that might be the way to go.
The current recommendation for lay persons on CPR is to check for breathing. If the person is not breathing, go ahead and give CPR. And you can do only chest compressions, which are the more important thing anyway. The rescue breathing aspect is a personal choice. And the chest compressions should be 1/3 to 1/2 the depth of the chest. Which is deep. I mean, you are fighting for the persons life. Odds are with heart attack and other things, the person probably won't make it. But you're fighting for their life and at least giving them some chance.
=============
On the broader topic of police misconduct, I'd really encourage people to think big. What big, sprawling changes will lead to big societal improvement?