Nephilim

Thu, Aug 26, 2010 : 8:49 p.m.

I was unaware that the police did that "for fun" with friends but anyhow yea I ate tile floor. I got one five second hit with the probes and after that five seconds, I would have weaved them a wicker basket if they told me to. Like I put in a previous post, I'm over six foot four and 264 pounds and I'll bet anyone a thousand bucks they won't put handcuffs on me without one or all of us going to the hospital. Point a taser at me and like I said, how many wicker baskets you need sir or ma'am?

Michael Schils

Thu, Aug 26, 2010 : 1:16 p.m.

Nephilim, when you say you were tazed, do you mean as a COP or as a CITIZEN? The reason I ask is because they can be two very different experiences. "Enjoying" a single short zap with your friends there to make sure you don't fall and hurt yourself can be quite different than getting tazed (sometimes repeatedly) by surprise and not being able to protect yourself as you feel your paralyzed body crashing against the pavement.

Nephilim

Thu, Aug 26, 2010 : 4:48 a.m.

I've been tasered. It's not as bad as you think.

FoxviewFarm

Wed, Aug 25, 2010 : 7:51 p.m.

Keepingitreal- You said that black men get tasered more than others and will often deadly consequences- is there some place to support that comment? If it's true, then there is most certainly an issue. I would wonder if they had not been tasered if there would have been other methods used which would have led to death/serious injury. I find it a horrific thought-getting tasered, that is. I also think that drugs are an awful issue too. Not a good answer anywhere I think. If there was some way to render someone unable to resist, without harm, this would be ideal. But this is far from ideal in anyones book. Running/fleeing is not the answer either.

trespass

Wed, Aug 25, 2010 : 11:38 a.m.

Here is another death after the use of a taser in Livonia. http://www.detnews.com/article/20100825/METRO01/8250368/1409/?source=nletter-news The use of the taser may well have been justified but I think it puts new light on the case of the 17 year old Ypsilanti High School student who was tasered in the back.

jcj

Wed, Aug 25, 2010 : 7:02 a.m.

The problem I have is there are already those that believe the officers are guilty of wrong doing. Once the officers names are released it won't matter if they are found to have acted properly beyond a shadow of a doubt. There will always be this hanging over them. If they are found to have acted improperly their names will be released. We seldom see the names of suspected criminals until they are charged with a crime. Why should this be any different when the facts do not point to wrong behavior. You can argue the policy should be different but there is not yet evidence that there was wrong behavior on the part of the officers.

Awakened

Wed, Aug 25, 2010 : 6:26 a.m.

Race is a factor in almost every aspect of American society. The impact of race should be considered. I don't jump to the conclusion that it was a determinative factor; I just feel that it is a factor to be investigated and watched. Any time force is used in the accomplishment of a law enforcemnt task it should be reviewed. It should be reviewed more stringently the greater the force and the more severe the outcome. In this case a man is dead and the investigation should be stringent. We should wait until there is more information is available to insure that it is stringent and avoid blaming anyone until the investigation is done. I have not yet seen reported whether LAWNET/Sheriff officers had an arrest or search warrant. One would hope they did. Without it the whole action is more questionable. Certainly, this fact is a matter of record. Maybe annarbor.com could advise.

Roadman

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 10:31 p.m.

The Ann Arbor News should be serving Freedom of Information Act requests upon the authorities so the names of the deputies involved in the incident should be known and any other information in the incident reports be disclosed for the benefit of the public.

KeepingItReal

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 5:58 p.m.

@kraiford12: I'm not at all put off or offended by your comment nor have I considered what your race may be. I do know from your post that you are either in law enforcement or have been. My comments are not directed at anyone white but the black community that often gets riled up over the most innococus incidents but remains silent on issues that have a profound impact on their community. Black males are tasered far more frequently than any other group and often with deadly consequences. There are members of the African American community reluctant to pursue this matter because our Sheriff is black. I say to hell with the fact that he's black. He's still the Sheriff and must be held accountable for the actions of his troops whether they are correct or wrong.

kraiford12

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 3:04 p.m.

@Michael Schils First, I'm not sure why you think "I'm as white as you", I hold very strong ties to my heritage (that's not "white"). If I made "KeepingItReals's" overall point of something perhaps being racially motivated seem false, that was not my intent. My intent was referencing him relating this incident to the Arizona prisoners recent escape. His correlation between two very different circumstances is what did not click. I also never said having a lawyer wasn't a good idea. I feel strongly in a persons right to have proper representation and protection in any manner regarding the government. I'm a strong believer in the Bill of Rights and the protection it gives us. You'll even notice in my post that I wrote (in direct relation to this topic) "given what I know". I have not drawn an absolute conclusion. I've very open to any new substantial evidence that may come up.

Michael Schils

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 2:44 p.m.

@kraiford12, I don't understand (and I'm as white as you are) why you feel the need to challenge any suggestions that race may have played a factor in this incident. Considering the history (Clifton Lee Jr., David Ware, etc.) of black men in the area who have died at the hands of Law Enforcement, the question cannot be avoided. Then there is the question of whether the unwinnable War on Drugs itself perpetuates racism. You should certainly allow a black man to suggest that his community should be asking questions. And having an attorney present during important meetings with gov. officials after losing a family member just makes good sense and isn't necessarily an assumption of police misconduct. There's a very heavy pro-Law Enforcement presence in these threads that can be intimidating to those with other perspectives. You say you enjoy what you consider "radical thought processes" so please don't scare them away. That all being said, I wouldn't have deleted your comments, but its not my call.

kraiford12

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 1:54 p.m.

@Edward Vielmetti To be honest Im not completely sure I understood your post. Here is my reply and I hope it relates to the point you were making. If it was about my comments to the authors writing, I still stand on that subject. I think it could have been better written. I know Im not the best writer, but knowing what point your writing makes seems simple enough. If it was about my comments regarding the censorship of some of the posts: I welcome any and all comments about this story or relating to other comments posted. What I find upsetting is some of the moderators feeling their own personal need to remove (in my mind very directly related) comments. I enjoy dialogue, criticism, opinions, or even radical thought processes; I feel they all have their place. I can even understand the need for moderators to remove certain comments that are outright and blatantly inappropriate. But I was put off by AnnArbor.coms removal of several users posts as I feel they were all relevant and within the guidelines of good dialogue. I hope that AnnArbor.com does not become a place I begin to distrust.

kraiford12

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 1:34 p.m.

@jcj To some degree it's sad that I even felt the need to save them. Why wouldn't I trust the news? Better yet, why does the media feel the need to censor what they feel needs to be censored? But back on point (as requested by AnnArbor.com)... I hope constructive and critical dialogue of the incident does continue. I hope AnnArbor.com allows it; not doing so seems to pull the topic of conversation even further away from incident.

jcj

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 1:24 p.m.

I to feel that some of my comments were removed inappropriately. Not that what I said was so profound, but I believe my comments were on topic. I guess I will have to start keeping copies of my post also. I believe we had a constructive dialog going.

kraiford12

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 12:46 p.m.

@AnnArbor.com @Jim Knight @Stefanie Murray **The points I am reposting are very ontopic, they discuss issues relating to the story above along with personal comments. That is the point of a comment section right? To Comment?** I like how AnnArbor.com has a comment section with moderators that decide what they like to remove at will, even very on-topic points. Why is AnnArbor.com picking and choosing what topics it feels are appropriate? One staff member feels the need to assurt there opinion and all the sudden it's not in the best interest of AnnArbor.com? Tell me how any of these posts are off-topic, or more off-topic than the other posts you left up: KeepingItReal wrote: I think the basic question that need to be addressed in this situation is what happen to this man once he made contact with the Sheriff department. Again, three armed and dangerous fugitives escaped from the Arizona Prison system and all are captured unharmed. All of them had violent histories including murder. All of them white. The last one captured made the statement that he wished he had killed the park ranger who he came into contact with and he would have shot the arresting officers if he could have gotten to his gun. Yet, Mr Jackson, apparently did not have a gun and this man was tasered by the Sheriff Department, admitted to the EMR of a hospital, given in injection to get him further under control and he end up dead. I think Clayton is the best thing that we had in a Sheriff in along time in this county but the African American community need to be asking some questions. As one poster pointed out perhaps the black community is waiting for the facts to come in. Did they wait for the facts to come in when a black judge was reassigned before they called a meeting and contacted the press? The death of a person at the hand of our law enforcement authorities is a serious matter and the community is justified in asking questions. I guarantee you, those questions will not come from the African American community because Mr. Jackson was "not an important figure" in the black community. To the jackson family, do not talk with the Sheriff without contacting jeffrey Feiger. Kraiford12 wrote: @KeepingitReal You're trying to link two very different situations with the escaped Arizona inmates and this event. How an officer approaches and treats a situation varies greatly between every single (might I add unique) encounter. When/why a taser is deployed has little to do with the what the person is, more what they are doing at the time the officer makes contact. It also makes little sense to add something one of those Arizona inmates said after being caught (I would've killed the ranger/officer) and intertwine that into how the WCSD reacted to this situation. Again, they have no related variables. And on a much more personal note, after makes those completely unrelated points, you said that the "African American Community need to be asking some questions?" You've managed to link escaped Arizona inmates, their reactions/words after the fact, into this situations with the WCSD, while also throwing in some undertones of racism?....I left this part for last, what does the "Black judge that was reassigned before they called a meeting and contacted the press" have anything to do with this? KeepingItReal wrote: @kraiford12/jci: Let me apologize for combining several comments into my post and failing to make the appropriate connections. I still may not. My point is that you have three armed and dangerous,violent killers and escapees from an Arizona prison who were captured without incident. All were white. Here, you have a lone black man who probably panicked when approached by the police or behave in a manner the police considered threathening (most black males are considered threathening). After some activity, he was tasered to get him under control, taken to ER, injected with some drug because he was still acting beligerent and he's now dead. Now from your perspective, this may not be important but from my perspective as an African American its very important. The African American community reacts to a judge being reassigned, even when the judge said to them don't do anything on my behalf that would embarass me, they still decide to form some type of committee to "investigate" this matter. That judge will still be able to see his family,. provide for them, interact with his friends and associates, etc. but the dead man won't. It seems the black community as the community as a whole places a differential value on human beings. No matter what you think of Mr. Jackson's lifestyle or past, the fact that he is a human being is worthy in and of itself for each of us to be concern about the outcome. Our law enforcement community is our first local defense against threats of any kind. If the community doesn't trust them, their ability to perform their duty is seriously eroded. I voted for the Sheriff because he promised transparency. I hope he honors that. I still say however that the Jackson family should not meet with him without Jeffrey Feiger's present. Kraiford12 wrote: @KeepingItReal I'm still having an extremely difficult time finding any relation or relevance to your posts. Your attempt to link two completely unrelated events surprises and confuses me. Even you (I hope) would agree that no two events are ever completely alike, especially when you're dealing with different people, different circumstances, different moments in time, different geographical locations, different law enforcement agencies, different training, different (*insert infinite possibilities here*). So then why, do you keep trying to relate the Arizona prisoners escape situation to this? Also, I'm not sure why you keep hitting so hard on his ethnicity? To be completely honest, it seems you're trying to turn this into a case of racism? First off (and I apologize if this information is out there, I havent seen it) do we even know the ethnic backgrounds of the officers involved? Second, was there any indication made by anyone (officers, suspect, neighbors, family involved) that the events were racially motivated? I'm not saying no one has the right to be upset. It's always unfortunate in situations like these when anyone is injured or killed. I could even understand anger directed at the officers involved (though not my personal feelings given what I know). That argument would have much more substance behind it then what it appears you're trying to do, which is turn this into a "he was black and that's why he's dead" situation. Other points you make also seem to take away from your argument, points like most black males are considered threatening. I dont know about anyone else, but I dont find black males any more threatening than anyone else. You also say you have a lone black man who probably panicked when approached by the police. First off, you nor I have any idea how he reacted when he saw those officers. Second, I would be willing to bet anything that everyone in that situation was scared on one level or another. You think those officers executing the search warrant entered that house calm and casual thinking Just another day. You think police officers dont feel fear? Panic? Confusion? That they dont have families or loved ones at home they think about when they have to do something as high risk as this? I wish you would think more about your community (not just the black side) as a whole before making the types of posts you do. I can understand if youre upset or confused, but dont try to twist this story anymore then it already is with your warped logic. **The points I am reposting are very ontopic, they discuss issues relating to the story above along with personal comments. That is the point of a comment section right? To Comment?**

Michael Schils

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.

huronia, this article doesn't say that the sedatives were fatal but only that his "heart stopped when he was given medication". 'Correlation' does not imply 'causation'. The mere fact that two events occur at the same time does not confirm a causal relationship. So with your misrepresentation of the doctor's words, you were sensationalizing a bit yourself. But since it was only your first post, maybe the mods will let you slide, and apparently they have.

Awakened

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 6:26 a.m.

@Atticus The link you provided was for a civil case where officers used far more force in,frankly, questionalble circumstances and the US 6th District Court rejected, as Michigan Courts previously had, the argument you made that the officers had to wait for a SWAT team. It does not seem to support your argument. Perhaps you could clarify. In this case we are all speculating, but... If they knew he has, or might have, a weapon hidden in the home wouldn't they use neccesary force to keep him from running in and retrieving it? Wouldn't "Less Lethal" force be appropriate? After all, if he grabs a gun it is even more likely people will die.

Nephilim

Tue, Aug 24, 2010 : 12:47 a.m.

Apparently you are not allowed to question the great journalism abilities of the author of these articles or you won't get posted. Bring back Amalie Nash to the crime beat. At least she was respected and could get the facts. Amalie Amalie Amalie

huronia

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 11:42 p.m.

This article makes me quite irate. The title makes it seem as though the victim died right after being tased. The title should be "Autopsy on man who died Friday after being administered a fatal dose of sedatives won't be completed.." He was tased just the same as he brushed his teeth in the morning. His death TWO HOURS LATER is quite tragic, and I can't even imagine what his family is going through, but does not point towards wrongdoing on behalf of LAWNET. I once respected annarbor.com for its ability to report without sensationalizing. This article makes me lose any respect I had. I mean, come on...

JC

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 9:47 p.m.

It is quite possible the police chased him into the house to prevent the destruction of any evidence. Here is my guess: Neighbor calls police that someone is dealing in MY neighborhood Police close in Suspect runs to flush Police beat him to the toilet to get their collar Drug dealer learned from prior arrests that carrying a gun while violating parole is stupid Neighbor feels terrible

problu

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 8:53 p.m.

I agree 100% with kraiford. The headlines/articles were written in such a way that they repeatedly linked this man's death to being tasered. The headline could have just as easily read "Man Dies After Being Given Medication After Being Combative in St. Joseph Mercy Hospital's ER". That "event" happened closer to the time of death than being tasered. Seems to me this reporter made his own determined as to the cause of death.

A2MOM

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 8:43 p.m.

This is ridiculous. If anyone thinks they could do a better job of upholding the law to make the streets safer for our children while at the same time protecting themselves, stand up and do it. Those who break the law put themselves in the position to be tased or shot if they resist arrest. What would you do, taze, shoot or run away?

nxil2009

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 8:31 p.m.

This is a terribly written headline. My dies after being tasered? How about "after being injected with sedative at hospital"? Or "after eating a dinner"? Lee, if you have anything to do with the headline you should speak up. It goes to your credibility. LAWNET was investigating him. That means he was not some average Ann Arbor pot-smoker, getting high on his porch. This guy is a dope dealer. That is why LAWNET was there.

bhall

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 8:11 p.m.

Whew! Who knew there were so many police, judicial and medical experts posting on this blog. I'm sure another 30 posts or so and we'll get to the bottom of this, just from the comfort of our own laptops. Keep up the good work!

jjc155

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 6:57 p.m.

@michael schils, funny how the name of the doctor who gave the subject "something to calm him down" with in a closer time frame of his actual death (compared to when he was tasered), his name hasnt been released or published either (cue the Law and Order theme, LOL. I am pretty certain that more people die every YEAR in Michigan alone due to medical malpratice and drug interations/allergies, than the 150 or so that Amensty International progandizes that have died since 2001 "after being tasered" in the ENTIRE COUNTRY (realize that if you were tasered on Monday and die on Saturday, Amenesty international considers that a Taser deathLOL). I say string the doctors up by their thumbs as they cause more harm than Tasers and the Police do combined, right (I joke of course about string em up by their thumbs).

jcj

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 6:47 p.m.

@Michael Schils What due process has to do with it is this. There are those that would like to try this in the media before we have very many facts. We do not need to jump to conclusions about what may or may not have happened. We as the ones that pay the public officials have a right to know what happened. No argument there. BUT we do not have the right to every detail before the investigation is complete! Despite all the complaints about losing the old Ann Arbor News and complaints (rightfully so) about how incomplete some articles on A2.com are. The fact is most of us would be lost now if we did not have this forum to vent our personal bias's and pet peeve's!

Chuck

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 6:43 p.m.

If the word inconclusive comes up in the report...

jcj

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 5:46 p.m.

So much for patience and due process.

Lokalisierung

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 5:38 p.m.

"I don't think he said he would mass produce every piece of information within 3 days the the incident, did he?" Agreed. Some posters just use any excuse to bash whatever they don't like, whether it has anything to do with the story or not.

Cash

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 5:27 p.m.

Michael Schils, I don't think he said he would mass produce every piece of information within 3 days the the incident, did he? I am sure he is following the advise of the lawyers involved, as most would expect. Patience is a virtue.

Michael Schils

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 5:12 p.m.

Why aren't the names of the deputies involved being released? Sheriff Clayton ran on a campaign promise of increased transparency and right now his promise of "change" from the secrecy of the previous administration seems very...er...Obama-like. I wonder if there are video/audio recordings of the incident...

BW

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 4:39 p.m.

@ Atticus, That excerpt makes broad generalizations regarding tactics involving search warrants. Perhaps Washtenaw County is not one of the agencies "opting" to use such techniques. LAWNET executes narcotic search warrants very frequently without using a tactical team. Maybe you should try getting ahold of their policy and procedure manual. "Proper police procedure" is in the eye of the Department, which is why all Departments are allowed to devise their own policies and procedures.

Atticus F.

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 4:20 p.m.

Edward murrows ghost, here's a quote from the detroit police departments training for narcotic enfocement. "Fighting the war on drugs is a dangerous business. Each year the number of drug related deaths to officers increases, with the largest portion of these involving drug raids. One of the most dangerous aspects of law enforcement is the execution of a search warrant on a fortified drug house where the occupants are usually heavily armed with weapons superior to the police. Subsequently, a large number of police agencies are opting to use highly trained and heavily armed SWAT type teams for these raids."

Atticus F.

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 4:15 p.m.

Edward murrows ghost: pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and Michigan law Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sowards-v-trenton-20175162#ixzz0xSxAC0gm

Lokalisierung

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 4:13 p.m.

I understand the point but a suspect running from police into a home does not a baricaded gunman make. If a suspect is running from police and he doesn't have a gun in his hands, I think I would want the police to run and grab/tackle/tazer him when he's fleeing. I a suspect that is known for having guns (don't know this one, I didn't read his criminal past), it's reasonable to get him in custody so he can't go to the gun/s.

Atticus F.

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 3:58 p.m.

Yes lokal, but Country kate is trying to say this was acceptable because the police might have had info that the suspect was armed.

Lokalisierung

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 3:50 p.m.

"Country Kate, proper police procedure is to call in a swat team if there is a baricaded gunman...Not to run in after him." Nothing of this story claims he was a "baricaded gunman."

Lokalisierung

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 3:47 p.m.

"Point being, I think its extremely hypocritical and misleading to write a statement like this writer did, the way he did, and honestly say it was not trying to link the taser to the cause of death." Good point.

Atticus F.

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 3:41 p.m.

Country Kate, proper police procedure is to call in a swat team if there is a baricaded gunman...Not to run in after him. Once the suspect is inside a residence it's best to set up a perimiter, and call in the specialist. The only exception is if another citizen is in eminent danger, which the police would have to observe, not just assume.

kraiford12

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 3:31 p.m.

I like how the editors/writers/moderators of this site will remove posts by users because it "speculated as to the reasoning behind the death" My posts were never removed, but I've seen several posts with that same reasoning behind it. When the writer worded the events as such... "An autopsy on a Belleville man who died Friday at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital after being Tasered during a drug bust in Superior Township won't be completed for at least a week, authorities said. Stanley Jackson Jr., 31, died less than two hours after a Washtenaw County sheriff's deputy Tasered him at his mother's Heather Drive home, family members said."...how can a rational person say that statement in no way tries to intertwine the death with the use of the tazer? Why not say: "He died less than two hours of being placed in handcuffs" "He died less than two hours of being placed in the back of a police car" "He died less than two hours after being told he was a bad man" Point being, I think its extremely hypocritical and misleading to write a statement like this writer did, the way he did, and honestly say it was not trying to link the taser to the cause of death.

CountyKate

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.

@Atticus: if a poster in one of the previous stories can pull up his OTIS history, don't you think the police would, prior to moving in? And no, when confronted with a situation where a suspect may be trying to get to a weapon, the prudent thing is to get there first, before he can reach said weapon. The thing you DON'T want to happen is for a gunman to barricade himself inside a residence. I disagree totally with your last statement. The officers are equipped with Kevlar vests and are trained to do this. To second-guess them now is ridiculous.

Atticus F.

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 2:47 p.m.

Country Kate, how would these officers know this guy had a history of carrying a gun unless they have had previous encounters with him? And if they did in fact have previous encounters with him, wouldn't it have been more prudent not to chase him into a residence? this would seem like a situation for a swat team, a possibly armed suspect barricaded inside of a residence... If they truely did fear this person was armed, the last thing they should be doing, is chasing after him into an unknown environment.

Cash

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.

stevek, I think we agree that we hate to see people distrust and disrespect each other. I'm old, and let me tell you, life is very short. We're all here at the same time in history in this spot on the map and should try to be at peace with each other. Sometimes time and patience can resolve things.

CountyKate

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 2:33 p.m.

@trespass, previous stories have stated the deputies were at the house to assist LAWNET officers in a drug bust. A "bust" is an arrest. As I probably have more experience working with LAWNET than the average poster here, let me say I have no doubt they had all the proper paperwork in order before proceeding with this arrest. Also, from the accounts of outside witnesses, the suspect turned and fled into the house when he saw the officers. Now, I don't know how you would react, but if I knew someone had a history of carrying firearms, I would be thinking he was going to find a gun. And I'd be real quick to try to keep him from getting that weapon. I think you would be, too, if you were one of those officers. We don't know everything because an investigation is still ongoing. Jerry Clayton knows better than to feed the public bits and pieces that might not, in the long run, turn out to be fact when put in context. To accuse the department of not being transparent while they are still trying to fit the pieces together is unfair and short-sighted.

Cash

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 2:28 p.m.

TheAnnouncerMan007, Amen. In time, all will be known.

stevek

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 2:27 p.m.

@cash @jcj @theAnnouncerMan007 I commend the way you are commenting regardless of each persons point of views.

Jay Allen

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 2:16 p.m.

@jcj: I think, with the way posts have been presented, you have down a good job of breaking them down. @Cash: For a large majority of the time, I agree with your posts. Your insight is pretty good! As is the case here too. You are right, the Police will never be right. The way you wrote that first one however left the door pretty wide open. But again, I agree with you AFTER you have come back and clarified. Kuddos. To continue. The Police do NOT free reign, I agree. However, it wrong to lay blame on the Police in cases such as this. Many people who posted in the other thread just want to blame the police and cannot see anything else as a possibility. Pertinent facts that we know per the 1st article. -There was a drug raid at this home -A person was told to stop and he ran -The police entered the home to arrest the subject -The man resisted arrest and was tasered -He was transported by ambulance to St. Joe's -This person still tried to get away and Dr's gave him medication -He unfortunately passed away It is sad he died. So to those who solely blame WCSD. Let's play your game. He was handcuffed with no incident. He was transported to St. Joe's for whatever reason. At St. Joe's he too tried to get away. Medication was administered and he passed away. The Police are to blame here? Too many of you are too quick to jump down LE's throat. Until the autopsy results come back along with toxicology, the blame in this matter should kept OUT of the discussion. Why? None of knows.

Cash

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 2:03 p.m.

jcj, I agree. I'm hoping the details aren't delayed too long. And one thing I didn't mention is another concern for me...that the more people distrust police, the more likely it is that police will be injured or killed. Long term it doesn't just end with one death.

jcj

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 1:54 p.m.

@Cash You certainly made your position more clear than the last post. I do not believe I was the only one to misinterpret your post. At any rate I have no problem with you last post. My position has been clear. We do not have all the facts until we do unlike some other posters I will ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt to the police! That does not mean I will always condone their actions once we have all the facts.

Cash

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 1:36 p.m.

jcj, Yes I am horrified by this incident and the death. And see, you went off on a tangent without asking why I'm horrified. But ranting without cause isn't a crime, even if it's offensive. I am horrified for our community because: Because regardless of the reason this man died, there are family members and friends and others who will always believe the police were at fault. They will distrust the police and that spreads like any other hatred. More people will run from the police. More people will get hurt. More distrust will develop. It will not matter to them what the autopsy says. And there are others with no affiliation to the man who will always believe that the police have a right to do whatever in the name of the law, even if they kill someone. Comments like "use drugs and you should know what will happen" etc. It will not matter to them what the autopsy says. Neither of these "sides" are looking for facts. They are reacting emotionally. Anger, distrust, fear...all those emotions are here. And it's horrifying to see death be a reason for people to spew venom at each other. Horrifying to me, indeed. This is my community too. I respect the police officers. I respect my neighbors. And seeing people pitted against people over the death of a man....is horrifying to me. Sorry if that offends you. Sheriff Clayton must follow legal advice now. People should learn to be patient and respect the process....and the people involved.

Jay Allen

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 1:13 p.m.

@jcj!!! Right On!

jcj

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 12:32 p.m.

"I would like to hear a lot of answers and am horrified by the death of this man regardless of circumstances" regardless of circumstances? Really? regardless of the circumstances? That is a pretty broad statement! If it turns out he had a preexisting condition that was put into play by the sedative will you still be horrified? Headlines recently on A2.com Woman charged with stabbing husband during fight in their Pittsfield Township home. Did this horrify you? Didn't see it expressed! A Blackman Township man was arrested Thursday at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital Did this horrify you? Didn't see it expressed! Here is a link to over 100 officers killed in this country in the line of duty so far in 2010. How about expressing some horror at that!!! http://www.odmp.org/year.php

trespass

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 12:25 p.m.

@Mick52- I agree that many preliminary autopsies don't find the cause of death but if it was a head injury that would be obvious on the gross autopsy findings. If it was due to drugs, either illicit or something they gave at the hospital, then we will have to wait for the toxicology.

Cash

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 12:17 p.m.

I would like to hear a lot of answers and am horrified by the death of this man regardless of circumstances. However, I am sure that Sheriff Clayton is following legal instruction. We do not know if he is communicating information to the man's family.

Mick52

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 11:53 a.m.

I had the same thought trespass. In a statement after the incident the sheriff said something about openness but then seemed to say "no comment" on quite a few questions. Typically police departments do not want to release a lot of information on a case under investigation. That can lead to people altering, destroying, hiding evidence or changing statements. It also can lead people to conclusions that are unsupported from speculation. As to your first sentence, that is not always true. I have attended many autopsies to the end where no cause of death are determined. Very frustrating. As an investigator, you look for bullet holes, stab wounds, bruises and, like you mentioned, significant injuries. Not always there though, you have to frequently wait for tox reports. You bring up a lot of good questions that should have been reported. Good post.

jcj

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 11 a.m.

All in due time. The facts won't change. If they are released now or next week. I trust no one wants to keep speculating with only have the facts. We as posters here act as if we had as much at stake as the deceased and his family.

trespass

Mon, Aug 23, 2010 : 10:40 a.m.

Even if the toxicology has not yet been done, there is much that might be learned from the preliminary autopsy report, such as did he have a significant head injury. Why can't the preliminary autopsy report be released? Also, the Sheriff's office could release information about whether or not Mr. Jackson was being arrested or just stopped to investigate. Did they have a warrant for his arrest? Did they observe a crime for which he was being arrested? Can they follow him into a private home if he was not under arrest? It seems like they are claiming that they will be transparent but they are not answering questions that they already know the answers to.