Flapp mentioned the 25 was among recruits, so a smaller population.  I'm surprised it's that low.

The 1864 number is probably undercounted and many are not reported.  Much harder to not report heat stroke.

Heat stroke should be considered critical condition as a person would die or be permanently injured without major intervention.  Heat exhaustion should be serious condition as it's more stable and can be reversed with cooling, water, and time.

Good point. I only said training, not specifically recruit training so our numbers were a little apples and oranges.

According to the link they keep these numbers annually and can see the averages. To do a really fair comparison we should see what the average for HPD is, that way we would have an average per capita number to compare. We don't know if they have a couple every year or if they haven't had one in 50 years.

If someone has a weapon, the cop should only tell 3 times to put it down and each demand separated by X seconds. Then use of deadly force is allowed. Not ask 40 times, like that guy on the big island with the machete. Total waste of time.

I say X seconds separation cause u dont want the 3 demands done within 2 seconds total and then they get lit up. The weapon bearer needs time go drop the weapon.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The use of deadly force is a last resort when serious bodily injury or death is imminent, not the amount of time. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35608520/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20there%20were%20488%20incident%20cases%20of,2018%20and%20then%20declined%20in%202019%20and%202020.

"In 2021, there were 488 incident cases of heat stroke and 1,864 incident cases of heat exhaustion among active component service members of the U.S. Armed Forces."

Way more than the 25 you mentioned.
Perhaps your "knowledge" isn't as complete as you think?

Unless you have data on all the heat-related illnesses in all the on-going and advanced training required by HPD for all officers, you are the one trying to compare apples to oranges.

The HPD story is about exhaustion bad enough to be listed in serious condition - transported by EMT and hospitalized.  Sounds like heat stroke more than "exhaustion". 

The story is also limited to recruits, not periodic or SWAT training.  I listed the stats for military recruit trainees.

Maybe you should think about what you're posting before hitting "Enter?" 

Let's say the 1800 number is more to your liking.  Again, that number compared to JUST THE ARMY'S recruit total of 30K in that same year gives a ratio of 6%.  Most statisticians would not call that stat a "common" occurrence, especially if they did the averages you called for.  That 6% would then be subject to a margin of error which is normally in the 3% ballpark, making the remaining 3% even less "common," assuming you aren't just using raw averages which no one knowledgable of statistical analysis would ever do.

Again (and again), this is just for the Army.  Add the Marines, and the percentages might go up.  Add the Air Force and Navy, and it might swing the opposite direction.

Unless you have data on all the heat-related illnesses in all the on-going and advanced training required by HPD for all officers, you are the one trying to compare apples to oranges.

The HPD story is about exhaustion bad enough to be listed in serious condition - transported by EMT and hospitalized.  Sounds like heat stroke more than "exhaustion". 

The story is also limited to recruits, not periodic or SWAT training.  I listed the stats for military recruit trainees.

Maybe you should think about what you're posting before hitting "Enter?" 

Let's say the 1800 number is more to your liking.  Again, that number compared to JUST THE ARMY'S recruit total of 30K in that same year gives a ratio of 6%.  Most statisticians would not call that stat a "common" occurrence, especially if they did the averages you called for.  That 6% would then be subject to a margin of error which is normally in the 3% ballpark, making the remaining 3% even less "common," assuming you aren't just using raw averages which no one knowledgable of statistical analysis would ever do.

Again (and again), this is just for the Army.  Add the Marines, and the percentages might go up.  Add the Air Force and Navy, and it might swing the opposite direction.

My statement was that heat stroke was not that uncommon. The point was to illustrate that it was an inherent danger and not necessarily a sign of poor training/trainers.

Your snide reply was that it was only 25 times in 2021 and implied I didn't know what I was talking about. I quickly found data that showed it was much larger than your suggestion. You now seem upset that your own insult got turned back on you.

Maybe you should do some introspection about your so quickly resorting to insults.

You want to nitpick what percentage would be needed to qualify something as "not uncommon" be my guest but nothing will come of a small difference in the way we view that word.

Not really what I was getting at.

What I was talking about was the way a cop speaks to someone.
Does their speech style agitate someone or calm them down?
Does it give context to an instruction or is it just bossy?
Are they condescending or understanding?

Most agitated people can be brought under control by a skilled communicator but there will always be that 5% (my estimate) who just aren't going to be able to be calmed down or the situation simply doesn't allow for that avenue. 

There are even some cops who amazingly manage to do the opposite, take a relatively calm person and manage to make them agitated.

If theres a weapon, simple command of "drop the weapon" is all that should be required. No need reason, bargain, or talk down. This waste time and opens injury toward anyone in weapons reach.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My statement was that heat stroke was not that uncommon. The point was to illustrate that it was an inherent danger and not necessarily a sign of poor training/trainers.

Your snide reply was that it was only 25 times in 2021 and implied I didn't know what I was talking about. I quickly found data that showed it was much larger than your suggestion. You now seem upset that your own insult got turned back on you.

Maybe you should do some introspection about your so quickly resorting to insults.

You want to nitpick what percentage would be needed to qualify something as "not uncommon" be my guest but nothing will come of a small difference in the way we view that word.

His post said 25 recruits. Then went on to talk abt the army and 30k a year training. I mean if ur looking for a reason, 1 could arue that flapp didnt say "25 army recruits", but instead "25 recruits".

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

If theres a weapon, simple command of "drop the weapon" is all that should be required. No need reason, bargain, or talk down. This waste time and opens injury toward anyone in weapons reach.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

How many times did this officer say take your hands out of the pocket?

His post said 25 recruits. Then went on to talk abt the army and 30k a year training. I mean if ur looking for a reason, 1 could arue that flapp didnt say "25 army recruits", but instead "25 recruits".

No sense trying to explain facts to someone who already knows everything or thinks if it's not part of a study available on the Internet, it doesn't count.

He pretended to know something he "read" and then got all butt hurt because his conclusion was not supported by the facts.

He wants to argue about what he meant versus what he said.  He does that all the time.

All training, recruit training, elite training ... just more goal post relocations.

I'm done with him.  Obviously the insults got under his skin, so at least it was somewhat productive!   

No sense trying to explain facts to someone who already knows everything or thinks if it's not part of a study available on the Internet, it doesn't count.

He pretended to know something he "read" and then got all butt hurt because his conclusion was not supported by the facts.

He wants to argue about what he meant versus what he said.  He does that all the time.

All training, recruit training, elite training ... just more goal post relocations.

I'm done with him.  Obviously the insults got under his skin, so at least it was somewhat productive!   

an expert on heat-related training incidents! but asks for training classes

If theres a weapon, simple command of "drop the weapon" is all that should be required. No need reason, bargain, or talk down. This waste time and opens injury toward anyone in weapons reach.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You are imagining a relatively straight forward scenario. Someone armed with a gun and where an officer or someone else is at risk leaves a very small window to try and talk them down.

Instead, imagine a situation where someone has a knife and the person is safely corralled at a distance. Or someone on the edge of a roof threatening to jump, or someone that is unarmed and needs to be arrested but isn't planning to go in without a fight.

That is the type of situation I had in mind when I was talking about communication skills. These people are all agitated in one way or another and the vast majority can be talked down without resorting to force.

His post said 25 recruits. Then went on to talk abt the army and 30k a year training. I mean if ur looking for a reason, 1 could arue that flapp didnt say "25 army recruits", but instead "25 recruits".

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Someone here gets really upset when another talks to him the way he talks to others. Guess he doesn't like the taste of his own medicine

Someone here gets really upset when another talks to him the way he talks to others. Guess he doesn't like the taste of his own medicine

I accept your acknowledgement that I was right and you were wrong.

 

Someone here gets really upset when another talks to him the way he talks to others. Guess he doesn't like the taste of his own medicine

It's not about that, it's that the post did mention recruits and your post said all service members. So basically, a waste of time to try to show Flapp was wrong.

It's not about that, it's that the post did mention recruits and your post said all service members. So basically, a waste of time to try to show Flapp was wrong.

It wasn't that I was trying to show that Flapp was wrong about the numbers of heat stroke, it was to show that Flapp was wrong to chide me in his pretentious way.

If he was going to chide me for being wrong he should have at least been right.

It wasn't that I was trying to show that Flapp was wrong about the numbers of heat stroke, it was to show that Flapp was wrong to chide me in his pretentious way.

If he was going to chide me for being wrong he should have at least been right.

Is that the standard to which you hold yourself?

Because I can point to many instances of you being wrong and a dick simultaneously.

Is that the standard to which you hold yourself?

Because I can point to many instances of you being wrong and a dick simultaneously.

You can find a few instances where I made an incorrect statement but you will never find a single post where I start off an interaction by being a dick. I respond to people in kind so if I am a dick to you, well then it was prima facie that you were a dick to me first.

Plus if you are going to correct someone who wasn't actually incorrect, doing it in a non-pompous way would help prevent egg on your face and unnecessary derailment of subjects.

You can find a few instances where I made an incorrect statement but you will never find a single post where I start off an interaction by being a dick. I respond to people in kind so if I am a dick to you, well then it was prima facie that you were a dick to me first.

Plus if you are going to correct someone who wasn't actually incorrect, doing it in a non-pompous way would help prevent egg on your face and unnecessary derailment of subjects.