Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on September 01, 2015, 10:56:52 AM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/31/ga-police-officer-shot/71495714/
Oops. I am guessing here that the homeowner responded to strange people entering the house.
-
This one. Wow.
They were reportedly responding not to a burglary in progress but a SUSPICIOUS PERSON call.
They go to the wrong house.
They find an unlocked door and decide that's justification to enter on the assumption that the house is being burglarized. Not a broken window, not a kicked in door but an UNLOCKED DOOR.
Gunfire breaks out and they wound the homeonwer and kill his *expletive deleted*ing dog.
And one of their own is injured.
Still unclear if the homeowner was armed or not.
Officers blab on and on about "going home safe". Hard to do that with this level of bad policing. *expletive deleted*ing idiots.
-
This one. Wow.
They were reportedly responding not to a burglary in progress but a SUSPICIOUS PERSON call.
They go to the wrong house.
They find an unlocked door and decide that's justification to enter on the assumption that the house is being burglarized. Not a broken window, not a kicked in door but an UNLOCKED DOOR.
Gunfire breaks out and they wound the homeonwer and kill his *expletive deleted*ing dog.
And one of their own is injured.
Still unclear if the homeowner was armed or not.
Officers blab on and on about "going home safe". Hard to do that with this level of bad policing. *expletive deleted*ing idiots.
Yep. And cops scratch their heads and hind quarters, moaning about people not trusting them.
-
This popped up on the local news app last night. At least in the report last night they admitted they screwed up, haven't checked up to see if they plan to railroad the homeowner.
-
"Somewhere at the rear of that home, some things happened that have yet to be determined."
They haven't figured out a good narrative on this one yet.
“There was gunfire, I just cannot tell you who fired and who did not,” he said.
See above...
"Alexander called the situation complicated. Officers fired their weapons, the chief said, but it’s not clear if the homeowner had a gun."
If the homeowner had a gun, they would know already.
Looks like they really screwed the pooch on this one, then shot it.
-
They haven't figured out a good narrative on this one yet.
See above...
If the homeowner had a gun, they would know already.
Looks like they really screwed the pooch on this one, then shot it.
Illegally entering a house, armed. Destroying property and shooting home owner. That is a home invasion. Sad, but not one badge wearing citizen will be charged with anything. They will review and adjust their policy and training. Training the idiots should have already known.
-
If the homeowner had a gun, they would know already.
Maybe he just throws bullets really hard.
If it comes out that the cop was wounded by friendly fire, DeKalb County law enforcement will have lived right back up to their previous level of idiocy.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/investigators-georgia-officer-likely-shot-other-officers-145410367.html (http://news.yahoo.com/investigators-georgia-officer-likely-shot-other-officers-145410367.html)
Now it looks like the officer may have been a "friendly fire" casualty.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/investigators-georgia-officer-likely-shot-other-officers-145410367.html (http://news.yahoo.com/investigators-georgia-officer-likely-shot-other-officers-145410367.html)
Now it looks like the officer may have been a "friendly fire" casualty.
Sadly, it's lucky that none of the officers died.
Sadly, in cases like this, when you have a bad department, it's not unknown to charge the, in this case shot, occupants of the home with felony murder for 'forcing' the cops to break into their home illegally and shoot each other.
The felony murder rule should be restricted to violent felonies, not as an excuse to have cops attempt Rambos.
-
Is it normal to assume that an unlocked door is an indicator of a break in? To me it would make sense to knock on the door and check on the occupant, and that would also let you find out if it's the right house. Doing that would prevent "having" to shoot the victim's dog (and victim would be the right term unless you had reason to believe that the homeowner was the suspicious person) and starting a gun battle that everybody lost.
I don't know how you are supposed to excuse this kind of policing. You can't even use the "at least the officers went home safely" defense.
-
It looks like more info is coming out, but from what's out there now, this seems to be the classic case that we ponder here regarding how we would react. Home invasion is home invasion, regardless of the invader wearing a uniform (which may or may not be real).
The police chief putting the homeowner's condition first during his statements says volumes to me. Also not disputing that the officers entered through a closed, unlocked door.
-
Maybe he just throws bullets really hard.
If it comes out that the cop was wounded by friendly fire, DeKalb County law enforcement will have lived right back up to their previous level of idiocy.
A COP WAS SHOT!!!
We'll see how they go about charging the homeowner for it . . .
-
“That in and of itself would probably suggest to anyone that it is possible that there could be intruders inside, but it turned out not to be the case,” Alexander said. “Somewhere at the rear of that home, some things happened that have yet to be determined.”
Really???? 7:30 in the evening and a back door being unlocked means there could be intruders. :facepalm:
-
“That in and of itself would probably suggest to anyone that it is possible that there could be intruders inside, but it turned out not to be the case,” Alexander said. “Somewhere at the rear of that home, some things happened that have yet to be determined.”
The only thing yet to be determined is the level of stupid demonstrated by the cops in the rear of that home.
-
The only thing yet to be determined is the level of stupid demonstrated by the cops in the rear of that home.
I dunno; all the stupidometers I've ever seen would have pegged about the time the dog was shot.
-
Sadly, it's lucky that none of the officers died.
...
I'd say that it's just sad and unlucky that none of the officers died. >:D
-
I dunno; all the stupidometers I've ever seen would have pegged about the time the dog was shot.
No. They should have scratched their heads or arse with "we have no legal justification to enter". Instead they inserted heads farther up their 4th point of contact and went on in.
-
stupid crap like this just throws fuel on the fire. Another innocent dog killed.
-
No. They should have scratched their heads or arse with "we have no legal justification to enter". Instead they inserted heads farther up their 4th point of contact and went on in.
These are redneck stupidometers that can actually handle that level. It's barely past "hold my beer and watch this." On the other hand, shooting the dog (especially considering that seeing a suddenly pissed off dog that wasn't making noise before should have been a prime indicator there's no burglar in the house) goes way beyond any humanly comprehensible level of idiocy. Shooting the other cop and the homeowner also indicates that the stupid should have been measured before giving somebody a gun.
-
Cops need to keep their one bullet in their shirt pocket :P
-
From a Fox News article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/01/atlanta-area-police-officer-shot-circumstances-unclear/
When the officers went around the back of the house, they found the back door and screen door were unlocked, leading them to believe that someone had broken in.
WTF?? Since when is an unlocked door a sign of burglary? *expletive deleted*it.
See. This is why cops are not looking good in the public eye. There is not a "War on cops". Forget that public outcry that the police nationwide would love for us to believe. Nope. Cops should look into the mirror, there is your problem. Militarization, shooting dogs and people (wrong address most often), entering illegally, pulling folks over for "prolonged eye contact", talking down to people. All along demanding the publics respect. *expletive deleted*ck that. Police should respect the public, not the other way around. This crap sandwich that the cops are eating is all their own making, it's been sitting in the corner for several decades. People are just now deciding not to put up with this crap.
***I do not condone murder of anyone. So before any cop apologists suggest it or accuse me of being ok with some idiot walking up behind a cop and killing them, stop. I do not condone that and whoever does murder a cop in that manner or similar, should take a slow painful asshumping to hell.
-
I think you're all being terribly unfair.
A man in the home who exited a room off the kitchen was also shot in the leg by police, GBI officials said. A police officer was shot in the hip and listed in serious condition at Grady Memorial Hospital. Police did not immediately identify the wounded resident or officer.
"Early investigation indicates that the injured officer was likely shot accidently by one of the other officers on the scene," GBI officials said in a statement.
Clearly, the wounded officer deserves a citation for bravery above and beyond the call of duty for taking a bullet that might have killed the innocent homeowner. I'm sure the brave officer is wishing he could have taken another one to save the dog ...
-
This is the kind of *expletive deleted*it that could tempt me to engage in riotous conduct.
-
I'm glad I'm not the only one that is spitting fire over this ... ;)
-
Used back in my youth I was pretty much neutral on the topic of police in our culture, outside of my issues over the favored then-illegal intoxicant of the time. But that was part of the game, you pays your money and take your chances...
After years of reading about cops tazing and beating diabetics having issues; killing sleeping children and the elderly; tossing flashbangs in the cribs of babes; shooting dogs as the drop of hat and/or arresting and charging those who raise issue with such; acting like arrogant jerks when people have the audacity to record their interactions with the cops, or the interactions of others with cops; lying through their teeth and misrepresenting what the law states (and the icing on the cake of the courts ruling that cops don't have to know the law but we non-cops do); doing their utmost to make the Sheriff of Nottingham look like cuddly puppy; etc...
My views have drastically changed.
-
What tends to get to me is the rather routine(at this point) tendency for the court to rule that ANY responsibility is 'purely optional'.
Are the police obliged to protect you against a known dangerous person? Not even if you're begging them in person while the perp strolls up with a knife.
Do the police have to know the law? Nope. But you can still be accountable for something that even a law degree doesn't guarantee you'll understand unless it's in your specialty. Even then the Supreme court splits 4/5 more often than not.
'Debtor's Prisons' have been outlawed in the USA for a while. Yet there are still states/cities/counties running them, where you'll be tossed if you don't pay your bullshit fees on top of fines on top of 'commercial collection agency' fees, where unlike sold debt, there are no limits on them adding service charges and everything else on top.
Debt slavery is the reason the bible limited debt to 7 years.
-
In other news, there is some hope for the future:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/02/who-needs-this-police-recruits-abandon-dream-amid-anti-cop-climate/?intcmp=hpbt1
>:D :P
-
I love some of the articles: "Police lives matter" they keep saying.
My reaction was pretty much: You've had all of the advantage for decades. Sure, policing can be dangerous. You're still less likely to die than quite a few professions. They don't even make the top 10. To name a few: Fisherman, Logger, and Taxi Driver. Taxi drivers are more likely to be murdered than cops.
Meanwhile you've been given virtual licenses to kill. The courts have carefully ruled that you don't even need to do what you're supposed to be there for in the first place - protect people. You can blow up somebody's house, totaling it using explosives that had to be way more powerful than 'mere' flashbangs in every room, blowing out exterior walls, and not even say 'sorry'.
You can kill somebody with their hands in the air because you felt 'threatened'. Rush a suspected bookie with your finger on the trigger of your .40 caliber pistol, trip, shoot the non-violent unarmed suspect in the head(DRT), and never face so much as a disciplinary hearing. Kill crated dogs and dogs behind 8' fences because you were 'threatened'.
Stop using police work for revenue generation. End the war on (some) drugs. Realize that protecting the 'thin blue line', IE the scumbag in the same uniform as you, is making things more dangerous for you. Go back to being peace officers rather than law enforcement. Then you might regain people's respect.
-
After years of reading about cops tazing and beating diabetics having issues
I was called out to a diabetic emergency at 2am.
The guy was very aggressive and threatened to go into his tent and get his gun and shoot us (wife confirmed gun in tent). We knew he was in a diabetic situation. We knew he didn't really want to do it, or would not if he was sober. But the situation was the same as a very drunk person, where they will do the stupid *expletive deleted*it that they would not normally do.
Tazering? *expletive deleted*ck yeah I would have if I had a tazer, would have been a nice option. Much better than beating the *expletive deleted*it out of him to stop him.
Fortunately we were able to get some sugar into him and get him back to normal without having to get medieval but it was close.
-
I was called out to a diabetic emergency at 2am.
The guy was very aggressive and threatened to go into his tent and get his gun and shoot us (wife confirmed gun in tent). We knew he was in a diabetic situation. We knew he didn't really want to do it, or would not if he was sober. But the situation was the same as a very drunk person, where they will do the stupid *expletive deleted*it that they would not normally do.
Tazering? *expletive deleted*ck yeah I would have if I had a tazer, would have been a nice option. Much better than beating the *expletive deleted*it out of him to stop him.
Fortunately we were able to get some sugar into him and get him back to normal without having to get medieval but it was close.
So you gave him a Snickers bar ??? ;)
-
Couple years back a diabetic fellow nearly plowed into the school crossing guard and some kiddos on the corner due to his state. The crossing guard asked if I had a sugar soda, but I did not. I gave him a granola bar, though.
I am not particularly sympathetic, given the severity of possible outcomes. Diabetic had no business being behind a wheel and it is not everyone else's responsibility to get out of his way when he is sprialling down.
-
I am not particularly sympathetic, given the severity of possible outcomes. Diabetic had no business being behind a wheel and it is not everyone else's responsibility to get out of his way when he is sprialling down.
Exactly; IMO, this is another of the results of the liberal mindset where nobody is responsible for their own actions.
-
Exactly; IMO, this is another of the results of the liberal mindset where nobody is responsible for their own actions.
Some of the patients call me such nasty names when I report them to the Department of Licensing for being medically unsafe to drive, being warned not to drive, and continuing to drive nonetheless.
-
Some of the patients call me such nasty names when I report them to the Department of Licensing for being medically unsafe to drive, being warned not to drive, and continuing to drive nonetheless.
You know, this reminded me of some debates over self-driving cars? I've had a number of people pull the 'but my FREEDOMS(to drive anywhere)!!!' argument, but I can't help but think - wouldn't self driving autos actually increase freedom on average?
Now, we're looking at some thought adjustment, but consider - if you no longer need a licensed medically fit individual driving, this increases the mobility of the blind, epileptic, diabetic, drunk, etc...
-
Diabetic had no business being behind a wheel and it is not everyone else's responsibility to get out of his way when he is sprialling down.
I'm presuming you had knowledge that the driver fell in the first group below as opposed to having an episode in spite of doing everything responsible to avoid such an episode.
Folks who know they are prone to hypoglycemia and do nothing about it, just like folks who are prone to seizures and do nothing about it, should have their privilege to drive taken away at least until they can demonstrate a sustained ability to control those through medication and/or dietary compliance.
But there's a difference between someone who wants to dodge responsibility by laying all the blame on "I have a disease" and someone who has been symptom free and experiences an episode in spite of taking all reasonable efforts to control the disease. Many folks do not have the luxury of having hypoglycemic symptoms slowly escalate, allowing them some time to assess what is happening and decide to stop what they are doing and take action to increase their blood glucose level.
stay safe.
-
I'm presuming you had knowledge that the driver fell in the first group below as opposed to having an episode in spite of doing everything responsible to avoid such an episode.
Folks who know they are prone to hypoglycemia and do nothing about it, just like folks who are prone to seizures and do nothing about it, should have their privilege to drive taken away at least until they can demonstrate a sustained ability to control those through medication and/or dietary compliance.
But there's a difference between someone who wants to dodge responsibility by laying all the blame on "I have a disease" and someone who has been symptom free and experiences an episode in spite of taking all reasonable efforts to control the disease. Many folks do not have the luxury of having hypoglycemic symptoms slowly escalate, allowing them some time to assess what is happening and decide to stop what they are doing and take action to increase their blood glucose level.
stay safe.
Doesnt matter what his intentions were if the crossing guard and a half dozen kids ended up road pizza. He should not be behind the wheel even if he tries real hard. This is not a bolt out of the blue stroke but a high probability event given his condition.
-
Doesnt matter what his intentions were if the crossing guard and a half dozen kids ended up road pizza. He should not be behind the wheel even if he tries real hard. This is not a bolt out of the blue stroke but a high probability event given his condition.
Define high probability. I know diabetics that have gone 25-30 years without an event like this. I know of at least one that made it 45 years, and only had one "sugar emergency". That was before I was born, but the story was it made for a very interesting church service.
-
Define high probability. I know diabetics that have gone 25-30 years without an event like this. I know of at least one that made it 45 years, and only had one "sugar emergency". That was before I was born, but the story was it made for a very interesting church service.
In the case I witnessed, probability was as high as it can mathematically get, with a big, fat 1.0.
Here is something to chew on:
...over a 12-month period (79). A total of 244 episodes of severe hypoglycemia had been treated in 160 patients with diabetes. Severe hypoglycemia had required emergency treatment in 7.1% of patients with type 1 diabetes, in 7.3% of patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and in 0.8% of patients taking oral antidiabetic agents. In type 1 diabetes, severe hypoglycemia is often treated at home, and less than one-third of episodes are thought to need the assistance of the emergency medical services (80). People with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who suffer severe hypoglycemia may be more likely to require emergency assistance than people with type 1 diabetes, and this was confirmed by a prospective survey in the same region, where the occurrence of hypoglycemia was monitored in a cohort of 267 people with insulin-treated diabetes (both type 1 and type 2) over a period of 1 month (81). The prevalence of all hypoglycemia (mild and severe) in the group with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes was 45% with an incidence of 16.4 episodes per patient per year (42.9 episodes per patient per year in type 1 diabetes). Their incidence of severe hypoglycemia was 0.35 episodes per patient per year (1.15 episodes per patient per year in type 1 diabetes). In the group with type 1 diabetes, only 1 in 10 of those experiencing severe hypoglycemia required emergency service treatment compared with 1 in 3 of the group with type 2 diabetes
You can do some of the math. This definitely qualifies as a high probability event, especially if you do the math for, say, a ten year period.
Like I wrote, dude has no business being behind the wheel of an automobile.
-
As a group of 160 diabetic individuals treated with insulin the statistical odds of a severe incident are 7.1%, 7.3%, 0.8% respectively per your own citation.
Severe hypoglycemia had required emergency treatment in 7.1% of patients with type 1 diabetes, in 7.3% of patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, and in 0.8% of patients taking oral antidiabetic agents.
All incidents for the unknown-number cohort within that group of 160 individuals who were treated with insulin ran higher. Counting both severe and non-severe (not requiring emergency medical treatment?) incidents within that cohort. However, "emergency medical treatment" is not defined - is it only calling out the EMS to administer glucose or does it include family/friends/strangers slipping the person so OJ or a non-diet soda or a piece of (preferably) hard candy? (Just for the record, I prefer Peanut M&Ms.) The study gives a rather imprecise definition of "Mild hypoglycemia is usually defined by the ability to self-treat, while episodes requiring external assistance are defined as severe." Further, the level of severity (physiological state) is not reported. "Have a Snickers bar" is different from "OMG that person just dropped to the ground".
The prevalence of all hypoglycemia (mild and sever in the group with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes was 45% with an incidence of 16.4 episodes per patient per year (42.9 episodes per patient per year in type 1 diabetes). Their incidence of severe hypoglycemia was 0.35 episodes per patient per year (1.15 episodes per patient per year in type 1 diabetes). In the group with type 1 diabetes, only 1 in 10 of those experiencing severe hypoglycemia required emergency service treatment compared with 1 in 3 of the group with type 2 diabetes.
Let's look at when the number of severe incidents is broken out - Type 1s = 0.35/year while Type 2s = 1.15/year.
The problem remains that out of the study cohort of 160 we still do not know a) the number of Type 1s and the number of Type 2s, b) the base HbA1c levels of any of the cohorts or the average of the whole and then broken down by Type 1 v Type 2, let alone the HbA1c level at the time of onset of hypoglycemic symptoms, c) the level of medical compliance of any of the individuals, d) the amount of insulin prescribed (an indication of the "severity" of the disease), e) the scheduling for the prescribed insulin (before meals based on blood glucose reading, after meals based on blood glucose readings, single administration of long-acting insulin upon rising or immediately prior to retiring, f) the age of the individual cohort members and g) a whole ***tload of other factors.
Thanks for the study - it was interesting reading. But it neither supports your position that all diabetics should be banned from driving because they are accidents just waiting to happen nor provides any meaningful information on how to better control hypoglycemia.
stay safe.
-
What about the diabetic cops? Is that why we're having so many issues ???
=D
-
Much of the stuff going on with LE today is not new. We just have instantaneous communication 24/7.
Having said that, a fair amount of stuff is because of the War On Some Drugs that has become a money thing for LE.
Couple that with more bad guys (315 million bipeds vs half of that 50 years ago = many more goblins) who are also nuts who are able to have a variety of weapons for a wide variety of reasons, have caused a ramping up of the militarizing of LE and the SWAT movement that is an overreaction to the perceived "drug culture". Our culture has been degraded by the breakdown of the family and the celebrating of sleeze and smut and selfishness and ignorance as an accepted and preferred way of life. Couple all that with the SJW's who have demanded and got lowered standards for police officers in order meet mythical quotas at the same time expecting more results with the low quality of the abilities and courage of the quota fillers.
It's not just "cops are bad". It's a complicated situation brought about by the elevation of the world view of libtards and so called progressives. What's really bad is the aforementioned libtards and progressives have a genetic fault that does not allow them to admit they are wrong about, well, everything and anything.
-
However, "emergency medical treatment" is not defined - is it only calling out the EMS to administer glucose or does it include family/friends/strangers slipping the person so OJ or a non-diet soda or a piece of (preferably) hard candy? (Just for the record, I prefer Peanut M&Ms.)
Before both my severely diabetic relatives and my friend who was prone to hypoglycemic issues moved away, I would generally keep Clif Shots in my car and or pockets. Now, well, I usually have some Sonic mints stuck to the upholstery somewhere.
-
What about the diabetic cops? Is that why we're having so many issues ???
Suspect "violent bad cop" issues are more related to steroids than insulin . . .
-
Keep a bowl of candy at the front door to avoid getting killed in a no knock raid. :police:
-
Keep a bowl of candy at the front door to avoid getting killed in a no knock raid. :police:
Donuts, attached to a pressure plate that triggers an alarm when they're removed...
-
As a group of 160 diabetic individuals treated with insulin the statistical odds of a severe incident are 7.1%, 7.3%, 0.8% respectively per your own citation.
All incidents for the unknown-number cohort within that group of 160 individuals who were treated with insulin ran higher. Counting both severe and non-severe (not requiring emergency medical treatment?) incidents within that cohort. However, "emergency medical treatment" is not defined - is it only calling out the EMS to administer glucose or does it include family/friends/strangers slipping the person so OJ or a non-diet soda or a piece of (preferably) hard candy? (Just for the record, I prefer Peanut M&Ms.) The study gives a rather imprecise definition of "Mild hypoglycemia is usually defined by the ability to self-treat, while episodes requiring external assistance are defined as severe." Further, the level of severity (physiological state) is not reported. "Have a Snickers bar" is different from "OMG that person just dropped to the ground".
Let's look at when the number of severe incidents is broken out - Type 1s = 0.35/year while Type 2s = 1.15/year.
The problem remains that out of the study cohort of 160 we still do not know a) the number of Type 1s and the number of Type 2s, b) the base HbA1c levels of any of the cohorts or the average of the whole and then broken down by Type 1 v Type 2, let alone the HbA1c level at the time of onset of hypoglycemic symptoms, c) the level of medical compliance of any of the individuals, d) the amount of insulin prescribed (an indication of the "severity" of the disease), e) the scheduling for the prescribed insulin (before meals based on blood glucose reading, after meals based on blood glucose readings, single administration of long-acting insulin upon rising or immediately prior to retiring, f) the age of the individual cohort members and g) a whole ***tload of other factors.
Thanks for the study - it was interesting reading. But it neither supports your position that all diabetics should be banned from driving because they are accidents just waiting to happen nor provides any meaningful information on how to better control hypoglycemia.
stay safe.
Emergency treatment. Doesn't really matter if it required IV insulin from an ER nurse or just a cookie from their spouse to fix. The point is: Emergency. The person undergoing the emergency was unable to recover to a functional state under their own power. If that person was operating a motor vehicle, heavy machinery, an airplane, or such, they likely are screwed and (more importantly) so are those nearby. In the case I witnessed, the diabetic driver was very lucky there was an open driveway and an attentive crossing guard. The kids were lucky that the diabetic still was functional to sort of nudge his car into the drive. If this had happened at speed or on long bridge or causeway or in bumper to bumper traffic, it would have ended ugly.
When I related the incident at the school crossing, I intended to write something to the effect of "Diabetics with this sort of problem..." instead of diabetics as a whole. I was in a rush and my more finely-sliced thoughts did not end up in pixels. Then you asked about probabilities and I went looking. The data was much worse than I imagined by about an order of magnitude.
I was also interested in how the FAA handled diabetes & pilot licences, as well as how DOT handled diabetes & CDLs.
FAA:
1.) For insulin dependent diabetics, only Class III Special Issuance is allowed. Because it is so difficult even with today’s technology for these diabetics to perfectly regulate their blood sugars, especially to avoid hypoglycemia, the FAA only allows certification for Class III. However, not every insulin dependant diabetic will get a favorable review by the FAA, only what I call the “cream of the crop” diabetics. These are people who have demonstrated excellent control of their diabetes, are meticulous in their insulin and dietary management, have no episodes of hypoglycemia, and have no other significant medical problems that would interfere with their disease management. The FAA also has rules about checking blood sugars prior and during flight, and prior to landing. It gets complicated, but seems to work OK. Currently there are about 300 or so such insulin-dependent diabetics flying in the USA…and nowhere else in the world are they granted this privilege!
2.) For non-insulin dependent diabetics who are able to control their blood sugar by diet and exercise without medications, they are considered eligible for all classes of medical certificates, provided they have no evidence of associated disqualifying heart, circulatory, kidney, neurological, or eye diseases or complications. They do not need any additional specific testing unless it is indicated by their history or examination. No Special Issuance is required as long as they remain purely diet and exercise controlled.
3.) Airman with a diagnosis of diabetes controlled by use of an oral medication may be considered for Special Issuance for all three classes of Medical Certification. Per the FAA protocol, “following initiation of such oral medication, a minimum 60-day period must elapse prior to certification to assure stabilization, adequate control, and the absence of side effects or complications from the medication.” It is important to note that the FAA has to make the initial certification decision, not the AME. Recertification decisions will be made on the basis of reports from the treating physician, and these reports basically have to have the same information as the initial report. Usually for airman under good control, the FAA will issue a 6 -year Special Issuance Authorization, with each Medical Certificate being valid for only one year at a time. As long as the Special Issuance Authorization is in effect and the annual reports from the treating physician are favorable, the AME may issue a time-limited certificate of one year (for all Classes), while future medicals must be based on continuation of good control. This information is forwarded to the FAA and reviewed for correct handling by the AME. Recertification by the FAA occurs when the Special Issuance Authorization has expired, or the airman’s diabetes management has changed.
DOT:
There are many questions and answers floating around the net stating that it is not possible to receive a CDL if you have insulin diabetes. The Truth is . . . it is now possible to do so, with some exceptions, thanks to the new regulations of the Diabetes Exemption Program, signed into law in 2005.
Until the physical qualification standards within the regulations are amended by the FMCSA, you will have to apply for the exemption. Here is the 16 page Diabetes Exemption Form you can download and fill out. You will have to be evaluated by an Endocrinologist and an Ophthalmologist or Optometrist, and the form has areas that will need to be filled out by the doctors. The FMCSA must grant or deny an exemption within 180 days of receiving your application.
According to the law passed by Congress, individuals with insulin treated diabetes will have to demonstrate that they have control of the diabetes while on insulin. For those with Type 1 diabetes, they are required to have been on insulin for two months before they can apply for the exemption. Individuals with Type 2 diabetes are required to have been on insulin for at least one month. But, as you can see, one or two months is much better than the three year driving rule!
However, according to the FMCSA 391.41(b)(3), a person will be disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle if they have a medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control. The exception to this rule is if the driver is found to be fit under medical conditions based on the findings and recommendations of the diabetes waiver program.
These seem pretty reasonable approaches.
-
I was also interested in how the FAA handled diabetes & pilot licences, as well as how DOT handled diabetes & CDLs.
These seem pretty reasonable approaches.
IMO, they both still seem to imply that just being able/likely to kill a few people is OK, since neither approach applies to a regular DL. I've seen the mess a blood sugar incident caused when a Cadillac coasted through a red light and across six lanes of 50mph traffic. At least a couple dozen lives were endangered that morning because a guy who probably shouldn't have been driving with or without diabetes wanted his morning coffee at McDonalds instead of just turning on the coffeepot at home and getting some sugar into his system. Fortunately, everybody else was alert enough that there were no injuries beyond bruises and only a few cars weren't able to be driven away, but with most of the traffic being parents taking their kids to the school a mile down the road, (and a school bus that cleared the intersection seconds before the incident) it could have been tragic.
-
IMO, they both still seem to imply that just being able/likely to kill a few people is OK, since neither approach applies to a regular DL. I've seen the mess a blood sugar incident caused when a Cadillac coasted through a red light and across six lanes of 50mph traffic. At least a couple dozen lives were endangered that morning because a guy who probably shouldn't have been driving with or without diabetes wanted his morning coffee at McDonalds instead of just turning on the coffeepot at home and getting some sugar into his system. Fortunately, everybody else was alert enough that there were no injuries beyond bruises and only a few cars weren't able to be driven away, but with most of the traffic being parents taking their kids to the school a mile down the road, (and a school bus that cleared the intersection seconds before the incident) it could have been tragic.
Yeah, that only looks that way because it is that way. ;)
FAA and DOT are not responsible for granting plain vanilla DLs and can therefore not address that particular issue with light hearts. Still, despite not addressing plain DLs, those approaches seem reasonable.
For my part, I am not looking for zero blood sugar incident risk behind the wheel, but more a level of risk commensurate with the risk the median driver (selected from the pool of all drivers) poses to others.
Truly, despite va's hand-waving, the study I linked was a bit of a shock. I had no idea the rate of such incidents was so great and so widespread.