Help me understand if I'm reading this the right way...my brain is hurting.
Question 55 in the final assessment: asks for the wrong answer which the answer key states is C :take EDP into custody without direction of a supervisor and further explains that because he is armed you need specific direction of a supervisor according to step 1b from 221-13. I get that...kind of, but the next step 1c says that in all other cases (other than being unarmed, not violent and willing to leave voluntarily) if EDP's actions do not constitute an immediate threat of serious physical injury or death to himself or others, 1. attempt to isolate and contain, zone of safety etc., and 2. do not attempt to take into custody without direction of a supervisor. But in this case we are told in the stem that he has a butcher knife pressed to his wrist. To me that would be an immediate threat of SPI or death meaning that the cops should take him into custody without the direct order. C appears to be a correct action for the cops to take.
We are looking for the wrong answer and there are a lot of ifs and then in this procedure and it's quite possible I'm delirious at this point. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Darkman said
Aug 20, 2017
I get what you're saying but in the scope it says you don't take an EDP into custody if he is armed or violent. I know there is a qualifier at the end, but the guy is just holding a knife to his wrist. If he was actively cutting himself I would agree with you.
-- Edited by Darkman on Sunday 20th of August 2017 06:29:08 PM
-- Edited by Darkman on Sunday 20th of August 2017 06:32:10 PM
Screamingator1 said
Aug 20, 2017
10-4, I see your point. I guess it's debatable as to what constitutes an "immediate threat". I would counter that actually cutting goes beyond an immediate threat and actually constitutes SPI. Now if he was just holding the knife saying he wanted to cut his wrist, I could see trying to slow things down and wait for the boss. Also I just re-read the Scope as you pointed out and noticed that the threshold in the scope is actually lower than it is in 1c. The scope qualifier says "immediate threat of physical harm" where the step says "immediate threat of SPI or death". Who writes this crap anyway?! Thanks for your reply.
Help me understand if I'm reading this the right way...my brain is hurting.
Question 55 in the final assessment: asks for the wrong answer which the answer key states is C :take EDP into custody without direction of a supervisor and further explains that because he is armed you need specific direction of a supervisor according to step 1b from 221-13. I get that...kind of, but the next step 1c says that in all other cases (other than being unarmed, not violent and willing to leave voluntarily) if EDP's actions do not constitute an immediate threat of serious physical injury or death to himself or others, 1. attempt to isolate and contain, zone of safety etc., and 2. do not attempt to take into custody without direction of a supervisor. But in this case we are told in the stem that he has a butcher knife pressed to his wrist. To me that would be an immediate threat of SPI or death meaning that the cops should take him into custody without the direct order. C appears to be a correct action for the cops to take.
We are looking for the wrong answer and there are a lot of ifs and then in this procedure and it's quite possible I'm delirious at this point. Take a look and let me know what you think.
I get what you're saying but in the scope it says you don't take an EDP into custody if he is armed or violent. I know there is a qualifier at the end, but the guy is just holding a knife to his wrist. If he was actively cutting himself I would agree with you.
-- Edited by Darkman on Sunday 20th of August 2017 06:29:08 PM
-- Edited by Darkman on Sunday 20th of August 2017 06:32:10 PM