CPAPtalk.com

Thank you all for responding. I will respond in the morning.

Starlette

I agree with the others.

I believe the pastor did the right thing in not coming over, what exactly did your mother expect the pastor to do? Bill is clearly someone who doesn't want help, and doesn't want to face up to the consequences of his actions eg; assulting his wife and then taking off before the police arrived.

Your mother is enabling Bill's atrocious behaviour, she probably thinks she is being helpful, but I believe she is making it worse.

After I hung up the phone , Dad and I tried to reason with her as to what happened to amongst the two of them. At some point during the conversation, I disrupted her and told her that once Bill and my mom arrived they needed to leave.

This bit doesn't make sense, who did you tell that Bill and Sally needed to leave? Do you actually have a right to kick someone out of your parents house?

When Mom and Bill arrived, he hugged my mom saying that he was sorry; brushed his hand on my knee saying to me "I'm sorry". I told him that "I need to protect my parents", the apologized to my Dad

Bill is lucky that he didn't touch my knee after what he did, I would of smacked him in the face. I understand you wanting to protect your parents (I would be the same with my parents), however I would be angry with my parents for letting him stay. How old are your parents?

Starlette wrote:Sally was confronted by one police officer and Sally denied what all had transpired calling it "a disagreement".

From what I have heard and read this response is a sure sign of a spousal abuse situation. The response can be a reflection of denial, or a reflection the one making the statement is afraid of the consequences when the abusing spouse learns the abused "ratted" on them.

As for the pastor's response, he may have determined this situation was out of his area of expertise, or maybe he was fearful for his own safety. He is human, you know. We sometimes forget pastors can feel as helpless or vulnerable as we do sometimes. That doesn't necessarily excuse his non-involvement, but it may explain it.

Am curious to know Starlette's response

Sorry Starlette, But it sounds like your whole group is nuts. The perp of course, the enabling mother, the abused spouse, the father who stood by, and you who woke the abusive guest and asked him to fix breakfast.

The pastor sounds like the only one who knew the proper course of action - STAY THE HELL AWAY!

When person A calls person B for help, person B has a judgment call, or series of judgment calls, to make when deciding whether or not to attempt to provide some sort of help, and that is true in varying degrees for family, friends, ministers, authorities, strangers, and others. Laws can be a factor, and so can common sense.

Person A may not like the decision(s) of person B if person B does not act in the manner person A expects, but person A has to respect person B's right to decide what to do or what not to do and may not necessarily be entitled to a full explanation of all the factors person B took into consideration at the time.

In my opinion, since I (1) was not there and (2) do not personally know all the parties involved, that means I am in no position to judge the actions of person A or person B.

But I am sorry the situation occurred and hope reasonable and loving and safe steps are taken to keep it from happening in the future.

Wednesday, July 10th @ 12:30pm

Good afternoon everyone.
I'll try to respond for the next 30 minutes, and then bookmark where I left off.

Before I begin, I must say that the time that I had called the pastor was at 11:10 PM.
For myself personally regardless of anything even as a pastor, Mom should not expect him to come for a visit so late at night. Even though Bill and Sally would have been gone either that night or the next day, He could've called my parents on Monday and requested them to come and in for a visit, or maybe it should have the other way around. Personally, I think that would've been the better thing to do.

ChunkyFrog - I do agree with you.

greatunclebill - I agree with you also. If Bill and Sally would have kept their arguing to a soft purr, I never would have called 911. However, since Bill pulled Sally by the hair and pulled her down to the ground and was on top of her; when their arguing came into the house and was escalating, I thought it was time for me to intervene regardless of what my parents thought.


BlackSpinner - You are correct.

CheBella - I am going to comment in parts according to your comments and questions:

"That does NOT mean that he is legally prohibited from coming over to try to help."
I have to disagree for the moment. I remember some time ago and I don't remember what it was about it, that he had sent me some article about pastors and legal issues. I sent him a private message requesting that he send me the article again for the forum.

"but sometimes people respond to someone that they trust"
The only ones that know the pastor are my parents and I.

"I would probably be somewhat annoyed with the pastor, who might have, at the minimum tried to help you decide who to call.
My level of annoyance would rely on the answers to these questions:
1) Did he call any "authority" (police, shrink, and/or ambulance) to come over & deal with Bill;
2) Did he speak w/you or any other family members to try to help you deal with the situation;
3) Did he call back later to see how everyone was doing;
4) Has he mentioned the situation at all, or is he pretending it did not happen;
5) Did he come over, or offer to do so the next day or later in the week to follow up, since clearly the problem is not going to go away?"

"...and certainly Sally's denial only adds to the problem.
Please confirm this for me: Sally & Bill are the friends of your parents who were houseguests?"


My comments:
1) Again, he did suggest that I call the authorities. Keep in mind that this was 11:10 PM when I had placed the phone call to him. Again, I don't feel he should he should be expected to jump out of bed and come over so late at night to intervene.

2) If anyone should have furthered any type of action, the responsibility falls on my parents, not him.

3) As I was conversing with him, I believe he asked me to call him back to see how things were going. I had sent him a text to give him an update on the situation stating that the couple had left and that my parents were safe. My text to him was sent at 1:19 a.m. His response to my text was "...the safest thing to do is to call the authorities when someone is threatening suicide like that. You don't want to endanger yourself or someone else". I can understand his response to the situation, which was correct.

4 and 5) If you're talking about the pastor, no he did not. I think the text we sent to each other was sufficient. In the morning, I feel it should been the responsibility of my parents to contact him on Monday morning to discuss what had happened that night.

Comments:
* I suppose you're correct regarding Sally's response to the police officer by not providing him with any information calling the situation "an argument". Yes, this could have been called denial. Also, she have talked to the police officer and given him the information he requested.
* Yes, they are friends of my parents. They usually pretty much randomly visit when Bill has business to do in our area of town. Sometimes they come over just for a visit.

Bookmark: Page 1 - Goofproof

Starlette, one thing to consider .. which you probably should discuss with your parents .. if someone is diabetic and does not manage their blood sugar then they can often become belligerent and downright dangerous. To attempt to reason with someone in such a condition is both dangerous and irrational. Why? The person is NOT themselves. Low blood sugar can lead to that sort of problem and behavior will not be corrected until that person had some fast acting carbohydrates. Attempting to talk with someone in this situation is USELESS. What to do? Try to encourage them to drink some juice. If they act irrationally and seem to be out of control (as was the case here) call 911 IMMEDIATELY. It could be a very dangerous low blood glucose level. People have been known to fall into a coma and never recover. Tell the 911 operator that someone you know is diabetic and acting irrationally. Even if that's not the case, it will alert emergency services that this person may just require medical attention. (Police officers are less likely to use deadly force if they know someone has a health issue that is causing them to act irrationally). If you parents don't know how to help Bill with his diabetes, call 911 immediately for help. Anything else puts them and Bill at risk.

From the sounds of things it sounds like Bill is very lucky to be alive. To let him lay around for that amount of time with what was more than likely very low blood glucose. He could have very easily have slipped into a coma and passed away. IMHO having had type one diabetes for twenty years the correct course of action would have been to call for medical help. I realize he was being combative and it might not have helped but at least it would have been worth a try especially if he was unresponsive at any time at all.
As for the Pastor I can't tell you about the laws there. In that specific case and location. Though I am sure that his hands are somewhat tied as to what he can and can't do. I wouldn't think there wouldn't be anything keeping him from talking to Bill but having said that afterwards after threatening suicide he would probably have had to report it to authority. I know in our specific location and having checked into having a prayer hotline the way to avoid problems with the laws are to give no council or advice but there is no law forbidding prayer that I know of. Again I don't know the laws there and I am assuming your pastor does. It is sad how much the govt has gotten involved in our lives

Al N wrote:... It is sad how much the govt has gotten involved in our lives ...

In fact, most of the time such laws are put in place is when someone does not use common sense and get properly trained professionals involved. When they try to "go it alone" and just handle the situation, people often forget that others might be hurt in such situations.

I agree that Bill appears to be behaving poorly due to a hypoglycemic event (low blood sugar). Imagine if Starlette's mother had died due to an auto accident while riding with Bill. That can and does happen.

Getting the proper authorities involved should be our first action. We should not require law to do so. But too often people don't apply common sense. Thus, the law is enacted to make it both clear and required.

Starlette, based on your response post it sounds to me like you did the best you could in an unexpected situation. Maybe this incident will be a wake-up call for all other parties involved. It's easy for outsiders to play the "woulda coulda shoulda" role. On a personal level, these things can provide us an opportunity to review our actions for options should a future situation arise.

You had no way to predict his behavior or reason to think he would be be unwilling or unable to actively participate in mid to late morning activities. If he wasn't willing or knew he likely wouldn't be able, he could have said so the night before. We don't know how that conversation evolved, so I'm not sure why this has been a sticking point for some. There would be numerous other opportunities over the course of a weekend for others to prepare and serve him meals, so what's wrong with him being a part of that process for the group?

It was a difficult situation, to say the least. It's particularly hard when the person acting out is normally not that kind of person, but regardless of the reasons why, others shouldn't have to be intimidated or endangered by his bad choices. I had an extended family member many years ago who was usually a mild mannered quiet man, but when his blood sugar went low, he was mean and violent. 911 hadn't even been implemented back then. Family members handled it themselves. It was handled. He was forced into a decision to manage his blood sugar, and if not his blood sugar, his actions, or face the consequences. It was made clear this would be the only visit to discuss his behavior. Fortunately there didn't have to be a next visit. Sometimes it's just that people get by with what they can.

Sorry to hear things got so out of control. As to the communications with the pastor, sounds to me like everything went as it should.

Starlette, I too am a insulin dependent person, at times I've got to aggressive with my dosage, but as a patient I check my blood before each injection and match my intake accordingly. Sometimes the body refuses to respond normally, mine has gone low, but being diabetic it's my responsibility to keep myself in check. Failure to do this basic matianance, is irresponcable and probable just one more factor in not caring for themselves and others. Alc and diabetics don't mix well, don't know if this was a factor, but it's not a friend. For myself, I keep Reese Cups handy, and Cream Cookies in the truck, just in case things go bad. Get to know your own body and you can overcome many problems.

I hope your family gets this under control, but it sounds more like a ongoing problem, one that if it wasn't corrected I'd distance myself from. Some people won't accept advice or help, they prefer it that way. we hope he gets the help he needs. Jim

Pastor absolutely did the exact right thing, from a proper protocol perspective as well as from a logical perspective. He assessed the situation, realized it was bigger than him, and he escalated to the big guns Smart man and good thinking on his part. If anything were to have become truly threatening, it would have been dangerous and foolish for him to try to handle it with talk only.

jnk wrote:When person A calls person B for help, person B has a judgment call, or series of judgment calls, to make when deciding whether or not to attempt to provide some sort of help, and that is true in varying degrees for family, friends, ministers, authorities, strangers, and others. Laws can be a factor, and so can common sense.

Person A may not like the decision(s) of person B if person B does not act in the manner person A expects, but person A has to respect person B's right to decide what to do or what not to do and may not necessarily be entitled to a full explanation of all the factors person B took into consideration at the time.

In my opinion, since I (1) was not there and (2) do not personally know all the parties involved, that means I am in no position to judge the actions of person A or person B.

But I am sorry the situation occurred and hope reasonable and loving and safe steps are taken to keep it from happening in the future.

Well logic suggests that you must be person C.



.. or, the OP is person C and you're person D ... but then who might person E be? you or me?

DreamStalker wrote:Well logic suggests that you must be person C.

Exactly. Third party.

There have been a few times that I, as a minister, have been asked to make 9-1-1 calls for a family when I believed that my being the one to make the call could complicate things for the family and that it would likely be best for a family member to make the call without it even being stated that I am there. That can be difficult to explain in the heat of the moment, though, so I have had to judge instantly whether my pointing that out would be worth the time it would take or whether I should just go ahead and make the call anyway to get law-enforcement or medical help there more quickly.

Law enforcement and medical personnel can easily put too much weight into my having been there or especially my having been the one to make the call, in my opinion. That can alter how those professionals assess the situation before arrival, upon arrival, or after the fact. I am not a medical expert or a law-enforcement expert, and my wording could cause unintential harm to the people in the situation at the time. Just as an example, if I make a call to 9-1-1 in NYC to report an emotionally disturbed person, I am likely to be asked whether the person is presenting a danger to himself or presenting a danger to others. Dispatchers hate it when I refuse to answer the question, since to them, it needs to be one or the other, but to me, it is a trick question in that the answer I give can have an effect on the nature and the timeliness of the response and, more important perhaps, on what the people who later have to sign off on getting the disturbed person released will feel is required.

A million different factors can come into play, and too many cooks can spoil that broth. Keeping the situation as simple as possible without needlessly escalating matters but still doing what seems best done at the moment can be a tricky, tricky business. Sometimes our personally doing nothing is the smartest thing to do and in everyone's best interests at the time, no matter how much people want us to do something. Other times, choosing the best course of action is just choosing one bad option among several bad options, because of the imperfect way our legal systems and medical systems work. So I hesitate to second-guess what others do based on the facts available to them at the time as they saw them or heard them.

But hey, just me.