It's used as a treatment for drug overdoses ("excited delerium") which appears to be why it was used here. Of course it's a catch-all term, there's no way to tell offhand just what street drugs someone is on. There has to be a reason it took half a dozen people to hold him down.
Also, there's no mention in this article of police directing the paramedics to do anything. Can you point me to what gave you that idea?
> There has to be a reason it took half a dozen people to hold him down.
This is the kind of rationalization that gets policies like this instituted. Having to be held down by six people isn't a requirement for being diagnosed with "excided delirium," anything is sufficient, because it's not a falsifiable diagnosis. The look in someone's eye can be enough. Talking back can be enough.
Also, by "enough," I mean enough for people who are already reactionaries of the law and order type to rationalize it. If it happened to a hypothetical white guy in some office complaining about his tax bill (who also showed no aggression and only tested positive for trace amounts of marijuana), could you imagine that people would still be alluding to "some reason" why "excited delirium" was actually a cool and reasonable diagnosis?
I mean, this is a violinist massage therapist who volunteered at animal shelters. This event is just more evidence that video will neither save you nor avenge you. You're as likely to be able to keep law enforcement from injecting ketamine into you on a whim as you are to keep law enforcement from being able to search your person or your car. With "There has to be a reason it took half a dozen people to hold him down," the reaction justifies itself.
It's a catch-all term to describe people who have likely overdosed on various stimulants. To argue that it's non-specific is to argue that the police have no way of knowing what medical conditions underlie the problem.
That's why they summon medical professionals, as was done here and in other similar cases.
I did get this from Wikipedia, 'After McClain was restrained more officers arrived and audio of the conversation records them saying that McClain was "acting crazy", that he was "definitely on something", and that he had attacked them with "incredible, crazy strength" when they tried to restrain him.'
They did not use the words, 'he was on drugs', but there is a strong implication based on the audio that this is what the police were claiming.
I said that's what ketamine is used for. I never said he was on drugs, as I do not know that. I only said that it's not normal to need a bunch of people to hold someone down.
Those on the scene certainly thought this was the case, which is basically the only reason they use that drug in the first place in the context of an arrest. I don't claim to know one way or another whether they were right, but I would note that dying of a heart attack is inconsistent with ketamine as the cause.
Maybe they gave him too much, but the article leaves one to conclude that this was somehow related to his death even though it never actually says so.
Also, there's no mention in this article of police directing the paramedics to do anything. Can you point me to what gave you that idea?