Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I only have issue with the choke hold being used. Nobody deserves to die over cigarettes. Taser him and if that doesn't work I'm pretty sure there are other legal means to put him on the ground. Dude might have had a heart attack anyway not matter what was used but at least the arrest would have been done per procedure.

So let's say they tazer him and the same thing happens. What do you propose next?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:


Given the source of the comment, are either of you surprised?

What? Because I'm not going to shed some faux tears and proselytize some high horse outrage over a career criminal dying in an accident?

He was resisting arrest. It doesn't "appear" that either of the well built arresting officers are carrying tazers. It took 4 dudes to even bring him down.

So please, propose me a better solution.

You know, besides the dude not resisting arrest.

 cincydooley wrote:

So please, propose me a better solution.

You know, besides the dude not resisting arrest.

Follow the rules you swore to uphold.

You know, or go to jail for manslaughter.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I only have issue with the choke hold being used. Nobody deserves to die over cigarettes. Taser him and if that doesn't work I'm pretty sure there are other legal means to put him on the ground. Dude might have had a heart attack anyway not matter what was used but at least the arrest would have been done per procedure.

So let's say they tazer him and the same thing happens. What do you propose next?

Same thing meaning he dies? Then they are covered by using approved methods. My only issue is using a disallowed technique. I don't know all the approved means they can use outside of tasers to take down a larger fellow but I'm sure they have other ones. As long as those are used if the individual dies then the officers should be covered. By using a disallowed technique the cop who did it deserves to lose his job, today.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

So please, propose me a better solution.

You know, besides the dude not resisting arrest.

Follow the rules you swore to uphold.

You know, or go to jail for manslaughter.

I don't disagree with your previous solution at all.

I think it's a problem they used a maneuver that is "illegal" by their standards.

It occurs to me though, that with a belligerent suspect this size that is resisting arrest, with many cops fearful now to use their tazers, that perhaps there needs to be another solution.

I think it's important to note that as soon as the suspect said he couldn't breath the cop let go. I think it's important to note that it took 4 of them to take him down.

The cops didn't appear to be (in the video at least) power hungry, antagonistic donkey-caves. They were, by my eye, pretty calm the entire time until they tried to arrest him and he began resisting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:


Same thing meaning he dies? Then they are covered by using approved methods. My only issue is using a disallowed technique. I don't know all the approved means they can use outside of tasers to take down a larger fellow but I'm sure they have other ones. As long as those are used if the individual dies then the officers should be covered. By using a disallowed technique the cop who did it deserves to lose his job, today.

Yep. I've got two friends that are police officers and both have said they're fearful to use their tazers because accidental deaths have happened with them, simply by happenstance, and there is a lot if backlash toward the tazer right now.

Both have said they'd MUCH rather try to physically subdue a suspect rather than use their tazer.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

So please, propose me a better solution.

You know, besides the dude not resisting arrest.

Follow the rules you swore to uphold.

You know, or go to jail for manslaughter.

I think it's a problem they used a maneuver that is "illegal" by their standards.

That's the only problem.

Nothing the suspect did has any impact and does not deserve any consideration. The cop broke the rule and he should bear the full weight of his decision. It doesn't matter if he is arresting a 18 year old kid that cooperates 100% or if he is arresting a 400 lbs guy made of pure muscle tripping on PCP. He follows the rules he is required to follow or he loses any and all portection he gets from being "a cop arresting a criminal".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:


Yep. I've got two friends that are police officers and both have said they're fearful to use their tazers because accidental deaths have happened with them, simply by happenstance, and there is a lot if backlash toward the tazer right now.

Both have said they'd MUCH rather try to physically subdue a suspect rather than use their tazer.

And there is nothing at all wrong with physically subduing a suspect, as long as you do it within department guidelines.

I'd be curious to find out how many states/cities it's illegal in. I've been googling and haven't found it yet.

Interestingly. It appears it's legal in at least parts of Nevada, and a family still got a huge settlement:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/23/metro-police-pay-1-million-family-choke-hold-victi/

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

So please, propose me a better solution.

You know, besides the dude not resisting arrest.

Follow the rules you swore to uphold.

You know, or go to jail for manslaughter.

I think it's a problem they used a maneuver that is "illegal" by their standards.

That's the only problem.

Nothing the suspect did has any impact and does not deserve any consideration. The cop broke the rule and he should bear the full weight of his decision. It doesn't matter if he is arresting a 18 year old kid that cooperates 100% or if he is arresting a 400 lbs guy made of pure muscle tripping on PCP. He follows the rules he is required to follow or he loses any and all portection he gets from being "a cop arresting a criminal".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:


Yep. I've got two friends that are police officers and both have said they're fearful to use their tazers because accidental deaths have happened with them, simply by happenstance, and there is a lot if backlash toward the tazer right now.

Both have said they'd MUCH rather try to physically subdue a suspect rather than use their tazer.

And there is nothing at all wrong with physically subduing a suspect, as long as you do it within department guidelines.

Would that have been true in the case of the cops who murdered Kelly Thomas in the video as posted by Lordofhats.

http://rt.com/usa/kelly-thomas-lapd-pension-914/

I really would like an inside scoop on the jury's thought process in that trial.

Seems to me the cigarette tax is responsible for this guy's death more than anything else. But you know, taxing cigarettes saves sooooo many lives per year it's ok.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd be curious to find out how many states/cities it's illegal in. I've been googling and haven't found it yet.

Interestingly. It appears it's legal in at least parts of Nevada, and a family still got a huge settlement:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/23/metro-police-pay-1-million-family-choke-hold-victi/

Looks like the question in that case was not about the choke-hold itself, as the inquest found, but more about a case of "did they create the situation that needed use-of-force in the first place". So it seems like the situation is pretty different.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd be curious to find out how many states/cities it's illegal in. I've been googling and haven't found it yet.

Interestingly. It appears it's legal in at least parts of Nevada, and a family still got a huge settlement:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/23/metro-police-pay-1-million-family-choke-hold-victi/

Looks like the question in that case was not about the choke-hold itself, as the inquest found, but more about a case of "did they create the situation that needed use-of-force in the first place". So it seems like the situation is pretty different.

They did find the death excusable though, so there's that.

I guess it doesn't really surprise me that NYC would have a ban on it, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VanHallan wrote:
Seems to me the cigarette tax is responsible for this guy's death more than anything else. But you know, taxing cigarettes saves sooooo many lives per year it's ok.

So are you trying to argue that cigarettes shouldn't be taxed?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd be curious to find out how many states/cities it's illegal in. I've been googling and haven't found it yet.

Interestingly. It appears it's legal in at least parts of Nevada, and a family still got a huge settlement:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/23/metro-police-pay-1-million-family-choke-hold-victi/

Looks like the question in that case was not about the choke-hold itself, as the inquest found, but more about a case of "did they create the situation that needed use-of-force in the first place". So it seems like the situation is pretty different.

They did find the death excusable though, so there's that.

Yeah, and I'm pretty okay with that. They seemed like they had a good process on traning people, making sure they were qualified to do it, this particular guy seemed like he had extra training on top of that.

It's still tragic that it happened, and just how tragic it is when somebody that resists dies is always subject to a whole separate debate, but he did what he was supposed to do and followed the rules. So I'm okay with him being protected under that. If he would have done a move that was not legal, or a legal move when it was not warranted by the situation, I wouldn't be okay with it either.

 motyak wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Out of pure curiosity, why the hell are American cops so fethed up?

To be fair, the majority probably get to work, do a good job, and go home. It's just the minority who seem to screw things up so preposterously amazingly terrifyingly badly that it tars the rest with the same brush. I'm sure there are some yank peelers on here, and we wouldn't want to generalise and hurt their feelings.

The problem is that for all the good cops there might be out there, the force is becoming more militarized and violence more encouraged with a distinct lack of consequence. All the good cops in the world are worth absolutely nothing when the bad ones get off for free, especially when, for all the power they wield, they should be held to a much higher standard with far more severe implications for failing to meet them.

 cincydooley wrote:
What? Because I'm not going to shed some faux tears and proselytize some high horse outrage over a career criminal dying in an accident?

Your "accident" is my "criminally negligent homicide". But it doesn't matter; what actually matters is you get some internet cool points for your hardc0r3 indifference to human life. He was a criminal, so who cares if he died! He was selling untaxed cigarettes!

I wish you could see how laughably ridiculous your posts ITT look to everyone else.

The reality is there is no love loss between cops and citizens. The arrest was described as a beat down by both the original video filmer of the one used in news reports and a more recent one that was taken from the doorway nearest the incident. The cops did not beat the person who died down, but they did take about 5-6 cops to pull him down and cuff him.

Here is a video of the aftermath of what happened, with commentary from video-taker. Also, cop who implemented strangle-hold waves at 6:57.

Just going to provide link for article to the whole debacle:

(Video- NSFW)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/19/eric-garner-chokehold-death_n_5602443.html

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
What? Because I'm not going to shed some faux tears and proselytize some high horse outrage over a career criminal dying in an accident?

Your "accident" is my "criminally negligent homicide". But it doesn't matter; what actually matters is you get some internet cool points for your hardc0r3 indifference to human life. He was a criminal, so who cares if he died! He was selling untaxed cigarettes!

I wish you could see how laughably ridiculous your posts ITT look to everyone else.

And you're entitled to that opinion.

I already said I agreed that it was inappropriate that he used the choke hold because it is illegal to use it in that jurisdiction. But that's about it. They were still barely able to get the dude to the ground because he was resisting. The cop let him go when he said he couldn't breathe.

He was a career criminal, so the tears I'm going to shed because he died are going to be few. You say it's callous. I say it's pragmatic.

And honestly, dakka is the last place I'd be trying to score "Internet cool points."

Good riddance

It's almost like, I expect you to expand on your joke and show us all how you're not an inhuman monster, but then I realise damn, some people are like you.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's almost like, I expect you to expand on your joke and show us all how you're not an inhuman monster, but then I realise damn, some people are like you.

And that's the OT

Hmmm.....I think a lot of it is going to depend on what the cause-of-death was and how good the cops are at report-writing. Looks like a classic case of positional asphyxia, if the deceased was asthmatic then that is gonna be a massive contributing factor. Not sure about the choke-hold move, it's not an approved move over here. However an important thing (in the UK at least) to note is that you can still justify using a non-approved technique if the situation warrants it. For instance, our CS spray should not be used within 3 feet (if I remember rightly) because there's a danger that the spray will cause damage to someone at that range. However a cop in one of our rural stations had a guy who knocked him to the ground then sat on top of him and tried to gouge his eyes out. So he sprayed him point-blank with CS and that was found to be perfectly justifiable given the circumstances.

Given this particular scenario -again from a UK perspective - I'm surprised they opted to get close to the guy given his size and his non-compliance. Personally I would have opted for CS or baton strikes to subdue him and I would be quite happy justifying that on the grounds that he was a damn sight bigger than me and was resisting arrest. If taser was available, then yeah, that would have been preferable (though that's only issued to firearms officers in Scotland). On the other hand it doesn't look good on video either if you're using a baton or CS on someone, especially if they're unarmed, so maybe the thought process of the cops was that they didn't want to go down that route as it wouldn't look good.

Which brings me to a pretty relevant point - if you have to subdue and/or restrain someone using force, it's always going to look pretty messy. You very rarely see the kind of ninja takedowns that they do in the movies when the hero gets someones wrist, twists it a certain way and then it's game over. Even on the rare occasion when you're up against someone who isn't under the influence of drink or drugs or has mental health problems (or a mix of all three, that's always fun....) as soon as they get in that 'fight' mode their system will flood with adrenaline, pain doesn't register as much as it normally does, there's usually arms and legs being flailed around wildly...all of the fancy moves they teach you end up going out the window and it's usually a mad scramble to grab an arm and get it into position to put cuffs on, and it usually doesn't end there.

Will be interesting to see the final result of this. Pretty tragic whatever the ruling of any hearing though.

 Soladrin wrote:
Out of pure curiosity, why the hell are American cops so fethed up?

Maybe because they are tired of dealing with criminals who have been arrested 30 times and are still on the street.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
In the ideal world:

Any cop that breaks the rules should lose any advantage/consideration/immunity that he would gain in that situation by virtue of being a cop.

If he dies because a cop pepper sprayed him, tazed him, and then jumped him with 5 other guys because he is still resisting and the cop used nothing but legal moves and following the departments use-of-force policy then it's a tragedy. But if the cops did everything right then they should be protected as guys that did their job and followed the rules.

If he dies after a cop breaks the rules and does something that was not allowed, then the fact that the cop is a cop should no longer matter at all. At that point the cop should be treated like a random guy that walked up to him and choked him and caused his death and be charged with manslaughter and be judged by a jury and not a disciplinary board.

Of course in the real world this will never happen.

Why do you think "following policy" should warrant a get out of jail free card? If policy is, through flash bombs into a house and shoot everyone that is not laying down, is that ok?

Couple things here from a former corrections officer:
1. Tasters are not particularly effective against obese subjects as the "fat" does offer significant protection against electricity. Kinda like rubber gloves.
2. The American police officer is far more likely than a European officer to encounter violent, and likely armed offenders, hence why American police have become increasingly militarized. This trend started in LAPD during the 70s under the leadership of Chief D. Gates ( the chief during Rodney King). It has since spread nationwide.
3. 9-11 has greatly accelerated the trend. You will often find very small departments with the silliest tools: armored vehicles from Iraq war stocks and assault rifles. These are usually obtained through government "anti terror" grants.
4. Finally, just because the crime was minor does not lessen the risk to officers. Law enforcement deal with folks whose morals are often low enough to make an animal blush.

1/325AIR wrote:
2. The American police officer is far more likely than a European officer to encounter violent, and likely armed offenders,

I'll give you the latter, but I'm a little dubious on the former.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nypd-cops-chokehold-caused-injury-mans-throat/story?id=24640347

Apparently the preliminary autopsy report indicates the deceased died of a heart attack and there was little damage to the throat.

I see we're checked off step one, and are making good progress on step two.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/staten-island-da-man-death-nypd-chokehold-article-1.1871946

Officers Daniel Pantaleo, with eight years on the force, and Justin Damico, a four-year veteran cop, were both put on desk duty a day after the death of Eric Garner, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said.

Pantaleo has been accused of false arrest and violating police procedures in two lawsuits, court records show. In one, two African-American plaintiffs won $15,000 apiece after claiming they’d been falsely arrested on Staten Island in 2012 and forced to publicly strip so cops could search them. All charges against them were dropped.

Is colour a factor here?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Out of pure curiosity, why the hell are American cops so fethed up?

Maybe because they are tired of dealing with criminals who have been arrested 30 times and are still on the street.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
In the ideal world:

Any cop that breaks the rules should lose any advantage/consideration/immunity that he would gain in that situation by virtue of being a cop.

If he dies because a cop pepper sprayed him, tazed him, and then jumped him with 5 other guys because he is still resisting and the cop used nothing but legal moves and following the departments use-of-force policy then it's a tragedy. But if the cops did everything right then they should be protected as guys that did their job and followed the rules.

If he dies after a cop breaks the rules and does something that was not allowed, then the fact that the cop is a cop should no longer matter at all. At that point the cop should be treated like a random guy that walked up to him and choked him and caused his death and be charged with manslaughter and be judged by a jury and not a disciplinary board.

Of course in the real world this will never happen.

Why do you think "following policy" should warrant a get out of jail free card? If policy is, through flash bombs into a house and shoot everyone that is not laying down, is that ok?

Since that's not policy it's not even a question worth answering.

 loki old fart wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/staten-island-da-man-death-nypd-chokehold-article-1.1871946

Officers Daniel Pantaleo, with eight years on the force, and Justin Damico, a four-year veteran cop, were both put on desk duty a day after the death of Eric Garner, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said.

Pantaleo has been accused of false arrest and violating police procedures in two lawsuits, court records show. In one, two African-American plaintiffs won $15,000 apiece after claiming they’d been falsely arrested on Staten Island in 2012 and forced to publicly strip so cops could search them. All charges against them were dropped.

Is colour a factor here?

Does stop and frisk extend to Staten Island?

1/325AIR wrote:

Law enforcement deal with folks whose morals are often low enough to make an animal blush.

Totally, and that's just when they swing into the station in the morning!



Except seriously.

I won't get into legal ramifications or the officer's standard operating procedure, as it's not my field and not my SOP, but as a certified combatives instructor:

-OC/CS/CN (pepper spray in various forms) aren't preferable in cases of subduing a subject. Chemical propellants have a high contamination rate, even in the case of the weaponized foam. If the officers spray you, then have to arrest you, they are very likely to get a secondary contamination. Simply put, OC/CS/CN don't stop a fight, they start one. They're meant to provide a break in combat where an officer can extricate himself from a dangerous situation. Using them for compliance is difficult at best if the person truly means to do you harm or resist commands. They also don't effect everyone the same, meaning what may be crippling to me, may not do a damn thing to you.

-Tazers have gone back and forth over the years on how safe/dangerous they are. I'd hesitate as a professional to use it on an overweight individual due to the inherent risk of cardio vascular trauma that may result.

-Choke holds are always a no-go idea. The flip side to this is that circumstances can change in a millisecond. Again, as a professional, I'd avoid any airway restricting tactics unless I truly felt I may suffer severe physical injury.

 loki old fart wrote:
Is colour a factor here?

There's no reason to believe that with what has been provided. No reason to ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence, and all.

 cincydooley wrote:
Does stop and frisk extend to Staten Island?

Yes, Staten Island is an oft-forgotten borough of New York City, the other boroughs being the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan. Normal NYPD procedures as practiced elsewhere in the city apply.

My aunt and uncle were both NYPD, and both lived in Staten Island, so I used to take the ferry all the time. It's a nice view.