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.

 loki old fart wrote:
Is colour a factor here?

Nah, but obesity seems to be.

and forced to publicly strip so cops could search them. And this is normal there ?

I'm guilty of feeling apathy towards criminals in the sort of "they get what they deserve" way.

But considering the crime, the number of officers and the way it could have been handled... he should not have been killed. It's not rocket science kids; stop a man from breathing, he gon' die.

Also, the chokehold was only applied for 12 seconds? Surely that makes it an unlikely cause of death? Yeah, it's an illegal method of restraint, but surely it couldn't kill the man.

Having seen the video, I think applying the "choke hold" moniker is a little misleading.

 loki old fart wrote:
and forced to publicly strip so cops could search them. And this is normal there ?

No, it's not. A public strip search is pretty much always going to be an eventual court settlement.

 Ouze wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
and forced to publicly strip so cops could search them. And this is normal there ?

No, it's not. A public strip search is pretty much always going to be an eventual court settlement.

I'd love to know more about that. I'm guessing, especially based on the LOW amount of the settlement, that it was probably nothing.

... wait, what? What "low" amount of what settlement?

 Ouze wrote:
... wait, what? What "low" amount of what settlement?

I thought I read in the article linked previously in this thread that the two folks that sued for the "public strip search" both settled for $15K apiece, which, again, seems relatively low.....

 Ouze wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
and forced to publicly strip so cops could search them. And this is normal there ?

No, it's not. A public strip search is pretty much always going to be an eventual court settlement.

The problem is that what constitutes "a public strip search" is not necessarily what you may be thinking it is. If you stop someone and then take them into a restroom or other area where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy or it can be 'locked down' to provide privacy to conduct a strip search--it's still considered a "public strip search".

Not saying that is necessarily what happened in the two settled cases, but just pointing that out. SOP for conducting strip searches is to wait until you can take them back to the police station but if there is some kind of reason necessitating it be done in the field like that (would have to be something like worrying about destruction or contamination of evidence), it's not unheard of to be done like that.

 cincydooley wrote:
It took 4 dudes to even bring him down.

No, it took only 1; the guy that put him in a choke. The remainder just piled on.

Subduing a person larger than yourself is not hard.

 Tigurius wrote:
I'm guilty of feeling apathy towards criminals in the sort of "they get what they deserve" way.

But considering the crime, the number of officers and the way it could have been handled... he should not have been killed. It's not rocket science kids; stop a man from breathing, he gon' die.

Also, the chokehold was only applied for 12 seconds? Surely that makes it an unlikely cause of death? Yeah, it's an illegal method of restraint, but surely it couldn't kill the man.

Choked an asthmatic. If the chokehold directly lead to the Asthma attack which killed him then that chokehold could be the cause of death.

Like if someone put peanut butter in a sandwich and force fed it to someone with a nut allergy. The person technically dies due to asphyxiation from the nut allergy but they wouldn't have had the reaction if the sandwich weren't being stuffed down their mouth.

Apparently he died of a heart attack.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Apparently he died of a heart attack.

And everyone was surprised.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Apparently he died of a heart attack.

The choke hold constricting the large blood vessels, each side of the neck, could cause that.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It took 4 dudes to even bring him down.

No, it took only 1; the guy that put him in a choke. The remainder just piled on.

Subduing a person larger than yourself is not hard.

Really? It's not? I'm glad we can throw sixty years of use of force and officer safety best practices out the window.

My students will be pumped!

Someone that big I am either going to knee cap or curb stomps some nuts. More likely foot launch a couple nuts up just to get him down

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It took 4 dudes to even bring him down.

No, it took only 1; the guy that put him in a choke. The remainder just piled on.

Subduing a person larger than yourself is not hard.

Really? It's not? I'm glad we can throw sixty years of use of force and officer safety best practices out the window.

My students will be pumped!

They're "officer safety best practices". I'm not sure what that entails, but if it comes down to one side or the other surviving a situation as a result of them, my bet's on the officer. Subduing someone ISN'T hard. You just use 4 people because (for obvious reasons) cops aren't fething around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I observe that you read many articles about someone getting beaten/murdered by police, yet you don't often hear of someone actually get the drop on a cop.

While not hearing the latter is a good thing, I can't help but wonder if there's not a particular amount of fear and force that police use unnecessarily. You know, like when flashbanging children.

Other than in Jersey City, right?

http://nypost.com/2014/07/15/bloods-threaten-to-kill-a-cop-in-revenge-for-cop-killer-shot-dead/

This was pretty big news in my part of town. Notice the cops were ambushed.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

Really? It's not? I'm glad we can throw sixty years of use of force and officer safety best practices out the window.

I have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote.

 dogma wrote:
I have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote.

Whereas I'm more interested in hearing about your extensive experience subduing large, uncooperative criminals.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote.

Whereas I'm more interested in hearing about your extensive experience subduing large, uncooperative criminals.

Pretty much my point. It's been said twice here (by dogma and dadelus) that it isn't difficult to subdue someone.

By all measures used by anyone experienced in such fields, this is patently untrue. If you think is is so simple, I advise you to try subduing (without seriously injuring or killing) a 115lb female who is having a bad day, nevermind a subject who is bigger, angrier, and stronger than you.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
I advise you to try subduing (without seriously injuring or killing)

I think that is the distinction that is being made here. In order to do that safely (in terms of the officers involved) police often have to use larger numbers of officers to subdue someone. To "put someone out of action" as an individual takes significantly less effort, as maximal force can be applied as you are not necessarily looking to subdue them without injury. If the police used this kind of method, it would be considered excessive force.

Not that anything would happen to the officer involved (seemingly anyway! ).

 Seaward wrote:

Whereas I'm more interested in hearing about your extensive experience subduing large, uncooperative criminals.

I didn't say anything about subduing large, uncooperative criminals; at least beyond refuting the notion that it took 4 people to take this particular person down.

And, really, if that is SOP, then the number of people used to restrain a person is irrelevant.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

By all measures used by anyone experienced in such fields, this is patently untrue. If you think is is so simple, I advise you to try subduing (without seriously injuring or killing) a 115lb female who is having a bad day, nevermind a subject who is bigger, angrier, and stronger than you.

In college I regularly subdued a ~130 pound female athlete when she was having a bad day*, without injuring her. And, at several points, subdued guys that outweighed me by 50+ lbs when they tried to mug me, or assault my friends. It isn't difficult, though I will admit that I'm stronger than most people and have some peripheral training so what is not difficult to me might be seen as difficult by others.

Also, it might be considered difficult when you're going in to a situation blind, as police generally do (though not in this case), but otherwise it isn't hard.



*A friend who had serious emotional issues.

Well, I absolutely believe you.

And I do tend to think that foiling frequent muggings in college is grounds to dismiss professional experience. If we listened to people who know what they're talking about around here, it wouldn't be OT.

 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.

Come on Motyak, watch a video of the way american police handle suspects compared to Australian police. It's apples to fridge magnets. There are extremes, sure, but from what I've seen (none of it live) there seems to be a lot more manhandling ,shouting and cuffing than over here. I saw police just the other day booking some 18 year olds for something and it looked like they were having a pleasant conversation.

I feel the inherent hostility in US police enforcement only heightens situations.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, I absolutely believe you.

And I do tend to think that foiling frequent muggings in college is grounds to dismiss professional experience. If we listened to people who know what they're talking about around here, it wouldn't be OT.

If you don't believe me, then why do you believe him?

 dogma wrote:
If you don't believe me, then why do you believe him?

What makes you think I was talking about him?

I think there's could be a bit more of a focus in deescalation style tactics in other countries perhaps?

But then, I know nothing about this sort of thing.

It doesn't help that news like this makes it harder to trust the good cops. Making deescalation far harder because they may feel the need to fight or flight or else they'll just be killed.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I have no idea how you got that out of what I wrote.

Whereas I'm more interested in hearing about your extensive experience subduing large, uncooperative criminals.

Dogma does not physically subdue them. His impressive vocabulary and ability to focus like Zeus himself ona few errant words confuses and bewilders his opponent, until his opponent is caught in a cyclone of thought and words, and he must sit down to rest awhile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Well, I absolutely believe you.

And I do tend to think that foiling frequent muggings in college is grounds to dismiss professional experience. If we listened to people who know what they're talking about around here, it wouldn't be OT.

I too hae extensive knowledge of subduing individuals in college. Its easy. Just don't bath. They'll pass out as soon as you get within five feet of them.