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.

 daedalus wrote:

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.

 Bullockist wrote:

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.

The problem with both these statements is simple - you're relying on the media and the public.

In the first instance, the media have their priorities. They want stories that sell. So a story with police officers being injured or in otherwise dangerous situations whilst subduing somebody isn't going to be high on their agendas unless it's a slow news day or the injuries are serious enough. A few years back there was a BBC documentary where they followed some of the Met Armed Response Vehicles. One of the calls they went to was an unarmed officer being shot in his vehicle - fortunately he only sustained minor injuries as his body armour stopped the round. That didn't make the news. Neither did the incident a few months back when two of my colleagues had to subdue a man in his fifties who attacked them with a knife. No injuries = no story.

In the second instance, most of the videos taken of police using force are taken by members of the public who then stick them on YouTube etc. The principle is the same - nobody is gonna take a video of two cops peacefully talking with someone and moving them on without using force. And even if they do take the video and then post it up it's not going to garner much in the way of attention.

It's always good to have a sense of perspective.

Okay, let's rely on data instead, not individual stories.

I got about 70 or so police deaths in the line of duty from http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013. No, I'm not counting accidents.

Oddly enough, I can't seem to find a pretty site that openly lists how many people the police have wrongly killed. I found http://www.innocentdown.org/the-victims/, which seems to indicate about 38 in 2012, but I have no way of knowing if those people are genuinely innocents or if that is an exhaustive list.

The definition I'm using for this criteria is "not posing a threat to police". Isn't that a strange statistic to not be able to find? Maybe there have been none?

Perhaps that child from the story some time ago was on pcp and charging them from his crib.

 Seaward wrote:

What makes you think I was talking about him?

Context and direct reference.

But you still haven't answered my question.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

This is one of the best compliments I have ever received, thanks old man.

 dogma wrote:
Context and direct reference.

But you still haven't answered my question.

Yes, I did.

This is one of the best compliments I have ever received, thanks old man.

The honor, is to serve.

"To serve Man, its...its a cookbook!"

 Seaward wrote:
Yes, I did.

Fantastic rebuttal.

What you actually did is attempt to make a joke at my expense, rather transparently.

 Frazzled wrote:
"To serve Man, its...its a cookbook!"

Really though, they made Earth 100x better! Why couldn't we have just stayed on Earth instead of going to Hannibal planet

 dogma wrote:
Fantastic rebuttal.

What you actually did is attempt to make a joke at my expense, rather transparently.

It wasn't a joke, it was the sort of non-answer you adore giving when questioned yourself. I merely had an old adage about geese and ganders running through my head.

In short, I trust the experience of people whose jobs involve subduing people on a fairly regular basis over the word of somebody who was apparently Captain America in college. My own fairly limited experience with MCMAP suggests they're right.

 Inquisitor Gonzo wrote:


The problem with both these statements is simple - you're relying on the media and the public.

In the first instance, the media have their priorities. They want stories that sell. So a story with police officers being injured or in otherwise dangerous situations whilst subduing somebody isn't going to be high on their agendas unless it's a slow news day or the injuries are serious enough. A few years back there was a BBC documentary where they followed some of the Met Armed Response Vehicles. One of the calls they went to was an unarmed officer being shot in his vehicle - fortunately he only sustained minor injuries as his body armour stopped the round. That didn't make the news. Neither did the incident a few months back when two of my colleagues had to subdue a man in his fifties who attacked them with a knife. No injuries = no story.

In the second instance, most of the videos taken of police using force are taken by members of the public who then stick them on YouTube etc. The principle is the same - nobody is gonna take a video of two cops peacefully talking with someone and moving them on without using force. And even if they do take the video and then post it up it's not going to garner much in the way of attention.

It's always good to have a sense of perspective.

I hear what you are saying Gonzo *Omigawd I'm talking to Gonzo, childhood dream achieved right here on Dakka! * but getting people on the ground, cuffing them when they haven't made aggressive moves ( I understand why they do this) seems to me to only heighten situations. I dunno, police over here generally (excluding queensland, and shooting happy Victoria in the 1990s) manage without such aggressive tactics. I'm not talking about the sensationalist news stories - lol like this thread really- but more so the everyday handling of suspects.
My evidence is generally coming from US cop shows (which I know are created for consumption) but comparing them to the illustrious POlice ten 7 (watch it everyone, I love it) it seems policing is remarkably different.

 Seaward wrote:

It wasn't a joke, it was the sort of non-answer you adore giving when questioned yourself.

Generally speaking my "non-answers" involve references that may or may not be clever. Yours, on the other hand, are just refusals to reply; accompanied by a desire to assert yourself.

 Seaward wrote:

In short, I trust the experience of people whose jobs involve subduing people on a fairly regular basis over the word of somebody who was apparently Captain America in college. My own fairly limited experience with MCMAP suggests they're right.

I never claimed to be "Captain America" in college.

But, anyway, my guess is that you wouldn't trust my analysis of X data, despite the fact that I have significant experience in data analysis. You will only trust certain sorts of people, holding certain sorts of opinions; this is called "confirmation bias"

So, to pose the question again, why do you trust them and not me?

 dogma wrote:
Generally speaking my "non-answers" involve references that may or may not be clever. Yours, on the other hand, are just refusals to reply; accompanied by a desire to assert yourself.

Is that actually what you think you're doing when you try and dance around giving an answer? That's adorable.

I never claimed to be "Captain America" in college.

But, anyway, my guess is that you wouldn't trust my analysis of X data, despite the fact that I have significant experience in data analysis. You will only trust certain sorts of people, holding certain sorts of opinions; this is called "confirmation bias"

That is true. I certainly have a confirmation bias towards credible opinions, and I'm less than willing to trust people with uninformed opinions.

So, to pose the question again, why do you trust them and not me?

Because they have a far wider range of experience than you do, despite your heroic quarterly throwdowns with muggers in college. They also have far more relevant education about the subject.

Even if none of that were true, your history of being both wrong and intellectually dishonest would be enough to clinch the, "Yeah, dogma's not to be trusted," vote.

 dogma wrote:
So, to pose the question again, why do you trust them and not me?

Well, they are government employees, so there's a pretty fair assumption that they're going to be honest, competent, and reasonable in their judicious use of that unlawful-by-their-own-rules maneuver.

 Ouze wrote:

 dogma wrote:
So, to pose the question again, why do you trust them and not me?

Well, they are government employees, so there's a pretty fair assumption that they're going to be honest, competent, and reasonable in their judicious use of that unlawful-by-their-own-rules maneuver.

You just moved to Washington or Colorado?

 Seaward wrote:

Because they have a far wider range of experience than you do...

They do? That determination relies upon trust.

 Seaward wrote:

...despite your heroic quarterly throwdowns with muggers in college. They also have far more relevant education about the subject.

I never mentioned anything about heroism or quarters but, again, the issue you're having is one of trust. Shocking no one, you only trust people that you deem to be conservative or authority figures.

 Seaward wrote:

Even if none of that were true, your history of being both wrong and intellectually dishonest would be enough to clinch the, "Yeah, dogma's not to be trusted," vote.

For you, perhaps. But you have established yourself as an unabashed, angry conservative.

 dogma wrote:
They do? That determination relies upon trust.

No, the determination that you have "significant experience in data analysis" relies on trust. The determination that police officers have to subdue more people in the course of their careers than data analysts does not. I'm sure, given your experience analyzing data, you could compare the number of people data analysts subdue yearly versus the number of people police officers subdue yearly, and come to some intriguing conclusions.

I never mentioned anything about heroism or quarters but, again, the issue you're having is one of trust. Shocking no one, you only trust people that you deem to be conservative or authority figures.

Incorrect. The issue I'm having is that you have no relevant experience. In, for example, an argument about the proper way to respond to contact, I would value Jihadin's statements above yours, despite your long years of service in the data analysis field, because he did that gak for a living for a long time. In an argument about the proper way to land an aircraft on a carrier, I would value my own experience over yours. In an argument about whether or not it is difficult to subdue large people who do not want to be subdued...see where I'm going here?

For you, perhaps. But you have established yourself as an unabashed, angry conservative.

Why do I get the feeling that your definition for that label is hilariously broad?

So, to pose the question again, why do you trust them and not me?

 Frazzled wrote:

So, to pose the question again, why do you trust them and not me?

I don't trust anyone but thats not especially relevant.

I would just note the differences
*They have specific training for such take downs based on past history, involving a whole spectrum of individuals, including those on drugs, insane, etc. etc.

*Theoretically, their takedown training is in line with a "least damaging" practice, motivated by bad pr (as in the present instance) and lawsuits. My daughter could take down Mr. universe if she wanted to, by just running him over. By that violates this principle. In my younger days I was a kickboxer, and could do that quite well, but I'm less knowledgeable in the the least dangerous takedown of coked up granny (kicking granny in the back of the leg works but probably not the best idea).

So, in essence, its not personal, its just based on the fact this is their job. If you had a similar job I would agree you have ready knowledge of similar techniques and situations.

on the other hand we've seen many instance recently of literal overkill by the Po Po, so thats a counterbalancing factor.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled television episode.

Actually, a blow to the back of the leg is still one of the recommended practices taught by the police, at least here in the UK. And, given other alternatives, might actually be the best solution to taking down a violent coked up granny. It's not like tazing her would be a good idea after all

You're gonna do a lot less damage to a person swinging your truncheon into the back of their knee than into their face, after all.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You're gonna do a lot less damage to a person swinging your truncheon into the back of their knee than into their face, after all.

You tell that to Nancy Kerrigan, sir. You tell that right to her face!

 Seaward wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You're gonna do a lot less damage to a person swinging your truncheon into the back of their knee than into their face, after all.

You tell that to Nancy Kerrigan, sir. You tell that right to her face!

I thought she took a metal pipe to the shin and the front of her knee by Tonya Harding's boyfriend, but without Tonya Harding's knowledge.

 kronk wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You're gonna do a lot less damage to a person swinging your truncheon into the back of their knee than into their face, after all.

You tell that to Nancy Kerrigan, sir. You tell that right to her face!

I thought she took a metal pipe to the shin and the front of her knee by Tonya Harding's boyfriend, but without Tonya Harding's knowledge*.

Just her fervent wishes and eggings on.

It was a police baton

Trust goes both ways

 Frazzled wrote:

This is one of the best compliments I have ever received, thanks old man.

The honor, is to serve.

"To serve Man, its...its a cookbook!"

Try channeling Barricade a bit more:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You're gonna do a lot less damage to a person swinging your truncheon into the back of their knee than into their face, after all.

You tell that to Nancy Kerrigan, sir. You tell that right to her face!

I thought she took a metal pipe to the shin and the front of her knee by Tonya Harding's boyfriend, but without Tonya Harding's knowledge*.

Just her fervent wishes and eggings on.

It was a police baton

Metal pipe would have been a better story.

If he'd hit her with a live anaconda it would've been a better story, and I'd demand videos.

i love that there are some people so screwed in the head they can take pleasure in cops killing some guy for selling cigarettes. some poor mental bastard trying to earn a few quid to survive by selling individual cigarettes to other down and outs. even the british police would probably ignore this loser, and the british police are arsehole bullies.

bullies and blowhards and and blakeys.

i'm going back to the threads about a gamem where you don't get to see what massive tossers human beings really are.

 daddyorchips wrote:
i love that there are some people so screwed in the head they can take pleasure in cops killing some guy for selling cigarettes. some poor mental bastard trying to earn a few quid to survive by selling individual cigarettes to other down and outs. even the british police would probably ignore this loser, and the british police are arsehole bullies.

bullies and blowhards and and blakeys.

i'm going back to the threads about a gamem where you don't get to see what massive tossers human beings really are.

What makes you say so?

Please elaborate.

Some people are bloodthirsty and don't care about rights if it's happening to someone they consider an "undesirable".

My experience with UK police has been entirely pleasant.

As I recall a chav in a course I did mentioned how he hated them, due to them giving him a talking to. After he followed them around a Tesco making pig snorting noises at them. Your experience, of course, may vary.

 daddyorchips wrote:


i'm going back to the threads about a gamem where you don't get to see what massive tossers human beings really are.

I'd steer clear of You Make Da Call subforum, then...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Some people are bloodthirsty and don't care about rights if it's happening to someone they consider an "undesirable".

I thought he was referring to some folks ITT.

 kronk wrote:

 daddyorchips wrote:


i'm going back to the threads about a gamem where you don't get to see what massive tossers human beings really are.

I'd steer clear of You Make Da Call subforum, then...

I miss Gwar so much.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Some people are bloodthirsty and don't care about rights if it's happening to someone they consider an "undesirable".

I thought he was referring to some folks ITT.

And well he might, as some demonstrate that.