Choke Hold Death in NYC and the Nanny State

batman730 · December 4, 2014, 3:02pm

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
I think most people don’t quite get how brutal a chokehold is. People think of blood chokes and falling asleep and shit.

Not true in the least. Yes, there are blood chokes, and you can certainly apply them well in high stress situations if you’re skilled with said blood chokes.

But there’s a lot simpler choke. You just crush the larynx. It’s amazingly effective and incredibly easy to do, especially if you have someone in a chokehold.

I don’t think cops should be directed to use chokes. They’re not particularly effective in restraining people and the damage you can do is immense.

Like we see here.[/quote]

Neck restraints can be very effective in controlling aggressive behavior. The problem with them is that they require a lot of training and repetition in order to apply them properly. Unfortunately the majority of departments do not spend the time and repetition in training in order to assure that their personnel are proficient in how they are applied.

What you refer to as a “blood choke” is known as a vascular neck restraint. The principal behind this is to establish venous compression which results in congestion of the blood flow in the head and neck. Unconsciousness can occur in as little as five seconds. This is not a complete restriction of blood flow therefore life sustaining blood is still supplied to the brain, just not enough for consciousness. A vascular neck restraint is relatively safe for the subject, as long as it is applied correctly. We would consider this to be a “non-lethal” form of physical control.

When this technique is taught we would instruct the officer to trap one arm or shoulder of the suspect above their (suspect’s) head before they compress the SIDE of the suspect’s neck with their (officer’s) forearm. The other side of the suspect’s neck is compressed by the suspect’s own shoulder (the arm “trapped” above the suspects head). Where this can go very wrong is when the officer fails to trap the arm and the officer’s forearm shifts from the side of the suspect’s neck to the front of the neck (over the top of the trachea). What started out as a vascular neck restraint (non-lethal) just turned into a respiratory neck restraint(deadly force)during the officer’s struggle with the suspect.

Like you said, if you crush the Larynx or trachea, this is most likely a fatal injury. The upper section of the trachea, around the larynx, is easily damaged, similar to that of a Ping-Pong ball. Once it is crushed it is not going to flex back once the force or pressure is relieved.

I have been a use of force instructor for over 15 years now. My department does not permit neck restraints to be used for controlling aggressive behavior for the reasons I listed above. We simply don’t have the time available to train our officers to the point that we are confident that they will apply the neck restraint properly. An exception to this would be as a last resort or when deadly force is justified. [/quote]

This is unfortunate. LNR/VNR is a great tool when used correctly, IMHO. I am always saddened by how low a priority officer training ends up being in so many PD’s.

Jewbacca · December 4, 2014, 3:04pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
However, I don’t believe this case is one of them. [/quote]

Dude… If NYC wasn’t such a fucking nanny state, this dude would have been given a $25 ticket and everyone would be going about their day.

You’re ignoring OP’s point, I assume based on emotion, given your response.

Think about it. [/quote]

If NY wasn’t a nanny state, there would be no special tax on tobacco to begin with and they victim wouldn’t have been doing what he was doing to help people avoid the unfair taxation.

Taxes should be flat, not only in income, but sales taxes should be flat across all items with no “sin” taxes.

Same with imports, exports, whatever.

Of course, you and me would have to earn an honest living, Beans, but that’s life.

cwill1973 · December 4, 2014, 3:08pm

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I find it amusing people complain about being abused and killed by government officials while repeatedly voting for the sort of government officials who would make it illegal for an adult to sell a single cigarette to another adult. [/quote]

The doublethink of Democrats also applies to guns. They hate cops, but also only want cops to have guns.

The liberal/conservative dichotomy is false. It’s a four way split between authoritarian/libertarian and socially conservative/liberal

I am a libertarian social conservative. I’d let you take all the drugs you want and sodomize yourself with wiccan dildos, provided you leave me alone and let me refuse to hire your freak self at my place of business (and vice versa).[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. Bad governance comes from both sides of the political aisle. The GOP is as guilty of creating big government as the DNC is. I recently voted against the incumbent Republican governor of my state after he and the state legislature tried to unconstitutionally remove/marginalize an elected official as well as one of the incumbent U.S. Senators because he has been in office too long and I don’t believe politics should be a career. I no longer believe either party has any interests other than acquiring and keeping power by any means necessary.

countingbeans · December 4, 2014, 3:09pm

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Of course, you and me would have to earn an honest living, Beans, but that’s life.
[/quote]

lmao. Yes.

Also, I agree with the rest of your post, but expecting a city that tired ot ban soda to not at the very least write this guy a ticket is fantasy.

anon50325502 · December 4, 2014, 3:10pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
However, I don’t believe this case is one of them. [/quote]

Dude… If NYC wasn’t such a fucking nanny state, this dude would have been given a $25 ticket and everyone would be going about their day.

You’re ignoring OP’s point, I assume based on emotion, given your response.

Think about it. [/quote]

No, I am not ignoring OPs point. As a matter of fact I did not deny OP had a point.

I’m saying OP is using this incident as a springboard for his narrative, which I find deplorable in this case. Like when gun control activist used Newton to push their agenda.

anon50325502 · December 4, 2014, 3:14pm

Let’s be real, this was a wanna be UFC fighter that happened to be a cop applying a choke hold he had no business attempting to apply (not to mention the choke is against “big government” NY Police policy).

The only thing missing from the video was an Ed Hardy T-Shirt.

countingbeans · December 4, 2014, 3:19pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That has nothing to do with big government. To try to link this tragedy to some weird “agenda” is disgusting. [/quote]

Dude, you just don’t get it, really.

Ace pretty much nails it here:

[i]Frankly, I think everyone on the right is looking to prove “We’re not one of those sorts of people who automatically defends anyone who kills a black person.”

And we did that in three Racial Incidents running. I know my first reaction in both Trayvon Martin’s case, and in Michael Brown’s case, was to side with the black victim.

And maybe this is the wrong time to put my foot down, but I’ve been suckered twice, and I won’t be suckered a third time.

Did Eric Garner deserve to die? No. The crime that began all this was selling “Loosies,” single cigarettes out of the pack, in defiance of the state tobacco tax laws and all the other nonsense laws they throw on people about only selling things in their original packaging. Minor shit. Nonsense.

And yet, he defied police orders when they attempted to arrest them. When they tried to cuff him, he defied them again, pulling his arms away. He decided, as a Jury of One, that the law was silly and he would not be being arrested today.

I can’t entirely blame him for feeling that way, but I know that if the police attempt to arrest you for a law which you are in fact breaking, even if you think it’s a minor harassing sort of law, you do not have the right to resist arrest.

What followed is what follows in all resisting-arrest cases: some escalating violence as the police attempt to physically impose their will on the noncompliant suspect.

Some number of such situations will result in the death of the suspect.

I guess I just don’t understand how we say this guy is guilty of manslaughter, given that in almost all cases where a guy’s heart just gives out in a struggle, we could find some error in procedure as a hook to throw the guy in jail for.

This is a tragedy, in my mind. Eric Garner wasn’t much of a criminal threat, and the police did seem too eager to use force.

Nevertheless, we actually pay them to use force when a law-breaking suspect (even one breaking a trivial law) resists arrest. That is the job we’ve given them.

To say this guy is guilty of murder or manslaughter seems to me to be a case of scapegoating the people we’ve tasked with implementing a policy that we have imposed ourselves.

If trivial laws should not provide grounds for arrest, We should change the laws to say so.

If cops should just let a non-compliant but non-felony suspect go if he resists arrest, we should make that officially part of their job description.

We did something similar – wrongly, I think, but we did it-- when we made it police policy to let felony flight cases just drive away, rather than engage in a high-speed chase. (Except when cops suspect a major felony.)

Now, if we’re keeping the laws as they are, and sending out cops to enforce piece-of-shit minor laws and arrest people rather than cite them with a ticket, that’s on us.

And we have to accept that out of every 10,000 or so arrests, there are going to be some deaths. Some deaths will be the kind where we can definitely say the cop was culpable and committed a great crime.

Others, however, will simply be the result of mistakes and misfortunes, and will be due to decisions we have made as a society every bit as they are the fault of the officer executing our policy.

This just doesn’t look like murder to me. Or manslaughter. It’s not like the cops wanted to be there. We were paying them to have this encounter. Having this encounter was the duty we charged them with.

The definition of a scapegoat is an individual made to suffer for decisions made by the group.

I’m tired of all the scapegoating of late.[/i]

SexMachine · December 4, 2014, 3:29pm

Speaking of the “war on drugs” - are you fellas aware of exactly why authorities began to outlaw narcotics at the beginning of the 20th Century? Here’s a clue: at the height of the Opium epidemic in China in the 19th Century 20% of the entire population of China were addicted to opium. It utterly ruined Chinese society. Google some pics of opium dens and look at the emaciated poor creatures lying down stoned out of their minds. Morphine is a highly addictive and ruinous drug. The Chinese in the US, mostly railway labourers and miners, brought their opium addiction with them to the US and set up opium dens in port cities like SF. White Americans began frequenting these opium dens and they became notorious as sordid, crime ravaged dens of vice. Exaggeration abounded of course, but essentially the US had a narcotic problem.

Many soldiers in the Civil War had become addicted to opium/morphine and it was starting to have a deleterious impact on society. Pharmaceutical companies and patent medicine manufacturers had also been marketing opiates to people during the late 19th Century and there was an epidemic of women and housewives in particular who were addicts. This quite serious addiction epidemic was realised at the time and, as many know heroin was marketed as a safe “cure” for the increasingly prevalent morphing addiction.

This is the reason that opiates in particular were cracked down upon in the early 20th Century. Of course, there was a lot of sensationalism and inaccurate reporting but the fact remains that readily available opiates had an immensely harmful impact upon the civil society. For anyone who doubts how addictive and harmful opiates are I suggest you read Thomas DeQuincey’s Confessions of an English Opium Eater. It’s not simply a matter of will to overcome a serious opiate addiction. The addict becomes desperately physically ill from abstinence. For those with a longterm habit their lives become literally unbearable without it. That’s why so many addicts today remain on methadone longterm. Methadone is essentially the same as morphine except for the fact that it lasts much longer and the addict doesn’t get the euphoria associated with shorter acting opiates like morphine.

So my points here:

Narcotics were cracked down upon largely in response to an epidemic of addiction - a pre-existing epidemic made possible by freely available and relatively cheap opiates.
This addiction epidemic had the potential to become literally ruinous to the civil society. Keep in mind what happened in China. 20% of the country addicted. In port cities where the British East India ships brought in opium, literally half the male population were addicts; the streets were littered with them. In desperation many turned to crime to support their habit. Just about the only good thing the Communists ever did was to rid the country of the scourge that still remained after the Opium Wars.

So given the potential for ruinous harm on a mass scale that narcotics, particularly opiates represent, if one is to be intellectually honest about it and put aside their radical libertarian ideology for a moment they will see that [b]there needs to be some government regulation and control of some drugs - certainly opiates for starters. Seriously, can you imagine if this stuff was so freely available that kids started getting it at a young age. Imagine what would happen to inner city black communities in particular if a wave of heroin addiction spread through the country. We all know what this shit does to people and if we’re being honest we know how deleterious to society it would be were it to be freely available. It’s nonsense that the number of users would remain the same. If heroin was sold over the counter there’d be literally millions of new addicts within months.

anon50325502 · December 4, 2014, 3:31pm

Lol…

I do get it.

Garner was breaking a stupid law and resisted arrest. He is yet another dumb ass that resisted arrest. There are dumb laws. There have always been dumb laws. I still can’t ride a horse down main street at mid day in my home town.

My point, again, is that this incident, where a man was killed over basically nothing, has little to do with “big government” and more to do with an overzealous asshole. It’s another isolated incident in a relatively small organization. Big government to me is NSA spying, Patriot Act, etc… issues. Not a NY cop acting like BJ Penn.

I don’t know who Ace is talking about when he says “we” I didn’t side with Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown. This was not “a mistake or misfortune” this was an overzealous cop using an illegal move to detain a suspect.

SexMachine · December 4, 2014, 3:42pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
However, I don’t believe this case is one of them. [/quote]

Dude… If NYC wasn’t such a fucking nanny state, this dude would have been given a $25 ticket and everyone would be going about their day.

You’re ignoring OP’s point, I assume based on emotion, given your response.

Think about it. [/quote]

No, I am not ignoring OPs point. As a matter of fact I did not deny OP had a point.

I’m saying OP is using this incident as a springboard for his narrative, which I find deplorable in this case. Like when gun control activist used Newton to push their agenda. [/quote]

I agree somewhat with your sentiments. NickViar has a fixation with his anti-statist ideology. Not putting him down by the way. Just pointing out that what you mention is the norm with Nick. Everything comes down to statists versus the individual. I’ve seen much worse though. There’s a subculture within the libertarian movement that is very “cultish” and off the wall ideologically.

I’m not talking about Nick here by the way. But there have been other posters here, I’ll leave them unnamed, who take their libertarianism to pathological and absolutist levels. A lot of the Ron Paul crowd and the Molyneux Youth are in the category of “cult members” - quite literally, with Molyneux using classic cult mind control methods like separating them from their families and so on.

countingbeans · December 4, 2014, 3:43pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol…

I do get it.

Garner was breaking a stupid law and resisted arrest. He is yet another dumb ass that resisted arrest. There are dumb laws. There have always been dumb laws. I still can’t ride a horse down main street at mid day in my home town.

My point, again, is that this incident, where a man was killed over basically nothing, has little to do with “big government” and more to do with an overzealous asshole. It’s another isolated incident in a relatively small organization. Big government to me is NSA spying, Patriot Act, etc… issues. Not a NY cop acting like BJ Penn.

I don’t know who Ace is talking about when he says “we” I didn’t side with Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown. This was not “a mistake or misfortune” this was an overzealous cop using an illegal move to detain a suspect.

[/quote]

You know what, you’re right. We should have just let Rosa Parks get arrested and forgotten about it. I mean, it was just a cop doing his job. She could have gotten where she was going without sitting in the front.

Shit… No need to take a step back and look at the LAWS the brought about this confrontation. Two adults shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a transaction with big government involved, oops I mean little government because only violating the 4th is big government…

anon50325502 · December 4, 2014, 4:09pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol…

I do get it.

Garner was breaking a stupid law and resisted arrest. He is yet another dumb ass that resisted arrest. There are dumb laws. There have always been dumb laws. I still can’t ride a horse down main street at mid day in my home town.

My point, again, is that this incident, where a man was killed over basically nothing, has little to do with “big government” and more to do with an overzealous asshole. It’s another isolated incident in a relatively small organization. Big government to me is NSA spying, Patriot Act, etc… issues. Not a NY cop acting like BJ Penn.

I don’t know who Ace is talking about when he says “we” I didn’t side with Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown. This was not “a mistake or misfortune” this was an overzealous cop using an illegal move to detain a suspect.

[/quote]

You know what, you’re right. We should have just let Rosa Parks get arrested and forgotten about it. I mean, it was just a cop doing his job. She could have gotten where she was going without sitting in the front.

Shit… No need to take a step back and look at the LAWS the brought about this confrontation. Two adults shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a transaction with big government involved, oops I mean little government because only violating the 4th is big government… [/quote]

Oh my God Beans…

I DID NOT SAY we shouldn’t step back and look at the laws.

I said the OP is using this incident, just like dems used Newton, to push their agenda.

That’s all I said.

I guess that’s okay though since you agree with his stance?

NY Police officers are trained to take suspects down with both lethal and non-lethal force. Do you know what they aren’t trained to do? Choke a suspect from behind. It’s against “little BIG government’s” policy…

Again, this has nothing to do with big government. It has to do with acceptable actions of a particular person in an organization that has existed for almost as long as the state her self. It isn’t like the NYPD was created by Home Land Security or the Patriot Act. These are the same “big government” men that helped pull bodies out of the rubble on 9/11.

Lol at Rosa Parks, whose actions help bring about bigger government through he civil rights act.

clinton131 · December 4, 2014, 4:20pm

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:
I think most people don’t quite get how brutal a chokehold is. People think of blood chokes and falling asleep and shit.

Not true in the least. Yes, there are blood chokes, and you can certainly apply them well in high stress situations if you’re skilled with said blood chokes.

But there’s a lot simpler choke. You just crush the larynx. It’s amazingly effective and incredibly easy to do, especially if you have someone in a chokehold.

I don’t think cops should be directed to use chokes. They’re not particularly effective in restraining people and the damage you can do is immense.

Like we see here.[/quote]

Neck restraints can be very effective in controlling aggressive behavior. The problem with them is that they require a lot of training and repetition in order to apply them properly. Unfortunately the majority of departments do not spend the time and repetition in training in order to assure that their personnel are proficient in how they are applied.

What you refer to as a “blood choke” is known as a vascular neck restraint. The principal behind this is to establish venous compression which results in congestion of the blood flow in the head and neck. Unconsciousness can occur in as little as five seconds. This is not a complete restriction of blood flow therefore life sustaining blood is still supplied to the brain, just not enough for consciousness. A vascular neck restraint is relatively safe for the subject, as long as it is applied correctly. We would consider this to be a “non-lethal” form of physical control.

When this technique is taught we would instruct the officer to trap one arm or shoulder of the suspect above their (suspect’s) head before they compress the SIDE of the suspect’s neck with their (officer’s) forearm. The other side of the suspect’s neck is compressed by the suspect’s own shoulder (the arm “trapped” above the suspects head). Where this can go very wrong is when the officer fails to trap the arm and the officer’s forearm shifts from the side of the suspect’s neck to the front of the neck (over the top of the trachea). What started out as a vascular neck restraint (non-lethal) just turned into a respiratory neck restraint(deadly force)during the officer’s struggle with the suspect.

Like you said, if you crush the Larynx or trachea, this is most likely a fatal injury. The upper section of the trachea, around the larynx, is easily damaged, similar to that of a Ping-Pong ball. Once it is crushed it is not going to flex back once the force or pressure is relieved.

I have been a use of force instructor for over 15 years now. My department does not permit neck restraints to be used for controlling aggressive behavior for the reasons I listed above. We simply don’t have the time available to train our officers to the point that we are confident that they will apply the neck restraint properly. An exception to this would be as a last resort or when deadly force is justified. [/quote]

This is unfortunate. LNR/VNR is a great tool when used correctly, IMHO. I am always saddened by how low a priority officer training ends up being in so many PD’s.[/quote]

Agreed. Unfortunately there are a lot of areas to train in and Use of Force is only one of those areas. It really boils down to a risk vs. benefit analysis. If we can’t commit to the time to properly train in a specific area then policy will dictate if the technique is permitted as a “tool” for non-lethal subject control. Sure VNR can be a great benefit when used as a tool for subject control by properly trained officers. But Lets face it, if this “tool” is improperly used as a means of non-lethal control and somebody ends up dead as a result, things are not going to go well. Headline news on CNN is not where a department usually wants to be.

This officer(s) may have avoided a bullet as to getting charged criminally, but rest assured, Civil suits against the officer(s) and the department will be forthcoming. If I were a gambling man I would bet my house that failure to train will be part of this wrongful death suit. NYPD will payout. What that number will be is obviously unknown, but I am confident it will be huge.

angry_chicken · December 4, 2014, 4:37pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
A piece of shit cop murdered a man. That has nothing to do with big government. To try to link this tragedy to some weird “agenda” is disgusting. [/quote]

I fall in line with you on many issues, but not this one. This has EVERYTHING to do with big government.

If the nanny state wasn’t taxing cigarettes to where they are TEN DOLLARS a pack (they are about FOUR dollars a pack in VA), then the man wouldn’t have been selling them “illegally” in the first place. The store owners would not have complained. If the LAW worried more about preventing CRIME than enforcing lost revenue (giving them an excuse to harass this non violent citizen), then this man would be alive.

Government tries to control everything, but people want to be free. He wasn’t hurting anyone. He was selling a plant product wrapped within a plant product for a cheaper price and smaller quantity than other people… I guess that took FIVE FUCKING COPS to put a stop to that heinous crime…

Do you think that if the resources were allocated a little better (as in not harassing people for stupid shit like selling cigarettes), than perhaps they wouldn’t NEED the police to enforce that lost revenue?

NickViar · December 4, 2014, 4:51pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh my God Beans…

I DID NOT SAY we shouldn’t step back and look at the laws.

I said the OP is using this incident, just like dems used Newton, to push their agenda.

That’s all I said.

I guess that’s okay though since you agree with his stance?

NY Police officers are trained to take suspects down with both lethal and non-lethal force. Do you know what they aren’t trained to do? Choke a suspect from behind. It’s against “little BIG government’s” policy…

Again, this has nothing to do with big government. It has to do with acceptable actions of a particular person in an organization that has existed for almost as long as the state her self. It isn’t like the NYPD was created by Home Land Security or the Patriot Act. These are the same “big government” men that helped pull bodies out of the rubble on 9/11.

Lol at Rosa Parks, whose actions help bring about bigger government through he civil rights act. [/quote]

When this thing went in front of the grand jury and was declared not a crime, that brought in more than the police officer. Either the police officer was in the right and this whole debate is silly, OR the police officer was in the wrong and this involves more than that police officer.

Also, excellent point regarding the Rosa Parks incident.

anon50325502 · December 4, 2014, 4:56pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
A piece of shit cop murdered a man. That has nothing to do with big government. To try to link this tragedy to some weird “agenda” is disgusting. [/quote]

I fall in line with you on many issues, but not this one. This has EVERYTHING to do with big government.

If the nanny state wasn’t taxing cigarettes to where they are TEN DOLLARS a pack (they are about FOUR dollars a pack in VA), then the man wouldn’t have been selling them “illegally” in the first place. The store owners would not have complained. If the LAW worried more about preventing CRIME than enforcing lost revenue (giving them an excuse to harass this non violent citizen), then this man would be alive.

Government tries to control everything, but people want to be free. He wasn’t hurting anyone. He was selling a plant product wrapped within a plant product for a cheaper price and smaller quantity than other people… I guess that took FIVE FUCKING COPS to put a stop to that heinous crime…

Do you think that if the resources were allocated a little better (as in not harassing people for stupid shit like selling cigarettes), than perhaps they wouldn’t NEED the police to enforce that lost revenue?[/quote]

I guess I just don’t agree that a state taxation issue or the actions of one state official = big government. As the OP points out NY citizens elected these folks and they signed these laws. Virginia didn’t. Maryland didn’t. Texas didn’t. So on and so forth.

All I know is:
1.) We have video evidence of multiple officers taking a man down, which in and of it self is fine. However, we have proof that one officer in particular violated NYPD policy when applying am unauthorized choke hold.

2.) The coroner concluded this was a homicide cause largely in part to said choke hold.

To answer you questions yes I do. I don’t think the Police should be in the business of revenue generation, period.

anon50325502 · December 4, 2014, 4:55pm

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Oh my God Beans…

I DID NOT SAY we shouldn’t step back and look at the laws.

I said the OP is using this incident, just like dems used Newton, to push their agenda.

That’s all I said.

I guess that’s okay though since you agree with his stance?

NY Police officers are trained to take suspects down with both lethal and non-lethal force. Do you know what they aren’t trained to do? Choke a suspect from behind. It’s against “little BIG government’s” policy…

Again, this has nothing to do with big government. It has to do with acceptable actions of a particular person in an organization that has existed for almost as long as the state her self. It isn’t like the NYPD was created by Home Land Security or the Patriot Act. These are the same “big government” men that helped pull bodies out of the rubble on 9/11.

Lol at Rosa Parks, whose actions help bring about bigger government through he civil rights act. [/quote]

When this thing went in front of the grand jury and was declared not a crime, that brought in more than the police officer. Either the police officer was in the right and this whole debate is silly, OR the police officer was in the wrong and this involves more than that police officer.

Also, excellent point regarding the Rosa Parks incident.[/quote]

Point taken, especially now that the DOJ is involved.

cwill1973 · December 4, 2014, 5:03pm