Choke Hold Death in NYC and the Nanny State

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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.

[/quote]

No, there is a third option.

The police officer was doing the job we as society ask him to do, which is enforce the law. The now dead man resisted, and the officer did what he was supposed to do. So he was right to try and detain the individual. HOWEVER the greater circumstances (government regulation) that put the police officer in a position to have even been standing there that day are the greater issue here.

In essence, the cop was right, but there is still, and more important lessons to be learned, than what hold was used. [/quote]

The cop wasn’t right, not only because he used a prohibited move – prohibited, by the way, for what should be a very obvious reason now – but also because I don’t care if what you’re doing is 100 percent A-OK police procedure, if you have a man subdued and in the least threatening position in which he can possibly be, and he tells you again and again, with increasing stupor and urgency and effort and hopelessness, that he cannot breathe, and you carry on as if he were saying nothing, and he slowly dies in your grip, then you have committed involuntary manslaughter at least, and you should spend a few Christmases behind bars, worrying about the integrity of your asshole.

I get what you’re saying re: taxes, and that by the law’s lights the cops were there and hassling Garner legitimately. But that legitimacy does not extend to the things that are actually tragic and truly infuriating about this. This is the story of a murder that began as a story about lucies, not a story about lucies.

42

I would also like to reiterate that part of the Officer’s job is to know when to give someone a break. Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. Everyone has a limit. If an Officer detains a citizen over something relatively minor, and he SEES the steam coming out of the guy’s ears, one would think that the course of action would be to give the citizen a pass or a warning. Instead of escalating, I feel they also have a duty to DE-escalate.

Everyone has had a bad day that could lead to a case of “the fuck-its”. If an officer has the choice, I feel that society would be better served if that citizen got a pass.

43

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I would also like to reiterate that part of the Officer’s job is to know when to give someone a break. Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. Everyone has a limit. If an Officer detains a citizen over something relatively minor, and he SEES the steam coming out of the guy’s ears, one would think that the course of action would be to give the citizen a pass or a warning. Instead of escalating, I feel they also have a duty to DE-escalate.

Everyone has had a bad day that could lead to a case of “the fuck-its”. If an officer has the choice, I feel that society would be better served if that citizen got a pass.[/quote]

Great point.

Many people – particularly people who don’t spend time in “bad” areas, or who don’t live in cities – don’t understand how much “give and take” there is between cops and citizens. Go to Bed Stuy/Brownsville – somebody is arguing with the cops (not fighting: arguing, trying to catch a break) at all times. And the cops are responsive.

44

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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.

[/quote]

No, there is a third option.

The police officer was doing the job we as society ask him to do, which is enforce the law. The now dead man resisted, and the officer did what he was supposed to do. So he was right to try and detain the individual. HOWEVER the greater circumstances (government regulation) that put the police officer in a position to have even been standing there that day are the greater issue here.

In essence, the cop was right, but there is still, and more important lessons to be learned, than what hold was used. [/quote]

The cop wasn’t right, not only because he used a prohibited move – prohibited, by the way, for what should be a very obvious reason now – but also because I don’t care if what you’re doing is 100 percent A-OK police procedure, if you have a man subdued and in the least threatening position in which he can possibly be, and he tells you again and again, with increasing stupor and urgency and effort and hopelessness, that he cannot breathe, and you carry on as if he were saying nothing, and he slowly dies in your grip, then you have committed involuntary manslaughter at least, and you should spend a few Christmases behind bars, worrying about the integrity of your asshole.

I get what you’re saying re: taxes, and that by the law’s lights the cops were there and hassling Garner legitimately. But that legitimacy does not extend to the things that are actually tragic and truly infuriating about this. This is the story of a murder that began as a story about lucies, not a story about lucies.[/quote]

Been killing it in this thread and the last couple I’ve been reading from you. I like it.

Also I’d like to point out that whereas the Brown case was a one-on-one, no back-up case, this is one where there is PLENTY of reinforcement and no justification for using this hold.

45

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I would also like to reiterate that part of the Officer’s job is to know when to give someone a break. Everyone has a bad day every once in a while. Everyone has a limit. If an Officer detains a citizen over something relatively minor, and he SEES the steam coming out of the guy’s ears, one would think that the course of action would be to give the citizen a pass or a warning. Instead of escalating, I feel they also have a duty to DE-escalate.

Everyone has had a bad day that could lead to a case of “the fuck-its”. If an officer has the choice, I feel that society would be better served if that citizen got a pass.[/quote]

Damn good posts in this thread here AC and particularly this one. Understandably a cop paid to enforce laws cannot always “give a break”. But that doesn’t mean he escalates things either. They absolutely have a duty to de-escalate if possible and I absolutely believe that cops are, by and large, very very poor at de-escalation. That needs to be fixed, because that by itself could keep some incidents from occurring as well as improve relations.

46

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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.

[/quote]

No, there is a third option.

The police officer was doing the job we as society ask him to do, which is enforce the law. The now dead man resisted, and the officer did what he was supposed to do. So he was right to try and detain the individual. HOWEVER the greater circumstances (government regulation) that put the police officer in a position to have even been standing there that day are the greater issue here.

In essence, the cop was right, but there is still, and more important lessons to be learned, than what hold was used. [/quote]

They were quick to put a choke hold on him.

Why not ask? “Do you want another charge of resisting arrest?” before you escalate. He was animated, he was moving his hands around, he looked scared to me. It seemed the escalation of the cops was pretty abrupt, that choke hold was done because the cop snuck behind him. So, I don’t think that was a good way to go about that… Especially given some people are armed and might react violently to someone coming up from behind and attempting to choke them like that.

47

The real question here is what were the charges the officer was indicted for? That hasn’t been released. Commissioner Kelly is trying to get that, along with all requisite documents, released to the public.

If the charges were 2nd degree homicide for instance, intent on the officers part would have been very difficult to approve.

48

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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.

[/quote]

No, there is a third option.

The police officer was doing the job we as society ask him to do, which is enforce the law. The now dead man resisted, and the officer did what he was supposed to do. So he was right to try and detain the individual. HOWEVER the greater circumstances (government regulation) that put the police officer in a position to have even been standing there that day are the greater issue here.

In essence, the cop was right, but there is still, and more important lessons to be learned, than what hold was used. [/quote]

The cop wasn’t right, not only because he used a prohibited move – prohibited, by the way, for what should be a very obvious reason now – but also because I don’t care if what you’re doing is 100 percent A-OK police procedure, if you have a man subdued and in the least threatening position in which he can possibly be, and he tells you again and again, with increasing stupor and urgency and effort and hopelessness, that he cannot breathe, and you carry on as if he were saying nothing, and he slowly dies in your grip, then you have committed involuntary manslaughter at least, and you should spend a few Christmases behind bars, worrying about the integrity of your asshole.

I get what you’re saying re: taxes, and that by the law’s lights the cops were there and hassling Garner legitimately. But that legitimacy does not extend to the things that are actually tragic and truly infuriating about this. This is the story of a murder that began as a story about lucies, not a story about lucies.[/quote]

Been killing it in this thread and the last couple I’ve been reading from you. I like it.

Also I’d like to point out that whereas the Brown case was a one-on-one, no back-up case, this is one where there is PLENTY of reinforcement and no justification for using this hold.[/quote]

Thank you sir. I consider praise from you to be high, high praise indeed. It’s good to be back in PWI a little bit. I have had so little time in the last 3 or 4 months, but I am trying to make it a point to come back on and hash out stuff when something big happens in the news. My positions end up immeasurably better.

49

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The real question here is what were the charges the officer was indicted for? That hasn’t been released. Commissioner Kelly is trying to get that, along with all requisite documents, released to the public.

If the charges were 2nd degree homicide for instance, intent on the officers part would have been very difficult to approve. [/quote]

Here is where my ignorance of court procedure shines through: Can’t a GJ choose to indict on either Murder 3 or Murder 2, either by simply making that choice, or because a prosecutor gives them the option, or something? I could be very wrong.

50

Here is more food for thought:

When these legislators pass these laws, do they anticipate the fallout when these laws have to be enforced? And do they realize which communities are affected disproportionally by these laws? I.E. Making selling “lossies” a criminal offense?

Poor and minority communities. I think it’d far to say this does not happen the the Upper West Side.

Thoughts?

51

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Thank you sir. I consider praise from you to be high, high praise indeed. It’s good to be back in PWI a little bit. I have had so little time in the last 3 or 4 months, but I am trying to make it a point to come back on and hash out stuff when something big happens in the news. My positions end up immeasurably better.[/quote]

Glad to have you back. I might not always agree but you always make me think and sharpen up. That’s rare. Definitely know the feeling of not having time, I’ve been working like a dog for months now averaging 14 hour days. My only saving grace is that a large portion of my job is in a laboratory with a computer nearby from which I can surf the interwebz :stuck_out_tongue:

52

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Here is more food for thought:

When these legislators pass these laws, do they anticipate the fallout when these laws have to be enforced? And do they realize which communities are affected disproportionally by these laws? I.E. Making selling “lossies” a criminal offense?

Poor and minority communities. I think it’d far to say this does not happen the the Upper West Side.

Thoughts?[/quote]

My thoughts are you’re starting to pick up what I was putting down and AC too.

53

This kinda shoots a hole in my agreement with the “all cops should wear cameras” idea. Apparently it doesn’t fucking matter. I think change has to come from within the police force. I have to imagine there are good cops out there who are equally disgusted with what Officer Pantaleo did. There are massively too many cops out there who were just the high school bullies who couldn’t hack it in the real world and decided instead to become professional bullies with infinite get out of jail free cards (aka policemen).

There must be a balance by which we can weed those people out without unfairly handicapping our good police officers and making them scared to do their job or unsafe in certain situations. As it stands there are simply far too many people unjustly harmed by police.

54

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The real question here is what were the charges the officer was indicted for? That hasn’t been released. Commissioner Kelly is trying to get that, along with all requisite documents, released to the public.

If the charges were 2nd degree homicide for instance, intent on the officers part would have been very difficult to approve. [/quote]

Here is where my ignorance of court procedure shines through: Can’t a GJ choose to indict on either Murder 3 or Murder 2, either by simply making that choice, or because a prosecutor gives them the option, or something? I could be very wrong.[/quote]

No sir. The GJ can only consider what the person is charged with. And the charges are brought by the State/ District Attorney. In many cases, the DA will bring a variety of charges, and the GJ and bring a True Bill or No True Bill on one, some, all or none of the crimes. And herein lies the allegation of “prosecutor bias”. That’s why in many times a Special Prosecutor will be brought on that does not have any ties to the police/community and possible offer a more objective presentation of the charges.

55

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Here is more food for thought:

When these legislators pass these laws, do they anticipate the fallout when these laws have to be enforced? And do they realize which communities are affected disproportionally by these laws? I.E. Making selling “lossies” a criminal offense?

Poor and minority communities. I think it’d far to say this does not happen the the Upper West Side.

Thoughts?[/quote]

My thoughts are you’re starting to pick up what I was putting down and AC too. [/quote]

I am.

I also jumped right in this thread without reading everybody’s thoughts. But I do agree with you two.

*EDITED

56

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
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.

[/quote]

No, there is a third option.

The police officer was doing the job we as society ask him to do, which is enforce the law. The now dead man resisted, and the officer did what he was supposed to do. So he was right to try and detain the individual. HOWEVER the greater circumstances (government regulation) that put the police officer in a position to have even been standing there that day are the greater issue here.

In essence, the cop was right, but there is still, and more important lessons to be learned, than what hold was used. [/quote]

The cop wasn’t right, [/quote]

Fine.

My intention here, with that post, isn’t to make a call as to the cop being right or not, but to point to the larger issue of “the laws on the books that created this confrontation need to be looked at, irrelevant of the right or wrong actions of the people involved.”

I guess I’m saying there can and should be some serious soul searching from this case, and it isn’t about skin color or whether or not a choke hold is an okay move.

Had the man just raped a woman in the back ally, we’re having a different conversation today. Which gets back to the discretion comments.

57

[quote]batman730 wrote:
[/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]

The three biggest problems with the LVNR being categorized as a “less than lethal” or “non-lethal” use of force: (1) it requires lots of training to use safely and effectively; (2) regardless of training, the (unknown and individual) health condition of the individual can make it lethal regardless of training and whether it is used properly; and (3) many officers are unwilling to do proper CPR/bring the perp back to life techniques when things go wrong or too far. That is why it is banned as a “non-lethal/less than lethal” use of force by a majority of departments. The statistics just don’t bare out that in the real world that it is a safe and effective form of non-lethal or less-than lethal force.

58

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Seriously? You don’t believe a state imposed tax of $4.35 per pack of cigarettes and an additional tax of $1.60 per pack by NYC does not equate big government? This is per pack not carton. I’d hate to think what you do consider big government.
[/quote]

I already explain what I feel big government is and no a single state taxing an item as they see fit is not “big government.” imo.

Jezz I thought small federal government guys liked when states made these decisions at the state level

59

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Here is more food for thought:

When these legislators pass these laws, do they anticipate the fallout when these laws have to be enforced? And do they realize which communities are affected disproportionally by these laws? I.E. Making selling “lossies” a criminal offense?

Poor and minority communities. I think it’d far to say this does not happen the the Upper West Side.

Thoughts?[/quote]

My thoughts are you’re starting to pick up what I was putting down and AC too. [/quote]

I am.
[/quote]

I mean, I get being a cop is a hard job, I get it. (No one forces anyone to do it, but whatever.)

I get you have split seconds to make life or death choices, and I get that “training” isn’t always as good as we’d like to think it is.

But there comes a point, and I think this case is one of them, were we are tasking the police with too much. Too much power, to much room, and too fine a line as to what is “arrest-able behavior” or not.

I made this comment in another place but: not too many times do you read about people getting shot or choked out over complaining about a speeding ticket. Because a ticket isn’t a big deal.

Once you start pulling people out of cars, patting, searching, testing, cops get attacked, people resist, etc… That gets into “wow I’m about to get busted, this is a big deal” territory.

Maybe shit like selling a loosie (how we spell it damn it smh) should be getting a speeding ticket and not treated like a drug bust…

60

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The police officer was doing the job we as society ask him to do, which is enforce the law. The now dead man resisted, and the officer did what he was supposed to do. [/quote]

The underlined portion is the crux of the issue. No the officer did not do what he was supposed to do. He applied a choke hold that is against NYPD policy that resulted in a death.