Choke Hold Death in NYC and the Nanny State

[clinton131]

[quote]

Edit: Also, the hold doesn’t cut off air, it cuts off blood to the brain and de-oxygenates the blood that way, so breathing and talking is actually completely consistent with saying “I can’t breathe” because that is what it feels like, unlike, for example, they way a person would drown, who can’t talk with a mouth and set of lungs full of water. [/quote]

Your close.

Vascular neck restraints do not restrict breathing if they are applied correctly. Like I said in my earlier post, when a VNR is properly applied it restricts blood flow causing the subject to go unconscious in as little as 5 seconds. There is still enough blood flow to maintain life sustaining blood flow to the brain. Once the compression is relieved they can be out for up to 30 seconds before they regain full consciousness. complaints of not being able to breathe or the sensation of “having lungs full of water” WERE NOT CONSISTENT with what a properly applied VNS felt like to me or any of the other instructors that I went to instructor school with. How do I know this? Because as a Use of Force instructors we had to show proficiency in this technique by demonstrating it on each other numerous times before we were certified to instruct our students. I have been “choked out” with a VNS several times over the years and have never felt like my ability to breath was disrupted. When I came back to I felt a little dizzy and confused, but other than that I was completely fine.

Complaints of not being able to breath and the sensation of being crushed are consistent with what one would experience if they were “choked out” with a respiratory neck restraint. The NYPD officer very well could have partially crushed the subject’s airway making it very difficult for the subject to breath, by applying what he thought was a VNR (non-lethal)which was in reality a RNR (deadly force). A lack of knowledge or training is very probable with this officer. Either way, the officer violated NYPD’s Use of Force policy, which I have to believe he knew or should have known that he was violating it.

Like you said, preexisting conditions such as drugs or alcohol on board, medical conditions, obesity, and positional asphyxiation may have very well contributed and played a role in this death along with the partially crushed airway. Protecting a subject from positional asphyxiation is very standard procedure. I did not see this in the video. I find it hard to believe that any officer nowadays is not familiar with what this concept and how to safeguard their suspects against it. This concept became mainstream in the 90s with the pepper spray deaths and reinforced with officers when people were dying after being exposed to Tasers during the 2000’s.

I want to emphasis that even though my department’s use of force instructors are certified to instruct on neck restraints we do not permit our officers to utilize them for levels of resistance that don’t constitute a deadly threat.
They are a great tool for gaining compliance / control, however the benefit of using them does not out weigh the risk. Again this is a skill that needs to trained often and with repetition in order to be proficient with them. Bad things happen when inexperience officers attempt to employ techniques that they are not familiar with or “saw on TV”. Training or lack thereof IS the major reason why most departments lump all neck restraints into the “deadly force” category.

[jjackkrash]

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

Edit: Also, the hold doesn’t cut off air, it cuts off blood to the brain and de-oxygenates the blood that way, so breathing and talking is actually completely consistent with saying “I can’t breathe” because that is what it feels like, unlike, for example, they way a person would drown, who can’t talk with a mouth and set of lungs full of water. [/quote]

Your close.

Vascular neck restraints do not restrict breathing if they are applied correctly. Like I said in my earlier post, when a VNR is properly applied it restricts blood flow causing the subject to go unconscious in as little as 5 seconds. There is still enough blood flow to maintain life sustaining blood flow to the brain. Once the compression is relieved they can be out for up to 30 seconds before they regain full consciousness. complaints of not being able to breathe or the sensation of “having lungs full of water” WERE NOT CONSISTENT with what a properly applied VNS felt like to me or any of the other instructors that I went to instructor school with. How do I know this? Because as a Use of Force instructors we had to show proficiency in this technique by demonstrating it on each other numerous times before we were certified to instruct our students. I have been “choked out” with a VNS several times over the years and have never felt like my ability to breath was disrupted. When I came back to I felt a little dizzy and confused, but other than that I was completely fine.

Complaints of not being able to breath and the sensation of being crushed are consistent with what one would experience if they were “choked out” with a respiratory neck restraint. The NYPD officer very well could have partially crushed the subject’s airway making it very difficult for the subject to breath, by applying what he thought was a VNR (non-lethal)which was in reality a RNR (deadly force). A lack of knowledge or training is very probable with this officer. Either way, the officer violated NYPD’s Use of Force policy, which I have to believe he knew or should have known that he was violating it.

Like you said, preexisting conditions such as drugs or alcohol on board, medical conditions, obesity, and positional asphyxiation may have very well contributed and played a role in this death along with the partially crushed airway. Protecting a subject from positional asphyxiation is very standard procedure. I did not see this in the video. I find it hard to believe that any officer nowadays is not familiar with what this concept and how to safeguard their suspects against it. This concept became mainstream in the 90s with the pepper spray deaths and reinforced with officers when people were dying after being exposed to Tasers during the 2000’s.

I want to emphasis that even though my department’s use of force instructors are certified to instruct on neck restraints we do not permit our officers to utilize them for levels of resistance that don’t constitute a deadly threat.
They are a great tool for gaining compliance / control, however the benefit of using them does not out weigh the risk. Again this is a skill that needs to trained often and with repetition in order to be proficient with them. Bad things happen when inexperience officers attempt to employ techniques that they are not familiar with or “saw on TV”. Training or lack thereof IS the major reason why most departments lump all neck restraints into the “deadly force” category.

I agree with pretty much all of this post.

[anon50325502]

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

Edit: Also, the hold doesn’t cut off air, it cuts off blood to the brain and de-oxygenates the blood that way, so breathing and talking is actually completely consistent with saying “I can’t breathe” because that is what it feels like, unlike, for example, they way a person would drown, who can’t talk with a mouth and set of lungs full of water. [/quote]

Your close.

Vascular neck restraints do not restrict breathing if they are applied correctly. Like I said in my earlier post, when a VNR is properly applied it restricts blood flow causing the subject to go unconscious in as little as 5 seconds. There is still enough blood flow to maintain life sustaining blood flow to the brain. Once the compression is relieved they can be out for up to 30 seconds before they regain full consciousness. complaints of not being able to breathe or the sensation of “having lungs full of water” WERE NOT CONSISTENT with what a properly applied VNS felt like to me or any of the other instructors that I went to instructor school with. How do I know this? Because as a Use of Force instructors we had to show proficiency in this technique by demonstrating it on each other numerous times before we were certified to instruct our students. I have been “choked out” with a VNS several times over the years and have never felt like my ability to breath was disrupted. When I came back to I felt a little dizzy and confused, but other than that I was completely fine.

Complaints of not being able to breath and the sensation of being crushed are consistent with what one would experience if they were “choked out” with a respiratory neck restraint. The NYPD officer very well could have partially crushed the subject’s airway making it very difficult for the subject to breath, by applying what he thought was a VNR (non-lethal)which was in reality a RNR (deadly force). A lack of knowledge or training is very probable with this officer. Either way, the officer violated NYPD’s Use of Force policy, which I have to believe he knew or should have known that he was violating it.

Like you said, preexisting conditions such as drugs or alcohol on board, medical conditions, obesity, and positional asphyxiation may have very well contributed and played a role in this death along with the partially crushed airway. Protecting a subject from positional asphyxiation is very standard procedure. I did not see this in the video. I find it hard to believe that any officer nowadays is not familiar with what this concept and how to safeguard their suspects against it. This concept became mainstream in the 90s with the pepper spray deaths and reinforced with officers when people were dying after being exposed to Tasers during the 2000’s.

I want to emphasis that even though my department’s use of force instructors are certified to instruct on neck restraints we do not permit our officers to utilize them for levels of resistance that don’t constitute a deadly threat.
They are a great tool for gaining compliance / control, however the benefit of using them does not out weigh the risk. Again this is a skill that needs to trained often and with repetition in order to be proficient with them. Bad things happen when inexperience officers attempt to employ techniques that they are not familiar with or “saw on TV”. Training or lack thereof IS the major reason why most departments lump all neck restraints into the “deadly force” category.

I agree with pretty much all of this post.

[/quote]

Me too. Good post.

[SexMachine]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This is ludicrously nonspecific and shoddy.

[/quote]

Oh?

There were, what, five people holding him down?

That’s standard practice whenever a group of cops take down a suspect. If there’s two cops they both do it. If there’s three they all do it. When you get to about five or six there’s no room left to hold on to the suspect however they always apprehend a suspect with as many officers as possible.

One guy getting go of his neck and head is not five guys letting go all together.

The officer who had him in the chokehold was the primary restrainer - his method of restraint was what was restraining the guy. I’m not saying a chokehold was appropriate. However, that’s what this cop choose to do and he was the one actually doing the restraint. The others just piled on top - as cops always do - to prevent the guy thrashing around.

Don’t pretend that this was kill or be killed…it wasn’t.

I didn’t suggest it was “kill or be killed.” It was a fucking huge guy - I’m guessing somewhere in the 330 lbs+ range at least - refusing to be cuffed, telling the cops not to touch him etc. What then followed was clearly an attempt to bring him down, cuff him and hold him down. This guy looked like he needed a lot of strong men holding him down. In a chokehold? Probably not. But let’s not pretend that it would’ve been sensible to allow this resisting giant freedom of movement. Obviously, numerous men holding him down is what was required - indeed, it was required because this giant resisted arrest.

Even the most cautious and fearful and nuerotic cowards I know would admit as much. This is especially so in light of Garner’s being utterly subdued and in their control,

We can’t know how “utterly subdued” he was because we couldn’t feel how much force he was leveraging against the cops who were holding him. Furthermore, it seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that if the cops got off him he would again present a danger. Especially, if one or two cops let go and the others are then vulnerable.

from the very first “I can’t breathe.” Then came ten more, then he died. Pretending that five guys on top a prone, obese man, helpless to the point that he literally could not keep himself from dying, were under such threat (despite the suspect’s being prone and limp and pleading that he couldn’t breathe) that one of them couldn’t pull out of his PROHIBITED hold around the said suspect’s neck…is just that: pretending.

Pretending? I’m giving an honest assessment of the video I saw. I have no dog in this fight; no reason to support one side or the other. As I said, it seems to me a chokehold was a bad choice. But it’s also clear that the sensible and safe course of action would’ve been to hold this guy down with as many cops as possible - but without a chokehold of course.

[quote]

You probably disagree. If so, we won’t see eye to eye here, ever. Which is alright, if a little surprising to me in this particular case.[/quote]

You seem to be emotionally invested in the story. Your use of emotive language suggests perhaps some animosity towards police on your part. Or maybe just an emotional response to the gentle giant’s death which is understandable. However, I’m just trying to look at it dispassionately. I’ve not said anything here other than the guy was huge and needed numerous cops to hold him down; I’ve said that I think people are being a bit unreasonable in their expectations of how cops deal with a resisting suspect - particularly one of that size. And I agreed the chokehold was more than likely a bad response.

[TooHuman]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]clinton131 wrote:

Edit: Also, the hold doesn’t cut off air, it cuts off blood to the brain and de-oxygenates the blood that way, so breathing and talking is actually completely consistent with saying “I can’t breathe” because that is what it feels like, unlike, for example, they way a person would drown, who can’t talk with a mouth and set of lungs full of water. [/quote]

Your close.

Vascular neck restraints do not restrict breathing if they are applied correctly. Like I said in my earlier post, when a VNR is properly applied it restricts blood flow causing the subject to go unconscious in as little as 5 seconds. There is still enough blood flow to maintain life sustaining blood flow to the brain. Once the compression is relieved they can be out for up to 30 seconds before they regain full consciousness. complaints of not being able to breathe or the sensation of “having lungs full of water” WERE NOT CONSISTENT with what a properly applied VNS felt like to me or any of the other instructors that I went to instructor school with. How do I know this? Because as a Use of Force instructors we had to show proficiency in this technique by demonstrating it on each other numerous times before we were certified to instruct our students. I have been “choked out” with a VNS several times over the years and have never felt like my ability to breath was disrupted. When I came back to I felt a little dizzy and confused, but other than that I was completely fine.

Complaints of not being able to breath and the sensation of being crushed are consistent with what one would experience if they were “choked out” with a respiratory neck restraint. The NYPD officer very well could have partially crushed the subject’s airway making it very difficult for the subject to breath, by applying what he thought was a VNR (non-lethal)which was in reality a RNR (deadly force). A lack of knowledge or training is very probable with this officer. Either way, the officer violated NYPD’s Use of Force policy, which I have to believe he knew or should have known that he was violating it.

Like you said, preexisting conditions such as drugs or alcohol on board, medical conditions, obesity, and positional asphyxiation may have very well contributed and played a role in this death along with the partially crushed airway. Protecting a subject from positional asphyxiation is very standard procedure. I did not see this in the video. I find it hard to believe that any officer nowadays is not familiar with what this concept and how to safeguard their suspects against it. This concept became mainstream in the 90s with the pepper spray deaths and reinforced with officers when people were dying after being exposed to Tasers during the 2000’s.

I want to emphasis that even though my department’s use of force instructors are certified to instruct on neck restraints we do not permit our officers to utilize them for levels of resistance that don’t constitute a deadly threat.
They are a great tool for gaining compliance / control, however the benefit of using them does not out weigh the risk. Again this is a skill that needs to trained often and with repetition in order to be proficient with them. Bad things happen when inexperience officers attempt to employ techniques that they are not familiar with or “saw on TV”. Training or lack thereof IS the major reason why most departments lump all neck restraints into the “deadly force” category.

I agree with pretty much all of this post.

[/quote]

Me too. Good post.[/quote]

X3

From what I understand autopsy results were consistent with RNR as you described it and positional asphyxiation which would be enough for a grand jury to indict. i could be wrong on that, though.
Anyone know for sure?

[NickViar]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That’s a dangerous sentence. A lot of taxpayers desire Obamacare and gun control. A lot of taxpayers think social security is necessary. [/quote]

-“A lot” is kind of a vague term. What does that mean? Close to a majority??? I don’t believe that many taxpayers desire Obamacare, and I doubt that many think social security is necessary(although a large number likely do desire just compensation for the money taken from them over the years).

Gun control? I seriously doubt that anywhere close to a majority of taxpayers is in favor of it(of the number of people in favor of gun control in this country, do you think that a large number are members of the taxpaying class?), but who cares either way? If an entity wants to take your means of defense, you don’t hand it over. Once you lose your means of defense, you are nothing but a slave or dead man, so there’s no reason not to go out defending yourself.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think our perspective is different here. I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, you see taxpayers as business owners in this scenario. I see then as employees. Expendable ones.[/quote]

-Yes, I do see taxpayers as owners of the country/government. You see taxpayers as employees of the country/government?

[smh_23]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This is ludicrously nonspecific and shoddy.

[/quote]

Oh?

There were, what, five people holding him down?

That’s standard practice whenever a group of cops take down a suspect. If there’s two cops they both do it. If there’s three they all do it. When you get to about five or six there’s no room left to hold on to the suspect however they always apprehend a suspect with as many officers as possible.

One guy getting go of his neck and head is not five guys letting go all together.

The officer who had him in the chokehold was the primary restrainer - his method of restraint was what was restraining the guy. I’m not saying a chokehold was appropriate. However, that’s what this cop choose to do and he was the one actually doing the restraint. The others just piled on top - as cops always do - to prevent the guy thrashing around.

Don’t pretend that this was kill or be killed…it wasn’t.

I didn’t suggest it was “kill or be killed.” It was a fucking huge guy - I’m guessing somewhere in the 330 lbs+ range at least - refusing to be cuffed, telling the cops not to touch him etc. What then followed was clearly an attempt to bring him down, cuff him and hold him down. This guy looked like he needed a lot of strong men holding him down. In a chokehold? Probably not. But let’s not pretend that it would’ve been sensible to allow this resisting giant freedom of movement. Obviously, numerous men holding him down is what was required - indeed, it was required because this giant resisted arrest.

Even the most cautious and fearful and nuerotic cowards I know would admit as much. This is especially so in light of Garner’s being utterly subdued and in their control,

We can’t know how “utterly subdued” he was because we couldn’t feel how much force he was leveraging against the cops who were holding him. Furthermore, it seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that if the cops got off him he would again present a danger. Especially, if one or two cops let go and the others are then vulnerable.

from the very first “I can’t breathe.” Then came ten more, then he died. Pretending that five guys on top a prone, obese man, helpless to the point that he literally could not keep himself from dying, were under such threat (despite the suspect’s being prone and limp and pleading that he couldn’t breathe) that one of them couldn’t pull out of his PROHIBITED hold around the said suspect’s neck…is just that: pretending.

Pretending? I’m giving an honest assessment of the video I saw. I have no dog in this fight; no reason to support one side or the other. As I said, it seems to me a chokehold was a bad choice. But it’s also clear that the sensible and safe course of action would’ve been to hold this guy down with as many cops as possible - but without a chokehold of course.

You probably disagree. If so, we won’t see eye to eye here, ever. Which is alright, if a little surprising to me in this particular case.[/quote]

You seem to be emotionally invested in the story. Your use of emotive language suggests perhaps some animosity towards police on your part. Or maybe just an emotional response to the gentle giant’s death which is understandable. However, I’m just trying to look at it dispassionately. I’ve not said anything here other than the guy was huge and needed numerous cops to hold him down; I’ve said that I think people are being a bit unreasonable in their expectations of how cops deal with a resisting suspect - particularly one of that size. And I agreed the chokehold was more than likely a bad response.

I would say that I am passionate about it and that that passion has its foundation in reason. It has nothing to do with cops. I assessed the Ferguson case as you did, because that was the rational assessment. I am certain that mine is the rational assessment here too. I don’t get passionate about things I don’t think through first.

As for your details, they are wishy washy. We know Garner was not applying much force because he was prone and subdued by five men with one hand restrained and the other limply outstretched in nobody’s particular direction. The Rock couldn’t threaten five men in that position. More important, the officer didn’t have to stand up and close his eyes and raise his arms. He didn’t have to lie down and sing showtunes. He had to stop choking the guy to death. He didn’t. And I suspect he’ll pay dearly, and rightly, for it.

I would further suggest that it is actually your emotion, rightly aroused from Ferguson, that is clouding your judgment. This is, of course, a guess.

[anon50325502]

Nick, you’re killing me.

You didn’t say anything about what the majority desire or find necessary. I didn’t say anything about a majority. I just answered the question you asked me.

And no I see taxpayers as owners; however, in the context of the government being run like a business (what we were specifically talking about) the reality is taxpayers would be treated like employees not owners.

[NickViar]

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Nick, you’re killing me.

You didn’t say anything about what the majority desire or find necessary. I didn’t say anything about a majority. I just answered the question you asked me.

And no I see taxpayers as owners; however, in the context of the government being run like a business (what we were specifically talking about) the reality is taxpayers would be treated like employees not owners.[/quote]

I asked if government should not be trimmed down to what is desired by the taxpayers. You responded that that is a dangerous sentence and added that a lot of taxpayers are in favor of Obamacare and gun control. The fact that I was talking about voting being limited to taxpayers was intended to make it obvious that I was talking about making the system we have(basically, majority of voters rules) work. That is why I pointed out that I don’t believe anywhere close to a majority of taxpayers supports either of those things.

Why would taxpayers be treated like employees if only taxpayers were allowed to vote? Are you saying that you see taxpayers, in the current situation, as owners, but you believe they would be seen as employees if non-taxpayers lost their voting privileges?

[anon50325502]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Nick, you’re killing me.

You didn’t say anything about what the majority desire or find necessary. I didn’t say anything about a majority. I just answered the question you asked me.

And no I see taxpayers as owners; however, in the context of the government being run like a business (what we were specifically talking about) the reality is taxpayers would be treated like employees not owners.[/quote]

I asked if government should not be trimmed down to what is desired by the taxpayers. You responded that that is a dangerous sentence and added that a lot of taxpayers are in favor of Obamacare and gun control. The fact that I was talking about voting being limited to taxpayers was intended to make it obvious that I was talking about making the system we have(basically, majority of voters rules) work. That is why I pointed out that I don’t believe anywhere close to a majority of taxpayers supports either of those things.

Why would taxpayers be treated like employees if only taxpayers were allowed to vote? Are you saying that you see taxpayers, in the current situation, as owners, but you believe they would be seen as employees if non-taxpayers lost their voting privileges?[/quote]

A significant portion of voters, even in an alternate universe where you can only vote say if you’re a land owner, are in favor of big government programs like Medicare, Medicare, ACA, etc… and big government organizations like the DEA, Home Land Security, etc… Would it be the majority (read 50.00000000001%) I have no idea in this hypothetical situation.

It’s a dangerous sentence because “what is desired” by taxpayers is not always what is beneficial to the country. There are a lot of bleeding heart liberals that are also wealthy in this country. Read up on Warren Buffet’s stance on taxes for example.

The Patriot Act was ultimate not beneficial to the country, right? Yet taxpayers very clearly desired it at the time. Taxpayers wanted the war in Iraq, for a while, now they don’t a couple trillion dollars later.

Taxpayers will be treated like employee because that’s how this world works. How do you see things changing? I see it like this:

Non-voting citizens = minimum wage workers. Expendable.
Voting citizens = management. Still expendable.
Government = Board of director/executives. Voted in and out in this case by management.

You could argue, and I might agree, that in your scenario the voting citizens = shareholders, ie ownership, but it’s a mute point because we are never going to remove voting rights from non-land owners, which means the “board of directors” will never be held accountable for their actions while the “workers” will continue to suffer the consequences of leadership choices.

[beachguy498]

[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]

The way I see it, the cop on the street is scared shitless. The cops went full SWAT on Garner while it could have been handled a bit better. You know who he is, you know where he works and lives. Send him a ticket in the mail.

[Aragorn]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

We can’t know how “utterly subdued” he was because we couldn’t feel how much force he was leveraging against the cops who were holding him. Furthermore, it seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that if the cops got off him he would again present a danger. Especially, if one or two cops let go and the others are then vulnerable.
[/quote]

SM, I don’t know if you’ve been in many confrontations, but this passage here implies otherwise.

I bounced for years. We threw people out of the bar that were almost as big as him and much more violent. We used the same tactics–get numbers on a guy if you can, use multiple people to control him, etc. When you are choked out, you are NOT a threat when you come to. You are not a threat because you don’t know where you are (blood choke). Trained UFC fighters are not threats–they lie on the ground dazed out of their minds while the medical staff checks them. You are especially not a threat if you can’t breathe (for any reason), because all, and I mean ALL of your resources go towards gulping as much air as you can when you get to breathe. You are easily controllable no matter your size.

And you are especially especially really not a threat if you are lying on the ground outnumbered, while not being able to breathe.

In fact, I’ve used the RNC before–because I know how to properly apply it–and also because in this case the guy outweighed me by 40 lbs or so, and some in height, and had just thrown off 2 people. I had to climb on his back, sink both hooks in, and pop my hips to get enough leverage to bring him down. He was big, he was violent, and he was muscular. I also had a hostile crowd at my back and speed was of the essence if I wanted to avoid getting the crowd even more pissed at our outnumbered staff.

You know what happened? He struggled, eventually fell asleep (I let up as soon as I could so we could move him), and we moved him out of there–still pissed but unable to resist because he was dazed. That was a blood choke not a RNR.

THIS GUY ISN’T IN ANY BALLPARK NEAR THERE. He isn’t in the same league, isn’t even in the same sport. He’s fat and out of shape. The crowd is not hostile. If a big muscular violent guy gets dazed and confused long enough to be physically moved out of a bar after being choked, a fat and out of shape asthmatic lying on the ground is a cake walk. HE DOES NOT POSE A THREAT. No matter how “huge” he is.

Bottom line, I had to apply force and de-escalate things for years without the benefit of the police ‘immunity’ from prosecution. We dealt with people more drunk and violent and aggressive, and as big. We never had to do what the cops did (compress him while he was lying on the ground and choked/pile on top/whatever you want to call this). This is absolutely not appropriate behavior for the police.

[NorCal916]

You guys also realize out of the view of the camera, a black female sergeant was present and approved this takedown. Has that been mentioned? This guy had been arrested 31 times. Does anybody know about his prior arrests? Did he resist? Fight? Injure officers!

Something to consider.

[MattyG35]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

We can’t know how “utterly subdued” he was because we couldn’t feel how much force he was leveraging against the cops who were holding him. Furthermore, it seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that if the cops got off him he would again present a danger. Especially, if one or two cops let go and the others are then vulnerable.
[/quote]

SM, I don’t know if you’ve been in many confrontations, but this passage here implies otherwise.

I bounced for years. We threw people out of the bar that were almost as big as him and much more violent. We used the same tactics–get numbers on a guy if you can, use multiple people to control him, etc. When you are choked out, you are NOT a threat when you come to. You are not a threat because you don’t know where you are (blood choke). Trained UFC fighters are not threats–they lie on the ground dazed out of their minds while the medical staff checks them. You are especially not a threat if you can’t breathe (for any reason), because all, and I mean ALL of your resources go towards gulping as much air as you can when you get to breathe. You are easily controllable no matter your size.

And you are especially especially really not a threat if you are lying on the ground outnumbered, while not being able to breathe.

In fact, I’ve used the RNC before–because I know how to properly apply it–and also because in this case the guy outweighed me by 40 lbs or so, and some in height, and had just thrown off 2 people. I had to climb on his back, sink both hooks in, and pop my hips to get enough leverage to bring him down. He was big, he was violent, and he was muscular. I also had a hostile crowd at my back and speed was of the essence if I wanted to avoid getting the crowd even more pissed at our outnumbered staff.

You know what happened? He struggled, eventually fell asleep (I let up as soon as I could so we could move him), and we moved him out of there–still pissed but unable to resist because he was dazed. That was a blood choke not a RNR.

THIS GUY ISN’T IN ANY BALLPARK NEAR THERE. He isn’t in the same league, isn’t even in the same sport. He’s fat and out of shape. The crowd is not hostile. If a big muscular violent guy gets dazed and confused long enough to be physically moved out of a bar after being choked, a fat and out of shape asthmatic lying on the ground is a cake walk. HE DOES NOT POSE A THREAT. No matter how “huge” he is.

Bottom line, I had to apply force and de-escalate things for years without the benefit of the police ‘immunity’ from prosecution. We dealt with people more drunk and violent and aggressive, and as big. We never had to do what the cops did (compress him while he was lying on the ground and choked/pile on top/whatever you want to call this). This is absolutely not appropriate behavior for the police. [/quote]

Completely agree.
It’s hard for me to understand how “properly trained” LEOs are given so much leeway when they take (unnecessary) actions that result in people dying. It’s like by them yelling “STOP RESISTING!” over and over, somehow makes it true. So I don’t particularly care about a charge of resisting arrest, as it’s simply become one charge that they throw at people, regardless of what actually happened.

[pittbulll]

[TooHuman]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
You guys also realize out of the view of the camera, a black female sergeant was present and approved this takedown. Has that been mentioned? This guy had been arrested 31 times. Does anybody know about his prior arrests? Did he resist? Fight? Injure officers!

Something to consider. [/quote]

I’m not sure what her race and gender have to do with being complicit in this homicide.

People who believe this man was treated differently on the basis of his skin with no evidence to support this are just racists and not worth indulging since they aren’t capable of processing the evidence impartially anyway.

[NorCal916]

Raise your hand of Pres Obola would federalize our nation’s police force?

(Raises hand)

[NorCal916]

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
You guys also realize out of the view of the camera, a black female sergeant was present and approved this takedown. Has that been mentioned? This guy had been arrested 31 times. Does anybody know about his prior arrests? Did he resist? Fight? Injure officers!

Something to consider. [/quote]

I’m not sure what her race and gender have to do with being complicit in this homicide.

People who believe this man was treated differently on the basis of his skin with no evidence to support this are just racists and not worth indulging since they aren’t capable of processing the evidence impartially anyway.[/quote]

I shot down the race angle.

Can you address my other point?

[smh_23]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
You guys also realize out of the view of the camera, a black female sergeant was present and approved this takedown. Has that been mentioned? This guy had been arrested 31 times. Does anybody know about his prior arrests? Did he resist? Fight? Injure officers!

Something to consider. [/quote]

I’m not sure what her race and gender have to do with being complicit in this homicide.

People who believe this man was treated differently on the basis of his skin with no evidence to support this are just racists and not worth indulging since they aren’t capable of processing the evidence impartially anyway.[/quote]

I shot down the race angle.

Can you address my other point?
[/quote]

You don’t have another point; you have a question, which implies a conjecture. What is to address? And, more importantly, in what way would it bear on the evaluations of the physical evidence that have been offered again and again in this thread? A hairy arrest history would give us reason to believe that the officers were dealing with a guy violently thrashing to his last breath…if we didn’t have a video to show us that, no, nothing like that happened.

Now you can say that it would have affected the officers’ assessment of the situation. JJ has convincingly argued that the officer who killed Garner would have to show that a reasonable person – in his situation, under the circumstances depicted in the video – would believe himself to be justified in using deadly force.

And, less legalistically, none of it would bear at all on the moral arguments that have been offered, such as: If you’ve got a guy subdued and on the ground and surrounded by officers, and you’re compressing his neck and upper body, and he tells you a bunch of times he can’t breathe, and then he dies, you’ve shirked a human responsibility not to kill him. Note that I didn’t say “not to get off him and let him go” or “not to stop touching him” or “not to roll over and lie face-down on the ground while he positions himself to kick you in the head;” I said “not to kill him” as in “not to compress his neck and head in such a way as to inhibit his breathing.”

More generally, the arguments that are being put up in defense of the officer here are ludicrous, greatly exaggerating some kind of fantastical view of physical struggle owing itself more to a Jet Li movie than to anything remotely close to reality. Anybody who thinks the officer, surrounded by other officers, on top of an utterly subdued and plainly obese man who was pleading for air and limply reaching an arm out in nobody’s direction, and doing literally nothing else (oh, except dying), could or should not have adjusted his positioning at some point during which he heard eleven pleas for air – anybody who thinks this needs to sit down and do some serious introspection.

[NorCal916]

^ meaning nobody knows about his prior encounters with police. They may have determined how they responded/used force with him.

My point is that is a factor.