[quote]OBoile wrote:
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf
Here is the national use of force model. Once again, “Passive Resistant” allows for use of force and intermediate weapons come in when the person is “Active Resistant”.
Note that other tactical considerations can cause officers to deviate from my overly simplistic set of guidelines.
[/quote]
You should look harder at this ‘force model’ of yours.
Passive Resistance = Soft Physical Control.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/Page129_fig2.pdf
Here is the Ontario use of force model from 1993. Note that “Passive Resistance” overlaps with the use of “Empty Hand Techniques” (i.e. no weapon).
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf
Here is the national use of force model. Once again, “Passive Resistant” allows for use of force and intermediate weapons come in when the person is “Active Resistant”.
Note that other tactical considerations can cause officers to deviate from my overly simplistic set of guidelines.
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1397&issue_id=102004
Here is the article these were taken from.
Here is a quote:
“The National Use-of-Force framework was constructed in consideration of (federal) statute law and current case law.”
Again: This guy will be able to EASILY justify his actions as they are in accordance with what he is trained to do.[/quote]
In the second link you provided it states that passive resistance only requires soft physical force, a full force kick exceeds the required force for passive resistance.
Let’s step back for a moment and consider: did the individual receiving the “strikes” deserve it? If so, in what manner is the Law Enforcement Officer empowered to either decide guilt in a circumstance and to enact judgement in reference thereto?
Is Judge Dredd an excellent idea?
[quote]Vash wrote:
Let’s step back for a moment and consider: did the individual receiving the “strikes” deserve it? If so, in what manner is the Law Enforcement Officer empowered to either decide guilt in a circumstance and to enact judgement in reference thereto?[/quote]
Don’t we train law enforcement so that we CAN trust their judgement in regards to their responding to these types of “heat of the moment” situations?
If not, why do we even give them guns?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
[quote]bundy wrote:
At the end of the day you don’t resist you don’t get the treatment. What this is is five percent of what the whole situation was. If you don’t like it call someone else when someone puts a gun in your face![/quote]
And who will you call when it comes to police thinking it’s ok to put a gun in your face and kick you in the face when the situation doesn’t call for it??? [/quote]
Lets not get too carried away. We don’t even know what led up to the situation. The video was probably shot by one of his friends and edited to show only a small fraction of the situation.
Are you aware this is was occurred with regards to the Rodney King video? Probably not. Not many do.
[quote]Rico Suave wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]Rico Suave wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
i understand using force if someone isn’t co-operating, but that guy seemed like he was co-operating.
although… and i know i’ll probably catch some serious crap for this, but police DO have to put up with a lot of ish from people. like… f*ck the police but they better help me when i need them.
but in this particular situation, it definitely looks like they were letting out steam when they should have been holding themselves together. [/quote]
I agree, I’m normally willing to give police officers a “pass” if they put a minor beating on someone who just killed another officer or risked people’s lives (the high speed chase video from a couple years back comes to mind), but this time it seemed unwarranted. [/quote]
At least you’re giving the cops some benefit of the doubt… we as a whole don’t know the whole story or saw everything that happened. What if these guys ganged up and beat the shit out of people just like the cops did? Would you be for or against it? [/quote]
What if the guys were wearing a chicken costume and Peter Griffin jumped out of nowhere to fight him? It’s irrelevant to the facts. In the given video the kids appeared to be subdued with maybe minor resistance and posed no threat to either officer nor the citizens on the street, i.e. the cops had control of the situation. Regardless of prior infractions the suspects were already subdued, at what point is it necessary to boot the guy in the back?
Hell, the guy could’ve punched a baby in the face for all we know, but the situation was already under control when the suspect ceases to be a threat (ie face down hands behind back). Any use of force aside from slapping the handcuffs or restraints on him is unnecessary and is a dishonorable. Cops aren’t meant to “dole out justice” and that kick is not justice anyways.
We live in a society of laws and when those who are sworn to protect those laws disresepect those laws how are citizens supposed to respect them?[/quote]
Yeah, was kind of a sucker “punch” I admit that. I said earlier in this thread that I don’t necessarily condone the officer’s actions. However, we don’t know the whole situation. So it does make a difference IMO.
Its like saying (an extreme example) if someone murdered your family and you knew who it was…and then someone caught you on tape beating the shit out of them. Of course you should get charged, but what you did to them was totally warranted. That’s what I’m trying to get at. [/quote]
Problem with your scenario is I’m not a cop. Regardless what “is warranted” or not, and once again, your situation is irrelevant. Hypothetical situations are always irrelevant; example, my girlfriend asks from time to time “What if I was fatter when we met” or something equally irrelevant to our relationship because a. she wasn’t fatter/uglier/different in any way and she couldn’t have been because she wasn’t. To actually think about the what if’s rather than the actual facts at hand is ridiculous.
Plus anyone trying to tell me how I’d react in a given situation is irrelevant because if I had been put in that situation in reality and hadn’t reacted that way their argument is already flawed. If I hadn’t been put in that situation no one knows exactly how I’d react. I could say “Yea i’d beat the shit out of the murderer. If only I had the chance” blah blah blah, but I couldn’t say for certain therefore it is irrelevant to any type of discussion. So, in closing, you creating exaggerated circumstances in trying to justify the “sucker punch” by the cop is irrelevant.
I get what you’re trying to convay but I can’t follow your illogic due to the level of accountability and integrity that cops need to be held to. Unfortunately that cop decided to give up his integrity and doesn’t deserve respect or justification.
i really dislike videos like this. bad quality, doesn’t show how things started. really, just by watching this one video, we can’t judge anyone in it. we can’t judge anyone period. so lets not.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]Vash wrote:
Let’s step back for a moment and consider: did the individual receiving the “strikes” deserve it? If so, in what manner is the Law Enforcement Officer empowered to either decide guilt in a circumstance and to enact judgement in reference thereto?[/quote]
Don’t we train law enforcement so that we CAN trust their judgement in regards to their responding to these types of “heat of the moment” situations?
If not, why do we even give them guns?[/quote]
We expect them to use sound judgement in all scenarios unfortunately the best we can come up with are humans and humans are subject to acting irrationally regardless of training. Some call it “free will” some call it “heat of the moment” some call it “animal instincts” regardless, some of these things overwhelm some people. It’s near impossible to predict how someone will react in any given situation until that situation is presented to them. You can’t simulate real life…
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Things must change then if that is how police officers are trained. If that is the training that they undergo, then those that transgress, like in the video shown, deserve to be compared to the Gestapo.
The purpose of police is to serve and protect, not punish, those duties, are for the courts to decide if the accused is guilty or not.
Citizens aren’t supposed to assault other citizens and the police MUST be held to that standard as well.
[/quote]
They won’t change and they’ve always been that way.
People here have watched to much UFC. Everyone wants things to be fair. The reality is that “fair” gets police officers killed or injured. Thus they are trained to always one-up you. You resist passivly, they do what was shown the video. You resist actively (throw a punch, or a kick or something) and they are beating you with their batons and pepper spraying you. You use any kind of weapon (even something lame like a stick) and they are pulling their guns and shooting you (and they always aim for the center of the chest). You pull a gun and they call the ETF (SWAT).
This guy was passively resisting. The cops can’t afford to spend a lot of time pleading with him to put his hands behind his back. For all they know, he has a knife in his pants that he could be reaching for, or one of his buddies who was lost in the crowd is sneaking up behind them about to bust a beer bottle over the cop’s head, or another fight could break out while their wasting time subduing this guy. These aren’t likely scenarios, but shit has happend before… and smart cops don’t take changes.
This isn’t to say that all cops are good guys… that obviously isn’t true and abuse does occur. I just don’t see it here. This was an example of what they are trained to do. Now, if they beat that guy some more back at the station (assuming he doesn’t start to resist again) then there is an issue.
[/quote]
It’s hard to tell with the first guy he kicks, he appears to be pretty subdued to me. The second guy is complying up until he gets plowed into guy (the non-yellow guy). He ends up shoving him over to where the guy is on all fours. With the cop on his back and on all fours is when the officer demands for the guy to put his hands behind his back. Do me a favor and try that out. It’s going to be unnatural for a guy with that much weight on his back to pick up his hands and voluntarily face plant. Much less one that has been drinking and is being wrestled. It’s at this point the guy in yellow kicks him in the ribs. The knees in the back come while the has his arm pinned underneath him with several people ontop of him.
I mean take a look, even after the guy in black has him rolled over on his knees, the guy allows one hand to bet put behind his back. the cop then goes for his second hand, so the guy tries to sit up to his knees (because all his weight is now on that hand), the cop pushes him down. At this point the guy starts to fall forward and reaches forward with both hands to brake the fall. That is what he got kicked in the ribs for. I honestly see a guy who complied with every command he was given the opportunity to.[/quote]
By your own words, the cop tells him to get down, but he tries to sit up to his knees = passive resistance and a beating.
The cop tells him put his hands behind his back, but at 37 and 47 seconds into the video you can clearly see him try to pull the one hand that is behind his back away = passive resistance and a beating.
He also crawls several feet indicating he isn’t just trying to get down and comply = passive resistance and a beating.
After he puts both hands behind his back as he was instructed, the beating stops exactly as it should.
My suggestion is that if a cop tells you to put your hands behind your back, that you do it - even if it means a face plant.
It is difficult to tell about the first guy.
Again, this cop will not get in any trouble because this is exactly what he is instructed to do. You may not like that, and may not agree but it is the reality.[/quote]
Asking someone to face plant is not a natural reaction. It would be like throwing a ball at your face and then kicking you in the ribs for raising your hand to block it. It is a reflex. Asking someone to suppress a reflex is not a reasonable request.
From the way the guy complied with the first order, it was pretty obvious to me that he was completely willing to obey verbal commands. The cops seemed to want a physical confrontation and they forced the issue. Why tackle a suspect and start violently shoving him, if he is obeying?
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
If that was my son laying there in the doorway unconscious because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, swing for the fences officer. [/quote]
Unfortunately, some of the guys the officers were beating could have also been your son who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s why their are courts, to sort this stuff out. [/quote]
I was thinking the same thing when I read Bond’s post.[/quote]
This is the senario I was imagining. My boy is walking home with his girlfriend after going to the show. On the way to the bustop these assholes are starting shit with everyone they encounter. For no reason they start to pound out my boy and leave him there on the street unconcious. Mr. Officer, swing away.
Are you saying that maybe my son could have been walking along and the cops mistaken him for one of these assclowns and start to lay a beat down on him? If thats what you guys meant then I agree with you %100. It could happen and I’m sure it does happen.
Regarding the UWO situation. It’s still under ivestigation. I know this because someone I know and trust has a brother on the London police force who is also pretty high up the food chain. Scuttlebutt is that no punishment is going to be handed down…no big surprise.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf
Here is the national use of force model. Once again, “Passive Resistant” allows for use of force and intermediate weapons come in when the person is “Active Resistant”.
Note that other tactical considerations can cause officers to deviate from my overly simplistic set of guidelines.
[/quote]
You should look harder at this ‘force model’ of yours.
Passive Resistance = Soft Physical Control.[/quote]
Soft Physical Control extends to kicks - basically it means no weapons.
[quote]Jastd wrote:
This will be my last response to you. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt when you claimed knowledge of the police training structure. The fact that you claim I am lying when you have no reasonable way of even guessing that to be true is unnecessary.
[/quote]
Your ignorance makes it obvious.
If I were to post that the knee is connected to the elbow and then claim to train orthopedic surgeons it would be clear that I’m lying.
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/Page129_fig2.pdf
Here is the Ontario use of force model from 1993. Note that “Passive Resistance” overlaps with the use of “Empty Hand Techniques” (i.e. no weapon).
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf
Here is the national use of force model. Once again, “Passive Resistant” allows for use of force and intermediate weapons come in when the person is “Active Resistant”.
Note that other tactical considerations can cause officers to deviate from my overly simplistic set of guidelines.
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1397&issue_id=102004
Here is the article these were taken from.
Here is a quote:
“The National Use-of-Force framework was constructed in consideration of (federal) statute law and current case law.”
Again: This guy will be able to EASILY justify his actions as they are in accordance with what he is trained to do.[/quote]
In the second link you provided it states that passive resistance only requires soft physical force, a full force kick exceeds the required force for passive resistance.
[/quote]
Actually it doesn’t.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf
Here is the national use of force model. Once again, “Passive Resistant” allows for use of force and intermediate weapons come in when the person is “Active Resistant”.
Note that other tactical considerations can cause officers to deviate from my overly simplistic set of guidelines.
[/quote]
You should look harder at this ‘force model’ of yours.
Passive Resistance = Soft Physical Control.[/quote]
Soft Physical Control extends to kicks - basically it means no weapons.[/quote]
When 99% of the population reads the word soft, soccer kicks and stomping probably doesn’t come to mind simply b/c there is nothing soft about a soccer kicks or stomps.
The reason you don’t seem to get this is b/c you have the same mentality of the officer shown in the video.
Like I said before non-LEO citizens can’t get away with that shit and neither should citizens that are LEOs.
LEOs are not above the laws they enforce.
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
If that was my son laying there in the doorway unconscious because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, swing for the fences officer. [/quote]
Unfortunately, some of the guys the officers were beating could have also been your son who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s why their are courts, to sort this stuff out. [/quote]
I was thinking the same thing when I read Bond’s post.[/quote]
This is the senario I was imagining. My boy is walking home with his girlfriend after going to the show. On the way to the bustop these assholes are starting shit with everyone they encounter. For no reason they start to pound out my boy and leave him there on the street unconcious. Mr. Officer, swing away.
Are you saying that maybe my son could have been walking along and the cops mistaken him for one of these assclowns and start to lay a beat down on him? If thats what you guys meant then I agree with you %100. It could happen and I’m sure it does happen.
Regarding the UWO situation. It’s still under ivestigation. I know this because someone I know and trust has a brother on the London police force who is also pretty high up the food chain. Scuttlebutt is that no punishment is going to be handed down…no big surprise.
[/quote]
Agree on all points. Highly unlikely these cops will face any discipline.
Frankly, a lot of people here seem to think that a couple of kicks are a big deal. They aren’t. Not compared to someone getting knocked unconsious. Officers are capable of doing MUCH worse if they have some sort of vendetta. The pain that guy felt was maybe 1/10 of what being pepper sprayed feels like - let alone being shot or having your face smashed in with a baton.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
If that was my son laying there in the doorway unconscious because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, swing for the fences officer. [/quote]
Unfortunately, some of the guys the officers were beating could have also been your son who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s why their are courts, to sort this stuff out. [/quote]
I was thinking the same thing when I read Bond’s post.[/quote]
This is the senario I was imagining. My boy is walking home with his girlfriend after going to the show. On the way to the bustop these assholes are starting shit with everyone they encounter. For no reason they start to pound out my boy and leave him there on the street unconcious. Mr. Officer, swing away.
Are you saying that maybe my son could have been walking along and the cops mistaken him for one of these assclowns and start to lay a beat down on him? If thats what you guys meant then I agree with you %100. It could happen and I’m sure it does happen.
Regarding the UWO situation. It’s still under ivestigation. I know this because someone I know and trust has a brother on the London police force who is also pretty high up the food chain. Scuttlebutt is that no punishment is going to be handed down…no big surprise.
[/quote]
Agree on all points. Highly unlikely these cops will face any discipline.
Frankly, a lot of people here seem to think that a couple of kicks are a big deal. They aren’t. Not compared to someone getting knocked unconsious. Officers are capable of doing MUCH worse if they have some sort of vendetta. The pain that guy felt was maybe 1/10 of what being pepper sprayed feels like - let alone being shot or having your face smashed in with a baton.[/quote]
You have absolutely no idea what the guy felt. Are you volunteering to get on all fours and let me kick you in the ribs, since it’s not a big deal? It’s obvious you’ve never had broken ribs. Not to mention a kick like that could kill someone. You are an idiot. Please take your bullshit “not a big deal” to get punted in the ribs to some place more appropriate like bbing.com.
I’ll take the pepper spray to months of agony recovering a fractured rib.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
Frankly, a lot of people here seem to think that a couple of kicks are a big deal. They aren’t. Not compared to someone getting knocked unconsious. Officers are capable of doing MUCH worse if they have some sort of vendetta. The pain that guy felt was maybe 1/10 of what being pepper sprayed feels like - let alone being shot or having your face smashed in with a baton.[/quote]
A kick in the ribs by a guy wearing boots is no big deal? Especially when they’re exposed on all fours like the 2nd kid. Are you nuts? I can easily break someones ribs like this.
So since they’re capable of worse, that makes a kick in the ribs no big deal? How about a punch to the face? Night stick to the head? I mean, hey. They’re capable of worse?
Wow…OBoile.
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
i really dislike videos like this. bad quality, doesn’t show how things started. really, just by watching this one video, we can’t judge anyone in it. we can’t judge anyone period. so lets not. [/quote]
Yes we can and we should,. This is the kind of evidence that decides cases. It’s a faily good quality video that covers the incident in a clear perspective. It’s not relevant what the guys being subdued have done before. It’s not relevant how they have behaved towards the police. What’s relevant is that the police, the professionals we train to NOT go over the top in a situation like this, are exerting an amount of force that’s potentially deadly in a situation that in no way warranted it.
The cases, where high-resoulution video, covering the whole spectrum of an event, from the first small spark of action tjhat started it, until the last moment, are few and far between. Therefore, one must rely on evidence like this.
[quote]Billy Whizz wrote:
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
i really dislike videos like this. bad quality, doesn’t show how things started. really, just by watching this one video, we can’t judge anyone in it. we can’t judge anyone period. so lets not. [/quote]
Yes we can and we should,. This is the kind of evidence that decides cases. It’s a faily good quality video that covers the incident in a clear perspective. It’s not relevant what the guys being subdued have done before. It’s not relevant how they have behaved towards the police. What’s relevant is that the police, the professionals we train to NOT go over the top in a situation like this, are exerting an amount of force that’s potentially deadly in a situation that in no way warranted it.
The cases, where high-resoulution video, covering the whole spectrum of an event, from the first small spark of action tjhat started it, until the last moment, are few and far between. Therefore, one must rely on evidence like this. [/quote]
i kindly disagree with you. i don’t judge people. and no, it’s not lonely up here on my pedestal lol.
i don’t know the whole story, so i won’t judge.