# At what point in suspect action should police be justified in ceasing to care about his life? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349 "2014-12-04T21:58:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/21 "2014-12-05T15:08:27Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Part of the problem with that statement is the concept of “non-lethal force”. A more accurate way of phrasing that is _less lethal_ force, because there is no method I am aware of for restraining/subduing/controlling a resisting and/or violent human that doesn’t have at least a potential to cause death. > > Taser? Can cause a heart attack followed by death, especially in people with heart problems. > Rubber bullets? Can cause death at close range and/or if they hit just the right spot. > Pepper spray/tear gas? Can cause death in people with asthma or other lung problems. > Unarmed holds? See Eric Garner > Nightstick? Can cause a fatal head injury. > > There is no way to reliably control an out of control human being that is 100% safe. There are plenty of holds and take downs that aren’t lethal. IDK about NYPD, but my department is very clear, choke holds are considered deadly force. You are cutting off blood supply to the brain. Armbar takedown, for example, is not lethal. Might hurt your arm… If you have 5 officers on one suspect, they can overpower him together. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/22 "2014-12-05T15:13:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This +1. The best guidlelines/police policy in the world is never going to reduce the number of people killed by the police to zero. > > Case in point - Eric Garner. I have applied the same kind of sleeper hold used to subdue Garner scores if not hundreds of times. 100% of those who lost consciousness from it recoved in thirty seconds or less with no after-effects. In the whole history of competitive judo ranging back more than a hundred years, there has never been a documented fatality from a judo choke hold. Yet they applied that same hold to Garner, and he died. Why? Because he was not a relatively young, fit competitor - he was grossly obese, and suffered from heart disease, asthma, diabetes and breathing problems. I see no indication that the police stopped caring if he lived or died - they used methods that 99.99+% of the time have resulted in a life-sparing outcome. But that was the 00.01 time. > > Regards, > Shodan True but the officer apparently used a procedure banded by his department. The situation does not appear deadly. Resisting arrest does not mean the man was was a threat. Does that not change the circumstances or the accepted level of force. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/23 "2014-12-05T15:17:41Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > True but the officer apparently used a procedure banded by his department. The NYC policy forbids the use of air chokes, not sleeper holds. I believe this was a sleeper hold. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/24 "2014-12-05T16:17:56Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I don’t think lethal force is justified to stop another officer from receiving a “beating” however - I think that an officer putting himself into harm’s way is part of the job description. I absolutely disagree with this opinion. > [@Clothahump](#): > > You are completely wrong on that. A “beating”, as you put it, is potentially lethal. I disagree that he’s objectively wrong, if that’s what you mean here. There are jobs in which people willingly undertake the risk of physical beatings… a boxer, for example. And while it’s true that those jobs are potentially lethal, they are certainly _legal_. We could, as a society, ask police to accept that level of risk. I disagree that we should. (And if **bengangmo** meant to imply that we already do, then he’s objectively wrong.) ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/25 "2014-12-05T16:26:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The NYC policy forbids the use of air chokes, not sleeper holds. I believe this was a sleeper hold. > > Regards, > Shodan From what I can tell, there is no distinction made. Policy states any choke hold that is intended to restrict blood or air flow. [http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyregion/kelly-bans-choke-holds-by-officers.html](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyregion/kelly-bans-choke-holds-by-officers.html) Another, ["He referred to police rules that forbid chokeholds and define them as including “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/nyregion/staten-island-man-dies-after-he-is-put-in-chokehold-during-arrest.html?_r=0) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/26 "2014-12-05T17:16:12Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > From what I can tell, there is no distinction made. Policy states any choke hold that is intended to restrict blood or air flow. > [http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyregion/kelly-bans-choke-holds-by-officers.html](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyregion/kelly-bans-choke-holds-by-officers.html) > > Another, ["He referred to police rules that forbid chokeholds and define them as including “any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.”](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/nyregion/staten-island-man-dies-after-he-is-put-in-chokehold-during-arrest.html?_r=0) The reference is to interference with air, not blood. That’s the distinction. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/27 "2014-12-05T17:21:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree that he’s objectively wrong, if that’s what you mean here. How is **Clothahump** ’s saying “you are completely wrong” (that police ought not to use lethal force to defend themselves against a beating) any different from you saying you “completely disagree” (that police ought not to use lethal force to defend themselves against a beating). I didn’t see any suggestion of an objective standard in either statement. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/28 "2014-12-05T18:53:51Z")
As some noted above, in most jurisdictions the officer has to have a reasonable belief that the suspect presents an imminent (in some places “immediate”) threat of causing death OR serious bodily harm to the officer or another person before he can employ deadly force. I really don’t know anyone could disagree with that policy. Every case is unique and all the circumstances as reasonably believed by the officer, have to be considered. It seems that some people believe that the cops should, at least sometimes, place a greater priority on the suspects safety than their own. One big mouth politician or community leader went so far as to say the cops should let the other guy get the first shot off. You, know, just to be sure his life was in danger. You could never in a million years explain to me how that makes any sense. When do I stop caring about the suspects life? Immediately after he stops caring about mine. After watching the NY video I think that, while the cop used a disallowed technique, I don’t think it caused or contributed to the death. It appears that he had that hold on him for 20 seconds, more or less. After which Garner is still conscious. So, unless he crushed his larynx or caused so much bleeding or swelling that the airway got closed off, I just don’t see it. He certainly didn’t strangle him to death. I’d like to know just how the so-called choke hold was a “contributing factor”. I mean, specifically, in medical terms. I hope the full autopsy report is released. By the way, as a technical point, choking is when something obstructs the airway from the inside. Strangulation is when it is closed off from the outside. And, as Shodan noted, when properly applied, the blood restricting “lateral vascular neck restraint” is an excellent technique. The subject goes to “sleep” in seconds and is rarely (if ever) harmed. The risk lies in in the improper application of the technique. In my opinion, Garner died fighting the cops but they didn’t kill him. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/29 "2014-12-05T19:04:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The reference is to interference with air, not blood. That’s the distinction. > > Regards, > Shodan These links are to 2 different references. The first one from 1993 states the following: The New York City Police Department has issued an order banning the use of choke holds, the restraining maneuvers that cut off the flow of \*\*blood and oxygen \*\*to the brain and have been blamed in the deaths of suspects here and around the nation. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/30 "2014-12-05T19:28:53Z")
I didn’t specify since its in the first paragraph. The article goes on to talk about how this definition was expanded to the above definition to further clarify a 1985 ban that stated choke holds are not to be routinely used to complete ban. The second quote is from an recent article regarding Eric Garner, but it does define choke holds as only blocking airways. I haven’t seen an arguement that the 1993 ban was lightened but lets look at the result or that the choke hold was in compliance with NY training and policy. Rather you are blocking blood or air, the same goal occurs which is to deprive the brain of oxygen, it’s still very dangerous. I understand that fit judo or some other martial art or wrestling disciplin utilize these moves with no ill effects. But those are generally controlled circumstances. There was also an epidemic of teenagers doing similar things a few years ago and several died as a result. It’s reasonable to assume those were healthy kids but something went wrong. The reason many departments banned to procedure was specifically because people were dying as a result. So, assuming the move is banned as an acceptable procedure by the NYPD (which seems to be no one’s claim or arguement), considering they don’t train their officers to use the move (also stated in the above referenced article), does that change what should be the acceptable level of force used in this situation? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/31 "2014-12-05T19:29:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > How is **Clothahump** ’s saying “you are completely wrong” (that police ought not to use lethal force to defend themselves against a beating) any different from you saying you “completely disagree” (that police ought not to use lethal force to defend themselves against a beating). I didn’t see any suggestion of an objective standard in either statement. > > Regards, > Shodan I did. Specifically, this sentence suggests an objective standard to me: “You are completely wrong on that.” But my line, quoted in its entirety, is: “I absolutely disagree with this opinion.” Of course, I could have been mistaken when I read an objective assertion into what Clothahump said. This is why I replied, “I disagree that he’s objectively wrong, _if that’s what you mean here_.” (emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/32 "2014-12-05T19:46:34Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > As some noted above, in most jurisdictions the officer has to have a reasonable belief that the suspect presents an imminent (in some places “immediate”) threat of causing death OR serious bodily harm to the officer or another person before he can employ deadly force. I really don’t know anyone could disagree with that policy. Every case is unique and all the circumstances as reasonably believed by the officer, have to be considered. > > It seems that some people believe that the cops should, at least sometimes, place a greater priority on the suspects safety than their own. One big mouth politician or community leader went so far as to say the cops should let the other guy get the first shot off. You, know, just to be sure his life was in danger. You could never in a million years explain to me how that makes any sense. When do I stop caring about the suspects life? Immediately after he stops caring about mine. > > After watching the NY video I think that, while the cop used a disallowed technique, I don’t think it caused or contributed to the death. It appears that he had that hold on him for 20 seconds, more or less. After which Garner is still conscious. So, unless he crushed his larynx or caused so much bleeding or swelling that the airway got closed off, I just don’t see it. He certainly didn’t strangle him to death. I’d like to know just how the so-called choke hold was a “contributing factor”. I mean, specifically, in medical terms. I hope the full autopsy report is released. > > By the way, as a technical point, choking is when something obstructs the airway from the inside. Strangulation is when it is closed off from the outside. And, as Shodan noted, when properly applied, the blood restricting “lateral vascular neck restraint” is an excellent technique. The subject goes to “sleep” in seconds and is rarely (if ever) harmed. The risk lies in in the improper application of the technique. > > In my opinion, Garner died fighting the cops but they didn’t kill him. The medical examiner thought it contributed. [The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner’s positioning on the ground while being restrained by police during the July 17 stop on Staten Island, caused his death.](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Chokehold-Police-Custody-Cause-of-Death-Staten-Island-Medical-Examiner-269396151.html) That being said, he had other health issues that made him more susceptible. Like tasing someone with a bad heart. Most people come out fine if tased but that guy with the bad heart is less likely to. At the end of the day, bad health contributed but the taser killed him. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/33 "2014-12-05T20:09:35Z")
> [@](#): > > [@Bricker](#): > > I did. > > Specifically, this sentence suggests an objective standard to me: “You are completely wrong on that.” > > But my line, quoted in its entirety, is: “I absolutely disagree with this opinion.” “Absolutely” suggests an objective, absolute standard. “Completely” much less so. [QUOTE=aag3981] These links are to 2 different references. The first one from 1993 states the following: The New York City Police Department has issued an order banning the use of choke holds, the restraining maneuvers that cut off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain and have been blamed in the deaths of suspects here and around the nation. [/QUOTE] Then I am mistaken - I was basing my conclusions on what the police commissioner said. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/34 "2014-12-05T20:21:34Z")
I think there are a few differences between a civilians reaction to violence but not many. If an armed officer has been engaged in a fight with a suspect I feel he is justified in believing that suspect will try to take his gun and therefore consider him armed and dangerous. If a suspect is fleeing the police and is seen reaching for his pocket it becomes a little more of a gray area. Officer has split seconds to make a call on this. The only realanswer that I can come up with suspects who are running should never reach for anything. If a cop appraoches a suspect in a careless manner and puts himself in a position where he has to make a fast decision the officer should be held accountable. It is a very tough call, almost getting to the point where an officer should always be on the defensive to protect himself as well as the public. I can easily imagine traffic stops turning into an affair where the cop instructs over his bullhorn to get out of the car and put your hands on the roof until you are frisked, suspect or no suspect. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/35 "2014-12-05T22:26:52Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > Eric Garner- Yes this guy was resisting, but not aggressively. I forget the exact name for that degree of resistance and it doesn’t justify deadly force. Also, there were several officers around. More than enough to restrain the man for handcuffs. My department is trained in using a similar choke hold that is going for the pressure points on the sides of the neck that restricts blood flow to the brain but not breathing. But that is considered deadly force. I can see why the officer likely disregarded Mr. Garner’s statements saying he couldn’t breath. If you can talk you can breath. However, 1) this man was not acting aggressively nor was there any reason (that I can see) that this guy would be considered a threat, 2) the officer used deadly force, which wasn’t justified and 3) that is not a hold that is allowed in NYPD apparently and going against protocol and training may be justified in a deadly force situation, but shouldn’t be in this. I’m very surprised that this officer is not arrested. I think it is called “passive resistance.” IOW, Brown wasn’t throwing punches, he was simply refusing to go quietly and place his hands behind his back to be cuffed. Also, and I’ll admit that IANAPO, but why would an officer disregard his statements that he couldn’t breathe?\* I understand that every degenerate criminal might in the future make that statement so that the cops have to back off, but I’m not suggesting that the cop should have let him stand or otherwise go free because of the statement. I just don’t think it is unreasonable to simply stop choking someone when they are down and stating that they can’t breathe. Just let off on the chokehold enough to where the person can breathe: he’s already on the ground. \*Although your statement that “if he can talk, he can breathe” is technically true, it is true for unimportant reasons. Isn’t it just shorthand for “While there is technically a minute amount of air passing from my lungs to my lips, I am in terrible fear that I do not have a sufficient quantity of oxygen in my system to keep me alive.” Why do you feel the need for hyperliteralism in this context? I’ve heard people use the phrase “I can’t breathe” when they have a cold or it is unusually humid outside. I don’t really need to point out to them that they actually are breathing. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2014, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/36 "2014-12-06T00:13:30Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Would you agree that an officer is justified in using lesser levels of violence than shooting, to stop an officer from receiving a beating? I am thinking about a nightstick, Taser or sleeper hold. > > What if the suspect dies as a result? Is that justified? While I am not the person Shodan is addressing here, I do want to mention that at the bar next door to where I live a couple months ago a violent gentleman charged a police officer with obvious intent to harm. The officer subdued him with a nightstick. One hit and the offender went down. And stayed down. And a few days later was taken off life support as he was brain dead. If the police officer had really intended to kill the guy he could have simply shot him - plenty of witnesses, clear threat - but he attempted something less lethal. And the guy died anyway. _In that particular case_ I think the officer acted reasonably in his own defense. It’s an illustration that violent confrontations can end in death even if less lethal force is used. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2014, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/37 "2014-12-06T03:39:01Z")
Anyone who physically engages a police officer is a threat. The idea that an officer signs up as a punching bag is seriously misguided because of what has already been pointed out. They cannot afford struggles for a gun. The wrong question is being asked. why are criminals not accountable for their actions? We can change arresting procedures to lessen risk of injury/death but the real problem still exists. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police. It’s an easy problem to fix. Don’t do it. There will always be room for improvement as to how to handle people who resist arrest. That’s a thread by itself. But none of it has to take place if those under arrest follow the law. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/38 "2014-12-06T16:05:27Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > While I am not the person Shodan is addressing here, I do want to mention that at the bar next door to where I live a couple months ago a violent gentleman charged a police officer with obvious intent to harm. The officer subdued him with a nightstick. One hit and the offender went down. And stayed down. And a few days later was taken off life support as he was brain dead. > > If the police officer had really intended to kill the guy he could have simply shot him - plenty of witnesses, clear threat - but he attempted something less lethal. And the guy died anyway. > > _In that particular case_ I think the officer acted reasonably in his own defense. It’s an illustration that violent confrontations can end in death even if less lethal force is used. I think you’re on the right path but it sounds like he struck the man in the head. One of the best uses of a night stick is not as a striking tool but one of a poking tool. You poke the person in the gut. It focuses more energy per square inch of striking surface so it’s like hitting with 3 times the energy of a fist. It also allows more distance between the two people because the arm is extended out. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2014, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/39 "2014-12-07T03:48:42Z")
I did not actually witness the event, so I’m not entirely clear what did happen - I’m relying on what others (whom I trust) told me. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349/40 "2014-12-08T03:56:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Would you agree that an officer is justified in using lesser levels of violence than shooting, to stop an officer from receiving a beating? I am thinking about a nightstick, Taser or sleeper hold. > > What if the suspect dies as a result? Is that justified? > > Regards, > Shodan YES. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/at-what-point-in-suspect-action-should-police-be-justified-in-ceasing-to-care-about-his-life/706349.md?page=3)