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.
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.
The NYC policy forbids the use of air chokes, not sleeper holds. I believe this was a sleeper hold.
Regards,
Shodan
I absolutely disagree with this opinion.
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.)
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
The reference is to interference with air, not blood. That’s the distinction.
Regards,
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
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.
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.
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?
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)
The medical examiner thought it contributed.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
YES.