Once you have a guy in handcuffs and leg cuffs, you risk almost nothing by getting off of him when he claims the weight on his back is suffocating him. Maybe there’s some tiny risk to officer safety posed by a guy who is on the ground with all of his limbs cuffed, but that tiny risk does not justify the exponentially higher risk of killing the man. Hence, unreasonable use of force.
Was there no other way to restrain him?
If hand and leg cuffs weren’t working, then I’m not sure of one that doesn’t put the police at risk. Getting too close to the head or feet would risk biting, headbutting, or kicking.
How would you restrain someone who, despite being cuffed, remained violent? Bear in mind that he was on drugs that could very well have meant he didn’t feel, or didn’t care about, pain, so things like tasers are unlikely to work.
I guess you could have as many cops as it takes each grabbing an arm or leg or whatever, but I’m not convinced that doing that would be less likely to harm the suspect than sitting on him, assuming he continues to thrash around, kick out, and generally resist.
So, today I learned never to say "Bite me!"in Maryland. Never been, never going, never mind.
Establish a cordon sanitaire, an eight foot circle with the perp as the center. All personnel will keep their various toes outside of that circle. The circle moves with him in whatever direction he squirms, and simply maintains public safety until he runs out of steam. Patience, one of the more modest virtues, but nonetheless important.
I have no use for police who are unwilling to place themselves at risk to preserve the peace. If we are going to err on the side of safety, it should be for the unarmed citizen, not the armed police officer. If a cop has to take one for the team once in a while to avoid excessive force, so be it.
Fortunately legislators, judges, and juries don’t agree with you.
Fortunately for whom? The dead suspect? Or the hypothetical police officer who might have suffered a bite, kick, or headbutt from the immobilized suspect?
Fortunately for those who think that people shouldn’t have to risk avoidable injury at work.
Which is why we don’t have fire departments anymore.
Because those, by definition, would not be fatal.
Aye, I was wondering the same thing, Steophan. How is it that procedures properly followed result in death of the arrestee? Are you saying that the goal of the procedures is the death of the arrestee? :dubious:
I will toss this in here because it constitutes sort of invisible encounters with police and it does not lack for controversy,
[quote=“[arstechnica: Rule approved to allow warrants to invade any computer anywhere]
(Proposed rule change to expand feds’ legal hacking powers moves forward - Ars Technica)”]A controversial proposed judicial rule change allowing judges to issue warrants to conduct “remote access” against a target computer regardless of its location has been approved by a United States Courts committee, according to the Department of Justice.
Federal agents have been known to use such tactics in past and ongoing cases: a Colorado federal magistrate judge approved sending malware to a suspect’s known e-mail address in 2012. But similar techniques have been rejected by other judges on Fourth Amendment grounds.
[/quote]
So the police can (try to) put a virus or other exploit on your computer, for “evidence gathering”. Sounds pretty evil to me, unless they start with spammers.
I suppose this probably ought to have its own thread.
Police raid a woman’s house and arrest her over 6 oz of marijuana despite her having a medical marijuana license. They confiscate a bunch of her stuff including her vibrator under civil forfeiture laws. The case is later dismissed because she complied with all of the state laws but the cops still want to keep all her stuff including her vibrator.
Michigan allows cops to profit 100% from civil forfeitures, regardless of whether the defendants were guilty or even if charges were filed. Hopefully, her testimony will cause this law to be repealed as it’s a blatant and obvious abuse of police power.
Really hoping this is wildly exaggerated. Maybe its only half as bad as it sounds. Gee, that would be swell!
It definitely meets the criteria for inclusion in this thread: Medical examiner rules William Chapman’s death a homicide.
And from the Guardian article:
This one is going to cost the city of Portsmouth a lot of money, I think.
The goal is restraint of the arrestee without unnecessary harm to either him or the arresting officers.
It’s interesting that there’s been a lot of criticism of what they did, but no realistic suggestions of what they could have done instead. I’ll ask again, not particularly expecting a response, how should they restrain someone who continues to violently resist even after being hand- and leg-cuffed, at minimal risk to anyone?
How is he violently resisting, and to whom exaclty is he a danger when both his arms and legs are shackled ? Howsabout “take a step back and wait until he’s tired of wriggling impotently or hurts himself in the process” as a tactical choice ? What is accomplished by sitting on him, **precisely **?
Where do you get “wriggling impotently” from? And if they did leave him to hurt himself, they’d be getting just as much shit as they are now.
His arms and legs were restrained. What’s he gonna do, crawl away at high speed ?