I’ve answered those questions repeatedly. I’m assuming the “flop around” comments are jokes, and you realise that someone who’s cuffed hand and foot would still be able to kick or bite someone nearby, and at least attempt to stand up - with a far greater danger of falling than someone not cuffed.
How should the police have restrained him to prevent those things? A question I’ve been asking for days, and (for some reason*) no-one’s answered.
*The reason is not a mystery…
Uh, connect another set of cuffs from the handcuffs to the leg cuffs thereby hogtying them and denying them the ability to stand up? I thought that was SOP.
Or you get behind him, grab the handcuffs to prevent him from turning around, and gently but forcibly put him on the ground. He’ll tire of it soon enough. The hogtie method can be used if he gets up again. The police had many other tools at their disposal other than suffocating him. They chose to use excessive force out of sadism.
The proposal to start collecting data on police use of force is an excellent one and hopefully it will pass. It’s shameful that we can’t know how many people were shot by police, how many were armed vs. unarmed, and the demographics of the cops and their victims. I doubt that it will because the Republican base is full of people who applaud each and every police killing.
If only there was someone whose duty it was to be in danger to protect citizens.
I seriously suggest you try standing up with your hands securely tied behind your back and your legs tightly bound together. Much harder than you seem to believe.
One of the 2 heroes who shot 12 year old Tamir Rice claimed to have suffered an injury in the ‘confrontation’…
Injured pride?
Hence the “attempt” and “greater danger of falling” in my post. It wasn’t a long post, and the ideas contained weren’t overly esoteric, perhaps you could attempt to read the whole thing for comprehension before replying.
The police simply aren’t going to spend hours on elaborate methods like that arresting someone on the street. Not gonna happen. I doubt any of them are safer than sitting on someone anyway, that’s not something you’d expect to kill somebody under normal circumstances.
How is this information not available through freedom of information rules? Or, for that matter, court records for those where there’s a reasonable probability they were illegal.
People need to stop getting worked up over legal killings.
So as long as something is declared legal by an authority figure, people shouldn’t get upset over it? Do I understand your position on this correctly?
No, you don’t. So long as it is in compliance with the laws made by the representatives of people, they shouldn’t complain about people following them. This isn’t a situation where a ruling class is oppressing powerless people, it’s people governing themselves.
Well, except in places like Ferguson where 90% of people don’t bother to vote. I suspect that has a lot to do with why their voices aren’t being heard.
However, I will say that once a particular action has been declared legal, people should stop getting upset over that particular incident (excepting those directly affected, I’m not saying people shouldn’t grieve for friends and family), and if they disagree with the law work to change it.
Basically, stop hinting that I support totalitarianism or a police state. I don’t. I support democracy, respect for those elected and employed to work for the public, and the ability to question the actions of police in court after the fact, not at the point of action.
Yeah, that oughta do it.
Yeah, hear that Tamir ? Fight it in court !
I’d say it’s a better option than being shot, are you seriously disagreeing?
Anyone want to clue him in?
How?
To what? My argument is that people should obey the police and challenge it in court later if they think their rights have been violated, not do the opposite of what you’re told and get shot - as Tamir Rice did.
It would have taken hours to put a pair of cuffs between the handcuffs and leg cuffs?
The information isn’t FOIAble because it isn’t fucking collected. If the FBI wanted to tell you how many unarmed black men were shot by police in 2014 they couldn’t fucking tell you.
The point was that legal remedies don’t help Tamir. Officers shooting first and making up answers later is the problem, the one we are, in fact, attempting to remedy. Since the courts don’t actually make law, we do that by drawing attention to the problem so that our congresscritters may actually take action.
(Note: I’m not even addressing the “do the opposite of what you’re told” part as I think you’ve proven your impervious to other ways of looking at the situation)
Oh okay; so as long as it’s there’s a law, no one should get upset about the law? Is that your position?