Kneeling on the neck?
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
Not exactly a report from a group without an agenda... And, from the tone of the overview, they set out to find abusive use of force. Amazingly enough... they found what they were looking for, by their own definitions.
I saw no statistical information or explanation of how they determined that the force used was unreasonable; I will admit that I have not gone through it closely.
Nor do I see anything that suggests, outside of rogue employees who often should never have been hired as police officers in the first place (though hiring practices are a complex issue and most agencies do their best to avoid recognizable problems, not all are apparent until they're out there, working on their own), that there was any sort of SYSTEMATIC abuse of force. And I definitely see nothing changing the point of Drac's simple statement:
If people being arrested would simply comply with the directions and orders of the police, and don't resist arrest... they wouldn't get hurt. It's not a hard concept. Even if you're absolutely certain that the cops are wrong to arrest you, go with the program and address the problem later. Because if I've decided you're under arrest -- you WILL BE taken into custody. You may be tired, you may be injured... but I WILL WIN!
Note: While I'll vouch for my colleagues in Canada and England... I won't even pretend that there's not rampant, terrible corruption in many other countries. And even, sadly, in some jurisdictions in the USA.
I will not dispute that there are some bad cops mixed in with the good. However, KP, did you stop and think for a moment what Drac has said? I know that I've said the same thing many times in the past myself. If people just stopped being an ***, and didn't resist, maybe, just maybe, they would not end up being forced to the ground with a knee on them.
People who resist think that they have something to prove and want to attempt to make a case of abuse. I remember many times when I worked in Corrections, guys that refused to lock up when told. I'd give them 2 options: 1) lock up without any problems or 2) I'll bring in some backup and together, we will lock you up. I don't care what option you pick, but either way, you're locking up.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #44
There is I think a difference between a riot situation and a normal arrest. During the normal arrest I would think there is some time for thearresting officer to communicate with the arrestee. Riot reports I've read often tell the tale of people trying to comply with orders to move, yet ending up face down, being dragged by the ankles across gravel.
An area I often see claims of assault referenced are the 'non-violent' cases, where the person being detained is actually not resisting. They are limp, sacks of flesh. So, in a way, they are resisting by not cooperating. But they aren't struggling, defending, fighting.
An area I often see claims of assault referenced are the 'non-violent' cases, where the person being detained is actually not resisting. They are limp, sacks of flesh. So, in a way, they are resisting by not cooperating. But they aren't struggling, defending, fighting.
Note:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the technique shown in a specific picture, not to cop-bash.
We at MartialTalk.com opened the Law Enforcement forum so that LEOs and people who train them or train with them can communicate with each other. My personal hope is the discussion herein will - through respect, courtesy and polite frankness - bridge an unfortunate gap between citizenry and law enforcement professionals and help ascertain technique efficacy and safety.
The debate of politics related to police behaving questionably and citizens under arrest will be confined to The Study area.
If you have any questions regarding this policy, feel free to PM any staff member, start a thread in the Member Site Support area or send an email to [email protected].
Thank you for your cooperation.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the technique shown in a specific picture, not to cop-bash.
We at MartialTalk.com opened the Law Enforcement forum so that LEOs and people who train them or train with them can communicate with each other. My personal hope is the discussion herein will - through respect, courtesy and polite frankness - bridge an unfortunate gap between citizenry and law enforcement professionals and help ascertain technique efficacy and safety.
The debate of politics related to police behaving questionably and citizens under arrest will be confined to The Study area.
If you have any questions regarding this policy, feel free to PM any staff member, start a thread in the Member Site Support area or send an email to [email protected].
Thank you for your cooperation.
G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator
I can tell you from experience its a real PITA attempting to to cuff and place a totally limp suspect in the back of a cruiser...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #47
I understand. But, he's not resisting. So.....do you ask "Sir, please resist a little?"
Nope; you take two or three buddies, and you lift the guy off the ground and put him in the wagon or cruiser. And if he bumps his head... well, if he'd simply gone with the program, it would have been a lot easier and he'd have gone in under his own power.I understand. But, he's not resisting. So.....do you ask "Sir, please resist a little?"
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
And every once and a while though you get those guys that know the score and go "felony prone" without asking the moment you pull up.
And every once and a while though you get those guys that know the score and go "felony prone" without asking the moment you pull up.
Once in a GREAT while...
I've heard that that is a cause of back injuries in LEOs...
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Oh, maybe not forced the ground, but bounced face first off the hood of the car? That's done for kicks by way too many cops, and anyone who was honest would admit it.
I did think about what he said "any and all .. . " And that's total and complete BS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/us/22chicago.html
Friends and I had a party for this. But make no mistake, he was just the head honcho, his people were, and are, just as bad.
Chicago is just one example of a city that has systemic and continuing problems with police brutality. And it isn't seen just by those with an agenda to find it. The only people who deny it are those living in suburbs who can be willingly oblivious to anything effecting those making less than 50k a year living inside the beltways and those whose careers depend on keeping said suburbanites believing it's just a myth.
It doesn't matter one's education, income, profession, legal standing, or anything else if you happen to be in the area where these folks operate and they think you look like a good target. They may do a lot of good for some communities, but where I grew up, they were simply the biggest, and frankly, most brutal, of the various gangs.
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue with you, as it seems that you don't want to listen to anyone except yourself and your own views. However, I will say the following:
1) Drac and JKS are just a few of the LEOs on here, that speak with quite a bit of experience.
2) I dispatch for a PD in a city that sees alot of activity. I can only echo what I as well as the others have said.
3) I guess you missed the mod note that was placed in this thread a page back, as well as the rules for this section. Before you continue on with your ranting and bashing, maybe you should take some time to read things.
I did in fact miss the mod post.
If someone would indicate where "the study area" is, I'll gladly take this discussion there if anyone cares (though it seems no one really does).
I'll try to remember that trying to respectfully disagree with blanket assertions that it's all the victims fault by posting studies and links from respected news sources constitutes ranting and bashing.
If you go to the main page, and scroll down, you should see a section called The Study. Here, I'll save you the time and post the link.
Problem is, is that you have people, Drac and JKS, who see and deal with this stuff a hell of alot more than anyone else, and there're people who just don't want to listen, they don't want to hear anything else and just live by what was said in these studies. As I said in another post, I do not doubt that there're bad cops mixed with the good. But, I wouldn't lump everyone together.
Additionally, like any study or newspaper article, its rare that we get the entire story. What is often left out and is, IMO, the most important facts, is what led up to the supposed abuse? Articles always point to what the cop did. Why don't we see or hear what the bad guy did? You know, the parts where he spit at the cops, tried to hit or kick them, tried to run, clasped his hands together, refusing to be cuffed. You know, all those things.
K.P. said:
Oh so ya wanna play the race card???..One of my part time gigs in in the burbs doing traffic enforcement at a large shopping center and they have requested that we " go easy" and warn them first..I pull up on a dozen or so people and point out the sign and tell them to move, and they ALL comply...
I pull up on a young black man and tell him he has to move, his reponse was " Why"...I explain that there is a sign and its against the law..."Oh, that must be the white mans law"...So I wrote him and he promply tore up the ticket...
6 months later I was called to the Drivers License Bureau for a disturbance...There was the same man who could not get his drivers license because he had unpaid citations...He was escorted from the building cursing like a drunken biker...
All he had to do to save himself time and grief was comply and MOVE HIS FRIGGIN CAR.... What is so hard about that?????
__________________
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,058
That is part of the problem when police use force. The public DOESN'T UNDERSTAND what we can or can't do!
In Rodney King, you saw a small video clip of the whole encounter. There was a reason that the officers were found NOT GUILTY of excessive force in the initial trial, although the jury was deadlocked on one count for Powell. Let's look at the FACTS that were presented at trial.
1) King was a known felon, who the police had dealt with in the past.
2) King was on parole for a violent crime (robbery)
3) King was TWICE the legal limit of alcohol and RAN FROM THE POLICE, a pursuit followed.
4) The two people in the car with King, complied with the police and were taken into custody without any issue (read--They listened to what they were told)
5) King gets out of the car acting bizarre like he was on drugs.
6) King is shocked with a stun gun and does not go down
7) King resists officers and throws two of them off his back as they tried to wrestle him to the ground. (due to his behavior previously and with this, officers believe King was on PCP)
8) King starts to go after another officer, who then struck him with his baton.
9) Officers try to use their batons to subdue King, who REPEATEDLY attempts to get back up and continues to resist.
At the time of the incident, LAPD's "Use of Force" policy was under the heading of "Total Control Theory" which states that you use a tool for every level of force and vary it depending on the situation. This means that the tool (baton) was used in all uses of force. So what you have is, a violent offender who is believed to be high on PCP (which gives it users huge amounts of strength and no pain) lower levels of force have been defeated (H2H & stun gun), Also he keeps getting up when struck with a baton. Officers can't kill him yet, so what is their option? They keep using their intermediate weapon (Baton) to try and subdue the offender. What would YOU have done in that situation? It's easy to armchair quarterback and say they were wrong. But really, what would you have done?
Really? Come on now, most cops have audio and video now on them at all times. You're trying to tell us that people who don't resist at all get slammed on the hood of a car?
If a subject is actively resisting and demonstrates actions that put the officer in harm's way we are justified in punching them in the face. PPCT recommends going to the solar plexus, but the face is listed as a "secondary target". Now think about the stink that would cause if an officer does what he can do legally, but breaks the offender's nose and blood is all over. EVERYONE is going to scream "excessive force", even though it is within the proper scope.
"Excessive Force" is a VERY specific legal definition that defines what an officer can or can't do. How many of you outside of law enforcement have been trained in a use of force spectrum? Most LE (in America at least) uses what is called a "One Plus One" theory of control. Simply that means if the offender uses X level of force, we can use X+1 (or the next step HIGHER) to control them. We aren't required to use equal force, as a citizen does in a self-defense situation.
So back to the "kneeling on the neck". As others have stated, you aren't really kneeling on the neck itself but usually put pressure on the trap/upperback area.
Actually I was editing that to try to avoid being explicit at the same time the reply was posted. However, if you want to get into a discussion about racial inequity in policing, I'd be happy to post studies and reports on that point as well.
I don't disagree that there are far more good cops than bad. My point was that too many do go beyond where they are allowed to go. The closer one gets to the inner city, the greater that number becomes.
I know that from personal experience, but as I've been asked to not discuss this topic here as it both violates the forum rules of "don't criticize us," as well as being outside of the scope of this thread's intent, I'll stop as asked.
