Punching the back of the neck is acceptable detainment techniques for LEO's?

[5-0 Kenpo]

I don't disagree with those characterisations of the reality of violence at all, Jim.

The point I was trying to make is to highlight the acceptance of such a level of violence from 'ordinary' police officers dealing with (what appears to be) a non-threatening problem of public nuisance. The only time I have seen similar over here has been from riot police during a riot.

Anyhow, about to lose my net connection - I hope to return to this later tonight (but no promises).

I would suggest to you that if the police need to use force, it is always a "threatening" problem. Just because he is initially being detained for being a public nuisance, does not mean that he is not dangerous, or even armed.

What I find interesting is that you seem to feel that the police should give a suspect an assumption of compliance. I can tell you now, from psychological studies on the mind-set of officers who have been killed and assaulted in the line of duty, one of the major issues that comes to light is that those officers typically used force later then most of their counterparts, which has a correlation on them being injured or killed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Regarding the complaints about the overwhelming force...

Consider the public setting. It may well 'look bad' to have 4 or 5 officers overpower a suspect and hustle him away, but I can guarantee you that if it were 1 or 2 officers, and they proceeded to wrestle with the suspect for an extended period, or try to 'talk him' into letting them handcuff him, they very quickly would have been surrounded by the curious crowd.

At first, the drunken patrons would be curious. Then they would see something on the part of the police they didn't like. Then they would start trying to interject themselves into the situation. Someone would yell "POLICE BRUTALITY!" and more people would come running. Someone would push one of the cops. Someone would reach for one of the cop's holstered guns. And it would be off to the races - but not the horse race they came to see.

For those of you who have never worn the badge - please - my utmost respect for you, but you haven't the first clue what you're talking about. I am quite aware of the many instances of brutality committed by overworked, stressed-out cops and even by just plain bad cops. This isn't one of them. They did what they had to do, quickly, efficiently, and safely. If you've never faced a slowly-angering crowd who doesn't want you to take Billy Badass away from them, you really don't know what you're talking about and should reconsider your condemnation.

When force is used, it must be overwhelming. This ain't a dance, people. For the safety of the suspect and the safety of the cops, they need to cuff him and stuff him, NOW. They did. Yay, them. End of story.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It is an exageration to say that I am aghast at some of the pro-police-violence and you-don't-know-how-hard-the-job-is posts I've read in this thread.

However, I am made uneasy by the level of acceptance of such force being used by those whose function is only to enforce the law. It does not bode well for the future of your country if you think it is fine for ordinary citizens to be duffed up, trussed up and hauled off out of public view by those entrusted with your safety. Except of course they're not entrusted with that are they?

As I said before, it's not my country (thank the invisible mythical sky gods) so my opinion means even less than those American's who concur that it is not 'okay' for police to behave in such a fashion. But speaking as someone from a nation nominally less 'free' than yours, as a society you really need to think about where such a road leads before you get there.

In a perfect world, citizens would obey lawful orders of the police, and the police would never give unlawful orders. We live in an imperfect world. You'll hear "cops are human" as the excuse for when they go too far. When they take our their anger and frustrations and get in a sucker punch, or continue past the point of subdue. Cops may be human, but, we want them to be above the petty, to be people we can trust, depend on, believe in. When you read or watch some of these videos, it destroys that. You'll hear things like "we're going to send them to sensitivity training". I'm sorry, but my 15 yr old nephew knows its not acceptable to shoot someone in the back, shove a lamp, baton, or maglight up their ***, or torture someone. One shouldn't have to be told this, or trained against it, IMO. Yet all of that has happened, done by those entrusted and sworn to "protect and serve". It's heartbreaking for those who are decent cops to read and see, and for them who took it seriously and who put their lives on the line every day, to see the loss of public trust, and respect as a result of it.

I don't believe that the police will ever get so powerful that we all live in fear of them. Some parts of the US are doing their best to disarm as many victims as they can, others are solidifying the peoples right to defense. Camera's are everywhere. The cops who executed the man in NY tried to steal all of the cameras, they failed, and not their crime is up on the internet. This will continue, until they pass laws forbidding the recording of law enforcement, which violates the US Constitution, and will be ignored anyway, because we can and it is right, even if it is made illegal.

The ugly side of police action will always be shown in the light. It's a damn shame, the same attention isn't given to the bright side. There's a hell of a lot more Good cops than Bad cops out there, and they deserve acknowledgment.

 

[GBlues]

Your missing some very basic issues here.

It is not the potential of injury that is at issue when it comes to excessive force. It is actual injury in proportion to the resistance being offered. If the guy suffered no injuries, how then can you say that it is excessive. In point of fact, in certain situation, one could say that it wasn't enough force.

For example, is it excessive force if I hit a guy 15 times in the face, cause not injuries, but still fail to obtain compliance? Sure, 15 times may seem like a lot, but if it is not accomplishing the task, then by definition it is not excessive.

You seem to think that because you can't see it in the video, the guy wasn't resisting, ignoring the fact that at the same time as the picked the guy up, a citizen walks right in front of the camera, blocking the view. You have no idea what actually occured in those few moments, but make a claim of fact that he was not resisting.

But lets examine the video. You can see that the officer who initially tried to pick up the suspect was "thrown off". How did that occur, in your opinion. You can even hear the crowd tell the guy, "Don't do that," and "that's just dumb," even before the cops start punching him. How do you account for these statements made by the public?

Another thing is that you make an assumption about his reaction. This guy, according to reports, was drunk. The level of pain tolerance that a drunk person has can be significantly higher then that of a sober person. But even then, do you feel that officers should make an assumption that he is only reaching for his neck after he has been punched due to pain? I can tell you that I have personally struck people, and the only thing they attempted to reach for was my weapon (baton, fist, etc.) or reach for their own.

What I am suggesting to you is that you should feel free to question the actions of any law enforcement officer who is doing their job. That is you right in a free society and I encourage you to do so when you feel it is appropriate. However, you are making assumptions based on, in my opinion, a lack of expertise on how fights actually occur, how they occur in a law enforcement context, how they occur when someone is intoxicated, and the legal context in which a use of force is judged.

I would go back and rewatch the video as I did not notice those particular instances happening, however I am having a problem with the video at this moment, rest assured I will go back at the first available opportunity where it doesn't say an error has a occured and rewatch it again. I watched several times, and yes, I'm not perfect I could have missed some details. However, my "lack of expertise in how real fights happen", is overshadowed by the ******** that I keep reading. I do not know how they happen in a law enforcement context, I do know how they occur when some one is intoxicate, and when not intoxicated in a civilian environment. Now that being said, my only issue is with the targets. That was excessive. Unless you plan to knock the guy out, or break his neck, there is no reason for that area to be targeted period. There isn't much a guy can do with his head to fight back, when 4 guys are on top of him. He could bite, but if your stupid enough to put your appendages close enough for him to do that, you need to get bit. He aint gonna head butt, you with his face shoved in the ground for damn sure. I agree with MJS if they had targeted his thighs, or some other pain compliant target, I wouldn't have said anything other than, 'IT doesn't look to me like he's resisting" I wouldn't have said anything about the punches or the knee. Even at that the punches don't really bother me all that much. My concern is the knee. It very easily in an adrenalized situation could have been much, much, worse. THat is all I have been saying. Yet I keep seeing people say, ' Nah, that wasn't the neck, that was his shoulder. He didn't drop that knee he just kneeled on the guys neck." When it doesn't take a freaking expert to see that isn't the case. You can say that, you can believe that, you can also believe that the moon is made out of green cheese, that isn't going to make it true. Just means that's what you believe. WHen the reality is there are LEO's on this thread, standing up for there brothers in blue, and I can't buy there explanations because the video to my view point from what I can see and gather, does not support there position. THey assume the officers are in the right, because they are police officers. But that doesn't mean they were right. It just means that they are police officers. And I know that they are human like everybody else. However, being officers they have to think about the potential of the things that they do. What if this guy had 2 ruptured disks in his neck? Just because he doesn't appear to be injured doesn't mean that he isn't. It just means that he didn't appear to be. Adrenaline can keep you going along time without feeling pain, it's afterwards that you feel it. THis man may very well have been injured. We don't know that. Sure as hell wasn't because they didn't try too.

 

[Sukerkin]

What I find interesting is that you seem to feel that the police should give a suspect an assumption of compliance.

I snipped out the parts that I concurred with in the above.

I'm glad the word "seem" was in that :tup:. I do the same also when trying to show what my reaction to what someone wrote was.

However, all I have been trying to do - not very well it would seem - was get people to take a critical look at what is carried out by their police service and see how it appears in an objective light.

To help that along, I have also being trying to show how the police in Britain behave in an entirely different fashion - a mirror from across the sea, so to speak.

We are subjects of the Crown rather than (supposedly) free citizens of a republic and one of us so misused by police officers as the chap in the video appears to be would have a fair amount of recourse in the eyes of the law if we were not violently resisting or in the course of actions likely to present a danger to the public.

To me, the casual acceptance of overt violence as a means of law enforcement brings a sense of forboding as to where a society is heading. It certainly does not reflect well on the level of violence inherent in said society.

Ah well. I shall just accept that in this I don't understand how it can be seen as 'normal' and you shall have to accept that you cannot convince me of same.

Wishy-washy Liberal signing off.

 

[GBlues]

So I got it working again and I watched it about another 3-4 times. Couple of things, uhm it is not definitive if he pushed one of the police officers away or not. Again like it was said by 5-0 kenpo a guy does step in the way right at that moment. However, one thing that I did not catch earlier, was why are there soldiers present? And why did one of them look like he was wanting to jump in and do something to the perpetrator, like help out the cops. Again, once this guys hands were grabbed, he was pretty much in the air, and the first strike comes to his head. HE is then taken down to the ground, where the officer on his left arm gains control of it, and that's when the punches come to his neck, with the yell, "Quit Fighting, quit fighting, quit fighting." He is then accosted with a knee to the neck and the words stop fighting, and if you'll notice his left leg, comes up off of the ground. YOu'll notice also that this officer also intentionally turns this persons head to the right, and applies pressure on the back right side of this man's skull, before dropping his knee. However, I will change my position as I am now more awake than I was at 6 o'clock this morning and state that it can be argued that he was attempting to resist to some degree. ALthough, with four men on top of you, one of them punching you and eventually kneeing you, I don't see how there could be too much resistance. THey must have known that this guy was like a super soldier or something. SO that being said I will concede that this man may have been resisting, I still however maintain, that the knee for me personally was one step too far in this instance. Especially since the mans whole body compressed or sunk into the ground. YOu most definitely can see the weight drop on the individual. I will not say that I was wrong, because I wasn't. I also would like to add, these cops all 8 of them, 4 on top of the individual and 4 more watching plus 2 soldiers standing by in the wings, acted more like a group of thugs than they did professionals. I say this because of the video itself. What I can determine from the video, right off of the bat, I see an individual who sitting in a chair minding his own business, when one cop is approaching with 2 more behind him says, "LEt's go hoss", and a fourth joins in with 2 soldiers dead on there heels. If these officers were not in uniform, from the video alone you would figure they were a gang of thugs going after the little guy for a little bit of fun. That's my take, and you can rip it up all you want. Oh, and once he was on the ground, he may have been fighting to keep his arms from being handcuffed by moving them around, but I do not personally constitute that as fighting. Because for all we know this man may have been innocent of all alligations against him. Innocent until proven guilty right?

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

The punches look to me are to Trapezius maybe Brachialis which can causes pain allowing for the arm to loosen up as they cuff him.
To me the knee was on the Brachialis resulting on greater presure and inmobility. I don't think it was on the neck.

 

[Archangel M]

If what is in that video is okay by you chaps in the Land of the Free, then that is that. It's not what is acceptable over here - not for such trivial offences as 'drunk and not all that disorderly' at any rate.

Oh really?

[yt]qgtWXfd7rcQ[/yt]

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh, and once he was on the ground, he may have been fighting to keep his arms from being handcuffed by moving them around, but I do not personally constitute that as fighting.

Resisting arrest is resisting arrest. You can call it a pancake if you like, but it is still resisting arrest.

Because for all we know this man may have been innocent of all alligations against him.

Doesn't matter.

Innocent until proven guilty right?

Presumption of innocence does not equal freedom from arrest. People get arrested all the time for things they are found not guilty of later on in court. That does not give them the right to resist arrest.

If it did, anyone who was being arrested would simply state "I'm innocent, therefore I will fight you putting on handcuffs, and you can't do anything about it, because I'm innocent." Nope, doesn't work like that.

You get arrested, your *** is going to jail. You can go peacefully or you can go to the hospital to get your face stitched up first, but you're going to jail. You make bail, you get an attorney, and you get found not guilty, more power to you - but that doesn't make the arrest wrong, and even if I had to twist your head around three times and beat you like Rodney King to get the cuffs on you, too bad, so sad. Nobody has the right to resist arrest, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

I can't tell you how many times I was confronted by angry citizens saying things like "I demand to know what you are arresting me for," and then thinking the subject was open to debate. It isn't. You don't get a vote, you don't get a say, you can't argue me out of it. Save it for your lawyer and a judge. I arrest you, you go to jail - period. Keep your yap shut and it will probably do you good, because any unwarned spontaneous statement you make WILL get used against you, and NO I do not have to read you your Miranda rights first.

Stupid citizen assumptions:

1) You have to be in agreement that you're being arrested. You don't.
2) You have to believe you did something wrong. You don't.
3) You have the right to see the witness, the evidence, etc, against you when you're being arrested. You don't.
4) I have to read you your rights. I don't.
5) You get a phone call. Not now, sunshine, ask the turnkey when you get to jail.
6) I have to tell you what I'm arresting you for. I don't.
7) You do not have to comply with my orders. You do - and more importantly, you will. If I'm breaking the law or infringing on your rights, you can sue me and get my badge, etc - once you get a lawyer and file suit. Not today, sunshine.
8) You can decide whether or not you're under arrest. Nope. If I say tag, you're it. Come quietly or get mussed up - but you're coming either way.

 

[Archangel M]

Presumption of innocence does not equal freedom from arrest. People get arrested all the time for things they are found not guilty of later on in court. That does not give them the right to resist arrest.

If it did, anyone who was being arrested would simply state "I'm innocent, therefore I will fight you putting on handcuffs, and you can't do anything about it, because I'm innocent." Nope, doesn't work like that.

Exactly.

I find it amazing and disturbing how many people don't understand this. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to arrests. If you were "guilty" at arrest all we would have to do would be deposit you at the local prison and determine your sentence.

 

[jks9199]

I don't disagree with those characterisations of the reality of violence at all, Jim.

The point I was trying to make is to highlight the acceptance of such a level of violence from 'ordinary' police officers dealing with (what appears to be) a non-threatening problem of public nuisance. The only time I have seen similar over here has been from riot police during a riot.

Anyhow, about to lose my net connection - I hope to return to this later tonight (but no promises).

I'm not sure what you mean by "ordinary" police. Maybe it's a cultural divide -- but that scenario is a pretty typical job for normal cops here. I don't know what event this was at -- but it seems to have been some sort of big event like a concert or the 4th of July picnics, judging by the crowd. The cops involved may have been assigned as a detail to the event or not -- and we don't see anything that led up to this scenario. The comments in video seem to be from bystanders; they seem pretty close to the camera.

When the suspect didn't comply with directions, the cops made him. The first time I did that for real was something like my 2nd shift. Maybe my first. It goes with the territory, and we're not calling in a riot squad for a single idiot in the crowd. Hell, my personal "best" was hooking 3 idiots myself. (Fortunately, they all complied. My squad car looked like a clown car when I got the jail... but they all stayed with the program.)

And if you think that's scary force... you don't wanna see how we hit a house on a search warrant in my current assignment.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Exactly.

I find it amazing and disturbing how many people don't understand this. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to arrests. If you were "guilty" at arrest all we would have to do would be deposit you at the local prison and determine your sentence.

It used to amaze (and infuriate) me how many drunks thought they were allowed to 'discuss things' with me about whether or not they were going to be arrested. They would be just getting ready to 'explain it all to me' when I put the hand-irons on, then they start getting squirrely and trying not to let their hands go behind their back, all while saying "Now just hold on a minute, let me explain, see, no wait, let me explain, no, hold on, I'm trying to tell you what happened!" Yeah, they all have an interesting story to tell you, which starts with them minding their own business and ends with a bizarre case of mistaken identity which they can fully understand how I could be mistaken, but I am and could I please let them go now?

And citizens will gather around while all this is going on and try to argue with me on the drunk's behalf, and then someone puts their hands on me, and I draw my nightstick and give them five from the sky before they can even think about it, and then the crowd REALLY starts to get ugly, wanting to know what I did that for, and wanting to know - personally, to each of them, in a way they can completely understand WHY I am taking their good old buddy what's his name to jail, and the next thing I know, I've got my back to the wall, a drunk in hand-irons sitting on the ground next to me, and my weapon out, while I call OINOA, code 3 on my handset and hope they find me before the crowd takes me apart.

No. I tell you you're under arrest, you best be cooperating, sunshine, or I'll stick my Manodnock up your jaxie and make you a perpsicle. You ARE going to jail, and if you resist, I remove your arms and beat you with them. NOW. There will be no discussion, sweetness. Get those hands behind you before I twist your snarglies off. You may miss them in years to come.

Wow. Talk about a flashback! Glad I don't do that anymore.

 

[jks9199]

What I am suggesting to you is that you should feel free to question the actions of any law enforcement officer who is doing their job. That is you right in a free society and I encourage you to do so when you feel it is appropriate. However, you are making assumptions based on, in my opinion, a lack of expertise on how fights actually occur, how they occur in a law enforcement context, how they occur when someone is intoxicated, and the legal context in which a use of force is judged.

I absolutely agree with this.

In fact, I've said many times that if you see the police do something and you think it's wrong -- report it to the agency. They may explain what happened to you, and change your mind. (I recall one video of an officer slamming a suspect's face into the trunk of his car which drew a lot flack. Until people learned that the arrestee had been grabbing the cop's privates...) Or they may end up disciplining the officer. Most likely, it'll be somewhere in between.

And if you don't feel like the local agency responded to your complaint appropriately, report it up the chain. Your state police or attorney general may investigate -- or you can even get the FBI involved if you feel that there was a federal violation (usually, read that as civil rights violation).

 

[jks9199]

Presumption of innocence does not equal freedom from arrest. People get arrested all the time for things they are found not guilty of later on in court. That does not give them the right to resist arrest.

If it did, anyone who was being arrested would simply state "I'm innocent, therefore I will fight you putting on handcuffs, and you can't do anything about it, because I'm innocent." Nope, doesn't work like that.

You get arrested, your *** is going to jail. You can go peacefully or you can go to the hospital to get your face stitched up first, but you're going to jail. You make bail, you get an attorney, and you get found not guilty, more power to you - but that doesn't make the arrest wrong, and even if I had to twist your head around three times and beat you like Rodney King to get the cuffs on you, too bad, so sad. Nobody has the right to resist arrest, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

Exactly.

I find it amazing and disturbing how many people don't understand this. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to arrests. If you were "guilty" at arrest all we would have to do would be deposit you at the local prison and determine your sentence.

It's very simple. The cops want to arrest you, go with the program. If they're wrong, you may be "de-arrested" shortly as they sort that out, or you can seek redress later. But if you resist, buck, or run away... even if you were right, you're likely to get hurt.

Go with the program, and address it later. Sue 'em. Complain on 'em. Sue and complain on them.

 

[Empty Hands]

If the guy suffered no injuries, how then can you say that it is excessive.

So if they had tried to shoot him and missed, it wouldn't have been an excessive reaction?

 

[Twin Fist]

no blood, no foul

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So if they had tried to shoot him and missed, it wouldn't have been an excessive reaction?

That officer would need more range time.

 

[blindsage]

No. I tell you you're under arrest, you best be cooperating, sunshine, or I'll stick my Manodnock up your jaxie and make you a perpsicle. You ARE going to jail, and if you resist, I remove your arms and beat you with them. NOW. There will be no discussion, sweetness. Get those hands behind you before I twist your snarglies off. You may miss them in years to come.

Wow. Talk about a flashback! Glad I don't do that anymore.

I'm glad you don't either. I absolutely accept the need for force usage by LEOs and that resisting, whether you think you're guilty or not, is not only a bad idea but needs to be addressed by force, but their are limits and I'm, personally, a little disturb by the off-handed way some of your comments come across like "I'll stick my Manodnock up your jaxie and make you a perpsicle". I think the level of force necessary for LEOs to do their jobs is generally more than the public is familiar or comfortable with, but comments like this and a couple others you've made, don't help their cause. There are limits. Sticking a baton 'up' anywhere for any reason other than your life being directly threatened is one of them. Because you have the right, duty and obligation to use force to do your job does not make any use of force you decide to use acceptable.

 

[Archangel M]

The level of force for batons, tasers, hand and so on are not for "when our lives are threatened"...thats what the pistols are for.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The level of force for batons, tasers, hand and so on are not for "when our lives are threatened"...thats what the pistols are for.

As I recall it was 'that level of force necessary to effect the apprehension'. No more, no less. Absolutely agree that if life is in jeopardy, the boom stick gets to say hello.