Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remember the response a number of years back when an officer gassed sitting demonstrators? Certainly not violent.....yet the response was not favorable.
Perhaps we should go quickly to tasers......and how many videos fly around the Net when unruly motorists take it?
Myself, I'm hand to hand because among other things, I don't have to reach for my weapon (but I will certainly use on the spot force multipliers) for I already have it. IF I do have to go to HtH, the other is ending up in the hospital, though. I fight to take the fight out of them.
I do not know these restraint methods in current discussion (except as they were used by the VC); I do know arm bars and sleeper chokes, though. As with anything in physical training, it is all rather automatic because, if in anything else, as a deadly force instructor pointed out to me......"You are going to take what you can get.".
So if it is to shoot them not, what type of force and how it is applied is acceptable?
Speculatively, I'd say apply sufficient restraint to prevent harm to themselves and others. Any form of asphyxiation should be banned unless the suspect is in possession of a deadly weapon and intent on using it. The goal should be for everybody to wake up alive tomorrow.
OK, I read the OP five times and am still having a hard time understanding it. But this is what I think you are getting at.
Deadly force should only be used when there is an imminent threat to the lives and wellbeing of others. It should absolutely never be used on a restrained detainee. Sitting demonstrators should not be gassed or tazed... Which I think is what you were suggesting, but idk.
Speculatively, I'd say apply sufficient restraint to prevent harm to themselves and others. Any form of asphyxiation should be banned unless the suspect is in possession of a deadly weapon and intent on using it. The goal should be for everybody to wake up alive tomorrow.
Well, part of that is, what's a deadly weapon? I'm a deadly weapon with my skills. I don't go around saying these delicate hands are registered but I do know if I end up in the wrong side of court, my background will be used against me.
I'd probably use a sleeper choke only in defense, if things got that up close and personal.
Sufficient to prevent harm......or to stop them from fighting? If I put a half nelson on some one and they accept that the fight is over, that's one thing. If they continue resisting, however, there are at least two throws I know to use.....that will probably dislocate their shoulder. I could go for a chop....which could break their collar bone. There are strikes I could apply to their face as well.
Now, one might say, "Well, you should have used some form of further restraint," but the question is why from two stand points. First, they have not accepted the first restraint so why should they accept a second restraint, what will it take to get the point across? Secondly, I do not have the ultimate advantage, the advantage I do have could be lost in a second and I have to use what I have while I have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Taco64
OK, I read the OP five times and am still having a hard time understanding it. But this is what I think you are getting at.
Deadly force should only be used when there is an imminent threat to the lives and wellbeing of others. It should absolutely never be used on a restrained detainee. Sitting demonstrators should not be gassed or tazed... Which I think is what you were suggesting, but idk.
Well, for me, HtH is deadly force or, at the very least, is about 2 seconds away when it is activated.
But to the other issue, when someone does not obey an order of a law officer to cease and desist, if force is not to be used, what should be used?
Remember the response a number of years back when an officer gassed sitting demonstrators? Certainly not violent.....yet the response was not favorable.
It wasn't favorable because it was excessive and that cop should have been taken out and shot.
It's the minimum amount of force necessary to maintain control or prevent death/bodily harm.
As long as the demonstrators are sitting down, it's under control, and there's no risk of death/bodily harm.
The fact that the cop was incompetent and incapable of employing inter-personal communication skills to resolve the situation is not relevant and not justification for gassing.
99% of "resisting arrest" is not resistance it all. It's the person didn't move fast enough for the police officer's liking, and in cop-mentality, that warrants a beat-down.
So, if you're told to put your hands on the hood of the car and you don't do it within 1/1,000,000th of a second, that's justification for a beat-down.
It wasn't favorable because it was excessive and that cop should have been taken out and shot
Take this line of thinking and sprinkle across a swath of the population (including cops and karens, etc) and you understand why rational notions of addressing problems like this has become passe. Overreactions to overreactions is the rule of the day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
