carlfense

First, it's false to say that the only way to subdue his arms was to get him on the ground. Second, if the goal is to get him on the ground (which I'm fine with in this situation) the acceptable technique has nothing to do with a chokehold. The head and neck are not involved for reasons that should probably be obvious. BRI can probably chime in with how he was trained to take a resisting suspect to the ground. Typically we try and stay away from the head and neck area. Why? Because we've been warned, at least in Iowa anyways, that it can be construed as deadly force. You can get behind a subject, get them off balance by leaning back and having your arm around the upper chest area and you essentially aren't touching the head or the neck and you can take the subject down. I've done it several times and been successful as I'm in the position of advantage that way. Once you get their back, get them off balance, they're screwed. Now that's assuming they aren't comfortable in a ground fight, meaning a wrestler. I'm very comfortable in a ground fight, but I'm not a wrestler, and being in the State of Iowa and it being a huge wrestling state that's always a concern. I'll look for dead giveaways like cauliflower ear, things like that, that gives me knowledge which is an advantage. There are other techniques as well, arm bar take downs, sympathetic reactions, pressure points, etc, but my experience is when the SHTF you usually forget most of that stuff and go back to your take downs where you're trying to get the position of advantage and get them off balance. One good thing for me about working in a county jail for 6 years as a deputy was, I learned how to fight without having the luxury of tools on my duty belt because all of that besides pepper spray was taken from you. You also learned how to treat people and what respect truly meant. Those years in there have helped me immensely on the street. Every officer in America should spend at least 1 year in a county jail or prison setting. It teaches you how to talk to people and helps you not become a badge heavy a$$. Those murderers, gang bangers, rapists, etc. could care less if you wear a badge, but they'll give you respect if you give respect back to them. Thanks BRI. I think that the training is similar in Nebraska.

First, it's false to say that the only way to subdue his arms was to get him on the ground. Second, if the goal is to get him on the ground (which I'm fine with in this situation) the acceptable technique has nothing to do with a chokehold. The head and neck are not involved for reasons that should probably be obvious. BRI can probably chime in with how he was trained to take a resisting suspect to the ground.

Actually, the chokehold was illegal. IIRC they were banned by the NYPD in 1993. When Garner was, in your words, "swat[ting] the police officers arms away," the appropriate proportional response is to secure his arms. There were six officers present. There was no danger justifying an illegal chokehold. I want them held to the same standards as anyone else who kills someone on the street. I want an independent investigation (as in, not the department investigating itself) to determine if any crimes were committed. I want a special prosecutor appointed to reduce the appearance of collusion. These are things that we haven't seen recently.

Nothing that Garner did, and I'm referring to both the resisting arrest (which is extremely mild by resisting arrest standards) and the original offense, justified a choke hold or the half a dozen officers standing around watching him die without offering medical assistance.

That's like trying to say that firing the gun didn't kill the guy because it was the bullet that hit him . . . and even after the bullet hit him it was his own heart that pumped the blood out of the wound. Please don't try to defend the Garner situation.

You didn't insure them against loss by arson?

That seems to usually be the case with smaller police departments. It's much easier to keep track of who is doing (or not doing) what they are supposed to be doing.

Those people are morons. AND those people are a small minority of the population. No one is saying that you don't have a right to have an opinion. Why do you feel like your profession is being attacked? Also, it's certainly not you vs. the rest of the board or "police" vs. "everyone else." In fact, I think that sort of thinking is pretty dangerous and leads to the sort of circling of the wagons that I alluded to earlier. You can believe that people don't understand what your job entails but if that is the case you'd probably be better off explaining it to them than telling them that they couldn't understand. Ultimately, a large majority of the population has a very high amount of confidence and trust in the police. If you feel like your profession is under some sort of siege you're mistaken.

There is a real issue of circling the wagons when incidents arise. It's far too easy (and common!) for these things to devolve into "us vs. them" situations.

If we can all acknowledge that climate change is an important issue and we can simultaneously mock PETA I'm all for it. If you're skipping past the former to get to the latter you're doing it wrong.

Wow. Really? A little bit of a reach there, but it seems like there is an adverse amount of reverse racism these days. I just get tired of hearing about all the African Americans still being repressed. There s just as much opportunity for blacks as there is for any other. It just gets old after awhile having to pay for the sins of our forefathers that occurred hundreds of years ago. Maybe you should explain it to them. Can't imagine why you might hear accusations of racism these days.

Wow. Really?

Well that's some low hanging fruit.

This just in, some people suck. What's your point, people did the same for Michael Brown. Yeah . . . not sure that the Daily Caller's list of tweets from people who may or may not exist is quite the same as significant portions of the public, media, and police forces denying that the killing of unarmed citizens is problematic.

Why do we need them to be a threat again? I will answer that question, but I would like to ask you to think about it for a while. I don't want to start another Korean war in this forum. Cut the drama. Answer it if you want to do so or just move on.

Why do we need them to be a threat again?

Do people really think that these are comparable? Also, is there a significant portion of the population strenuously defending the cop killer? This is all very strange to me.

What ever happened to the first amendment?!

I think that it's because they are held to different standards and also because I have little doubt that if Mr. Brinsley hadn't done us the favor of offing himself that he would have been indicted for murder.

I agree that this is an issue . . . but I know of many employers in the area that are requiring 4 year degrees for positions that simply do not require it. I'm talking about the equivalent of fork lift driver positions. I've tried thinking of why they would list that as a requirement besides the fact that they can and the only thing that I can come up with is that the potential employee might be more likely to be tied to his/her job because of his/her debt load.

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/faqs.htm

Well that's scary. My connection to the field isn't on the administrative side but the people that I know are quite familiar with charge masters. Huh. Maybe I just have an unusual fascination with health care policy. Haha.

That. Stuff. Is. Awesome. Probably the best IPA I've had the pleasure of trying . . . but I haven't gotten my hands on the Plinys or Heady Topper yet.