NY man killed by policeman

[Qnts2]

 

 

The police have tactics that may appear too brutal and may at times even cause physical harm.   But I think you need to put yourself in the shoes of the police and consider that when they confront a person, they don't know at first what this person is capable of and when a person starts to physically resist arrest, then measures need to be taken to immediately overwhelm that person before they can do something to the police officer.    You respond with overwhelming force in order to not only intimidate the person you're arresting, but also maintain full control over the situation.  This protects the police from harm and it protects the person getting arrested if they are willing to comply. 

 

I definitely do not want a policeman using overwhelming power. That is absolutely dangerous.

 

 

It is dangerous, but they have a dangerous job.  They have someone they know nothing about, that they have seconds size up and take down if that person resists arrest.  You HAVE to overwhelm the person to begin with.   There would be no danger if the person wasn't resisting arrest and the police have to be in control of the situation.  So overwhelming force is a necessary component, like it or not.

 

The police are working with citizens and are not working with enemies, unless the person shows to be a dangerous enemy.

 

By the time the person shows how dangerous they are, it's too late and things only spiral out of control from there.  The police must overwhelm the person to start with so the person doesn't get to show how dangerous they are.  It is a matter preempting the problem before it gets worse.

 

Overwhelming force is for war against enemy combatants. An army needs to win the fight. Police need to uphold the law, make arrests and maintain peace.

 

 

Yes and criminals who resist arrest are enemies.  The  way you maintain peace is by force.  Peace has to be enforced and sometimes that means you have to do whatever it takes to bring the enemy down, no matter who it is.  Sometimes the only way a police to make arrest is to use the necessary force level to make the criminal comply.  And sometimes, that means deadly force.

 

 

Again, the use of overwhelming force is simply license to abuse, as not all situations should include overwhelming force.

 

1. An 80 year old woman is shoplifting. She tells the police to go stick it.

2. A teenager is caught smoking marjuana. He runs.

3. A man calls the local hospital saying that he wants to kill himself and his family.

 

I will start with number 3. The hospital called the police. When the police went to the address, the mans girlfriend rushed outside and asked the police to leave, and that the man had psycological issues. If the police remained, it would only further escalate the situation. She said she was able to calm him down as she had many times in the past. She could then call the police back if they needed to return. The police refused to leave and confronted the man. This man had a history of schizophrenia, was an epileptic, and had a minor heart arythmia. When the police confronted the man, he viewed them as a direct threat, and starting yelling and threatening. The police fired a taser which hit the man, and the man dropped dead on the spot.

 

The state of Vermont reviewed the procedures for firing a taser and realized that the police were not treating the taser as a potentially deadly weapon but as a easy and ready means to subdue. The procedures were entirely rewritten and all police are required to be retrained on the use of the weapon.

 

For number 1, no, I do not want a police man to put an 80 year old woman in a choke hold because she mouthed off. He would probably kill her due to her brittle bones.  

For number 2, a teenage running, probably just means he is afraid to be caught. It does not warrant tazing him.

 

No, the police should not be allowed to use overwhelming force. They are not at war with the citizens of this country.  Being a policeman is dangerous work, but much of the danger is, you do not know what you are approaching, so caution is required. An over-reaction is wrong as it mean unnessesarily hurting someone. Again, this is not war.  Only if the perps brandish weapons, is it a war, and then the return of fire by the police has to take into account civilians who might be hit. A very large and noisy crowd doing a peaceful protest does not warrant firing live ammunition (read about Kent State).  

[Qnts2]

there are times when brutality is obvious, qnts. the guy that filmed the take-down and death of eric garner had previously filmed another incident with someone else... and there is no doubt in my mind that brutality occurred in that one, because the suspect was already down and in the process of being cuffed by another officer, when the first officer started beating the suspect about the legs with a club. 

 

in the case of eric garner though, i watched the video. when the cop first tried to take him down, he was not using excessive force. he reached his arm around the front of the eric, over the shoulder and downward towards the chest, and it appeared more coercive than forceful, attempting to get the guy down into what i would assume was meant to be a kneeling position. eric started fighting him off saying don't touch me. that's when the arm that was still around him appears to have slid up. it did not stay around eric's neck for more than a second or two, not nearly long enough to cause death or even to cause one to lose consciousness. eric didn't start yelling he couldn't breathe until he was on the ground, held there by police as one of them put the cuffs on. he was then turned onto his side, but it looked like at that point there wasn't much response at all from eric. either he was seriously winded or perhaps he'd already died.

 

When a person is on the ground, being pushed into the ground (by the policeman putting his weight onto Eric pushing him down), it restricts breathing as the diaphram can not properly expand the lungs. So, Eric was in a choke hold (it was more then a second or two), and then on the ground in a hold which also restricted breathing. When Eric was on the ground, and yelling that he couldn't breath, the police should have checked right away.

 

Eric yelling 'don't touch me', is not a big deal. That should not have caused any real reaction from the policeman. Police should be trained to not react to what people say to them. 'Don't touch me' is just plain silly. It is not a threat. It is not a dangerous saying. As a police, belligerent sayings are likely common and to be ignored.    

[Guest LadyC]

no response to the first example.

 

example 2).

 

when a teenager is running from cops, it's not usually just because he's scared. it's usually because he's got something on him that he doesn't want to be caught with. harder drugs, weapons, or a warrant out for his arrest. tasing is reasonable.

 

example 3)

 

do you have any idea how many domestic calls turn into homicide calls? or how many women will rush out to defend and excuse their man's behavior because they are afraid they'll get beaten worse if they don't? that happens every day in this country. a cop on a domestic call is there to restrain the person who is making threats. that's the job. it may seem unfair in certain instances like the one you mention, but cops have no way of knowing that this one call will be singular exception in their entire career. when i lived in vegas, a cop went on a routine domestic call like that. the girlfriend was trying to "explain away" the man's behavior, trying to get the cops to leave. she wasn't fast enough. the husband came out and shot one of the officers. he died on the scene. 

[Guest LadyC]

 

there are times when brutality is obvious, qnts. the guy that filmed the take-down and death of eric garner had previously filmed another incident with someone else... and there is no doubt in my mind that brutality occurred in that one, because the suspect was already down and in the process of being cuffed by another officer, when the first officer started beating the suspect about the legs with a club. 

 

in the case of eric garner though, i watched the video. when the cop first tried to take him down, he was not using excessive force. he reached his arm around the front of the eric, over the shoulder and downward towards the chest, and it appeared more coercive than forceful, attempting to get the guy down into what i would assume was meant to be a kneeling position. eric started fighting him off saying don't touch me. that's when the arm that was still around him appears to have slid up. it did not stay around eric's neck for more than a second or two, not nearly long enough to cause death or even to cause one to lose consciousness. eric didn't start yelling he couldn't breathe until he was on the ground, held there by police as one of them put the cuffs on. he was then turned onto his side, but it looked like at that point there wasn't much response at all from eric. either he was seriously winded or perhaps he'd already died.

 

When a person is on the ground, being pushed into the ground (by the policeman putting his weight onto Eric pushing him down), it restricts breathing as the diaphram can not properly expand the lungs. So, Eric was in a choke hold (it was more then a second or two), and then on the ground in a hold which also restricted breathing. When Eric was on the ground, and yelling that he couldn't breath, the police should have checked right away.

 

Eric yelling 'don't touch me', is not a big deal. That should not have caused any real reaction from the policeman. Police should be trained to not react to what people say to them. 'Don't touch me' is just plain silly. It is not a threat. It is not a dangerous saying. As a police, belligerent sayings are likely common and to be ignored.    

 

 

i watched the video. it was a second or two. i could watch it again and count the seconds off to be sure, if you'd like. i could possibly be wrong.

[Guest LadyC]

by the way, the officer didn't react to the don't touch me... he continued what he was doing. it only became forceful when eric started struggling with him.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Again, the use of overwhelming force is simply license to abuse, as not all situations should include overwhelming force.

No, it is not a license to abuse.   And it is not the case that all situations require the same level of force.  

 

 

 

1. An 80 year old woman is shoplifting. She tells the police to go stick it.

2. A teenager is caught smoking marjuana. He runs.

3. A man calls the local hospital saying that he wants to kill himself and his family.

 

I will start with number 3. The hospital called the police. When the police went to the address, the mans girlfriend rushed outside and asked the police to leave, and that the man had psycological issues. If the police remained, it would only further escalate the situation. She said she was able to calm him down as she had many times in the past. She could then call the police back if they needed to return. The police refused to leave and confronted the man. This man had a history of schizophrenia, was an epileptic, and had a minor heart arythmia. When the police confronted the man, he viewed them as a direct threat, and starting yelling and threatening. The police fired a taser which hit the man, and the man dropped dead on the spot.

 

The state of Vermont reviewed the procedures for firing a taser and realized that the police were not treating the taser as a potentially deadly weapon but as a easy and ready means to subdue. The procedures were entirely rewritten and all police are required to be retrained on the use of the weapon.

 

For number 1, no, I do not want a police man to put an 80 year old woman in a choke hold because she mouthed off. He would probably kill her due to her brittle bones.  

For number 2, a teenage running, probably just means he is afraid to be caught. It does not warrant tazing him.

 

No, the police should not be allowed to use overwhelming force. They are not at war with the citizens of this country.  Being a policeman is dangerous work, but much of the danger is, you do not know what you are approaching, so caution is required. An over-reaction is wrong as it mean unnessesarily hurting someone. Again, this is not war.  Only if the perps brandish weapons, is it a war, and then the return of fire by the police has to take into account civilians who might be hit. A very large and noisy crowd doing a peaceful protest does not warrant firing live ammunition (read about Kent State).  

 

 

 

The problem here is that you choose examples that are not really cases where the use of overwhelming force would be used.  I thought it was clear from the context that we are talking about someone who actively resisting arrest as what we see saw in the case of either Michael Brown or Eric Garner.

 

80 year old women or teenage shoplifters doesn't really address the issue.  We are talking about people who violently resist arrest and pose a danger to the police officer.  In EVERY case violent or not, police use the force level required to maintain control of a situation.  

 

But when there is a threat or a potential threat to a police officer than he can and should use overwhelming force to neutralize the threat..  That is not a license to abuse.   It is part of police work.  Any threat needs to be responded to with the level of force needed to overwhelm the person who is a threat.  "Overwhelming force" will mean different things in different situations and it doesn't necessarily mean choke holds.  It can mean much less than that.  But no matter what the police MUST use the level of force needed to overwhelm a would be violent offender in order to maintain control and to communicate to the offender that the police are indeed in charge and not to resist any further.

 

 

No, the police should not be allowed to use overwhelming force. They are not at war with the citizens of this country.

 

They are involved in confrontations with violent citizens and in those cases overwhelming force is needful and called for.

 

 

Being a policeman is dangerous work, but much of the danger is, you do not know what you are approaching, so caution is required. An over-reaction is wrong as it mean unnessesarily hurting someone.

 

The remedy for that is to do exactly as instructed by the police and then remove any need for the police to resort to a violent response.   The police only get as violent as the criminal forces them to be.   If a person decides to lay his hands on policeman trying to arrest him, then if he gets hurt by the police, it was not a matter of him getting unnecessarily hurt.  The criminal decides how messy things are going to get.

 

Again, this is not war.  Only if the perps brandish weapons, is it a war, and then the return of fire by the police has to take into account civilians who might be hit.

 

If someone decides to get violent, it does turn into a battle or a war.  It doesn't matter what form that violence takes. If a person tries to take the side arm off of a police officer, the police officer must do whatever he has to not let the weapon get into the hands of the felon.  That includes shooting felon, whether the felon is armed or not. 

[ayin jade]

The man who threatened to kill himself and his family committed a crime with just the threat. The cops could not walk away no matter how much the girlfriend pleaded. If they had, and someone was hurt, the department would have been taken to task for walking away from a dangerous criminal situation. 

[ayin jade]

Cops who died on duty in 2013 reached the lowest level in 54 yrs. 

 

Line of Duty Deaths: 105

9/11 related illness: 1

Aircraft accident: 1

Automobile accident: 25

Boating accident: 1

Bomb: 1

Drowned: 2

Duty related illness: 1

Electrocuted: 1

Fall: 4

Fire: 1

Gunfire: 30

Gunfire (Accidental): 2

Heart attack: 10

Motorcycle accident: 4

Stabbed: 2

Struck by vehicle: 8

Training accident: 2

Vehicle pursuit: 4

Vehicular assault: 5

 

For 2014 so far:

 

Line of Duty Deaths: 107

Assault: 2

Automobile accident: 24

Drowned: 1

Fire: 1

Gunfire: 43

Gunfire (Accidental): 2

Heart attack: 15

Motorcycle accident: 3

Struck by vehicle: 3

Vehicle pursuit: 3

Vehicular assault: 10

 

According to various sources, typically 400ish people are killed by cops each year. The percentage rate of officers killed is far higher than percentage rate of people killed by cops. 

 

If people would refuse to resist arrest. If they would stay still and not try to escape, their chances of being hurt would be much much smaller.

[Guest shiloh357]

I have heard conflicting reports about whether or not the police officer used an "illegal" choke hold.  ABC first reported it was, and then called it "unauthorized."  What is a police officer supposed to do when faced with a situation like this, get clearance for how to get the suspect under control?  The one thing I do know is this is not a race issue at all, but one of whether or not a police officer used excessive force.  I have no way of knowing if he did or not, so I am left to accept the decision of the grand jury.  If he didn't commit a crime, he shouldn't be indicted. 

It is a legal choke hold according to NY state law, but is not allowed in NYC.

[Guest LadyC]

the thing that is confusing is that it is supposedly a move banned for nypd, but yet that is a move they are trained to use in the academy. 

 

i choose to go with the grand jury on this for simple reasons. the grand jury had months to pour over evidence that the rest of us have not been and never will be privy to. they were under enormous pressure to return with an indictment, and yet after careful review of that evidence we're clueless about, they couldn't do it.

 

that, to me, says everything i need to know.