TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote: I will offer this piece of advice to active LE. Believe me, I know how hard it is but never get angry.

As a taxpayer, those are the guys that I want working for me... And I'd be willing to pay them a lot more for that specialized level of self-control.

VoiceofReason wrote:There are many ways of controlling a person resisting arrest without causing major or life threatening injuries. The police are not trained to use them. A petite female can easily control a large man and may not even get her uniform dirty.

What you're saying is true, but the reality is that it's not "easy" and requires an awful lot of training, retraining, and constant practice. And there is some value where you can have all the technique you want, but if you're 125 lbs and up against a 300lb fat guy, it's very dangerous. Some people are able to do it, after years, but not many...

I'm all for a better trained, better paid police force... But it's not reasonable to expect that LEOs will always be able to affect arrests against resisting persons without causing or receiving injury.

I don't know if it was a choke or not. I do know that it's relatively easy to get slightly out of position and start doing it wrong, especially if you're dealing with someone that's bigger and stronger. And the fact is that current case law makes almost any level of force "legal" to affect the arrest...

buddyhotrod, breaking NYPD policy isn't against the law...

buddyhotrod wrote: the Video Does in Fact show a Illegal police choke maneuver being used. I am sorry but the officer broke NYPD policy by choking someone and needs to face the Charges. I have no idea what the Grand Jury was told by the DA. I am for the police 100% but the video speaks volumes along with the fact that NYPD are not allowed to choke any person at all. The Officer clearly broke NYPD policy. beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're right, the NYPD actually banned all of these holds in 1993: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyreg ... icers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even if it was a violation of NYPD policy, that policy is not the law... And thank goodness NYPD doesn't make the law.. The actual "law" and subsequent established case law, such as Graham v. Connor, has granted officers great latitude in the use of force when arresting someone. And what I heard on the air from someone who said he was with NYPD was that when they decide to arrest someone, they don't dilly-dally around or provide a chance to talk about it. That's scary.

This officer was attempting to use non-lethal force to subdue someone. It sounds like he could be disciplined by the department if he violated internal policy on the means of that submission, but it's not "illegal" to use that type of hold while making an arrest.

My understanding is that for the officer to be indited, the DA would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to cause death... Could you prove that? I'm pretty sure that I couldn't. I'll wager that the soon-to-be-pending civil case will have a very different result as the bar for success is very different.

Then again, the saying is that DA's can indite "ham sandwiches" if they want to... I don't trust DA prosecutions of police officers - there has to be cooperation in that relationship to begin with and it's not arms-length. We need someone else prosecuting the police, not the people that they work with every day... DA's prosecuting the police is pretty idiotic, actually...

Note, I'm not defending the actions of the officer here, nor do I remotely agree with what happened. I'm explaining why it's going down the way it is...

ScooterSissy wrote: No one killed anyone for selling cigarettes. Resisting arrest is what got him killed.

Still, without this ridiculous level of micro-management legislation, this incident wouldn't have happened.
I'd be more understanding if he was smuggling cigarettes in from Indian reservations (or neighboring states) and selling bulk - but we've got legislation that prevents the sale of single cigarettes? And we enforce it? Seriously?

This is what we pay our government officials to spend their time doing... And create a situation where our PDs are looking at this level of stuff in a city as large as this one?

Cedar Park Dad wrote: If you resist you will die?
Avoiding so many Godwin references right now.
What if you quit resisting (as occurred). Do you still have to die?

I was listening to a "veteran" (self-proclaimed) of the NYPD this morning. I found a few things interesting:

1) That once the PD has determined that they're going to arrest you, they're trained to affect that arrest as quickly as possible. By doing so, they prevent verbal confrontations that escalate. By acting first and acting quickly, they're more likely to subdue with less force than using club, a tazer, or deadly force. They'll surprise you, tackle you, do whatever it takes to get you into a submissive position once you're "under arrest".

I can see this being used for a suspect that was known to resist, but it scares the heck out of me as a compliant citizen. If you want to arrest me, tell me that I'm under arrest and give me time to comply. I may argue with you, but I'm not going to physically resist.


Our legislative and judical systems have granted PDs large amounts of latitude in the amount of force needed to affect an arrest... Likely this is why the grand-jury no-billed. It would be very hard to prove that the amount of force used was intentionally excessive and as such the criminal aspect goes away. A civil aspect remains.


The issue that came up is that police are basically the lowest men on the legislative totem pole. Why exactly do we have to criminalize selling single cigarettes? And even if it is criminal, what turkey decided to spend tax dollars on actually enforcing it? There's going to be a civil action here and it'll cost a lot.

I think a 2nd logo on police cars might help solve this problem:
Somewhere under "protect and serve" they should print "resist and you may die"... We should at least make that clear, don't you think?

I'm a middle aged white guy and I'm more and more afraid of the police every day... I can't imaging what it must be like for others than don't meet that profile.

I'd like to see the full evidence released on this issue.... It's hard to second guess the grand jury unless you were told the full story. I agree that it appears to be a gross misuse of force... The again, I've heard "criminals are criminals" on this forum more than once...

cb1000rider wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Choke holds are no longer taught in the academy. We now use lateral vascular neck restraint. It is NOT a choke hold but it does put the person to sleep by cutting off blood flow to the brain.
Just a few weeks ago all that was on the news was Ebola, now it's racial police killing innocent African Americans. I wonder what next year big story will be.

Do policies on use of neck restraint differ between departments? I understand being taught how to do it in the academy, but being able to do it effectively against a variety of arrestees in a variety of conditions, I can see how results may vary.

nightmare69 wrote:Choke holds are no longer taught in the academy. We now use lateral vascular neck restraint. It is NOT a choke hold but it does put the person to sleep by cutting off blood flow to the brain.
Just a few weeks ago all that was on the news was Ebola, now it's racial police killing innocent African Americans. I wonder what next year big story will be.

Do policies on use of neck restraint differ between departments? I understand being taught how to do it in the academy, but being able to do it effectively against a variety of arrestees in a variety of conditions, I can see how results may vary.