TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
The duties, and goals, of a paramedic are different than those of a policeman.

I know this. My point was that it is not a humane way to force an individual into compliance by intentionally interrupting basic physiological processes that if not applied in a very strict manner can cause death. Training (and the term here is used loosely) cadets to use this technique and assuming that it will be applied consistently and strictly is a farce. Do LEO certify on a regular basis to allow them to use these techniques? Are they applied under strict supervision?

I highly doubt it. I fully suspect that if these techniques were reviewed for correctness and consistency the results would show that there is a vast difference in skill level. If these techniques are not dangerous then why are many forbidden?

Here's another test....what would happen if, say, Mr. Garner pushed you, and you took him down in the exact same manner, and he died just like he did in this incident? What are your chances of walking away without a trial? My bet is zero unless you've got blue privilege. The police aren't supposed to be above the law. If you or I would stand trial for the same action they should too. In fact, the police, since they're trained, have backup, and get the latitude granted by the public trust, should be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us....if not under the law itself, then by the departments they work for.

Interesting question. I agree with your assessment. We were held to a higher standard - that was emphasized repeatedly during training.

ScooterSissy wrote:
The duties, and goals, of a paramedic are different than those of a policeman.

I know this. My point was that it is not a humane way to force an individual into compliance by intentionally interrupting basic physiological processes that if not applied in a very strict manner can cause death. Training (and the term here is used loosely) cadets to use this technique and assuming that it will be applied consistently and strictly is a farce. Do LEO certify on a regular basis to allow them to use these techniques? Are they applied under strict supervision?

I highly doubt it. I fully suspect that if these techniques were reviewed for correctness and consistency the results would show that there is a vast difference in skill level. If these techniques are not dangerous then why are many forbidden?

When I was a paramedic I was certified and authorized to perform many techniques in the field that basic paramedics were not allowed to perform. I trained at Ben Taub under then HFD medical director Dr Paul Pepe and at Hermann hospital under Dr Red Duke and served on his trauma team. My actions were performed under the EMS service's medical directors authority. When I performed such techniques my performance was reviewed by the medical directors.

Professionals should act and apply techniques in a professional manner and should maintain their skills. This applies to anyone who professes to possess skills in any profession, including LEO. If Mr Garner had been fortunate enough to have been arrested by true professionals HE WOULD NOT HAVE DIED.

mojo84 wrote:I bet it's similar to the old professional wrestling sleeper hold.

Wresling is real, man!!

n5wd wrote:

anygunanywhere 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.

Great. This makes me feel all safe and warm.

Don't resist arrest and you won't find out how well it works.

I am not worried about me.

Individuals utilizing techniques that "cut off blood flow to the brain" are using techniques that are potentially deadly, and to state in a cavalier manner that this common and no big deal is obscene.

When I was a paramedic we did everything in our power and skill to maintain "blood flow to the brain" but LEO are trained to interrupt the person's life sustaining blood flow as a means of controlling them? People are ok with this?

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.

Great. This makes me feel all safe and warm.

carlson1 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

A-R wrote:For those who think the NYPD cop is guilty or at least have some qualms about what he did, answer this:

How do you propose the police affect a lawful arrest on a 400-pound man who is actively (though not yet violently) resisting said arrest? Please spare us the arguments about "it was just cigarettes" and understand that cops don't make the law (Bloomberg made the law, if you want to point fingers), they merely enforce it.

When Garner began actively resisting, should the cops have just let him go because arresting him was too difficult?

Should they have used a different tactic? Guns are a no go. Tasers? Pepper spray? What would those weapons have done to a man in Garner's physical condition? Baton strikes to the legs?

Serious question looking for serious answers.

Taser.

With heart trouble the taser would have probably killed him, then what?

The officers did not know about heart trouble. Tasers are compliance tools. If by using a different method properly and Mr Garner still died this would not look so bad. I guess it is more fun and a bigger adrenaline rush for a bunch of cops to gang wrestle a man down and choke him.

A-R wrote:For those who think the NYPD cop is guilty or at least have some qualms about what he did, answer this:

How do you propose the police affect a lawful arrest on a 400-pound man who is actively (though not yet violently) resisting said arrest? Please spare us the arguments about "it was just cigarettes" and understand that cops don't make the law (Bloomberg made the law, if you want to point fingers), they merely enforce it.

When Garner began actively resisting, should the cops have just let him go because arresting him was too difficult?

Should they have used a different tactic? Guns are a no go. Tasers? Pepper spray? What would those weapons have done to a man in Garner's physical condition? Baton strikes to the legs?

Serious question looking for serious answers.

Taser.

Regardless of the grand jury's decision, burning down neighborhoods and rioting is not the answer.

sjfcontrol wrote:There are some questions about the "choke hold". Seems NYC doesn't allow officers to use "choke holds", but the questions involve the definition on of "choke hold". I've heard that they have a specific definition, and that the hold the officer used did not meet that definition. If that is true, then the hold the officer used was not forbidden.

Also, he may have been in distress, but if he's saying "I can't breathe" over and over, he IS breathing. You can't talk unless you can inhale and exhale air. For what it's worth, I also heard a (claimed) cop explain that the first thing an arrestee says when cuffed is "I can't breathe".

I am NOT trying to defend what the officers did, but wanted to express some or the "exculpatory" explanations I heard today.

Even if the hold the LEO was using was not forbidden it still resulted in the death of a human being being arrested for a misdemeanor.

Justice has been ignored.

The incestuous relationship between law enforcement and the DA has been validated once again.