Page 3 of 8
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:32 am
by n5wd
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.
It would be so neat if the Star-Trek phaser were a real weapon, and could be set from "stun" to "maim" to "kill" to "disintegrate" as needed. Then, all the cops would need to do is point the doo-hicky at a perp, pull the trigger, and instant compliance.
Until then, don't resist arrest. Your feelings of safety and warmth don't enter into the situation.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 10:43 am
by anygunanywhere
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?
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:04 am
by mojo84
I bet it's similar to the old professional wrestling sleeper hold.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:05 am
by anygunanywhere
mojo84 wrote:I bet it's similar to the old professional wrestling sleeper hold.
Wresling is real, man!!
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:13 am
by Cedar Park Dad
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?
Don't get to the point of having to "take him down" in the first place. This is the same argument as why its ok to use SWAT for every arrest. It shouldn't get to a "SWAT needed" point for most events, just what SWAT was originally intended for.
I'm not faulting police here, more faulting training, management, and the need to change a culture in many departments.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:25 am
by Cedar Park Dad
mojo84 wrote:Would it have killed a healthy man?
There is also doctrine in law that you take your victim as they are, not if they are healthy.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:28 am
by Cedar Park Dad
anygunanywhere wrote:mojo84 wrote:I bet it's similar to the old professional wrestling sleeper hold.
Wresling is real, man!!
We need tthe Erick von Erick Iron Claw. Safe, effective.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:45 am
by nightmare69
Policies on LVNR differ from department to department. I've had it done to me a bunch in training and honestly you are never aware that you went to sleep for a few seconds. It only takes a few seconds to put someone to sleep if used correctly.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:53 am
by Keith B
nightmare69 wrote:Policies on LVNR differ from department to department. I've had it done to me a bunch in training and honestly you are never aware that you went to sleep for a few seconds. It only takes a few seconds to put someone to sleep if used correctly.
NYPD had outlawed 'choke holds', but were apparently never taught LVNR techniques according to this article from back in July
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /12936547/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
For those unfamiliar with LVNR (Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint) you can read info here and how it's described as 'not a choke hold'
http://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-an ... hoke-hold/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:11 pm
by VMI77
sjfcontrol wrote:By the way, I understand that a single pack of cigarettes in NYC, with the city, state and federal taxes runs about $14.00. That would make a carton cost around $140.00. That's what has spurred the sale of single cigarettes, smuggled from neighboring states. I can remember buying a pack of cigarettes as a teenager for a quarter. Some of this problem can be placed on outrageous tax laws. The cops don't get to pick and choose the laws they must enforce (well, unless they're Holder or Obama).
Actually they do. Always have and always will, since like every other organization on the planet, the resources available to them put constraints on their activities. But hey, since they've solved all the violent crime, thefts, and rapes, I guess they got plenty of resources to arrest and kill people for selling cigarettes. On, and btw, according to witnesses, the officer who killed this guy flipped off the crowd after he did it. What does that say about attitude?
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:19 pm
by VMI77
anygunanywhere wrote: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?
Anyone that's ok with this, or has the attitude that the cops should be able to do anything they want to you and you can sort it out it court, has absolutely no reason to complain if they're ever brutalized by the police, for it is exactly this permissive attitude that creates the environment where improper police action is tolerated. That kind of acceptance and tolerance leads to a spiral of police abuse that ends in a police state. The notion that you can be arrested and jailed for selling cigarettes without paying some city tax is absurd on its face. The notion that killing someone over it is acceptable is police state thinking. It seems many Americans have lost all sense of proportion.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:27 pm
by Teamless
Sounds to me the answer is simple, and has been said above.
You are not going to the win the argument on the side of the road with a police officer.
You may beat the rap, but you may not beat the ride.
Do I want to do the ride? No, but I am also not going to fight the officer who is doing his duty.
If you resist, you will be dealt with.
I understand that "its only a cigarette tax", but what if the "dealer" of cigarettes also has a gun or knife or club hidden and intends to do harm.
The officer needs to be able to subdue, hopefully peacefully, the alleged perp, and control the situation and mostly, make sure HE (the officer) does not get injured in the process.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:29 pm
by VMI77
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.
I propose people NOT be arrested for trivial "crimes" that are non-violent, and affect no one but the corpulent tax consumers who use their power to tax and live off a gullible public. There was no reason to arrest Garner in the first place as they had absolutely no evidence or probable cause to believe he had committed even the ridiculous offense he was accused of. Even if he was seen selling a "loosie" there was no evidence that that "loosie" had avoided any tax. Witnesses said he attracted attention by breaking up a fight. This was purely a case of teaching someone who didn't pay the cops the "proper respect" a lesson.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:33 pm
by VMI77
Teamless wrote:Sounds to me the answer is simple, and has been said above.
You are not going to the win the argument on the side of the road with a police officer.
You may beat the rap, but you may not beat the ride.
Do I want to do the ride? No, but I am also not going to fight the officer who is doing his duty.
If you resist, you will be dealt with.
I understand that "its only a cigarette tax", but what if the "dealer" of cigarettes also has a gun or knife or club hidden and intends to do harm.
The officer needs to be able to subdue, hopefully peacefully, the alleged perp, and control the situation and mostly, make sure HE (the officer) does not get injured in the process.
Seriously? The what if game? And the police just want to go home at night without stubbing their toe defense? Well, what if you have a bomb in your car, or a machine gun in your lap the officer can't see when he pulls you over. Wouldn't want him to get hurt, because, what if, so maybe he should just shoot you through the window from a safe distance? And hey, you carry a gun, what if you just snapped and started shooting people.....maybe the police better take you out because, you never know.
Re: The Eric Garner case
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:36 pm
by CoffeeNut
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.
Don't want to split hairs here but isn't the "lateral vascular neck restraint" you described referred to as a "blood choke" in other non-LEO training environments? If I'm "restraining" your blood flow one could say I'm choking it off.