Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RevDisk on December 14, 2017, 09:41:39 AM
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-video-arizona.html
Saw the video. It was like Stalin's version of Simon Says. The sergeant was giving a long list of confusing orders, another cop shot the suspect who was obviously trying to comply. There was no obvious reason why they didn't tell him to faceplant, search him for weapons and cuff the guy. In addition, the shooter had certain weapon mods that have come to light. Specifically "You're ****ed" on the AR15 cover flap.
Naturally, the shooting officer was acquitted and I don't believe the Sergeant that was giving the orders was put up on charges.
Guess that's a new thing to add to practical self-defense courses. How to react when at gunpoint, you are getting multiple conflicting or confusing orders shouted at you. Personally, I'd freeze and not budge until given clear calm instructions, but it is something I have to noodle over and research. Thoughts?
-
Having watched that video, I suspect that freezing and not budging would have gotten you shot in that one. "Non-compliant and a threat" or some such.
We (society) won't get a change to officer use of force SOP's until we demand accountability, and we (society) seem to be unwilling to hold police officer's accountable.
I don't condone it, and we absolutely shouldn't do it, but I sometimes feel like I can see where the folks in Texas that were hunting LEO's were coming from. If you really feel like LEO's can kill your community with impunity and will never be held accountable by the courts, why not?
As a wider note, it's one of the dangers we face as a society. If the government controlled justice system is seen as unreliable, unfair, or unwilling to deliver justice, what incentive do people have to allow it to work?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-video-arizona.html
Guess that's a new thing to add to practical self-defense courses. How to react when at gunpoint, you are getting multiple conflicting or confusing orders shouted at you. Personally, I'd freeze and not budge until given clear calm instructions, but it is something I have to noodle over and research. Thoughts?
This is what I have stated as well regarding unstable cops and itchy trigger fingers, in hopes that a calmer cop comes along. Dogmush makes a good point though - it can easily become a no-win situation for the person on the shooty end of the gun.
Sorry for being ignorant about it on a gun oriented board, but I don't own any ARs. Why are you guys calling the mods "you're *expletive deleted*ed" mods?
Edit: Oh, nevermind. I was reading "you're *expletive deleted*ed" as in some kind of snake eater mod on the firearm - not that it was "you're *expletive deleted*ed" written on the dustcover (which I now saw at one of the links). Physical mod vs mental mod. I think in this case, the mental mod was worse. The cop definitely looks like one of those guys who becomes a cop in hopes of shooting people, and to be "authority".
-
Indiscriminant shooting of cops, like what happened in Dallas and I think has happened a few times in NYC is way out of line. If someone were to kill this particular cop, or others like him, I'd say he had it coming. I'd even be pleased about it. They gave the justice system a chance first and it failed.
I'm not sure who would have standing to be that vigilante tho'. A family member of one of the victims? Someone they hired? Someone from the same community? I really don't know.
I still haven't watched the video. Snuff films are not my thing.
-
I have had a cop plainly state to me that they were hoping to get the chance to shoot somebody. Given it was city of Chesapeake, shocked was my face.
-
I still haven't watched the video. Snuff films are not my thing.
Nor mine, but it's reality I should know about.
Guess that's a new thing to add to practical self-defense courses. How to react when at gunpoint, you are getting multiple conflicting or confusing orders shouted at you. Personally, I'd freeze and not budge until given clear calm instructions, but it is something I have to noodle over and research. Thoughts?
I've become a little addicted to watching police behavior on the Justice Channel. So sue me. But it concerns me a lot when I see and hear conflicting and unintelligible commands given not only by multiple officers, but even by the same one.
"Thoughts?"
Personal perspective: As stiff and arthritic as I am, I'd have a damned hard time following an instruction to get on my knees or lie down without bringing my hands down.
(Come to think of it, my first instinctive move in getting out of my car is to reach for my cane. Hmmmm..... Yikes.)
I pity the poor inebriated person who would have a hard time integrating shouted instructions.
Terry =( =( :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Is there anybody out there who's idea of "crawl" does not include using your hands?
-
Is there anybody out there who's idea of "crawl" does not include using your hands?
That bothered me, too. It almost sounded like it was something out of an S&M or bondage/dominance scene.
Terry
-
I don't condone it, and we absolutely shouldn't do it, but I sometimes feel like I can see where the folks in Texas that were hunting LEO's were coming from. If you really feel like LEO's can kill your community with impunity and will never be held accountable by the courts, why not?
As a wider note, it's one of the dangers we face as a society. If the government controlled justice system is seen as unreliable, unfair, or unwilling to deliver justice, what incentive do people have to allow it to work?
I'd love to be on the jury after an angry relative caught up with the trigger puller and the sgt. Jury nullification FTW.
-
I have not watched it yet either. I want to have a decent chunk of time so that I calm my rage* and then post my thoughts.
And while horrific as this sounds, it is still the outlier when it comes to police shootings. If they were "common", then we would hear about them just like we hear about all the gang shootings in Chicago. Yes, the number of police shootings like Laquain McDonald and this one should be zero. Yes, those police officers need to be tried and if found guilty, then they need to be financially ruined. Not the city/state/county picking up the tab when they are sued by the family.
Once that starts to happen then and only then will crap like this become unicorn rare.
*-based on what I've heard about it.
-
I have not watched it yet either. I want to have a decent chunk of time so that I calm my rage* and then post my thoughts.
Might as well watch it now; your rage will come back in force when you do.
Especially if you find the full length one with a few minutes of idiocy after the shooting while they're trying to get into the wrong room. (If anyone runs across that one, post it. I watched it on a friend's phone and haven't found it myself.)
-
Amy Schumer said,
Yes, the number of police shootings like Laquain McDonald and this one should be zero.
REF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Laquan_McDonald
Several salient points in that article. The following are not actual links, just the table of contents. See the article itself for actual hotlinks to these topics:
------------------------------------------
Contents [hide]
1 Profiles
1.1 Laquan McDonald
1.2 Jason Van Dyke
2 Shooting
2.1 Initial police report
2.2 Medical report
2.3 Dash-cam video
2.4 Burger King surveillance video
2.5 $5 million settlement
3 Legal proceedings
3.1 Requests for documents
3.2 Investigations
3.3 Van Dyke's trial
4 Reactions to video
4.1 Protests
4.1.1 November protests
4.1.2 December protests
4.1.3 January protests
4.1.4 February protests
4.1.5 March protests
4.1.6 Threat by Jabari Dean
4.2 Other reactions
5 Aftermath
5.1 The Chicago Police Accountability Task Force
5.2 Firing of Superintendent Garry McCarthy
5.3 Calls for Anita Alvarez's resignation
5.4 Calls for Rahm Emanuel's resignation
5.5 Video released of shooting of Ronald Johnson III
5.6 De-escalation and Taser training
5.7 Emails from the mayor's office released
5.8 Documents from 2005 Incident
5.9 Two recommendations that officers be fired
5.10 Three current and former Chicago police officers charged
6 2017 DOJ Report and agreement for oversight of city police
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
--------------------------------------------
-
I'd love to be on the jury after an angry relative caught up with the trigger puller and the sgt. Jury nullification FTW.
Me! Me! Pick me!
Unfortunately, I'm too honest. I think I'm permanently blackballed from jury duty because of what transpired the last time I was called, and both attorneys and a judge didn't like what I said in voir dire.
-
And while horrific as this sounds, it is still the outlier when it comes to police shootings. If they were "common", then we would hear about them just like we hear about all the gang shootings in Chicago. Yes, the number of police shootings like Laquain McDonald and this one should be zero. Yes, those police officers need to be tried and if found guilty, then they need to be financially ruined. Not the city/state/county picking up the tab when they are sued by the family.
How about the guy who was shot while the PoPo were evacuating a Wal-Mart awhile back?
Not the one I'm thinking of, but ... http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-stalked-murdered-man-walmart-trying-buy-airsoft-gun-back-duty/
I can't find the one I'm thinking of. The man was in a Walmart with his wife/fiancee/GF. He was licensed to carry, and he was carrying -- IIRC, under a tee shirt or sweatshirt. Something went down, cops were called, store was being evacuated. He was existing with everyone else, multiple cops started shouting conflicting instructions at him, and whatever happened (this is what I don't remember), they shot him because he didn't "comply."
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Laquan_McDonald
Several salient points in that article.
Yeah, I'm not seeing a good comparison here; McDonald was visibly armed and refusing to comply with a clear and simple order to drop the knife.
Not saying it's a good shoot; a guy facing away and walking away with a knife is not an immediate threat to multiple armed cops, but he was far from innocent. Shaver would have gotten little more than a knock on the door and a stern lecture about not being stupid with a gun in plenty of jurisdictions.
-
This really isn't that uncommon.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2010/sep/24/shoppers-recount-police-shooting-outside-costco/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/us/philando-castile-shooting-dashcam/index.html
http://www.fox9.com/news/justine-damond-shooting-bca-complete
Scott and Castile shootings are especially similar - rapid conflicting commands, then shooting for not following them.
Anybody without a badge would have been buried under the jail.
-
This really isn't that uncommon.
That it happens at all is disgusting. That the police in question often get away with it is horrific. But common? No
-
That it happens at all is disgusting. That the police in question often get away with it is horrific. But common? No
Common is an imprecise term. How many should we, as citizens, be OK with before we just take care of the shooters ourselves?
There's 323 million people in the US. There are approx 800,000 sworn Law Enforcement officers in the US.
How many in punished murders should we allow before we decide they can't police their own? 5/year? 1000/year?*
Certainly mistakes happen, and there are bad apples in a population of near 1 million, but there has to be a limit. At some point we, as folks that are getting shot, need to admit that the soap and ballot boxes have not stopped innocent folks getting killed.
*I don't claim to have the numerical answer to that. But I really think it would behoove the calmer citizens to answer those questions before the more hysterical members of society pick an answer for us.
-
How about the guy who was shot while the PoPo were evacuating a Wal-Mart awhile back?
Not the one I'm thinking of, but ... http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-stalked-murdered-man-walmart-trying-buy-airsoft-gun-back-duty/
I can't find the one I'm thinking of. The man was in a Walmart with his wife/fiancee/GF. He was licensed to carry, and he was carrying -- IIRC, under a tee shirt or sweatshirt. Something went down, cops were called, store was being evacuated. He was existing with everyone else, multiple cops started shouting conflicting instructions at him, and whatever happened (this is what I don't remember), they shot him because he didn't "comply."
You're getting John Crawford III and Erik Scott mixed up. One was murdered by a cop at Walmart, and the other at a Las Vegas Costco.
-
Yeah, I'm not seeing a good comparison here; McDonald was visibly armed and refusing to comply with a clear and simple order to drop the knife.
Not saying it's a good shoot; a guy facing away and walking away with a knife is not an immediate threat to multiple armed cops, but he was far from innocent. Shaver would have gotten little more than a knock on the door and a stern lecture about not being stupid with a gun in plenty of jurisdictions.
Not in terms of the weaponry and precise situations, but in terms of trigger happiness, protests, delays, and other points in the "story line."
McDonald got 16 rd, Shaver only what, 5 or 6, but he was already down.
Terry
-
Not in terms of the weaponry and precise situations, but in terms of trigger happiness, protests, delays, and other points in the "story line."
I would be a lot more inclined to overlook cops being truly on edge when there's a visible weapon and a complete refusal to respond to reasonable commands than a guy who's effectively in his underwear and confused about how to comply with with a cop who apparently got his training from the Twister handbook.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=VBUUx0jUKxc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V5lxZUKhK8
Here are two Youtube videos of the shooting. The second is a news story. It is worth a few minutes to at least see the first one. At no time can I see where there was any threat from the guy. I also can't see why they wouldn't just move up and cuff him. The door behind him was closed. There was little risk of approaching him.
My issue is I thought the one giving the orders was an accessory to murder. IMO, threatening to shoot the guy repeatedly for not following commands didn't help the mind set of the victim and only served to make the shooter more likely to have an itchy trigger finger.
-
New reality show: Are You Smarter than a Mesa Cop?
First challenge: which door goes to room 502?
(https://s6.postimg.org/aqi3vink1/502_is_the_other_door.png)
Imagine being in 501; you hear a bunch of indistinct yelling, then gunshots in the hall, and somebody starts trying to force their way into your room. Pretty much betting any of us would have been in the middle of a bloodbath if they had managed to force the door. (Remember that the woman stated afterward that they couldn't tell what was going on in the hall until the front desk called to tell them to step out. Some of these places are impressively soundproofed, and all the yelling was down the hall from those doors.)
-
Challenge 2: Describe the major differences between "command voice" and "shrieking like a hysterical 5 year old on PCP."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=VBUUx0jUKxc#t=3m52s
-
You're getting John Crawford III and Erik Scott mixed up. One was murdered by a cop at Walmart, and the other at a Las Vegas Costco.
I wasn't getting them mixed up, but Erik Scott is, indeed, the incident I was trying to recall. I thought the Scott shooting was also at a Walmart.
-
Common is an imprecise term. How many should we, as citizens, be OK with before we just take care of the shooters ourselves?
Sure, common is imprecise, but it takes one hell of a liberal definition to make these kinds of incidents - which are so unusual that they regularly make national news - out to be common.
In addition you present quite the false dichotomy. We either have to be OK with bad cops, or we have to start slaughtering folks?
-
In addition you present quite the false dichotomy. We either have to be OK with bad cops, or we have to start slaughtering folks?
I did not mean to. I mentioned in my previous post that the preferred method is to have a justice system that punishes bad cops. Many feel like we don't currently have one of those. I honestly don't know how messed up the system is, because it's nigh on impossible to get unbiased details of things like police shootings. I do have a nagging suspicion that, in general, the justice system let's LEO's kill without consequences in situations that it would punish non LEO's.
I would say, that it's not a false dichotomey to say that we can not allow a special group of people to kill without justification or consequences. Either the systems we have in place need to provide some accountability that is palatable to the majority of society, or society needs to provide that accountability outside the justice system.
-
I mentioned in my previous post that the preferred method is to have a justice system that punishes bad cops.
Even looking back at your previous post I don't see that, but I can agree with this version.
Many feel like we don't currently have one of those. I honestly don't know how messed up the system is, because it's nigh on impossible to get unbiased details of things like police shootings.
I absolutely agree that the system is far from perfect and fails to punish in cases where from my perspective it should bring the hammer down, but I also have personal knowledge of bad cops that were dealt with both departmentally and judicially for things that probably would have been passed off as a civil issue if it were a non-LEO. The idea that a badge is a free pass to commit crimes is every bit as wrong as the idea that cops don't commit crimes.
I do have a nagging suspicion that, in general, the justice system let's LEO's kill without consequences in situations that it would punish non LEO's.
Maybe so. Of course, the system also sends officers into situations where non LEOs would rarely - if ever - be.
Moreover, situations are rarely black and white. In this case the cops involved screwed it up from the word go, but the moment the cop started firing, the victim was quickly reaching around toward his strong-side waistline as if he were going for a gun. Yes, in my comfy office chair I can pause the video and see that he was drunkenly trying to pull up his pants because he was being told to scoot forward on his knees, but in that split second would I have known that in the cop's shoes? I'd hope so, but my own recent experiences in force-on-force training have given a new perspective on how quickly things can go wrong and how little time you have to decide what to do.
-
Maybe so. Of course, the system also sends officers into situations where non LEOs would rarely - if ever - be.
Is this supposed to excuse the executions of innocent people like Erik Scott? That doesn't work for me.
-
Moreover, situations are rarely black and white. In this case the cops involved screwed it up from the word go, but the moment the cop started firing, the victim was quickly reaching around toward his strong-side waistline as if he were going for a gun. Yes, in my comfy office chair I can pause the video and see that he was drunkenly trying to pull up his pants because he was being told to scoot forward on his knees, but in that split second would I have known that in the cop's shoes? I'd hope so, but my own recent experiences in force-on-force training have given a new perspective on how quickly things can go wrong and how little time you have to decide what to do.
In this particular situation I would argue that a LEO doesn't get to create a situation where normal movements and response could be perceived as a threat, then use a perceived threat as justification for shooting someone. I think you are correct that at the moment the trigger was pulled, it kinda looked like the victim was going for a weapon. Or could have looked like that. I suspect that's why the jury acquitted. But the LEO's, through either incompetence or malice, created a situation in which a threat was likely to be perceived. Since they created the extra danger, the onus was on them to get it right, and they didn't.
-
In this particular situation I would argue that a LEO doesn't get to create a situation where normal movements and response could be perceived as a threat, then use a perceived threat as justification for shooting someone. I think you are correct that at the moment the trigger was pulled, it kinda looked like the victim was going for a weapon. Or could have looked like that. I suspect that's why the jury acquitted. But the LEO's, through either incompetence or malice, created a situation in which a threat was likely to be perceived. Since they created the extra danger, the onus was on them to get it right, and they didn't.
We are in total agreement about this situation.
-
Is this supposed to excuse the executions of innocent people like Erik Scott? That doesn't work for me.
Yes, Hawkmoon, exactly. It was supposed to not merely excuse but laud to the highest the merciless and brutal slaying of the innocent in all cases.
Pardon me, my horns are due for a sharpening.
-
We are in total agreement about this situation.
I would agree there as well. As much as this situation makes my blood boil, I understand that LE gets put in situations where they do require some leeway, and that includes people making sudden moves.
It's just a different story when LE creates the situation, which they clearly did in this case. I'm in pretty good shape, but I could easily see myself losing balance and falling forward, or otherwise making a "sudden move" because I was basically just told to assume the "pretzel position" and then move around. It was like a bizarro yoga class in that video.
-
I physically couldn't do what they were ordering the guy to do.
I guess I'm just *expletive deleted*ed.
-
Dogmush: "But the LEOs, through either incompetence or malice, created a situation in which a threat was likely to be perceived. Since they created the extra danger, the onus was on them to get it right, and they didn't."
Ayup. I didn't want to watch it again, but I did. That "malice" part sure sounds right to me.
Terry
-
Interesting editorial on the incident and the verdict: https://nypost.com/2017/12/15/no-a-cops-fears-dont-justify-every-shooting/
-
Here's what I meant by "common".
In this thread we could puts names on every "bad" police shooting: Erik Scott, Philando Castile, Justin Damond, LaQuan Macdonald, etc.
So far this WEEK in Chicago, there have been 14 people shot and killed, 31 shot and injured*....Can anyone name one off the top of their head ?? How about the circumstances (other then drive-by or drug deal gone bad, like an address or cross streets)??
Anyone... anyone...Bueller ??
That's what I mean by common. They might be lucky if they hit the 10pm local news. Chances are there will just a blurb giving the total number shot in the prior 24 hours, not mention of names, maybe just an age and sex (male), unless it's a child under say 14. Then there might be some local hoopla, but for the rest, their deaths just get lumped in with the rest.
(Bad)Police shootings are fairly rare, and they make the news. There have been 21 "police involved" shootings in Chicago
*- From http://heyjackass.com/
-
Sorry, Amy Schumer, but I ain't buying any "statistical" excuses for those police shootings. Especially in re Illinois ones.
Well, Chicago ones, anyway.
Interesting editorial on the incident and the verdict: https://nypost.com/2017/12/15/no-a-cops-fears-dont-justify-every-shooting/
Very good, from that article:
One of those officers testified that he would not fire based purely on the “draw stroke” Brailsford thought he saw. He would also consider the context, such as whether a suspect is belligerent and threatening or, like Shaver, compliant, apologetic and tearful.
Wow. I'd like to see the transcripts of that part.
I'd also like to know how he's getting along with his brother officers nowadays.
Terry, 230RN
-
Sorry, Amy Schumer, but I ain't buying any "statistical" excuse for those police shootings.
Very good, from that article:
Wow. I'd like to see the transcripts of that part.
I'd also like to know how he's getting along with his brother Officers nowadays.
Terry, 230RN
I'm not giving a statistical excuse. If you go back and read my first post, the acceptable number of bad police shootings is ZERO. I'm simply pointing out that bad police shootings are "rare". Which is contrary to what the BLM would have you believe. There have been 21 Police Involved shootings in Chicago this year. How many of those made the news? How many were "bad"?? (8 police officers have been shot). Again to my point. As opposed to other shootings, the bad police shootings make the news because they are "rare". The daily shooting murders in Chicago merit merely a footnote in the local news because they have become so "common".
-
At no time can I see where there was any threat from the guy.
I am nitpicking your post intentionally just to make a point.
There was a threat. The victim reached to his waist band. That has long be known as, and considered as, a furtive movement and the courts have consistently upheld police actions that were responses to furtive movements.
I agree with everyone here that the cops could have safely and easily cuffed the man long before any shots were fired, but they didn't. I have many complaints about their tactics and techniques, but based strictly on the furtive movement, it was a good shoot.
-
I'm actually curious about where these particular cops got the training that taught them the "pretzel technique". In-house? Contractor? Who came up with that as viable and efficient? How many other departments may have been taught that by some contractor?
-
I'm actually curious about where these particular cops got the training that taught them the "pretzel technique". In-house? Contractor? Who came up with that as viable and efficient? How many other departments may have been taught that by some contractor?
The pretzel is good if you don’t want someone to easily get up or move, but makes no sense to combine with a movement order.
I’ve been “arrested” at gunpoint maybe twenty times over the past three months. When they have me move to them, they make me walk backward to the sound of their voice. Never crawling or pretzeling around.
More and more I’m coming down that the sgt should have been the one brought up on charges.
-
The pretzel is good if you don’t want someone to easily get up or move, but makes no sense to combine with a movement order.
I mostly agree with that. I've got no problems if cops want to anchor someone in place, given that whatever method they use can take account for someone incapable of advanced yoga, and having the cops on scene with enough common sense to recognize that someone may be having trouble, and having alternate methods available.
But that combined with moving, N-O no. In fact it seems to me any of those movement commands that don't involve the person on their feet (such as walking backwards) to me, from a lyaman's perspective, should all be the same as when you do ladder work - three points of contact, so people don't accidentally "make a sudden move" and get drilled.
-
I mostly agree with that. I've got no problems if cops want to anchor someone in place, given that whatever method they use can take account for someone incapable of advanced yoga, and having the cops on scene with enough common sense to recognize that someone may be having trouble, and having alternate methods available.
But that combined with moving, N-O no. In fact it seems to me any of those movement commands that don't involve the person on their feet (such as walking backwards) to me, from a lyaman's perspective, should all be the same as when you do ladder work - three points of contact, so people don't accidentally "make a sudden move" and get drilled.
Unless you *want* them to make a sudden move. :mad:
-
Then there are marginally compliant subjects. People have limits and if you keep giving them orders eventually they will not comply. The one time I had someone at gunpoint I am now convinced that they would have stood there on the street until the cops showed up. But, I wanted them on the ground. They did not want to be on the ground so they figured I wouldn't shoot if they walked away. Probably better that way, if you show up as a cop who is the threat? The guy with the rifle or the guy just standing there? Racial profiling and the 911 call was all I had going for me there which is not 100% to keep me from getting shot.
-
I am nitpicking your post intentionally just to make a point.
There was a threat. The victim reached to his waist band. That has long be known as, and considered as, a furtive movement and the courts have consistently upheld police actions that were responses to furtive movements.
I agree with everyone here that the cops could have safely and easily cuffed the man long before any shots were fired, but they didn't. I have many complaints about their tactics and techniques, but based strictly on the furtive movement, it was a good shoot.
I disagree. There needs to be something else that makes it a viable threat. Otherwise, cops would be justified in drawing and gunning down people every day as they walked down the street. Someone draws a cell phone off their belt when an officer happens to be nearby and he shoots them. I really doubt that is justified. They never saw a weapon or aggressive behavior at all. I find it doubtful they even knew for certain at the time this guy was the one who pointed the gun out the window.
-
I disagree. There needs to be something else that makes it a viable threat. Otherwise, cops would be justified in drawing and gunning down people every day as they walked down the street. Someone draws a cell phone off their belt when an officer happens to be nearby and he shoots them. I really doubt that is justified. They never saw a weapon or aggressive behavior at all. I find it doubtful they even knew for certain at the time this guy was the one who pointed the gun out the window.
There was:
1. Report of a man with a weapon in the hotel room.
2. The man was being held at gun point and being giving commands, which he wasn't complying with.
-
I mostly agree with that. I've got no problems if cops want to anchor someone in place, given that whatever method they use can take account for someone incapable of advanced yoga, and having the cops on scene with enough common sense to recognize that someone may be having trouble, and having alternate methods available.
This. I've been handcuffed plenty of times, not all by ex girlfriends, and even twice for real. My aikido instructors also teach the police academy's handcuffing and control techniques class, and often bring cadets into the aikido class for extra practice. I'm a good compromise between "small" and "gorilla," as well as between "newbie" and "street fighter," so I tend to be a preferred "normal size guy with a bit more than everyday skills."
Every movement command is either standing (walking backward) or knee walking. No crawling, no slithering like a snake. Stationary positions for actual restraint don't tend to be that pretzely, either; standing is pretty much fingers laced on head for the pat down, then (cooperative) arms straight out at the sides, palms back, with the officer controlling each hand in for cuffing or (less cooperative) controlling them directly off the head to the cuffing position. (Controlling off the head has more potential for injury to the suspect, since the officer has to make the hand turn properly to get from there to the small of the back, while making sure it can't move on its own.) Prone is basically the same; unless you've got a lot of yoga, kung fu or similar experience, having the legs spread uncomfortably-but-not-quite-painfully apart while prone is slower to get up from than having them crossed.
Interestingly, the two "for real" times were both "turn around and put your hands behind your back," with no serious control technique applied. The finger control we use is basically yubi gatame with just enough pressure in a "can't go that way" direction to keep it ready to hurt, without actually hurting at all. Since it's held with the entire hand against 1-2 fingers, it can overcome a huge disparity in strength, and can go from "firm grip" to "excruciating pain that stops when you cooperate" to "that's not going to heal without surgery" pretty much instantly. Essentially, an ideal compromise between not making the cooperative guy any more uncomfortable, and still being able to restrain and control him at any time.
Another problem I have with their "training," though, is that they had him crawl right over the woman's purse. It's a state with a lot of concealed carry, and I don't recall hearing them even ask her if she had a gun in the purse. They even had another officer available to at least kick it out of the path, though considering where she was cuffed, they should have already had him stationary and been cuffing him at the point where he got to it instead of ordering him to crawl more.
-
Here is my question- blunt and simple. If he had just laid there, arms outstretched, and not moved a muscle, would they have killed him anyway for "non compliance"?
,
Repeatedly telling some one they will be shot for the slightest false move, then forcing the subject of the commands go through a contortionist routine in order to "comply", is a Kafkaesque nightmare.
-
Here is my question- blunt and simple. If he had just laid there, arms outstretched, and not moved a muscle, would they have killed him anyway for "non compliance"?
The way the sergeant was priming the situation, I'm not sure. Probably would have survived a little longer, though. At least long enough for him to yell "IF YOU LAY THERE WITHOUT MOVING WE WILL SHOOT YOU."
-
The way the sergeant was priming the situation, I'm not sure. Probably would have survived a little longer, though. At least long enough for him to yell "IF YOU LAY THERE WITHOUT MOVING WE WILL SHOOT YOU."
Well, then it would have been for his own protection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey#cite_ref-chappell_18-0).