Some places are trying to make police using a "choke hold" to control a combative suspect a felony. But you'll still be able to use a rear naked choke during an MMA fight. Ok for entertainment but not to arrest a violent suspect, think about it.
Have you seen the news ...
"“Had I known then what I know today, I would have relieved him of command in April"
-Adm. Mike Gilday, the chief of naval operations
You can't leave someone in charge if they don't believe in chain of command simple as that.
I was in the Army a long time ago with a guy that was a former cop in a small Alabama town. He told me a story one night about getting shot at during a domestic violence call. He was pretty new to the force and responded to the call to find the husband beating the crap out of his wife in the front yard. He tackles the guy and is wrestling him to try and get the cuffs on and his wife comes out of the house shooting at him telling them to quit hurting her husband. He found out later from the veterans on the force to wait a bit when called to that house. Apparently they all knew that once the husband was done hitting her he would come along peacefully and she would show up later to bail him out. I couldn't believe it when he told me that story, but self preservation instincts will eventually probably trump their protective instincts.
When I first started I was riding with an old timer on the midnight shift. We got a fight call and I was ready to go. He drove slowly there and turned on the siren about six blocks from the call location. When we arrived they were gone and we cleared. He told me it's easier to call an ambulance for the loser than fight them both.
You think that law will won’t be challenged and repealed in today’s anti cop environment? Thanks for tellin me anyway - that happened after I retired and folks still thought cops were good guys!!
That won't change because it creates a slippery slope that leads all the way to the politicians who fund the police.
Warren v. District of Columbia
The Democrats want to do away with qualified immunity for police officers. I would imagine that would be the final nail in the coffin of LEO. The cops that remain or future hires will be out on the street making a split second “Do I take a chance on being ruined financially or do nothing”. At first glance you may think “do nothing” which is bad enough. The cop does nothing then gets sued anyway for neglecting his oath to protect the community facing financial ruin once again. I can vision lawyers salivating waiting to sue every PD in the country. The solution - choose another career!! I see there is a rumor going around the cops will strike on July 4th. If they do I fear the consequences!!
To make that decision to do nothing easier there is case law that police do not have a "duty to protect".
Unless you have engaged you aren't liable for a person's safety.
Sad day when doing nothing is the wisest choice.
You know it would be bad but if every cop in the US caught a bad case of the blue fever for a few days - there would be blood in the streets - but maybe these anti cop people could see how much these guys do to keep us safe!! I’m sick of it!!!
The cops are told to stand down and not do their job during the protests and the left supported their inaction. If they decide to stand down now in protest they will be vilified by the left.
Politics as usual.
Why in the hell would anybody run toward gunfire as many do now if somebody is shooting and you have to try and “deescalate“ before you return fire?? I would imagine fighting crime will quickly deescalate to just calling the coroner to pick up the bodies!!
No issues really because they'll send a social worker to handle it.🤪
BTW I spoke to a social worker who's been at it since we graduated high school. She advised me that she would not be responding to 911 calls, I wonder how many social workers are on board with this idea?
LAPD will no longer pay overtime, and OT from June 7th on will be comp time. So days off canceled to work protests and riots and you get comp time.
I’m afraid that “necessary” defined will be making cops having to choose between their personal safety and how it is perceived by that iPhone recording by the incident thus not being the whole story!! Glad you are retired Red .. nobody needs that crap!! The future of law enforcement appears to me to just be the weakening of enforcement !!
I'm very happy to be retired and got to enjoy my career doing police work when it was still fun.
This is scary stuff from Atlanta's mayor.
The orders will stipulate that officers must use de-escalation techniques before using deadly force, and require officers de-escalate more generally in their policing, according to Bottoms.
So if someone points a gun at an officer they can't immediately use deadly force. That's not acceptable, it strips the officer of their right to self defense.
Red it would have been a whole different story if that had been a female trying to put the cuffs on him.
They get paid the same so they are supposed to be equal and handle everything that comes at them but the Muscles and weight are not equal. Where I worked you got paid a mans wages so you had better be able to do the job. This is not at all what I was trying to say. Just saying it would have been a whole different story if it had been a woman black or white.
Your comments carry more weight than you know. It simply points out the fact that use of force isn't always the same. Same situation, same suspect but a different action based on who's taking it. The law is most often shades of gray and seldom black and white.
Use of force is a complex issue that can't be dumbed down for political purposes. A "choke hold" isn't deadly force unless someone dies the same way a baseball bat isn't a deadly weapon until you beat somebody to death with it. Any force beyond that which is necessary is excessive force. The big dilemma is defining necessary.
Something to consider in this use of force to make arrest discussion. Officers have discretion on the street as to making a physical custody arrest except if there's a warrant. One of my toughest fights during an arrest was for a minor traffic warrant. Officers do not have discretion when a valid warrant exist. Failing to make the arrest is a criminal violation for the officer. Judges can't be held liable for their warrants but officers can for serving them. That needs to change in our current environment.
Red - got another question for you that I would like it from a cop perspective. I love to watch hunting & animal wildlife shows. I have seen them shoot a tranquilizer dart into a full grown elephant or rhinoceros and bring them to their knees in less than a minute. Why couldn’t they develop a dart gun for humans that accomplished the same thing and do away with cops carrying tasers. Seems to me that the cop would have real ammunition In one gun if they are fired upon but much longer reaching weapon than a taser if not life threatening to arrest the resisting suspect and everybody lives? Am I way off on my idea??
The big issue is time and I would think for a tranquilizer dosage. The taser is an immediate lock up if it works properly with darts and pain compliance on contact. What could a suspect accomplish in 30 seconds after a tranquilizer dart hits them? I'm guessing that tranquilizer darts are more lethal than a taser but that's a little out of my lane.
I was arresting people before tasers were on the scene. We used physical strength and fighting skills to get people cuffed if they wanted to fight. Size and physical strength declined as hiring standards changed so equalizers were needed. I have used an LVR (rear naked choke in MMA vernacular) to get people cuffed. Never killed or injured anybody using it, that was prohibited years ago. A shoulder pin was the next neck restraint we were taught. It used the forearm across the side of the neck to put them out, never used it. Now I'm sure that ones out too.
Physically over power them by hand
Taser/sprays like OC
or simply stop making arrests if they resist.
I think the last one will become the norm.
While I basically never practiced criminal law I still vaguely remember the basics. Red is absolutely correct - a taser CAN be lethal...
I believe that any criminal lawyer worth his salt could make a jury believe that the officer fired in fear of his life should Georgia choose to prosecute. Granted the optics of this case are not great coming off the heels of the Floyd murder but really / does anybody know what was in that officers mind when he fired BUT HIM. Also the officers were nothing but polite showing no racial biases until the suspect resisted arrest. If you never walked in a cops shoes - judge not lest ye be judged!!
You're going to hear the phrase "objective reasonableness" thrown around reference this. If you're really bored google Graham v. Connor,
I think the biggest issue the Atlanta police will have in defending their actions in the Wendy's event is the fact that they used lethal force to defend themselves from a taser, a weapon the police themselves say is non-lethal.
The simple fact that the police constantly defend the use and carrying of tasers as being non lethal will make it almost impossible for the officer to say he was in fear for his own life - - that added to the fact that in earlier videos it seems very clear that they already had made sure the man had no weapons it would seem that it will be a very up hill battle trying to convince anyone that the officer was in fear for his life
dot get me wrong - what the suspect did was stupid and wrong and he himself created the situation that led to his shooting - - but even so I see it as a very difficult situation trying to convince a jury that you were justified in shooting a suspect who is attempting to run away from a minor offense for pointing a taser at you when your own people say that tasers are non-lethal - - on top of that the fact that the suspect was shot twice in the back and that just doesn't look like a necessary use of force
Just to clarify some terms. A taser is not considered a non-lethal weapon. Non-lethal would indicate the weapon can't cause death or serious injury. Tasers are considered less-lethal as they are less likely to cause death or serious injury.
Please stop referring to less-lethal weapons as non-lethal.
The "defund the police" movement needs to lay out what it really means. Some actually want to abolish the police others want to reform the police. The reform group aren't doing a very good job explaining what that looks like and what the plan is. I have a suggestion to help navigate the issue. Only call the police when there is a threat to life due to criminal activity. Have the police stop conducting enforcement of traffic laws that aren't an immediate threat to life. Anything else simply do online or phone reporting. No chance for the police to overreact to minor problems if they aren't there. As soon as you can show there is a reduced need for police you can cut the size of the organizations.
Let's boycott the police by refusing to use their services.
I've always told the people I ride with " if you're not comfortable with the speed or conditions don't go". I've seen the outcome of somebody riding beyond their ability to make other people happy. One reason I'm not a fan of open charity rides.
If you're leading and don't think it's a good idea step away. If others want to go they can go without you.
Ok everybody relax and stop overreacting to the situation in Seattle. The mayor cleared it all up on the news. It's not an occupation it's a block party, they have them all the time in that area.
You can't make this shit up.