Originally posted by Neils88: I think Tasers are definitely the way to go...when used properly. However, since 2001 more than 500 people have died in the US from Tasers...many more deaths than from being "taken down" manually. CPR is not a guarantee of resuscitation.
Which is why I do not approve of tazers. I did not use it as a first choice of action. One cop could have blocked his path. I said early in the thread that I think cops are trained to go from zero to sixty in one second to stop aggression.
Which is why I do not approve of tazers. I did not use it as a first choice of action. One cop could have blocked his path. I said early in the thread that I think cops are trained to go from zero to sixty in one second to stop aggression.
Here's three cops and one person...
[This message has been edited by Neils88 (edited 02-28-2014).]
What if those officers understood their own actions. I am not saying that every officer other ****ed up, but I can see two that did. Clear as day. One pressed his two hundred plus body onto a small area of a persons skull. Another blocked the camera, and lied to the wife. They then propped the man up! So, rather than assess an injury, they moved a victim into a seated position. Are you supposed to move a person with an unknown injury? It is always "hold still". Never risk an injury to the neck. But hey, prop his dead ass up, tell his most loved ones it is OK, cover our asses by blocking the camera,...
What if those officers understood their own actions. I am not saying that every officer other ****ed up, but I can see two that did. Clear as day. One pressed his two hundred plus body onto a small area of a persons skull. Another blocked the camera, and lied to the wife. They then propped the man up! So, rather than assess an injury, they moved a victim into a seated position. Are you supposed to move a person with an unknown injury? It is always "hold still". Never risk an injury to the neck. But hey, prop his dead ass up, tell his most loved ones it is OK, cover our asses by blocking the camera,...
Ah hell. I believe what I saw is disgusting. ;(
Nells doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to make up thing with which to rationalize the event. Now, he's attempting to divert attention away from it. The long blue line tightens up a little more.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-28-2014).]
Nells doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to make up thing with which to rationalize the event. Now, he's attempting to divert attention away from it. The long blue line tightens up a little more.
Thanks MJ.
Actually...I think I made it clear that I think they f**ked up with their poor attempts to remediate their mess. But you don't want to hear that....
My argument has been solely about the procedure for taking him down to make the situation safe. They followed correct procedure for this...an accident happened...then they completely f**ked up their response.
Actually...I think I made it clear that I think they f**ked up with their poor attempts to remediate their mess. But you don't want to hear that....
My argument has been solely about the procedure for taking him down to make the situation safe. They followed correct procedure for this...an accident happened...then they completely f**ked up their response.
Evidently not. A man died. I doubt that correct procedure calls for that in this case. "An accident" How convenient.. Involuntary manslaughter--maybe.
The 8 cops that did this "will recieve more training". No fines, no prosecution--no job loss.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-01-2014).]
... My argument has been solely about the procedure for taking him down to make the situation safe. They followed correct procedure for this...an accident happened...then they completely f**ked up their response.
Evidently not. A man died. I doubt that correct procedure calls for that in this case. "An accident" How convenient.. Involuntary manslaughter--maybe.
(With respect to the takedown only)...you see this as being reckless...which would therefore be involuntary manslaughter. I see this as officers making the situation safe by taking down someone whom was acting irrationally and was a potential threat....which would make it an accident.
When did he die? The officers are struggling with a dead guy.
I have been in more than one fight. Maybe over 100. I can think of a few when the guy became unconscious. I knew right away. I am not a trained officer. A body limp is an entirely different opponent. They should have known. They did know. No way those cops did not know.
Our police forces are trained on how to respond. We are not.
I bet you do. Safe for tyranny? For murder--that is what took place. You see it as a "oopsie--he died". As will the inquiry and the killers will go on back to work as if nothing happened. This, is why it doesn't stop. Everyone covers for everyone else, no matter what. It will continue. I suspect you are good with that.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-01-2014).]
I bet you do. As will the inquiry and the killers will go on back to work as if nothing happened. This, is why it doesn't stop. Everyone covers for everyone else, no matter what. It will continue. I suspect you are good with that. [/IMG]
If nothing else, you should know by now that I'm an idealist...so obviously I'm not good with that. Sadly, I also don't dispute that is what will happen.
TK...fighting one on one will make it obvious when the person becomes non-responsive. Unfortunately, when you have three or more on top of someone, it becomes less obvious. Once they stepped back, there should be no question. No one even took a pulse...
Oopsie? Please don't put words in my mouth. A man died. A family was torn apart. Don't trivialize it. I'm just arguing the correctness of the procedure to detain someone.
Oh--I'm sorry--you called it an accident instead of an oopsie. The difference is? A family was/is indeed torn apart. Because of who? Who killed him?--he didn't kill himself. (not rhetorical questions) I'd love to hear your answer to these very simple questions.
Originally posted by Neils88: They followed correct procedure for this...an accident happened...
Correct procedure ? Evidently not. If there would have been ten cops on the scene, would the correct procedure have been for all ten to assault him together ? I also work a dangerous vocation. 663 Killed In 6 Years. Not to mention other serious injuries.
quote
In 2012 alone, the newspaper found 79 people lost limbs, 82 were crushed, 92 suffered burns and 675 broke bones in work-related accidents reported to insurance carriers. The same year, the 65 deaths were a 10-year high and almost 60 percent more fatalities than in 2011.
We are constantly trained to avoid accidents. To the point that all accidents are preventable. I bet a dollar to a doughnut that the above deaths and injuries were due to new inexperienced workers, or ones which did not take the training seriously, or worse, did not apply the training. For every task we preform we are supposed to do a JSA. Job Safety Analysis. To evaluate every step of each task, identify safety risks associated with those steps, and find and follow safety mitigation solutions so as the least hazardous situation presents itself. Long story short, think about what you are fixin' to do. That is the correct procedure. It was not done in this case.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-01-2014).]
Oh--I'm sorry--you called it an accident instead of an oopsie. The difference is? A family was/is indeed torn apart. Because of who? Who killed him?--he didn't kill himself. (not rhetorical questions) I'd love to hear your answer to these very simple questions.
Is a fatal car accident an oopsie? Would it likely have been intentional? Your wording is ignorant since you are trying to make a death into a joke.
Again, I'm not arguing the point of who killed him, and not arguing the failure of their actions...yet if he had obeyed the lawful orders of the police officers he most likely would be alive today.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
We are constantly trained to avoid accidents. To the point that all accidents are preventable.
Exactly...yet accidents still happen despite training and best intentions...
If he had stayed in bed that day, he would also still be alive as well. What is it with all the ifs, woulda, maybe, could haves, perhaps? Is it that hard to admit--that they murdered him (manslaughter)--or is the #1 goal in your argument to protect them at all cost? (more ?--will you answe?r--probably not. Doesn't appear to be in your nature)
You didn't answer the other questions. They were simple and direct. Here, I'll help you along with one of them: oopsie: 1. A Mistake 2. A Accident
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-01-2014).]
Why do they scream at you to stop resisting when you are doing nothing?
Why do they have the right to assault you or even touch you?
Cops are junkies. They live for this **** .
be careful when using broad sweeping statements. I served my community and protected the defenseless, I did not "live" to use excessive force and was not a "junkie" on anything of the sort.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 03-01-2014).]
If he had stayed in bed that day, he would also still be alive as well. What is it with all the ifs, woulda, maybe, could haves, perhaps? Is it that hard to admit--that they murdered him (manslaughter)--or is the #1 goal in your argument to protect them at all cost? (more ?--will you answe?r--probably not. Doesn't appear to be in your nature)
You didn't answer the other questions. They were simple and direct. Here, I'll help you along with one of them: oopsie: 1. A Mistake 2. A Accident
Is it hard to admit that they followed procedure in their efforts to detain him?
Why do people want to carry guns? ...So that they are prepared for the "what ifs".
Police training is to handle the "what ifs" in a proactive manner, not a reactive manner than may be too late....something you clearly can't (or don't want to) understand.
I've answered your questions. Yet you still through out ignorant comments.
...and I've never defended the results....but I guess you miss that point as well.
Procedure is irrelevant to the fact that he is dead, not that I believe they followed procedure. I don't think it is procedure to break someone's neck in a take down. I didn't ask if correct procedure was followed. I asked 2 other relatively simple and direct questions. You made up (in your mind) another question and attempted to answer it instead. A ploy most often used by politicians when they are embarassed to answer a reporter's direct question. I've never understood this. Why not answer the question asked and just move on or at least have the courtesy to say "I prefer not to answerbecause it will make me look bad" or "I don't know the answer to that simple question"
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-01-2014).]
Procedure is irrelevant to the fact that he is dead, not that I believe they followed procedure. I don't think it is procedure to break someone's neck in a take down. I didn't ask if correct procedure was followed. I asked 2 other relatively simple and direct questions. You made up (in your mind) another question and attempted to answer it instead. A ploy most often used by politicians when they are embarassed to answer a reporter's direct question. I've never understood this. Why not answer the question asked and just move on or at least have the courtesy to say "I prefer not to answerbecause it will make me look bad" or "I don't know the answer to that simple question"
Sorry MJ...I'll spoon feed the answers for you, since clearly you can't read.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: Because of who?
quote
Originally posted by Neils88: if he had obeyed the lawful orders of the police officers he most likely would be alive today.
Translation...HE is responsible for his own actions...HIS failure to obey lawful orders resulted in HIM being taken to the ground into custody as per the CORRECT police procedures.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: Who killed him?
quote
Originally posted by Neils88: I'm not arguing the point of who killed him
Translation....the police officers killed him. Not sure what part of "I'm not arguing the point of who killed him" you don't understand.
Let me explain the concept of an accident. The other day I was machining a piece of metal on my lathe. I am fully trained to use the lathe (multiple machine shop classes). I am well experienced using the lathe (been using lathes for more than 25 years). I followed all safety procedures as per manufacturers guidelines. I wore all the appropriate PPE as per manufacturers guidelines. Yet somehow a small sliver of metal shot straight up in the air, came down and actual deflected behind my safety glasses into my eye. Hurt like a SOB. What went wrong? Were the procedures wrong? No. Sometimes, despite all best efforts, procedures and practices, accidents happen.
Originally posted by Neils88: What went wrong? Were the procedures wrong? No. Sometimes, despite all best efforts, procedures and practices, accidents happen.
The procedures were wrong. All accidents are preventable. I could get fired if that happened to me.
Translation....the police officers killed him. Not sure what part of "I'm not arguing the point of who killed him" you don't understand.
Let me explain the concept of an accident. The other day I was machining a piece of metal on my lathe. I am fully trained to use the lathe (multiple machine shop classes). I am well experienced using the lathe (been using lathes for more than 25 years). I followed all safety procedures as per manufacturers guidelines. I wore all the appropriate PPE as per manufacturers guidelines. Yet somehow a small sliver of metal shot straight up in the air, came down and actual deflected behind my safety glasses into my eye. Hurt like a SOB. What went wrong? Were the procedures wrong? No. Sometimes, despite all best efforts, procedures and practices, accidents happen.
I too worked as a machinist for many many years. Manufacturer's guidelines are minimal and general in nature, and most clearly state that. Proper procedure is tight fitting safety glasses or face shield, coupled with OSHA approved machine guarding. I learned that in high school.
All that, just to dance around the 2 simple little questions.
Oh--I'm sorry--you called it an accident instead of an oopsie. The difference is? A family was/is indeed torn apart. Because of who? Who killed him?--he didn't kill himself. (not rhetorical questions) I'd love to hear your answer to these very simple questions.
I can assure, that the coroner's report will NOT say he died of self inflicted injuries. You know that too but prefer to type out a long litany of deflection and misdirection instead of answering the 2 little questions I asked. I had no problem answering the scenario you posted. Why the lack of reciprocity on your part?
I too worked as a machinist for many many years. Manufacturer's guidelines are minimal and general in nature, and most clearly state that. Proper procedure is tight fitting safety glasses or face shield, coupled with OSHA approved machine guarding. I learned that in high school.
All that, just to dance around the 2 simple little questions.
Oh--I'm sorry--you called it an accident instead of an oopsie. The difference is? A family was/is indeed torn apart. Because of who? Who killed him?--he didn't kill himself. (not rhetorical questions) I'd love to hear your answer to these very simple questions.
I can assure, that the coroner's report will NOT say he died of self inflicted injuries. You know that too but prefer to type out a long litany of deflection and misdirection instead of answering the 2 little questions I asked. I had no problem answering the scenario you posted. Why the lack of reciprocity on your part?
i think the question here is, at what point do the police officers become culpable? there's no doubt they killed the victim. was it intentional? i doubt it. was excessive force used? looks obvious in the affirmative to me. so, at what point do the officers have to accept consequences apart from their own consciences? should this be viewed in the same light as collateral damage during a firefight in fallujah?
Originally posted by maryjane: Manufacturer's guidelines are minimal and general in nature, and most clearly state that. Proper procedure is tight fitting safety glasses or face shield, coupled with OSHA approved machine guarding.
That is old school. Company policy is googles and a face shield. Any engineered safety features (guards, plugs, whatnot) can not be removed/altered etc. For every incident, procedures are examined closely as part of the root cause/root analysis. Promptly changed as necessary to ensure that it can never happen again.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: Manufacturer's guidelines are minimal and general in nature.
We do not know that is all he used. I still want to know what the official police procedures are. I would like to see the root cause/root analysis.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-01-2014).]
I'm pretty sure that if a person doesn't obey the orders the Cop barks, he can then decide to arrest that person JUST on that basis. If the person resists "hey - why are you arresting me? I didn't do anything wrong!" the Cop can then get physical. If the person doesn't respond like a limp dishrag, the Cop can really lean on the guy "to use as much force as necessary" to take him down. And their buddies are always willing to help. It seems many don't know where to draw the line on that last bit. I guess in their view the "perp" is no longer resisting when he stops shouting/moving (or is dead).
I have said it before, this police investigated by police needs to stop, we need an independent investigative agency. someone with no dog in the fight, not the cops, not the DA, not lawyers not anyone inside the law enforcement system a bunch of regular people who can look at all the evidence with a fresh eye.
the cops in this video clearly went to far, yet the investigation of this by more cops will just say nothing of any consequence to those who were responsible for this mans death.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Lethal Force, forty five minutes long. Suggests police are not trained adequately. I was looking for a non lethal force policy. I suspect inadequate training in those policies.
For these procedures the following definitions will apply: DEADLY FORCE: Is that degree of force likely to result in death or serious physical injury. The discharge of a firearm toward a person is an example of the use of deadly force. LESS LETHAL FORCE: Is the force that is neither likely nor intended to cause serious physical harm or death. This includes the use of approved defensive/physical tactics, approved chemical substances, an Electronic Control Weapon (ECW), less then lethal weaponry, a K-9, and the authorized baton MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FORCE: The minimum amount of force is the least amount of force that is proper, reasonable, and necessary to achieve a lawful objective.
quote
USE OF FORCE IN ASCENDING ORDER The use of force continuum is described below in ascending order from the least severe to the most severe measures. Whenever possible, an officer should exhaust every reasonable means of employing the minimum amount of force before escalating to a more severe level of force, except where the officer reasonably believes that lesser means would not be adequate in a particular situation and the use of force is necessary to accomplish his lawful objective or to protect himself or another from serious physical injury or death. Conversely, officers must never overlook the possibility of force deescalation when appropriate. A. LESS LETHAL FORCE: 1. Presence/Appearance: The image that an officer conveys can in many cases influence the outcome of the situation. The officer should be neat and well groomed. He should be mindful of body language, always maintaining the highest level of vigilance. 2. Verbal Communication: Effective verbal communication can many times reduce or manage anxious, aggressive, or violent behavior. The appropriate use of verbal persuasion can in some cases prevent and or minimize the need for physical force. 3. Initial (Light) Physical Tactics: This application is appropriate when the subjects physical resistance is minor, not hazardous, and can be easily controlled. Examples of this are guiding a cooperative subject into a handcuffing position, out of a vehicle, or into another room. 4. Defensive/Physical Tactics: This is the use of appropriate physical strength or hand control normally required to overcome passive or defensive resistance that is not intended as an act of overt aggression toward the officer when an individual refuses to comply with verbal instructions 5 Electronic Control Weapons (TASER): A Less lethal weapon that as a compliance technique, an ECW may be used as a countermeasure designed to counter the subject’s enhanced degree of resistance. These tactics could include the Control and Restraint techniques, Takedowns, Pressure Points and distraction techniques.
