Institutional racism in policing and how to rectify it.

[Farm Boy]

Resisting arrest can lead to a point where an officer needs to use a potentially lethal level of force to subdue an individual. It is however completely on the suspect at that point to surrender to the arresting officer. As to the giving the officers something less lethal, they have the best non-lethal weapons possibly but they don't always work in every situation. Nor would I expect that if the suspect had a weapon that the officer would draw anything but his own gun.

You have to ask yourself, in the absence of greater evidence of impending imminent lethal violence to the community, is resisting arrest appropriately classified as a capital offense?

 

[tetley]

Which is the primary factor destroying America here? Police brutality (and everything stemming from it)...or racism? Because if you pursue this as primarily a race issue, all they'll do is crack down on white people more, so that the police are equally brutal on both races. And then come back to all the protesters with, " why are you complaining this time?"

 

[Colonel]

You have to ask yourself, in the absence of greater evidence of impending imminent lethal violence to the community, is resisting arrest appropriately classified as a capital offense?

I don't classify resisting arrest as a capital crime nor does the American legal system however, Use of Force regulations state that the officer can escalate the use of force to subdue a subject. It all depending on how they are resisting.

If he is slapping the officers hand away like in the New York case then tackling him to the ground to get him in handcuffs is an appropriate level of force. If the person physically starts to fight the officer then it gets into a point where the officer could feel his life is threatened and thus is legally allowed to shoot the assailant. Its very much based on the situation but any instance where you resist arrest could lead to a deadly encounter depending on how you resist arrest.

 

[Farm Boy]

So, somebody wanted to be stopped for jaywalking or petty shoplifting that is effective at resisting arrest, either though non-lethal unarmed resistance or ability to flee is a warrant to escalate to lethal force if such is necessary to "subdue" the individual? And you feel this is a reasonable line?

 

[Colonel]

So, somebody wanted to be stopped for jaywalking or petty shoplifting that is effective at resisting arrest, either though non-lethal unarmed resistance or ability to flee is a warrant to escalate to lethal force if such is necessary to "subdue" the individual? And you feel this is a reasonable line?

Again I said based on the situation. Also its based in state law to some degree. I will use my home state seeing as our laws are what sparked this debate anyway. In Missouri an officer has two clauses which allow him to fire his weapon. 1. Defense of self or public (ie reasonable belief at the time of a threat to himself or the public). 2. To stop a violent criminal from escaping.

So using your example of jaywalking or petty shoplifting, if they simply escaped then no the officer couldn't fire. However if they decided that it was a good idea to beat the crap out of the cop then it could reach a point where the officer was justified to shoot them. Also noting that assault is a violent crime so if after attacking the officer they tried to run it would be legal to shoot them.

 

[Angst]

The video I provided showed a guy pushing back 3-4 times before getting strangled by an officer.

This is technically resisting arrest.

And that's why it shouldn't be viewed as an offense that legitimizes lethal force.

 

[Colonel]

The video I provided showed a guy pushing back 3-4 times before getting strangled by an officer.

This is technically resisting arrest.

And that's why it shouldn't be viewed as an offense that legitimizes lethal force.

His 300 pounds, asthma, heart disease, etc are what killed him! Not the chokehold. I accept that the chokehold itself was against NYPD regulation, and for that the officer should be punished by the department.

And as I said it was based on the situation, the officers couldn't have known that would have contributed to his death, its not as if they are walking around with everyone's medical history.

 

[Angst]

First, are you saying that I, not weighing that much or suffering heart conditions or asthma, would not be damaged by a chokehold?

Secondly, would it be legitimate for the police officers to choke me if they outnumber me four to one and I escape the police's grasp three times while standing still?

And thirdly, he was clearly overweight and overweight people are more often than not not very healthy. Why did they choke him when he was clearly unfit? Did they need to? They squarely outnumbered him and were definitely more fit. Was it like he could run away?

These concerns are some concerns the police should take into consideration. It was not his fault that he died. It was the police's fault. And it's not only their fault, it's their responsibility to not kill people when possible. Stating he was overweight does not change it was a gross abuse of power. The police should not be inherently legitimized to use lethal force when containing a suspect.

 

[Colonel]

First, are you saying that I, not weighing that much or suffering heart conditions or asthma, would not be damaged by a chokehold?

Secondly, would it be legitimate for the police officers to choke me if they outnumber me four to one and I escape the police's grasp three times while standing still?

And thirdly, he was clearly overweight and overweight people are more often than not not very healthy. Why did they choke him when he was clearly unfit? Did they need to? They squarely outnumbered him and were definitely more fit. Was it like he could run away?

These concerns are some concerns the police should take into consideration. It was not his fault that he died. It was the police's fault. And it's not only their fault, it's their responsibility to not kill people when possible. Stating he was overweight does not change it was a gross abuse of power. The police should not be inherently legitimized to use lethal force when containing a suspect.

First the Grand Jury disagrees with you. Second, he was large, potentially mobile, resisting threat. They got him to the ground it what would normally be a non-lethal action. I can't hold an officer accountable if he does something that normally wouldn't kill someone but did in one instance because the individual had severe health issues that my officer couldn't possibly have known about. Noting also that outside of the chokehold the officers over powered him together and it still took all four to get him in hand cuffs. As I said the Department should punish him internally but its not a matter for the courts.

 

[Angst]

So I wouldn't be damaged?

And if a guy states that he can't breathe, should the cops ignore that?

 

[Senethro]

First the Grand Jury disagrees with you. Second, he was large, potentially mobile, resisting threat. They got him to the ground it what would normally be a non-lethal action. I can't hold an officer accountable if he does something that normally wouldn't kill someone but did in one instance because the individual had severe health issues that my officer couldn't possibly have known about. Noting also that outside of the chokehold the officers over powered him together and it still took all four to get him in hand cuffs. As I said the Department should punish him internally but its not a matter for the courts.

The coroner ruled it homicide.

 

[Farm Boy]

His 300 pounds, asthma, heart disease, etc are what killed him! Not the chokehold.

That would be at odds with the coroner ruling the death a homicide. It would also be at odds with the legal foundations both of civil liability and felony homicide that stipulate unforeseen and unintended consequences of prohibited actions are the responsibility of the actor which engaged in prohibited actions. This case reeks far worse than the Ferguson one on a lot of levels.

Again I said based on the situation. Also its based in state law to some degree. I will use my home state seeing as our laws are what sparked this debate anyway. In Missouri an officer has two clauses which allow him to fire his weapon. 1. Defense of self or public (ie reasonable belief at the time of a threat to himself or the public). 2. To stop a violent criminal from escaping.

So using your example of jaywalking or petty shoplifting, if they simply escaped then no the officer couldn't fire. However if they decided that it was a good idea to beat the crap out of the cop then it could reach a point where the officer was justified to shoot them. Also noting that assault is a violent crime so if after attacking the officer they tried to run it would be legal to shoot them.

Well, let's take out "beating the crap out" of the cop. I think if you're getting sat on with the back of your head getting pounded into the pavement that changes things to be more clear and thus less interesting to talk about here. Let's leave it with the pushing back and slapping of hands like you mentioned earlier. The very fact that what should be non-lethal physical altercations suddenly become much more likely to be lethal when one is a cop does have some implications. First that we're paying these people to be the ones that get into non-lethal altercations. The training they receive should focus at least in part on this. Second, the fact that the cops getting into these scrapes are wearing a lethal firearm dangling and grabbable off of their belts. "I thought he was reaching for my gun," is probably a reasonable and real fear, but it's one that should be mitigated by a decent society. So you bring up a really good point there. It's actually a damned compelling argument for having officer pairs where one is armed with non-lethal weaponry and tools and the other can serve as close support backup with a gun. Other than that, it should probably be accessible in the car instead of right next to the handcuffs/tazer. I'll go with you on that.

 

[Flying Pig]

Even non-lethal weaponry is quite lethal when you're trying to kill someone - you could quite easily kill someone with a taser provided you carried on trying to kill them after firing it. But I agree that this is one reason why police officers should not be routinely armed.

 

[classical_hero]

So I wouldn't be damaged?

And if a guy states that he can't breathe, should the cops ignore that?

If he could speak, then he isn't being choked.

 

[Angst]

If he could speak, then he isn't being choked.

They should intensify their choke then? How very morbid of you.

EDIT: And, also, I'm not totally sure on this, since I'm not 100% aware of how asthma works, but it sets in while you can actually physically appear to breathe; as such, it's not that weird to claim that.

I'm pretty sure that when you're pacifying a victim who says he "can't breathe", there could perhaps be a slight chance that he couldn't.

 

[bhsup]

If he could speak, then he isn't being choked.

Okay, no offense CH, but that's just ridiculous. I'll use Hollywood to prove my point...


Link to video.

Was Lando being choked? Well of course he was, but he was still able to get some words out.

 

[Senethro]

Okay, no offense CH, but that's just ridiculous. I'll use Hollywood to prove my point...


Was Lando being choked? Well of course he was, but he was still able to get some words out.

I don't think its ridiculous because noones that stupid. I think its conspicuous malice on CH's part. He wants everyone to know he doesn't care what any coroner says, it wasn't real choking so let the murdering cop off.

 

[Farm Boy]

Even non-lethal weaponry is quite lethal when you're trying to kill someone - you could quite easily kill someone with a taser provided you carried on trying to kill them after firing it. But I agree that this is one reason why police officers should not be routinely armed.

Huh, somewhat relevant and popped up today.

 

[Colonel]

That would be at odds with the coroner ruling the death a homicide. It would also be at odds with the legal foundations both of civil liability and felony homicide that stipulate unforeseen and unintended consequences of prohibited actions are the responsibility of the actor which engaged in prohibited actions. This case reeks far worse than the Ferguson one on a lot of levels.

First I'll set this one out, a coroner isn't qualified to give that answer as his only expertise is in cause of death. Meaning he could say he died of a closed off airway via external pressure, however he can not say it was a homicide at least not in the criminal sense. This however isn't what he said, the corner qualified it as a homicide via evidence outside of his expertise not solely based on the body he was to examine. The Grand Jury is the one who should qualify it as a homicide justified or otherwise via reviewing the evidence including the coroner. As to the liability you speak of, the officers could not have known of his medical issues, thus no liability exists. The next note is that a choke hold shouldn't normally be lethal whether it is against department rules isn't the point. He used a method to subdue the subject which he could not have foreseen causing the death of the subject hence why there was no indictment.

Well, let's take out "beating the crap out" of the cop. I think if you're getting sat on with the back of your head getting pounded into the pavement that changes things to be more clear and thus less interesting to talk about here. Let's leave it with the pushing back and slapping of hands like you mentioned earlier. The very fact that what should be non-lethal physical altercations suddenly become much more likely to be lethal when one is a cop does have some implications. First that we're paying these people to be the ones that get into non-lethal altercations. The training they receive should focus at least in part on this. Second, the fact that the cops getting into these scrapes are wearing a lethal firearm dangling and grabbable off of their belts. "I thought he was reaching for my gun," is probably a reasonable and real fear, but it's one that should be mitigated by a decent society. So you bring up a really good point there. It's actually a damned compelling argument for having officer pairs where one is armed with non-lethal weaponry and tools and the other can serve as close support backup with a gun. Other than that, it should probably be accessible in the car instead of right next to the handcuffs/tazer. I'll go with you on that.

Again the slapping hands, pushing back, etc is considered resisting arrest thus a certain level of force was authorized to subdue the suspect. Now again outside of the chokehold this was entirely legitimate. Also good to note here is that more then likely he still would have died without the chokehold.


As to disarming the Police force, good luck with that, all you will end up with is a bunch of cops in body bags because they didn't have ready access to their service weapon. If there were a national statistic for how often officers responded to a shots fired or shots fired once on scene you would understand why officers MUST be armed. We have 300 million guns in this country with the general public and thats just the legal ones. I'd bet a majority of officers would resign if you tried to disarm them, and I sincerely doubt you would be able to find replacements.

 

[Senethro]

Modern day racism can look like a bizarre inability to regard black people like other human beings.