# Kneeling on the neck?



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2008)

A discussion I'm following on another site had a photo of a LEO in riot gear handcuffing a prone individual, with a knee very clearly on the persons neck.  Given my limited knowledge of arrest procedures, is this common or accepted?  It seems dangerous to me. 

Photo Link

(Note, not intending on a criticism of the act, etc, just looking for clarification on if it's accepted or discouraged, etc.)


----------



## theletch1 (Oct 29, 2008)

Not an LEO here but train with several who've stated that the knee to the neck is pretty standard in this area.  It allows for better control of the individual than attempting to control a large area of mass like the torso.  'Course a smart guy wouldn't have to be taken down to be cuffed in the first place.


----------



## zeeberex (Oct 29, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Not an LEO here but train with several who've stated that the knee to the neck is pretty standard in this area.  It allows for better control of the individual than attempting to control a large area of mass like the torso.  'Course a smart guy wouldn't have to be taken down to be cuffed in the first place.




It's excessive force, hence it's wrong.


----------



## Jimi (Oct 29, 2008)

I don't think it's excessive. It also is very common on law enforcement. Just ask Rodney King if he would rather have had a knee on his neck for a few instants while being cuffed, or beaten with a night stick repeatedly. That situation was excessive force. If you have ever seen that King footage you would see that any one of those officers could have stepped up and placed his body weight on him and had control quickly as supposed to beating him down. If you resist an officer (RIGHTLY) apprehending you, he is well with-in his rights to hold you down with a knee to keep himself , other officers & the scene under control. It's the "I wanna pull that hippies ponytail off of his head because he was stoned dancing on the Mall in DC for the Fourth Of July smoke in" that is excessive to my sensibilities.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2008)

Now, given my own limited knowledge of spinal mechanics, the idea of a 200lb person kneeling on it seems, dangerous.  Wouldn't you have the same amount of control but a safer situation going across the top of the back? Or is that not practical?


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 29, 2008)

Standard operating procedure. At least, it used to be. Used to teach a clinic on control & submission tactics at a local Academy located in a JC. But then again, I also used to teach carotid chokeholds, and they have since been discontinued as part of the allowed responses here in Cali.

I say screw it: Just shoot 'em. Folks are gonna complain no matter what LEO's do, and no matter how hard they try to keep it civil. I remember when I was in Europe, and the wall was still up. We had a NATO dude tell us...while visiting the other side of Berlin, if der Polizei say halt, you halt. Cuz if'n you don't, one officer will burst his weapon in a left-to-right angle, and the other in a right-to-left forming an "X" with you in the middle, and they will not ask you twice. I dunno if he was lying to this day, but we were on our best behavior. Wasn't the threat of being shot, but the conviction it was so.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 29, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Now, given my own limited knowledge of spinal mechanics, the idea of a 200lb person kneeling on it seems, dangerous. Wouldn't you have the same amount of control but a safer situation going across the top of the back? Or is that not practical?


 
Neck affords greater control. All arrest submissions against a resistant arrestee involve some degree of risk.


----------



## kaizasosei (Oct 29, 2008)

on the picture displayed, the one kneeling is not kneeling right on the neck.  if he would be, the guy on the floor would not look quite as relaxed as he does and the neck would be more bent(most likely with the ear touching the ground).  although it is very close and he may have pressed the neck more at some point before or after this shot was taken, at the exact moment the picture was taken, most the pressure seems to me to be on the back of the shoulder with only around 10% of the pressure on the neck.  

just the facts.  if another person with less skill were to attempt this, it may well end in greater injury.  a couple of years back there was a case over here were the police kneeled on an immigrants chest so forcefully that he couldnt breath anymore and died as a result.  also, even more recently, the police blew away a motorbike thief as he attempted to ride off.  being a leo calls not only for some kind of judgement skills, but also the ability to know one's own strength and the limits of others.

i myself, getting used to bjj and freefighting am having to get used to using greater amounts of force even just in training.  if done with moderate control, the body can take a fair bit of punishment without sustaining any real injury, but again, there is a fine line and it does require a fair bit of skill and knowledge of human anatomy if not simple empathy..

j


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 29, 2008)

On the picture ... his knee is actually on the spine towards the base of the kneck - I'm not seeing a lot of pressure there, but it doesn't take a lot.  I'm not current on standard procedure for riot and crowd control, but it seems relatively minor compared to what may be allowed.

On one hand, police need to be able to control the unruly and that might require tactics that are not popular.  LTL tech has helped in that regard that people who might have been shot before are tazed and people who might have been beaten before are now sprayed.

On the other hand, we have to look at abuse of position and it pains me to hear LEOs and trainers of LEOs say things like, "screw it, just shoot 'em" as much as it pains me to hear the democrats of Chicago make excuses for their corruption and republicans of Alaska defend their governor.  I realize it's all a game, but surely one gets into law enforcement in the interest of public good ... no?  

Let's allow the police the tactics they NEED ... and hold them accountable when they blatantly go beyond need.


----------



## theletch1 (Oct 29, 2008)

There's certainly a difference between pinning the neck with your knee and crushing it.  You apply the amount of force needed to control the person on the ground.  If they struggle you apply a little more force.  If they decide to comply and lay still you can ease up a bit.  As kaizasosei and Shesulsa said, there isn't a ton of pressure on the guys neck in the photo... but it's close enough to apply some serious force if needed.  I don't see it, in any way as excessive force.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2008)

So, it's there in more a deterrent manner than a "crush his neck and cripple him" way.  Here, we have a broad experience base to look at such things, while elsewhere it's not looked at from an informed perspective.  Thanks!


----------



## morph4me (Oct 29, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> There's certainly a difference between pinning the neck with your knee and crushing it. You apply the amount of force needed to control the person on the ground. If they struggle you apply a little more force. If they decide to comply and lay still you can ease up a bit. As kaizasosei and Shesulsa said, there isn't a ton of pressure on the guys neck in the photo... but it's close enough to apply some serious force if needed. I don't see it, in any way as excessive force.


 

You beat me to it Jeff .  In that position it's a simple matter of shifting weight slightly one way or the other to add or release pressure, depending on the amount of resistance your getting. Considering the position of the officer, it's probably the safest way to get the cuffs on without worrying about the guy thrashing around.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 29, 2008)

The kneeling on the upper back thing is a common and valid technique for immobilizing a suspect for cuffing... With the riot visor and kneepads on he may be a little high on the back but there is daylight showing through the area of the throat and the ground so obviously there isn't pressure being applied to the trachea etc.

Has nobody watched "Cops"??? This is done ALL the time.


----------



## Drac (Oct 29, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> A discussion I'm following on another site had a photo of a LEO in riot gear handcuffing a prone individual, with a knee very clearly on the persons neck. Given my limited knowledge of arrest procedures, is this common or accepted? It seems dangerous to me.
> 
> Photo Link
> 
> (Note, not intending on a criticism of the act, etc, just looking for clarification on if it's accepted or discouraged, etc.)


 

We are taught to* NEVER* kneel on anyones neck..


----------



## kidswarrior (Oct 29, 2008)

Drac said:


> We are taught to* NEVER* kneel on anyones neck..


I'm not LE, but...

Strictly from a MA instruction perspective, and with the additional insight of having received a serious neck (cervical) injury from a training partner using a very, very small amount of force, much less the possibility of someone kneeling on it, I teach the guys to stay away from the spine altogether--unless it's really life-or-death. 

Now if the technique is working for various departments, all good. But seems all it would take is one guy to slip on wet pavement while kneeling, or have a leg muscle cramp causing all his weight to drop, and you've got a catastrophe. Or maybe I'm just getting old and sceery... :idunno:


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 29, 2008)

Im of the opinion that this officer isnt kneeling on the offenders neck. Perhaps high up on the back, but far from dangerous. Ive knealt on people like that and you can shift your weight about so that there is hardly any pressure on the person at all, to enough force to pin the person down.

The issue here is the politics surrounding the RNC, not police use of force, dont be fooled.


----------



## MJS (Oct 29, 2008)

Looking at that pic. it seems to me the majority of the officers weight is on the back, not the neck.  His shin appears to be on the neck, but I doubt that much pressure is on it.

What always amazes me, especially when people talk about too much force, is they seem to forget what led up to that.  Now, I'm NOT saying that LEOs should be the crap out of someone, but if they're trying to make an arrest, and the person is being an ***, fighting, struggling, etc., then ya know what...you get what you deserve, and if that means being brought to the ground HARD and fast, then so be it.  

Perhaps next time, the suspect will think twice about being an ***.  Of course, it looks like the cop was in riot gear, so chances are, many people were being asses.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 29, 2008)

A photo is also a capture of a brief moment in time. Many righteous situations can be made to appear wrong when captured at a particular moment.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 29, 2008)

That is quite true, *Angel*.  Also, as *MJS* said above, the very fact that the officer is in riot gear suggests that this is not some trivial offender being treated with excessive 'zeal'.

However, behind this specific instance is the very real danger of the build up of a 'screw the lot of them' institutional mentality.  What I mean by this is the level of frustration within the LEO organisation building up to the point wherein anyone commiting a criminal act, however minor (or standing up for their rights where officers have made a mistake) is 'fair game'.

That is not a good state of affairs to look over the edge of the cliff at.

Of course, the flip side, is that we all expect the police to be telepathic Paladins who know that we are 'good', who never have a bad day and who never screw up.  That's just unrealistic and is why, whenever I've had contact with the police (the whole three times ), I have been as open, accomodating and polite as I could be.


----------



## MJS (Oct 29, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> A photo is also a capture of a brief moment in time. Many righteous situations can be made to appear wrong when captured at a particular moment.


 
So very true.  We have no idea what led up to the person being put on the ground with the officer on him.  For all we know, he could've taken a swing at the LEO.


----------



## still learning (Oct 29, 2008)

Hello, From all the above comments....looks like kneeing the back of neck or just below is a "great" technique'!

Most of us have very deadly techniques that can be use.....

the reverse is UN-deadly techniques....like peeing on them?

yelling is a good UN-deadly techniques..unless the other guys has a gun and didn't like what you said?

Kneeing in praying is OK .....kneeing on his neck will help him pray too!  

So we all can agree? .....kneeing is good to know! 

Aloha,  kneeing bread is long time practice...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2008)

All good points, which is why I was only looking for clarification on the knee to neck part, and put the other stuff in the Study.  (Pics linked in there too, different discussion). I wasn't intending this to be a discussion of the right/wrong/etc.

Now, the photo looks like the officer is kneeling on his neck to me, and my limited knowledge of LEO procedures indicates that such an action was outside standard practices for safety reasons.


----------



## morph4me (Oct 29, 2008)

To me it looks as if the officer is kneeling across his shoulder blades.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 29, 2008)

Looks reasonable for a one-on-one arrest situation, though I see where it could be dangerous.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 29, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> A discussion I'm following on another site had a photo of a LEO in riot gear handcuffing a prone individual, with a knee very clearly on the persons neck.  Given my limited knowledge of arrest procedures, is this common or accepted?  It seems dangerous to me.
> 
> Photo Link
> 
> (Note, not intending on a criticism of the act, etc, just looking for clarification on if it's accepted or discouraged, etc.)



He's not kneeling on the neck -- he's kneeling across the neck.  Not quite the same thing.  Note that the officer's toes are resting on the ground; he's in control of the downward force.  More in a moment...



zeeberex said:


> It's excessive force, hence it's wrong.



Based on what?  What do you see in this photo that suggests that the force used is not reasonable and appropriate?  



Bob Hubbard said:


> So, it's there in more a deterrent manner than a "crush his neck and cripple him" way.  Here, we have a broad experience base to look at such things, while elsewhere it's not looked at from an informed perspective.  Thanks!



It's control of the top of the spine and shoulders.  You aren't putting direct pressure on the neck, but you are controlling their entire upper body while keeping your hands free.




Archangel M said:


> Im of the opinion that this officer isnt kneeling on the offenders neck. Perhaps high up on the back, but far from dangerous. Ive knealt on people like that and you can shift your weight about so that there is hardly any pressure on the person at all, to enough force to pin the person down.
> 
> The issue here is the politics surrounding the RNC, not police use of force, dont be fooled.



Yep; I've used similar tactics, from "above" or in front of the person as shown, and from behind.  Done properly, it's a very effective way to control someone and keep your hands free for other tasks, ranging from cuffing to calling for help, or even preparing to shoot others around you.



Sukerkin said:


> That is quite true, *Angel*.  Also, as *MJS* said above, the very fact that the officer is in riot gear suggests that this is not some trivial offender being treated with excessive 'zeal'.
> 
> However, behind this specific instance is the very real danger of the build up of a 'screw the lot of them' institutional mentality.  What I mean by this is the level of frustration within the LEO organisation building up to the point wherein anyone commiting a criminal act, however minor (or standing up for their rights where officers have made a mistake) is 'fair game'.
> 
> ...



As a colleague of mine notes, "Bad things happen to bad people."  This isn't an arrest technique for someone who's compliant and cooperative.  They've already proven that they at least have the potential to be a problem child...

Remember that the test of police use of force is reasonableness and appropriateness.  Excessive force is any force beyond what is reasonable or appropriate to the resistance to be overcome -- not force that "doesn't look pretty" or force that "I don't like."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 29, 2008)

Ok, I cropped in a bit, and brightened the shot.


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 29, 2008)

based on the positioning, it looks as if most of the officer's weight would be on the shoulder/back area...I don't see any problems.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 30, 2008)

I think most people that have been through defensive tactics and hand cuffing classes will tell you that the knee in this position goes on or across the shoulder blades.  In this picture that appears to be exactly what the officer is doing.  Not fun or pleasant if you are the guy or girl on the bottom but definitely a good way to control a resisting individual.  I cannot tell you how many times I have either used this technique in the past or watched someone use it.  It is simply effective.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 30, 2008)

Yes, it appears the majority of any pressure being applied is on the opposite shoulder. This involves some contact with the neck - usually very light.  I think we'd see much more ... ah ... _smushing_ ... of the subject's face than we do in the photograph if much pressure was being applied.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Oct 30, 2008)

It's a head control, using the shin to apply a pinning pressure to the structure of the neck, by pinning the jaw.

Imagine someone laying face up. Turn their head to the side, and looking upwards just a bit, so there is some pressure in their neck muscles. Now, imagine two seperate choices: Lay your shin across their windpipe, or (and here's the tricky part) lay it so that is goes from their chest, across their neck, and across their jaw (remember their face is turned sideways a bit). Kinda like cross-facing someone, but with the use of the long bone of the shin as the lever, the pressure across the chest, throat, jaw prevents them from turning their head. Control the head, and you control the body.

In the pic in question, the cop is doing the exact same thing, but with the guy face down....the ground is providing the pressure usually provided by the shin, and the shin is providing the pressure usually provided by the ground.


----------



## kyosa (Oct 31, 2008)

a simple rule-where the head goes the body follows.  This is a common technique taught for hand cuffing.  I always tell them to turn their face away from me because it takes pressure away from their upper body and head.  The idea isn't to inflict pain or injury but to gain control of the person.  The one rule of Law Enforcement officers-control and cuff.  Why does it take 4 officers to arrest someone who is out of control?  We could break their bones  and beat them down with one or 2 officers, but it takes 2-4 officers to control an unruly person and get them cuffed without injuring them.


----------



## Geeba12 (Nov 18, 2008)

Kneel on the back of the neck? Absolutely! I did it hundreds of times in my career with zero permanent injuries. With minimal training, officers learn how to regulate their force the same way pain compliance is used against any other joints. This is a great equalizer when the suspect out weighs the officer. Proper use of the whole body, hands, feet, voice etc. is the focus. The goal is to apply temporary restraints (cuffs) as quickly and efficiently as possible with as reduced chance of injury to the officer possible.
SJG


----------



## KP. (Nov 20, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Now if the technique is working for various departments, all good. But seems all it would take is one guy to slip on wet pavement while kneeling, or have a leg muscle cramp causing all his weight to drop, and you've got a catastrophe. Or maybe I'm just getting old and sceery... :idunno:



Totally unpopular view, but my experience around here is that far too many LEO's really don't care if they hurt someone. I've heard far to many sit around laughing about how some guy's face got bloodied on the pavement and wasn't that just amusing . . .


----------



## LawDog (Dec 5, 2008)

KP,
you are off on your statement that LEO's do not care if they hurt someone or not. They under go extensive training on controlling someone so as not to hurt them. In most states LEO's must fill out a "level of force" form everytime they have a confrontation. If they falsify the form they are usually terminated.
"Most suspects get hurt when they physically resist".
As for listening to LEO's on forums laughing about hurting someone, check to see if they really a full time active LEO first then check to see if they are a b.s. artist.
As for kneeling on the neck, only if the LEO has practiced the art of controlling one's balance on the kneeling leg, many don't and they place their entire weight onto the suspects neck.
:supcool:


----------



## Drac (Dec 5, 2008)

KP. said:


> Totally unpopular view, but my experience around here is that far too many LEO's really don't care if they hurt someone. I've heard far to many sit around laughing about how some guy's face got bloodied on the pavement and wasn't that just amusing . . .


 
What a load of crap...


----------



## Drac (Dec 5, 2008)

LawDog said:


> As for listening to LEO's on forums laughing about hurting someone, check to see if they really a full time active LEO first then check to see if they are a b.s. artist.:supcool:


 
Yes..As with the MA there are a lot of wanna-bes lurking around..


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 5, 2008)

KP. said:


> Totally unpopular view, but my experience around here is that far too many LEO's really don't care if they hurt someone. I've heard far to many sit around laughing about how some guy's face got bloodied on the pavement and wasn't that just amusing . . .


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not as clueless as you're coming across with this post.

There a couple of possibilities here.  One is that it's just BS artists spinning crap stories.  (Google "shrine of the mall ninja" for a hilarious example.)  Another is that stories have grown in the telling, as war stories tend to do.  Yeah -- war stories do sometimes glorify the violence...  It's kind of a "guy thing" though it's not at all limited to guys.  And there's a gallows humor aspect...  plus just plain relief at living through someone trying to fight you.  

Many martial artists enjoy fighting -- but that doesn't mean they enjoy hurting someone.  It's the same with cops...


----------



## Drac (Dec 5, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Many martial artists enjoy fighting -- but that doesn't mean they enjoy hurting someone. It's the same with cops...


 
Yes, well said...We (LEO's) will talk and joke among other LEO's about some suspect that tried to fight us and lost..I have never heard another officer say that they enjoyed hurting someone...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 5, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> A discussion I'm following on another site had a photo of a LEO in riot gear handcuffing a prone individual, with a knee very clearly on the persons neck. Given my limited knowledge of arrest procedures, is this common or accepted? It seems dangerous to me.
> 
> Photo Link
> 
> (Note, not intending on a criticism of the act, etc, just looking for clarification on if it's accepted or discouraged, etc.)


 

Bob, not a police officer. I have not consulted a police officer or DA on this. Here is what I saw back in the day.


If you were a good bad guy and turned around you got the hand cuffs put on you and they walked you calmly to the vehicle and put you in and you even got a watch your head. 

If you were a bad bad guy and resisted and kicked or hit the officer, they would make sure you could not move while they cuffed you.

If you were a really bad bad guy and tried to kick or bite the officer after the cuffs were on, you might bump your head on the way into the vehicle or you might get dropped as they were carrying you and sliding you into the back of the car. 

Is it standard procedure? I do not know. 

Does it depend upon what happend before the picture was taken? I would say definitely yes.


----------



## Drac (Dec 6, 2008)

KP. said:


> Totally unpopular view, but my experience around here is that far too many LEO's really don't care if they hurt someone.


 
Any and all injuries sustained by the arrested parties could be avoided if they would comply with our simple request of*  "Sir/Mam, STOP resisting.."*


----------



## KP. (Dec 7, 2008)

Drac said:


> Any and all injuries sustained by the arrested parties could be avoided if they would comply with our simple request of*  "Sir/Mam, STOP resisting.."*



http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/reports98/police/uspo14.htm


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 7, 2008)

KP. said:


> http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/reports98/police/uspo14.htm


Not exactly a report from a group without an agenda...  And, from the tone of the overview, they set out to find abusive use of force.  Amazingly enough... they found what they were looking for, by their own definitions.

I saw no statistical information or explanation of how they determined that the force used was unreasonable; I will admit that I have not gone through it closely.

Nor do I see anything that suggests, outside of rogue employees who often should never have been hired as police officers in the first place (though hiring practices are a complex issue and most agencies do their best to avoid recognizable problems, not all are apparent until they're out there, working on their own), that there was any sort of SYSTEMATIC abuse of force.  And I definitely see nothing changing the point of Drac's simple statement:

If people being arrested would simply comply with the directions and orders of the police, and don't resist arrest...  they wouldn't get hurt.  It's not a hard concept.  Even if you're absolutely certain that the cops are wrong to arrest you, go with the program and address the problem later.  Because if I've decided you're under arrest -- you WILL BE taken into custody.  You may be tired, you may be injured... but *I WILL WIN!*

Note:  While I'll vouch for my colleagues in Canada and England... I won't even pretend that there's not rampant, terrible corruption in many other countries.  And even, sadly, in some jurisdictions in the USA.


----------



## MJS (Dec 8, 2008)

KP. said:


> Totally unpopular view, but my experience around here is that far too many LEO's really don't care if they hurt someone. I've heard far to many sit around laughing about how some guy's face got bloodied on the pavement and wasn't that just amusing . . .


 


Drac said:


> Any and all injuries sustained by the arrested parties could be avoided if they would comply with our simple request of* "Sir/Mam, STOP resisting.."*


 
I will not dispute that there are some bad cops mixed in with the good.  However, KP, did you stop and think for a moment what Drac has said?  I know that I've said the same thing many times in the past myself.  If people just stopped being an ***, and didn't resist, maybe, just maybe, they would not end up being forced to the ground with a knee on them.  

People who resist think that they have something to prove and want to attempt to make a case of abuse.  I remember many times when I worked in Corrections, guys that refused to lock up when told.  I'd give them 2 options: 1) lock up without any problems or 2) I'll bring in some backup and together, we will lock you up.  I don't care what option you pick, but either way, you're locking up.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 8, 2008)

There is I think a difference between a riot situation and a normal arrest.  During the normal arrest I would think there is some time for thearresting officer to communicate with the arrestee.  Riot reports I've read often tell the tale of people trying to comply with orders to move, yet ending up face down, being dragged by the ankles across gravel. 

An area I often see claims of assault referenced are the 'non-violent' cases, where the person being detained is actually not resisting. They are limp, sacks of flesh. So, in a way, they are resisting by not cooperating. But they aren't struggling, defending, fighting.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 8, 2008)

*Note*:

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the technique shown in a specific picture, not to cop-bash.  

We at MartialTalk.com opened the Law Enforcement forum so that LEOs and people who train them or train with them can communicate with each other.  My personal hope is the discussion herein will - through respect, courtesy and polite frankness - bridge an unfortunate gap between citizenry and law enforcement professionals and help ascertain technique efficacy and safety.

The debate of politics related to police behaving questionably and citizens under arrest will be confined to The Study area.

If you have any questions regarding this policy, feel free to PM any staff member, start a thread in the Member Site Support area or send an email to adminteam@martialtalk.com.

Thank you for your cooperation.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator


----------



## Drac (Dec 8, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> An area I often see claims of assault referenced are the 'non-violent' cases, where the person being detained is actually not resisting. They are limp, sacks of flesh. So, in a way, they are resisting by not cooperating. But they aren't struggling, defending, fighting.


 
I can tell you from experience its a real PITA attempting to to cuff and place a totally limp suspect in the back of a cruiser...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 8, 2008)

I understand.  But, he's not resisting.  So.....do you ask "Sir, please resist a little?"


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 8, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I understand.  But, he's not resisting.  So.....do you ask "Sir, please resist a little?"


Nope; you take two or three buddies, and you lift the guy off the ground and put him in the wagon or cruiser.  And if he bumps his head... well, if he'd simply gone with the program, it would have been a lot easier and he'd have gone in under his own power.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 8, 2008)

Drac said:


> I can tell you from experience its a real PITA attempting to to cuff and place a totally limp suspect in the back of a cruiser...


 
And every once and a while though you get those guys that know the score and go "felony prone" without asking the moment you pull up.


----------



## Drac (Dec 8, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> And every once and a while though you get those guys that know the score and go "felony prone" without asking the moment you pull up.


 
Once in a *GREAT* while...


----------



## arnisador (Dec 8, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Nope; you take two or three buddies, and you lift the guy off the ground and put him in the wagon or cruiser.  And if he bumps his head... well, if he'd simply gone with the program, it would have been a lot easier and he'd have gone in under his own power.



I've heard that that is a cause of back injuries in LEOs...


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I've heard that that is a cause of back injuries in LEOs...


 
And hernias.

But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.


----------



## KP. (Dec 9, 2008)

MJS said:


> I will not dispute that there are some bad cops mixed in with the good.  However, KP, did you stop and think for a moment what Drac has said?  I know that I've said the same thing many times in the past myself.  If people just stopped being an ***, and didn't resist, maybe, just maybe, they would not end up being forced to the ground with a knee on them.




Oh, maybe not forced the ground, but bounced face first off the hood of the car? That's done for kicks by way too many cops, and anyone who was honest would admit it.

I did think about what he said "any and all .. . " And that's total and complete BS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/us/22chicago.html

Friends and I had a party for this. But make no mistake, he was just the head honcho, his people were, and are, just as bad. 

Chicago is just one example of a city that has systemic and continuing problems with police brutality. And it isn't seen just by those with an agenda to find it. The only people who deny it are those living in suburbs who can be willingly oblivious to anything effecting those making less than 50k a year living inside the beltways and those whose careers depend on keeping said suburbanites believing it's just a myth.

It doesn't matter one's education, income, profession, legal standing, or anything else if you happen to be in the area where these folks operate and they think you look like a good target. They may do a lot of good for some communities, but where I grew up, they were simply the biggest, and frankly, most brutal, of the various gangs.


----------



## Drac (Dec 9, 2008)

KP. said:


> Yeah, right.
> 
> Sorry guys, don't buy it.
> 
> Maybe for the white guys in the suburbs. Not for anyone else.


 
Hey KP, *I work in the city*..Black, White Chinese ,Japanese, etc...etc.. If they stop resisting *they don't get hurt.. *


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2008)

KP. said:


> Yeah, right.
> 
> Sorry guys, don't buy it.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not going to argue with you, as it seems that you don't want to listen to anyone except yourself and your own views.  However, I will say the following:

1) Drac and JKS are just a few of the LEOs on here, that speak with quite a bit of experience.

2) I dispatch for a PD in a city that sees alot of activity.  I can only echo what I as well as the others have said.

3) I guess you missed the mod note that was placed in this thread a page back, as well as the rules for this section.  Before you continue on with your ranting and bashing, maybe you should take some time to read things.


----------



## KP. (Dec 9, 2008)

MJS said:


> 3) I guess you missed the mod note that was placed in this thread a page back, as well as the rules for this section.  Before you continue on with your ranting and bashing, maybe you should take some time to read things.



I did in fact miss the mod post. 

If someone would indicate where "the study area" is, I'll gladly take this discussion there if anyone cares (though it seems no one really does).

I'll try to remember that trying to respectfully disagree with blanket assertions that it's all the victims fault by posting studies and links from respected news sources constitutes ranting and bashing.


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2008)

KP. said:


> I did in fact miss the mod post.
> 
> If someone would indicate where "the study area" is, I'll gladly take this discussion there if anyone cares (though it seems no one really does).


 
If you go to the main page, and scroll down, you should see a section called The Study.  Here, I'll save you the time and post the link.



> I'll try to remember that trying to respectfully disagree with blanket assertions that it's all the victims fault by posting studies and links from respected news sources constitutes ranting and bashing.


 
Problem is, is that you have people, Drac and JKS, who see and deal with this stuff a hell of alot more than anyone else, and there're people who just don't want to listen, they don't want to hear anything else and just live by what was said in these studies.  As I said in another post, I do not doubt that there're bad cops mixed with the good.  But, I wouldn't lump everyone together.  

Additionally, like any study or newspaper article, its rare that we get the entire story.  What is often left out and is, IMO, the most important facts, is what led up to the supposed abuse?  Articles always point to what the cop did.  Why don't we see or hear what the bad guy did?  You know, the parts where he spit at the cops, tried to hit or kick them, tried to run, clasped his hands together, refusing to be cuffed.  You know, all those things.


----------



## Drac (Dec 9, 2008)

K.P. said:
			
		

> Yeah, right.Sorry guys, don't buy it.Maybe for the white guys in the suburbs. Not for anyone else


 

*Oh so ya wanna play the race card???..*One of my part time gigs in in the burbs doing traffic enforcement at a large shopping center and they have requested that we " go easy" and warn them first..I pull up on a dozen or so people and point out the sign and tell them to move, and they *ALL* comply...

I pull up on a young black man and tell him he has to move, his reponse was "* Why"...*I explain that there is a sign and its against the law*..."Oh, that* *must be the white mans law"...*So I wrote him and he promply tore up the ticket...

6 months later I was called to the Drivers License Bureau for a disturbance...There was the same man who could not get his drivers license because he had unpaid citations...He was escorted from the building cursing like a drunken biker...

All he had to do to save himself time and grief was comply and *MOVE HIS FRIGGIN CAR....* What is so hard about that?????
__________________


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 9, 2008)

Jimi said:


> I don't think it's excessive. It also is very common on law enforcement. Just ask Rodney King if he would rather have had a knee on his neck for a few instants while being cuffed, or beaten with a night stick repeatedly. That situation was excessive force. If you have ever seen that King footage you would see that any one of those officers could have stepped up and placed his body weight on him and had control quickly as supposed to beating him down. If you resist an officer (RIGHTLY) apprehending you, he is well with-in his rights to hold you down with a knee to keep himself , other officers & the scene under control. It's the "I wanna pull that hippies ponytail off of his head because he was stoned dancing on the Mall in DC for the Fourth Of July smoke in" that is excessive to my sensibilities.


 
That is part of the problem when police use force.  The public DOESN'T UNDERSTAND what we can or can't do!

In Rodney King, you saw a small video clip of the whole encounter.  There was a reason that the officers were found NOT GUILTY of excessive force in the initial trial, although the jury was deadlocked on one count for Powell.  Let's look at the FACTS that were presented at trial.

1) King was a known felon, who the police had dealt with in the past.
2) King was on parole for a violent crime (robbery)
3) King was TWICE the legal limit of alcohol and RAN FROM THE POLICE, a pursuit followed.
4) The two people in the car with King, complied with the police and were taken into custody without any issue (read--They listened to what they were told)
5) King gets out of the car acting bizarre like he was on drugs.
6) King is shocked with a stun gun and does not go down
7) King resists officers and throws two of them off his back as they tried to wrestle him to the ground. (due to his behavior previously and with this, officers believe King was on PCP)
8) King starts to go after another officer, who then struck him with his baton.
9) Officers try to use their batons to subdue King, who REPEATEDLY attempts to get back up and continues to resist.

At the time of the incident, LAPD's "Use of Force" policy was under the heading of "Total Control Theory" which states that you use a tool for every level of force and vary it depending on the situation.  This means that the tool (baton) was used in all uses of force.  So what you have is, a violent offender who is believed to be high on PCP (which gives it users huge amounts of strength and no pain) lower levels of force have been defeated (H2H & stun gun), Also he keeps getting up when struck with a baton.  Officers can't kill him yet, so what is their option?  They keep using their intermediate weapon (Baton) to try and subdue the offender. What would YOU have done in that situation?  It's easy to armchair quarterback and say they were wrong.  But really, what would you have done?



> Oh, maybe not forced the ground, but bounced face first off the hood of the car? That's done for kicks by way too many cops, and anyone who was honest would admit it.


 
Really? Come on now, most cops have audio and video now on them at all times.  You're trying to tell us that people who don't resist at all get slammed on the hood of a car?

If a subject is actively resisting and demonstrates actions that put the officer in harm's way we are justified in punching them in the face.  PPCT recommends going to the solar plexus, but the face is listed as a "secondary target".  Now think about the stink that would cause if an officer does what he can do legally, but breaks the offender's nose and blood is all over.  EVERYONE is going to scream "excessive force", even though it is within the proper scope.

"Excessive Force" is a VERY specific legal definition that defines what an officer can or can't do.  How many of you outside of law enforcement have been trained in a use of force spectrum?  Most LE (in America at least) uses what is called a "One Plus One" theory of control.  Simply that means if the offender uses X level of force, we can use X+1 (or the next step HIGHER) to control them.  We aren't required to use equal force, as a citizen does in a self-defense situation.

So back to the "kneeling on the neck".  As others have stated, you aren't really kneeling on the neck itself but usually put pressure on the trap/upperback area.


----------



## KP. (Dec 9, 2008)

Drac said:


> *Oh so ya wanna play the race card???..*



Actually I was editing that to try to avoid being explicit at the same time the reply was posted. However, if you want to get into a discussion about racial inequity in policing, I'd be happy to post studies and reports on that point as well.

I don't disagree that there are far more good cops than bad. My point was that *too many* do go beyond where they are allowed to go. The closer one gets to the inner city, the greater that number becomes. 

I know that from personal experience, but as I've been asked to not discuss this topic here as it both violates the forum rules of "don't criticize us," as well as being outside of the scope of this thread's intent, I'll stop as asked.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2008)

Thank you.
My intent on posting this here wasn't to generate a "bad cop" discussion, but discuss the validity and safety of this particular method.  We've had a few people in the past come through here with various bugs up their asses towards cops, and our intent in setting this section up was to avoid it. We don't ask that you all hold hands and sing songs together, but there is an insistance of respect.

For some additional info on the situation the OP photo came from, see this thread, around post 21.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1063840


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

KP. said:


> My point was that *too many* do go beyond where they are allowed to go. The closer one gets to the inner city, the greater that number becomes.


 
Ever stop to think that perhaps that is due to a relationship between the police AND the clientele? What (and who) the police have to deal with in the "inner city" is different from the suburbs. It doesnt excuse improper use of force, but the cop who acts like officer friendly in the projects is going to get his *** handed to him. 

Not a PC answer perhaps, but the truth as I see it.


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2008)

KP. said:


> Actually I was editing that to try to avoid being explicit at the same time the reply was posted. However, if you want to get into a discussion about racial inequity in policing, I'd be happy to post studies and reports on that point as well.
> 
> I don't disagree that there are far more good cops than bad. My point was that *too many* do go beyond where they are allowed to go. The closer one gets to the inner city, the greater that number becomes.
> 
> I know that from personal experience, but as I've been asked to not discuss this topic here as it both violates the forum rules of "don't criticize us," as well as being outside of the scope of this thread's intent, I'll stop as asked.


 
AFAIK, I don't believe anyone told you not to talk about the subject.  Here is the difference.  If I'm debating with someone and I disagree with them, and I turn around and start swearing at them, calling them stupid, etc., vs. being civil and staying with the rules of the forum...well, thats the difference.  If I run around and have the attitude that all cops suck, vs. avoiding that 'tone' in my posts...well, thats the difference in a nutshell.  If studies that are non bias are used as example, vs. ones that are written by people that have a chip on their shoulder, well, thats the difference.


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> That is part of the problem when police use force. The public DOESN'T UNDERSTAND what we can or can't do!


 
AMEN!!!  They see something, however, 9 times out of 10, they're seeing what THEY want to see, not the full picture.



> In Rodney King, you saw a small video clip of the whole encounter. There was a reason that the officers were found NOT GUILTY of excessive force in the initial trial, although the jury was deadlocked on one count for Powell. Let's look at the FACTS that were presented at trial.
> 
> 1) King was a known felon, who the police had dealt with in the past.
> 2) King was on parole for a violent crime (robbery)
> ...


 
I have to wonder how much of this was made public.  Perhaps if the public knew any of this, well, I think you know what I'm saying. 



> At the time of the incident, LAPD's "Use of Force" policy was under the heading of "Total Control Theory" which states that you use a tool for every level of force and vary it depending on the situation. This means that the tool (baton) was used in all uses of force. So what you have is, a violent offender who is believed to be high on PCP (which gives it users huge amounts of strength and no pain) lower levels of force have been defeated (H2H & stun gun), Also he keeps getting up when struck with a baton. Officers can't kill him yet, so what is their option? They keep using their intermediate weapon (Baton) to try and subdue the offender. What would YOU have done in that situation? It's easy to armchair quarterback and say they were wrong. But really, what would you have done?


 
Another great point! 





> Really? Come on now, most cops have audio and video now on them at all times. You're trying to tell us that people who don't resist at all get slammed on the hood of a car?


 
Thats true.  I've seen many local PDs with dash cams, and I believe that is standard on every Ct. State Police car as well.  Any time there was a need to use force in the DOC, such as taking someone out of their cell, one of the officers would have a camera, filiming the incident.



> If a subject is actively resisting and demonstrates actions that put the officer in harm's way we are justified in punching them in the face. PPCT recommends going to the solar plexus, but the face is listed as a "secondary target". Now think about the stink that would cause if an officer does what he can do legally, but breaks the offender's nose and blood is all over. EVERYONE is going to scream "excessive force", even though it is within the proper scope.
> 
> "Excessive Force" is a VERY specific legal definition that defines what an officer can or can't do. How many of you outside of law enforcement have been trained in a use of force spectrum? Most LE (in America at least) uses what is called a "One Plus One" theory of control. Simply that means if the offender uses X level of force, we can use X+1 (or the next step HIGHER) to control them. We aren't required to use equal force, as a citizen does in a self-defense situation.
> 
> So back to the "kneeling on the neck". As others have stated, you aren't really kneeling on the neck itself but usually put pressure on the trap/upperback area.


 
Can't disagree with any of that.  Great post!  2 thumbs up!!


----------



## KP. (Dec 9, 2008)

MJS said:


> If I'm debating with someone and I disagree with them, and I turn around and start swearing at them, calling them stupid, etc., vs. being civil and staying with the rules of the forum...well, thats the difference.



Care to show where I swore at someone or called someone stupid or was lacking in civility? The only place I came close to not being civil was noting that absolutes do not apply by using a rather curt colloquial phrase, not entirely different from when someone commented that a perfectly respectful post of mine was "a load of crap."

I will cop (sorry bad pun) to having violated the forum rules, and as I noted in my previous post am ceasing to address the topic here.




> If I run around and have the attitude that all cops suck, vs. avoiding that 'tone' in my posts...well, thats the difference in a nutshell.



Again, care to show where I demonstrate such an attitude? I've been very careful to use modifiers such as "far too many" in this discussion. I would hope that the LEO's here would agree that one is too many.



> If studies that are non bias are used as example, vs. ones that are written by people that have a chip on their shoulder, well, thats the difference.



Human Rights Watch is actually a fairly well regarded organization in terms of data collection and analysis. 

But if you want scholarly articles, those are available in abundance as well. 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...en&lr=&client=firefox-a&scoring=r&as_ylo=2003

However, I would appreciate it if my involvement on this topic was allowed to come to an end. I was asked not to discuss this further here, and I would like to comply. That is rather difficult to do if I'm going to be addressed or made the topic of discussion.


----------



## MJS (Dec 9, 2008)

KP. said:


> Care to show where I swore at someone or called someone stupid or was lacking in civility? The only place I came close to not being civil was noting that absolutes do not apply by using a rather curt colloquial phrase, not entirely different from when someone commented that a perfectly respectful post of mine was "a load of crap."
> 
> I will cop (sorry bad pun) to having violated the forum rules, and as I noted in my previous post am ceasing to address the topic here.
> 
> ...


 
You know what, you're right, this is off topic, however, I'm going to address this last post.  I was simply using the above as examples.  The forum rules are pretty clear.  There are many options for people to use if they have a question on something, ie: post in member support areas, PM a mod or Admin.  What I am not doing is spelling things out for people.  If people can't figure out by their own wording in a post, how it sounds, well, I don't know what to tell them.  

I don't believe I nor anyone else said you could not post in this section.  Just that you respect the rules for this section, one of them being not to bash LEOs.  

On that note, lets get back to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2008)

Yes please.  Back to the neck issue.

Thank you.


----------



## Geeba12 (Dec 9, 2008)

It is unfortunate to see a debate focused on a defensive tactics technique deteriorate into an "us against them", racist allegations of police vs civilians. My only comments regarding that is quite simply: law abiding citizens, abide by the law, criminals don't (and are quite often, especially if they are career criminals, more knowledgeable about the law than some fresh out of law school ADA's).
During my career I have seen and done many things, it is quite clear when reading these comments who have walked the walk and those that regurgitate what they are led to believe by others with questionable agenda's, to be the truth.
When I was a "New Jack" I recall an incident when my back up officer (he was black, I am white), was referred to as "brother" by a black suspect. My friend responded, without missing a beat: "My brothers are colored blue". Clearly an officer focused on "the law".
Back to the topic, kneeling on the neck works, it is one of those truths that cannot be denied. Do some officers use too much force in the heat of the moment? Yes, they are human beings and when the adrenalin runs high, that same adrenalin suspects use to assault officers, officers use to effect an arrest.
We will get nowhere mixing politics with police defensive tactics. When an officer is forced to use pain as a way to take a suspect into custody, injuries can occur. Unfortunate, yes, a fact of life, yes. The only other alternative is for the officer to have to "take his/her lumps" before using proper force. How ludicrous would that be?
Be safe all.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

Thats why the Taser is so great...wait thats just a torture device overused by cops.


----------



## Drac (Dec 9, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Thats why the Taser is so great...wait thats just a torture device overused by cops.


 
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh..Keep that too yourself...


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

Drac said:


> Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh..Keep that too yourself...


 
Oooops! Sorry....ignore that last post folks, ya know blue wall of silence and all.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 9, 2008)

Note:

Again.  Let's get back to the topic. If you want to discuss police conduct issues in general, please go to the thread in the Study. This thread is exploring the safety and efficacy of using the lower leg on the upper back and shoulder area.

Read the whole thread before posting and make sure your post coincides with the thread flow as it pertains to the original topic.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2008)

Any use of physical force is a balance between efficiency and risk of injury. Guiding you by the arm is "physical force" that only works with your co-operation. The more you resist, the more force I have to use (or a tool like the Taser or OC), the more force I have to use the higher the risk gets. A person on his stomach is still a risk to the officer. He/She has to holster their weapon, get very close to the suspect and take them into custody. Officers have been killed at that moment. Control has to be maintained. The knee works and is an acceptable balance of force/control.


----------



## Drac (Dec 9, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Oooops! Sorry....ignore that last post folks, ya know blue wall of silence and all.


 
What blue wall of silence????...All that stuff is on *YouTube*...Our department has the TazerCams so when the cracked up naked gang-banger waving a baseball bat shows up in court looking all GQ the Judge and Jury can see what we saw when the Tazer was applied...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 9, 2008)

TaserCam......I now have this wicked idea for a website....damn, it's taken.


----------



## Drac (Dec 10, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> TaserCam......I now have this wicked idea for a website....damn, it's taken.


 
Sorry...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 27, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> A discussion I'm following on another site had a photo of a LEO in riot gear handcuffing a prone individual, with a knee very clearly on the persons neck.  Given my limited knowledge of arrest procedures, is this common or accepted?  It seems dangerous to me.
> 
> Photo Link
> 
> (Note, not intending on a criticism of the act, etc, just looking for clarification on if it's accepted or discouraged, etc.)



His weight is not actually on the neck, but on the shoulders, and it's a common police practice.  If the knee were on the actual neck, unstead on the weight bearing shoulders it would be improper positioning......but a close look at the picture will clearly show only the side of his knee is in contact with the arrested subjects neck, not the weight bearing bottom of the knee, which is clearly across the shoulders.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 27, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think most people that have been through defensive tactics and hand cuffing classes will tell you that the knee in this position goes on or across the shoulder blades.  In this picture that appears to be exactly what the officer is doing.  Not fun or pleasant if you are the guy or girl on the bottom but definitely a good way to control a resisting individual.  I cannot tell you how many times I have either used this technique in the past or watched someone use it.  It is simply effective.


 Exactly! And i'm betting the officer was in this position long enough to get the flex-cuffs secured, then he released the weight and got the guy to a standing position.

The shoulder blades can handle the weight, and I seriously doubt it was this guys full weight.....just enough to secure this guy on the ground for handcuffing.

I've also used this technique many, many, MANY times as well......with ZERO injuries ever received.  When I do it, most of my weight is ACTUALLY on the balls of my feet, with me pushing down with my knees with just enough weight to keep the subject secured.  I can see-saw my weight forward and backward over the fulcrum of my feet to increase and decrease the pressure.

It's a very controlled and measured response that only appears as though the officer has all their weight on the guy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 27, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not as clueless as you're coming across with this post.
> 
> There a couple of possibilities here.  One is that it's just BS artists spinning crap stories.  (Google "shrine of the mall ninja" for a hilarious example.)  Another is that stories have grown in the telling, as war stories tend to do.  Yeah -- war stories do sometimes glorify the violence...  It's kind of a "guy thing" though it's not at all limited to guys.  And there's a gallows humor aspect...  plus just plain relief at living through someone trying to fight you.
> 
> Many martial artists enjoy fighting -- but that doesn't mean they enjoy hurting someone.  It's the same with cops...


 EXACTLY!

Yeah, we tell war stories.....but recounting with a minor sense of glee how some armed robbery suspect, when cornered, decided to fight his way out and lost isn't the same as beating people for no reason.  

There is no law against enjoying a job well done, if you do the job right!  

It's like the football player who LOVES smashing in to other football players.....but does it only when it's legal in the game.......he doesn't take cheap shots.  

There's no shame in a football player being proud of a good FAIR TACKLE that put another player out of a game!  Cheap illegal shots, on the other hand, are nothing to be proud of.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 27, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> And every once and a while though you get those guys that know the score and go "felony prone" without asking the moment you pull up.


 Oh YEAH!

'I see we've been HERE before!'


----------

