Punching the back of the neck is acceptable detainment techniques for LEO's?
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
and no one should be fat or lose their hair.....
here on planet reality, you go on ahead and start shooting at the cops mr "i have rights"
just be kind and call your parents first to say good bye.......
Archangel M
Senior Master
Spare us the "V for Vendetta" movie lines....
The problem is that almost every person who gets arrested thinks that the "bullies with badges" are railroading and abusing them. Unless the cops are not arresting the person who offended them...then its a whole different set of complaints.
The fact of police work is that you have to use force on people. I think it just goes to show how many "martial artists" have no real clue about what controlling a person who isnt in your MA class is like. IMO most of the "war stories" told around here are either bogus or greatly embellished (and their opinions of what they would be capable of are not based on reality). Its ugly and its difficult and people dont like to see it unless its in the MMA ring.
Most people seem to want to believe that its all "officer friendly" out there. That all the cop has to do is ask someone to comply nicely and its all over and done with.
Use your hands and you are brutalizing people...use a baton and its assault by an officer...use a Taser to avoid all that ugliness and well that's no good either.
Press hard. Three copies.
The problem is that almost every person who gets arrested thinks that the "bullies with badges" are railroading and abusing them. Unless the cops are not arresting the person who offended them...then its a whole different set of complaints.
The fact of police work is that you have to use force on people. I think it just goes to show how many "martial artists" have no real clue about what controlling a person who isnt in your MA class is like. IMO most of the "war stories" told around here are either bogus or greatly embellished (and their opinions of what they would be capable of are not based on reality). Its ugly and its difficult and people dont like to see it unless its in the MMA ring.
Most people seem to want to believe that its all "officer friendly" out there. That all the cop has to do is ask someone to comply nicely and its all over and done with.
Use your hands and you are brutalizing people...use a baton and its assault by an officer...use a Taser to avoid all that ugliness and well that's no good either.
Press hard. Three copies.
I don't plan to, nor feel any need to, shoot at cops. I don't think violence is the best or most likely way to fix the problem.
That being said, if cops continue to seize assets because they have a "reasonable suspicion" that anyone carrying cash is involved in criminal activity, and continue to assault drunks when they have them outnumbered 4 to 1, and continue to detain and search people without PC or a warrant, and continue to take people's property and destroy it without any legal justification, and continue to taze people with the slightest provocation, and continue to stick GPS trackers on people's cars to track their movements, somebody somewhere is going to respond with violence. It's fairly predictable.
Police have become the standing army the founding fathers feared.
-Rob
REAL use of force is never pretty.
Like you, I don't see anything at all problematic in this clip. I do see things I would have done differently.... but that's pretty normal. The strikes appear to be to the upper back/shoulder area more than the spinal line or kneck. Nor are they particularly hard strikes. Throughout, the officers did an excellent job of vocalizing their goals (give us your hands). Personally, I would have struck at his upper arm to get it out more than the lower body... I've just found it to be more reliable at making them release that arm to be cuffed.
The "knee drop" wasn't... the officer did kneel on the arrestee's neck, but he didn't simply drop his weight onto it. See HERE where this sort of thing was discussed at length.
Do you disagree? Do you think the people should fear their government?
Are you trying to justify real instances of police brutality? Or are you denying that they occur?
I don't have any doubt that everyone cops arrest protest their innocence and claim they are being abused. Are you denying that sometimes those people are innocent and are being abused?
I wouldn't dispute any of this. But you should remember that there are many people on this board who have used their skills outside of the dojo, sometimes in defense of their lives. It isn't all mall ninjas here.
I don't think that's the case at all. I think that there are many people who want cops dead and are willing to use force to make their dreams a reality. Does that justify police brutality?
-Rob
I'm just curious if anyone listened to the video, as well as watched it. Listen to what the citizens watching said.
First, they knew exactly who the problem child was, and told him that he messed up. But, more importantly in regards to the use of force, as they are hauling away the bad guy, the people on camera can be heard saying
1. "Aw, don't do that," in clear reference to the suspect,
2. "You could have walked away dude, now you're going for a ride,"
3. "They gave you a break, you should have just walked away,"
They statements made by the citizens clearly reflect that the guy was not only given the opportunity to leave, but refused to comply. He clearly resisted the efforts of the officers to physically remove him as well, by the citizens own statements.
And I don't know what video you are seeing, but it is plainly obvious that the cop it punching the side of this guys neck. The knee was a little bit much, but that is a training issue, not one that he needs to be fired over.
And to put some legaleese out there, force is only excessive based on the amount of damage caused in proportion to the amount of resistance. If this guy wasn't injured, it is going to be hard to prove that the force was excessive. Just because the force could have caused injury does not mean that the force that was actually used was excessive. It was not because the suspect was not injured (that we know of.)
First, they knew exactly who the problem child was, and told him that he messed up. But, more importantly in regards to the use of force, as they are hauling away the bad guy, the people on camera can be heard saying
1. "Aw, don't do that," in clear reference to the suspect,
2. "You could have walked away dude, now you're going for a ride,"
3. "They gave you a break, you should have just walked away,"
They statements made by the citizens clearly reflect that the guy was not only given the opportunity to leave, but refused to comply. He clearly resisted the efforts of the officers to physically remove him as well, by the citizens own statements.
And I don't know what video you are seeing, but it is plainly obvious that the cop it punching the side of this guys neck. The knee was a little bit much, but that is a training issue, not one that he needs to be fired over.
And to put some legaleese out there, force is only excessive based on the amount of damage caused in proportion to the amount of resistance. If this guy wasn't injured, it is going to be hard to prove that the force was excessive. Just because the force could have caused injury does not mean that the force that was actually used was excessive. It was not because the suspect was not injured (that we know of.)
Here is an example of how, even with a Taser, difficult it can be to take someone into custody if they are resisting.
http://vimeo.com/4273363
http://vimeo.com/4273363
It is an exageration to say that I am aghast at some of the pro-police-violence and you-don't-know-how-hard-the-job-is posts I've read in this thread.
However, I am made uneasy by the level of acceptance of such force being used by those whose function is only to enforce the law. It does not bode well for the future of your country if you think it is fine for ordinary citizens to be duffed up, trussed up and hauled off out of public view by those entrusted with your safety. Except of course they're not entrusted with that are they?
As I said before, it's not my country (thank the invisible mythical sky gods) so my opinion means even less than those American's who concur that it is not 'okay' for police to behave in such a fashion. But speaking as someone from a nation nominally less 'free' than yours, as a society you really need to think about where such a road leads before you get there.
However, I am made uneasy by the level of acceptance of such force being used by those whose function is only to enforce the law. It does not bode well for the future of your country if you think it is fine for ordinary citizens to be duffed up, trussed up and hauled off out of public view by those entrusted with your safety. Except of course they're not entrusted with that are they?
As I said before, it's not my country (thank the invisible mythical sky gods) so my opinion means even less than those American's who concur that it is not 'okay' for police to behave in such a fashion. But speaking as someone from a nation nominally less 'free' than yours, as a society you really need to think about where such a road leads before you get there.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Had he been sober, there could have been more of a chance to resist, but given his state at the time.....Of course, I wouldn't say that he was fully cooperating either.
Last edited:
GBlues
Purple Belt
Yeah and you can also here the bystanders saying this also,
1) Aw don't do that-as he's being punched in the neck
2) You guys should know better than that
then you here
3) see you could have just walked away, now you going to jail
So they weren't just commenting on the drunk but on the actions of the officers as well.
I don't think its so much that they hit him, but where. Perhaps one of the resident LEOs can chime in on this but IMO, I'd think that striking may not have been so frowned upon in this case, had it been a few knees driven into this guy thigh, it would have given a different view.
Oh, I've heard some stories from my Grandfather, when he was a cop. It was old school back then, so pulling out the ol' blackjack and cracking someone happened more times than not.
Mark,
In this case, it appears that the drunk idiot was causing an ongoing disruption, and refused to comply with lesser approaches. Even then, all he had to do was comply with the officers's directions and go with the program. He didn't; he chose to resist. At that point, we get the reality of violence -- and it's ugly. It doesn't look pretty or nice.
When it comes time to arrest someone, the cop HAS to win. That's true whether the cop is in the US or in England or in China or Antarctica. These officers used force which rather clearly did not cause significant injury to the suspect but accomplished the goal; what were they supposed to do? Stand in a crowd for saying "pretty please" until he sobered up enough to get with the program? Especially in a crowd situation, even with someone the whole crowd agrees is a problem child, you have to handle it quickly and effectively -- and without inflaming the crowd. They did so. Are there things I might have done differently, especially reviewing it from the comfort of home? Of course. Hindsight's wonderful that way.
In the training hall, it is easy to develop an idealized view of violence. Our "attacker" gives us the proper attack, and we fluidly and gracefully step away, deflect the attack, and take the "attacker" down with a perfectly executed sweep. He lands nicely, gets up, dusts himself off... and we trade rolls. Many people don't even throw the initial "attack" in a way that actually is a threat to their partner... The reality is that it doesn't go that nicely; think of the difference between choreographed drills like one to five step sparring versus free sparring. Then add a nice adrenaline cocktail on both sides... The reality of use of force and violence is that it's simply not going to look nice as a general rule.
I don't disagree with those characterisations of the reality of violence at all, Jim.
The point I was trying to make is to highlight the acceptance of such a level of violence from 'ordinary' police officers dealing with (what appears to be) a non-threatening problem of public nuisance. The only time I have seen similar over here has been from riot police during a riot.
Anyhow, about to lose my net connection - I hope to return to this later tonight (but no promises).
The point I was trying to make is to highlight the acceptance of such a level of violence from 'ordinary' police officers dealing with (what appears to be) a non-threatening problem of public nuisance. The only time I have seen similar over here has been from riot police during a riot.
Anyhow, about to lose my net connection - I hope to return to this later tonight (but no promises).
Hmm....I have to go with Twin Fist on this one. When I was a CO, I remember the section on hand to hand, as well as handcuffing, leg cuffs, etc. I was thinking to myself, "OGM...I'm so glad that I have my martial arts training to fall back on, especially when it comes to the locks." The academy training is intense, but its short. So much to cover, so little time.
Despite him being drunk, he was still putting up a struggle, so he wasn't that easy to deal with.
I think back to the cell extractions that I saw. First guy in with a shield, who slams into the guy, a guy for each limb. Excessive? IMO, no, of course I'm sure others would say yes. As always, its easy to armchair QB this, especially when odds are, the QBers have never walked in the shoes of a LEO or CO.
Lets also take into consideration this seemed to have been a party of some sort, with many drinkers. The show of force is necessary given the situation.
As I said, the punching in the neck area may have been a bit much, but striking elsewhere, such as the legs, or using OC or a taser would have been my first pick.
On the flip side, if people stopped being A-Holes when dealing with the police, perhaps half their headaches wouldnt happen. I mean, the cop tells you to turn around and put your hands behind your back, do it!! There is always time to deal with whether or not you felt they were in the wrong, later on.
I'm not saying there are not cops that abuse their power. But, for every cop, there is at least one citizen who thinks he is above the law too.
GBlues
Purple Belt
Well, he sure didn't kneel on the neck. Watch it again, a little bit closer. He absolutely was not striking to the back/shoulder. I don't understand some of the comments on this issue. This is not interpretative. You can plainly see the cop punching the guy in the side of the neck. You can plainly see him drop his knee into the guys neck. There is no debate over that. You can say that he kneeled, but that's not correct. He may not have dropped with all of his bodyweight, but it still had that moving behind it. It is still a potentially life altering or even ending strike. Because yes it was a STRIKE. Regardless of the drunks resistance, if somebody was punching me in the side of the neck you damn right I'm going to resist. It's only natural. These officers were out of line. I'm not saying that they shouldn't detain someone, but there is a point where you are not detaining someone any longer, and your assaulting them. This man didn't resist. They walked over and they pulled him out of his chair, and threw him on the ground and began to punch him in the neck. One thing that is being overlooked are the things that you can't control. That being pain, and injury. You get punched in the neck, it hurts your hands want to cover that area to stop the attack, nothing that you can do to stop that reaction from happening. Especially when your being struck repeatedly. So they can say that he was resisting and you can say that he was resisting, but I will maintain that he wasn't. Because I don't see that in the video, and his body is reacting to the pain that he is recieving from the excessive punches and the subsequent knee dropped in his neck.
It seems to be, becoming pretty evident that unless they are arresting small women and children our police forces suck! 4 of them can barely handle one drunk. Come on!
redantstyle
Blue Belt
"poo-pooing punches..."
c'mon, those hits where on his trapezius, not his neck.
and really, his angle of attack was not going to compress the spine area in any way, and that's how you make damages.
not a knee drop?
sure it was, just a baby one.
and it came at the right angle.
regards.
c'mon, those hits where on his trapezius, not his neck.
and really, his angle of attack was not going to compress the spine area in any way, and that's how you make damages.
not a knee drop?
sure it was, just a baby one.
and it came at the right angle.
regards.
Your missing some very basic issues here.
It is not the potential of injury that is at issue when it comes to excessive force. It is actual injury in proportion to the resistance being offered. If the guy suffered no injuries, how then can you say that it is excessive. In point of fact, in certain situation, one could say that it wasn't enough force.
For example, is it excessive force if I hit a guy 15 times in the face, cause not injuries, but still fail to obtain compliance? Sure, 15 times may seem like a lot, but if it is not accomplishing the task, then by definition it is not excessive.
You seem to think that because you can't see it in the video, the guy wasn't resisting, ignoring the fact that at the same time as the picked the guy up, a citizen walks right in front of the camera, blocking the view. You have no idea what actually occured in those few moments, but make a claim of fact that he was not resisting.
But lets examine the video. You can see that the officer who initially tried to pick up the suspect was "thrown off". How did that occur, in your opinion. You can even hear the crowd tell the guy, "Don't do that," and "that's just dumb," even before the cops start punching him. How do you account for these statements made by the public?
Another thing is that you make an assumption about his reaction. This guy, according to reports, was drunk. The level of pain tolerance that a drunk person has can be significantly higher then that of a sober person. But even then, do you feel that officers should make an assumption that he is only reaching for his neck after he has been punched due to pain? I can tell you that I have personally struck people, and the only thing they attempted to reach for was my weapon (baton, fist, etc.) or reach for their own.
What I am suggesting to you is that you should feel free to question the actions of any law enforcement officer who is doing their job. That is you right in a free society and I encourage you to do so when you feel it is appropriate. However, you are making assumptions based on, in my opinion, a lack of expertise on how fights actually occur, how they occur in a law enforcement context, how they occur when someone is intoxicated, and the legal context in which a use of force is judged.
Similar threads
