It's the polar opposite of emotional. I am asking that the officer's behavior be examined against an objective standard.
Do you know why the officers in the Rodney King video were acquitted?
I cannot say that I do. Generally the video we saw was missing relevant context. I always assumed that when the officer's action was examined against the law that their actions were deemed just.
Definitely a death sentence offense, the fine upstanding officer had every possible reason to kill that man can't ya see that?
Ridiculous. There's no reason to suggest he intended to cause permanent harm, let alone death. He employed a control tactic after multiple failed efforts to secure him in the squad car. They were waiting for someone to come, either EMS, a larger vehicle that would be easier to force him into, or both, and he needed to be kept from running off till that arrived. They had been exhausted in their efforts to get him in the car, and couldn't keep fighting with him. The alternative to what he did was to let him run off. Cops aren't superhuman, and cannot continue to struggle with a huge, powerful, guy like that, ramped up with drugs as he was, indefinitely.
Was the officer trained that the technique he used was appropriate for cuffed resistive subjects who are not assaultive?
That will come out in the trial.
I can tell you that many, many, many LEO’s are taught to use that technique to restrain active resistant suspects.
Are the risks associated with that technique discussed in the course of training. How are officers taught to deal with a non-violent, non aggressive subject who appears to flatline during their application of force?
What is abundantly clear is that few people in this country have ever had to go hands on w/ a large strong person determined not to submit. Most just call the cops.
mike r
Don't wish it were easier Wish you were better
Stab them in the taint, you can't put a tourniquet on that. Craig Douglas ECQC
I cannot say that I do. Generally the video we say was missing relevant context. I always assumed that when the officer's action was examined against the law that their actions were deemed just.
There were two main reasons:
1.) The jury saw video that the rest of the United States wasn't allowed to 2.) The defense demonstrated that the officers used the PR-24 as they were trained
Now with that in mind, please watch this short video from last Tuesday.
Let me know when the light bulb comes on:
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
I cannot say that I do. Generally the video we say was missing relevant context. I always assumed that when the officer's action was examined against the law that their actions were deemed just.
There were two main reasons:
1.) The jury saw video that the rest of the United States wasn't allowed to 2.) The defense demonstrated that the officers used the PR-24 as they were trained
Now with that in mind, please watch this short video from last Tuesday.
Zip ties are cheap and plentiful. What if we just dismiss all better solutions?
So, if I'm understanding you, their not having zip ties long enough for his ankles mean that it was murder??
What a trollish reply. Did I say that? No, I didn't - and your feeble attempt to read my mind is a bad look. You clearly do not understand me, and are not trying very hard.
"What ifs" are a stupid waste of time. That's what I'm saying.
Speaking of stupid....hobbling the police so they lack better options is stupid. That's not a remark on what was done - it's a remark on what could have been done better if they were allowed.
You're the one pulling the what-ifs, not me. Your what if is, what if he had long enough zip ties to tie his feet together. I'm suggesting that they may not have. I.e., I'm countering your what if. Do you have any evidence that they had such zip ties?
I cannot say that I do. Generally the video we say was missing relevant context. I always assumed that when the officer's action was examined against the law that their actions were deemed just.
There were two main reasons:
1.) The jury saw video that the rest of the United States wasn't allowed to 2.) The defense demonstrated that the officers used the PR-24 as they were trained
Now with that in mind, please watch this short video from last Tuesday.
Let me know when the light bulb comes on:
That was well done.
Them boys is a looooong ways from Minnesota.
But something sure looks familiar, doesn't it?
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
If no zip ties, not a single one of them had some paracord bracelet or other tacticool doo dad with them? Or even a piece of rope in the car. Tow strap? Jacket?
Easy to Monday morning quarterback. You weren't there, exhausted from a long physical struggle with a huge, powerful, arrest resisting suspect with a known, long, violent, rap sheet, just hoping you can keep the guy restrained long enough for help to arrive.
PS Zip ties, if one knows the technique, can be broken when placed on the wrist. The ones designed for the wrist, joined together for sufficient length for ankles, would likely be nearly useless on the ankles of a guy this size and strength, hopped up on drugs.
Zip ties are cheap and plentiful. What if we just dismiss all better solutions?
So, if I'm understanding you, their not having zip ties long enough for his ankles mean that it was murder??
What a trollish reply. Did I say that? No, I didn't - and your feeble attempt to read my mind is a bad look. You clearly do not understand me, and are not trying very hard.
"What ifs" are a stupid waste of time. That's what I'm saying.
Speaking of stupid....hobbling the police so they lack better options is stupid. That's not a remark on what was done - it's a remark on what could have been done better if they were allowed.
You're the one pulling the what-ifs, not me. Your what if is, what if he had long enough zip ties to tie his feet together. I'm suggesting that they may not have. I.e., I'm countering your what if. Do you have any evidence that they had such zip ties?
You need to catch up.
You are assuming I am offering some sort of argument about guilt. I am only commenting on what could be done differently. Your reply to that looks like a "what if" excuse for not doing it differently.
All this arguing about who's guilty and who's at fault is useless. A jury will sort it out. What needs to be discussed is what could be done better. It doesn't matter to the situation at hand (meaning, what is going on now) whether the officers performed according to training (although it obviously will in court). What matters is if anyone - ANYONE - can quit showing their ass and come up with better ways to do things. And better ways sometimes need to take appearances into account.
I cannot say that I do. Generally the video we say was missing relevant context. I always assumed that when the officer's action was examined against the law that their actions were deemed just.
There were two main reasons:
1.) The jury saw video that the rest of the United States wasn't allowed to 2.) The defense demonstrated that the officers used the PR-24 as they were trained
Now with that in mind, please watch this short video from last Tuesday.
Let me know when the light bulb comes on:
So the Rodney King case was as I suspected. The jury saw what we couldn't, and the officer's actions were examined against the law, policy and training.
I cannot say that I do. Generally the video we say was missing relevant context. I always assumed that when the officer's action was examined against the law that their actions were deemed just.
There were two main reasons:
1.) The jury saw video that the rest of the United States wasn't allowed to 2.) The defense demonstrated that the officers used the PR-24 as they were trained
Now with that in mind, please watch this short video from last Tuesday.
Ho Lee Shixt. They have a car. How hard would it be to have giant zip ties in the car? How expensive? I got three foot long zip ties hangin' in my garage. Didn't have to look hard to get them.
PS Zip ties, if one knows the technique, can be broken when placed on the wrist. The ones designed for the wrist, joined together for sufficient length for ankles, would likely be nearly useless on the ankles of a guy this size and strength, hopped up on drugs.
Ho Lee Shixt. They have a car. How hard would it be to have giant zip ties in the car? How expensive? I got three foot long zip ties hangin' in my garage. Didn't have to look hard to get them.
