So if you ran a department you would make the policy that if, during a lawful arrest, there would be certain things that the suspect could say or do, and the arresting officer would have to let them up and make sure they are okay?
Because that is literally what you are saying here.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Your question is a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
When analyzing the legal amounts of force used, you have to exam the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event in which they were used. This is why cases go before a GJ and ultimately trial.
Travis
well I guess my focus isn't on the choke hold - although I do believe it contributed to the heart attack. I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Your question is a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
When analyzing the legal amounts of force used, you have to exam the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event in which they were used. This is why cases go before a GJ and ultimately trial.
Travis
well I guess my focus isn't on the choke hold - although I do believe it contributed to the heart attack. I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
No. If you think - or get someone to do it for you - you'd understand why.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
well I guess my focus isn't on the choke hold - although I do believe it contributed to the heart attack. I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
You're asking a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
Travis
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 was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
Usually, "I think I just schit myself." would cause me to back off a little.
So if you ran a department you would make the policy that if, during a lawful arrest, there would be certain things that the suspect could say or do, and the arresting officer would have to let them up and make sure they are okay?
Because that is literally what you are saying here.
honestly I don't know. it wouldn't even matter lawful or unlawful - its about the process of subduing the suspect.
clearly no one intended to put that man in a position where he had a heart attack, but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant?
its a tough call in my mind.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
We had a young officer once. Worked for us for about 6 months. Responded to a domestic, started fighting with the aggressor because he failed to comply with orders. Jake took him to the ground, and a few seconds later we heard please I can't breathe, I need help. Jake got up off of him and seconds later a shot rang out. That gunshot came from a 2 inch 357 that the suspect had stuffed in the front of his jeans. That shot entered under Jake's vest and severed his spinal chord...he schits and pisses in a bag, and lives in a wheelchair now.
ok, so lets take it a step further - would it be true to say that anything that happens during subduing the suspect that is life threatening to the suspect will be ignored until the process of subduing the suspect is complete?
Your question is a hypothetical that cannot be answered.
When analyzing the legal amounts of force used, you have to exam the totality of the circumstances surrounding the event in which they were used. This is why cases go before a GJ and ultimately trial.
Travis
well I guess my focus isn't on the choke hold - although I do believe it contributed to the heart attack. I was just wondering if from the time the cops decide to take the guy down to where they have the cuffs on him is there anything he can say or do that is going to have them say "whoa - hold on a minute".
No. If you think - or get someone to do it for you - you'd understand why.
keep trying, you're almost to the point where adults talk to each other.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant your fault for not complying with instructions?
We had a young officer once. Worked for us for about 6 months. Responded to a domestic, started fighting with the aggressor because he failed to comply with orders. Jake took him to the ground, and a few seconds later we heard please I can't breathe, I need help. Jake got up off of him and seconds later a shot rang out. That gunshot came from a 2 inch 357 that the suspect had stuffed in the front of his jeans. That shot entered under Jake's vest and severed his spinal chord...he schits and pisses in a bag, and lives in a wheelchair now.
yes, I read that before and its a cautionary tale for the subduing of suspects.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
honestly I don't know. it wouldn't even matter lawful or unlawful - its about the process of subduing the suspect.
clearly no one intended to put that man in a position where he had a heart attack, but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant?
its a tough call in my mind.
A jury, lawyers, and judges only want to hear facts. Not conclusions. Only facts.
They use those facts to determine if an officer acted reasonably.
And yes it can be a tough call. That's why after those calls are made, a jury of your peers analyze them to determine if you conducted yourself in accordance of the law and acted reasonably.
Hypotheticals and pre-drawn conclusions have no place in a courtroom. That's why it's a beautiful, wonderful, warm, loving place of wonderfulness.
Travis
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
So if you ran a department you would make the policy that if, during a lawful arrest, there would be certain things that the suspect could say or do, and the arresting officer would have to let them up and make sure they are okay?
Because that is literally what you are saying here.
honestly I don't know. it wouldn't even matter lawful or unlawful - its about the process of subduing the suspect.
clearly no one intended to put that man in a position where he had a heart attack, but homicide isn't defined by intent, but actions or lack of actions
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant?
its a tough call in my mind.
I didn't say that what happens to them is irrelevant, I am saying what they say is irrelevant. Obviously each situation is different, and the arresting officer is the one that makes the call in the moment. So in some instances the officer may let them up or change his tactics, however I think in general that would be a bad choice. see above
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant your fault for not complying with instructions?
fixed
He's not very smart.
Hmmmm....
If a criminal is being arrested and is resisting, why is that? Well, because they don't want to be arrested (that's the purpose of the resistance). So, what do they want the arresting officer to do? Well, 1) stop arresting them; or 2) back off enough so that the criminal can get away; or 3) back off enough so that the criminal can beat the cop; or 4) back off enough so the criminal can kill the cop.
So, explain to me why the cop who is conducting a lawful arrest on a person who is violently, physically resisting said arrest is going to back off that arrest until the criminal is subdued and the arrest is complete.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
So do you have a policy that says once we are in the process of subduing you and until you are subdued, whatever is happening to you is irrelevant your fault for not complying with instructions?
fixed
that's a pretty steep price to pay for not wanting to be arrested, even for the 32nd time.
have you paid your dues, can you moan the blues, can you bend them guitar strings
yet you still keep responding to a coward, idiot, fool and someone who isn't very smart.
It's how we have you continue to make a fool of yourself. Please, continue.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
It's obvious the chokehold didn't kill him. It lasted 15 seconds by my count. I think the big boy got so worked up that his heart simply gave out. I can't see how anyone could be indicted in this case. The GJ got it right.
Although given your past rationalizations and illogical arguments on myriad subjects is suspect (at least in my opinion which is all that matters), I agree with your assessment. But that was not my point. What is being FED to the unwashed and stupid (Gruber was right) is the video and when I man on the ground says "I can't breave (sic)", he dies AND, AND the Coroner rules it a homicide, what else can we expect. Hell, even our resident "so called" moderates and kooks are hanging the cop. Which BTW, just for violating Dept Policy and all the issues he's caused, I'd fire his ass.
Jorge I think you are getting hung up on the use of the word Homicide. In the Mike Brown case there was a clear homicide... but it was not criminal. In this case there was a homicide because they attributed the actions of the police during a legal arrest as contributory to the heart attack.
The ME does not decide what constitutes a non-criminal homicide, just what caused the death. The GJ determined the homicide was non-criminal. art
Mark Begich, Joaquin Jackson, and Heller resistance... Three huge reasons to worry about the NRA.
