|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On December 04 2014 08:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 08:20 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 08:03 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure "Don't strangle people" is a law. I am pretty sure you need to read before commenting then I've never even heard of this case. 'Howard Morgan's van was crushed and destroyed without notice or cause before any forensic investigation could be done. ... Howard Morgan was never tested for gun residue to confirm if he even fired a weapon on the morning in question. The State never produced the actual bullet proof vest worn by one of the officers who claimed to have allegedly taken a shot directly into the vest on the morning in question. The State only produced a replica.' Holy shit. According to police, Morgan opened fire with his service weapon when officers tried to arrest him, which caused them to shoot him 28 times. But then there is this little detail Morgan was found not guilty on three counts, including discharging his weapon. One can only imagine what the story would of been for Garner if it wasn't caught on tape. resisted arrest, forced to choke him in self defense while attempting to restrain from violent assault. Not hard really. See the riots are there for a reason. The mistrust is there for a reason. Just because one case might have been handled correctly doesn't mean the US doesn't have a systematic issue with its police forces and their use of excessive force. Even if choking him to death was not against the law he should have been severely punished by his own police department for killing a man using a prohibited maneuver while having overwhelming evidence against him. So what exactly has the department done against him? Ignoring the fact most countries would call this manslaughter if not murder a dishonorable discharge looks to be the least punishment he should have gotten.
He's been stripped of his gun/badge and will most likely be fired.
That said, it's not enough. We have a fucking video of the incident. It's clear that he should've been charged with something.
|
Are/have the grand jury transcripts being released for this one?
|
|
|
|
|
On December 04 2014 07:54 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 07:45 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 06:20 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 05:47 Doublemint wrote:On December 04 2014 05:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Idiotic prosecutor's office, should have been criminal negligence etc. Not murder. they really wanted to indict him on murder charges? don't know if I should be angry or sad or just indifferent to this clusterfuck. I don't even know what's accurate anymore because I read that one place and then others I saw criminal negligence and manslaughter. I am pretty sure it was the latter things. Also, the choke hold is not illegal. It is against NYPD policy, however. Illegal would mean there is a law against it (making it a crime) which it is not. Numerous places have reported this and it's incorrect. Media standards really have taken a dive in the digital age, but they're completely gone down the shitter between this and Ferguson. Uhh Choke holds are illegal...? Pretty sure if someone chokes you, you can press charges? In addition to being illegal for civilians they are banned by the NYPD. So what would of made the choke hold legal? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141117/civic-center/councilman-introduces-law-make-nypd-chokeholds-illegalThis was proposed in response to Garner's case specifically because it is only a NYPD policy, and not a law as reported by lots of places. if it's prohibited then how is it not already illegal? it's illegal for everyone else, why wouldn't it be illegal for police officers. that doesn't make sense.
because there are cases in which such use of force is necessary...
plus, from what I read they considered it a headlock not a chokehold which is vastly different, so it wasn't a "chokehold".
|
On December 04 2014 09:27 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 07:54 travis wrote:On December 04 2014 07:45 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 06:20 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 05:47 Doublemint wrote:On December 04 2014 05:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Idiotic prosecutor's office, should have been criminal negligence etc. Not murder. they really wanted to indict him on murder charges? don't know if I should be angry or sad or just indifferent to this clusterfuck. I don't even know what's accurate anymore because I read that one place and then others I saw criminal negligence and manslaughter. I am pretty sure it was the latter things. Also, the choke hold is not illegal. It is against NYPD policy, however. Illegal would mean there is a law against it (making it a crime) which it is not. Numerous places have reported this and it's incorrect. Media standards really have taken a dive in the digital age, but they're completely gone down the shitter between this and Ferguson. Uhh Choke holds are illegal...? Pretty sure if someone chokes you, you can press charges? In addition to being illegal for civilians they are banned by the NYPD. So what would of made the choke hold legal? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141117/civic-center/councilman-introduces-law-make-nypd-chokeholds-illegalThis was proposed in response to Garner's case specifically because it is only a NYPD policy, and not a law as reported by lots of places. if it's prohibited then how is it not already illegal? it's illegal for everyone else, why wouldn't it be illegal for police officers. that doesn't make sense. because there are cases in which such use of force is necessary... plus, from what I read they considered it a headlock not a chokehold which is vastly different, so it wasn't a "chokehold".
Yes, he suffocated from a "headlock".
|
yeah if he would have been in a real chokehold he couldn't have begged for help because he couldn't breath, so that's obviously a completely different thing.
|
On December 04 2014 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 09:27 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 07:54 travis wrote:On December 04 2014 07:45 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 06:20 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 05:47 Doublemint wrote:On December 04 2014 05:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Idiotic prosecutor's office, should have been criminal negligence etc. Not murder. they really wanted to indict him on murder charges? don't know if I should be angry or sad or just indifferent to this clusterfuck. I don't even know what's accurate anymore because I read that one place and then others I saw criminal negligence and manslaughter. I am pretty sure it was the latter things. Also, the choke hold is not illegal. It is against NYPD policy, however. Illegal would mean there is a law against it (making it a crime) which it is not. Numerous places have reported this and it's incorrect. Media standards really have taken a dive in the digital age, but they're completely gone down the shitter between this and Ferguson. Uhh Choke holds are illegal...? Pretty sure if someone chokes you, you can press charges? In addition to being illegal for civilians they are banned by the NYPD. So what would of made the choke hold legal? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141117/civic-center/councilman-introduces-law-make-nypd-chokeholds-illegalThis was proposed in response to Garner's case specifically because it is only a NYPD policy, and not a law as reported by lots of places. if it's prohibited then how is it not already illegal? it's illegal for everyone else, why wouldn't it be illegal for police officers. that doesn't make sense. because there are cases in which such use of force is necessary... plus, from what I read they considered it a headlock not a chokehold which is vastly different, so it wasn't a "chokehold". Yes, he suffocated from a "headlock".
He also had asthma, the adrenaline rush matched with compression from headlock could easily explain suffocation due to headlock + previous health problems.
I'm not saying this guy is innocent, or shouldn't be indicted, but these are all reasonable assumptions based on what I've heard and seen.
On December 04 2014 09:28 Nyxisto wrote:
yeah if he would have been in a real chokehold he couldn't have begged for help because he couldn't breath, so that's obviously a completely different thing.
hate to pull the grappling card here, but anyone who's done any grappling knows there's a huge difference between a chokehold and a headlock
|
Eric Holder speaking right now.
|
|
|
On December 04 2014 09:33 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On December 04 2014 09:27 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 07:54 travis wrote:On December 04 2014 07:45 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 06:20 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 05:47 Doublemint wrote:On December 04 2014 05:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Idiotic prosecutor's office, should have been criminal negligence etc. Not murder. they really wanted to indict him on murder charges? don't know if I should be angry or sad or just indifferent to this clusterfuck. I don't even know what's accurate anymore because I read that one place and then others I saw criminal negligence and manslaughter. I am pretty sure it was the latter things. Also, the choke hold is not illegal. It is against NYPD policy, however. Illegal would mean there is a law against it (making it a crime) which it is not. Numerous places have reported this and it's incorrect. Media standards really have taken a dive in the digital age, but they're completely gone down the shitter between this and Ferguson. Uhh Choke holds are illegal...? Pretty sure if someone chokes you, you can press charges? In addition to being illegal for civilians they are banned by the NYPD. So what would of made the choke hold legal? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141117/civic-center/councilman-introduces-law-make-nypd-chokeholds-illegalThis was proposed in response to Garner's case specifically because it is only a NYPD policy, and not a law as reported by lots of places. if it's prohibited then how is it not already illegal? it's illegal for everyone else, why wouldn't it be illegal for police officers. that doesn't make sense. because there are cases in which such use of force is necessary... plus, from what I read they considered it a headlock not a chokehold which is vastly different, so it wasn't a "chokehold". Yes, he suffocated from a "headlock". He also had asthma, the adrenaline rush matched with compression from headlock could easily explain suffocation due to headlock + previous health problems. I'm not saying this guy is innocent, or shouldn't be indicted, but these are all reasonable assumptions based on what I've heard and seen. Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 09:28 Nyxisto wrote:
yeah if he would have been in a real chokehold he couldn't have begged for help because he couldn't breath, so that's obviously a completely different thing. hate to pull the grappling card here, but anyone who's done any grappling knows there's a huge difference between a chokehold and a headlock
Anyone has done any grappling can also see the cop was choking him. It might not of been good technique, but he was obviously choking him.
|
On December 04 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 09:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On December 04 2014 09:27 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 07:54 travis wrote:On December 04 2014 07:45 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 06:20 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 05:47 Doublemint wrote:On December 04 2014 05:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Idiotic prosecutor's office, should have been criminal negligence etc. Not murder. they really wanted to indict him on murder charges? don't know if I should be angry or sad or just indifferent to this clusterfuck. I don't even know what's accurate anymore because I read that one place and then others I saw criminal negligence and manslaughter. I am pretty sure it was the latter things. Also, the choke hold is not illegal. It is against NYPD policy, however. Illegal would mean there is a law against it (making it a crime) which it is not. Numerous places have reported this and it's incorrect. Media standards really have taken a dive in the digital age, but they're completely gone down the shitter between this and Ferguson. Uhh Choke holds are illegal...? Pretty sure if someone chokes you, you can press charges? In addition to being illegal for civilians they are banned by the NYPD. So what would of made the choke hold legal? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141117/civic-center/councilman-introduces-law-make-nypd-chokeholds-illegalThis was proposed in response to Garner's case specifically because it is only a NYPD policy, and not a law as reported by lots of places. if it's prohibited then how is it not already illegal? it's illegal for everyone else, why wouldn't it be illegal for police officers. that doesn't make sense. because there are cases in which such use of force is necessary... plus, from what I read they considered it a headlock not a chokehold which is vastly different, so it wasn't a "chokehold". Yes, he suffocated from a "headlock". He also had asthma, the adrenaline rush matched with compression from headlock could easily explain suffocation due to headlock + previous health problems. I'm not saying this guy is innocent, or shouldn't be indicted, but these are all reasonable assumptions based on what I've heard and seen. On December 04 2014 09:28 Nyxisto wrote:
yeah if he would have been in a real chokehold he couldn't have begged for help because he couldn't breath, so that's obviously a completely different thing. hate to pull the grappling card here, but anyone who's done any grappling knows there's a huge difference between a chokehold and a headlock Anyone has done any grappling can also see the cop was choking him. It might not of been good technique, but he was obviously choking him.
Looked like a RNC to me, but I'm guessing that's how they spun it to Grand Jury. But a badly placed RNC without arm under chin, can be considered a headlock as well. I would also like some clarity into the rules as to why chokeholds aren't allowed by NYPD? or under what circumstances are they allowed?
|
On December 04 2014 09:56 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 09:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On December 04 2014 09:27 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 07:54 travis wrote:On December 04 2014 07:45 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 06:20 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 05:47 Doublemint wrote:
[quote]
they really wanted to indict him on murder charges? don't know if I should be angry or sad or just indifferent to this clusterfuck.
I don't even know what's accurate anymore because I read that one place and then others I saw criminal negligence and manslaughter. I am pretty sure it was the latter things. Also, the choke hold is not illegal. It is against NYPD policy, however. Illegal would mean there is a law against it (making it a crime) which it is not. Numerous places have reported this and it's incorrect. Media standards really have taken a dive in the digital age, but they're completely gone down the shitter between this and Ferguson. Uhh Choke holds are illegal...? Pretty sure if someone chokes you, you can press charges? In addition to being illegal for civilians they are banned by the NYPD. So what would of made the choke hold legal? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141117/civic-center/councilman-introduces-law-make-nypd-chokeholds-illegalThis was proposed in response to Garner's case specifically because it is only a NYPD policy, and not a law as reported by lots of places. if it's prohibited then how is it not already illegal? it's illegal for everyone else, why wouldn't it be illegal for police officers. that doesn't make sense. because there are cases in which such use of force is necessary... plus, from what I read they considered it a headlock not a chokehold which is vastly different, so it wasn't a "chokehold". Yes, he suffocated from a "headlock". He also had asthma, the adrenaline rush matched with compression from headlock could easily explain suffocation due to headlock + previous health problems. I'm not saying this guy is innocent, or shouldn't be indicted, but these are all reasonable assumptions based on what I've heard and seen. On December 04 2014 09:28 Nyxisto wrote:
yeah if he would have been in a real chokehold he couldn't have begged for help because he couldn't breath, so that's obviously a completely different thing. hate to pull the grappling card here, but anyone who's done any grappling knows there's a huge difference between a chokehold and a headlock Anyone has done any grappling can also see the cop was choking him. It might not of been good technique, but he was obviously choking him. Looked like a RNC to me, but I'm guessing that's how they spun it to Grand Jury. But a badly placed RNC without arm under chin, can be considered a headlock as well. I would also like some clarity into the rules as to why chokeholds aren't allowed by NYPD? or under what circumstances are they allowed?
I would guess chokes aren't allowed because they can kill people(without proper training) and are completely unnecessary.
here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyregion/kelly-bans-choke-holds-by-officers.html
|
This is the closest thing I could find for a live stream of Protests in NYC
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/timessquare/?cam=tsrobo3
There is another feed from fox news but one would require a partnered cable provider I believe, the link is on the front page of foxnews.com.
They are on the move so you have to follow from cam to cam.
|
On December 04 2014 10:02 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 09:56 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 09:33 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On December 04 2014 09:27 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 07:54 travis wrote:On December 04 2014 07:45 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 04 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 04 2014 06:20 QuanticHawk wrote:
[quote]
I don't even know what's accurate anymore because I read that one place and then others I saw criminal negligence and manslaughter. I am pretty sure it was the latter things.
Also, the choke hold is not illegal. It is against NYPD policy, however. Illegal would mean there is a law against it (making it a crime) which it is not. Numerous places have reported this and it's incorrect. Media standards really have taken a dive in the digital age, but they're completely gone down the shitter between this and Ferguson. Uhh Choke holds are illegal...? Pretty sure if someone chokes you, you can press charges? In addition to being illegal for civilians they are banned by the NYPD. So what would of made the choke hold legal? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141117/civic-center/councilman-introduces-law-make-nypd-chokeholds-illegalThis was proposed in response to Garner's case specifically because it is only a NYPD policy, and not a law as reported by lots of places. if it's prohibited then how is it not already illegal? it's illegal for everyone else, why wouldn't it be illegal for police officers. that doesn't make sense. because there are cases in which such use of force is necessary... plus, from what I read they considered it a headlock not a chokehold which is vastly different, so it wasn't a "chokehold". Yes, he suffocated from a "headlock". He also had asthma, the adrenaline rush matched with compression from headlock could easily explain suffocation due to headlock + previous health problems. I'm not saying this guy is innocent, or shouldn't be indicted, but these are all reasonable assumptions based on what I've heard and seen. On December 04 2014 09:28 Nyxisto wrote:
yeah if he would have been in a real chokehold he couldn't have begged for help because he couldn't breath, so that's obviously a completely different thing. hate to pull the grappling card here, but anyone who's done any grappling knows there's a huge difference between a chokehold and a headlock Anyone has done any grappling can also see the cop was choking him. It might not of been good technique, but he was obviously choking him. Looked like a RNC to me, but I'm guessing that's how they spun it to Grand Jury. But a badly placed RNC without arm under chin, can be considered a headlock as well. I would also like some clarity into the rules as to why chokeholds aren't allowed by NYPD? or under what circumstances are they allowed? I would guess chokes aren't allowed because they can kill people(without proper training) and are completely unnecessary. here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/nyregion/kelly-bans-choke-holds-by-officers.html
Ah, okay, so as a form of common restraint it's considered superfluous and risky.
|
As someone who trained in basic BJJ, I was always told to never do leg locks or rear forearm chokes or rear naked chokes in sparring unless supervised. It is a risky move, and the cop's forearm was definitely under Eric Garner's chin. You could hear the wheeze and the gasp "I can't breathe" before the hold was released.
When I was taught the rear naked choke, I was taught to specifically get the forearm and bicep on opposite sides of the throat and to squeeze and flex with the bicep. The intention was to cut off the blood flow, not to choke air. Given that distinction, I was also taught that a variation was to pull the forearm against the airway - as a forearm choke. With the distinction and watching the video, the officer ended up performing a forearm choke on Eric Garner. I can see the forearm being pulled up against his throat, almost perpendicular to the throat. It's not a RNC in my learnings, and it is not a headlock (which to me is where the head/chin is held by the forearm/bicep/armpit).
A RNC is very scary because it cuts the blood flow to the head, and I was always told that if you hold a RNC for a few seconds past involuntary relaxation (knees buckling/resistance gone), you could cause brain damage. A air choke improperly applied could crush the airway, and cause death. In both applications, I could easily see why both could be discouraged/banned from use by NYPD. In martial arts, people either tap out or the referee will spot the point of danger. In real life as a subduing technique, there is no tapping out or referee to tell the cop that he can release the hold.
|
On December 04 2014 10:53 JinDesu wrote:
As someone who trained in basic BJJ, I was always told to never do leg locks or rear forearm chokes or rear naked chokes in sparring unless supervised. It is a risky move, and the cop's forearm was definitely under Eric Garner's chin. You could hear the wheeze and the gasp "I can't breathe" before the hold was released.
When I was taught the rear naked choke, I was taught to specifically get the forearm and bicep on opposite sides of the throat and to squeeze and flex with the bicep. The intention was to cut off the blood flow, not to choke air. Given that distinction, I was also taught that a variation was to pull the forearm against the airway - as a forearm choke. With the distinction and watching the video, the officer ended up performing a forearm choke on Eric Garner. I can see the forearm being pulled up against his throat, almost perpendicular to the throat. It's not a RNC in my learnings, and it is not a headlock (which to me is where the head/chin is held by the forearm/bicep/armpit).
A RNC is very scary because it cuts the blood flow to the head, and I was always told that if you hold a RNC for a few seconds past involuntary relaxation (knees buckling/resistance gone), you could cause brain damage. A air choke improperly applied could crush the airway, and cause death. In both applications, I could easily see why both could be discouraged/banned from use by NYPD. In martial arts, people either tap out or the referee will spot the point of danger. In real life as a subduing technique, there is no tapping out or referee to tell the cop that he can release the hold.
Triangle chokes are pretty common in BJJ, essentially the same result as RNC.
I've only been told no leg locks or leg based subs, never ever heard of a rnc ban while rolling.
|
On December 04 2014 11:02 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 10:53 JinDesu wrote:
As someone who trained in basic BJJ, I was always told to never do leg locks or rear forearm chokes or rear naked chokes in sparring unless supervised. It is a risky move, and the cop's forearm was definitely under Eric Garner's chin. You could hear the wheeze and the gasp "I can't breathe" before the hold was released.
When I was taught the rear naked choke, I was taught to specifically get the forearm and bicep on opposite sides of the throat and to squeeze and flex with the bicep. The intention was to cut off the blood flow, not to choke air. Given that distinction, I was also taught that a variation was to pull the forearm against the airway - as a forearm choke. With the distinction and watching the video, the officer ended up performing a forearm choke on Eric Garner. I can see the forearm being pulled up against his throat, almost perpendicular to the throat. It's not a RNC in my learnings, and it is not a headlock (which to me is where the head/chin is held by the forearm/bicep/armpit).
A RNC is very scary because it cuts the blood flow to the head, and I was always told that if you hold a RNC for a few seconds past involuntary relaxation (knees buckling/resistance gone), you could cause brain damage. A air choke improperly applied could crush the airway, and cause death. In both applications, I could easily see why both could be discouraged/banned from use by NYPD. In martial arts, people either tap out or the referee will spot the point of danger. In real life as a subduing technique, there is no tapping out or referee to tell the cop that he can release the hold. Triangle chokes are pretty common in BJJ, essentially the same result as RNC.
Triangles are usually slower in effect than rear nakeds, in my experience. Once I get double underhooks and your neck between my forearm and bicep, the squeeze almost immediately affects my opponent. I know that because a) I've done it under supervision before, and b) I've had it done to me before. It's like tunnel vision immediately after the squeeze, and blackout almost a few seconds after.
The triangle usually takes longer and we beginners never execute it with such precision to create the same effect. I don't think my instructor ever gave us the same danger speech for a triangle as compared to the RNC.
Edit - the RNC ban was if we do it while rolling unsupervised (we could do armbars, triangles, keylocks/kimuras, and the rule was to tap if you feel the joint pressure so no one breaks something). When we did sparring in front of the teacher for review, we were allowed to use RNC but still no leg locks.
|
On December 04 2014 11:07 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 11:02 wei2coolman wrote:On December 04 2014 10:53 JinDesu wrote:
As someone who trained in basic BJJ, I was always told to never do leg locks or rear forearm chokes or rear naked chokes in sparring unless supervised. It is a risky move, and the cop's forearm was definitely under Eric Garner's chin. You could hear the wheeze and the gasp "I can't breathe" before the hold was released.
When I was taught the rear naked choke, I was taught to specifically get the forearm and bicep on opposite sides of the throat and to squeeze and flex with the bicep. The intention was to cut off the blood flow, not to choke air. Given that distinction, I was also taught that a variation was to pull the forearm against the airway - as a forearm choke. With the distinction and watching the video, the officer ended up performing a forearm choke on Eric Garner. I can see the forearm being pulled up against his throat, almost perpendicular to the throat. It's not a RNC in my learnings, and it is not a headlock (which to me is where the head/chin is held by the forearm/bicep/armpit).
A RNC is very scary because it cuts the blood flow to the head, and I was always told that if you hold a RNC for a few seconds past involuntary relaxation (knees buckling/resistance gone), you could cause brain damage. A air choke improperly applied could crush the airway, and cause death. In both applications, I could easily see why both could be discouraged/banned from use by NYPD. In martial arts, people either tap out or the referee will spot the point of danger. In real life as a subduing technique, there is no tapping out or referee to tell the cop that he can release the hold. Triangle chokes are pretty common in BJJ, essentially the same result as RNC. Triangles are usually slower in effect than rear nakeds, in my experience. Once I get double underhooks and your neck between my forearm and bicep, the squeeze almost immediately affects my opponent. I know that because a) I've done it under supervision before, and b) I've had it done to me before. It's like tunnel vision immediately after the squeeze, and blackout almost a few seconds after. The triangle usually takes longer and we beginners never execute it with such precision to create the same effect. I don't think my instructor ever gave us the same danger speech for a triangle as compared to the RNC.
It's because most people who try to do triangles try to do it squared up, if you hook your arm around their leg, and get an angle in which your constriction is using your glutes+thighs, rather than your abductors, the choke is almost instant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
