|
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 11:09 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 11:07 JinDesu wrote: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.
Right, but as opposed to a RNC, the triangle is quite a lot harder to do when starting - and even when you learn it well, the opponent will oppose it a lot easier than a RNC if you get the rear mount with the leg hooks in. The hard part is getting that rear mount. When we were beginners facing each other, I almost never tried the triangle because it was just too hard. Armbar was the goto submission.
|
Regardless of the headlock/chokehold discussion it's still a manslaughter (at least) captured on video, that the medical examiner ruled as a homicide.
The cause of Garner's death was "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police," the medical examiner's office has said. The New York City Police Department prohibits chokeholds. The death was ruled a homicide.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/justice/new-york-grand-jury-chokehold/
|
I never really followed this case much. Maybe saw the news replays that constantly loop the "choke" over and over.
But watching the replays again, the officer only has him in that hold for 10 if you are generous 12 seconds. That's it. Once they roll over on the ground he lets go with one hand and reaches for Garners hand..then transitions up to pushing Garner's head down on the pavement.
I know, as above, you can be lights-out in a few seconds from a RNC or a forearm choke, especially if your heart is racing. But to me it never looks like he ever gets anything really locked in.
The autopsy report cited the choke, chest compression and positioning. To me it looks like the "choke" didn't play as much a part of his death as the dogpile of people on his chest after they get him on the ground. It just seems too brief a time for the choke to be the cause of his death.
So they indict the one cop and give the others on the dogpile immunity. So the grand jury was expected to find that the one cop was the cause of Garner's death, and not the "dogpile"?
|
On December 04 2014 11:27 RCMDVA wrote:
I never really followed this case much. Maybe saw the news replays that constantly loop the "choke" over and over.
But watching the replays again, the officer only has him in that hold for 10 if you are generous 12 seconds. That's it. Once they roll over on the ground he lets go with one hand and reaches for Garners hand..then transitions up to pushing Garner's head down on the pavement.
I know, as above, you can be lights-out in a few seconds from a RNC or a forearm choke, especially if your heart is racing. But to me it never looks like he ever gets anything really locked in.
The autopsy report cited the choke, chest compression and positioning. To me it looks like the "choke" didn't play as much a part of his death as the dogpile of people on his chest after they get him on the ground. It just seems too brief a time for the choke to be the cause of his death.
So they indict the one cop and give the others on the dogpile immunity. So the grand jury was expected to find that the one cop was the cause of Garner's death, and not the "dogpile"?
If anyone should be charged it should be him. Others probably should have been too, though. Are you saying that they didn't commit a crime?
|
I'm saying if you charge him for what he did, his specific 10-12 seconds.
The cop would go to trial and say that the dog pile killed him and not the choke.
And he wasn't on the dog pile.
|
what is this supposed to be? Innocence by herd immunity? Just dilute the responsibility until the problem solves itself? This guy was a father of six and no one is supposed to be punished for this?
|
On December 04 2014 11:42 Nyxisto wrote:
what is this supposed to be? Innocence by herd immunity? Just dilute the responsibility until the problem solves itself? This guy was a father of six and no one is supposed to be punished for this?
If it makes you feel better, just know that the City of New York is going to back up a Brinks truck full of money to the door of the decedent's family's home in the very near future.The guy who did the chokehold has almost certainly wrecked his police career permanently. I'd expect that the other dumbshit officers who were in on this will face similar consequences.
So no, I wouldn't say this is a situation where no one is going to be punished.
|
On December 04 2014 11:27 RCMDVA wrote:
So they indict the one cop and give the others on the dogpile immunity. So the grand jury was expected to find that the one cop was the cause of Garner's death, and not the "dogpile"?
Thats not how Grand Juries work. All a grand jury has to do is find it more probable than not that there is a indictable offense. Then the actual trial jury would determine issues of fact like "Is 10 seconds of an illegal choke enough to kill a man" and whether that constitutes the intent to murder or just accidental manslaughter.
The issue here like in the Missouri case is this: DA's punt cop cases to GJ, GJ never indict cops. The system protects itself behind the veil of 'well, a jury made a decision', which also leads to the missconception that he was 'innocent' rather than 'the jury chose not indict'
|
On December 04 2014 11:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 11:42 Nyxisto wrote:
what is this supposed to be? Innocence by herd immunity? Just dilute the responsibility until the problem solves itself? This guy was a father of six and no one is supposed to be punished for this? If it makes you feel better, just know that the City of New York is going to back up a Brinks truck full of money to the door of the decedent's family's home in the very near future.The guy who did the chokehold has almost certainly wrecked his police career permanently. I'd expect that the other dumbshit officers who were in on this will face similar consequences. So no, I wouldn't say this is a situation where no one is going to be punished.
Why would the other officers face anything? The only one who did anything wrong is the guy who choked out the victim from behind. Using your bodyweight to hold down someone resisting arrested is to be avoided when possible per NYPD protocol, but a resisting 400lbs man is certainly within reason for that. Choking is explicitly forbidden.
|
On December 04 2014 12:17 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 11:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 04 2014 11:42 Nyxisto wrote:
what is this supposed to be? Innocence by herd immunity? Just dilute the responsibility until the problem solves itself? This guy was a father of six and no one is supposed to be punished for this? If it makes you feel better, just know that the City of New York is going to back up a Brinks truck full of money to the door of the decedent's family's home in the very near future.The guy who did the chokehold has almost certainly wrecked his police career permanently. I'd expect that the other dumbshit officers who were in on this will face similar consequences. So no, I wouldn't say this is a situation where no one is going to be punished. Why would the other officers face anything? The only one who did anything wrong is the guy who choked out the victim from behind. Using your bodyweight to hold down someone resisting arrested is to be avoided when possible per NYPD protocol, but a resisting 400lbs man is certainly within reason for that. Choking is explicitly forbidden.
It depends upon the extent to which they breached police protocol -- or the "rules of the road," if you will -- and the extent to which their actions contributed to the cause of death in a legal sense.
|
'Members of the New York City Police Department will NOT use chokeholds. A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.
Whenever it becomes necessary to take a violent or resisting subject into custody, responding officers should utilize appropriate tactics in a coordinated effort to overcome resistance (for example see PG 216-05, "Aided Cases-Mentally Ill or Emotionally Disturbed Persons"). The patrol supervisor, if present should direct and control all activity. Whenever possible, members should make every effort to avoid tactics, such as sitting or standing on a subject's chest, which may result in chest compression, thereby reducing the subject's ability to breathe.'
Watching it again, the other cops aren't even doing anything close to that. The only person who should be facing any kind of scrutiny is the guy who threw the choke hold
|
The Cleveland police officer who fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice on Nov. 22 had "dismal" handgun performance during training, the news website Cleveland.com reported on Wednesday.
During Officer Tim Loehmann's brief tenure with the Independence Police Department, he was characterized as "distracted" and "weepy" during firearms training, according to a Nov. 29, 2012 letter obtained by Cleveland.com.
The letter was written by the police department's Deputy Chief Jim Polak.
"He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal," Polak wrote.
The letter also recommended that the department disassociate with Loehmann, who eventually became an officer with the Cleveland Division of Police, Cleveland.com reported.
"I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies," Polak wrote, according to the website.
The Cleveland police department was investigating Loehmann's actions in the shooting of Rice, who was playing with a toy gun when he was fatally shot, according to the news site.
Source
|
It's irksome how news reporting can portray a persistently inaccurate picture of what happens by their word choice.
Like repeatedly saying unarmed; or mentioning it was a toy gun every time, despite that it was unclear in the actual situation.
|
On December 04 2014 14:32 zlefin wrote:
It's irksome how news reporting can portray a persistently inaccurate picture of what happens by their word choice.
Like repeatedly saying unarmed; or mentioning it was a toy gun every time, despite that it was unclear in the actual situation.
I don't think the story would be any more accurate by leaving out that they were unarmed or had a toy gun (particularly when the victim was 12).
What would be an example of one of the stories where leaving out that fact would make it more accurate?
|
On December 04 2014 14:32 zlefin wrote:
It's irksome how news reporting can portray a persistently inaccurate picture of what happens by their word choice.
Like repeatedly saying unarmed; or mentioning it was a toy gun every time, despite that it was unclear in the actual situation. Controversy attracts eyes and sells papers. Frequently these days its not even left vs. right issue, just the sound-bite-conversion of news stories for eager ears.
|
On December 04 2014 14:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2014 14:32 zlefin wrote:
It's irksome how news reporting can portray a persistently inaccurate picture of what happens by their word choice.
Like repeatedly saying unarmed; or mentioning it was a toy gun every time, despite that it was unclear in the actual situation. I don't think the story would be any more accurate by leaving out that they were unarmed or had a toy gun (particularly when the victim was 12). What would be an example of one of the stories where leaving out that fact would make it more accurate?
I disagree. Saying it's a toy gun means someone reading it might think it was someone with an obviously toy gun (and hence very bad); as opposed to indistinguishable from a real gun.
Repeatedly saying unarmed makes it sound like using a firearm would be excessive in response; as opposed to someone who's currently unarmed, but attempted to become armed.
|
Just watched the vid of that one. It's grainy enough you really can't see anything (details) but the car pulls up and the door opens, and it is over in 2 seconds.
The kid apparently sees the cops coming through the park and stands up and walks over to where they will stop.
He lifts up his jacket as the car door opens and he drops. It really lasts 2 seconds. Unless there is a way to see the original vid that is smoother I don't see how he could have given 3x commands to put your hands up through the car window, as the police chief said.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/26/video-tamir-rice-shooting-police-peace-loving-boy#comments
|
|
|
“Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!”-Bill Hicks.
|
On December 04 2014 16:05 Shiragaku wrote:What a shame, even the cops are ruining an American past time. Cute and reinforcing traditional values + Show Spoiler +Moral decay and thuggery + Show Spoiler +
difference is trigger discipline.
not a single girl in the first photo have their fingers on the trigger.
the 2nd photo not so much.
+ Show Spoiler +if anyone is taking the above comment seriously, check yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://nelsnewday.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/white-kids-guns.jpg?w=475&h=307)
![[image loading]](http://gunsforeveryone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/V-Sheet-14-Neg-9_-Gav-And-Nevs-Camper-Vans_-Black-Kids-with-guns_-Micklefield_-1990-copy.jpg)
