fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2906 ]

[ SECRET POST #2906 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2906 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 021 secrets from Secret Submission Post #415.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So are you of the opinion that nobody outside the police can have anything legitimate to say in critique of police behavior? Because that is a very, very dangerous mindset.

And I still maintain that since he wasn't being violent, tackling him to the ground was unnecessary. Is there a reason for doing that, other than to just make a point? Do they really not have any other kind of way of subduing someone other than going all-out? If they don't, that needs to be fixed.

No. I just think it's important to be clear about the background lev el of knowledge from which you're operating. The analogy would be criticising medical malpractice, there should be a certain level of sitting down and listening - not jumping to conclusions, especially about emotive topics like this, without exploring what you may be missing.

You have a giant man (it's seriously hard to overestimate just how much of a difference size makes when things go south) who is activley resisting arrest. The police need to place him into handcuffs as part of a lawful enaction of their duty. They have tried to grab his arms and place them into cuffs which he's resisted. This in itself is an officer safety risk, and it can be a literal split second between him deciding he's not coming with officers and one of them ending up with lifechanging injuries.

So they now have a very limited range of options. He's got his hands in a fighting stance, they can again try to grab them and place them into cuffs from standing, but he's already stopped them doing that once and he's in an excellent postion to stop it again and fight back, or attempt to escape. So they pretty much have to pin him or take him to the ground.

I mean what's your alternative for subduing him? Be specific here, with clear direction on what should be done, and the likely outcomes involved.

you are a disgusting person, honestly. Go fuck your badge or something.

You will ALWAYS side with the police. No matter what they do. So go fuck yourself, you fucking bastard. May you step on many thumbtacks and lose your badge.

Ok, first off, if police are required by law to create a situation that's dangerous for them or for others in order to "lawfully enact their duty" when the person they're interacting with isn't a public danger then I think that should change.

Second of all, I can't give a complete detailed map of what I think they should have done, but I can ask questions. Was a taser not an option? (That's an honest question; I don't know if that would have just made him more agitated) Was it not an option to have two cops each grabbing one arm? Does size really counteract differences in strengths (assuming the cops were fit and the man, who was obese, was not)?

Finally, something obviously happened or didn't happen because when the guy was taken to the ground, pressure was not released from his throat. He was in a chokehold for a long time and died as a result. This is pretty clear from watching the video. Was a chokehold really the only way the cop could have tackled him? I really rather doubt it.

It will never change, because it's the basis of the social contract. The lawful enactment of their duty is arresting people. If they can't use force to do that, well you've just defacto allowed anyone to commit a non-violent offence and not face any censure for it. The suggestions of "arrest them later" stops the investigation and simply kicks the question further down the line.

A taser may have been an option (if they had one? Can't see any in the video), but if he'd had a heart attack which he may will, we'd be having this exact conversation except talking about how clearly excessive using a taser was.

You can see from the video the limited about of time the choke is held. The medical report says it's a contributary factor, not the sole factor. And there may have been alternate options, but if any of them had gone wrong we'd just be discussing that instead. The question is how reasonable would it have been to forsee death as a result.

He was in that chokehold for a long ass time. Did we watch the same video?? Also: was a chokehold actually necessary to take him down?

Tasers are used all the time and I honestly *don't* think we'd be having the exact same conversation, though we would be having a conversation. Someone dropping dead from a taser is unusual.

As for all of that about arresting and the social contract, you have a point, but do you think it's worth peoples' lives? Also, interestingly, police are able to force arrests all the time without killing people.

At the absolutle outside it was fifteen seconds (it won't have been fifteen seconds, having your arms around someones neck is very different to choking them).

You're right someone from dead from a taser is unusal, but again so is someone from a chokehold. It's an incredibly rare outcome in situations where it's not intended.

And yes, I believe in the social contract. I've been in roll arounds with plenty of people, it's the nature of the beast. The foundation of our entire society relies upon that. The state needs a monopoly on force and the ability to enforce it's will, we can't function without it. Are you willing to dispense of that, and threaten peoples lives through inaction?

That's not really an interesting point at all. You're looking at what is an incredibly unlikely outcome, and treating it as a certainty. Any use of force has a chance of ending in death, it's just a continum. That they do it all the time without a fatal outcome just speaks to the chances of outcomes involved.

Are you willing to dispense of that, and threaten peoples lives through inaction?

Are you talking about the big picture or specific instances? Because in this particular instance, nobody's life was being threatened by inaction.

Big picture.

Okay.

So do you think that forcing an arrest in a situation that may cause death is necessary to save other lives in other situations?

Basically, where do you draw the line? I think I just don't agree with where you are drawing it.

Literally ever single situation where force has to be used may lead to death.

Do you think that an officer should never arrest for a non-violent offence, and if someone is unwilling to comply with officers or the justice system we should be unable to enforce our will as a society?

Y/N?

Because that is the line where you're drawing it.

Hmmm.

Well, that's a good question.

I do think part of the problem is with the law - we arrest for offenses that shouldn't even be illegal (that is not the cops' fault, they are just doing their jobs). I have a hard time justifying using potentially lethal force on someone for selling loosies. But there are other non-violent crimes for which I'd give a different answer (though always, care should be taken to minimize the chance of death or injury as much as possible).

And that's the other part of it - there isn't as much emphasis as there should be on the value of human lives and attempting to make all force non-lethal. Yes, there will be the risk of death, but that isn't an excuse to do everything you can to minimize that risk. It sounds like a very casual approach to the value of anyone's life if they happen to break a minor law.

And at any rate, I believe the officer who tackled and choked Eric Garner used lethal force by a big margin. We seem to have watched two different videos, so I guess we're at an impasse with that one.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2906 ]

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions

Re: unpopular opinions