Banning choke holds
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 14:48 last edited by
So I'm starting to see headlines of various police departments banning choke holds. My immediate response is, "Won't this increase the usage of tasers and even firearms?"
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 15:07 last edited by
None of this leads anywhere other than to a non-violent police force. Except for the parts that are allowed to use violence after a judge allows a violence warrant.
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 15:11 last edited by
I don't see any issue with it. Can't say I know what the costs and benefits are. But it's much better than disbanding the cops or not giving them weapons at all.
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 15:35 last edited by
It just all seems very logically precious to me. I have no real problem with not allowing choke holds either. I only think it's absurd to believe that the world is a predictably better place with cops who follow that rule. It would be good to train cops in effective martial arts which maximize ability to incapacitate without permanent damage.
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 15:42 last edited by
You can’t unsee a knee on a neck of someone who is already unconscious and handcuffed for several minutes. Clearly it’s a sanctioned procedure and no one would vote for that.
-
I don't see any issue with it. Can't say I know what the costs and benefits are. But it's much better than disbanding the cops or not giving them weapons at all.
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 15:48 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Banning choke holds:
I don't see any issue with it. Can't say I know what the costs and benefits are. But it's much better than disbanding the cops or not giving them weapons at all.
While I agree with the latter. For me, if I were a cop and there was someone who was resisting arrest or (other scenario that requires using force to restrain the individual), if I'm not allowed to use a choke hold to maintain control, what's the next option... taser? Threaten with gun? Round house kick to the face? The choke hold seems to be the best of those options.
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 15:58 last edited by
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 16:19 last edited by
It's already banned in a number of places. I see it as a step in the right direction.
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 16:50 last edited by
Ban it.
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 16:51 last edited by
Banning it is so 1995.
Let’s cancel them instead.
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 16:55 last edited by
Or maybe lynch them.
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 17:11 last edited by
The New question of course is how do you immobilize someone such that they no longer are a safety threat. Apparently handcuffs are not enough. A net?
-
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 17:21 last edited by
Cops must have a judge's warrant to employ any force whatsoever. Otherwise all cooperation with cops is voluntary.
-
The New question of course is how do you immobilize someone such that they no longer are a safety threat. Apparently handcuffs are not enough. A net?
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 17:25 last edited by@Loki said in Banning choke holds:
The New question of course is how do you immobilize someone such that they no longer are a safety threat. Apparently handcuffs are not enough. A net?
That's a really good question. Especially if the person is having a psychotic episode or is as high as a kite.
Any of you ever have to subdue somebody under those circumstances? Ain't easy.
-
The New question of course is how do you immobilize someone such that they no longer are a safety threat. Apparently handcuffs are not enough. A net?
wrote on 17 Jun 2020, 18:27 last edited by@Loki said in Banning choke holds:
The New question of course is how do you immobilize someone such that they no longer are a safety threat. Apparently handcuffs are not enough. A net?
How is this the new question? This was literally my question when starting this thread!
And yes, I vote bring back the cartoonish big dog catcher nets.