Should Police be Allowed to Kneel on the Back of Someone's Neck as a Submission Hold? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Police be Allowed to Kneel on the Back of Someone's Neck as a Submission Hold?

Yes
2
8%
No
18
69%
Yes but they should have to stop if the subject becomes non-responsive
2
8%
Other: Please explain
4
15%
#15095873
I think the answer should be yes. I trust there is a good reason that this kind of thing is allowed. I don't think that yes with conditions will work because people could fake being non-responsive and it would invite all sorts of complications and lawsuits.
#15095919
Patrickov wrote:If an adjustment from such a position poses danger then they have no choice but to continue, but care has to be taken and there should be protocol based on due research and experiment (not on suspects of course).

Bro are you really assuming that they have not researched this already? Cops in America get sued all the time.
#15096017
Wulfschilde wrote:I think the answer should be yes. I trust there is a good reason that this kind of thing is allowed. I don't think that yes with conditions will work because people could fake being non-responsive and it would invite all sorts of complications and lawsuits.


Provide evidence that there is a good reason.

Also, how many jurisdictions allow it and how many do not?
#15096092
No. Absolutely not.

It's dangerous and quite obvious that most policemen don't understand that, nor that there are other less dangerous forms of restraint. Most police officers are not trained enough to use such a hold or they'd realize it can only be used for a very short time before it becomes dangerous.

A prone person, cuffed, holds little danger to an armed police officer. To say otherwise is to ignore reality.

FFS, it's be better if the police officer just sat on the guy's ass. It'd pin him, and put him in no danger of suffocating, or preventing his breathing.

The poster who voted YES, is clueless, and one of the reasons why this is a problem.
#15096113
Yes, but only if it is necessary to effect the arrest, and they MUST stop once the subject is cuffed. Once the subject is in custody, they have to treat the subject with reasonable care.

Godstud wrote:FFS, it's be better if the police officer just sat on the guy's ass. It'd pin him, and put him in no danger of suffocating, or preventing his breathing.

That's a good solution if the subject is cuffed. If not, subjects often try to get the officer's gun.

Godstud wrote:The poster who voted YES, is clueless, and one of the reasons why this is a problem.

What if the arrestee is a felony shooter, and back up hasn't arrived and they are struggling?
#15096118
blackjack21 wrote:That's a good solution if the subject is cuffed. If not, subjects often try to get the officer's gun.
It takes only a seconds to cuff someone, once they are prone. I've undergone that training, and it's not rocket science.

blackjack21 wrote:What if the arrestee is a felony shooter, and back up hasn't arrived and they are struggling?
Police do not respond to felony shootings alone, for one thing. If he's cuffed, it doesn't matter what he did. Pinning a cuffed person to the ground is remarkably easy. You can put your knee on the cuffs. They have a taser and pepper spray. The options are many.

You offer excuses, not argument.

There were 4 police officers present when George Floyd was murdered.

George Floyd was not a felony shooter. He was unarmed, cuffed, and prone.
#15096120
I voted No. After seeing what happened in the incident with George Floyd, there must be other less dangerous methods to use to subdue a suspected criminal like George Floyd than kneeling on his neck, especially when the suspect is already in handcuffs.
#15096127
Godstud wrote:It takes only a seconds to cuff someone, once they are prone. I've undergone that training, and it's not rocket science.

If they're not resisting, it's straight forward. It's also why people who are compliant are rarely hurt. Here's my buddy involved in a misdemeanor arrest.



It takes more than a few seconds, because not only are they resisting arrest, but hostile crowds are trying to take guns off the officers. My buddy is the guy calling for backup initially in the video when there's only two people. The other officer I also met. He moved to the Midwest and is now a fireman, and probably a lot happier for it. The Asian officer I also knew, but haven't seen him in years. Don't know what he's doing now. I almost bought a 48 foot cruiser from the second officer's army sergeant. They did two tours in Afghanistan together, and we found out that the guy selling the boat knew my buddy's partner during the boat inspection. Port motor wasn't working and there were wiring issues, so we passed on that boat. Small world just the same.

Godstud wrote:Police do not respond to felony shootings alone, for one thing.

Well, at Florida high schools, perhaps. However, if you're on scene and someone starts shooting, you're expected to call for backup and protect the lives of others. You don't always know it's going to be a felony shooting. That's how my grade school buddy's daughter died as a field training officer. It was a domestic violence call with no gun report. Shit happens.

Godstud wrote:You offer excuses, not argument.

Tell it to my buddy's dead daughter. 26 years old. Training is training. The field is a different deal.

Godstud wrote:There were 4 police officers present when George Floyd was murdered.

George Floyd was not a felony shooter. He was unarmed, cuffed, and prone.

I'm not excusing Chauvin's actions. I think he's guilty of excessive force and manslaughter.

My buddy doesn't get greeted with "Hello officer." He gets greeted with "Yo muthafucka, you in the wrong neighborhood!" Some of the people who live in San Francisco's Bay View district are not sticklers for etiquette to put it mildly.
#15096132
1 word, @blackjack21: TRAINING. You can be trained to cuff even a extremely violent and resisting offended with just a little bit of training. Training is what prepares you and allows you to do the right thing at the right time, in the field.

You are trying to apply the exception(even in the case of a felony shooting) to what happened to George Floyd. That's a dishonest argument. George Floyd was not resisting arrest. If he was, the other 3 officers present would not have been standing around picking their noses.

blackjack21 wrote:My buddy doesn't get greeted with "Hello officer." He gets greeted with "Yo muthafucka, you in the wrong neighborhood!" Some of the people who live in San Francisco's Bay View district are not sticklers for etiquette to put it mildly.
So? That's not relevant to the discussion. It's not the job of the police to be "loved". If he wants that, he should find a different job. Ice cream vendors are loved.
#15096137
Godstud wrote:It's not the job of the police to be "loved". If he wants that, he should find a different job. Ice cream vendors are loved.

Many police do get a different job in time. But we need police officers to protect the law abiding citizens by arresting those that are not law abiding. Most of us law abiding citizens do respect, appreciate, and even love our police as we should. It is a dangerous job and that is why police are often given a benefit of the doubt when something goes wrong. However, left-wing radicals are not very law abiding and do not appreciate the police and often show their hatred against them.
#15096140
No. It is dangerous. I also think there are other forms of dealing with unruly people besides doing something potentially fatal to them.

Most people trained in law enforcement need to use persuasion and then if they must physically restrain them they need to do it with a very efficient and swift method.

I like Aikido. I think it is mostly defensive and my husband studied that for a while. It is very good at people coming towards you aggressively. You use the force of their own bodies to force them off balance and you can restrain them. Back up too. It is better to not arrest someone who is in harm's way by being stupid with resistance than to resort to something that kills them.

Intoxicated people and violent people should be part of someone's job in law enforcement training. I do agree with Godstud. Training is critical.

Many cops have told me in the past that they have never drawn their gun on the job. Beat cops. They usually do well with just batons, tazers, pepper spray. Not shooting or lethal force.

Riot police though are very different.
#15096141
If police are doing their jobs right, they are not committing crimes while they are arresting people.

There are lots of people who don't like police. Most people are indifferent to the police, depending on their experiences with them. I am indifferent, but I treat police officers with respect, since I know it's a job, and they are people, too. I think this is the same with most people. Criminals, naturally, don't like them, and people who are victimized by them, hate them.

@Tainari88 Being a police officer is not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs. I did roofing, when I was younger. It's more dangerous.
https://www.graphicproducts.com/infogra ... rous-jobs/

The perception does not match the reality, as few police officers are actually killed every year.

If I understant correctly, your point is that the[…]

I'm against worldwide communism because ei don'[…]

Faith is a belief without proof. Do you also respe[…]

Yes, I suspected the video was that old (1995) be[…]