To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,751
#1,751
n_huffhines said:
As someone else pointed out, restraints should be sufficient. In college I worked in supervised living centers with clients twice as big as me, but when they acted out we did alright. If we threw a punch we were fired. Why? Because we served them. It was our job to deal with unreasonable people without hurting them. It got hairy, too. I had a knife thrown at me. I was bitten, etc. You bite a cop and he might put you in the ER and he'll keep his job.

To protect and to serve. They are public servants, officers of the peace, etc. We hold college boys working side jobs to higher standards than the police. There's something wrong with that.
Click to expand...
So your experience in a supervised living center (whatever the hell that is) gives you the experience to draw upon to make a determination on a guy who is in a public place trying to grab a police officer's knife? C'mon man. Sometimes I think some of you guys have lived in the suburbs all your lives. Venture out and see the real world... Also, you know that restraints have been outlawed in a lot of areas because they have been attributed to the death of several people just like this guy.. In my opinion a couple of rabbit punches to get him to comply is better than what LEO's used to do to get someone to comply. This guy is exhibiting all the signs for someone who is in the throes of drugs and getting him into custody quickly to avoid death via excited delirium is preferable. A long prolonged fight ending in this subject hog tied could've ended in death. It's a lose lose for LEO's.
 
#1,755
#1,755
Grand Vol said:
And if the subject is being resistive?
Click to expand...

You just restrained them. That was it. They bite you, you restrain them...we couldn't bind them (handcuff) so we just had to restrain them until they calmed down. It could be over an hour. It sucked, but it's the job.

I'm not saying that cops have to be that accommodating, but when they harm people when it's not in the name of self-defense*, it makes me feel like the lives and safety of cops are put first, over the people they are sworn to protect. That's backwards.

*or when they f*** up somebody after they've been given the "self defense" green light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,756
#1,756
govols/cc said:
A squad? I don't think a squad was there. The dude was 6'7" & jacked up on something. There's a ton of people around. The guy runs all over the place. He jumps in back of a random guy's truck. He reaches for the officer's knife. He gets tased twice. After that I would say do whatever it takes.
Click to expand...

I agree....at that point the guy is a menace to society. Lights out fella
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,757
#1,757
#1,760
#1,760
Reading some of the comments made has me thinking a lot of you guys grew up with the silver spoon in your mouth. I guess the cops should have just followed the guy around for six hours to make sure he didn't harm himself.
 
#1,761
#1,761
Toujours Pret said:
Probably should have knocked him upside the head with a nightstick for good measure like in the good old days, right tim?
Click to expand...

The man was carrying an umbrella... I would never advocate the use of excessive force against anyone, especially someone who was apparently no threat to anyone.

FTR, I caught your sarcasm, but I think you just skim my posts and pick and choose what to key on. I'm pretty sure I said I preferred current techniques over what used to be common accepted practice from just 25 years ago.
 
#1,763
#1,763
Grand Vol said:
I don't blame the cops in this one. I blame the dumbassery within the education system and the overreaction to anything gun related in the State of California.
Click to expand...

I think some blame lies with the umbrella manufacturer as well. Surely they can come up with a model that doesn't so closely resemble a rifle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,764
#1,764
SamRebel35 said:
I think some blame lies with the umbrella manufacturer as well. Surely they can come up with a model that doesn't so closely resemble a rifle.
Click to expand...

Seriously? What's more likely the case?

1. Police overreacted to a random dude carrying an umbrella?

2. Some dimwit anti-gun professor got scared of the shadows and called in an armed man report to which the police have to respond. Seeing that the majority of the team was in civilian clothes, that meant they got recalled and weren't already on the clock looking to shoot dogs or put people in choke holds.

Give it a rest Sam, this is a piss poor example of bad cops and a far better example of the retardation of faculty in higher education.
 
#1,765
#1,765
Grand Vol said:
Seriously? What's more likely the case?

1. Police overreacted to a random dude carrying an umbrella?

2. Some dimwit anti-gun professor got scared of the shadows and called in an armed man report to which the police have to respond. Seeing that the majority of the team was in civilian clothes, that meant they got recalled and weren't already on the clock looking to shoot dogs or put people in choke holds.

Give it a rest Sam, this is a piss poor example of bad cops and a far better example of the retardation of faculty in higher education.
Click to expand...

It was a corny joke/sarcasm. Apparently you are immune to umbrella related humor.
 
#1,767
#1,767
Grand Vol said:
Most cops on base don't have to deal with that for the most part. However, it does happen and a little more frequently than it used to.

Key to that whole arm bar thing with a baton is getting it into position to begin with. Looks easy in training, not as easy in application.
Click to expand...

The post Viet Nam Army in the late 70s was pretty rough at times. And, yes, actual application is always the challenge, which is why you train and hence why I asked about whether those techniques were still trained today? Or are we training our police to take the accused to the ground and force submission through punching. Are our police officers actually training consistently on non-lethal techniques or are they simply relying on their sidearm?

But, the country has changed a lot since those days. I recall a popular police drama where a new recruit asked why they were issued .38s instead of .45s. The answer was if you shoot someone with a .38 you put a hole in them but if you shot them with a .45 you killed them and the police weren't in the business of killing people. Things have certainly escalated since then and the default is now that if a police officer feels threatened then killing is authorized. That is certainly justified against a heavily armed hard core criminal, but it has changed the dynamic with the average citizen. In my view, and the reason I asked the question, is the police today do not need to train consistently on those old fashioned submission techniques because if their first directives aren't followed or if their first attempt at gaining compliance isn't successful, they can simply shoot the guy. So why train beyond the basics if you know that you can escalate to deadly force very early in the fight?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,768
#1,768
Grand Vol said:
I don't blame the cops in this one. I blame the dumbassery within the education system and the overreaction to anything gun related in the State of California.
Click to expand...

Cal_State_San_Marcos_lockdown_Bill_Craig_ABC10.jpg


Grand or Tim, what the heck are those officers in the right side of the photo aiming at? And why do they have their fingers on the trigger?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,771
#1,771
YorkVol said:
Cal_State_San_Marcos_lockdown_Bill_Craig_ABC10.jpg


Grand or Tim, what the heck are those officers in the right side of the photo aiming at? And why do they have their fingers on the trigger?
Click to expand...

Always facing a potential outer threat as well as covering the suspect. Chances are there are others outside the photo on the left side as well.

Finger on the trigger? Sucky weapons safety.
 
#1,772
#1,772
Grand Vol said:
Always facing a potential outer threat as well as covering the suspect. Chances are there are others outside the photo on the left side as well.

Finger on the trigger? Sucky weapons safety.
Click to expand...

By standing tall instead of getting behind cover? Pretty nice rock wall there.
 
#1,774
#1,774
YorkVol said:
The post Viet Nam Army in the late 70s was pretty rough at times. And, yes, actual application is always the challenge, which is why you train and hence why I asked about whether those techniques were still trained today? Or are we training our police to take the accused to the ground and force submission through punching. Are our police officers actually training consistently on non-lethal techniques or are they simply relying on their sidearm?
Click to expand...

You have to remember the military cop side of things is always 10 years behind the civilian side on techniques and whatnot. But to answer the question, compliance through punches may or may not be on each individual department. There is a lot more of the MMA style grappling techniques moving in towards police duties, so it's probably not unheard of as a compliance technique.

For the post Vietnam thing, my supervisors and leadership all came in during that era. And had some interesting stories.

YorkVol said:
But, the country has changed a lot since those days. I recall a popular police drama where a new recruit asked why they were issued .38s instead of .45s. The answer was if you shoot someone with a .38 you put a hole in them but if you shot them with a .45 you killed them and the police weren't in the business of killing people. Things have certainly escalated since then and the default is now that if a police officer feels threatened then killing is authorized. That is certainly justified against a heavily armed hard core criminal, but it has changed the dynamic with the average citizen. In my view, and the reason I asked the question, is the police today do not need to train consistently on those old fashioned submission techniques because if their first directives aren't followed or if their first attempt at gaining compliance isn't successful, they can simply shoot the guy. So why train beyond the basics if you know that you can escalate to deadly force very early in the fight?
Click to expand...

It's a valid question and argument to which there isn't a good answer. But like others, there needs to be discussion about how police are responding to incidents.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top