Maybe cops need something like this(but much sturdier) so they can net the criminal, let them flail around a bit until they are exhausted, then take them in. plus the bystander videos would be way more awesome.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
The worst part of the stampede video was the idiot yelling "pathetic"
Grow up you loser. There are clear times where force is completely required. You don't grab a weapon, and you don't swing on cops, period. Though I'd like to know if punching is a fairly accepted tactic in takedowns (because it just seems sort of clumsy and after-the-fact, a lot of times).
The whole "vlogging" obsession of my generation is helpful, I think, but the commentary is often brutally cringe-worthy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Why is this suddenly justification, though, if it wasn't okay before? You have to assume anytime ANYONE gets into a wrestling match with a cop, that he's going for the gun. It only takes a split second for that to happen... assuming it will is the only safe way to proceed. You can't assume that the suspect is just going to stick to using his hands. It's not like you wait until he makes that move to say "okay, now there's a real risk of this guy having a gun in a public space". The same risk was always there.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Why is this suddenly justification, though, if it wasn't okay before? You have to assume anytime ANYONE gets into a wrestling match with a cop, that he's going for the gun. It only takes a split second for that to happen... assuming it will is the only safe way to proceed. You can't assume that the suspect is just going to stick to using his hands. It's not like you wait until he makes that move to say "okay, now there's a real risk of this guy having a gun in a public space". The same risk was always there.
No. I'm not sure why you seem to equate any physical altercation with police as "going for the gun".
This guy was actually going for the taser. By all accounts he went for the taser prior to being involved in a wrestling match with the cops.
Unlike the previous story, there are reports this guy was wasted, harassing people and generally being a belligerent #### disturber at Nashville north.
The reason I equate them is because as soon as you are wrestling with police, there's a real risk you're going to get ahold of his weapon. You're within an easy arm's reach of taking it. What fantasy land are people living in where it's possible to wait until the person makes that move before responding with increased force to prevent it from happening? It's a split-second move, by the time you realize what just happened, the guy has a gun in a crowded public space.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Facebook Comments from friends of arrested man on Stampede Video - take it or leave it:
Shelby Routledge You have no idea what your talking about. This guy I know personally and he was trying to tell them that he did nothing wrong. Two of his friends were trying to steal Alcohol from Nashville north and they blamed him
Thomas Calvert The guy is a team mate of mine on my rugby team. He's a young kid from the UK and he's a gentleman. He's actually in the hospital with a potential brain bleed from all the hits he took to the head. When you are getting swarmed by 8 cops throwing punches, kicks and knees from all directions is it resisting or protecting yourself? There is more than one side to this story people and I assure you that the story I have heard does not include anyone going for a Police belt.
The cops don't serve themselves. Not charging him with the appropriate charges is bad for society, the people the police serve.
Hopefully it just wasn't reported right away and the appropriate charges are laid.
Going for a cops weapon is a big no-no and a message needs to be sent.
Cops in Calgary don't want to ruin your life. They probably saw this as a guy who was super wasted and wasn't thinking of the implications of his actions. If they truly believed this guy was that big of a danger to society, he would of certainly been charged accordingly.
Anecdotally, I was in an altercation with police in the past, but they didn't press charges because I was in College and they didn't want to ruin my life.
Facebook Comments from friends of arrested man on Stampede Video - take it or leave it:
Shelby Routledge You have no idea what your talking about. This guy I know personally and he was trying to tell them that he did nothing wrong. Two of his friends were trying to steal Alcohol from Nashville north and they blamed him
Thomas Calvert The guy is a team mate of mine on my rugby team. He's a young kid from the UK and he's a gentleman. He's actually in the hospital with a potential brain bleed from all the hits he took to the head. When you are getting swarmed by 8 cops throwing punches, kicks and knees from all directions is it resisting or protecting yourself? There is more than one side to this story people and I assure you that the story I have heard does not include anyone going for a Police belt.
Think I'm going to leave it, just like I ignored all the Collet family apologists. Everyone has people on their side and these people are easily blinded from the truth.
The reason I equate them is because as soon as you are wrestling with police, there's a real risk you're going to get ahold of his weapon. You're within an easy arm's reach of taking it. What fantasy land are people living in where it's possible to wait until the person makes that move before responding with increased force to prevent it from happening? It's a split-second move, by the time you realize what just happened, the guy has a gun in a crowded public space.
Now I'm not sure if I'm in a fantasy land, but I don't think modern police use holsters like The Lone Ranger wore. You can't just pluck their gun away from them in a split second and suddenly !surprise! have a cop's gun before he/she even knows you were after it.
That being said, this idiot needed to be dealt with and far as I can tell they did a good job of it.
Considering the circumstances, you know that was the last thing they wanted to be doing, flailing around in the rain and dirty Stampede puddles with some drunk #######.
The incident last weekend though, that one looked like someone definitely wanted to kick a guy's ass.
Now I'm not sure if I'm in a fantasy land, but I don't think modern police use holsters like The Lone Ranger wore. You can't just pluck their gun away from them in a split second and suddenly !surprise! have a cop's gun before he/she even knows you were after it.
In the context of a wrestling match? Absolutely you can. The holsters used by most police (I assume the same is true of CPS) have a strap that holds the weapon in place, but it's not hard to get the gun out of the holster - it can't be; police will sometimes need access to their weapon very quickly. It's not rocket science. And if you've never been in a fight with someone, particularly if you're on the ground, it's chaotic.
As soon as your hands are on a police officer, you are just that close to being an armed suspect. That's a risk that always needs to be taken seriously. It's not remote at all, and the seriousness of the consequences that can result from things going south should be obvious.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
In the context of a wrestling match? Absolutely you can. The holsters used by most police (I assume the same is true of CPS) have a strap that holds the weapon in place, but it's not hard to get the gun out of the holster - it can't be; police will sometimes need access to their weapon very quickly. It's not rocket science. And if you've never been in a fight with someone, particularly if you're on the ground, it's chaotic.
As soon as your hands are on a police officer, you are just that close to being an armed suspect. That's a risk that always needs to be taken seriously. It's not remote at all, and the seriousness of the consequences that can result from things going south should be obvious.
Bang on. Police don't have the option of losing a physical confrontation.
The Following User Says Thank You to Zulu29 For This Useful Post:
The reason I equate them is because as soon as you are wrestling with police, there's a real risk you're going to get ahold of his weapon. You're within an easy arm's reach of taking it. What fantasy land are people living in where it's possible to wait until the person makes that move before responding with increased force to prevent it from happening? It's a split-second move, by the time you realize what just happened, the guy has a gun in a crowded public space.
That's a reasonable point, but it does depend on active v. passive suspect or whether police could control the situation or not.
That's a reasonable point, but it does depend on active v. passive suspect or whether police could control the situation or not.
You mean control the situation without physicality? Sure. But once there is physicality, once a wrestling match is under way, even if it's the police's fault and shouldn't have been initiated, subduing the suspect has to be the top priority. The suspect simply cannot win the fight. If escalation to a physical interaction was done improperly or prematurely, contrary to procedure, the officer should be punished later (and an institutionalized failure to do so is an entirely separate problem).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
You mean control the situation without physicality? Sure. But once there is physicality, once a wrestling match is under way, even if it's the police's fault and shouldn't have been initiated, subduing the suspect has to be the top priority. The suspect simply cannot win the fight. If escalation to a physical interaction was done improperly or prematurely, contrary to procedure, the officer should be punished later (and an institutionalized failure to do so is an entirely separate problem).
Sorry, I am just making my way through my first cup of coffee.
I completely agree with you, but I was just referring back to our original exchange regarding whether or not police can verbally solve a dispute before applying force.
In this case, physicality was almost guaranteed from the start, and this level of force is always necessary in these situations.
You can also flip it and say that people complain all the time that police don't use non-lethal force enough to subdue dangerous suspects... well they do, and this is what it looks like. Better that, in my opinion, then stepping back and giving it to him with a taser, or worse, a gun.
There is little question that if you reach for an officer's weapons on his or her duty belt you are opening yourself to significant and legitimate use of force.
There is also little question in my mind looking at this video this guy is actively fighting against the officers during the arrest.
But, alas, I am left with one kinda big question.
The police say:
and they have charged him with:
so the question I need answered is why is the only offence he is NOT charged with the offence they say he committed to justify the use of force in the first place?!
I think the problem with this is that you are basing your assumption that this is the most pertinent charge based on a media article. The exact wording on the CPS statement is: "As CPS officers were attempting to escort the man off the premises, he pulled away and grabbed hold of one of the officer’s duty belts and on to the handle of the member’s conducted energy weapon."
It is alluded to in the media that this offender was trying to disarm the member but nowhere in the CPS statement does it use that word. In reality if this guy has grabbed hold of the taser handle of the belt simply as a way to get away or effect the officers ability to arrest him or to try and get away then the mens rea to "disarm" would not be met. The charge of obstruction still fits as clearly this mans actions were such that the members couldn't do their job and when a guy grabs a taser handle, whether to disarm or to flee, force was used to gain control.
I understand the point you are getting at with this being on the surface a more appropriate charge, but without the facts of the case it could very well be that simple obstruction was a more suitable charge.
There is little question that if you reach for an officer's weapons on his or her duty belt you are opening yourself to significant and legitimate use of force.
There is also little question in my mind looking at this video this guy is actively fighting against the officers during the arrest.
But, alas, I am left with one kinda big question.
The police say:
and they have charged him with:
so the question I need answered is why is the only offence he is NOT charged with the offence they say he committed to justify the use of force in the first place?!
Terribly difficult charge to obtain a conviction for.
Facebook Comments from friends of arrested man on Stampede Video - take it or leave it:
Shelby Routledge You have no idea what your talking about. This guy I know personally and he was trying to tell them that he did nothing wrong. Two of his friends were trying to steal Alcohol from Nashville north and they blamed him
Thomas Calvert The guy is a team mate of mine on my rugby team. He's a young kid from the UK and he's a gentleman. He's actually in the hospital with a potential brain bleed from all the hits he took to the head. When you are getting swarmed by 8 cops throwing punches, kicks and knees from all directions is it resisting or protecting yourself? There is more than one side to this story people and I assure you that the story I have heard does not include anyone going for a Police belt.
I've seen some of the nicest people you will meet completely morph into monsters under the influence of alcohol so Facebook comments from friends need to be taken with a grain of salt.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
And he makes an excellent point, the Police aren't there to fight fair, they are there to contain and subdue the subject.
I get the feeling the most of the people calling this excessive are the same people that ask why they couldn't shoot the gun out of someone's hand.
This is a well written post by this officer but he makes one significant error:
Quote:
No one has the right to physically fight the police.
False.
To be correct, you must add "lawfully in the execution of their duties" to the end of that sentence. You absolutely have the legal right to fight - and win - against police officers who are unlawfully arresting you or using excessive force against you.
Not that I recommend it. I really do not. Because even if you are in the right, you may well find yourself dead.
But this is a serious flaw in thinking if this is what they are teaching police. That no one has the right to physically fight them.
They have no more right than any other person to lay a hand on another individual unless lawfully placed with reasonable grounds.
This is a well written post by this officer but he makes one significant error:
False.
To be correct, you must add "lawfully in the execution of their duties" to the end of that sentence. You absolutely have the legal right to fight - and win - against police officers who are unlawfully arresting you or using excessive force against you.
Not that I recommend it. I really do not. Because even if you are in the right, you may well find yourself dead.
But this is a serious flaw in thinking if this is what they are teaching police. That no one has the right to physically fight them.
They have no more right than any other person to lay a hand on another individual unless lawfully placed with reasonable grounds.
Police are not being taught that no one has the right to fight them. They are being trained to tell someone that prior to going hands on with someone they advise them they are under arrest and able to articulate the reasons for that arrest. Unless of course your life or someone else's is in immediate danger, then you deal with the threat immediately.
