Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   For decades now, across the entire nation, we've been banning police chokeholds. Yet, inexplicably, police keep choking people. It's a mystery, I suppose. Very mysterious   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Murica, Police, police reform, proper training, officer's life, police violence, Police brutality, neck restraints, bottom line  
•       •       •

1690 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2020 at 5:01 PM (14 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



37 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-16 2:14:02 PM  
In fact, when the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board studied its use in 2014, it found hundreds of complaints a year alleging that police officers used the technique - and even concluded that the use of chokeholds at the time appeared to be rising despite a decades-long ban.

"There is an enormous bias inside the police department when the police department is disciplining its own people to avoid diluting the power of any particular officer to use or employ a chokehold," says Richard Emery, who served as the chair of the Civilian Complaint Review Board when it reviewed the use of chokeholds in New York City.

He says he doesn't think a nationwide prohibition on neck restraints will lead to more prosecutions but that it could lead to better outcomes.


It's almost as if the police and all those cities they work for, have no problem with any of this. Almost.
 
2020-06-16 5:04:40 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Oh You!!!


/  Throat slicing and near decapitation are ok though
// How's that search for the killers going?  OJ
 
2020-06-16 5:05:38 PM  
Ban chokeholds.
Ban sidearms - non-lethal only.
Mandatory bodycams.
Civilian oversight on 100% of assaults.

I dunno...anything else?
 
2020-06-16 5:06:01 PM  
Don't they actually have an academy where they should be taught NOT to do this. I think it's more of the gung-ho warrior cop training that they get from these "experts" on how to police the white, oops I mean, right way.
 
2020-06-16 5:06:33 PM  
Cue The Choirboys...
 
2020-06-16 5:06:33 PM  
Gosh, how can this be?
 
2020-06-16 5:06:55 PM  

EyeHaveRisen: [Fark user image image 225x225]

Oh You!!!


/  Throat slicing and near decapitation are ok though
// How's that search for the killers going?  OJ


I mean, there's whataboutism and then there is complete non sequitur.
 
2020-06-16 5:07:57 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
That cop didn't go crazy.  That cop went cop.
 
2020-06-16 5:08:10 PM  
Now Fark wants to infect my computer with ad generated viruses. I will miss this place.
 
2020-06-16 5:10:09 PM  

EyeHaveRisen: [Fark user image 225x225]

Oh You!!!


/  Throat slicing and near decapitation are ok though
// How's that search for the killers going?  OJ


That is why OJ was innocent.
Buffalo Bills always choke.
 
2020-06-16 5:10:24 PM  
Do they have Wayne Brady teaching cops now?
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-16 5:11:29 PM  
As we're seeing with the current admin - if something is banned but there's enforcement mechanism then it's effectively not banned.
 
2020-06-16 5:12:06 PM  
Clubbing your neighbor: illegal
Teargassing your neighbor: illegal
Shooting your unarmed neighbor in the back as they lie prone upon the ground: illegal
Lying about your neighbor under oath in a court of law: illegal
Taking your neighbor's cash, jewelry, or lawn gnomes because you think those inanimate objects might have been adjacent to a crime: illegal

/I don't mean to start a movement or anything, but maybe it's time to fix the police.
//What? You say there's already such a movement in progress?
///Cool.
 
2020-06-16 5:19:10 PM  

Dedmon: Now Fark wants to infect my computer with ad generated viruses. I will miss this place.


Just open the developer tools in Chrome, find the "custombox-lock" class in the "body" element and change it to something else, like "custombox-lick" - and you're back in business.
 
2020-06-16 5:27:26 PM  

gopher321: Ban chokeholds.
Ban sidearms - non-lethal only.
Mandatory bodycams.
Civilian oversight on 100% of assaults.

I dunno...anything else?


We're way past the point where any of this is going to have any lasting effect.  Policing in America needs to be defunded, dismantled, and rebuilt from the ground up.
 
2020-06-16 5:27:50 PM  
Well maybe if you people didn't have such attractive necks!
 
2020-06-16 5:28:52 PM  
Police officers have returned time and time again to the neck restraint as a way to gain compliance.
"It is the vulnerability of every human being to have the most important organ in their body easily affected and directly affected by constricting the neck," Emery says.


You can't "gain compliance" by exerting a hold that will inevitably and predictability cause someone to fight for their survival. Instead, you "gain justification" for murder.
 
2020-06-16 5:29:07 PM  
Chokeholds are one of the better and safer ways of subduing someone, certainty better than hitting them with hands or a baton.  Done right a person will go out safely in a couple of seconds.

Of course you have to do it right and let go.  It is obvious in just about every video how poorly trained cops are when they attempt to grapple or control anyone.

/10 years of bjj
 
2020-06-16 5:29:13 PM  
Karate instructor demonstrated the chokehold that blocks blood to the brain, when done properly, puts a person out in under 10 seconds.

When you lay your forearm over the front of the person's neck, blocking their airway, you might be wrestling with them for minutes before they go unconscious.  Possible heart attack and brain damage may be included.

The problem with many of the chokehold deaths we have seen is they don't do it right and they do it for too long.  I'm fine with banning it but done properly (which is hard) it can end a confrontation quickly.
 
2020-06-16 5:33:11 PM  
It's really not a mystery at all. I'm quite sure there are quite a few really good police out there that joined for the right reasons, Etc. But my experience with them has been the idiots in school that everybody picked on and now it's his turn or her turn to play big man or big woman. Theyre power tripping dick heads. I've been thrown up against the wall because my goddamn shoe set off a metal detector on my way in to court to pay a parking ticket. They're assholes
 
2020-06-16 5:33:44 PM  
Here an idea. Don't ban them. Just write into law that any injury or death incident to a neck hold dissolves all qualified immunity and any penalties incurred as a result belong personally to the officer (or union, if that's how they want to roll). The problem will sort itself out real quick after the first few multi-million dollar judgements.
 
2020-06-16 5:39:00 PM  

gopher321: Ban chokeholds.
Ban sidearms - non-lethal only.
Mandatory bodycams.
Civilian oversight on 100% of assaults.

I dunno...anything else?


As it is written
(CA PC 835a--check your own state's law)
835a.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) That the authority to use physical force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a serious responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The Legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.
(2) As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.
(3) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers, in order to ensure that officers use force consistent with law and agency policies.
(4) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.

As it should be amended:
835a(4):
That the evaluation be made with the benefit of hindsight, and the totality of circumstances of the situation, and acknowledge that although officers may be forced to make quick judgements about the use of force that sometimes those judgments may be the wrong judgments and/or the use of force may be incorrect.
In order to protect both the public and the police officer, a subsection shall be added which shall acknowledge that:
In cases where the totality of circumstances indicates that the officer acted to the best of his ability at the time, but further review indicates that a) the judgment to use force was correct but the application was incorrect, or b) the judgement to use force was incorrect but the application was correct; these shall be considered mitigating circumstances in determining the proper penalty, if any.

See, the problem now is that since no hindsight may be used, the reviewing agency has to review it with the eyes of the cop on the scene at the time. Ergo, they MUST come up with the same result. There are only two results: Good arrest/bad arrest.

With my new review system, there would be four:
1. It was a good arrest and a good use of force.
2. It was a good arrest, but an improper use of force.
3. It was a bad arrest, but a proper use of force. (i.e., adhering to the department standards)
4. It was a bad arrest, and an improper use of force.

Suddenly, a cop can turn in his partner without fearing that EVERYTHING was bad. It could be that an arrest should have been made, just partner got a little overzealous; or that it was done right (nothing but a hookup and put in squad car) but it should not have been done. And the review board can find accordingly.

These finds CANNOT BE MADE under 835a as it stands now. Either the officer was right in doing what he did, or he was not. Or, I should say, these two alternatives are not being exercised, in which case they should be. But a reading of the law does not find that this can be done.
 
2020-06-16 6:32:57 PM  
It doesn't matter what you ban unless you undo the actual training of it.
 
2020-06-16 6:42:53 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-16 7:24:58 PM  
The police used neck restraints at least 237 times since 2015 and rendered 44 people unconscious

Fetish much?
 
2020-06-16 7:29:01 PM  
It's the Wariiors Code
 
2020-06-16 7:56:37 PM  
But now we have a EO banning it.  And of course it specifies that it's not a ban.
 
2020-06-16 8:18:55 PM  

Beta Tested: Chokeholds are one of the better and safer ways of subduing someone, certainty better than hitting them with hands or a baton.  Done right a person will go out safely in a couple of seconds.

Of course you have to do it right and let go.  It is obvious in just about every video how poorly trained cops are when they attempt to grapple or control anyone.

/10 years of bjj


I've also studied jiu jitsu, and completely concur in theory.  In the right hands, a blood choke is one of the least damaging ways available to forcibly neutralize the threat of a violent person.

The problem is, it simply doesn't matter how safe the technique is when properly applied- you could tell the current culture of police they're only allowed to use soft cushions to subdue people, and they'd still find a way to murder black men with them.

We need to change the entire way we think about policing, not just the tools.  Police currently steer any situation that doesn't go exactly the way they want toward the use of force.  That needs to stop immediately.  We need to adopt policies and fund agencies that prevent the circumstances that cause crime in the first place, instead of doing what Americans always do whenever they encounter a problem: ignore the root causes and declare war on it.

Defund, disband, bust the unions, and start over with better ideas.
 
2020-06-16 8:21:44 PM  

bighairyguy: It doesn't matter what you ban unless you undo the actual training of it.


The problem isn't the tools. It's the culture of the people wielding the tools.  Banning tools won't change a damn thing.
 
2020-06-16 8:32:55 PM  

Z-clipped: bighairyguy: It doesn't matter what you ban unless you undo the actual training of it.

The problem isn't the tools. It's the culture of the people wielding the tools.  Banning tools won't change a damn thing.


It would be a START, Christ.
 
2020-06-16 8:47:39 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Z-clipped: bighairyguy: It doesn't matter what you ban unless you undo the actual training of it.

The problem isn't the tools. It's the culture of the people wielding the tools.  Banning tools won't change a damn thing.

It would be a START, Christ.


No offense- I get what you're saying- but I think this is a dangerous and myopic assumption.  It ignores the fact that a huge chunk of white America has been continually placated its discomfort with systemic racism with conflict-avoidant incrementalism for the last 100 years or so.  The most likely effect of allowing policies like this into the limelight is for those very same people to consider the matter fixed and go back to voting for tough-on-crime policies and flooding our streets with more cops.  So yeah, it MIGHT be a start, but it probably WON'T be.

Incrementalism is never going to solve an institutional problem.  Ever.  We need to completely wipe out the current culture of policing and move toward a wholesale overhaul of our justice system.  Anything less will result in us being right back where we are in a depressingly short amount of time.
 
2020-06-16 9:21:39 PM  

Beta Tested: Chokeholds are one of the better and safer ways of subduing someone, certainty better than hitting them with hands or a baton.  Done right a person will go out safely in a couple of seconds.

Of course you have to do it right and let go.  It is obvious in just about every video how poorly trained cops are when they attempt to grapple or control anyone.

/10 years of bjj


Pity a arm lock can't be transitioned into cuffing... Alas, if only there was a technic that could impart such skills.

Choke holds are not allowed in sparring  because... they are too risky.

In a uncontrolled setting the risk is beyond any justification along with chances of prompting involuntary flight/fight responses from imperfect execution under pressure.

Awefully convenient if execution was always a acceptable outcome....
 
2020-06-16 9:57:17 PM  

Z-clipped: Gyrfalcon: Z-clipped: bighairyguy: It doesn't matter what you ban unless you undo the actual training of it.

The problem isn't the tools. It's the culture of the people wielding the tools.  Banning tools won't change a damn thing.

It would be a START, Christ.

No offense- I get what you're saying- but I think this is a dangerous and myopic assumption.  It ignores the fact that a huge chunk of white America has been continually placated its discomfort with systemic racism with conflict-avoidant incrementalism for the last 100 years or so.  The most likely effect of allowing policies like this into the limelight is for those very same people to consider the matter fixed and go back to voting for tough-on-crime policies and flooding our streets with more cops.  So yeah, it MIGHT be a start, but it probably WON'T be.

Incrementalism is never going to solve an institutional problem.  Ever.  We need to completely wipe out the current culture of policing and move toward a wholesale overhaul of our justice system.  Anything less will result in us being right back where we are in a depressingly short amount of time.


So until we can do everything, we should continue to do nothing.
 
2020-06-16 10:11:57 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Z-clipped: Gyrfalcon: Z-clipped: bighairyguy: It doesn't matter what you ban unless you undo the actual training of it.

The problem isn't the tools. It's the culture of the people wielding the tools.  Banning tools won't change a damn thing.

It would be a START, Christ.

No offense- I get what you're saying- but I think this is a dangerous and myopic assumption.  It ignores the fact that a huge chunk of white America has been continually placated its discomfort with systemic racism with conflict-avoidant incrementalism for the last 100 years or so.  The most likely effect of allowing policies like this into the limelight is for those very same people to consider the matter fixed and go back to voting for tough-on-crime policies and flooding our streets with more cops.  So yeah, it MIGHT be a start, but it probably WON'T be.

Incrementalism is never going to solve an institutional problem.  Ever.  We need to completely wipe out the current culture of policing and move toward a wholesale overhaul of our justice system.  Anything less will result in us being right back where we are in a depressingly short amount of time.

So until we can do everything, we should continue to do nothing.


Defunding, disbanding, and rebuilding our current police culture, while adopting a better, scientifically-supported approach to dealing with crime is a perfectly attainable goal.  We saw it work in Camden, NJ.  We're about to see a more comprehensive implementation work in Minneapolis.  Other major cities like L.A. are also making major cuts to their police budgets as a first step.

Many of the proposed changes, like vacating qualified immunity and increasing oversight are good ideas. What we shouldn't do is focus on the trees instead of the forest.  We should be discussing them as aspects of a new system of policing, not as amendments to the current system.  The majority of Americans are realizing that current system is fundamentally broken and ultimately doomed.  May as well get on the train, because it's leaving the station.
 
2020-06-17 4:15:34 AM  
Why is it so darn hard for police officers to follow the law?
 
2020-06-17 7:07:54 AM  
Obviously training doesn't do shiat in this case. We must throw a couple hundred of these cops in prison for life for them to get the message.
 
2020-06-17 10:59:22 AM  

Z-clipped: Gyrfalcon: Z-clipped: Gyrfalcon: Z-clipped: bighairyguy: It doesn't matter what you ban unless you undo the actual training of it.

The problem isn't the tools. It's the culture of the people wielding the tools.  Banning tools won't change a damn thing.

It would be a START, Christ.

No offense- I get what you're saying- but I think this is a dangerous and myopic assumption.  It ignores the fact that a huge chunk of white America has been continually placated its discomfort with systemic racism with conflict-avoidant incrementalism for the last 100 years or so.  The most likely effect of allowing policies like this into the limelight is for those very same people to consider the matter fixed and go back to voting for tough-on-crime policies and flooding our streets with more cops.  So yeah, it MIGHT be a start, but it probably WON'T be.

Incrementalism is never going to solve an institutional problem.  Ever.  We need to completely wipe out the current culture of policing and move toward a wholesale overhaul of our justice system.  Anything less will result in us being right back where we are in a depressingly short amount of time.

So until we can do everything, we should continue to do nothing.

Defunding, disbanding, and rebuilding our current police culture, while adopting a better, scientifically-supported approach to dealing with crime is a perfectly attainable goal.  We saw it work in Camden, NJ.  We're about to see a more comprehensive implementation work in Minneapolis.  Other major cities like L.A. are also making major cuts to their police budgets as a first step.

Many of the proposed changes, like vacating qualified immunity and increasing oversight are good ideas. What we shouldn't do is focus on the trees instead of the forest.  We should be discussing them as aspects of a new system of policing, not as amendments to the current system.  The majority of Americans are realizing that current system is fundamentally broken and ultimately doomed.  May as well get on the train, because it's leaving the station.


I'm just unclear on how what you're describing is different from what I'm describing. Neither one is going to happen overnight.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.