Broken Neck Caused by Take-down Technique

thomas pendrake

thomas pendrake

Active Member
In the last few months there have been at least two well publicized deaths resulting from dangerous take-down techniques being used by police officers, in both cases for minor infractions. The case of Eric Garner involved what I was taught in the Army as a killing technique, the rear stranglehold take-down (forbidden in NYC as a "choke hold"), and the latest in Baltimore, the case of Freddy Gray. Controversy about when Freddie's neck was broken has suggested that the problem may have resulted from no seat-belt during a "rough ride" around the city, but video of the original arrest shows him being slammed to the ground, his neck twisted to one side, and an officer heavily placing his knee to the back of his neck. When he was then carried to the van, his legs were hanging limply, suggesting that his neck was already broken at that point.

The point is that there seems to be a serious danger of injury with the current man-handling of civilians that is often used in arresting people, often when there is no serious resistance. What can be done to improve the handling of civilians ? How many deaths are acceptable?
 
Of course, no deaths are acceptable, and that would be the ideal situation. To be honest, where there's no resistance, I don't see ANY reason for the exertion of force. There are of course going to be various reasons that result in death including accidents, officers retaliating in kind to defend themselves or indeed shoddy practices by maybe some bent officers. I'm not sure what can be done to guard against the accidental or deliberate death of a supposed criminal at the hands of police officers.

Let's face it, sometimes it can't even be established whether it was accidental or not, self defence or not. You also can't rule out the fact that police officers will always have each other's backs regardless of the circumstance. Who knows, maybe sometimes it happens because they are simply sick to the back teeth of having to constantly deal with pesky individuals, who they could do with making to disappear? IDK, I'm just speculating :(
 
Of course, when an officer lets personal anger or pride (do what I say, don't question me.....) it can cause problems, but I am talking about the basic techniques used being dangerous. Some jurisdictions allow what I was taught in the Army as a kill take-down (we called it a rear stranglehold take-down), NYC does not allow it (that is what killed Eric Garner). However, in NYC it is only a matter of police policy, the law allows it. The way it was done in the video I have seen makes it easy to break the neck, but Garner was basically strangled. The take-downs I have seen always involve a severe twisting of the neck. Perhaps if these means of mistreating prisoners were used less, people would be less likely to run in fear. Having watched interactions between police and young black males, I can understand why they are afraid and may panic. When the interactions are polite and respectful, it tends to work both ways.
I cannot help but to always think that police officers work for me: I pay their salaries. I have been stopped when traveling late at night on legitimate business and been told outright lies, even been told that I was speeding when I had an automatic speed control set so that I would not accidentally speed in this particular town. I have had officers tell me that they had a report of a vehicle resembling mine doing something suspicious. ( I had the Sheriff in my home county verify that it was a lie the next day). The police in that particular town were being investigated by both State and Federal authorities for running a "speed trap" and issuing totally fraudulent tickets.

I want to mention that I have seen other police jurisdictions react to corrupt police forces and help close them down. When it becomes obvious, the good cops step up and do something most of the time. I hope that the current series of events will encourage the good majority to say that it's time to clean house. I don't want to look at police as the enemy. Most of my life I have known many good, honest law enforcement officers. I have also known some criminals hiding behind badges. They are the worst kind of criminal. I have seen good cops die because of the bad ones.
 
thomas pendrake said:
The point is that there seems to be a serious danger of injury with the current man-handling of civilians that is often used in arresting people, often when there is no serious resistance. What can be done to improve the handling of civilians ? How many deaths are acceptable?
Click to expand...

No deaths are acceptable at all. To be honest, a gunshot to the leg would have had far less serious consequences than the physical force which was used.

I am in no way condoning this by the way but I do wonder if cops actually know what it it that they are meant to be doing. They keep being told they are to use their guns as a last resort only, yet the way that Gray was taken down appears to have been unnecessarily forceful. Where is the happy medium?
 
Omg I know! There is no need to be so rough with these people unless they're resisting. Often times, yes, they are doing just that, but seriously.. a knee to the back of the neck? And the suffocations that are happening as well? Especially within the special needs community. I'm sorry, but even the most well meaning have to do what they've been trained to do and I honestly believe it's all wrong.
 
This is a horrifying situation! I don't understand this rash of police takedowns that result in death. It seems like the reasons sometimes are so stupid, like a man re-selling his own cigarettes! What's wrong with a cop tackling a person, just a full body tackle? Instead they jump up and grab them around the neck and drag them down to the ground in a very dangerous way! A lot of times I favor the cops, but this kind of policy really bothers me.
 
While there is a valid point of self-defense I feel that there are better alternatives which are non-fatal, such as the Taser. Hopefully police will phase out such a dangerous technique from being taught or endorsed.
 
I am pleased to see that so many people agree that better techniques need to be employed. I don't think that there is necessarily a rash of police killings, just more awareness. Some people seem to think that racial prejudice has increased since President Obama was elected. I think that the fact is just that it isn't being ignored as much as it was.
I also think that there is a problem with advocacy of the Himmleresque policy of "broken Window" policing. Eric Garner was executed for selling loose cigarettes, already taxed. They were not stolen, and no one accused him of selling to minors. The cop could have just talked to him, explained that he needed to be careful where he was (in front of a business selling packs run by a person of another race) and told him to not be obvious. "Don't sweat the small stuff!!"
 
thomas pendrake said:
I am pleased to see that so many people agree that better techniques need to be employed. I don't think that there is necessarily a rash of police killings, just more awareness. Some people seem to think that racial prejudice has increased since President Obama was elected. I think that the fact is just that it isn't being ignored as much as it was.
I also think that there is a problem with advocacy of the Himmleresque policy of "broken Window" policing. Eric Garner was executed for selling loose cigarettes, already taxed. They were not stolen, and no one accused him of selling to minors. The cop could have just talked to him, explained that he needed to be careful where he was (in front of a business selling packs run by a person of another race) and told him to not be obvious. "Don't sweat the small stuff!!"
Click to expand...

I think you are spot on here. Honestly though, there shouldn't be as many things criminalized as there are in the first place! We've already seen over the past few decades how the war on drugs has torn lives to shreds over the smallest of infractions. I also agree that the number of people killed by police is just a matter of awareness.

As for your OP, I think that these kinds of risky take-downs shouldn't even be taught at the academy (if they are that is). There are other ways to take down a suspect in a controlled manner that won't risk their life. I don't think that the officers in these two cases have an excuse for their actions. There were better ways to perform their duties that didn't involve ending a life. That's the bottom line.
 
The 18th amendment established organized crime as a significant force in America. When it was repealed, Marijuana prohibition was established to save police jobs, help organized crime thrive, and protect Randolph Hearst's newsprint monopoly. Other drug prohibitions were enacted to protect various vested interests, and because of various racial prejudices. The anti-"white slavery" league advocated for prohibition of prostitution, but has long since reversed it's stand because anti-prostitution laws foster "white slavery". I once read an Utopian short-story where there were only two laws: don't bother someone else, and don't let someone else bother you ( in other words, mind your own business.
Laws should have more to do with problems that effect large numbers of people, and obvious property or personal damage. Teach morality, don't try to legislate it.
 
thomas pendrake said:
In the last few months there have been at least two well publicized deaths resulting from dangerous take-down techniques being used by police officers, in both cases for minor infractions. The case of Eric Garner involved what I was taught in the Army as a killing technique, the rear stranglehold take-down (forbidden in NYC as a "choke hold"), and the latest in Baltimore, the case of Freddy Gray. Controversy about when Freddie's neck was broken has suggested that the problem may have resulted from no seat-belt during a "rough ride" around the city, but video of the original arrest shows him being slammed to the ground, his neck twisted to one side, and an officer heavily placing his knee to the back of his neck. When he was then carried to the van, his legs were hanging limply, suggesting that his neck was already broken at that point.

The point is that there seems to be a serious danger of injury with the current man-handling of civilians that is often used in arresting people, often when there is no serious resistance. What can be done to improve the handling of civilians ? How many deaths are acceptable?
Click to expand...

It is called take down technique for a reason.There can't be a resistance to the over oppressive technique.People never really can't do the defense technique when they never really don't have a technique to resist.
 
missbishi said:
No deaths are acceptable at all. To be honest, a gunshot to the leg would have had far less serious consequences than the physical force which was used...
Click to expand...

This is something I talk about all the time. Let me begin by: I know the argument. I know if an officer is willing to use his gun that means his life is in danger & that's why he shoots where he shoots. Come on now, though? You know full well as I do there are situations where shooting someone in the chest, head, BACK are not necessary. I should hope as an officer you've been trained in gun use & accuracy. You should have the ability to aim & fire at the area you're trying to hit. A shot in the arm or leg may be sufficient enough (I'm speaking in extreme cases not general citizen infractions OF COURSE).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top