5 ms·

Can you give me (or via comment or a link) an example of a hypothetical scenario in which force is required, but unarmed force won't do?

by jMyles 9y ago

sokoloff 9y ago
A combative 6'2", 215# body-builder high on PCP or methamphetamine, acting aggressively in a public place. If that's not enough, give him a bat or a knife as well.
- Zigurd 9y ago
  This is an example of a lazy argument for not being taken from a real-world case that isn't an outlier, and one that is compatible with the image of police portrayed on cop shows, so people are conditioned to glom onto it. It also ignores cases where private security has to deal with violent drunks (not an outlier at all) without tasers. And this is how poor police performance in the US continues to get a pass.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    GP called for a hypothetical example. I provided. I'm sorry that you feel that's lazy. Would you share with us how you'd prefer the police to handle that situation?
    - pjc50 9y ago
      The UK police would handle it with a combination of CS spray and side-handled batons. https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/disclosure-logs/2014_218_foi2014514185_use_of_force_policy2.pdf https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/file... actually provides a worked example, including the paperwork you need to fill out after whacking someone in the head.
    - Zigurd 9y ago
      I explained that by way of pointing out the omission of addressing how private security manages to do their job without sometimes fatal electric torture devices.
      - sokoloff 9y ago
        Private security usually has the advantage that they are only concerned with getting the subject off/out of their property. If it gets more than they can handle, they call the police. The police have to handle the situation with realistically no backstop and don't have the luxury of calling it quits when the problem moves over some arbitrary line on a map.
        Zigurd 9y ago
        No backstop? Deescalation, backing off, and calling for sufficient help to handle a situation with a minimum of violence is exactly how better-performing police in civilized places do it.
- Retric 9y ago
  A friend was actually high on PCP, trained in martial arts, had a baseball bat, and was beating on a row of expensive cars. It took 6 cops to restrain him, but frankly the cops where never in significant danger so that was a rational response on their part. Granted, he was not 215 lb, but it's still close to what your describing and nobody got shot. Just raw physical force and handcuffs from several well trained cops. PS: He also just got probation, but that's the rich, white, clean record advantage in action.
  - infinite8s 9y ago
    > PS: He also just got probation, but that's the rich, white, clean record advantage in action. That's probably the reason he wasn't shot dead by the police.
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    Why are you friends with this person?
    - InitialLastName 9y ago
      Not GP, but... ... sometimes your friends make stupid decisions after you've befriended them ... sometimes you befriend people who have made stupid decisions in the past ... sometimes you make stupid decisions with your friends
    - Retric 9y ago
      Well we group up together. But, you are also jugging him from one incident. He also volunteered regularly and was generally just a nice guy who sometimes did really dumb things.
      - Simon_says 9y ago
        Thanks for answering. I guess I didn't mean my question to come off as a condescending or rhetorical question. I was hoping he had redeeming qualities. But getting high on PCP and busting up people's cars and getting into rows with the police is still pretty anti-social behavior.
- jMyles 9y ago
  As a lowly brown-belt at a dojo in a small town, I've actually trained (or at least begun the training of) several police officers. The things I'd tell them in response to your hypothetical: * If somebody is attacking somebody with a deadly weapon, you don't use a stun-gun, and neither to do the police. You use a 9mm. * In the unarmed scenario, you need two trained police officers. Two people, well-trained and with good teamwork, can usually restrain even a huge, out-of-control person. If they can't, I advocate adding more peacekeepers (police officers or other trained citizens), not more weapons. Additionally, the scenario you describe is fairly rare. I prefer adding what might seem like logistical inconveniences to very rare scenarios if it means adding clarity and peace to much more common ones. (side note: a very senior practitioner in my lineage was kicked out of the association in large part because, as a police officer, he was found to have acted brutally and unethically - his name is not even mentioned at my dojo. That might give you a sense of the commitment to good purpose that at least some martial arts schools have regarding training agents of the state.)
  - tombrossman 9y ago
    > In the unarmed scenario, you need two trained police officers. Two people, well-trained and with good teamwork, can usually restrain even a huge, out-of-control person. This simply is not true. There are plenty of videos out there showing one out of control person fighting off more than two cops. I used to work in a busy hospital ER on a military base, and the military police would frequently bring in drunks they arrested. On a regular basis, it would take four military police plus me and maybe another medic (if they were available) to properly restrain people. Some would fight so fiercely that they were at great risk of harming themselves, and controlling this was often the biggest part of the problem. You can't just sit on them, you have to subdue them properly. If someone is threatening your life you can choose to use deadly force in self-defense, but if not then you have to restrain them, and this takes a lot of work. Put two 'well trained' cops against one determined drunk or druggie, and you get three injured people. This is not a trivial problem.
    - jMyles 9y ago
      > This simply is not true. There are plenty of videos out there showing one out of control person fighting off more than two cops. Can you show me a video where two people (police or otherwise) show good sense and martial arts training and are still unable to restrain someone? One of the most common things I see in these videos (and I've seen it in person, even with cops I respect) is stepping the wrong way through an armbar. Standing armbar is, without a doubt, the #1 go-to technique for police and bouncers who are trying to restrain someone without using a weapon. If I see a video of stepping forward through an armbar instead of back, I instantly know that our system has failed that police officer in terms of understanding how their body works vis a vis restraining someone. It's totally true that, occasionally, a single person can make themselves impossible to restrain even by two people. Even more rarely, the person in question can continue to harm other people or property. In that scenario, as I said, I think it's better for society to commit more people to the situation rather than (what I think is the lazy and destructive inclination to) add less lethal weapons.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Can you give me (or via comment or a link) an example of a hypothetical scenario in which force is required, but unarmed force won't do?

by jMyles 9y ago

Can you give me (or via comment or a link) an example of a hypothetical scenario in which force is required, but unarmed force won't do?

sokoloff 9y ago

A combative 6'2", 215# body-builder high on PCP or methamphetamine, acting aggressively in a public place. If that's not enough, give him a bat or a knife as well.

Zigurd 9y ago
This is an example of a lazy argument for not being taken from a real-world case that isn't an outlier, and one that is compatible with the image of police portrayed on cop shows, so people are conditioned to glom onto it. It also ignores cases where private security has to deal with violent drunks (not an outlier at all) without tasers. And this is how poor police performance in the US continues to get a pass.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  GP called for a hypothetical example. I provided. I'm sorry that you feel that's lazy. Would you share with us how you'd prefer the police to handle that situation?
  - pjc50 9y ago
    The UK police would handle it with a combination of CS spray and side-handled batons. https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/disclosure-logs/2014_218_foi2014514185_use_of_force_policy2.pdf https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/file... actually provides a worked example, including the paperwork you need to fill out after whacking someone in the head.
  - Zigurd 9y ago
    I explained that by way of pointing out the omission of addressing how private security manages to do their job without sometimes fatal electric torture devices.
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      Private security usually has the advantage that they are only concerned with getting the subject off/out of their property. If it gets more than they can handle, they call the police. The police have to handle the situation with realistically no backstop and don't have the luxury of calling it quits when the problem moves over some arbitrary line on a map.
      - Zigurd 9y ago
        No backstop? Deescalation, backing off, and calling for sufficient help to handle a situation with a minimum of violence is exactly how better-performing police in civilized places do it.
Retric 9y ago
A friend was actually high on PCP, trained in martial arts, had a baseball bat, and was beating on a row of expensive cars. It took 6 cops to restrain him, but frankly the cops where never in significant danger so that was a rational response on their part. Granted, he was not 215 lb, but it's still close to what your describing and nobody got shot. Just raw physical force and handcuffs from several well trained cops. PS: He also just got probation, but that's the rich, white, clean record advantage in action.
- infinite8s 9y ago
  > PS: He also just got probation, but that's the rich, white, clean record advantage in action. That's probably the reason he wasn't shot dead by the police.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  Why are you friends with this person?
  - InitialLastName 9y ago
    Not GP, but... ... sometimes your friends make stupid decisions after you've befriended them ... sometimes you befriend people who have made stupid decisions in the past ... sometimes you make stupid decisions with your friends
  - Retric 9y ago
    Well we group up together. But, you are also jugging him from one incident. He also volunteered regularly and was generally just a nice guy who sometimes did really dumb things.
    - Simon_says 9y ago
      Thanks for answering. I guess I didn't mean my question to come off as a condescending or rhetorical question. I was hoping he had redeeming qualities. But getting high on PCP and busting up people's cars and getting into rows with the police is still pretty anti-social behavior.
jMyles 9y ago
As a lowly brown-belt at a dojo in a small town, I've actually trained (or at least begun the training of) several police officers. The things I'd tell them in response to your hypothetical: * If somebody is attacking somebody with a deadly weapon, you don't use a stun-gun, and neither to do the police. You use a 9mm. * In the unarmed scenario, you need two trained police officers. Two people, well-trained and with good teamwork, can usually restrain even a huge, out-of-control person. If they can't, I advocate adding more peacekeepers (police officers or other trained citizens), not more weapons. Additionally, the scenario you describe is fairly rare. I prefer adding what might seem like logistical inconveniences to very rare scenarios if it means adding clarity and peace to much more common ones. (side note: a very senior practitioner in my lineage was kicked out of the association in large part because, as a police officer, he was found to have acted brutally and unethically - his name is not even mentioned at my dojo. That might give you a sense of the commitment to good purpose that at least some martial arts schools have regarding training agents of the state.)
- tombrossman 9y ago
  > In the unarmed scenario, you need two trained police officers. Two people, well-trained and with good teamwork, can usually restrain even a huge, out-of-control person. This simply is not true. There are plenty of videos out there showing one out of control person fighting off more than two cops. I used to work in a busy hospital ER on a military base, and the military police would frequently bring in drunks they arrested. On a regular basis, it would take four military police plus me and maybe another medic (if they were available) to properly restrain people. Some would fight so fiercely that they were at great risk of harming themselves, and controlling this was often the biggest part of the problem. You can't just sit on them, you have to subdue them properly. If someone is threatening your life you can choose to use deadly force in self-defense, but if not then you have to restrain them, and this takes a lot of work. Put two 'well trained' cops against one determined drunk or druggie, and you get three injured people. This is not a trivial problem.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    > This simply is not true. There are plenty of videos out there showing one out of control person fighting off more than two cops. Can you show me a video where two people (police or otherwise) show good sense and martial arts training and are still unable to restrain someone? One of the most common things I see in these videos (and I've seen it in person, even with cops I respect) is stepping the wrong way through an armbar. Standing armbar is, without a doubt, the #1 go-to technique for police and bouncers who are trying to restrain someone without using a weapon. If I see a video of stepping forward through an armbar instead of back, I instantly know that our system has failed that police officer in terms of understanding how their body works vis a vis restraining someone. It's totally true that, occasionally, a single person can make themselves impossible to restrain even by two people. Even more rarely, the person in question can continue to harm other people or property. In that scenario, as I said, I think it's better for society to commit more people to the situation rather than (what I think is the lazy and destructive inclination to) add less lethal weapons.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]