5 ms·

> When the officers deployed the stun gun to subdue Mr. Jones, he caught fire, Mr. Luibrand said. The article glosses over the fact if Jones was a threat to th

by V__ 5y ago

> When the officers deployed the stun gun to subdue Mr. Jones, he caught fire, Mr. Luibrand said. The article glosses over the fact if Jones was a threat to the police or not. Using tasers/stun guns to "just" subdue people has to stop. These are less-but-still-lethal weapons which should only be used in cases where a gun would be also appropriate.

nosianu 5y ago
> The article glosses over the fact if Jones was a threat to the police or not. It seems he was not: > “I think they were afraid he was going to hurt himself, and that’s what started it,” Chief Darling [the Catskill police chief] told The Times Union
- savant_penguin 5y ago
  "You better not hurt yourself! That's MY job! Stop resisting!!"
  - Anunayj 5y ago
    This reminds of this hilarious [1] Cyanide and Happiness Sketch on Youtube. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGWCQvjhHvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGWCQvjhHvc
rp1 5y ago
How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically. Cops also have guns strapped to their sides that can be reached for. I’m not justifying their behavior, but when I try to imagine subduing someone, I’m not really sure how I would do it. There is definitely room for tools that make it easier.
- krastanov 5y ago
  Usually the argument is "do not try to subdue them, try to de-escalate". Obviously that is not always possible, but before worrying about how to deal with the objectively complicated cases of subduing a belligerent person without hurting them, we should probably focus on the much more common problem of police escalating instead of de-escalating situations.
  - rp1 5y ago
    That’s not really an answer to the question. It would be nice if all situations could be de-escalated, but that’s obviously not the case. De-escalation also has its own risks for the officer. Again, not saying I support what happened, but it seems so hard to manage a situation with a belligerent person when I imagine trying to do it myself. Even doing something relatively benign, like removing a loitering person, is not something I’d want to attempt.
    - ectopod 5y ago
      Nightclub bouncers do this all the time. They don't have weapons or legal immunity or a fat pension or even a good salary. It should not be beyond the capability of police officers.
- treeman79 5y ago
  Perhaps people could be respectful toward authorities and follow directions when a stressful situation is happening. Deal with issues at a later point as appropriate.
  - mrsuprawsm 5y ago
    This comment is, with respect, wildly delusional. There are many instances of the "authorities" (the police) murdering people after issuing conflicting instructions, or even when people follow their instructions anyway. Furthermore, many of the people in said situations are often mentally ill (and thus require healthcare, not the police), or intoxicated.
    - dang 5y ago
      Please make your substantive points without name-calling. It never helps, and in the case where you point is correct, it's actively harmful—because in that case you're discrediting the truth and reinforcing people in rejecting it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- derefr 5y ago
  > How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically. Why not? We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors and carry people to safety; and a large part of their downtime is upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that. We hold all soldiers to the standard of being able to haul huge packs over miles while being shot at; and a large part of their downtime is also constant upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that. And, in fact, by closest analogy, we hold all EMS personnel (and also orderlies for in-patient wards) to the standard of being able to bodily subdue people who are in a state of violent delirium, to get them strapped onto a gurney. And, again, we expect them to work out to achieve and maintain the requisite level of physical fitness. So why can’t we hold all police to the standard of having the physical strength to bodily subdue people, and expect them to do the required upkeep on their physical fitness to enable that? (Yes, the people police are dealing with sometimes have weapons. Mostly they do not. Even in America; even in the most gun-carrying parts of America, they mostly do not. The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule. The expectations for police should be built around the requirements to carry out the general-case tactic [physical subdual of unarmed offender], not the requirements to carry out the exceptional-case tactic [armed takedown of armed offender].) And note that I’m not suggesting police go in and wrestle people to the ground. They should be using tools, like man-catchers. It’s just that those tools are just multipliers for the effectiveness of physical strength, and so you still need to be highly physically strong to make effective use of them in a one-on-one or two-on-one confrontation.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors Doors don't fight back. > The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule. If the person you're trying to subdue has a concealed weapon, this will get you killed.
- mrsuprawsm 5y ago
  There’s a fair number of videos from eg the UK where they do exactly this. The usual playbook seems to be: get a few people distracting the guy from the front, and another few rush them from the back whilst distracted and hit them with batons or just jump on them. Or just distract them for a long while and wait for more backup and people with shields. https://youtu.be/9mzPj_IaMzY https://youtu.be/9mzPj_IaMzY It takes a bit of effort and coordination but is obviously massively preferable to being executed on the spot by the state.
  - rp1 5y ago
    Having 10 officers beat an individual with clubs doesn’t exactly seem good either…
- V__ 5y ago
  But that's what police in a lot of countries, for example in Europe, are doing. Go 2 on 1 or call for backup and stall. If that is not possible they use peperspray and batons.
- IsThisYou 5y ago
  If there is no immediate threat, sometimes its better to use time. The person may well just calm down, think through the situation, and give in peacefully.
- Vrondi 5y ago
  I know that intelligence is not sought out in police candidates, but I think we need to be requiring a basic elementary school level of education, such as knowledge that "alcohol is flammable, and we don't apply electricity to flammable things". I mean the problem isn't just tasering; it is tasering someone drenched in alcohol. Kids know alcohol will burn, so were they trying to burn him to death intentionally, or are these officers really going to claim to be that stupid?
Natsu 5y ago
> At some point, Mr. Jones began to douse himself with hand sanitizer, Mr. Stanzione said. > “I think they were afraid he was going to hurt himself, and that’s what started it,” Chief Darling told The Times Union, calling the episode “horrible.” The irony here is that they were apparently trying to protect him from himself, but he was behaving very oddly by dumping sanitizer on himself. This doesn't sound like just a little bit on the hands, but more like someone dumping the jug over their head given what happened.
mgarfias 5y ago
Yep.
enaaem 5y ago
It suprises me why western law enforcement don’t use man catchers. https://youtu.be/Z4z-gzkb6s4 https://youtu.be/Z4z-gzkb6s4 Battons and pepper spray don’t work well. https://youtu.be/7M6-NLm0GBM https://youtu.be/7M6-NLm0GBM
- realce 5y ago
  I'm seriously interested in the use of netguns or bolo-guns or even some kind of goo-gun that can just trap people. Tazers and pepper spray are way too violent and ineffective. This one kinda works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yEYRxASpzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yEYRxASpzw
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    If you're spraying a rapidly solidifying goo, you'd need to be darn sure you don't cover the target's face or you're back where you started.
    - realce 5y ago
      Maybe something that could be dissolved with saliva? But then the crooks would just cover themselves in spit... We can't win!
- V__ 5y ago
  > Battons and pepper spray don’t work well. > https://youtu.be/7M6-NLm0GBM https://youtu.be/7M6-NLm0GBM I get your point, but I mean this is an edge case, and yet still after a few minutes they subdued him. Against anyone other than the Hulk they should work pretty reliably.
Acrobatic_Road 5y ago
Uh, no. Tasers are supposed to be used on non dangerous individuals, like drunks. If there's a real threat you don't want to be close enough to use a taser in the first place. If the taser fails, you're literally standing wide open close enough to be physically attacked.
- V__ 5y ago
  > on non dangerous individuals If an individual is not dangerous then only little physical force should be used. A taser is not that.
  - Acrobatic_Road 5y ago
    A non cooperative and non dangerous individual can quickly become dangerous. Tasers protect everyone from harm. Alternatives put more people at risk.
    - V__ 5y ago
      This line of thinking is, in my opinion, exactly the problem. Everything and everyone is a threat.

by V__ 5y ago

nosianu 5y ago

> The article glosses over the fact if Jones was a threat to the police or not. It seems he was not: > “I think they were afraid he was going to hurt himself, and that’s what started it,” Chief Darling [the Catskill police chief] told The Times Union

savant_penguin 5y ago
"You better not hurt yourself! That's MY job! Stop resisting!!"
- Anunayj 5y ago
  This reminds of this hilarious [1] Cyanide and Happiness Sketch on Youtube. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGWCQvjhHvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGWCQvjhHvc

rp1 5y ago

How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically. Cops also have guns strapped to their sides that can be reached for. I’m not justifying their behavior, but when I try to imagine subduing someone, I’m not really sure how I would do it. There is definitely room for tools that make it easier.

krastanov 5y ago
Usually the argument is "do not try to subdue them, try to de-escalate". Obviously that is not always possible, but before worrying about how to deal with the objectively complicated cases of subduing a belligerent person without hurting them, we should probably focus on the much more common problem of police escalating instead of de-escalating situations.
- rp1 5y ago
  That’s not really an answer to the question. It would be nice if all situations could be de-escalated, but that’s obviously not the case. De-escalation also has its own risks for the officer. Again, not saying I support what happened, but it seems so hard to manage a situation with a belligerent person when I imagine trying to do it myself. Even doing something relatively benign, like removing a loitering person, is not something I’d want to attempt.
  - ectopod 5y ago
    Nightclub bouncers do this all the time. They don't have weapons or legal immunity or a fat pension or even a good salary. It should not be beyond the capability of police officers.
treeman79 5y ago
Perhaps people could be respectful toward authorities and follow directions when a stressful situation is happening. Deal with issues at a later point as appropriate.
- mrsuprawsm 5y ago
  This comment is, with respect, wildly delusional. There are many instances of the "authorities" (the police) murdering people after issuing conflicting instructions, or even when people follow their instructions anyway. Furthermore, many of the people in said situations are often mentally ill (and thus require healthcare, not the police), or intoxicated.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please make your substantive points without name-calling. It never helps, and in the case where you point is correct, it's actively harmful—because in that case you're discrediting the truth and reinforcing people in rejecting it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
derefr 5y ago
> How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically. Why not? We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors and carry people to safety; and a large part of their downtime is upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that. We hold all soldiers to the standard of being able to haul huge packs over miles while being shot at; and a large part of their downtime is also constant upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that. And, in fact, by closest analogy, we hold all EMS personnel (and also orderlies for in-patient wards) to the standard of being able to bodily subdue people who are in a state of violent delirium, to get them strapped onto a gurney. And, again, we expect them to work out to achieve and maintain the requisite level of physical fitness. So why can’t we hold all police to the standard of having the physical strength to bodily subdue people, and expect them to do the required upkeep on their physical fitness to enable that? (Yes, the people police are dealing with sometimes have weapons. Mostly they do not. Even in America; even in the most gun-carrying parts of America, they mostly do not. The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule. The expectations for police should be built around the requirements to carry out the general-case tactic [physical subdual of unarmed offender], not the requirements to carry out the exceptional-case tactic [armed takedown of armed offender].) And note that I’m not suggesting police go in and wrestle people to the ground. They should be using tools, like man-catchers. It’s just that those tools are just multipliers for the effectiveness of physical strength, and so you still need to be highly physically strong to make effective use of them in a one-on-one or two-on-one confrontation.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors Doors don't fight back. > The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule. If the person you're trying to subdue has a concealed weapon, this will get you killed.
mrsuprawsm 5y ago
There’s a fair number of videos from eg the UK where they do exactly this. The usual playbook seems to be: get a few people distracting the guy from the front, and another few rush them from the back whilst distracted and hit them with batons or just jump on them. Or just distract them for a long while and wait for more backup and people with shields. https://youtu.be/9mzPj_IaMzY https://youtu.be/9mzPj_IaMzY It takes a bit of effort and coordination but is obviously massively preferable to being executed on the spot by the state.
- rp1 5y ago
  Having 10 officers beat an individual with clubs doesn’t exactly seem good either…
V__ 5y ago
But that's what police in a lot of countries, for example in Europe, are doing. Go 2 on 1 or call for backup and stall. If that is not possible they use peperspray and batons.
IsThisYou 5y ago
If there is no immediate threat, sometimes its better to use time. The person may well just calm down, think through the situation, and give in peacefully.
Vrondi 5y ago
I know that intelligence is not sought out in police candidates, but I think we need to be requiring a basic elementary school level of education, such as knowledge that "alcohol is flammable, and we don't apply electricity to flammable things". I mean the problem isn't just tasering; it is tasering someone drenched in alcohol. Kids know alcohol will burn, so were they trying to burn him to death intentionally, or are these officers really going to claim to be that stupid?

Natsu 5y ago

> At some point, Mr. Jones began to douse himself with hand sanitizer, Mr. Stanzione said. > “I think they were afraid he was going to hurt himself, and that’s what started it,” Chief Darling told The Times Union, calling the episode “horrible.” The irony here is that they were apparently trying to protect him from himself, but he was behaving very oddly by dumping sanitizer on himself. This doesn't sound like just a little bit on the hands, but more like someone dumping the jug over their head given what happened.

mgarfias 5y ago

Yep.

enaaem 5y ago

It suprises me why western law enforcement don’t use man catchers. https://youtu.be/Z4z-gzkb6s4 https://youtu.be/Z4z-gzkb6s4 Battons and pepper spray don’t work well. https://youtu.be/7M6-NLm0GBM https://youtu.be/7M6-NLm0GBM

realce 5y ago
I'm seriously interested in the use of netguns or bolo-guns or even some kind of goo-gun that can just trap people. Tazers and pepper spray are way too violent and ineffective. This one kinda works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yEYRxASpzw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yEYRxASpzw
- nitrogen 5y ago
  If you're spraying a rapidly solidifying goo, you'd need to be darn sure you don't cover the target's face or you're back where you started.
  - realce 5y ago
    Maybe something that could be dissolved with saliva? But then the crooks would just cover themselves in spit... We can't win!
V__ 5y ago
> Battons and pepper spray don’t work well. > https://youtu.be/7M6-NLm0GBM https://youtu.be/7M6-NLm0GBM I get your point, but I mean this is an edge case, and yet still after a few minutes they subdued him. Against anyone other than the Hulk they should work pretty reliably.

Acrobatic_Road 5y ago

Uh, no. Tasers are supposed to be used on non dangerous individuals, like drunks. If there's a real threat you don't want to be close enough to use a taser in the first place. If the taser fails, you're literally standing wide open close enough to be physically attacked.

V__ 5y ago
> on non dangerous individuals If an individual is not dangerous then only little physical force should be used. A taser is not that.
- Acrobatic_Road 5y ago
  A non cooperative and non dangerous individual can quickly become dangerous. Tasers protect everyone from harm. Alternatives put more people at risk.
  - V__ 5y ago
    This line of thinking is, in my opinion, exactly the problem. Everything and everyone is a threat.