First off, “choke hold” can mean a lot of different things. Pressure on the neck can be applied in a variety of ways. Some, like the “carotid restraint” are relatively safe and effective. On the other hand, pressure on the trachea can collapse it and is very risky.
I think part of the problem is a result of Hasty Generalization - we think “choke hold” and picture Eric Garner or George Floyd on the ground and being “choked” by an officer in a clearly superior position. But those are just examples of poorly administered “choke holds”. In fact, I don’t think knee pressure to the neck is in any way an approved hold and shouldn’t be treated as such. And it’s hard to imagine a case where an already restrained subject needs to be choked at all.
But not all fights with subjects end with the officer winning. Cops are not supermen (or women). It’s not unusual for an officer to end up in a one-on-one struggle with a larger subject. It could be a 140 lb female officer knocked to the ground by a muscular 200+ lb male. In that event, the officer should be able to fight back with any and all means necessary - losing the fight can mean serious injury or death. Subjects are not necessarily adhering to anything close to Marquis of Queensbury rules - they may bite and gouge and choke and whatever in a struggle. To forbid an officer to use a technique which may be the only one available is unreasonable.
In addition, I recall that in more than a few fights I’d have a subject swing and miss, giving me an opportunity to get a hold on their neck to facilitate a throw that ended up with me on top on the ground with some control as long as I didn’t let go of their neck. I’d not apply pressure so as to choke them, but I’ll bet it could look like a choke hold to a bystander.
I rarely agree with Trump, but in this case I agree that any “ban” on choke holds must include an exception for cases where the officer’s life is in danger. Sure, that opens up an opportunity to abuse that exception, but it makes perfect sense. To me, anyway.
I think part of the problem is a result of Hasty Generalization - we think “choke hold” and picture Eric Garner or George Floyd on the ground and being “choked” by an officer in a clearly superior position. But those are just examples of poorly administered “choke holds”. In fact, I don’t think knee pressure to the neck is in any way an approved hold and shouldn’t be treated as such. And it’s hard to imagine a case where an already restrained subject needs to be choked at all.
But not all fights with subjects end with the officer winning. Cops are not supermen (or women). It’s not unusual for an officer to end up in a one-on-one struggle with a larger subject. It could be a 140 lb female officer knocked to the ground by a muscular 200+ lb male. In that event, the officer should be able to fight back with any and all means necessary - losing the fight can mean serious injury or death. Subjects are not necessarily adhering to anything close to Marquis of Queensbury rules - they may bite and gouge and choke and whatever in a struggle. To forbid an officer to use a technique which may be the only one available is unreasonable.
In addition, I recall that in more than a few fights I’d have a subject swing and miss, giving me an opportunity to get a hold on their neck to facilitate a throw that ended up with me on top on the ground with some control as long as I didn’t let go of their neck. I’d not apply pressure so as to choke them, but I’ll bet it could look like a choke hold to a bystander.
I rarely agree with Trump, but in this case I agree that any “ban” on choke holds must include an exception for cases where the officer’s life is in danger. Sure, that opens up an opportunity to abuse that exception, but it makes perfect sense. To me, anyway.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3e9FI1S
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire