No sound, let alone words, can come from the air way (mouth) because the choke hold prevents air from passing by the vocal chords.
True or False ?

are you planning to choke some1?

there is a difference between a complete blockage, and a blockage where you cant get enough oxygen.

sure, a complete blockage in the right location would silence you, but more than likely you wont have a complete blockage, or that blockage will be in the wrong location to mute.

a choke hold rarely created a complete blockage of the wind pipe. more than likely its effectivness is in the reduced circulation of blood to the brain causing a blackout.

panic raises the need for oxygen as the body kicks into overdrive. this further complicates tings with this reduced blood and air flow.


source: because i said so

easy test, choke yourself and try to make sounds

as mr ford said. Depends on how strong the choke hold and the degree of airway obstruction.
Just because you can talk doesn't mean you are getting enough air into your lungs.

big difference between being choked and being strangled!

I don't always strangle my chicken


🐓


But when I do, he vomits

who the heck uses the word "strangled"

is it 1914?

I hope you're not trying to defend them cops.

note: i know the difference, but the word is just old feeling

is strangled really a dated word?

Assuming we are talking about the 'thing' ?

A 350+ pound man with asthma was put into an extremely exciting situation. Nevermind the inability to breathe, anyone with a heart condition that gets an extreme rush (positive or negative) is sitting on a fatal crossroad. The fact that his airways were restricted would have been enough to self induce his fatal collapse; from sheer anxiety.

Is that the case? No one can say. Go watch some cops.

http://bit.ly/1yx98Oo

This was not an extreme takedown. It looks pretty much standard.

The extremeness is here: Go ahead and watch any of those above COPS video's. From like, what 20 years now?

Never do they take down someone, who is not blatantly violent or resisting arrest. This guy was neither :(


I can't see any other way to boil it down:

1. The police did not murder him.
2. The Police are 100% at fault for procedure.


It would be cool if we could just burn the police responsible at the stake. Fry e'm up. But that wouldn't be fair to law enforcement either.

I think the answer is http://www.zombo.com

I have been wondering about 'the thing', and just wanted to talk about 'the thing.'

Very sorry for interrupting your thread on whether or not people can scream when you choke or strangle them hah! =)

great. now this thread will be locked!

They have some sort of negligence in his death and that should be handled in court.

court? was anything there illegal or just against procedure? was there malicious intent or just a series of poor decisions that lead to a tragic death?

court needs to be criminal, unless you are talking about a civil case.

it has been stated many times that the officer violated department policy, and will more than likely be disciplined. if you want to start prosecuting officers whole sale when events go bad you will limit the effectiveness of the police force. oficers will stop thinking about their job and start thinking about self preservation.

be careful what you wish for. be careful the precedent you wish to set here.



that being said, dont get this thread locked with the bullfluff i know is incoming on this topic.

/grabs popcorn

Seems to me, all you antagonists didn't really get that I was talking about cats. I love cats. Really.

Since we're already tangentially discussing moderation stuff: I'm pretty sure all of the mods would prefer to keep stuff open. A lock would likely only be warranted if the whole thread turned to fluff and became completely irredeemable rather than simply because a few people tried to ruin it for everyone; easier to just delete the posts and ban those responsible.

That said, please heed mrford's warning, especially if you've already been warned recently. Ignoring a warning likely results in a ban.

wtf, you cant just take my segue, take a word out, and use it too

get your own fluff modscum!

Iccyh sucks at being a mod.

I didn't even realize I'd done that. Originality is overrated anyway :P

req didnt even respond to my post

fairly disappointing after the affirmed statement he made.

*segway ;)

incorrect. segway is a scooter. segue is a transition term

i googled that fluff while writing that post hoe.

Well, I could totally take his segway and use it.

i feel insulted that you feel that i might own one of those things!

if i touched anyone in the line of work, i would be subject to disciplinary procedings - fired being the absolute minimum
if i struck them, i would be criminally charged with assault - 6-8 years in prison, no backup from work and unable to ever work in the sector again
if i caused their death by placing my arm / hands around their neck - 20 years to life ... it is very tempting at times

i dont see the relevance of that statement here though. you are not a law enforcement officer are you?

did you give your password to marshal?

If officers can't restrain people without causing death, they shouldn't be restraining people; death isn't an appropriate level of risk for any interaction with law enforcement where imminent harm isn't an issue. This would absolutely make it more difficult for police to do their jobs, but agents of the state should not be killing people without due process or a threat of imminent harm. The cost to the individual (dead), to police (who have public faith undermined) and society (who lose faith in the police) is far higher than the cost to police if they have to change how they work.

If officers can't follow their own guidelines and commit a crime in the line of duty, they should absolutely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. In the US, it seems the only time that grand juries don't come back with an indictment is when it involves law enforcement. This is exactly the kind of thing that will undermine trust in important public institutions like the police and prosecutors. If people don't trust the police, it changes how they interact with them and makes everything more risky for everyone. The best course of action is for the police and prosecutors to act in a transparent and trustworthy manner.

since you missed it, fordy ;P

you are making the assumption that they had an intent on killing him. they did not. im not sure where the criminal aspect of your argument comes into play here.

his death was caused by the choke hold, maybe, but it sure as fluff was compounded by his physical condition. you are almost operating under the assumption that officers run around choking people out every day breaking rules and trying to harm people, making this specific tragic case larger than it really is.

you want criminal prosecution, then please tell me the charges you would bring against him? negligent manslaughter could be the only one i could think of and i highly doubt a jury would not find reasonable doubt when the medical aspects were brought into play.

once again, you are judging this officer from hindsight. that is a dangerous practice to make standard. let the department handle his discipline as it was a procedure violation that resulted in death.

both sides are at fault. the cops killed him, the cops didnt mean to kill him. OR stated that already.

as for transparent and trustworthy, please provide an example of non-transparent and untrustworthy actions by prosecutors and police after the fact in this instance. there are none. it was a grand jury's decision.


the problem is people keep taking this to a systematic level automatically instead of looking at the individual cases on their merits. police brutality exists. it is not as wide scale as some here seem to be preaching about.

You don't have to intentionally kill someone for the death to be criminal, and I'm not assuming that there was ever intent to kill. Things like negligence or involuntary manslaughter would absolutely seem to fit the bill in this case: regardless of someone's condition, if an officer doesn't take the appropriate level of care then they're criminally liable.

If the jury finds the officer not guilty, then that's fine (for now), at least it has gone to a jury and that's an improvement over the current situation.

I'm not judging this officer from hindsight, I'm laying down an argument about values and principles that can and should apply in cases beyond this specific one. If the officer didn't follow their own guidelines, I think that's all that needs to be said: he didn't take an appropriate level of care when doing his job, by the police's own standards. He should be dealt with the same way everyone else is: by the law.

Grand juries are not particularly transparent, and the only people who get special treatment from them are law enforcement. There shouldn't be a separate standard for law enforcement, everyone should be treated equally under the law.

criminal intent is a necessary component of the traditional definition of a crime. it is required in the basis of establishing guilt in a criminal case.

the cop was trying to subdue a large suspect. there was no criminal intent. there was a procedure violation, in which the department should handle internally with discipline. establishing criminal intent in this case would have been virtually impossible. the entire point of a grand jury is to make decisions like this.

if the take down had happened the exact same way, and the dude hadnt had compounding physical conditions so he survived, would you still call for charges, albeit less serious? if not you are judging this from hindsight. a taser would of killed tis guy too more than likely. that would of been within police policy. criminal?


you are making accusations about law enforcement getting different treatment, and that is your right, but i would like you to provide proof other than the recent sensational cases. there are many cops who are prosecuted for negligence on the job. i hear abut it weekly.

grand juries are not transparent by state law, and is to protect the jurors. the fact that you dissagree with that is troubling. maybe you watch too many movies and believe the system really is that corrupt instead of just fallible.

This comment must tongue in cheek or a willful attempt to distort the truth. Either that or you do not have a good understanding of criminal intent.

Yes, there must be an "actus reus" (criminal act) and a "mens rea" (criminal intent) in order to satisfy the legal test as to whether a crime has been committed. However, to argue that mens rea can only be satisfied through direct premeditated intent is blatantly false.

There are multiple circumstances that pass the legal test for mens rea, including but not limited to negligence and recklessness (the case in question here can easily be identified as either negligent or reckless). Mens rea also leaves room for concepts such as "transferred malace" (aka when you intend to do one thing with your actions, but inadvertently cause a criminal action in the process) for example "I just meant to hurt him! I didn't mean to kill him!".

In summary, this argument is completely bunk.

Ford, it is clear by watching the video there was sufficient reason to indite him on some kind of charge. I don't see how you can defend the cops in this case.

That isn't a rebuttal at all. "I'm so right I don't see how you could not be wrong" ...intelligent. "some kind of charge" lol. You are so desperate for perceived justice that you don't care about the legal system at all, or rights.

H4 the difference here is authority. If a regular person had done this in a fight, maybe. An officer attempting to subdue a suspect? Once again, if an officer kills a suspect with a taser, should that cop be charged? The cop intended to subdue the suspect, but there was no criminal intent.

Negligence? Where? The cops didn't neglect anything other than maybe a policy.

Recklessness? Maybe but that is pretty weak. It was a big dude and he was fighting back.

I enjoy the fact that people keep pointing out that the choke hold is against policy, but discredit extenuating circumstances like the health problems or resisting.

Both parties are at fault, I don't think either party is at criminal fault as there wasn't intent to harm, the police had the authority to restrain, and the suspect resisted and was irate.

A grand jury that deliberated for weeks agrees with me.

Oh, and I never used the words "direct premeditated intent" when trying to describe the intent needed. Why did you feel the need to edit my viewpoint to get yours across?

Weird.

I dont think anyone can make an accurate statement unless you were there and you have been a cop on the street. Ive been a tag along a few times with a mate who is frontline police and I tell you it ain't all sunshine and rainbows. Some people are just evil, if you add drugs into the mix people react with no care for the law or consequence.

I also know that in some situations when a police officer is dealing with a situation and in fear of harm. An assault can quickly turn to threat of life in the 'moment'. Especially if drugs are involved. You have someone who would rather die than go back to prison its kill or be killed.

I know first hand dodgy cops, who are profiling like a mofo and get their kicks from creating drama. That has to be stamped out, cameras will help with a zero tolerance to them not being on and recording.

Like someone said, be very careful what you wish for. This keeps up you'll have cops who witness an assault / kidnapping / any crime and will just say 'sorry I'm not loosing my job or facing trial for stepping in here'.

Long and short - dont cause trouble you wont get into trouble.

I also agree that procedure wasn't followed here. Both parties are in the wrong, and an incident causing death isn't never okay. Officers aren't going to know every persons existing medical conditions. I guess that's why they have procedure. If he was tasered, following procedure and he still died what then? Does the state then get sued?

Sounds like H4 finished 49th in his class of 50, from the 49th best law school in his state (out of 50 law schools). I guess you just have to pass and hey, you are a lawyer. Mrford raises a good question though. If the cop used a taser on him, he most likely would have died, it is a criminal act? Diarr Hea? See, I speak latin too.

Anyone who watches the video and disagrees... Ford drives a dodge!

you still wont even make a point lol.

ill make it easy for you so you can start somewhere.

what charges?

The way i see the video the cop had his forearm across the guys throut wich cuts off the airway only. This is a choke hold and is illegal in le and mma. I saw the cop struggle to get locked into a legal restraint with the elbow in the throut area which creates a pocket protecting the throut applying pressure to the arteries on both sides of the neck with the forearm and bicep. Cutting blood supply to your head knocking you out. Having his airway cut off and blood to and from the head cut off, coupled with being a tall fat ass under stress he died.
The guy said he was sick of cops and was going to resist arrest. He did just that but didnt swing. Thats cool, but cops are not gonna let you walk because the possibility of someone getting hurt or killed. That will never happen. Ever. Reverends, riots, Ali Khamenei condemning white america, Obama, the left or right are pissing in the wind if they think for a second that will ever change. Its all political posturing. Maybe thats why these threads go to fluff all the time.

Dammit Heston, that was a perfectly fine post up until the last couple lines. Edited those, and you're on timeout for ignoring the warning.

Jesus christ iccy how many time u gonna edit it to your own liking? Shall i just forward my thoughts and you can edit and post it up? Lmao. Fuuccckk.

Oh this is cute. My bans aren't working.

So, here's how this is going to work: if you play nice and keep the racist fluff off, the ban was only going to be 6 hours so I'll just let the whole thing slide once this gets sorted. However, if you don't, I'll be campaigning to have you gone for a minimum of a week.

iccyh, I've seen fluff that needed deleting but that part of Heston's post wasn't it. fluff, there was even a valid point or two there. Hell it's not even racist, it's realist.

That's what I thought req, moving on to someone not as stupid. Next!

I don't care to debate this with you because it's not worth my time. If that hurts your feelings, I'm sorry!

You think you're so smart so I'll let you keep thinking that!

Love you!