posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 09:53 AM
a reply to: chrismarco
There is no scenario which does not involve an absolute and unquestionable threat to an officers life, which can justify the application of a
chokehold. There are myriad armlocks, wrist locks, grabs and holds that can be applied to control a suspects movements, without any actual risk of
their sustaining a mortal injury, and to use any other hold during an arrest, without there having been a clear and present threat to an officer or
member of the public, is disgraceful.
There are many types of hold that could be called a chokehold. All of them are extremely dangerous, and oddly the danger they represent goes UP the
less experienced the person applying the hold happens to be. The reason for this is that to apply a choke hold or anything like one, is to cut off the
oxygen supply to the brain, by way of restricting the airway, and putting pressure on the arteries in the neck. Doing this without rigorous training
in safe application of the hold can have fatal or disabling consequences. Yes, putting someone in the right hold, for the precise amount of time
necessary can render them safely unconscious. However, just too long, and that person might wake up paralysed, or mentally disabled, and just a bit
longer than that, and they might end up dead.
The above scenarios work out that way when a person in the hold is young, healthy, and strong. Putting an older man in such a lock, unless it happens
to be Jesse Ventura (and Christ help you if you try), is asking for a fatality. The fact that a choke hold was applied at all concerns me greatly, as
this cannot be a legitimate take down method, except in the most outrageous and extraordinary circumstances.
edit on 18-7-2014 by TrueBrit
because: Spelling corrections.