It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Autistic Man killed by police at station

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ya did you see how agressive he was with the female officer!? I don't know how she made it out alive!


Logical fallacy. Just because one person did not act when their personal space being violated does not mean no one else can.

Pervert might grab one womans ass and she lets it slide, does that mean every woman should let it slide?

Whether the cop could have handled it differently is a different argument. This one is about whether he did anything wrong, he did not.




posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I was just addressing your claim of him being agressive.

Was what he did first a physical attack?
The finger point I mean.

Also just cause the one guy reacted the way he did, does that make it the correct way to do it?

What fallacy did I use by the way?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: mikelkhall




Thank you for thinking me part of the problem. I actually loved working with the public but you don't care about that you just want to talk down to an officer or, in my case, a disabled/retired officer.


My comment was based on your statement .......i am not talking down to you i am giving you my opinion...




Edit to add: You probably think that she was well within her rights to be fiddling with her cell phone and running me down.


I understand my comment upset you,but to answer your statement... no not at all,i do not wish harm on anybody anywhere at anytime......excessive force is not a solution to everything,and it seems including yourself that many officers feel that excessive violence is acceptable .....myself being joe public disagrees with your stance....it is as simple as that....



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I was just addressing your claim of him being agressive.

Was what he did first a physical attack?
The finger point I mean.

Also just cause the one guy reacted the way he did, does that make it the correct way to do it?

What fallacy did I use by the way?

The fallacy was bringing up the woman's reaction/outcome. They are not linked in any way.

The drunk guy was being aggressive, perhaps you should be informed.

Inside
the cruiser, Dehmann “hit the Plexiglas cage, messed with the camera
and spit on the passenger-side window.”


He then invaded the officer's space. The officer simply swatted the hand away. The drunk man then squared up and pushed his arms out toward the officer's face, that was an attack. The officer did not strike back, he did not taze him, he did not baton him, he put him on the ground in order to maintain control.
edit on 14-5-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Gee thanks for that, especially since nothing contradicts what I said. I would imagine locking the choke in and putting him to sleep is not allowed, so no, that was not an option.


Umm did you miss the part of my post where I said hold him in position and allow the numerous other coworkers to grab and get control of him?

I also am not aware of any "rule" that says a Corrections Officer can not choke out an inmate in an act of self defense. Perhaps you can link that to us?


Actually it is, and you don't even realize you are supporting my post. The poster said he was pile drived onto his head. That did not happen. He was slammed onto his back and his head bounced off the floor. He was not slammed on top of his head, that did not occur.


I specifically referenced your comment about the inmate being simply "slammed down". I did not ever in my post say anyone was pile driven anywhere. Nor did I make reference to that. What I illustrated was this was not a simple matter of a slam. This was a trained take down as can easily be seen in the way the Officer locks him up, positions his feet, turns his hip in and makes the throw. It is not just a matter of "he slammed him down". If you do not see the difference that between your choice of words and what I am attempting to explain, that my be a case of you not having the proper perspective. That is the funny thing about fighting, BJJ, MMA etc etc- you really have no true concept of what is being discussed unless you been there.


Aahhhh no, you don't let a drunk, aggressive person put their hand up to your face. The officer was absolutely right to swat it away.


Well here we will disagree. We can start with "pointing in his face". If by "face" you mean his belly, then your description would be accurate. The drunk also points at another Officer. Know why that first Officer did not react? Because "pointing" in a person's direction is not what a reasonable person would call an aggressive act. You say the Officer was right to swat it away, but you are wrong. Dead wrong. Corrections Officers are actually trained to NOT escalate a situation. They are specifically trained to diffuse situations with aggressive inmates and are encouraged to do so unless self defense is required. In the real world, no one will fault another person for swatting a hand away, but in jail it is not the real world and things are much different. In jail CO's are trained to put up with A LOT that no normal person should have to put up with. Including having urine, feces, or sperm thrown on them. In the real world this is assault and no one would blame another person for whooping some arse for doing such a disgusting thing- in jail CO's are trained to not react. To remove themselves from the situation and deal with it later.


Thanks, I already knew all that, it's simply not that relevant, but, if anything, it's evidence there was NOT any intent to slam the guys head. The intent was to put him on his back and secure him, not knock him out by smashing his head on the ground.


And with this statement you show clearly how you missed the point of my "irrelevant" details. Which was to point out that this Officer is trained. Now do I believe that the intent was to slam the inmates head on the ground? No. I do however believe the intent was to cause injury by slamming him. Or in other words- end the fight.


I know all about Judo, BJJ, and the maneuver that was used. Police can't choke a guy unconscious, he does not have that option no matter how much you want him to. There is no problem with what the officer did


I am sure you do. Since MMA has become so popular everyone is an expert


However you would be wrong in thinking Police can not choke a person out. Even making such a statement shows a very clear ignorance of the issue. SOME departments have banned the use of choke holds. Others have not. However this is not a matter of "police" using chokeholds. It is an issue of Correctional Officers using choke holds. There is a difference. Police are used on the streets. Correctional Officers are used in jails. They are not the same and they are not held to the same standard. Many people who can not become police officers work in corrections and many times working in corrections can be a stepping stone into becoming an Officer.
edit on 14-5-2015 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrWendal
I also am not aware of any "rule" that says a Corrections Officer can not choke out an inmate in an act of self defense. Perhaps you can link that to us?

Here.


As I taught Defensive Tactics Instructors courses for other law enforcement departments, I was surprised to learn the FBI is one of very few agencies that still permit the use of a carotid-type restraint.

www.policeone.com...

Perhaps YOU can link it can be used by the officer in question? VERY few places allow any type of carotid restraint, and those that do treat it as the use of DEADLY FORCE. It is NOT something they just do. Mostly it's due to public perception and poor training where officers did not use the technique correctly, regardless of why, it's a huge no no.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I bet the officer in questions Mother is so dam proud of him, not!


The Muppet should be stung up by the nether regions for such an atrocity, dirty Police Scum.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikelkhall

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: mikelkhall


There is simply no need for the officer to have responded with such heavy force.....if you see this is as ok i am glad you are no longer an officer as you are of part of the problem....



Personally I saw nothing wrong with what the officer did. I find it terrible that the gentleman died. I have been in the same situation many times and I usually prefer an inside or outside leg sweep but it really depends on the situation.

I am no longer a police officer because, while I was on foot working an accident, some nut-job fiddling with her cell phone decided to go around two police cars in two lanes with blue lights on blocking the scene and ran over me at 55+ MPH. Thank you for thinking me part of the problem. I actually loved working with the public but you don't care about that you just want to talk down to an officer or, in my case, a disabled/retired officer.

Edit to add: You probably think that she was well within her rights to be fiddling with her cell phone and running me down.

I don't understand which statement I made that would make you want to give your opinion that I was part of the problem.
I never mentioned anything about force being used until I addressed your post cited above.

I have always been a firm believer that excessive force is never needed in any situation.
I do believe that force is needed in some situations and when someone squares off with an officer I believe that force is justified to end the situation as quickly as possible with the least amount of forced needed to end the threat and that is what this officer did.
edit on 5/14/2015 by mikelkhall because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/14/2015 by mikelkhall because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/14/2015 by mikelkhall because: Trying to get the stupid quotes right.




posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Question.....

If it was "illegal" for an Officer to choke a person out, why would there be a bill up for consideration that makes it illegal?

Let me help you....

It's not illegal. Some departments have a policy against it, some do not. Because it is "policy" that makes it up to each individual department to reprimand an Officer who does use a choke hold. How many do you think are actually reprimanded? We do not have to look much farther than the recent Eric Garner case to see what happens. Here you have an Officer on video using the "choke hold" that you claim Police can not use. What happened to him for violating his department's policy?? Nothing. Cleared of any wrong doing.

So even though you claim "Police can not use choke holds" any google search on the subject will bring up countless cases of Police using choke holds. Why?? Because department policy is not law and in a majority of cases there will be no reprimand for violating that policy.



edit on 14-5-2015 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ya i guess it is a fallacy to bring up how some one else handled the situation seconds before another. Which one us that again?

Oh well, good this serial pointer is the streets. Those points are some serious attacks that really endanger the lives of all of us!



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrWendal
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Question.....

If it was "illegal" for an Officer to choke a person out, why would there be a bill up for consideration that makes it illegal?

Let me help you....

So now you nitpick. Fine, it's not illegal, it's simply banned. Feel better now? Banned, where I am from at least, means it can't be done. What does banned mean where you live?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is banned in Arkansas also. The choke hold has been banned for many years and the carotid restraint has been banned for a few years.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MrWendal

So what does one need to do to provoke such a hold being used these days, fart in the back of their vehicle?

Even if such a hold were legal, smacking the poor fellows head off the floor certainly is not acceptable considering once in Police custody they have a duty of care towards anyone they detain. The poor man was autistic and this is so far past the line i dont even know where to begin.

edit on 14-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: MrWendal
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Question.....

If it was "illegal" for an Officer to choke a person out, why would there be a bill up for consideration that makes it illegal?

Let me help you....

So now you nitpick. Fine, it's not illegal, it's simply banned. Feel better now? Banned, where I am from at least, means it can't be done. What does banned mean where you live?



And yet it is done daily with no repercussions.

So exactly how "banned" is it??

I am not "nit picking". I have been very clear on this issue. In some places it is against department policy. In some places it is not. In either event, it is still used because there is no consequence when the department policy is not followed in regards to choke holds.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ya i guess it is a fallacy to bring up how some one else handled the situation seconds before another. Which one us that again?

Oh well, good this serial pointer is the streets. Those points are some serious attacks that really endanger the lives of all of us!

Awesome job ignoring where I show how aggressive he was. Ignore evidence, rely on logical fallacies. Consistent at least.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: mikelkhall


The police are trained to handle the public. Sometimes the public, especially when breaking the law, does not want to be handled.


I have no doubt that there are many trained officers, that can handle a situation. In the video however you see 5-6 "Trained" officers and 1 civilian. The end result is the death of a civilian, due to excessive force from the officer which body slammed the civilian to the ground.

Peace



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
The force used was excessive!

You want proof ... um, let's see ... the man is DEAD!

Some of you can make up all of the excuses you want.

At the end of the day the man is dead and that in itself shows excessive force was used.

He pointed his finger at a Police Officer ..... and died!

There is no excuse here.

P



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MrWendal

So what does one need to do to provoke such a hold being used these days, fart in the back of their vehicle?

Even if such a hold were legal, smacking the poor fellows head off the floor certainly is not acceptable considering once in Police custody they have a duty of care towards anyone the detain. The poor man was autistic and this is so far past the line i dont even know where to begin.


You must have missed the part of my post where I said...


Therefor- there really was no need to slam him down. The Officer could have easily just held that position for a few seconds (cause drunk guys DO go out quick), and allowed his coworkers to get a handle on this guy- then this would have been over with. The need to throw him down was intentional and done with the intent to cause harm. There is no doubt in my mind on that.


So why you preaching to the choir?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Aahhhh no, you don't let a drunk, aggressive person put their hand up to your face. The officer was absolutely right to swat it away.


But you neither remove the restrains if the civilian was aggressive. If they knew he was aggressive why they took off his handcuffs at the beginning of the video. ?

Peace

edit on 14-5-2015 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2015 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ya i guess it is a fallacy to bring up how some one else handled the situation seconds before another. Which one us that again?

Oh well, good this serial pointer is the streets. Those points are some serious attacks that really endanger the lives of all of us!

Awesome job ignoring where I show how aggressive he was. Ignore evidence, rely on logical fallacies. Consistent at least.


No one is ignoring the absolutely ridiculous assertion you made that you attempt to pass off as "evidence".

POINTING is not an aggressive act. I am pointing at you right now.... how threatened do you feel?

Do you even know the legal definition of "aggressive"? To be "aggressive" in the legal sense requires an act of a threatening manner. Pointing does not qualify under that standard. The dictionary defines it as


1 a : tending toward or exhibiting aggression

b : marked by combative readiness


So are you actually suggesting that POINTING is an act of combat readiness??

Do you have any clue just how silly you sound trying to suggest that pointing at a person's belly is an act of aggression???



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join