California man dies after police pin him to ground for five minutes

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: tanstaafl

That would just be countless lawsuits waiting to happen. Everyone reacts to tranquilizers in different ways and there's no way for the police to know if a person is going to have a bad reaction.

There's a reason anesthesiologists are some of the highest paid doctors out there. Using drugs to put someone to sleep is a very delicate and dangerous procedure that requires extensive training.

Ah, ok then, let's just give them cotton candy and a lollipop and ask them to pretty please stop being bad.

That, or just change to a policy of resist, and be shot to death.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: tanstaafl

That would just be countless lawsuits waiting to happen. Everyone reacts to tranquilizers in different ways and there's no way for the police to know if a person is going to have a bad reaction.

There's a reason anesthesiologists are some of the highest paid doctors out there. Using drugs to put someone to sleep is a very delicate and dangerous procedure that requires extensive training.

That, or just change to a policy of resist, and be shot to death.

Is that your dream world? mr science, facts and figures..no other options?

SMGDH

Holy #....let me guess. These cops haven't heard about the George Floyd case. They didn't realize that shortly after someone starts complaining about not being able to breath.....they die.

I mean really guys let the people up after you get the cuffs on them. At least if they die then it won't look like you held them down until they stopped breathing.

a reply to: HarryJoy

How about just allowing the cuffs to be put on? Just like George Floyd. Most of you act like they cuffed them and there was no resisting.

The minute you resist you are a threat to the officers and those around you.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: HarryJoy

How about just allowing the cuffs to be put on? Just like George Floyd. Most of you act like they cuffed them and there was no resisting.

The minute you resist you are a threat to the officers and those around you.

Sure he shouldn't have resisted......but once the cuffs are on and he is searched and cleared of any weapons....is he still a threat ?

a reply to: HarryJoy

He resisted for over 5 minutes. You also hear the officer say to not apply pressure to his chest. A few times.

Did anyone actually listen to this?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: HarryJoy

He resisted for over 5 minutes. You also hear the officer say to not apply pressure to his chest. A few times.

Did anyone actually listen to this?

You avoided the question.

a reply to: matafuchs
Yep
I regrettably watched it.
They screwed around with him for like 11 minutes before they decided they had to take him in custody?
So there was NO IMMEDIATE DANGER until they brought such.
Once in their custody his safety IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
It appeared to me the officer near his head was using a collar choke with his hoodie as his voice was garbled when the officers hand was on his hoodie.

While it is not right to resist, they CLEARLY knew he was not in the right state of mind and did not take any steps to deal with such. They could have waited for backup prior to engaging. They could have had ems on site to make sure he wasn't having a diebetic episode or stroke. Perhaps better training could have prevented this?

While I don't think they intentionally murdered him, I do think they are responsible for his death.

a reply to: HarryJoy

Yes. Ever heard the story about the guy who was cleared of weapons, handcuffed and shot at the cops from the back seat of the cruiser?

a reply to: shooterbrody

I see your points. I understand how it should work. I would not say they were responsible for his death.

a reply to: matafuchs
Who is responsible for the safety of someone taken into custody?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Ask Jeffrey Epstein....

Again, I understand where you are coming from but he was being taken into custody. It is not like they beat him to death in his cell or during transport.

They were not violent to him in any way. He was uncooperative. It is a sad case but no wrongdoing.

I'm beginning to believe a lot of people including myself are closer to dying then we realize. I mean that I think the average person's body is much weaker and less resilient than the average person a few generations ago.

I think modern life has brought us closer to the brink than we realize and situations like this bring it out.

originally posted by: panoz77
Same thing. So you do admit the police had the right to detain and identify the man, that's a step forward for you.

No, it isn't and the Supreme Court has said as much. They have no right to request your name and detain you unless your are suspected of committing a crime. What crime did they tell him he committed prior to the altercation?

originally posted by: matafuchs
You do not have to say anything to the police but you should be smart about it. I mean.

I am smart, that's why I don't talk with cops.

originally posted by: panoz77
They "accosted" the man because he was resisting detention.

And he was being detained for what?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

One of the dispatch calls mentions him breaking security tags off beer bottles so I would presume there might have been a smidge of suspicion of larceny.

a reply to: Shamrock6

That was the Kevin calling that in from what I recall.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Kevin, Karen, whatever. That was the call.

I don’t think this one has legs on it, amigo. I get a call about a guy in a park with Walgreens baskets breaking security tags on beer bottles and then I find a guy in the park visibly under the influence and with Walgreens baskets and beer bottles, he’s getting detained. That’s reasonable suspicion all day long. Everything after that is down to his own choices and decisions.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Fair enough.