Chicago cop chokes kid that talks too much.

[strahd71]

look i dont know where you guys grew up but where i grew up that or worse would have happened for acting that way with a cop.

look i'm not a big fan of law enforcement, but i dont think this cop did anything wrong. the kids actions were threatening, (this is how punks act before hand).

you dont walk up on a cop that way, you just dont. folks can **** and moan about police brutality and you would be wrong.

jake

 

[Bunnykid68]

Should have just shot the kid, he was obviously a danger to everyone.

 

[! twitty]

Yeah that pos got what he deserved.

 

[jsharmon7]

look i dont know where you guys grew up but where i grew up that or worse would have happened for acting that way with a cop.

look i'm not a big fan of law enforcement, but i dont think this cop did anything wrong. the kids actions were threatening, (this is how punks act before hand).

you dont walk up on a cop that way, you just dont. folks can **** and moan about police brutality and you would be wrong.

jake

The bolded part is the only reason why I feel that the officer's actions were overboard. Judging by his actions, I can't accept that the officer felt threatened by the kid in any way. As a counter point, look up the "Vegas Heat" officer takedown on Youtube. Although roughly the same situation, that one was perfectly acceptable in my mind. That officer felt the subject was a threat and acted accordingly to minimize the risk. I don't think this Chicago officer felt that way. I don't know that he should get in trouble over it because I don't know their policies and procedure, but he didn't handle it in the best way as far as I'm concerned. Just my though.

 

[strahd71]

The bolded part is the only reason why I feel that the officer's actions were overboard. Judging by his actions, I can't accept that the officer felt threatened by the kid in any way. As a counter point, look up the "Vegas Heat" officer takedown on Youtube. Although roughly the same situation, that one was perfectly acceptable in my mind. That officer felt the subject was a threat and acted accordingly to minimize the risk. I don't think this Chicago officer felt that way. I don't know that he should get in trouble over it because I don't know their policies and procedure, but he didn't handle it in the best way as far as I'm concerned. Just my though.

having worked in a juvenile facility its been my experience that once the kid got to those actions and body language he wasnt going to stop and would only escalate. he would lose face if he did, he already had a crowd, and a girl intervening for him. i believe he would have had to continue to escalate for ego's sake. hence my comment about the cop feeling threatened. the kid showed very typical punk behavior and had already crossed the line

i'll go along with that the cop could have maybe done something different.

but again i pretty much hate cops and i thought what he did was fine. he removed the kid from the crowd the best he could, he controlled the situation, the kid didnt get hurt, man handled yes, injured not hardly. all in all i think the kid got lucky, in decatur illinois where i grew up that kid would have got the hell beat out of him

jake

 

[threefiftyfour]

I have intentionally skipped to the end of this post, not reading a sing word(other than the title), due to the fact that I will be leaving for Chicago tomorrow evening. I will read this when I return.

 

[jsharmon7]

Strahd, I understand your position. But everything the officer did was tactically wrong if he felt the kid was a threat. Sure, the kid needed to be taken under control, but dragging him across the street by the neck looked to be motivated by anger or showing off for the crowd rather than a professional taking control of a situation. But I do agree with you that the kid was out-of-line and needed to be taken under control.

 

[1911 DeadHead]

I agree that the the kid was out of line, but did this officer not first asaault the girl, even with that little push, and then assault the boy?

I am not gonna disagree that he needed to be subdued, but I will think that any choke hold like that is probably not protocol for that situation, even if the kid threatened him.

Glad that it ended the way it did. If those people were not police officer friendly (maybe gang affiliated with the boy and not in public the way it was) the officer may have handled it differently.

 

[Darral27]

I am shocked by all the people saying the cop went over board. That is exactly why these kids have respect for authority. I remember when I was a kid if you were out acting like a punk there would be a adult to put you in your place. Now if you touch one of these punk kids people freak out. The kid deserved what he got and probably had it coming for a long time.

 

[45calibre]

someone yelling at you does not give you the right to choke someone.

 

[rw496]

I thought that was pretty tame.

 

[1911 DeadHead]

It's ashame there is no video of what really sparked the altercation.

 

[patience0830]

Kid is stupid, fat man is wrong.

Next topic.

 

[Steelman]

Let's have a look at the Use Of Force Continuum used by the vast majority of law enforcement agencies today:

Were the officer's actions warranted in this case? Chicago may have a variation of this graphic. My understanding was that the neck and head were vital areas and considered deadly force.

What say you?

 

[jsharmon7]

Were the officer's actions warranted in this case? Chicago may have a variation of this graphic. My understanding was that the neck and head were vital areas and considered deadly force.

What say you?

The officer grabbing his neck would not be deadly force. I don't think the officer's actions were excessive just unnecessary, and for the wrong reasons. Use of force should not be out of anger, retaliation, saving face in front of the crowd, etc. which is what I feel was the case with this officer.

 

[Steelman]

The officer grabbing his neck would not be deadly force.

Let's say a 400lb drunk grabbed a 140lb officer by the throat and drove him backwards - refusing to let go. Also assume that the officer's airway or major arteries are restricted as a result of the choke. Would the officer then have the right to use deadly force?

 

[jsharmon7]

Let's say a 400lb drunk grabbed a 140lb officer by the throat and drove him backwards - refusing to let go. Also assume that the officer's airway or major arteries are restricted as a result of the choke. Would the officer then have the right to use deadly force?

Well the officer has a gun, so if he's choked to the point where he loses consciousness then he's in a deadly force situation. He would need to do something to prevent himself from ending up in a situation where he loses consciousness. It would be up to the officer to decide the seriousness of the situation and to do what he feels is reasonable. I see where you're going with your question and the dynamic is altogether different than simply switching their roles. If the drunk kid felt that his life was in danger then it would be his decision to make as to what to do about it. The officer putting his hand on his throat was not a threat to his life as it was applied.

 

[Steelman]

I'm sorry, but are basing any of your arguments on facts or merely stating what you think is correct?

When would an officer have the right to use deadly force that would not also be applicable to a non-officer? Being able to articulate a threat of serious bodily harm or death would be key in any case, correct?

Your assertion that the officer lovingly placed his hand around his neck for a brotherly consultation is also disturbing.

If memory serves you are an officer? Would you mind sharing the name of your department and whether a General Order exists prohibiting the use of choking restraints? If such a General Order exists, would you also mind sharing why that General Order is in place?

If you're not an officer than obviously disregard.

Well the officer has a gun, so if he's choked to the point where he loses consciousness then he's in a deadly force situation. He would need to do something to prevent himself from ending up in a situation where he loses consciousness. It would be up to the officer to decide the seriousness of the situation and to do what he feels is reasonable. I see where you're going with your question and the dynamic is altogether different than simply switching their roles. If the drunk kid felt that his life was in danger then it would be his decision to make as to what to do about it. The officer putting his hand on his throat was not a threat to his life as it was applied.

 

[jsharmon7]

I'm sorry, but are basing any of your arguments on facts or merely stating what you think is correct?

When would an officer have the right to use deadly force that would not also be applicable to a non-officer? Being able to articulate a threat of serious bodily harm or death would be key in any case, correct?

I said that if the kid felt that his life was in danger he would have to decide how to react to that. That would be his decision to make and his to defend later. I didn't see it as a threat to his life but it would be his job to articulate that.

Your assertion that the officer lovingly placed his hand around his neck for a brotherly consultation is also disturbing.

When did I say that? Go back through my posts and quote me anywhere I've said anything remotely close to that. While you're at it, count how many times I said I disagreed with the way the officer took control of the kid. You'll find it'll be more than a few times.

If memory serves you are an officer? Would you mind sharing the name of your department and whether a General Order exists prohibiting the use of choking restraints? If such a General Order exists, would you also mind sharing why that General Order is in place?

If you're not an officer than obviously disregard.

As far as my department, I don't speak on their behalf on this forum nor do I ever claim to do so. My opinions are associated with me, not my department. You are correct (I'm assuming this is what you're getting at) that most departments restrict or forbid chokeholds due to the danger and lawsuits. This happened in Chicago though, and I can't speak to their policies and procedures. I also don't know exactly how the officer grabbed him, how much pressure was applied, or whether the kid reported his breathing was impeded by the action. That's why these things are investigated. All I can say is that it's not something I would do, for many reasons.

 

[phylodog]

Let's have a look at the Use Of Force Continuum used by the vast majority of law enforcement agencies today:

What say you?

I'd say that is the most widely misunderstood training aid ever developed. It has incorrectly been turned into policy by many agencies when all it was ever designed to be was a guide, a visual aid to assist officers in understanding escalation and deescalation of force.