Guys - I think you've lost track of the fundementals in this last page or so. Let's keep it civil and on course.
Let's recap.
First, go back and re-read the Use of Force Doctrine.
Then, you must understand that all LEO training defines resistance as non-compliance to whatever commands or indications that are given. Resistance can be non-verbal, verbal, and physical.
- Non-verbal resistance can simply be ignoring commands. Or it can be not answering questions when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual may have been involved in an unlawful or medical event.
- Verbal resistance can be as simple as saying "No - I don't want to ..." all the way up to "Go (blank) your mother, I hate you guys, you're all pigs and I want you all to (blanking) die. I'm not coming over there and you can't make me ... I will kick your (blank) if you try and make me." (A statement I heard not long ago while on duty ....)
- Physical resistance can be either non-combative or combative, and can be offered all the way up to deadly force threats. (Not all resistance is interpreted as DF, but the definition allows it to be a progressive concept from simple inert behavior all the way up to DF).
* Non-combative resistance can be broken into two sub-categories; non-compliant inaction (laying on the roadway in protest and making cops have to carry you off the scene) up to non-compliant action such as walking away when told to stand still or show your hands, etc.
* Combative resistance can be as simple as pulling your hand away when I go to gain control with wrist control, all the way up to the subject's truly being in "fight mode".
When Garner resisted both verbally and physically, he placed the police in a position that they could use soft empty-hand control techniques. Hence, the grabbing of him, the neck restraint, etc. Technically, because of the fact that Garner did swat at the officer's hand they could have transitioned to hard empty-hand control (use of strikes, kicks, etc). You have to keep in mind that UoF doctrine allows the officers to go one level ABOVE the level of resistance. When Garner swatted the cop's hand, he offered physically combative resistance. It is imperative that you read and understand the UoF continuum. This isn't something that has popped up over-night; this is taught at every LEO academy for the last several decades, from small town deparments all the way up to all federal agencies. Whether you like it or not, whether you understand it or not, does not change the fact that this is the accpeted LEO reaction to a presentation of resistance. It has been tested in both state and federal courts time and time again and prevails as the accepted law of the land.
For those of you who state the response to Garner was excessive or unwarranted, you clearly are ignoring or don't understand the UoF concept. For any level of threat presented to LEOs, they are allowed to meet that level, and exceed by one level, to gain control of the situation.
Go back and read the UoF doctrine and rationale, then watch the videos again. When you watch the videos, pay special close attention to the fact that there is a time frame cut right before he was jumped upon. Also, note that at first there were only two cops, but then there were several. What do you think happened in that time frame cut-out? I'll hazard a sensible guess that the cops tried to talk with him, and made verbal commands to direct him, and he simply didn't comply. So they probably called for back-up and a supervisor (identified as the blake female in uniform). Then the scene immediately jumps to him being grabbed and tackled. It looks very sensationalized because it seems like they gave him no warning at all. But open your mind and THINK your way through the situation, and it becomes apparent what happened. And I HIGHLY suspect that the Grand Jury got to see the ENTIRE, UNEDITED video. When Garner pulled away from the wrist grab, and then swatted at the hand of the officer, he was physically combative by definition. They were authorized by doctrine and training to go "hands-on" and take him with any force up to hard empty-hand techniques, although I didn't see any hard control, but only what is defined as soft control (holds and grabs, but no kicking or punching ...).
Garner allegedly commited a crime.
Police were present (first level of UoF).
Garner verbally was uncooperative. (resistance)
Police gave verbal commands (second level of UoF; very likely happened in the time-frame video cut)
Garner became aggitated and exhibited uncooperative behavior, verbally resisting and physically not complying. (escalated resistance)
Police grabbed for his wrist (third level of UoF).
Garner swatted at the hand of the police officer. (escalated resistance)
Police then took multiple approaches simultaneously to control him including wrist grabs and a neck restraint immobilization technique (fourth level of UoF).
Nowhere can I find that the cops violated any UoF protocol; nowhere did they use any improper techniques.
I will add this, too. Police are not required to start at the bottom and work their way up. They are allowed to meet/exceed the threat level upon initial contact. If a suspect is already dancing about, wildly swinging fists and shouting death threats, officers are not required to start at the beginning. They are authorized to enter into the Force Continuum at the level appropriate to gain control of the event. If he's attempting to hit people with force (hard hand resistance) they are allowed to enter at that level, or escalate their response one level to hard weapon control (battons, Tasers, etc). I am not inferring this was the issue with Garner, but I'm trying to help all understand the concept of UoF protocol and how it's employed on the job. Some of this will depend on each deparment's written Use of Force Policy, and how they structure their training. But overall, this is sound and has been tested and passed many court battles. So it is important to embrace conceptually.
Now, what I would be willing to discuss and debate is if someone has documented proof from any official agency page that the UoF was usurped, or if you have true video evidence from another angle that would put the current info into question. Like I have always said, if you want to prove me wrong, then you have to bring solid, reliable evidence and not rhetoric and conjecture. I have posted PLENTY of direct, specific information as to the UoF topic, as well as broken down the sequence of actions in the videos.
The reason I posted this thread is because the other threads went total-emotional and policitcal immediately and were quickly quarantined; no one can act surprised there. But this thread is supposed to be about the FACTS and ANALYSIS, not your own personal gut feeling about why you think it does or does not suck. We all agree that it is a tradegy; his death was very unfortunate. But it was a collateral accident of his own choice of actions and not a result of improper protocol or illegal action.
If you disagree with my information, bring your own to the table for analysis and review. All I ask is that you be clear, definitive, stay on-topic and have credible sources with solid logic.
