Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Quote from: string on 2014-12-06, 13:41:38

In the UK if there is a shooting incident by the police there is an automatic independent review of the circumstances to see if the shooting was justified and some responsibility lies on the policeman who did the shooting to make his justification - I would assume this is still is also the case in the US although I'm not sure about the independent aspect.(?)

.de is supposed to be like that. Except when the victim is an RAF-terrorist, then the investigation will be quietly swept under the rug.

Shooting to kill seems to be the norm and not just in America - see here for example - Shoot-to-wound is impossible, says Britain's top cop Sir Ian Blair.

…didn't Garner die about an hour later, at a hospital?

.....Pantaleo's lawyer and police union officials argued that the grand jury got it right, saying that the officer used an authorized takedown move - not a banned chokehold - against a man who was resisting arrest. And they said Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death. The medical examiner ruled that the chokehold contributed to the death.......

activities could have contributed to the death of a man resisting arrest,

Pantaleo broke the law. The moves the officer used against Garner were illegal by police regulations..........it was because the cop used a method known to be dangerous to the suspects and was banned accordingly

Garner's death was ruled a homicide.

Homicide: The killing of one human being by another human being.

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.

English courts developed the body of Common Law on which U.S. jurisdictions initially relied in developing their homicide statutes. Early English common law divided homicide into two broad categories: felonious and non-felonious. Historically, the deliberate and premeditated killing of a person by another person was a felonious homicide and was classified as murder. Non-felonious homicide included justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. Although justifiable homicide was considered a crime, the offender often received a pardon. Excusable homicide was not considered a crime.........continued

You didn't find that regulation from 1993 yet? Keep looking

What is it with you two? I never said that what I said was that there should where shooting is required it should be to wound. Not surprised your government has a concern about education standards dear terrorist supporter of the police state. You are no better in policing than many of the genuine dictators should moan about ot invade.

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-12-07, 23:12:58

What is it with you two? I never said that what I said was that there should where shooting is required it should be to wound. Not surprised your government has a concern about education standards dear terrorist supporter of the police state. You are no better in policing than many of the genuine dictators should moan about ot invade.

OK, noted. You made noises about "shoot to wound" but can't back it up with evidence that this is actually taught anywhere. Got it. You hate the United States--- actually, have no use for anybody outside of Glasgow except for your friend Putin. Noted. Ho hum.

Cut the man some slack. Knowing everything, putting everybody right, hating an entire country, rising reliably to the bait from other posters: it all takes time and energy.
Little wonder he has no interest in putting together a simple declarative sentence. Some people can handle English as a second language and some cannot.

Found a lot of reporting ..... hearsay .....I'm still looking for the actual definitive directive, or regulation.

Chokeholds have been limited by the NYPD in some form since at least 1985, when commissioner Benjamin Ward issued the following order:
1. Effective immediately, choke holds, which are potentially lethal and unnecessary, WILL NOT be routinely used by members of the New York City Police Department.
2. Choke holds will ONLY be used if the officer's life is in danger or some other person's life is in danger and the choke hold is the least dangerous alternative method of restraint available to the police officer.1

Perhaps ironically, New York City police are not trained to use chokeholds because they are prohibited, which creates a greater potential for their tragic misuse.

Members of the New York City Police Department will NOT use chokeholds. A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.⁵

Changes in Law
In 2010, the state Legislature created a potentially powerful new tool to prevent unlawful chokeholds: the misdemeanor offense of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation.19 The crime, requiring proof of intent to obstruct breathing or blood circulation but without inflicting serious injury, is punishable by up to one year in prison. With the same proof of intent, a defendant can be charged with felony strangulation in the first or second degree if the victim dies or suffers serious injury.20 These offenses were created to address domestic violence situations in which it can be difficult for prosecutors to prove assault for lack of a visible physical injury.

You made noises about "shoot to wound" but can't back it up with evidence that this is actually taught anywhere.

up, that's a Right problem. Everybody's lying, everybody's wrong except you. Even that half-assed NY Post article indicates that move was banned, despite the fact the the publications is New York's equivalent to the Daily Mail .

The New York Law Journal get's into more detail [/i].

I'm not saying that there isn't one pertaining to a specific maneuver, but I would like to see the regulation that must define the banned maneuver, the one taught in basic training that is now banned,  in some detail.

From my findings so far, there seems that there is a ban 'of sorts' in effect since 1993 1985 as you alluded to, but it's terms as reported seem to be/are vague.

The NYC Police Department & The Civilian Complaint Review Board are jointly looking for ways to rewrite the vague regulation so that it is completely defined, & can be clearly understood & followed.

......Chief John Timoney elaborated that cops should “basically, stay the hell away from the neck,” except in life-threatening circumstances.

But, as cops were brought up on charges of using illegal chokeholds, both the NYPD and CCRB watered down the standard to give officers a break if complainants suffered no lasting injuries even though their breathing had been restricted.

One result was that cops might well have concluded that chokeholds were generally okay. It would not be surprising if that message plays a role in the Staten Island district attorney’s investigation of Garner’s death, as well as in Pantaleo’s defense, should he be indicted.

Now, Commissioner Bill Bratton and Emery are moving to rewrite the regulations so as to restore the chokehold prohibition while creating necessary exceptions. Banning cops from all contact with the neck is unrealistic.

An officer must be able to apply a chokehold if his or her life is in immediate danger. At the same time, cops should not fear discipline if, say, they grab someone by the back of a jacket or shirt collar to break up a fight or arrest a fleeing felon. Then, too, a cop should be free from penalty if a resistant suspect assaults the officer and, in the tussle, the cop’s arm winds up around the suspect’s neck.

Bratton and Emery must meet the tough challenge of clearly defining for the city’s 35,000 cops those physical restraints that are out of bounds without tangling them in minutiae that will lead to endless second-guessing..........

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-12-07, 23:27:25

You made noises about "shoot to wound" but can't back it up with evidence that this is actually taught anywhere.

It was pretty much made up that Howie said any such thing. It was more like he offered it as a suggestion.

......Shoot to <k>iill seems to be the training not wounding in the leg or something but just bullet them......

.....Obviously there will be times when the police have to shoot (although wounding would be better).......

.......Protecting the people is just a saying and in practice they have almost special unofficial rights in a sense. Too often killing is the first intention not wounding or anything else........

........So in Smilet<y>'s mindset shooting to wound isn't on and what a diabolical argument corner that one is!..........

I wonder if they'll drop the ball too?

His posts regarding wounding speaks volumes ...... His suggestion(s) is(are) crystal clear ....