DogofWar1

If you clicked the link instead of just being a snarky defender of roided up assholes, you'd have noticed there are two levels of empty hand control, soft technique and hard technique. He went straight for hard technique, and skipped right over soft technique. And no, he does not get to skip over soft technique because she weakly slapped at his arm when he WENT FOR HER NECK. He could have easily subdued her with continuing soft technique, instead of going to the ONE NIGHT ONLY BODY SLAM ROID RAGE COP MAN plan. You don't choke-hold somebody unless you're trying to legitimately choke them out. Hence the name "choke-hold." There's a reason the NYPD banned the things (which some of their cops promptly ignored, but still). Start under her arms. Full Nelson MINUS pushing down on the back of the head would be effective. Just pick her right up from behind, and if her arms are constrained, she can at best weakly flail without any real leverage to injure him, and he gets the added bonus of not becoming a nationally known piece of garbage for chokeslamming a 15 year old. Ah yes, let's skip EVEN MORE steps up the use of force continuum. Because skipping up to hard technique and flipping her desk wasn't enough. Why not just shoot her? If we're fine skipping 1 or 2-3 steps up the continuum, why not skip all the way to the top? I'm sure if she got shot after that weak little flail when he put her in the choke-hold, you'd be defending her getting shot too. Um, take off whatever colored glasses you've got and try again. Maybe play it at 0.25X speed. As the video starts, he's pulled her left arm out to assist him in getting his arm down across her body. He them simultaneously wraps his right arm around her neck, and puts his left arm down across her body to grab her leg. She, in response, grabs his right arm with her right hand after he's established the hold. So you're wrong. At this point, she hasn't struck him AND he's got her head. Next, he lifts straight up, which fails, because duh, the desk is designed to have students exit from the side. She, as she's being lifted straight up, THEN strikes the officer. He then flips the desk, and proceeds with the drag and such.

Escalation on the side of the non-aggressors, who are not matching the level of force the aggressor is exerting, is not escalation of the situation generally. Escalating one side is not the same as escalating the situation. If there's an active gunman shooting people, and the police get called, that's not escalating the situation, it's already at maximum escalation with just the shooter. The police then, authorized to use lethal force on the use of force continuum, will match the gunman's force, unless some sort of alternative exists (hostage situation with a negotiation attempt being such an alternative). And the fact that you think cops shouldn't be using equal/matching level of force tells me you don't know much about their training, unless you're talking about bad cops who are trained badly (who are exactly the kind of cops and police forces we're talking about in this thread). You control the situation, but do so by moving up the use of force continuum. Example of what such a thing generally looks like here: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx Excessive force is when police go higher on that continuum than necessary to control the situation. A jaywalker likely can be controlled via verbal commands. If their method of controlling the jaywalker is to punch him right off the bat, sure, that's "control," but it's totally excessive and unnecessary. If it was purely about control, there'd be no need for a use of force continuum or laws against excessive force by police. It's obviously not, it's about controlling and defusing the situation as peaceably as possible.

As MisterPinstripe says, depends on the person they're dealing with. But also, in general, non-compliance that persists through moving up the use of force continuum, including through what would normally be reasonable force, would probably justify escalation. Even then though, I'm not sure escalation is the right word. Cops aren't meant to "escalate," as you keep suggesting. Police actions are meant to defuse the situation as peaceably as possible, so that means using as low of a level of force as possible to solve the situation, moving up the use of force continuum as slowly as the situation allows. In the vast majority of situations cops don't need to "escalate," they likely at most match the force that the criminal is either exerting on themselves or other people, or has the likely potential to exert on the officers or other people. A situation with a non-resisting criminal who is also non-compliant (a hippie chained to a tree, for example) would maybe be where "escalation" makes some measure of sense as a term, since they would have to use physical force to handle someone not using or threatening physical violence. But there, the measure of force necessary isn't particularly high, well below what was used in the videos, until force is reciprocated and movement up the use of force continuum is necessitated.

Hard to change perception without the actual video. We'd need that released first. Even the article itself does not fully back up its own headline about the "pre-slam," part. The dailymail has what appears to be videos from 3 different angles, so one might be the previously unreleased 3rd video, though I'm not sure. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291816/Second-video-violent-classroom-clash-emerges-fellow-student-claims-disturbing-incident-happened-girl-cell-phone-class.html None of them show clearly any physical action by the girl beforehand, at best she may have shoved him away as he began to grab her, but even that is just speculation as the camera movement at the same time as the cop moving into action in the 3rd video makes it a little unclear (2nd video is obscured by a laptop and 1st is too late and too close up). If she strikes the cop during the altercation, heck no, not a problem. If someone flips the desk you're sitting in then drags you along the floor, you're naturally going to resist. I know bad cops think we didn't evolve to react to pain and force over thousands of years and just go limp when someone grabs us, but we didn't. Some measure of shoving and slapping as a natural and instinctual self-defense measure is to be expected and hardly validates excessive police force. Even if she did something pre-slam, unless she's wearing brass knuckles, or attempting to stab/shoot him, no, it doesn't change things. She's a dang kid using a laptop and phone in a classroom against teacher's orders, not a damn knife wielding drug kingpin. At most she probably ineffectually shoved or slapped a guy who's at least double her size. Yeah, big man was real threatened. I understand this is a difficult concept for some, but Police are supposed to de-escalate the situation. Reasonable force in response to the situation. Move up the use of force continuum one by one. Maybe restrain her and pull her from the chair, I dunno, without flipping it, and that's assuming she hit him (which not a good assumption at this point). Flipping a desk like it's the damn WWE and it's Hell in a Cell night and the cop is doing his best "AND HIS NAME IS JOHN CENA" impression isn't de-escalating unless she's got a deadly weapon on her. Nothing so far suggests she had anything more deadly than sass and a rebellious personality.

I hadn't even watched the video yet because this kind of stuff had become so routine I was numb to it. But then I saw it on CNN. Holy cow, he starts by flipping the desk over with her in it. I mean, what the hell, man? That's a straight up roid rage, kill a man in a street brawl while ****ed up on drugs move. Something is very wrong with that guy. More wrong than most cops who screw up.

I suppose that's a possibility but it's extremely suspicious. It's likely at least a little fire to go with the considerable smoke on the issue. The problem, of course, is that trying to get accurate data is almost impossible since the amount and origin of money can be easily obscured and blocked. Small bits of payoffs can look like legit payments because the rest is still obscured, and it could be years between each reveal, allowing for plausible deniability. That being said, if the climate denier camp is allowed to claim that there's a vast, multinational, grant money conspiracy for climate change, for which they've conducted tons of investigations yielding nothing, and yet they persist in their demand that the scientific community prove the negative that they aren't fabricating things while constantly setting the bar for scientific evidence of climate change higher and higher, I think we're allowed to call them on this one. And further, ask that they prove the negative that this payment isn't related to payoffs for climate denial writings.

We knew it was there, but until company financials get revealed, we don't get to know for certain that it's happening. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/coal-company-backed-high-profile-climate-denier/

True dat. I saw Baby Geniuses, those kids could truly form an impressive militia. Especially because no one suspects the baby to be packing heat. But I do wonder, if they're so smart, why do they keep shooting themselves and others?

This feels like it should be in The Onion, but nope, it's real. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?tid=sm_fb

This case is very sad, but the care the police showed in attempting to preserve the life of the shooter and defuse the situation is truly commendable. They would certainly have been justified in simply returning fire immediately after the first shot was fired at them, but they attempted to keep the man from putting them in a completely unwinnable situation. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/body-cam-footage-clears-cops-in-cleveland-shooting-death/ It also is very demonstrative of the benefits that body cams provide to police. With the clear benefits to the public they have included with the benefits to the police, there's really not any good reason not to implement them widely.

And here's the thing, the benefits of getting the CDC and NIH back into studies extends beyond themselves. Independent researchers are largely reliant on federal grants to build their own studies, and the loss of public funding extends to them, as their ability to get any sort of grant funding pretty much dries up. This report goes through a lot of the issues with the funding drying up. http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/c1/6/1017/3/access_denied.pdf Some basic numbers; public funding for gun violence research is $2 million, compared to $21 million for studying headaches. The National Institute of Justice published 32 studies on gun violence between 1993 and 1999, but has published none since 2008. Academic publishing on firearms has dropped 60 percent. Much of our data is out of date by well over a decade, and that has a huge impact on the ability of police, the ATF, and other agencies, federal, state, and local, to be able to perform their duties to protect and serve the public. The report is a cornucopia of information about how badly we've screwed ourselves by not adequately funding research on gun studies. But there's an interesting bit from an op-ed that Jay Dickey, the Congressman who spearheaded the legislation restricting the CDC, and Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former NCIPC director, co-wrote in 2012. So to answer the question about what's so magical about CDC studies? The answer is, at least in the realm of statistical analysis of the issue, everything.

Well, yes, I think most have accepted that some kids will be gunned down arbitrarily sometimes, but not that we can't reduce the number. As for arguing these points while the bodies pile up, we could put the CDC to work doing studies and allow them to fund outside studies so we'll know what solutions are the most efficient, but a certain airline along with the whole GOP is opposed to that.

No. We've been a little preoccupied with trying to stop as many as possible without stepping on Constitutional rights, because eliminating all mass murders is an unrealistic goal, but eliminating many/most should be very possible with reasonable (albeit complex in implementation) reforms.

This is more of a PSA for other people peeking in here than at you TWA, since we've done this song and dance before. If you want more info. check post #517.

Well, there's a bit of a difference here. If a person IS using an NRA talking point, then it's not unfair to point out that they are, actually, using an NRA talking point. Compare that to above, where the argument was made that "they only want to use the latest tragedy to push their general belief that people should not own guns; or at least most people should not own guns" and that "The ones pushing the gun control agenda don't want to hear about research, mental health, culture, or society." This is factually not accurate, in light of the fact that Congressional Democrats have put forth bills to repeal the CDC ban, and Obama made an executive order about it. Further, on mental health, the ACA has significantly expanded mental health services by requiring most plans to cover mental health and substance use disorder. Now, if you're talking about someone saying someone is using an NRA talking point when they factually aren't, that's different, or if you're talking about someone saying you ARE a member of the NRA, when you aren't, that's different. This thread is long, so my memory of specific instances of comparisons to NRA talking points may be incomplete, but as far as I remember, most comparisons were of the first order, not the second or third.

This is an over-generalization by far, and simply not true across everyone on the gun control side of things. On research, lots of people here have been pushing for more research. There are some (not all) on the pro-gun side that oppose it, but on the research front, it's the gun control side that pushes it. Democrats in Congress, on several occasions have attempted to lift the CDC ban, and Obama even attempted to jumpstart things with an executive order (which was unfortunately unsuccessful due to the limited nature of executive orders). This research isn't aimed only at mass shootings, heck it wouldn't even be aimed purely at guns, since the root causes of gun violence could be things aside from guns like mental health or economic distress. But the side blocking that research isn't the gun control side. And for me personally, I've been banging the table for root cause gun violence research for months. On mental health, it's been discussed at length in this thread at length by both sides that: - mental health is an issue for mass shootings (somewhere between ~25% to north of 60% of mass shooting cases) - mental health is a much smaller issue for gun violence overall, but still an issue (about 5% of overall cases) - mental health testing will have rights concerns - mental health testing will have diagnostic issues at point of purchase, which leads to... - it may be more effective to implement mental health reform generally than to attempt it for the limited purpose of mass shooting and/or gun violence prevention (with said reforms likely having some trickle down positive impact) Here's the thing, addressing mental health is complicated, any bills put forth in such a short time frame would by necessity be half-assed. So chastizing the gun control side for not going full tilt towards mental health reform isn't fair or reasonable since such reform is complex and time consuming. And that's assuming things wouldn't grind to a halt when money entered the picture. These reforms would cost a lot if done right, whatever "right" ultimately turns out to be. Is there money for it? There are political stereotypes that enter into this funding debate, which I won't go over, but, based on their usual alignment, if funding for mental health came up short, it would NOT be the gun control people who were responsible. As for culture and society, that's too subjective and nebulous to really be useful in this debate. Where one side see degradation of the culture and society (abortion, gay marriage), the other side sees progress (woman's right to choose, gay marriage). With regards to street crime, plenty of options that would assist in that regard have been put forth over the two threads that arose after the Oregon shooting. Universal background checks and registrations aren't going to only help mass shootings, they're aimed at gun violence generally, and would likely also help mass shootings. People have mentioned increased penalties for illegal sale of firearms, that helps generally. Improved storage procedures help both. Smart guns may present solutions depending on implementation. All of these things and more have been discussed and proposed, and aren't just aimed at mass shootings. The economic issue has been mentioned and discussed too, but not widely because the economic issues are extremely complex and could probably use 10 different threads on their own sub-issues. No one, however, isn't acknowledging that improved economic outlooks would assist in reducing violence generally, it's just that there are significant disagreements on how to do that which are better suited for their own thread or the 2016 election thread that here. Heck, even those of us on the "gun control" "side" have discussed solutions that don't necessarily involve less guns or more control over guns. I know I've said that I'm fine with limited and trained armed guards in "gun free" zones such as schools, and others have echoed that sentiment. Finally, this is the Gun Control Debate Thread. You're naturally going to see gun control pros and cons discussed at length. Gun control IS definitely a part of the discussion with regards to the reduction of gun violence; addressing economics, mental health, and culture and society won't cure all the curable ills. So getting all worked up over people talking about gun control, in a gun control thread, and not talking about other issues intertwined in gun violence to your satisfaction is not a problem with the gun control side, it's your personal problem.

The CDC isn't "banned" the same way parents say "oh sure, go to that party and stay out past curfew." Then they stay out and get grounded for a month. Are you pretending that if the CDC went and shoved $10M into doing root cause gun violence research, that the GOP wouldn't immediately slash their funding? Because we all know they would. They've threatened as much. CDC funding of gun research studies has fallen 96% since the '96 ban. I suppose we can pretend that 4% of the funding is "funding," except you, I, and everyone knows it's woefully inadequate and insufficient to do the kind of studies needed to get a complete understanding of the issue. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347 And with regard to all the "studies" you say are still being done.

There is something, the CDC ban. The government should fund them, because they both A) have the most resources and B ) have the easiest access to the most complete data. Everyone else doing studies is getting data 2nd hand from the government, and is more resource limited, which means more margin for error/fewer factors examined. That and the whole fact that it's a public health issue, and the government is supposed to investigate those things. I would gladly donate to a crowdfunded study on root causes of gun violence if one popped up and it checked out as legit. Alas, I'm sure there'd be some statistical hiccup somewhere (that could be fixed with more studies) that would make you call the study invalid (while simultaneously saying we don't need more studies).

Here's the problem with that view. 96% of funding for gun research dried up after the CDC ban. Now, you're worried about statistical bias. Fair enough. You know how you eliminate statistical bias? WITH MORE STUDIES. Study X, controlling Y. Study Y controlling X. Study both, study neither. Study study study until you've eliminated as many statistical biases as possible and any biases are within the margin of error. But you can't do that if 96% of funding for studies has dried up. That's going to have a tremendous and terrifying impact on the number of studies, and the fewer studies there are, the fewer things they can study in fewer ways. So no, it's not a false assertion about studies being done vs. not done. Many studies that would have happened are not being done, and the few that are being done have no other studies on the same or different factors, helping to reduce statistical bias on the issue in total. There are so few studies done that they are basically useless, and the remedy to that is to actually do studies, lots of them; costly, time consuming studies with lots of scientists.

I'm not sure if you're mushing "politically biased" and normal "statistical bias" (which are very different than each other, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)) together and saying they're one and the same, or if you're saying that because statistical studies often have statistical biases, they're not useful. If it's the former, well, statistical bias and political bias are very different things. Stat bias can be sussed out with more studies that account for and examine more factors. If it's the latter, that opinion basically invalidates all studies on everything, ever, which is silly, and also not accurate, because you can often control statistical biases by conducting studies in a different way. Of course, that requires studies to actually be happening.

If we're talking about restrictions by state again, this chart probably should show up again, and NOT* because of the ranking, but because it is very informative as to what states have what laws. *okay, maybe a little bit And of course, state restrictions =/= federal restrictions. If you don't like a state's gun laws, you can just move.

Kind of like how if we didn't do anything after Sandy Hook, we probably weren't doing anything else during this generation on guns, after climate deniers rejected the consensus on climate change research consisting of over 10,000 peer reviewed studies on the grounds that there's a massive grant-fueled global warming conspiracy, we probably weren't going to be able to get any studies on anything without them being attacked as partisan.

We could go back over the 12 pages here, and 7 more in the other thread, where people have put forth ideas, or I could spend an hour laying out all the potential laws that could be implemented, BUT seeing as we seem to be the only two in here, and you will ignore anything that even remotely resembles gun control, I'll save my efforts for another day, when people who are actually interested in finding solutions to national public health issues are in here.

Yes, they would help. They'd also feel good. And responsible gun owners, in exchange for some minor intrusions in their usual purchasing/storage processes, will get to be secure in the knowledge that they aren't going to be politically attacked all the time anymore. One compromise from abortion debate that maybe we could make: for each investigation into Planned Parenthood that occurs, the CDC gets to do one study into the root causes of gun violence. Anyone cool with that? We'll even let the GOP get a head start and won't bank the numerous states that have concluded investigations (finding nothing); we'll only count ongoing and future investigations towards the CDC's study total.

Right, the "cost of doing business." The same reason we can't impose new gun laws, it's the cost of the doing business. I'm sure that's very comforting for all the victims of gun violence.