[rp1]

How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically. Cops also have guns strapped to their sides that can be reached for. I’m not justifying their behavior, but when I try to imagine subduing someone, I’m not really sure how I would do it. There is definitely room for tools that make it easier.

[krastanov]

Usually the argument is "do not try to subdue them, try to de-escalate". Obviously that is not always possible, but before worrying about how to deal with the objectively complicated cases of subduing a belligerent person without hurting them, we should probably focus on the much more common problem of police escalating instead of de-escalating situations.

[rp1]

That’s not really an answer to the question. It would be nice if all situations could be de-escalated, but that’s obviously not the case. De-escalation also has its own risks for the officer. Again, not saying I support what happened, but it seems so hard to manage a situation with a belligerent person when I imagine trying to do it myself. Even doing something relatively benign, like removing a loitering person, is not something I’d want to attempt.

[mrsuprawsm]

There’s a fair number of videos from eg the UK where they do exactly this. The usual playbook seems to be: get a few people distracting the guy from the front, and another few rush them from the back whilst distracted and hit them with batons or just jump on them.

Or just distract them for a long while and wait for more backup and people with shields.

https://youtu.be/9mzPj_IaMzY

It takes a bit of effort and coordination but is obviously massively preferable to being executed on the spot by the state.

[rp1]

Having 10 officers beat an individual with clubs doesn’t exactly seem good either…

[derefr]

> How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically.

Why not? We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors and carry people to safety; and a large part of their downtime is upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that. We hold all soldiers to the standard of being able to haul huge packs over miles while being shot at; and a large part of their downtime is also constant upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that.

And, in fact, by closest analogy, we hold all EMS personnel (and also orderlies for in-patient wards) to the standard of being able to bodily subdue people who are in a state of violent delirium, to get them strapped onto a gurney. And, again, we expect them to work out to achieve and maintain the requisite level of physical fitness.

So why can’t we hold all police to the standard of having the physical strength to bodily subdue people, and expect them to do the required upkeep on their physical fitness to enable that?

(Yes, the people police are dealing with sometimes have weapons. Mostly they do not. Even in America; even in the most gun-carrying parts of America, they mostly do not. The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule. The expectations for police should be built around the requirements to carry out the general-case tactic [physical subdual of unarmed offender], not the requirements to carry out the exceptional-case tactic [armed takedown of armed offender].)

And note that I’m not suggesting police go in and wrestle people to the ground. They should be using tools, like man-catchers. It’s just that those tools are just multipliers for the effectiveness of physical strength, and so you still need to be highly physically strong to make effective use of them in a one-on-one or two-on-one confrontation.

[josephcsible]

> We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors

Doors don't fight back.

> The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule.

If the person you're trying to subdue has a concealed weapon, this will get you killed.

[jopython]

> We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors and carry people to safety

Keep in mind. Firefighters are not fighting people with delirium. Its a different job with a different skill set.

After the George Floyd case cops are hesitant to go one on one. Nobody wants to end up becoming a Derek Chauvin even by accident.

[V__]

Very well said.

[Vrondi]

I know that intelligence is not sought out in police candidates, but I think we need to be requiring a basic elementary school level of education, such as knowledge that "alcohol is flammable, and we don't apply electricity to flammable things". I mean the problem isn't just tasering; it is tasering someone drenched in alcohol. Kids know alcohol will burn, so were they trying to burn him to death intentionally, or are these officers really going to claim to be that stupid?

[V__]

But that's what police in a lot of countries, for example in Europe, are doing. Go 2 on 1 or call for backup and stall. If that is not possible they use peperspray and batons.

[treeman79]

Perhaps people could be respectful toward authorities and follow directions when a stressful situation is happening. Deal with issues at a later point as appropriate.

[mrsuprawsm]

This comment is, with respect, wildly delusional. There are many instances of the "authorities" (the police) murdering people after issuing conflicting instructions, or even when people follow their instructions anyway.

Furthermore, many of the people in said situations are often mentally ill (and thus require healthcare, not the police), or intoxicated.