Death by Silent Submission - Page 11

**CingularDuality** · 12-31-2007, 10:23 PM

OK, for any of you that are at all interested in use-of-force discussion and a clarification of what "reasonable" is, this website has a survey with interesting results. Help out by taking the survey and do your part to help provide a definition for "reasonable". The results of this survey have already been used in over 260 cases to help defeat plaintiffs' exaggerated claims of excessive force.

Quote:

The US Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officers must act in an “objectively reasonable” manner when dealing with tense, rapidly evolving situations. Split second life and death decisions are then analyzed months and years later in safe and comfortable court rooms. How does an “objectively reasonable” person act? There is no standard definition used to satisfy this legal standard. I have worked for eighteen years to develop the Action-Response Continuum that guides and empowers law enforcement officers when dealing with resistance, assault and aggression.

The Action-Response Continuum places the focus directly on the subject – right where it belongs. The officer is not engaged in “use of force” – they are simply responding in an objectively reasonable manner to the actions of the subject. A compilation of over 20,000 survey results from law enforcement and correctional officers, military personnel and civilians form the backbone of this research based continuum. Our goal is support the public safety community by establishing a national guideline for response to resistance, assault and aggression. We hope to create a data-base of 1 million or more survey respondents. Please Take Our Survey and make your voice heard.

http://www.responsetoresistance.com/

Kerostasis · 01-01-2008, 03:58 PM

Interesting survey. I was slightly annoyed that in the last survey question they didn't break out "firearms as response to weapons" from "firearms as response to dangerous punches", but other than that I was pretty satisfied with the balance.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-01-2008, 10:08 PM

Horrible questions. Way to vague.

Quote:

If a subject is not responding to an officer’s instructions or commands, or offers verbal threats or physical signs of resistance, is it reasonable for the officers to attempt the following?

Not responding to instructions OR verbal threats? There is huge difference between the two.

The last question

Quote:

If a subject is seriously attempting to injure or kill an officer with personal weapons (hands & feet), or if a subject is trying to take the officer’s firearm away, or is using a weapon against the officer (gun, knife, shank, club, etc.). Is it reasonable for the officer to attempt the following?

But in the voice over they also talk about using hands and feet to kill the officer.

It all seems misleading and I trust no results that it produced.

**Sirusblk** · 01-01-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Not responding to instructions OR verbal threats? There is huge difference

Wow totally I agree, I can't believe they put both of those on par with each other.

One is obviously malicious no matter what the situation is. The other could depend on circumstances. If a cop tells you to jump off a bridge, do you do it?

**CingularDuality** · 01-01-2008, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Horrible questions. Way to vague.

Not responding to instructions OR verbal threats? There is huge difference between the two.

Think of the worst case (or best case, depending on your perspective) scenario and answer the question with that in mind. Hell, answer the questions however you want to! The whole purpose of the survey is to find out what people think is reasonable!

Quote:

The last question

Quote:

If a subject is seriously attempting to injure or kill an officer with personal weapons (hands & feet), or if a subject is trying to take the officer’s firearm away, or is using a weapon against the officer (gun, knife, shank, club, etc.). Is it reasonable for the officer to attempt the following?

But in the voice over they also talk about using hands and feet to kill the officer.

It all seems misleading and I trust no results that it produced.

I have no idea what you find misleading about that question. What's different between what you quoted and what you say is in the voiceover?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

Wow totally I agree, I can't believe they put both of those on par with each other.

One is obviously malicious no matter what the situation is. The other could depend on circumstances. If a cop tells you to jump off a bridge, do you do it?

Heh... Well, if I were religious, I would pray for any cop that has you on the jury, because you just proved that you have absolutely no idea what "reasonable" is...

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-01-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Think of the worst case (or best case, depending on your perspective) scenario and answer the question with that in mind. Hell, answer the questions however you want to! The whole purpose of the survey is to find out what people think is reasonable!

I am saying that this survey can not reveal anything because it is poorly constructed. Because the person taking the survey is forced to make a judgment about the question you do not know what their answer actually means.

So there is no way you can find out what people think is reasonable.

Plus it is voluntary and that pretty much kills it right of the bat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I have no idea what you find misleading about that question. What's different between what you quoted and what you say is in the voiceover?

Then I pray for any person that has to deal with you in your line of work!

It's a joke! I am a kidder!

But you know as well as I do that there is a difference between attacking somebody with hands and feet, a knife and a firearm. If you don't then let's have a fist fight and I will bring a gun.

But beyond that, some people will watch the video and some will only read the text. Therefore people will answer the question based on different information.

Now how in the hell can you get accurate results if people are answering different questions?

**CingularDuality** · 01-02-2008, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But you know as well as I do that there is a difference between attacking somebody with hands and feet, a knife and a firearm.

Really? Tell me, what is the difference between somebody killing you with their hands, killing you with a knife, or killing you with a gun? If someone is trying to kill you, regardless of their choice of weapon, you use reasonable force against them.

The videos are a part of the survey. They're intended to clarify the question for people that don't understand the text alone. It is very well constructed, you just don't have a decent grasp of use of force theory (or response to resistance theory

). That's OK. I hope to continue to educate you, and I hope you educate yourself using other sources as well.

Besides, despite the fact that you later contradicted yourself, you already pointed out that the questions in the video and the text are the same.

mentholated · 01-02-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Really? Tell me, what is the difference between somebody killing you with their hands, killing you with a knife, or killing you with a gun? If someone is trying to kill you, regardless of their choice of weapon, you use reasonable force against them.

The videos are a part of the survey. They're intended to clarify the question for people that don't understand the text alone. It is very well constructed, you just don't have a decent grasp of use of force theory (or response to resistance theory

). That's OK. I hope to continue to educate you, and I hope you educate yourself using other sources as well.

Besides, despite the fact that you later contradicted yourself, you already pointed out that the questions in the video and the text are the same.

I'd have to agree with cing here, hands and knives are just as deadly as firearms if you know how to use them. However, unless some guy is rehearsing for the nutcracker on your neck I wouldn't say its justifiable to shoot them or slam them to the ground and dogpile them while hes screaming stop. If I ever saw that I would certainly intervene. People do die from lack of asphyxiation and internal injury when 5 burly guys are ontop of them restraining their limbs, hitting them in the kidneys with batons, telling them to "stop resisting".

Kerostasis · 01-02-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But beyond that, some people will watch the video and some will only read the text. Therefore people will answer the question based on different information.

Now how in the hell can you get accurate results if people are answering different questions?

Actually, the survey was constructed so that you can't select a response until you first play the video, so everyone has at least seen it. I suppose there could be people who just didn't pay attention, but there's really no way to prevent that anyway.

**TheFeniX** · 01-02-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But you know as well as I do that there is a difference between attacking somebody with hands and feet, a knife and a firearm. If you don't then let's have a fist fight and I will bring a gun.

No there isn't. There is only intent.

If I intend to just injury you, I could punch you in the gut, stab you in the leg, or shoot you in the hand. None of those could be considered deadly force, except in the circumstance that it could be proved I was trying to rupture your spleen or cause you to bleed to death.

If I want to kill you, I could elbow you in the face and/or stab/shoot you in the chest. There's a fine-line between the use of force and deadly force. You don't need a weapon to use either.

I do agree that there there is a difference between "Not responding to instructions OR verbal threats?" That's an issue with escalation.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-02-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Actually, the survey was constructed so that you can't select a response until you first play the video, so everyone has at least seen it. I suppose there could be people who just didn't pay attention, but there's really no way to prevent that anyway.

There is a bug in it because I did exactly that. Answered it without watching the video.

And what do you say to the hearing impaired?

I think It might be because I hit the back button more than a few times. That is often a killer in many web applications.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-02-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

No there isn't. There is only intent.

If I intend to just injury you, I could punch you in the gut, stab you in the leg, or shoot you in the hand. None of those could be considered deadly force, except in the circumstance that it could be proved I was trying to rupture your spleen or cause you to bleed to death.

If I want to kill you, I could elbow you in the face and/or stab/shoot you in the chest. There's a fine-line between the use of force and deadly force. You don't need a weapon to use either.

I do agree that there there is a difference between "Not responding to instructions OR verbal threats?" That's an issue with escalation.

Yes, but pulling a gun on somebody makes the intent much easier to spot that somebody taking a swing. So with regards to the central question of reasonable response it makes a difference.

I have never had anybody fire a shot at me. A few have taken a swing. I don't think any of them wanted to kill me. If I had shot one of the persons taking a swing and claimed the person wanted to kill I doubt I would win. Or at least it would be much harder to prove.

The point is the question can be interpreted in vastly different ways resulting in invalid data that shows nothing.

**Sirusblk** · 01-02-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Yes, but pulling a gun on somebody makes the intent much easier to spot that somebody taking a swing. So with regards to the central question of reasonable response it makes a difference.

I have never had anybody fire a shot at me. A few have taken a swing. I don't think any of them wanted to kill me. If I had shot one of the persons taking a swing and claimed the person wanted to kill I doubt I would win. Or at least it would be much harder to prove.

The point is the question can be interpreted in vastly different ways resulting in invalid data that shows nothing.

There's truth here. If someone puts a gun to your head, it's pretty clear they have an intent on killing you, not simply injuring. If someone takes a swing at your head, which has happened to me in preschool and beyond often for no reason, their intent may be to kill you, but often times it's just to injure you.

Now I'm really only arguing semantics. There's no reason for you to try to injure or kill a cop. If you do then you're probably guilty in the first place.

Guns don't kill people, people do. But you can't argue that guns make it easier.

Kerostasis · 01-03-2008, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

There is a bug in it because I did exactly that. Answered it without watching the video.

And what do you say to the hearing impaired?

I think It might be because I hit the back button more than a few times. That is often a killer in many web applications.

Ah, well come to think of it you're probably right, the security features that were supposed to force you to watch the video first did seem poorly designed. Its entirely plausible that you could find a way to get around them.

Then again, if you're going to that much effort to get around them, wouldnt it be easier to just hit play on the video and wait a few seconds?

Also, the hearing impaired could still play the video, they just wouldn't hear the sound track obviously.

ScratchMonkey · 01-03-2008, 10:49 AM

You can die from an opponent's action even if he doesn't have intent to kill you. For example, you could break your neck in a fall, or asphyxiate from a number of sources.

01-03-2008, 10:49 AM	#165 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 4,565	Re: Death by Silent Submission You can die from an opponent's action even if he doesn't have intent to kill you. For example, you could break your neck in a fall, or asphyxiate from a number of sources.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links