View Poll Results: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes for violent and or lethal force if the non-violent suspect is not cooperating.

    2 4.76%
  • Yes for violent force if the non-violent suspect is not cooperating.

    5 11.90%
  • No regardless if the non-violent suspect is or isn't cooperating.

    29 69.05%
  • Other

    4 9.52%
  • Maybe/I do not know.

    2 4.76%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 63 of 63

Thread: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

  1. #61
    User avatar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    07-22-17 @ 06:55 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    133

    Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

    On can always postulate a circumstance where the choice of an absolute answer is wrong. On a case by case basis has meaning here.

  2. #62
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Rare? YouTube is packed with such videos - and for ever video there are at least 100 times no video was running.

    And what are you talking about curling you and covering your head? The police are shouting - if they know a video is running - "give me your arm! give me your arm! Stop resisting! Stop resisting! Stop trying to take my gun! You're resisting!!" while having you pinned to the ground slugging, clubbing and tasering you in the face and genitals as fast as they can.

    Curling up and covering your face would be considered "resisting" by at least nearly half the members of the forum, for which the police then have no choice but to put at least 500 pounds on your chest, taser you at least 50 times - mostly in the face - and hit you with fists or a club at least 50 times in the face too. Trying to prevent being beaten to death is "resisting" - and resisting is illegal. Usually, this is fat, shaved head police doing this.

    Don't you read the messages people are posting? Never look at the videos?


    Surfing YouTube for police brutality vids is not one of my hobbies, no. I'd point out you don't know how those vids may have been edited, either.

    In a nation of 300 million people and a couple million cops, **** is going to happen sometimes... and it should be dealt with when it does.


    But fighting the po-po with you fists just isn't going to turn out well, pretty much ever.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    Cop shows are hardly the best evidence, but American cops seem to be very keen to throw someone to the floor, handcuff and kneel on them before starting a conversation! That's an exaggeration, but in comparison, British cops will take all sorts of BS, evasions and insults before they (I almost said "are provoked") are forced into physical restraint. Don't get me wrong, when tye do, they go in hard and effectively, but everyone knows the line. Come at them swinging, and you're decked forthwith. They will also handcuff to the front, and might even allow a prisoner a smoke before the van arrives to take them to the cop shop. There just seems to be more latitude for angry, upset, whatever people to vent their spleen before or during their arrest. Maybe it's down to the "Policing by Consent" concept.

    Peelian Principles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    For the most part, I like Peel's list.

    1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

    2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

    3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

    4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

    5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

    6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

    7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
    8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
    9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.


    Go ahead and mark this down on your calendar, because it is a rare event.... I'm thinking we could use a bit of Peel's principles here in the New World.
    Last edited by Goshin; 12-11-14 at 05:54 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •