Hii kesi kwisha. Atasema that is how he was trained to apprehend suspects and for all intents and purposes , it is right there in the police training manual.
It appears that whoever wrote this manual anticipated this exact scenario to save his cop buddies.
I thought you are aware of what you post until now. Even what you have posted clearly says that the intention should be to control. A cuffed person is already under control. What you have posted even lack context. Use your head before wanking in our presence
The manual only says the [SIZE=6]MPD authorises[/SIZE]… two types of neck restraints: Conscious Neck Restraint and Unconscious Neck Restraint. (04/16/12)
And as you can see under the Unconscious Neck Restraint, it is allowed to render the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure!!
There is no national police force in the US. They have local police forces under the control of mayors. All police chiefs are elected in the local council. The president has no control over police training in each locality. Poorer areas get poorer trained police and only the worst apply so they do the worst. Better neinbourhoods with better taxes offer better training and only accept the best people.
Such an idiot! There is Sheriff, State Police, FBI, CIA, Marshals, National Guard, etc. The US is a a hierarchy of policing! There is no absolute authority vested in a single entity. Do you have a degree in Law?
[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)](Look at the very last sentence.)
PROCEDURES/REGULATIONS II.
[ol]
[li]The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting. (04/16/12)[/li][li]The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12)[/li][LIST=1]
[li]On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;[/li][li]For life saving purposes, or;[/li][li]On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.[/li][/ol]
[li]Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy. (04/16/12)[/li][li]After Care Guidelines (04/16/12)[/li][ol]
[li]After a neck restraint or choke hold has been used on a subject, sworn MPD employees shall keep them under close observation until they are released to medical or other law enforcement personnel.[/li][li]An officer who has used a neck restraint or choke hold shall inform individuals accepting custody of the subject, that the technique was used on the subject.[/li][/ol]
[/LIST]
The manual is clear: You cannot place pressure on the trachea or airway:
The victim stated he could not breath.
The crowd around the incident severally notified the Police Officers that the victim could not breath.
At that point the Officer was required to release the restraint since:
a. The victim was handcuffed.
b.Other officers had immobilized the victim
In 1992 the defence requested the judge to move the trial to a new neighborhood to avoid bias and influence from media. The judge agreed, this was something that had never been witnessed.
The trial into the beating of Rodney King was moved to Simi Valley a predominantly white neighborhood. The judge and jury were all white. Plus it was quite far for city blacks with no cars to attend. And of course African Americans who wore tshirts with Rodney King picture were turned away at the court entrance ati they will influence the case.
On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.
In your informed wisdom, tell us how a cuffed and unresponsive person is actively resisting?
His lawyer will probably say that Chauvin has applied choke holds before and none of the suspect’s died plus it is in the manual. It is allowed to render someone unconscious. “We are very sorry this was an accident. …”
Chauvin will pretend to look sad and sorry. He has lost his house and his wife. The judge will be told of how the guy gave 18 years of his life to the police force…
Thats like arguing that you have beaten traffic lights before and have never been arrested. All that counts is the day you were apprehended.
Lawyer wouldnt use that argument. Thats admitting to the crime.