Can carotid restraints ever be used legally as deadly force?

[caseyboy]

I’m sure a resounding “yes” is reverberating amongst the law enforcement community already. But lets think about it for a bit.

O.C.GA. 16-3-21
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Now I am not looking for crazy off the wall scenarios like silently killing one bad guy so his friends with guns won’t hear you. I’m am thinking about your run of the mill scenario like a bad guy pulling a knife or other weapon… basically a situation where you would be justified using your firearm… in a close quarters context.

So picture the situation; the bad guy pulls a knife and lunges for you. You side step (luckily) and the guy stumbles and goes down. You immediately jump on his back and slap on a RNC, using your hooks (feet for the non- bjjers) to pin down his knife hand. You crank up the pressure and after 5 seconds he drops the knife. You roll the two of you out of reach of the knife and keep the RNC on. 5 more seconds pass and you hear that familiar snore. Well he could be faking so you hold on for a few more seconds just to make sure. Now you KNOW he’s out, no question in your mind, he is dreaming.

My argument is that now you HAVE TO STOP. The deadly force situation has passed and you are no longer in life threatening danger. If you continue to apply the carotid restraint and kill the guy, you will be committing murder. I argue that for cops with experience in submission grappling this is even more undeniably a case of murder because of their experience and training.

Thoughts? Experiences? Case law? I can’t see any way past this.

[Tom Kagan]

So picture the situation; the bad guy pulls a knife and lunges for you. You side step (luckily) and the guy stumbles and goes down. You immediately jump on his back and slap on a RNC, using your hooks (feet for the non- bjjers) to pin down his knife hand. You crank up the pressure and after 5 seconds he drops the knife. You roll the two of you out of reach of the knife and keep the RNC on. 5 more seconds pass and you hear that familiar snore. Well he could be faking so you hold on for a few more seconds just to make sure. Now you KNOW he’s out, no question in your mind, he is dreaming.

My argument is that now you HAVE TO STOP. The deadly force situation has passed and you are no longer in life threatening danger. If you continue to apply the carotid restraint and kill the guy, you will be committing murder. I argue that for cops with experience in submission grappling this is even more undeniably a case of murder because of their experience and training.

Thoughts? Experiences? Case law? I can’t see any way past this.

With all due respect to the members of the LEO community... uh, what the kind of training did you receive?

Your scenario puts you within FIFETEEN FEET of a knife wielding suspect. You ALREADY should have your sidearm out and prepared to shoot. If he presented the weapon late and got you by surprise, in that lucky moment you managed to sidestep, should be making space and going for your sidearm immediately. (At the very least, you should pull your mace out and spray.)


Now, with that said...

Regarding the specifics to the choke hold: I'm guessing you are under 35. There actually are a lot of studies and regulations throughout the nation on chokeholds and LEO use of force. (For further info into why that's the case, look up former Los Angeles, CA police chief Daryl F. Gates.)

Regarding the specifics of when to release: I'm a little surprised there is even a question in your mind. To me, this would be no different than posing this question: "I just put three rounds into someone. He's down, he's not moving, and he dropped his weapon. He did scare me and was very menacing before, so can I shoot him in the head when I get closer to him for good measure?

[DSL]

"I just put three rounds into someone. He's down, he's not moving, and he dropped his weapon. He did scare me and was very menacing before, so can I shoot him in the head when I get closer to him for good measure?"

Would that be bad?

(heh, sorry, feel free to move this to Trollshido Tom, couldn't help it)

But yes, I would say it would be considered murder.

[caseyboy]

With all due respect to the members of the LEO community... uh, what the kind of training did you receive?

Your scenario puts you within FIFETEEN FEET of a knife wielding suspect. You ALREADY should have your sidearm out and prepared to shoot. If he presented the weapon late and got you by surprise, in that lucky moment you managed to sidestep, should be making space and going for your sidearm immediately. (At the very least, you should pull your mace out and spray.)


Now, with that said...

Regarding the specifics to the choke hold: I'm guessing you are under 35. There actually are a lot of studies and regulations throughout the nation on chokeholds and LEO use of force. (For further info into why that's the case, look up former Los Angeles, CA police chief Daryl F. Gates.)

Regarding the specifics of when to release: I'm a little surprised there is even a question in your mind. To me, this would be no different than posing this question: "I just put three rounds into someone. He's down, he's not moving, and he dropped his weapon. He did scare me and was very menacing before, so can I shoot him in the head when I get closer to him for good measure?

Way to ruin my follow up question Tom:angry5:

I guess my scenario should have been a little more clear. Picture a traffic stop where you ask for the guys id and instead he pulls out the knife. You are near traffic and have no space to disengage and draw, so instinctively you go hands on.

And its true that federal case law shows carotid restraints to be less lethal. However, most departments S.O.P. consider it as lethal.

I assume there are some states that feel the same.

Pepper spray vs. a knife? Very bad idea. If you have time to draw at all, less lethal should not be used against lethal without lethal cover.

I wish I was still under 35.

[Tom Kagan]

I guess my scenario should have been a little more clear. Picture a traffic stop where you ask for the guys id and instead he pulls out the knife. You are near traffic and have no space to disengage and draw, so instinctively you go hands on.

Why let him/her out of the car at all when routinely requesting id?

And its true that federal case law shows carotid restraints to be less lethal. However, most departments S.O.P. consider it as lethal.

Yes. You can thank Daryl Gates for this dichotomy. His boneheaded speaking and public relations when blindly defending questionable police tactics set back much LEO policy for years.

Pepper spray vs. a knife? Very bad idea. If you have time to draw at all, less lethal should not be used against lethal without lethal cover.

I agree. I was trying to make a point very similar to what you just did: trying to choke someone out who is armed is a bad idea already. Grab a better weapon if you can, but grab a weapon, not the assailant. (I only picked mace "at the least" subordinate to a sidearm because it was the first thing to pop into my head which I figured was a bad choice but still better than unarmed.)

[elipson]

Are you asking if this will result in the cop being convicted of murder for the use of excessive legal force?

I would imagine, using what little legal knowledge I have, that the prosecution would have to prove that the cop intended to kill the aggressor, and that he made this choice AFTER realizing that the suspect was no longer a threat to his life. If the cop did not intend to kill the person, then 1st/2nd murder would be hard to prove. And, if the cop still believed that the person was a serious threat, for instance if the cop didnt realize he had already passed out, then he would be legally justified in holding the choke longer. Some ppl stiffen up when chokes out, which could be confused with the person struggling.

If the prosecution can prove that the cop a) knew the suspect was no longer a threat, and b) held the choke longer for the intention of harming the person, then maybe a charge could be made.

In any case, the onus of proof is on the persecution, and its very difficult to prove someone else's mindset, without using their own testimony. I really doubt this could be made into a case unless the cop actually admitted that he no longer felt threatened but continued to hold the choke, or that he intentionally held the choke to harm the person.

Remember ppl, if you ever kill someone, you were afraid for your life the entire time and committed your actions only to save your own or someone elses life. (I really hope I never have to use this line in real life!)

[Phoenix]

I’m sure a resounding “yes” is reverberating amongst the law enforcement community already. But lets think about it for a bit.

O.C.GA. 16-3-21
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Now I am not looking for crazy off the wall scenarios like silently killing one bad guy so his friends with guns won’t hear you. I’m am thinking about your run of the mill scenario like a bad guy pulling a knife or other weapon… basically a situation where you would be justified using your firearm… in a close quarters context.

So picture the situation; the bad guy pulls a knife and lunges for you. You side step (luckily) and the guy stumbles and goes down. You immediately jump on his back and slap on a RNC, using your hooks (feet for the non- bjjers) to pin down his knife hand. You crank up the pressure and after 5 seconds he drops the knife. You roll the two of you out of reach of the knife and keep the RNC on. 5 more seconds pass and you hear that familiar snore. Well he could be faking so you hold on for a few more seconds just to make sure. Now you KNOW he’s out, no question in your mind, he is dreaming.

My argument is that now you HAVE TO STOP. The deadly force situation has passed and you are no longer in life threatening danger. If you continue to apply the carotid restraint and kill the guy, you will be committing murder. I argue that for cops with experience in submission grappling this is even more undeniably a case of murder because of their experience and training.

Thoughts? Experiences? Case law? I can’t see any way past this.

Okay...I'm not too sure if I like this scenario alot.

I'm sure you know how police administrators are. When you go to the inquiry, the first thing they're gonna ask you about is, when he lunged at you and you sidestepped causing your suspect to fall to the ground, why you didn't deply your taser or sidearm. I'm not sure about your department's policy in regards to carotids, but I know that alot of law enforcment agencies have (unfortunately) done away with carotid restraints because, well...they tend to kill people.

The officer may have been justified in using that type of restraint, by law, but policy's another matter altogether. Not that I agree with it, because I don't.

As for the scenario, yeah....I don't see any way around it either. You mentioned officers who are seasoned grapplers, and that's a very good point. I'm pretty sure that, if it went to trial, a defence lawyer would easily be able to ask the officer on the stand why, if he was such a seasoned grappler, he couldn't have applied handcuffs to the suspect once he dropped the knife. One of those cases where an officer's extra knowledge in defensive/unarmed tactics can be used against him.

Now personally, I like carotid restraints. I think they're a great tool for an officer to know, because there may come a time when your life could depend on it.

I know that they're potentially lethal, but....I prefer to think of them more in the same context as I do a taser. Tasers don't kill people, per se. You could zap a perfectly healthy person with a taser and it wouldn't kill them. But if you light up a guy who's high on drugs or in very poor physical condition, and yeah....it would be a contributing factor in his death.

Much like a carotid. Judoka and other grapplers use a myriad of carotid restraints on eachother...but these are, by and large, very healthy individuals and for the most part they know what they're doing (in comparison to one who doesn't know anything about grappling). But using a carotid on a highly trained athlete is entirely different from using it on someone who's suffering from excited delerium or is high on cocaine.

[Phoenix]

Are you asking if this will result in the cop being convicted of murder for the use of excessive legal force?

I would imagine, using what little legal knowledge I have, that the prosecution would have to prove that the cop intended to kill the aggressor, and that he made this choice AFTER realizing that the suspect was no longer a threat to his life. If the cop did not intend to kill the person, then 1st/2nd murder would be hard to prove. And, if the cop still believed that the person was a serious threat, for instance if the cop didnt realize he had already passed out, then he would be legally justified in holding the choke longer. Some ppl stiffen up when chokes out, which could be confused with the person struggling.

If the prosecution can prove that the cop a) knew the suspect was no longer a threat, and b) held the choke longer for the intention of harming the person, then maybe a charge could be made.

In any case, the onus of proof is on the persecution, and its very difficult to prove someone else's mindset, without using their own testimony. I really doubt this could be made into a case unless the cop actually admitted that he no longer felt threatened but continued to hold the choke, or that he intentionally held the choke to harm the person.

Remember ppl, if you ever kill someone, you were afraid for your life the entire time and committed your actions only to save your own or someone elses life. (I really hope I never have to use this line in real life!)

In terms of Canadian Law, Epsilon, you are correct.

If this happened in Canada, I could see the Crown Prosecutor pursuing a charge of manslaughter, as opposed to 2nd degree murder using criminal negligence on the part of the officer as the argument.

[mad_malk]

I’m sure a resounding “yes” is reverberating amongst the law enforcement community already. But lets think about it for a bit.

O.C.GA. 16-3-21
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Now I am not looking for crazy off the wall scenarios like silently killing one bad guy so his friends with guns won’t hear you. I’m am thinking about your run of the mill scenario like a bad guy pulling a knife or other weapon… basically a situation where you would be justified using your firearm… in a close quarters context.

So picture the situation; the bad guy pulls a knife and lunges for you. You side step (luckily) and the guy stumbles and goes down. You immediately jump on his back and slap on a RNC, using your hooks (feet for the non- bjjers) to pin down his knife hand. You crank up the pressure and after 5 seconds he drops the knife. You roll the two of you out of reach of the knife and keep the RNC on. 5 more seconds pass and you hear that familiar snore. Well he could be faking so you hold on for a few more seconds just to make sure. Now you KNOW he’s out, no question in your mind, he is dreaming.

My argument is that now you HAVE TO STOP. The deadly force situation has passed and you are no longer in life threatening danger. If you continue to apply the carotid restraint and kill the guy, you will be committing murder. I argue that for cops with experience in submission grappling this is even more undeniably a case of murder because of their experience and training.

Thoughts? Experiences? Case law? I can’t see any way past this.

Look up cases in california where the practice of choke holds became nonregulation for police officers. You must STOP once your shure there out, other wise it's manslaughter at a min.(note thats from a moral perspective)

[siulumpai]

I believe more concern should be given to an improperly applied carotid technique, where the trachea gets crushed. You were initially justified to use deadly force, but we all know how it is to get "Monday morning quarterbacked" by everybody and their anus when it goes bad.