Digital_Cowboy

Exactly, I see it all too often in the parks. People on bikes go flying by people walking as if they're running their own personal Tour de France or something. And I'm not just talking about flying past adults at "freeway speeds" either, I'm talking about flying past parents with their small children.

I guess that as with dogs, small children are going to do the worst thing at the worst possible time.

LOL

Paul Barnard

A few questions for you if you don't mind. How do you define excessive force? Was the kid injured and if so what was the extent of the injury?

asmac

That depends. I avoid sidewalks but occasionally go there to avoid a narrow lane or construction. I go slowly and defer to pedestrians. I don't think it creates a big danger. Riding too fast for the conditions or just recklessly is problematical whether you're on the road or a sidewalk or an MUP and that's the issue if there is one. Of course it also helps if pedestrians pay attention to their surroundings.

vanguardx3

Pedestrians should "pay attention to their surroundings?" How about cyclists stay off the sidewalks and obey the law. Pedestrians should not be forced to be on the look out for irresponsible cyclists such as yourself ready to mow people down.

Cyclists don't have the right to ride on sidewalks because of construction or a narrow lane.

I have no sympathy for that kid. He broke the law, refused to show ID, breaking the law twice, and got what was coming to him.

Dave Cutter

Anyone that thinks that was brutal should attend a middle school or high school wrestling match. If the cop did anything wrong.... I don't know what it could have been.

texaspandj

I give up, What defines excessive force and was the kid injured, and to what extent?
Kinda like a knock knock joke? Right?

Paul Barnard

If you aren't interested in having an adult conversation, just say so. I won't bother you anymore.

texaspandj

Sorry, I thought I was on the 41.

Unfortunately the definition of excessive force is vague and subject to interpretation, however the most common definition is: A law enforcement officer has the right to use such*force*as is "reasonably" necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. UNreasonable*excessive force*in making a lawful arrest is usually decided by a jury.
Perhaps your interpretation differs from mine.
Although an injury can be sustained by excessive force, that is not the only determining Factor.
We good? Your turn.

Paul Barnard

Thanks for the courtesy of a thoughtful response. Part of what goes into the determination of excessive force (as it plays out in the USA) is whether or not the officer's actions are appropriate for the level of resistance of the subject. Terminology varies from agency to agency, but the fundamental use of force principals are consistent. In this case the subject was actively resisting. Every use of force policy I have studied or operated under allows an officer to use soft control techniques to control an active resistor. Soft control techniques are holds, take-downs, pressure points and joint manipulations that are not likely to cause lacerations, broken bones or tissue damage. What I saw in the video were soft control techniques.

Based on my experience and understanding of use of force doctrine, the officer used soft control techniques with an active resistor. To that end he did not use excessive force.

It can be frustrating sometimes watching the public outcry in situations like this when in my somewhat learned opinion the use of force was justified. Ferguson/Michael Brown was another example. The officer that shot him was unquestionable justified. BUT

And this is a big but. I think police agencies miss out on a lot of opportunities to deescalate and to employ tactics that open up opportunities to delay or reduce the level of force. And indeed my training suggests that there's not enough emphasis placed on it. Something tells me that if we were to see the part of the video before what we saw, we'd see some missed opportunities to connect with that kid or to persuade him to comply.

It is even more frustrating to me to watch many of these videos and see blown opportunities to deescalate. Almost all use of force policies word the first two levels of force the same. Officer presence, meaning that the mere presence of an officer causes the subject to comply. The second level is verbal commands, meaning that when the officer directs a subject to do something they do it. I was heavily involved in officer training and I emphasized that mastery of the first two levels could often preclude the need to use higher levels.

The link below contains a very standard use of force policy though the terminology is different from what I was most accustomed to.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/fi...cyHandbook.pdf

asmac

Do I have a legal obligation to obey an officer's commands without exception and without question if I'm not arrested or detained and told so? Also, in a case like this one, there is no obligation to produce ID, only to identify yourself with name and address. In any event, I agree that polite cooperation is a good idea.

In my world, when someone throws me to the ground and sits on me it's excessive force unless I was being physically aggressive.

Paul Barnard

I don't know how the law plays out on your side of the border. An officer has a right to talk to anyone, to ask anyone a question, to ask anyone to identify themselves, to direct anyone to comply with the law and their lawful orders, and to use the force necessary (as outlined in their use of force policy) to compel compliance.

I missed the part of the video where the cop threw the subject to the ground. Do you have a link to that one? Any facts that you can provide as to what went down prior to the video posted in the OP are of great interest to me. I only watched the original video and read the accompanying write up.

mapeiboy

We have a mild winter with no snow so far . If you decide to bring the bikes with you make sure to bring the helmets also . Oh yes , may the force be with you during your stay .

asmac

Pretty much the same or similar laws, I expect. They can ask but am I obligated to answer or can I just walk away without fear of violence? What are "lawful orders," presumably not just anything they feel like demanding. I figure it's likely the kid didn't lie down on his own but agree that is just surmise. In any event, this is just the bike forum, not a court or a disciplinary hearing.

texaspandj

Disregarding all the the here to's and therefores, obviously the officer Does Not have the training you have, physical,tactical, technical, and perhaps statutes.
But in my mind not knowing what previously happen (nor do you) and judging only by the video and witnesses commentary: 1.The excessive part is when he sat on him instead of hand cuffing.(Maybe the officer is tired,or doesn't know how, either way more training needed)
2. When he put his forearm on his neck while on top of him.(Maybe the officer was tired or doesn't know how to use more effective techniques,again more training needed)
And back to you.

bakes1

Did you see the same video I saw from the OP's link?
There is nothing in that video that shows any possibility of damage to the teens head due to the officers restraint.
Can you be more dramatic lol?

Chris0516

Yes, I saw the same video. There was no need for the officer to use anything close to, or resembling, a choke hold. For a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. Unless the officer had been attacked by the teen.

bakes1

So what exactly was the life threataning serious head injury you referenced again?

Chris0516

Not 'was'. But the officers actions came close to it. Because, The office was putting pressure on the teen's throat.

02Giant 

Unnecessary escalation of a trivial offence.

Chris0516

Simple and to the point. Kudos' to you.

vanguardx3

"I'll ride on the sidewalk for half a block, no big deal." No big deal until someone steps out from a door and gets hit by the cyclist.

"Oh, I'll just send a quick text while I'm driving."

These f ups have consequences. Better to get a ticket now rather than cause a serious injury to yourself and/or others.

kickstart

Have you actually ever needed to restrain someone?

Training is training, not the real world which is a lot harder, and more dangerous than some seem to think.

kickstart

So if a violator refuses to cooperate with a cop performing their duty to enforce our laws, then what? Just let them go?

You whine when they do nothing, you whine when they do something, exactly what do you expect them to do?

texaspandj

On a daily basis, yes.
You train til it becomes reflexive, regardless of real world factors including fatigue, fear,accelerated heart rate,and other outside factors.
More to the point ,and easier to associate, like brushing your teeth or braking when a ball rolls out in the street you don't think, you do.
Next.

kickstart

Interesting....