[tdfx]

I'm not going to defend police culture. It's toxic without a doubt. But if we're removing things they're allowed to use, what are they going to replace it with? In an ideal situation the police would always substantially outnumber the suspect and could simply pile on and each control a limb until they're handcuffed. What if it's just 2 cops and 1 really large, strong guy they have to arrest? If you're never worked in a job where you are required to physically subdue people larger than you, it's hard to imagine the stress of the situation. Pain compliance techniques like wrist locks are a big risk if you get it wrong, and becoming proficient takes years of practice. Even if you execute a common submission technique on someone, good luck getting them handcuffed after you release it.

And to your point about referee: the cop isn't a referee. They're just another fighter. And if they lose, there's no ref to stop the person from seriously hurting or killing them. Combine this with the fact that most cops are just average people with little to no hand to hand combat experience, aside from a few confidence booster sessions at the police academy.

I think cops deserve a lot of criticism. But let's make it constructive criticism. If we're going to take something out of their toolbox, let's at least clearly define realistic tools they can use.

[giomasce]

> And to your point about referee: the cop isn't a referee.

Maybe, but then the point is that the referee is their friend. If I go and punch a police officer, I'm going to the jail. If the police officer comes and punches me out of nothing, good luck having a fair investigation and trial. The police department will cover their actions, avoid releasing the information they have. Maybe the officer face cannot be seen on the available footage because they have a full helmet and the police department refuses to say their name, so the judge cannot (or does not want) judge them guilty on the ground we cannot be sure who they are. I don't have all these protections, but they do. This means that have effectively become the referee as well.

I'm totally in favour of giving the police the exclusive usage of force when this is required, but they should as well stand the responsibility of its misuse. Nowadays they get the former but not the latter, and this is terribly unfair.

[tdfx]

I think we're talking past each other. I'm specifically referring to situations where a cop has to subdue someone else, and what they're allowed to do to accomplish this. If you're at a size and/or strength disadvantage with someone who is willing to kill you to win the fight, taking their back and applying a rear-naked choke is one is the better options I can think of. It makes it much more difficult for them to reach for your gun, strike you, and the blood choke will eventually cause temporary unconsciousness where you can properly restrain them with handcuffs.

I see lots of people saying cops shouldn't be allowed to use chokes, but they never provide a reasonable alternative. I'd rather see cops using chokeholds than shooting unarmed people.

[yeetawayhn]

> And to your point about referee: the cop isn't a referee. They're just another fighter. And if they lose, there's no ref to stop the person from seriously hurting or killing them. Combine this with the fact that most cops are just average people with little to no hand to hand combat experience, aside from a few confidence booster sessions at the police academy.

This is a good point that goes over some of the misconceptions that people may have about the level of training and proficiency of police.

>I think cops deserve a lot of criticism. But let's make it constructive criticism.

Or at least logically consistent criticism