[derefr]

> How else would you subdue someone? You can’t expect all cops to be able to go 1-1 or even 2-1 with someone to subdue them physically.

Why not? We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors and carry people to safety; and a large part of their downtime is upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that. We hold all soldiers to the standard of being able to haul huge packs over miles while being shot at; and a large part of their downtime is also constant upkeep of their physical fitness, to enable that.

And, in fact, by closest analogy, we hold all EMS personnel (and also orderlies for in-patient wards) to the standard of being able to bodily subdue people who are in a state of violent delirium, to get them strapped onto a gurney. And, again, we expect them to work out to achieve and maintain the requisite level of physical fitness.

So why can’t we hold all police to the standard of having the physical strength to bodily subdue people, and expect them to do the required upkeep on their physical fitness to enable that?

(Yes, the people police are dealing with sometimes have weapons. Mostly they do not. Even in America; even in the most gun-carrying parts of America, they mostly do not. The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule. The expectations for police should be built around the requirements to carry out the general-case tactic [physical subdual of unarmed offender], not the requirements to carry out the exceptional-case tactic [armed takedown of armed offender].)

And note that I’m not suggesting police go in and wrestle people to the ground. They should be using tools, like man-catchers. It’s just that those tools are just multipliers for the effectiveness of physical strength, and so you still need to be highly physically strong to make effective use of them in a one-on-one or two-on-one confrontation.

[josephcsible]

> We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors

Doors don't fight back.

> The strategy for subduing someone should focus on the majority case — subduing people with no weapon, where it is safe to overcome strength with strength — with subduing people with a weapon as a tactical exception, rather than that tactic being the general-use rule.

If the person you're trying to subdue has a concealed weapon, this will get you killed.

[jopython]

> We hold all firefighters to the standard of having the physical strength to break down doors and carry people to safety

Keep in mind. Firefighters are not fighting people with delirium. Its a different job with a different skill set.

After the George Floyd case cops are hesitant to go one on one. Nobody wants to end up becoming a Derek Chauvin even by accident.

[V__]

If they are hesitant, then they should be better trained. There are enough "moves" to subdue and fixate someone without suffocating or killing them. The real question should be: Why is police in other countries capable of doing this?

[alphabettsy]

How could one accidentally become Chauvin? Someone with that concern probably shouldn’t be an officer.

[V__]

Very well said.