TheFeniX wrote:So, non-compliance by sitting still with your hands up means you risk getting mangled by a police dog. Or you know, due to either poor training or bad training, you get your throat ripped out. And since a dog can't reasonably held accountable for his actions, I don't view what happened as any different if a cop had walked up and stabbed him in the face.
Nice to know Utah cops gauge how much they can abuse suspects based on the crimes they may or may not have committed vs appraising the situation and using reasonable force.
The severity of the crime at issue is part of the three part test that determines what force police can use. The other two are as followed;
2) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of law enforcement or others; - An unsearched and unrestrained felon is considered to be a threat. This is why police points guns at people in stolen vehicles. An unrestrained violent felon is considered an immediate threat.
3) Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. - this where they failed and the use of the K9 is unreasonable.
I think more than that should apply.
Probably.
Then siccing a dog on someone who is non-violently non-compliant should be felony assault and battery. Add in charges for recklessness since one would fucking hope police dogs aren't trained to attack the face and head on suspects.
Nitpick. Stabbing someone is considered deadly force. Police service dogs are not considered deadly force. There is significant court precedence behind this decision.
I consider it failure to render aid to someone you have in custody, policy or not. I can't see a single piece of evidence police did anything to staunch the bleeding and the suspect can't do it being handcuffed and all.
If they failed to call for EMS and/or failed to stop a serious bleeding injury then I would agree with you. In addition calling for EMS satisfies this requirement as long as they aren't in danger of bleeding out. Also, police in areas with good EMS coverage generally aren't medically trained.
Shit like this and situations like where that one reject shot a black guy for the crime of "moving too fast as a black man" and left him handcuffed to bleed out while he waited for help are why I'd rather take my chances with criminals than deal with police.
Because a criminal will tend to your wounds after they inflict them on you. I understand not trusting the police. That's fine but don't go from reasonable to full retard.
Once again, we're back to policy which almost always translates into "If we follow this, people might die, but we can always fall back on it so only the taxpayer get screwed."
Would you prefer they didn't photograph injuries they inflict?
Every time I hear a police officer mutter the word "policy" I physically roll my eyes. It's become a joke at this point.
Right, because photographing injuries is such a bullshit policy.
Correct, I'm just allowed to live in a world where any form of non-compliance means I have 15 seconds before police try and kill me via proxy. The best part is judging from the "there's a fire, but it's in a barrel" means the only real crime committed was "being too scared to stand up when ordered."
According to the video it was five seconds from when he complied with the order to get both hands up. Though you could see his hands were resting above his head. I also think burning anothers trash doesn't qualify as arson. However, there was the issue of him threatening to stab people but both of those incidents are questionable and are unlikely to be proven unless there is video or third party witnesses that we don't know about.
