How to tell how much makeup someone is wearing?

[chopinlover01]

He was resisting arrest, so Pantaleo put him in a "chokehold" (exactly what it sounds like) which is apparently taught to police officers in their training.

You seem to make the use of a chokehold out to be a crime. A "chokehold", which is something that is taught to law enforcement but also civilians in several civilian self defense classes, and even some traditional martial arts, is a restraint in which pressure to both sides of the carotid artery is applied (the sides of your neck). Try it on yourself; you'll get a little dizzy/light headed. This is actually a very safe restraint if done correctly; the circumstances in which this hold is applied is also usually resisting arrest. The difference between this case and successful use of this technique is that you are to relieve pressure on the neck when the victim loses consciousness or the will to fight back. The use of the hold was standard procedure; the reason that Garner died was because the officer kept applying pressure. This could be either a) direct, intentional homicide, b) accidental homicide.
There is no piece of evidence that strongly persuades me in this case. Having grown up with law enforcement relatives and family friends, I can see the circumstances of the chokehold (more accurately describable as a strangle) as reasonable. It's a valid technique that usually results in little to no long term injury, as opposed to joint locks and restraints that can result in broken and or permanently disfunctional limbs, which police (and again, civilians) are also trained to use. The reason why it could be treated as accidental, is that Garner's statement of "I can't breathe" could've been an attempt to escape police custody. While it seems outlandish, to an officer who is dealing with someone resisting arrest for commiting a misdemeanor, it's not really that unlikely.  While it was clearly poorly applied, there are also numerous similar cases of someone who legally carries a concealed weapon such as a knife or firearm, who uses it when the force used against them was not deemed "lethal" (the only such case in which using a blade or gun is deemed acceptable by law), and that result in incarceration. Should these individuals be in jail or out of jail? Just some food for thought. It happens on a day to day basis in urban areas, especially places like New York, and Portland (near where I live), Oregon.

[outin]

Our criminal justice system is pretty flawed.

I couldn't agree more! And it will stay that way as long as the high quality scientific research that exist on the punishment systems and criminal policy is ignored and decisions are made based on the feelings of the vindictive (and largely ignorant) public and politicians can benefit on praying on those feelings.

[thalbergmad]

Veterans might seem like heroes to you, but other people could see them as avid supporters of a war that they felt was unjust or unnecessary in the first place. To these people, the problems that veterans have now are either their own fault or the fault of the government, so why should we have to fund them?

If you enlist, then the possibility exists that you might be asked to do something that you do not agree with. I know many Gulf War vets that thought the war was pointless and misguided, but they still risked their life and served their Country and for this, they deserve to be looked after.

If people do not support a war, then their anger should not be directed at the soldiers, but at the people who sent them
there.

Anyone who thinks so called needs of convicted criminals comes first are morons of the first degree.

Thal

[ahinton]

If people do not support a war, then their anger should not be directed at the soldiers, but at the people who sent them there.

Absolutely right - and we all know who sent those particular ones there, don't we?! Someone really needs to be put on an enforced vacation to a certain Netherlands tgwon, but there seems to be no signs of this happening yet...

That said, what any of this has to do with How to tell how much makeup someone is wearing? is beyond me...

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

Absolutely right - and we all know who sent those particular ones there, don't we?! Someone really needs to be put on an enforced vacation to a certain Netherlands tgwon, but there seems to be no signs of this happening yet...

That said, what any of this has to do with How to tell how much makeup someone is wearing? is beyond me...

Best,

Alistair

Apparently the CIA thought it might be a giveaway.....

[ahinton]

the CIA thought

Shome mishtake, surely?...

Best,

Alishtair

[visitor]

[bonesquirrel]

Right now, I ,myself, feel like a forum... Why is everyone still talking about all kinds of sh*t on here?

[outin]

Right now, I ,myself, feel like a forum... Why is everyone still talking about all kinds of sh*t on here?

Why not?

[ahinton]

You seem to make the use of a chokehold out to be a crime. A "chokehold", which is something that is taught to law enforcement but also civilians in several civilian self defense classes, and even some traditional martial arts, is a restraint in which pressure to both sides of the carotid artery is applied (the sides of your neck). Try it on yourself; you'll get a little dizzy/light headed. This is actually a very safe restraint if done correctly; the circumstances in which this hold is applied is also usually resisting arrest. The difference between this case and successful use of this technique is that you are to relieve pressure on the neck when the victim loses consciousness or the will to fight back. The use of the hold was standard procedure; the reason that Garner died was because the officer kept applying pressure. This could be either a) direct, intentional homicide, b) accidental homicide.

The most important action for anyone to whom a chokehold is applied is to disable the person or persons applying it as rapidly as possible. Only someone with at least Rachmaninov-sized hands would be capable of performing one of these with a single hand, so two hands are otherwise out of action while doing so, which puts an experienced "victim" at an advantage if he/she is aware of what to do and that it needs to be done pronto.

The legality question then changes if the chokehold has been applied by an on duty police officer who is then disabled by the "victim" thereof, in that said victim might then risk being be charged with grievous bodily harm, but it will then be up to that "victim" and his/her lawyers to mount a sufficiently robust defence subject to the proviso that only reasonable force was employed by that "victim" in disabling his attacker.

That said, quite what any of the above has to do with the amount of makeup worn by anyone at any time I admit to having less than no idea.

Best,

Alistair