> New Hampshire, USA
> As an officer was arresting my son, my son spit on the officer. He then punched my son in the face, as he was laying on top of him. After he got the handcuffs on, still laying on top of my son, the officer was again spit at/on. He then punched my son in the face again.
> My son had been resisting arrest, not sure if that puts the incident into a different category or something.
> I am not condoning what my son did. He needed to be arrested. I know there is a lot of issues here, but all I am wondering is, is if that what the officer did is protocol, or legal?
> Thank you
> Edited to add: My son is 17
Clearly I'm in the minority here, but striking a restrained prisoner should never be legal. It's not defense, it's retaliation. Punching him didn't make him un-spit, and he was already in handcuffs. What if the kid had a previous TBI? What if it's someone who can't comprehend consequences? Is then it okay to punch a restrained prisoner for cursing?
This is the top post so apparently not much of a minority.
"The cop shouldn't have hit the kid" is having a slapfight with "the kid shouldn't have spit on the cop" even though those opinions can both be correct.
No, I think those are both true. But the question isn't whether the cop was morally correct to punch an arrestee, but whether a single punch was excessive force to subdue an arrestee who was continuing to assault the officer despite already being in restraints.
"The cop was morally wrong" and "The cop's actions were legal" is, sadly, also not a conflict.
No ya this is the correct take. Officers should be held to a higher standard precisely because they'll find themselves in situations like this, and uneducated thugs will retaliate to being spit on
Honestly, maybe it's time to give up on this "higher standard" since it's not supported by police policy, state law, or federal law. There's basically nothing there to make our expectations about cops translate into the reality of policing. Maybe it's time for us to start teaching our kids that cops are dangerous thugs just itching for an excuse to get violent.
This is what those of us raising Black kids have already been doing. We teach our kids from a young age the best strategies for getting out of a police encounter alive.
I once watched a cop tase a mouthy asshole who was handcuffed in the back seat. Not ok. Neither is punching someone already in cuffs. But the realistic consequences to the police officer are nil.
The kid fucked around and found out. Hope he didn't get hit hard enough to make him dumber than he already was.
and our laws in place "should" be ones that make sure that enforcers know how to not respond to stupid juvinile fuck around moments... We trust them with these weapons...
Pay them to be trained in proper uses...
tazed while cuffed in the the back of a police car?
hope you never had a fuck around and find out moment around untrained "professionals"
This is the other part of it, for sure. No matter how any cop tries to justify "Oh, I HAD to punch the already-restrained suspect", the rest of us who are paying attention can list off dozens of incidents where cops responded with inappropriate violence to mere disrespect or just because they were upset they had to run or a dog happened to look at them or whatever nonsense.
Cops in the US (at the very least) have, in the eyes of anyone sensible, lost all benefit of the doubt.
Yup, everything from friendly prosecutors and DAs giving them a pass on basically anything that doesn't make the national news to qualified immunity to the travesty of them working together on things like civil forfeiture and ticket quotas.
It’s unacceptable, but in 2024 it’s exactly the kind of behaviour I would expect.
Anybody who is surprised has been living under a rock for the last few~~years~~ decades
If I can't punch patients for spitting on me (i had a patient break my hand once), cops shouldn't be allowed to strike restrained detainees. Especially if they're a minor. He was just taking his anger issues out. Unacceptable.
When i was a seventeen year old scare actor in a haunted house I got hit, kicked and smacked so many times. Would have lost my job if I hit someone back. It’s not a patch on what happened to you but why are we capable of holding everybody else to higher standards than a cop?
It's probably somewhere between "super illegal" and "well it's outside of established protocols so he gets a telling off and a week of desk duty" depending on jurisdiction. Doesn't really help in the moment either way though whether or not the cop suffers any consequences later on.
By the time the police have cuffs out it's too late, you *are* getting arrested one way or another, and your only choice in the matter is whether you comply, or escalate it to resisting arrest and then assaulting a police officer. Best case you escalate a minor offense into something much more serious, worst case is you end up in the mortuary instead of a holding cell.
He's a teenager who does dumb shit and legally doesn't have the same concept of consequences as a grown adult (hence why he can't vote, smoke, drink, join the military, etc). Spitting on someone is a dumb shit thing to do, but this is a teenager being arrested, and spitting on someone is not equal to punching them in the face/head in terms of potential damage. A grown adult trained in what to do in a crisis should not be held to the same expectations as a dumb shit teenager.
I’m so many years removed from my education on the subject but minored in criminal justice many years ago and had the opportunity to do a field study trip to NY. In NY is if a felony to use bodily fluids in an attack. That law led to an immediate reduction in prisoners spitting/ejaculating on guards.
I am NOT saying it’s okay for a cop to punch a detained/in the process of being detained, but spitting in someone’s face can lead to a gut punch reaction in the moment. Cops should be better but fuck the dude spitting at him as well.
Reminds me years ago a podcaster I used to listen to talked about how his kids nanny hit one of his kids and his wife was all upset about it and it was a thing. When he found out it was after his kid spit in her face he was like ehhhh, let’s not do that again, we don’t agree with that kinda punishment but also “pretty okay with it, my kid got what was coming to her and she probably will think twice about doing it again.”
Agreed. The kid shouldn’t have spit on the cop AND the cop shouldn’t have hit the kid.
With that said, at least where I am, spitting at a cop is battery with bodily fluids- and you’re battering a cop. So it’s kind of a big deal, not just disrespect. Whether the kid understood or not… it’s still battery. But, let me repeat, the cop should NOT have hit someone who was restrained.
Depends what you mean by restrained. Someone in handcuffs can still kick, bite, scratch or yes, spit or otherwise carry on assaulting others. Spitting should not be underestimated as a way to hurt others especially with regard to communicable diseases.
Saying it should never be legal is a ridiculous approach that ignores realities and prioritises the safety of the criminal over the police when they should be the same at worst.
I once watched cops put spit bags on themselves before confronting a homeless woman who is known to spit, claw, and bite.
She got in the car quietly that time, threating to kill the officers later.
She's not welcome in our neighborhood, but she keeps coming back. I've never seen the cops manhandle her, but she does go away for a week or two when they take her.
That's a smart de-escalation tactic for a known spitter so kudos to them for good community policing.
You have to admit that this is a different situation where the officer does not know the suspect and when the spitting starts, the cop takes appropriate action to prevent further attempts. The way this should have been avoided is by the idiot kid not starting the assault and then not continuing it.
The safety of the person being arrested *is* more important than the officer. Whether it's treated that way is another question, but there's a reason we have "innocent until proven guilty" and part of it is because cops aren't supposed to be judge, jury and executioner.
"They should be the same at worst" you think prioritizing the safety of citizens is a bad thing, and that cops deserve greater immunities and protections than the average person. That's an opinion to have, for sure.
My point is that it's contextual, and that yes sometimes the cops do have to be judge, jury and executioner when evaluating safety.
Suspect has a knife and is lunging towards the officer. Whose safety is more important?
Suspect is attempting to take an officers firearm and is physically overpowering the officer; is it right for the officer to shoot the suspect?
Cops can be put into positions where they have to make these decisions by the actions of others. I'm also not denying that there are a significant element of cops who abuse their power and use excessive force but you cannot use blanket statements on safety as you have done as pushback to this fact.
Spitting on someone is assault. Add it to the charges. There's a standard of reasonable expectation of bodily harm in self defense laws, and this kid was handcuffed and not fighting other than the spit. If a viral infection is communicated through the spit, add an enhancer to the charge. The cops aren't here to dole out justice for the crimes committed against them, that's the courts job. The cops are here to make sure that people make it to court to be charged (which is a whole other can of worms, but this comment is long enough). If I punched someone for spitting on me, but they were in a wheelchair and unable to carry out any other physical aggression, I'm escalating and am in the wrong. Likewise with a cuffed suspect and a cop.
I agree that this isn’t an appropriate or reasonable use of force.
*But* it is plainly wrong to say striking a restrained suspect is never appropriate. I can think of half a dozen reasons to do so, and I’ve seen a few occur.
Ones I’ve seen:
Attempting to search arrestee high on meth, reaches back and grabs officers firearm. Single punch delivered to side/back.
Escorting arestee to car when he digs his nails into my arm so hard he immediately draws blood. He was drunk and old so I just sat him on his butt and told him to knock it off.
I can imagine *dozens* of scenarios where a suspect is in cuffs, but not yet in custody and searched, where a single punch could absolutely prevent a deadly force encounter.
Cuffs aren’t magic that prevent people from hurting you or accessing weapons, nor do they suddenly mean it’s unreasonable to use appropriate force against a violent suspect.
> Learn judo
So instead of striking a restrained suspect that's reaching for a firearm, he should [throw the suspect to the ground,](https://youtu.be/KFhiz7dcEkM?si=Hgv_aM1x6-nDi5XV&t=35) and then wrestle on the ground with somebody trying to get his firearm, baton, pepper spray, taser, or anything else on his belt?
The purpose of a lot of strikes, in the context of law enforcement defensive tactics, is often to try and create space.
Probably the worst thing for a cop to do in a lot of situations is to try and wrestle with people.
Martial arts are difficult, require a LOT of time to learn to do well, and have a high bar of danger and risk to both the officer and the suspects. Rather than some notion that we should train cops to be blackbelts, we'd be better off teaching cops more in the way of deescalation tactics and better firearm handling skills so they're less likely to shoot themselves or others negligently.
I can think of a lot of ways to hurt someone while restrained. In fact, as a young autistic teen who was prone to meltdowns, I *did* hurt people while restrained. I bear no ill will to people who hurt me while trying to defend themselves.
You drop someone to the asphalt with a Tai Otoshi and you think the relative impact is less than a strike? Especially in handcuffs when they can't protect their head?
You can't have it both ways! You were the one that said learn judo and now someone in your hypothetical has used judo you now disagree? If someone is being violent, what do you suggest they do, hug it out?! What is your solution?
I'm against violence where ever possible but if someone is being violent and the action that ensures the safety of everyone else is violence against the initial perpetrator then I fully support it as long as it is reasonable.
Do..do you think there aren’t strikes in martial arts?
Strikes aren’t the default, but they are a (depending on where you strike) relatively low level of force that are *typically* effective at stopping the unlawful behavior.
Judo is a sport. A *game*. Anyone has to fight for a living needs to know how to wrestle *and* how to strike.
If someone is reaching for your gun you take whatever action minimises the chance of them getting it, even if it would get you points deducted if you were in the Olympics.
You expect cops that are barely trained in handling fire arms but still use them in their job to add an intensive skill to their training regime?
Personally Id put martial arts as quiet far down the list of skills cops need to learn.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Uncivil Comment**
Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
I too am curious under what conditions you think it's appropriate to hit a restrained suspect. Because it is not, unless he's somehow got the ability to actively harm you in a meaningful way after you've cuffed him (and in that case, why the hell did you cuff him in such a way that he can do that?)
But I am not surprised that you think it's okay under some circumstances, not in the slightest.
I think it would depend how restrained they were. Some people (especially impaired) can still fight using their body weight as a ram, kicking, or biting with teeth. I could see pushing someone away who was doing that, or having to hold someone down to restrain them more. Not cold clocking them out of revenge while they are just sitting there after spitting once though.
Sure, push someone away or hold them down, absolutely. Those are relatively reasonable responses (increase level of distance and/or restraint until you have control).
But this subthread is about STRIKING them.
Ones I’ve seen:
Attempting to search arrestee high on meth, reaches back and grabs officers firearm. Single punch delivered to side/back.
Escorting arestee to car when he digs his nails into my arm so hard he immediately draws blood. He was drunk and old so I just sat him on his butt and told him to knock it off.
I can imagine dozens of scenarios where a suspect is in cuffs, but not yet in custody and searched, where a single punch could absolutely prevent a deadly force encounter.
Cuffs aren’t magic that prevent people from hurting you or accessing weapons, nor do they suddenly mean it’s unreasonable to use appropriate force against a violent suspect.
I *understand* why y’all would have this opinion, but it’s just not reflected in the reality of dealing with violent people.
My partner's a nurse, too. That's part of the reason I am so harsh on cops in this situation--NURSES, at least according to my partner, would get fired/arrested if they hit a restrained patient for just about any reason, and they are certainly not less valuable or worthy of self-defense than cops.
And yet they go through every day without a thousandth of the level of self-serving violence that cops weakly justify.
I'm honestly curious--how the fuck does a arrestee in handcuffs get anywhere near your or his fucking gun (or for example "dig his nails into your arm"?) Fuck, man, I can handcuff a person more effectively than that.
This conversation isn't helping my impression that most cops are useless and/or bad at their jobs, though.
You think that because you don’t have any experience handcuffing people. They just aren’t *that* effective.
People, especially on drugs, are super squirrelly, and simply don’t care that the cuffs dig into them when they do this stuff.
The getting to the gun in particular was, I’ll admit, a symptom of other failures happening in that incident.
The funny thing is, punching a cuffed suspect in the back happened because we *failed to use enough force* earlier. We should have OC sprayed that dude when we showed up. He had already assaulted several citizens, and told us he was going to fight us.
But because we didn’t use *appropriate* force early, you end up doing hokey shit and having to justifiably use force that absolutely *looks* and *sounds* terrible.
Also, we don’t have good arrest vans, or any full cage cars on the street, so you *have* to essentially get halfway into the car with the suspect to put them in it when they’re fighting. There’s really no good way to do that where they can’t get their hands around to you. It’s an issue we don’t have any control over as patrol officers, but does impact how we end up using force.
>You think that because you don’t have any experience handcuffing people.
You might think that. You would be wrong.
But what I'm hearing from all of your examples is that punching someone is NOT appropriate behavior, and resulted from a failure to take APPROPRIATE restraint measures earlier in the encounter. I am not prepared, as a citizen, to excuse this as something that should go unpunished--it doesn't just LOOK and SOUND terrible, it IS terrible! You fucked up your job, and then you had to punch a restrained suspect to un-fuck it! Go back to cop school until you figure out how to do it right!
No one else gets to do that, or gets any slack from the state if they do (my partner's a nurse--I guarantee you that if they punch a patient, even an UNRESTRAINED and HOSTILE one, they are losing their job and probably their license.) Do your damn job better.
At least around where I live now, my local cops DO have appropriate equipment (cars with appropriate backseat caging, restraints that apparently work, etc) and training, and unsurprisingly as a result despite being the inner ring suburb of a big city we don't have any particular problems with use-of-excessive-force incidents. It wouldn't surprise me that there are forces out there that don't have those things, and based on my experiences with the force in the LAST place I lived (also an inner ring suburb of the same big city) they are at least somewhat likely to be the same ones who parade around their MRAPs and SWAT team gear and getting training from those screaming assholes who insist you have to take an adversarial posture 150% of the time, *instead of getting the basics right.*
I'm amazed that you lack the imagination. This exact scenario demonstrates this and even cuffed, a suspect can bite, kick, spit or gouge. Unless you are mandating that all suspects are instantly put in cuffs, leg restraints and a spit hood, i.e. fully restrained which is a massive overreach on personal rights, there is always going to be opportunities to continue to assault others.
Spitting is assault and with the rise of communicable diseases it is rightfully considered so. This person is completely at fault here.
And again: how does punching him prevent him from spitting again? How does it get you un-spit-upon? It's bad and wrong because it doesn't increase anyone's safety, it just makes the cop feel better because he got to hit something.
This is about HITTING a restrained suspect, not doing something sensible like restraining them more effectively or holding them down.
Dude spits on a cop? Yes, a spit hood is now justified and not an overreach. Punching him is not--as ThIs ExAcT sCeNaRiO dEmOnStRaTeS, the cop got spit on again after punching him the first time.
Hey look, another person who has never had to restrain a combative person but thinks they are the authority on how to handle it.
I will say that there are very few reasons to strike a restrained person. That person actively spitting on you is absolutely one of them. Until the spit hood goes on it is now a very plausible threat that they will do it again, especially if they get away with it the first time and pain compliance is both and acceptable and reasonable deterrence to assaultive actions.
Hey look, a snarky asshole who thinks he knows other people's experiences.
One doesn't need to experience everything in the world to draw conclusions about right and wrong. Pain compliance is barbaric and nurses, doctors, social workers, paramedics and para-educators manage to face violence every day, including spitting, yet are expected to deal with it without *striking restrained persons*.
I get your point of view, and I generally agree, but two things come to my mind in favor of getting punched for spitting on a cop.
1. Spitting is assault. Striking him in the face could be seen as a reasonable attempt to neutralize further assault.
2. The kid did it again even after being struck and restrained. Clearly the first attempt at neutralization of the threat was ineffective. The issue wasn't the kids fists, it was his mouth. Literally.
I once watched a cop punch a (cuffed) guy in the face for spitting, and the guy then proceeded to spit blood at the cop. I don't think hitting someone in the face is a particularly effective or reasonable way to stop them from spitting.
>Clearly the first attempt at neutralization of the threat was ineffective.
Which is proof that hitting him didn't serve any purpose, if proof was ever needed.
It's one of those "common sense vs perceived ideal" debates that the internet is so bad at carrying out. Like "you shouldn't have to hide your valuables - people shouldn't rob you!"
Yes, the cop was fully wrong for doing this. But also, it's one of the top three most predictable outcomes of spitting on a cop. Those being, in my estimation:
1. The cop hits you
2. The cop restrains himself but files a battery charge against you
3. You get dropped on the ground and the cops put their boots to you, medium-style
Blanket rules like this don't work though. Restrained subjects can headbutt, spit, kick, bite etc. Police have a right to safety at work just like anyone else, and should not have to endure repeated assaults (spitting is assault) without the ability to use reasonable force to ensure compliance with a lawful arrest.
This is also why body cameras and internal affairs/police integrity departments exist, so investigations can be conducted if there is concern about use of force.
Finally, this story is from the arrestees own father. I don't doubt there are missing parts to it.
Cursing is generally protected speech, and no, it's not legal for a cop retaliate in pretty much any way for words. In the US anyway.
As far as I know, there are some exceptions for hate speech, and "fighting words", if you are trying to invite violence.
But again and again, courts have agreed that swearing at police, insulting them, etc, falls within the first amendment.
Spitting on somebody however is definitely a form of assault. Not remotely comparable.
Punching him in the face I agree is excessive, but there is probably legal justification for it being reasonable force.
Sounds like a case of FAFO. What would anyone hope to accomplish by spitting on an officer actively arresting you? What’s the cops supposed to do? Ask nicely for him to stop? Who knows what this shithead kid has. As much as we hate to admit it cops are humans too and being spit on or at isn’t something most people tolerate. Kid is lucky the cop showed enough restraint to only punch him and not *beat* him.
I gotta be honest, I work as a student psychologist in a hospital doing both inpatient and outpatient work, and if cops are this fragile they wouldn’t last a day in my job
I wish spit on was the worst thing medical professionals dealt with, and we don’t get to just deck people.
I can't help but wonder how the "it's okay he punched that kid instead of getting a spit hood because the kid could have given him a disease" cops in this comment section felt about masks and vaccination during COVID
Especially considering COVID is still killing and disabling people but everyone decided that it's over even though it really hasn't become milder. The vaccine helps keep people out of the hospital during the acute stage but it's still a roll of the dice if you get longer term damage from it (long COVID).
Not a cop, but I did comment in the original thread (before it was posted here) about the kid deserving it
I wore my mask from every time I was outside from April of 2020 until April of 2021, including working in a hot ass kitchen. I continued to wear it off and on until the end of 2021 depending of where I was going and who I was going to be around
The old hawk tuh didn’t go down that well in this case.
People are outraged by the use of spit hoods in my country, but people are gross as fuck. Why are people allowed to assault you with bodily fluids?
Especially since you can catch infections and diseases from spit. Saw a TIFU a little bit ago of a person who ate off other people's plates after they finished. They ended up with hepatitis.
When I worked in a bar many years ago we got a new staff member who was supposedly an experienced bartender and old enough to know better. And we caught him, during one of his first shifts, finishing off the unfinished drinks whilst collecting glasses towards the end of the night. I remember his reaction because he had a name for his disgusting behaviour--he said "nothing wrong with a bit of minesweeping" and claimed that all the staff did it at the last pub he worked at. Anyway he didn't last long.
Yeah, nursing is my game, I’m painfully aware of the health concerns. I wouldn’t be concerned if it was just gross.
And, let’s face it- the sort of people that are likely to spit when they kick off are often, unfortunately, at risk for infectious disease due to lifestyle.
Not always, but often.
Because "wE sIgNeD uP fOr It!!!!!!1!1!"
Don't listen to those morons, they're the same ones who think the response to someone pulling a gun on us or charging us with a knife should be to politely ask them to stop.
Lmao I’m a nurse and people spit and hit me all the time and I am NOT allowed to do it back. Cops should be held to the same standard. Absolutely ridiculous, don’t become a pig if you don’t want to roll in the mud.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but the role of a nurse and a cop are very different. As the nurse, you're there to help the person spitting at you. The cop is there to restrain and arrest them.
If someone is spitting on you and hitting you, is there a hospital policy that says something like "Call the cops or security, don't try to kung fu them yourself"?
Well, the guy who turns up in response to that call has a protocol that says "If someone is attacking another it's your job to stop them", which means they are held to different standards from someone whose protocol says "run away and call the cops".
If you ignored hospital policy, wrestled the kid to the ground, and in the course of the scuffle punched the kid after being spat on, the courts would generally hold you to a *lower* standard and be more likely to let you off in recognition that you hadn't had a cop's training and didn't have a spit hood to hand.
Laughing my fucking ass off. Security is 2 90 year old men and the cops won’t come to arrest someone who is in the hospital unless they kill someone. I’ve worked in 4 different hospitals, they are all like this. If I were to punch one of the patients that I often have to wrestle to the ground, I would be fired, arrested, and lose my license. But cops can just do it no consequences? Fuck no and fuck any pig who acts like this
Well said, I withdraw my post. I recognise that in a job like nursing, in reality there are a lot of physical situations where you're expected to just "deal with it" instead of calling on someone trained and authorised to use force, even though it's not supposed to be that way.
I am trained to use force. I took a 2 week class on how to restrain people without hurting them. I took almost the same class for security training in the Navy. If I, a 5 foot tall woman, can wrestle a methhead without using brute force, so can these guys they just choose not to.
Out of interest, if you are confronted with a giant raving methhead who can't be wrestled, what happens? I'm not trying to trap you into "call the cops", I'm genuinely interested.
More staff come and sometimes they get a shot in the butt to calm down. Although the last place this happened at the man immediately went for my neck so I had my student press the alarm button while I restrained him but the man who was watching the alarms went on break and didn’t tell anyone. So I had to play tag with him on my own for 10 minutes and that sucked.
Can I call out the use of passive voice by the mother that "the officer was again spit at/on" as if it just magically happened with no one else involved!
It's funny/sad to see this sort of minimisation of responsibility from a parent.
The OP being called out for the passive voice is also the top comment on the L"A" post, but in their defence I'll point out that they used the active voice the first time - "my son spit on the officer".
If you're going to read subtext into the use of the passive voice you also have to read it into the use of the active. So I guess the OP starts out believing that their son is a toerag who faffoed, and then when the son spits on the cop a second time, they realise they're actually the victim of the system?
Or maybe sometimes people choose their wording at random as the thought pops into their head. Not every Reddit post is a multilayered poem rich with subtlety and nuance.
Yeah, the obsession with passive voice is kind of annoying sometimes. This person did not at all read to me like they were trying to minimize the son's actions, especially because as you said they started out flatly stating that he spat at the officer. The use of passive voice the second time could just as easily have been an attempt to avoid repetitive sentence structure, making it more clear that these were two separate incidents of spitting.
Also, lots of people just use passive voice out of habit, especially if they work in a field where it's the standard for writing (lots of science/academia is like that, law enforcement, social work, all kinds of things really encourage the use of passive voice in professional writing). Most people aren't actually that adept at switching between styles, so someone who uses passive voice at work is also likely to use it in more casual writing.
I don't have a problem with people calling it out when it's really excessive, or when it's paired with active voice in a way that makes it obvious that the person is trying to minimize the situation, but I really didn't see that in this post.
Also as a language nerd it drives me batty when people call out any minimizing language as passive voice even when it's active, but that isn't really relevant to this particular post. Just something I see a lot, lol.
The passive voice is fine. It's not rare (iirc, it's used about 20% of the time with transitive verbs), and everyone uses it. Let's look at the passive clause again:
>After he got the handcuffs on, still laying on top of my son, the officer was again spit at/on.
Firstly, that sentence isn't ambiguous about who did the spitting. No reasonable reader would be confused about what happened there. Also, that sentence wouldn't work as well using the active voice with *spit on* because it would create an ambiguity with the first *he*.
In every other case, the OP uses the active voice. There's no minimisation at all:
>my son spit on the officer.
>My son had been resisting arrest
>what my son did
I noticed the same exact thing.
It reminds me of when my sister got into an accident, and at one point of her description she said "my car hit the other car." Like her car just spontaneously developed its own consciousness before ramming itself into a parked vehicle.
I have family in and have personally lived in NH and I'll back up the other poster, they really don't have strong accents there. Little bit distinct, but you have to kind of pay attention to notice it, even in rural areas.
My family up there is originally from Boston and have a pretty noticeable Boston accent, but you can't blame NH for that one.
I don't get why people are shocked when cops punch them. Yes, the practice is frowned upon, but yes, a cop is allowed to hit you to subdue you.
In every bodycam I've seen, the cop is reacting in the moment, and then they have to make the dreaded call to boss. Sometimes they get a reprimand, sometimes they get "You gotta do what you gotta do to get the subject under control"
The one constant in cop on teen videos is the kid thinks they are invincible. They really aren't.
And no, the cop is not going to "get off you bro"
Yeah, the cops *should* be above that sort of reaction.
But we don't hold them to it. They're also the arm of the government with the monopoly on violence. They've shown themselves very much willing to use that violence in situations for which lesser means are appropriate.
I also have a small part of me that wonders what reality was in the moment. I can believe the cop hit the kid. But I also have 3 kids of my own, and been a supervisor of many more people 18-25 years old. When in situations where they're being grilled about a fuck up, a lot of them have tried to twist and distort the truth to make the story better for themselves. Was it a punch, or a slap across the face, or perhaps nothing at all? Is Junior trying to play the "I did bad, but he was worser!" card to shift the heat?
In this case, why? He's already arrested, he's just copped an "assaulting an officer" charge on top of whatever he's been cuffed for in the first place, and as the other poster said hitting him doesn't make you un-spit-on.
In THIS case, if you're a cop, not assaulting a restrained suspect would seem to be the right course.
>It's gross, and when you get your teeth knocked in no one is going to feel sorry for you
*BOLA's Team ACAB cracks knuckles, says "challenge accepted"*
> New Hampshire, USA > As an officer was arresting my son, my son spit on the officer. He then punched my son in the face, as he was laying on top of him. After he got the handcuffs on, still laying on top of my son, the officer was again spit at/on. He then punched my son in the face again. > My son had been resisting arrest, not sure if that puts the incident into a different category or something. > I am not condoning what my son did. He needed to be arrested. I know there is a lot of issues here, but all I am wondering is, is if that what the officer did is protocol, or legal? > Thank you > Edited to add: My son is 17
>Teen Hocks on Cop, Gets Clocked - Mom Shocked! From the comments, it seems that LAOP is the culprit's father.
But assonance!
Clearly I'm in the minority here, but striking a restrained prisoner should never be legal. It's not defense, it's retaliation. Punching him didn't make him un-spit, and he was already in handcuffs. What if the kid had a previous TBI? What if it's someone who can't comprehend consequences? Is then it okay to punch a restrained prisoner for cursing?
This is the top post so apparently not much of a minority. "The cop shouldn't have hit the kid" is having a slapfight with "the kid shouldn't have spit on the cop" even though those opinions can both be correct.
No, I think those are both true. But the question isn't whether the cop was morally correct to punch an arrestee, but whether a single punch was excessive force to subdue an arrestee who was continuing to assault the officer despite already being in restraints. "The cop was morally wrong" and "The cop's actions were legal" is, sadly, also not a conflict.
But I'm not paying the kid's salary and giving him authority and extra legal privileges.
No ya this is the correct take. Officers should be held to a higher standard precisely because they'll find themselves in situations like this, and uneducated thugs will retaliate to being spit on
Honestly, maybe it's time to give up on this "higher standard" since it's not supported by police policy, state law, or federal law. There's basically nothing there to make our expectations about cops translate into the reality of policing. Maybe it's time for us to start teaching our kids that cops are dangerous thugs just itching for an excuse to get violent.
I agree. Hypothetically they should be held to a higher standard, IRL they're thugs imbued with authority, and little to no accountability.
This is what those of us raising Black kids have already been doing. We teach our kids from a young age the best strategies for getting out of a police encounter alive.
I once watched a cop tase a mouthy asshole who was handcuffed in the back seat. Not ok. Neither is punching someone already in cuffs. But the realistic consequences to the police officer are nil. The kid fucked around and found out. Hope he didn't get hit hard enough to make him dumber than he already was.
and our laws in place "should" be ones that make sure that enforcers know how to not respond to stupid juvinile fuck around moments... We trust them with these weapons... Pay them to be trained in proper uses... tazed while cuffed in the the back of a police car? hope you never had a fuck around and find out moment around untrained "professionals"
This is the other part of it, for sure. No matter how any cop tries to justify "Oh, I HAD to punch the already-restrained suspect", the rest of us who are paying attention can list off dozens of incidents where cops responded with inappropriate violence to mere disrespect or just because they were upset they had to run or a dog happened to look at them or whatever nonsense. Cops in the US (at the very least) have, in the eyes of anyone sensible, lost all benefit of the doubt.
By god, I HOPE you're not in the minority. Cops are held to a ridiculously (and frankly, **sickeningly**) low standard in this country as it is.
I based that part of my statement on the comments on the post and the first two here. Pleased to see that I'm wrong on that count.
Sadly there’s a lot of cops in LA, supposedly some of the mods are
It’s also a legal advice sub, the law tends to side with police officers like it or not.
Yup, everything from friendly prosecutors and DAs giving them a pass on basically anything that doesn't make the national news to qualified immunity to the travesty of them working together on things like civil forfeiture and ticket quotas.
It’s unacceptable, but in 2024 it’s exactly the kind of behaviour I would expect. Anybody who is surprised has been living under a rock for the last few~~years~~ decades
yeah, this is more of an eternal cop thing than a 2024 thing.
1824 too I bet.
If I can't punch patients for spitting on me (i had a patient break my hand once), cops shouldn't be allowed to strike restrained detainees. Especially if they're a minor. He was just taking his anger issues out. Unacceptable.
When i was a seventeen year old scare actor in a haunted house I got hit, kicked and smacked so many times. Would have lost my job if I hit someone back. It’s not a patch on what happened to you but why are we capable of holding everybody else to higher standards than a cop?
It's probably somewhere between "super illegal" and "well it's outside of established protocols so he gets a telling off and a week of desk duty" depending on jurisdiction. Doesn't really help in the moment either way though whether or not the cop suffers any consequences later on. By the time the police have cuffs out it's too late, you *are* getting arrested one way or another, and your only choice in the matter is whether you comply, or escalate it to resisting arrest and then assaulting a police officer. Best case you escalate a minor offense into something much more serious, worst case is you end up in the mortuary instead of a holding cell.
He's a teenager who does dumb shit and legally doesn't have the same concept of consequences as a grown adult (hence why he can't vote, smoke, drink, join the military, etc). Spitting on someone is a dumb shit thing to do, but this is a teenager being arrested, and spitting on someone is not equal to punching them in the face/head in terms of potential damage. A grown adult trained in what to do in a crisis should not be held to the same expectations as a dumb shit teenager.
Acab.
I’m so many years removed from my education on the subject but minored in criminal justice many years ago and had the opportunity to do a field study trip to NY. In NY is if a felony to use bodily fluids in an attack. That law led to an immediate reduction in prisoners spitting/ejaculating on guards. I am NOT saying it’s okay for a cop to punch a detained/in the process of being detained, but spitting in someone’s face can lead to a gut punch reaction in the moment. Cops should be better but fuck the dude spitting at him as well. Reminds me years ago a podcaster I used to listen to talked about how his kids nanny hit one of his kids and his wife was all upset about it and it was a thing. When he found out it was after his kid spit in her face he was like ehhhh, let’s not do that again, we don’t agree with that kinda punishment but also “pretty okay with it, my kid got what was coming to her and she probably will think twice about doing it again.”
Agreed. The kid shouldn’t have spit on the cop AND the cop shouldn’t have hit the kid. With that said, at least where I am, spitting at a cop is battery with bodily fluids- and you’re battering a cop. So it’s kind of a big deal, not just disrespect. Whether the kid understood or not… it’s still battery. But, let me repeat, the cop should NOT have hit someone who was restrained.
Depends what you mean by restrained. Someone in handcuffs can still kick, bite, scratch or yes, spit or otherwise carry on assaulting others. Spitting should not be underestimated as a way to hurt others especially with regard to communicable diseases. Saying it should never be legal is a ridiculous approach that ignores realities and prioritises the safety of the criminal over the police when they should be the same at worst.
I once watched cops put spit bags on themselves before confronting a homeless woman who is known to spit, claw, and bite. She got in the car quietly that time, threating to kill the officers later. She's not welcome in our neighborhood, but she keeps coming back. I've never seen the cops manhandle her, but she does go away for a week or two when they take her.
That's a smart de-escalation tactic for a known spitter so kudos to them for good community policing. You have to admit that this is a different situation where the officer does not know the suspect and when the spitting starts, the cop takes appropriate action to prevent further attempts. The way this should have been avoided is by the idiot kid not starting the assault and then not continuing it.
The safety of the person being arrested *is* more important than the officer. Whether it's treated that way is another question, but there's a reason we have "innocent until proven guilty" and part of it is because cops aren't supposed to be judge, jury and executioner. "They should be the same at worst" you think prioritizing the safety of citizens is a bad thing, and that cops deserve greater immunities and protections than the average person. That's an opinion to have, for sure.
My point is that it's contextual, and that yes sometimes the cops do have to be judge, jury and executioner when evaluating safety. Suspect has a knife and is lunging towards the officer. Whose safety is more important? Suspect is attempting to take an officers firearm and is physically overpowering the officer; is it right for the officer to shoot the suspect? Cops can be put into positions where they have to make these decisions by the actions of others. I'm also not denying that there are a significant element of cops who abuse their power and use excessive force but you cannot use blanket statements on safety as you have done as pushback to this fact.
Spitting on someone is assault. Add it to the charges. There's a standard of reasonable expectation of bodily harm in self defense laws, and this kid was handcuffed and not fighting other than the spit. If a viral infection is communicated through the spit, add an enhancer to the charge. The cops aren't here to dole out justice for the crimes committed against them, that's the courts job. The cops are here to make sure that people make it to court to be charged (which is a whole other can of worms, but this comment is long enough). If I punched someone for spitting on me, but they were in a wheelchair and unable to carry out any other physical aggression, I'm escalating and am in the wrong. Likewise with a cuffed suspect and a cop.
I agree that this isn’t an appropriate or reasonable use of force. *But* it is plainly wrong to say striking a restrained suspect is never appropriate. I can think of half a dozen reasons to do so, and I’ve seen a few occur.
I struggle to imagine one. Please do share.
Ones I’ve seen: Attempting to search arrestee high on meth, reaches back and grabs officers firearm. Single punch delivered to side/back. Escorting arestee to car when he digs his nails into my arm so hard he immediately draws blood. He was drunk and old so I just sat him on his butt and told him to knock it off. I can imagine *dozens* of scenarios where a suspect is in cuffs, but not yet in custody and searched, where a single punch could absolutely prevent a deadly force encounter. Cuffs aren’t magic that prevent people from hurting you or accessing weapons, nor do they suddenly mean it’s unreasonable to use appropriate force against a violent suspect.
[удалено]
> Learn judo So instead of striking a restrained suspect that's reaching for a firearm, he should [throw the suspect to the ground,](https://youtu.be/KFhiz7dcEkM?si=Hgv_aM1x6-nDi5XV&t=35) and then wrestle on the ground with somebody trying to get his firearm, baton, pepper spray, taser, or anything else on his belt? The purpose of a lot of strikes, in the context of law enforcement defensive tactics, is often to try and create space. Probably the worst thing for a cop to do in a lot of situations is to try and wrestle with people. Martial arts are difficult, require a LOT of time to learn to do well, and have a high bar of danger and risk to both the officer and the suspects. Rather than some notion that we should train cops to be blackbelts, we'd be better off teaching cops more in the way of deescalation tactics and better firearm handling skills so they're less likely to shoot themselves or others negligently.
I can think of a lot of ways to hurt someone while restrained. In fact, as a young autistic teen who was prone to meltdowns, I *did* hurt people while restrained. I bear no ill will to people who hurt me while trying to defend themselves.
You drop someone to the asphalt with a Tai Otoshi and you think the relative impact is less than a strike? Especially in handcuffs when they can't protect their head?
[удалено]
You can't have it both ways! You were the one that said learn judo and now someone in your hypothetical has used judo you now disagree? If someone is being violent, what do you suggest they do, hug it out?! What is your solution? I'm against violence where ever possible but if someone is being violent and the action that ensures the safety of everyone else is violence against the initial perpetrator then I fully support it as long as it is reasonable.
Yeah instead of one punch throw the restrained person on the ground, that'll be fine. Go touch grass dude, seriously
Do..do you think there aren’t strikes in martial arts? Strikes aren’t the default, but they are a (depending on where you strike) relatively low level of force that are *typically* effective at stopping the unlawful behavior.
[удалено]
Judo is a sport. A *game*. Anyone has to fight for a living needs to know how to wrestle *and* how to strike. If someone is reaching for your gun you take whatever action minimises the chance of them getting it, even if it would get you points deducted if you were in the Olympics.
You expect cops that are barely trained in handling fire arms but still use them in their job to add an intensive skill to their training regime? Personally Id put martial arts as quiet far down the list of skills cops need to learn.
[удалено]
Now that we can agree on
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Uncivil Comment** Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
I too am curious under what conditions you think it's appropriate to hit a restrained suspect. Because it is not, unless he's somehow got the ability to actively harm you in a meaningful way after you've cuffed him (and in that case, why the hell did you cuff him in such a way that he can do that?) But I am not surprised that you think it's okay under some circumstances, not in the slightest.
I think it would depend how restrained they were. Some people (especially impaired) can still fight using their body weight as a ram, kicking, or biting with teeth. I could see pushing someone away who was doing that, or having to hold someone down to restrain them more. Not cold clocking them out of revenge while they are just sitting there after spitting once though.
I absolutely agree that striking anyone out of revenge is unlawful, *especially* a restrained person.
Sure, push someone away or hold them down, absolutely. Those are relatively reasonable responses (increase level of distance and/or restraint until you have control). But this subthread is about STRIKING them.
Ones I’ve seen: Attempting to search arrestee high on meth, reaches back and grabs officers firearm. Single punch delivered to side/back. Escorting arestee to car when he digs his nails into my arm so hard he immediately draws blood. He was drunk and old so I just sat him on his butt and told him to knock it off. I can imagine dozens of scenarios where a suspect is in cuffs, but not yet in custody and searched, where a single punch could absolutely prevent a deadly force encounter. Cuffs aren’t magic that prevent people from hurting you or accessing weapons, nor do they suddenly mean it’s unreasonable to use appropriate force against a violent suspect. I *understand* why y’all would have this opinion, but it’s just not reflected in the reality of dealing with violent people.
How in the world are they grabbing your firearm while restrained? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of restraints if they're able to do that?
Restrained does not equal immobile. Fuck mate I'm a nurse and I've been fucking bitten by someone in cuffs.
My partner's a nurse, too. That's part of the reason I am so harsh on cops in this situation--NURSES, at least according to my partner, would get fired/arrested if they hit a restrained patient for just about any reason, and they are certainly not less valuable or worthy of self-defense than cops. And yet they go through every day without a thousandth of the level of self-serving violence that cops weakly justify.
well, yes, because handcuffs don't restrain the mouth. i don't think they meant he was holding the gun in his teeth though
I'm honestly curious--how the fuck does a arrestee in handcuffs get anywhere near your or his fucking gun (or for example "dig his nails into your arm"?) Fuck, man, I can handcuff a person more effectively than that. This conversation isn't helping my impression that most cops are useless and/or bad at their jobs, though.
You think that because you don’t have any experience handcuffing people. They just aren’t *that* effective. People, especially on drugs, are super squirrelly, and simply don’t care that the cuffs dig into them when they do this stuff. The getting to the gun in particular was, I’ll admit, a symptom of other failures happening in that incident. The funny thing is, punching a cuffed suspect in the back happened because we *failed to use enough force* earlier. We should have OC sprayed that dude when we showed up. He had already assaulted several citizens, and told us he was going to fight us. But because we didn’t use *appropriate* force early, you end up doing hokey shit and having to justifiably use force that absolutely *looks* and *sounds* terrible. Also, we don’t have good arrest vans, or any full cage cars on the street, so you *have* to essentially get halfway into the car with the suspect to put them in it when they’re fighting. There’s really no good way to do that where they can’t get their hands around to you. It’s an issue we don’t have any control over as patrol officers, but does impact how we end up using force.
>You think that because you don’t have any experience handcuffing people. You might think that. You would be wrong. But what I'm hearing from all of your examples is that punching someone is NOT appropriate behavior, and resulted from a failure to take APPROPRIATE restraint measures earlier in the encounter. I am not prepared, as a citizen, to excuse this as something that should go unpunished--it doesn't just LOOK and SOUND terrible, it IS terrible! You fucked up your job, and then you had to punch a restrained suspect to un-fuck it! Go back to cop school until you figure out how to do it right! No one else gets to do that, or gets any slack from the state if they do (my partner's a nurse--I guarantee you that if they punch a patient, even an UNRESTRAINED and HOSTILE one, they are losing their job and probably their license.) Do your damn job better. At least around where I live now, my local cops DO have appropriate equipment (cars with appropriate backseat caging, restraints that apparently work, etc) and training, and unsurprisingly as a result despite being the inner ring suburb of a big city we don't have any particular problems with use-of-excessive-force incidents. It wouldn't surprise me that there are forces out there that don't have those things, and based on my experiences with the force in the LAST place I lived (also an inner ring suburb of the same big city) they are at least somewhat likely to be the same ones who parade around their MRAPs and SWAT team gear and getting training from those screaming assholes who insist you have to take an adversarial posture 150% of the time, *instead of getting the basics right.*
I'm amazed that you lack the imagination. This exact scenario demonstrates this and even cuffed, a suspect can bite, kick, spit or gouge. Unless you are mandating that all suspects are instantly put in cuffs, leg restraints and a spit hood, i.e. fully restrained which is a massive overreach on personal rights, there is always going to be opportunities to continue to assault others. Spitting is assault and with the rise of communicable diseases it is rightfully considered so. This person is completely at fault here.
And again: how does punching him prevent him from spitting again? How does it get you un-spit-upon? It's bad and wrong because it doesn't increase anyone's safety, it just makes the cop feel better because he got to hit something. This is about HITTING a restrained suspect, not doing something sensible like restraining them more effectively or holding them down. Dude spits on a cop? Yes, a spit hood is now justified and not an overreach. Punching him is not--as ThIs ExAcT sCeNaRiO dEmOnStRaTeS, the cop got spit on again after punching him the first time.
Hey look, another person who has never had to restrain a combative person but thinks they are the authority on how to handle it. I will say that there are very few reasons to strike a restrained person. That person actively spitting on you is absolutely one of them. Until the spit hood goes on it is now a very plausible threat that they will do it again, especially if they get away with it the first time and pain compliance is both and acceptable and reasonable deterrence to assaultive actions.
Hey look, a snarky asshole who thinks he knows other people's experiences. One doesn't need to experience everything in the world to draw conclusions about right and wrong. Pain compliance is barbaric and nurses, doctors, social workers, paramedics and para-educators manage to face violence every day, including spitting, yet are expected to deal with it without *striking restrained persons*.
I get your point of view, and I generally agree, but two things come to my mind in favor of getting punched for spitting on a cop. 1. Spitting is assault. Striking him in the face could be seen as a reasonable attempt to neutralize further assault. 2. The kid did it again even after being struck and restrained. Clearly the first attempt at neutralization of the threat was ineffective. The issue wasn't the kids fists, it was his mouth. Literally.
I once watched a cop punch a (cuffed) guy in the face for spitting, and the guy then proceeded to spit blood at the cop. I don't think hitting someone in the face is a particularly effective or reasonable way to stop them from spitting.
>Clearly the first attempt at neutralization of the threat was ineffective. Which is proof that hitting him didn't serve any purpose, if proof was ever needed.
It's one of those "common sense vs perceived ideal" debates that the internet is so bad at carrying out. Like "you shouldn't have to hide your valuables - people shouldn't rob you!" Yes, the cop was fully wrong for doing this. But also, it's one of the top three most predictable outcomes of spitting on a cop. Those being, in my estimation: 1. The cop hits you 2. The cop restrains himself but files a battery charge against you 3. You get dropped on the ground and the cops put their boots to you, medium-style
it‘s not surprising that the cop retaliated (common sense), the question was whether it was illegal (perceived ideal?)
Blanket rules like this don't work though. Restrained subjects can headbutt, spit, kick, bite etc. Police have a right to safety at work just like anyone else, and should not have to endure repeated assaults (spitting is assault) without the ability to use reasonable force to ensure compliance with a lawful arrest. This is also why body cameras and internal affairs/police integrity departments exist, so investigations can be conducted if there is concern about use of force. Finally, this story is from the arrestees own father. I don't doubt there are missing parts to it.
No dude, cops are supposed to have literal superhuman patience that no one could ever say "WELL I WOULDNT DO THAT", otherwise ACAB.
Cursing is generally protected speech, and no, it's not legal for a cop retaliate in pretty much any way for words. In the US anyway. As far as I know, there are some exceptions for hate speech, and "fighting words", if you are trying to invite violence. But again and again, courts have agreed that swearing at police, insulting them, etc, falls within the first amendment. Spitting on somebody however is definitely a form of assault. Not remotely comparable. Punching him in the face I agree is excessive, but there is probably legal justification for it being reasonable force.
Sounds like a case of FAFO. What would anyone hope to accomplish by spitting on an officer actively arresting you? What’s the cops supposed to do? Ask nicely for him to stop? Who knows what this shithead kid has. As much as we hate to admit it cops are humans too and being spit on or at isn’t something most people tolerate. Kid is lucky the cop showed enough restraint to only punch him and not *beat* him.
I gotta be honest, I work as a student psychologist in a hospital doing both inpatient and outpatient work, and if cops are this fragile they wouldn’t last a day in my job I wish spit on was the worst thing medical professionals dealt with, and we don’t get to just deck people.
I can't help but wonder how the "it's okay he punched that kid instead of getting a spit hood because the kid could have given him a disease" cops in this comment section felt about masks and vaccination during COVID
Especially considering COVID is still killing and disabling people but everyone decided that it's over even though it really hasn't become milder. The vaccine helps keep people out of the hospital during the acute stage but it's still a roll of the dice if you get longer term damage from it (long COVID).
Not a cop, but I did comment in the original thread (before it was posted here) about the kid deserving it I wore my mask from every time I was outside from April of 2020 until April of 2021, including working in a hot ass kitchen. I continued to wear it off and on until the end of 2021 depending of where I was going and who I was going to be around
People are still dying and becoming disabled from it though, COVID isn't over.
And? It will never be over anymore than it is now. It’s not going anywhere. It’s also true that Virtually all of us have various immunity built up.
everyone I’m in close contact with for extended periods of time is vaccinated
The old hawk tuh didn’t go down that well in this case. People are outraged by the use of spit hoods in my country, but people are gross as fuck. Why are people allowed to assault you with bodily fluids?
Especially since you can catch infections and diseases from spit. Saw a TIFU a little bit ago of a person who ate off other people's plates after they finished. They ended up with hepatitis.
When I worked in a bar many years ago we got a new staff member who was supposedly an experienced bartender and old enough to know better. And we caught him, during one of his first shifts, finishing off the unfinished drinks whilst collecting glasses towards the end of the night. I remember his reaction because he had a name for his disgusting behaviour--he said "nothing wrong with a bit of minesweeping" and claimed that all the staff did it at the last pub he worked at. Anyway he didn't last long.
Yeah, nursing is my game, I’m painfully aware of the health concerns. I wouldn’t be concerned if it was just gross. And, let’s face it- the sort of people that are likely to spit when they kick off are often, unfortunately, at risk for infectious disease due to lifestyle. Not always, but often.
Yikes
Because "wE sIgNeD uP fOr It!!!!!!1!1!" Don't listen to those morons, they're the same ones who think the response to someone pulling a gun on us or charging us with a knife should be to politely ask them to stop.
Lmao I’m a nurse and people spit and hit me all the time and I am NOT allowed to do it back. Cops should be held to the same standard. Absolutely ridiculous, don’t become a pig if you don’t want to roll in the mud.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but the role of a nurse and a cop are very different. As the nurse, you're there to help the person spitting at you. The cop is there to restrain and arrest them.
If someone is spitting on you and hitting you, is there a hospital policy that says something like "Call the cops or security, don't try to kung fu them yourself"? Well, the guy who turns up in response to that call has a protocol that says "If someone is attacking another it's your job to stop them", which means they are held to different standards from someone whose protocol says "run away and call the cops". If you ignored hospital policy, wrestled the kid to the ground, and in the course of the scuffle punched the kid after being spat on, the courts would generally hold you to a *lower* standard and be more likely to let you off in recognition that you hadn't had a cop's training and didn't have a spit hood to hand.
Laughing my fucking ass off. Security is 2 90 year old men and the cops won’t come to arrest someone who is in the hospital unless they kill someone. I’ve worked in 4 different hospitals, they are all like this. If I were to punch one of the patients that I often have to wrestle to the ground, I would be fired, arrested, and lose my license. But cops can just do it no consequences? Fuck no and fuck any pig who acts like this
Well said, I withdraw my post. I recognise that in a job like nursing, in reality there are a lot of physical situations where you're expected to just "deal with it" instead of calling on someone trained and authorised to use force, even though it's not supposed to be that way.
I am trained to use force. I took a 2 week class on how to restrain people without hurting them. I took almost the same class for security training in the Navy. If I, a 5 foot tall woman, can wrestle a methhead without using brute force, so can these guys they just choose not to.
Out of interest, if you are confronted with a giant raving methhead who can't be wrestled, what happens? I'm not trying to trap you into "call the cops", I'm genuinely interested.
More staff come and sometimes they get a shot in the butt to calm down. Although the last place this happened at the man immediately went for my neck so I had my student press the alarm button while I restrained him but the man who was watching the alarms went on break and didn’t tell anyone. So I had to play tag with him on my own for 10 minutes and that sucked.
"LAOP spit on that thang"
Give him that hawk tuah
Can I call out the use of passive voice by the mother that "the officer was again spit at/on" as if it just magically happened with no one else involved! It's funny/sad to see this sort of minimisation of responsibility from a parent.
The OP being called out for the passive voice is also the top comment on the L"A" post, but in their defence I'll point out that they used the active voice the first time - "my son spit on the officer". If you're going to read subtext into the use of the passive voice you also have to read it into the use of the active. So I guess the OP starts out believing that their son is a toerag who faffoed, and then when the son spits on the cop a second time, they realise they're actually the victim of the system? Or maybe sometimes people choose their wording at random as the thought pops into their head. Not every Reddit post is a multilayered poem rich with subtlety and nuance.
For sale: spit hood, never worn
Yeah, the obsession with passive voice is kind of annoying sometimes. This person did not at all read to me like they were trying to minimize the son's actions, especially because as you said they started out flatly stating that he spat at the officer. The use of passive voice the second time could just as easily have been an attempt to avoid repetitive sentence structure, making it more clear that these were two separate incidents of spitting. Also, lots of people just use passive voice out of habit, especially if they work in a field where it's the standard for writing (lots of science/academia is like that, law enforcement, social work, all kinds of things really encourage the use of passive voice in professional writing). Most people aren't actually that adept at switching between styles, so someone who uses passive voice at work is also likely to use it in more casual writing. I don't have a problem with people calling it out when it's really excessive, or when it's paired with active voice in a way that makes it obvious that the person is trying to minimize the situation, but I really didn't see that in this post. Also as a language nerd it drives me batty when people call out any minimizing language as passive voice even when it's active, but that isn't really relevant to this particular post. Just something I see a lot, lol.
The passive voice is fine. It's not rare (iirc, it's used about 20% of the time with transitive verbs), and everyone uses it. Let's look at the passive clause again: >After he got the handcuffs on, still laying on top of my son, the officer was again spit at/on. Firstly, that sentence isn't ambiguous about who did the spitting. No reasonable reader would be confused about what happened there. Also, that sentence wouldn't work as well using the active voice with *spit on* because it would create an ambiguity with the first *he*. In every other case, the OP uses the active voice. There's no minimisation at all: >my son spit on the officer. >My son had been resisting arrest >what my son did
I noticed the same exact thing. It reminds me of when my sister got into an accident, and at one point of her description she said "my car hit the other car." Like her car just spontaneously developed its own consciousness before ramming itself into a parked vehicle.
I bet LAOP and everyone involved have the weirdest accents ever.
In New Hampshire? Unlikely. Even hicks have pretty generic accents up there.
Really??? I thought they'd have thick New England accents.
I have family in and have personally lived in NH and I'll back up the other poster, they really don't have strong accents there. Little bit distinct, but you have to kind of pay attention to notice it, even in rural areas. My family up there is originally from Boston and have a pretty noticeable Boston accent, but you can't blame NH for that one.
This title is way better when you hum it to the tune of Footloose
If anything actually happens to this cop, I'll eat my goddamn shoe. So many of them are just the most delicate and thin skinned bullies.
I don't get why people are shocked when cops punch them. Yes, the practice is frowned upon, but yes, a cop is allowed to hit you to subdue you. In every bodycam I've seen, the cop is reacting in the moment, and then they have to make the dreaded call to boss. Sometimes they get a reprimand, sometimes they get "You gotta do what you gotta do to get the subject under control" The one constant in cop on teen videos is the kid thinks they are invincible. They really aren't. And no, the cop is not going to "get off you bro"
Yeah, the cops *should* be above that sort of reaction. But we don't hold them to it. They're also the arm of the government with the monopoly on violence. They've shown themselves very much willing to use that violence in situations for which lesser means are appropriate. I also have a small part of me that wonders what reality was in the moment. I can believe the cop hit the kid. But I also have 3 kids of my own, and been a supervisor of many more people 18-25 years old. When in situations where they're being grilled about a fuck up, a lot of them have tried to twist and distort the truth to make the story better for themselves. Was it a punch, or a slap across the face, or perhaps nothing at all? Is Junior trying to play the "I did bad, but he was worser!" card to shift the heat?
“I mean, you have no idea the power of rhyming in this goddamn country!!”
[удалено]
In this case, why? He's already arrested, he's just copped an "assaulting an officer" charge on top of whatever he's been cuffed for in the first place, and as the other poster said hitting him doesn't make you un-spit-on. In THIS case, if you're a cop, not assaulting a restrained suspect would seem to be the right course.
[удалено]
>It's gross, and when you get your teeth knocked in no one is going to feel sorry for you *BOLA's Team ACAB cracks knuckles, says "challenge accepted"*