Hacker News Reader

Comment by 29athrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Police say "stop resisting" as an alternative to something more vulgar. They do not really mean it, they shout that as a way to release stress.

They are also taught that the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR) is the safest way to restraint someone. The truth is, that it is not. It is stupid to believe that cutting blood supply to someone's brain is safe. LVNR is a scam that nobody actually believes in but everyone is silent about it because it is a plausible excuse to kill people.

http://www.nletc.com/lateral-vascular-neck-restraint-lvnr

> Result: No death, injury or litigation for excessive use of force for 40 years against agencies using the certified Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR®) System!

No death, injury or litigation? Bullshit. It only resulted in 1 month of protests and billions of dollars lost.

View on HN

Worth posting the whole description, because it's... really quite something.

> The LVNR® is the number one law enforcement system of neck restraint --standing, kneeling or on the ground. If your agency is now using or considering the use of neck restraints for officer safety and subject control, then the copyrighted and US Patent Office registered NLETC/KCMO PD LVNR® is the one method you need to assess. It has been extensively field and medically tested and has proven to be safer, more effective, and less controversial than any other known neck restraint method. That is why the NLETC/KCMO PD LVNR® is the predominant method of neck control, and is now being adopted nationwide by those law enforcement agencies that teach ground defense/control systems.

> Agencies and trainers should avoid the use of single-level, or time limit approved neck restraint methods since their use has resulted in all the claims of excessive force, death, and resultant litigation involving neck restraint use. Combined arm, neck and body controls are not as effective for most officers as the direct, rear, neck-specific compression which requires minimum physical effort for LVNR® vs. maximum physical exertion for other methods. Our statistics show that 50% of all subjects will cease resistance at Level One with low-level compression on the sides of the neck; 25% will comply at Level Two with medium compression on the neck; and the other 25% will comply at Level Three or be rendered unconscious in 4 to 7 seconds. Result: No death, injury or litigation for excessive use of force for 40 years against agencies using the certified Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint (LVNR®) System!

> The NLETC is the sole-source provider for the LVNR® System. No other training provider is entitled to teach the LVNR® System to user agencies or to include the term LVNR® as their own when teaching other neck restraint systems. Contact the NLETC if you plan to adopt the LVNR® System.

https://apnews.com/1d11254092294cde89b787494f7bc1b9

> Two Fort Wayne police officers were seriously injured during a training session on the lateral vascular neck restraint, a doctor who evaluated the men said Thursday.

> Dr. Bill Smock, police surgeon at the Louisville Metro Police Department in Kentucky, said he traveled to Fort Wayne to examine the officers Tuesday after he was contacted by the Allen County prosecutor’s office.

> Smock said both officers suffered serious injuries and that one officer’s family is calling his injuries a stroke. The officers were injured Monday, Smock said.

I really thought "LVNR®" was some The Onion meets RoboCop level sarcasm.

What's wrong with these people?

Unfortunately, it is real and highly profitable for people that will never suffer any consequences.

It's a marketing term for a technique you could probably learn for much less in any wrestling or jujitsu gym for thousands of years, but isn't as defensible in court.

Which use of the LVNR caused "1 month of protest and billions of dollars lost"?

George Floyd's murder. In that case protests were international protests.

The cops involved wanted him to pass out but killed him instead.

As far as I can tell from googling "Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint", it's just a rear-naked choke, which was not what killed George Floyd. Or Eric Garner. It's used on a daily basis in jui jitsu competition throughout the world. When done properly it does not obstruct your breathing whatsoever.

In Jiu-Jitsu competitions there are referees and paramedics. The referee is an impartial third party.

In law enforcement, the cop is both fighter and referee. And the decision to get paramedics and when to get them also belongs to the cop.

Imagine a Jiu-Jitsu competition where you were fighting one or multiple referees, where they were armed with both lethal and non-lethal weapons. Now, imagine all those referees belonged to a union that maintains a code of silence in case they break the rules. Imagine that once you lose the match, they can continue beating you down and never call paramedics. That would be a closer comparison.

Blood chokes can kill if sustained, and they are not safe to perform on random people. No other police force in the world requires such an agressive use of chokeholds.

Even if you solved the chokehold problem you would be still left with: excessive force, blatant inefficiency, racism, arrest quotas, rapists, stupid legislation, lack of accountability, inadequate training, plus a complete lack of proportionality and common sense... A complete shitshow. Plus a fucking passive aggresive portion of the citizenry that uses 911 to harass minorities.

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.

> 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

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com