La prohibición de las técnicas de llave de estrangulamiento

Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
Introduction
Campaign Zero's 8 Can't Wait initiative recommends that police departments restrict officers from
using chokeholds or strangleholds on individuals, as use of these techniques may lead to
"unnecessary death or serious injury."81
82
Neck restraints generally fall into two categories: vascular and respiratory. Vascular neck
restraints affect blood flow and are colloquially referred to as "strangleholds," while respiratory
83
neck restraints affect air intake and are referred to as "chokeholds." According to APD,
chokeholds and strangleholds are not part of APD training curriculum and are not approved
84
tactics for restraining or arresting an individual.
In a memo to the Mayor of Austin and City Council on July 8, 2020, APD's Chief of Police stated
that, as of June 11, 2020, APD's General Orders were updated to "explicitly ban the use of such
techniques. "85 The revisions that APD's Chief of Police was referring to went into effect on July 3,
86
87
2020. Furthermore, APD's policy does not explicitly ban these techniques. Rather, using
equivocal language, it limits the use of chokeholds and strangleholds to situations in which
88
deadly force would be authorized.
Office of Police Oversight
Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
Policy review findings
Terms are not defined
There are terms and maneuvers referenced in the current policy that are not defined. The purpose of
the General Orders is to make officers aware of their responsibilities, and to make the public aware of
APD officers' responsibilities. As a result, it is important to define key terms that are not commonly
known or that have specific meaning within this context.
Here, there are six terms left undefined: vascular neck restraint, carotid neck restraint, stranglehold,
chokehold, pressure, and reasonably likely. While officers and the public may be familiar with these
terms, their technical meanings may not be commonly understood, and each term has a specific
meaning in this context.
To improve clarity, the term "reasonably likely" should be removed, and the remaining five terms
should be defined. In addition, the General Orders should explicitly list and define "respiratory neck
restraints" to clearly demonstrate that the policy applies to both the respiratory and vascular categories
of neck restraints.
The policy's scope is too narrow
Another issue with APD's current policy is that it is too narrow in scope. On the topic of respiratory
restraints, APD's policy only restricts actions that "apply direct or indirect pressure to an individual's
throat, windpipe or airway in a manner that is reasonably likely to prevent, reduce, or hinder the intake
of
air "90 This wording excludes a wide range of conduct, including those actions that, even if not
actually executed in a manner that is "reasonably likely" to impact air intake, are intended to do so.
In addition, including language like "reasonably likely" invites an inquiry into the technicalities of how
a
maneuver was performed and the amount of pressure used. Based on Council's goals and the policy
of the City of Austin as outlined in Resolution 95, these kinds of inquiries do not matter. The purpose of
Resolution 95 is to unequivocally ban APD's use of chokeholds as a policing tactic, and it broadly
defines them to include not only all maneuvers that involve choking or cutting off blood flow, but also
all maneuvers that involve holding the neck in general.9 In light of Resolution 95, the fact that the
determination of whether APD's chokehold policy was violated is solely based on whether the
maneuver was performed in a manner making it reasonably likely that air intake or blood flow would
be affected contradicts both the intent and letter of the Resolution.
APD has said that it does not train officers on the use of neck restraints.93 As a result, it is possible that
subject officers being investigated for using a neck restraint will not have received relevant training. It
is similarly possible that the Internal Affairs investigators reviewing the incident will not have received
training on the use of neck restraints. It does not make sense to maintain a policy standard that invites
an inquiry into the technicalities of how a neck restraint was performed when APD does not train on
these maneuvers.
Office of Police Oversight
Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
Image 1: Visual Depiction of Carotid Neck Restraint (left) and Chokehold (right). 94
The question of whether pressure was applied in a manner "reasonably likely" to impair air intake or
blood flow also requires some threshold determination about how much pressure is needed before
such a risk is realistic. As it applies to respiratory restraints, "[t]here is no way to determine the amount
of pressure needed not to cause airway injury. The potential for injury exists whenever pressure is
applied. "95 Furthermore, even if there were a threshold amount of pressure, an investigator would not
be able to determine the level of pressure used in a given incident. As a result, it would be best for
policy language to involve a simpler inquiry with clearer, more objective standards.
The current policy language also fails to consider whether the effects of a vascular or respiratory neck
restraint can be achieved without the application of "pressure." While APD policy does not define
"pressure," the common meaning of the word relates to the use of physical force by one thing against
another. While vascular and respiratory functions can certainly be impacted by the use of physical
force, the policy should also account for other scenarios where force may not be used but where these
types of functions are also impaired (e.g. blocking someone's nose or mouth).
Directives are inconsistent
APD's current policy only addresses intent in the subsection related to vascular neck restraints.
The subsection on respiratory neck restraints does not address the subject of intent. 98 It is unclear why
intent would only be a factor for one type of neck restraint and not the other. Intent should be
considered for both respiratory and vascular neck restraints.
Chokeholds and strangleholds are not categorically banned
While APD has stated otherwise, APD's current policy does not explicitly ban the use of neck restraints.
99
Rather, the policy prohibits the use of vascular neck restraints, carotid neck restraints, and
strangleholds except where deadly force would be authorized. 100 In other words, APD
policy
allows
for
the use of these maneuvers in some situations. APD's position that neck restraints are an acceptable
tactic in certain circumstances is further demonstrated by the language of General Order
200.3(d), which allows officers to improvise when they " reasonably believe that it would be
impracticable or ineffective to use a standard tool, weapon, or method provided by the APD." 101
Office of Police Oversight
Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
The use of neck restraints as a policing tactic is inherently dangerous to both officers and the
individuals being restrained. 102 Importantly, using chokeholds and strangleholds requires officers to
engage in close-quarter hand-to-hand combat, which can put officers in danger.
During a chokehold, pressure applied with the forearm causes the individual's airway to collapse and,
103
as a result, can cause fractures to important structures like the laryngeal cartilage or hyoid bone.
Moreover, "[a]s with a drowning swimmer, the procedure sometimes precipitates resistance as the
person fights for air." 104
During a stranglehold, pressure applied to the individual's neck can cause them to lose consciousness
and go limp within seconds. 105 Serious medical consequences can occur both at the onset and period
following loss of consciousness. 106 Indeed, even in controlled training situations, police officers have
developed stroke symptoms after being restrained with a stranglehold. 107 Unlike in roleplay scenarios
that are used during training, when officers use a chokehold or stranglehold in real life, the
environment is not controlled. As Image 1 demonstrates, there is very little difference in how one's
arms are positioned in a stranglehold (carotid neck restraint) versus a chokehold. As a result, "[w]hen
there is a restraint happening, what could start as a carotid take-down could end up with a bar-arm
chokehold, or vice versa, because it's a dynamic process where the suspect is trying to escape the
restraint and the police officer is supplying the restraint, and there are other factors, which could play a
role in the suspect's actions." 108 In other words, "[t]he dynamic fact that the person is struggling could
result in pressure being applied in different parts of the neck even if it's not intended to by the officer."109
The dangers of using these maneuvers are increased when officers do not receive frequent training on
how to perform them properly. 110 In order to align with Resolution 95 and the City's policy that
chokeholds and strangleholds be strictly prohibited as a policing tactic, APD policy should be revised to
categorically ban their use in all situations.
111
Current APD policies relevant to chokeholds and
strangleholds
The following APD General Orders chapters are relevant to neck restraints:
200.1.2 Definitions; and
200.3 Response to Resistance.112
To view the full excerpts of these chapters, please turn to Appendix E.
Office of Police Oversight
Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
Recommended policy changes
Replace the current policy language with the following:
200.1.2 DEFINITIONS
Vascular Neck Restraint - A neck restraint that restricts, or may restrict, blood flow in the person being
restrained by compressing the carotid arteries (blood vessels on the sides of the neck that deliver blood
to the brain and head). This maneuver may also be referred to as a sleeper hold, carotid restraint, or
stranglehold.
Respiratory Neck Restraint - A neck restraint that restricts, or may restrict, air supply to the person being
restrained when pressure is applied to the front portion of the neck and throat. A respiratory neck
restraint may also be referred to as a chokehold, bar arm hold, guillotine choke, or bar hold. This
maneuver may also be performed with an inanimate object such as a baton or stick. When performed
with a baton or stick, the maneuver may be referred to as a mechanical hold.
Pressure - The physical application of force against a thing by something else in contact with
it.
Replace the current chokehold and stranglehold policy in General Order 200.3(c)
Response to Resistance with the following:
(c) Negative Impact to Air Intake or Blood Flow-Performing any action that could, or is
intended to, prevent, reduce, hinder or otherwise negatively impact an individual's blood
flow to the brain or intake of air is considered a use of deadly force and is categorically
prohibited.
1. Examples of specific actions that are prohibited include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Applying direct or indirect pressure by any means to an individual's chest, back,
torso, head, face, neck, throat, windpipe or airway;
(b) Performing a Vascular Neck Restraint, carotid neck restraint, or any other variation
thereof;
(c) Performing a Respiratory Neck Restraint, chokehold, or any variation thereof;
(d) Kneeling, standing, sitting, or placing any body part on any area referenced in
200.3(c)(1)(a) (e.g. kneeling on a person's back while they are in the prone position);
(e) Using an inanimate object to apply pressure to any area referenced in 200.3(c)(1)(a);
and
(f) Causing an individual's nose or mouth to be blocked regardless of whether pressure
was used. The Department shall ensure that any device utilized by officers in the course
of their duties meets established safety requirements and does not restrict breathing
(e.g. ensuring that spit hoods are made of porous, breathable materials).
Office of Police Oversight
Ban Chokeholds and Strangleholds
2. This section is not applicable to situations in which an employee is applying pressure
to a wounded area to provide first aid or lifesaving measures.
3. Notwithstanding any other section of the General Orders and regardless of a
subsequent determination that use of such techniques was objectively reasonable under
the circumstances, it is a violation of Department policy to use any form of neck restraint
or to otherwise engage in any action that could, or is intended to, impede an individual's
normal breathing or blood flow by applying pressure to the individual's throat, neck,
head, back, chest or torso, or by blocking the individual's nose or mouth.
Remove General Order 200.3(d) Response to Resistance, which currently includes
the following language:
Improvising Permitted - Circumstances may arise in which officers reasonably believe that it would
be impracticable or ineffective to use a standard tool, weapon, or method provided by the
Department. Officers may find it more effective or practicable to improvise their response to
rapidly unfolding conditions they are confronting. In such circumstances, the use of any
improvised device or method must still be objectively reasonable and used only to the extent
which reasonably appears necessary to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
Office of Police Oversight