Slashdot Mirror
Youtube Video Prompts FBI Probe of LAPD
PachecoJ writes "The AP has a story of a Youtube video showing police brutality that has sparked an FBI probe of the LAPD. A group called 'Cop Watch LA' placed the video online to draw attention to the actions by officers. The officers pictured in the video are now being defended by police defense attorney John Barnett, who defended the officers in the 'Rodney King' trial of 1991." From the article: "A search on YouTube for the terms 'police brutality' found more than 500 videos, including ones that claim to show police violence in the U.S. and as far away as Egypt and Hungary. A search of Google's video site also yielded hundreds of videos. In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations."
We are all human, and there are days where people get out of control. This is a tough job, with a lot of high stress. I'm not surprised at all that there are hundreds of instances where an officer may have overstepped justified force. But, again, I would also easily believe that there are lots of cases where it was justified. We are not just robots that can 'reset' ourselves after a highly dangerous situation, so some people might overreact when in another siutation so soon after a stressful one.
:)
Anyway, that's my two cents
In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations.
Why exactly would amateur videos help create the false allegations? Are people doing a little post-production work on them before they go up online to show a closed fist hitting not once, but twice? If anything, I'd think that video in squad cars would reduce the possibility of police brutality, since the cops know that they are being recorded on video, and an allegedly beaten person can get that video.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
In Egypt, a muslim country, police brutality is government policy, not some idiot running out of line, like it is in the US.
x ual-assault-in-downtown-cairo.html
i _Arabia
And Egypt is the second most moderate muslim country there is.
Read how the police responds in a moderate muslim country :
http://forsoothsayer.blogspot.com/2006/10/mass-se
Read how the police responds in a reasonably muslim country :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saud
Do I really need to provide a link to what happens in a really muslim country, like palestine or afghanistan or pakistan ? Do you want to see ?
Why does this happen ? Here's one opinion :
http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm
In Soviet USA, you watch Big Brother!
....
In democratic UK, Big Brother... err... wait... hang on
We have it pretty good in the USA, you should see the other places in the world
Doesn't matter what he did. I saw the video, and punching the guy several times in the face went far beyond reasonably force, especially as he was already adequately restrained, and in any case it is not the job of the police to hand out punishment.
Yeah, sometimes the suspect is black. Sometimes they dont have the 'right attitude'. Sometimes you get a cop who had a bad day and abused their power to feel better about themselves. And sometimes you deserve it.
Here in the home of Kerry and Kennedy, a couple of people tried to record their interaction with police. They were prosecuted under the state's privacy laws. And the police were full of righteous indignation about the "invasion of their privacy." As were we all ...
A little background regarding this incident that I can recall (covered days ago on other places, can't remember where);
1. Offender is a known "Gordon Street" gang banger in Los Angeles.
2. Offender had a warrant out for his arrest for accepting stolen goods.
3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.
4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.
In my opinion, although this offender did get what he deserve regarding the first set of punches, I believe the officer went a little overboard on the second set of punches (first set is to let go of his inner thigh, the second set was to get him to submit to a roll-over for handcuffing).
Thats just my thoughts, please excersize your independant thinking!
I've witnessed police brutality first hand before. An officer handcuffed a college kid when he tried to walk away from a speeding ticket, then the officer pushed him agaisnt the hood of the cop car (burning the kids cheek) and then pepper sprayed the kid right to the eyes (after handcuffing him and inflicting 2nd degree burns to the kids face). That was the third incident in a year for that officer and he didn't even get suspended. I was a witness in the civil case against the station, the kid's family won $150,000. I thought that was an exorbinant amount for a pinched nerve, burnt cheek, and stinging eyes but whatever.
/. who have ever dealt with the police for more than a speeding ticket. I think most people who don't deal with the police very much have a negative view towards them (as brutal or power tripping or whatever) and that is messed up because you are the people the police are protecting. Sooo, support the boys in blue!
Anyway, the video on youtube is a little brutal but I don't think either officer should be fired. Maybe a short suspension for the guy punching the perp in the face, because that is not a move that helps get the suspect into custody. We also have no idea what that guy did before the video starts. He might have just shot a little girl, spit in the cop's face, or jay walked. We have no idea what the context was, so it's hard to pass judgement. Either way, that wasn't all that brutal, at least he wasn't hitting the dude with his mag-light.
I have had a few bad experiences with the police (like the one mentioned above) and believe that it is always better not to get them involved. However, I have also had police save me from a machete weilding maniac that had me pinned in my bedroom (adn believe me, I wanted them to kick the crap outta him). They are necessary, and I think we should all try to keep open minds. Besides, I'm a rarity, a nerd who parties and gets involved with shady people. THeir probably aren't very many people on
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
If the subject is adequately restrained, it doesn't really matter what was happening up until that point.
1) Cops who are corrupt
2) Cops who are not corrupt, but ignore the corruption of others
3) Cops too stupid to know what's going on around them
I know plenty of cops that fit into varying categories above. Personally, I don't give a shit if some guy dealing drugs to kids (note to kids) or some guy abusing his wife gets an extra knock to the skull. At the same time, cops are typically dicks to people for no reason. They spend 90% of their time raising taxes (writing tickets) or playing cleanup after some dumbass.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Some points...
1: The guy clearly was breathing. It can be seen and heard.
2: Scum will lie through their teeth in order to gain an advantage. You can't believe a word they utter. e.g. "Got the time mate", "Excuse me miss I'm lost could you help", "Do what I say and you won't get hurt".
3: Where's the rest of the video? Why was it cut off? Could it be that the suspect wouldn't be seen in quite the same light? Not an innocent victim but a violent attacker?
I'm not a big fan of the police but this is a bullshit video. It's propaganda designed to manipulate me. Show me the whole video and let me make my own decision.
Deleted
One officer has his knee on the guys neck, they both have his arms. While the officer on the left is calling it in, the officer on the right begins punching the guy while he is saying he can't breathe, It does not look to me like the guy is continuing to struggle at that point. They should be completing the handcuffing, but instead the other officer punches him several times in the face. I think you are just trolling. Go look at it again if you aren't.
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
I'm sure the guy deserved it, that's not the point. The point is that if he deserved it he should have been arrested in a professional manner, given a fair trial and THEN punished. The courts are there to hand out punishment, not the police, the police are for grabbing suspects, gathering evidence and using force only to control current, dangerous situations, not as agents of retribution. What's the point of having fair courts if your punished before your put before them?
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
He was unable to prevent being punched in the face, that is a pretty clear sign that he was well restrained.
As a teenager I worked at an electronics company that built, among other things, circuit boards for in-car cameras for police cars. When I first got the job, the cameras were on if the flashing lights were on. That was it. Easy-peasy. A week into the job, we changed the design per the requests of the customers--the police departments wanted a way to leave the flashing lights on, but turn the camera off. Even at that tender age, I thought "Why would they want to turn off the camera?" Why, indeed. I still have never heard a remotely convincing argument why a police officer would not want to film his or her interaction with the public. Since they're so frequently accused of impropriety or even brutality, wouldn't a tape help them? Well, it would, unless they weren't innocent. The only time a cop would want the option of turning off the camera would be if they wanted the option of doing something they don't want a record of. I'm just amazed that more people aren't skeptical.
He was in no position to inflict any harm on either of the police officers, defend himself or escape. That is adequate restraint. The penalty for resisting arrest is not a punch in the face and a police officer has no right to deal out that punishment either.
I think that that's completely irrelevant. I don't care if the person being arrested had just burnt a little girl to death, shot a police officer and resisted arrest with any kinds of weapons blaring.
It's simply not up to police to deal out punishment in a way they think fit. It is their place to detain the person in question, using the absolute minimum amount of force necessary to get them tied up and in a car and off to proper judgement.
A skill a good police officer needs to have is the ability to stay clear and focused and not absolutely batshit crazy no matter what the situation. It's the kind of people they are arresting who aren't able to do this and kill their step-child when they realise the child is not theirs.
Obviously the person in the video probably didn't commit the aforementioned crimes but even if they had the way the police officers behaved was completely unreasonable.
You're right - between the foot massage/grape option and the 'repeatedly punching subdued suspect in the face' option, there is no middle ground.
I think you're underestimating the survival reflex here. As an asthmatic, I know (like thousands of other asthmatics) the terror of not being able to breath, and the panic it causes. If the suspect genuinely was unable to breath, it may have been all he could manage to do to just wave his arms around and croak "I can't breathe" now and then, rather than trying to punch the officers and struggle like hell. When you can't breathe, I'm guessing a lot of people would fight like hell until they can. If I was in his situation, and actually unable to breathe, I'm not sure I'd be able to put my arms calmly by my side and wait for the officer to stop suffocating me.
And the point that if he can't breathe, then he can't say that he can't breathe is just stupid. Believe me, someone fighting for breath will vocalise their distress if they think it will help.
I'm not trying to patronise you re: being in the position of not being able to breathe easily, but I think you're underestimating (or just not remembering) the panic it can cause.
(btw, I offer no opinion as to whether the suspect involved is a scumbag or not.)
But, again, I would also easily believe that there are lots of cases where it was justified.
Sorry, it is never justified when the police do it.
How could he speak if he couldn't breathe? Watch the video. He's both breathing and speaking.
Answered elsewhere, by myself and others.
Not only that, before the officer punches him he tries to get a grip on the officers upper thigh or groin with his right hand. Watch the video. 15 seconds in. Given the proximity to the officer's groin I'm not surprised he got hit.
You left out the fact that the officer WAS KNEELING ON THE GUYS NECK. I'd be 'trying to get a grip' on the leg that was kneeling on my neck, too.
When you have to find the worst possible to compare yourselt to, in order to seem good?
FRA: STFU GTFO
Wrong on both counts. You can, however, be a hypocrite. Many claim to be muslims who in fact, are not (in fact that's probably 95% of all muslims, just read a saudi blog for example, or notice the idiotic hypocrisy in a palestinian terrorist throwing a molotov cocktail in a BEER BOTTLE to an Israeli soldier). Problem is that they do believe in applying that law.
5 0910.htm
A muslim recites the basic tenet of islam, which implies following the koran and surah.
And then you have these muslims :
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Testimonials/Sunshine
And there's tons of them.
Also...
5. LAPD have a long history of brutality.
"There is a significant number of officers in the LAPD who repetitively use excessive force against the public and persistently ignore the written guidelines of the department regarding force" -- Christopher Commission report, p. iii and p. 31.
A little background regarding this incident that I can recall (covered days ago on other places, can't remember where);
...
1. Offender is a known "Gordon Street" gang banger in Los Angeles.
2. Offender had a warrant out for his arrest for accepting stolen goods.
3. Offender was running from the police officers before they had tackled them.
So
1. He belongs to a gang like his father, and brother, and sister, and probably everyone else in his family and neighbourhood.
2. He has a history of engaging in property crimes to make money.
3. He's learned to be afraid of the police.
Sounds fairly ordinary.
4. In the video, you can see the offender grabbing the officer's inner thigh before the officer started to punch the offender.
I suspect I'd instinctively grab onto whatever I could before I got pushed to the ground by a couple of 200 lb. fully armed, angry droids and punched in the face.
That said, I'm left wondering WTF kind of training police officers get these days.
Watch the video, 15 seconds in, the suspect goes for the officer's upper thigh or groin. Or at the very least it's entirely possible to interpret it that way. It's only after that point that the officer punches him.
How would you interpret such an act from someone you've just had a fight with and who you're still holding down? Would you wait and see what he was doing with his hand?
btw, if you answered yes to that last question, you're a walking victim, it's just a matter of time before something nasty happens to you completely unexpectedly.
Deleted
Being a Black man who as a youth(16 yrs. old)was taken into custody and brutalized by police for the simple fact that I looked like the criminal they were after. It's hard for me to justify using this type of force. For those of us who have take any type of basic self defense course we know that there are way too many ways to subdue a person without punching them in the face. Especially if there are two of you doing the subduing. (I think that's a word LOL). Peace, DREi2Deuce
camcorders don't always show everything either... it was one example, maybe you simply can't see something due to camera angle, but the basic principle is that you can't come in half way through any incident and know everything that is going on. this is why it is a good thing to have the cameras on the cruisers, it allows investigators to see the context surrounding an incident. which may not be available on the tape provided by someone with an axe to grind.
Do they ever do it? Almost never, and if they did they would lose their job as the absolutely best-case scenario. More likely, they get fired, get sued, never work again, and have to spend the rest of their life giving handjobs to support their crack addiction. What makes cops think they're above that? Firing cops who abuse their power is the very least that should happen to them.
It's arguably closer to treason, since they're abusing a sacred trust that has been placed in them. The power to use violence is a very serious one, and it is not casually that we've waived the right to claim our own justice with vigilanteism and lynch-mobs. The whole point is for police officers to be better than vigilantes and mobs -- otherwise, how are they worth the tremedous price? Why entrusting them with anything if we can't actually trust them?
You need to go and find that book written by the former LAPD cop whose home was blasted and family threatened by masked motorcycling cops because he was threatening to expose corruption.
He wrote about how Darrel Gates (former LAPD chief) misdirected funding for the nearly secret, but windowless version of the LAPDs own CIA. The LAPD had NO business amassing an CIA-type quality to it, where they tapped phones in LAX, spied on Mother Theresa, Michael Jackson, and numerous celebrities who used pay phones in the airport. Such people were followed.
He wrote the book because the LAPD threatened to kill him or behaved in such a manner after he was deemed to much a threat.
You say cops won't beat you without a reason? That author was (IIRC-- it's been years since I read my copy of the book) dispatched to a location where he ended up in a shootout that was staged, and NO backup arrived. That's when he decided to blow the whistle via his book.
You cay the cops won't beat you for no reason? You know how the LAPD gets people to on amateur video appear to be resisting arrest: they wear a ring with a thumbtac on it. When KNOW they are being filmed, and still want to beat your ass, they grip you with the ring. What happens next? Well, natural instinctual reflexes dictate you mind grows enraged while your body jerks or pulls away. NOW, you appear to be resisting arrest. When they try to "restrain" you, you keep getting jabbed, and you resist, FOR REAL. Now, your ass is getting beaten. On film. The civilian review board cannot SEE the ring, so there is little they can do except let the bad ones back on the street.
I won't go into the few little episodes ***I*** had with some cops, except this one:
I passed thru what I found out minutes later was a murder scene. I'd dropped off a friend a mile or so away, and I for some STUPID reason was attracted to the blue and red lights and the crowd that was near a house that was near my home address. Not much ever happened in my neighborhood, so I made a second pass. When I couldn't see anything, I turned around to go home. Thinking I was a suspect, the lit up my car with their flashlights and then chased after me, by which time I had already been pulling over since I knew NOW that I'd fucked up by passing that crime scene when I should have taken my ill ass to bed instead. They ordered me out of my car, checked it, and found NOTHING. I wasn't in any WAY connected to the evens, yet they kept interrogating me and demanded information about a person named (first name withheld) and were INSISTING that I knew the suspect they were after. Despite my having meds in my car and a prescription and an obviousness that I was trembling and in ill health and should not have been in cold weather and such, the cop/s wouldn't let me sit in my car or in the back of THEIR car so I could keep warm. I offered the fucker BOTH sets of my car keys, pleaded for my health, and by that time came up CLEAN on their computer check of my DMV/DL records. No go. When he saw my hands moving from the pushbar to the warm hood, he didn't like that, probably since he must have felt I was playing dumb with him. I even RESPECTFULLY asked to be allowed to put my hands on the warm hood of his car so I could not shiver and shake so much. He ordered KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE PUSHBARS.
I was never physically assaulted by him/them, but I wonder how the report would look had I gone into a seizure or collapsed and hit my head on something...
And, this wasn't in some ass-backwards part of the US. This was in San Jose, CA, SILLY CON-JOB ALLEY.
You, I think, need to read more about police officers. Even that bad one or 3 in every 500 is too much to be allowed contact with the populace. They need to be under cover or DEEP cover and tagged to make sure their cover is not a cover for acting an ass.
No Karma Bonus taken for this post.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Several years ago, I was a volunteer for an organisation called The Legal Defence and Monitoring Group here in the UK. We were often invited to monitor the police during public demonstrations (marches and the like). Most of us had legal training of some sort, and an interest in public order legislation and its reform following a string of draconian laws passed under the Thatcher government during the 1980s.
Our aim was to observe the actions of the police and record what they did during the demonstration, be that behaviour good, bad or indifferent. We used written notes and (later) dictaphones for this. We did not use cameras (still or video) because we knew that photographic evidence was very problematic in court. It was too easy to challenge on points of detail. It was instead far easier to secure a conviction of police brutality by having detailed (and consistent) written observations of three or four individuals given as evidence by the prosecution. Having evidence that nothing happened at a specific time was useful if the police said that there was an incident, so we used to take notes at 5-minute intervals whether or not there was anything to observe.
When riots happend (and they usually did), I remember you needed a bottle of water to stop your mouth running dry as you had to constantly describe the events around you.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
When you're dealing with scum like that, force is part of the detainment process. I see why no reason why they should use the absolute minimum force.
You don't? Seriously? Ever considered that you might be arrested someday? Perhaps even without doing anything wrong?
When dealing with someone violently resisting arrest, you use the maximum force possible.
The maximum force possible is lethal force. You really think the cops should kill anyone who resists arrest? You obviously didn't really mean "maximum force", and obviously haven't ever spent any time thinking about the degrees of force available to a policemen or when they are appropriate.
With the way the court system is these days, the kicking in the van is often the only punishment these scumbags get.
The problem with that attitude is that the kicking in the van will be applied whether the suspect is guilty or innocent. If there's a problem with the courts not handing out adequate punishment, then that's a problem that needs to be fixed. But it's not the job of the cops to punish. Cops are supposed to identify crimes, investigate to gather evidence and detain suspects.
BTW, I have spent more than a little time thinking about this stuff because I used to be a cop in the military. Part of our training (and military cops get less of this than civilian cops) was extensive discussion on the proper application of force, and how to determine what level of force is necessary.
The general rule, even for military cops, is that you apply the minimum force necessary to achieve the goal, consistent with keeping yourself and others safe.
In fairness to your statements, I should mention that much of my real world experience did consist of situations where deadly force was the primary option. SOP was to give one verbal warning, then begin firing consecutive three-round bursts of .223 ball to target center mass until the target stopped advancing or threatening. And each pair of cops had 420 rounds of ammunition to be certain the target did stop threatening.
So "use maximum force" does sometimes make sense. But I really, really don't think you want that to be the standard procedure for your civilian police force.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How about a camera which tracks the cop himself?
Let's mount the lens on the roof of the car, pointing forwards by default (where the cop is approaching/chasing). If the cop gets out of the car, the camera tracks the cop, including extending upwards to keep a proper vantage point and maintain a view, so that if the cop gets into ... trouble, someone back at base can immediately send more backup.
Wait, wait, I can tell you how this is going to go down.
The LAPD is discovered to be corrupt. Officers from Rampart Division are dipping into the dope stash in the evidence room, or some officers are engaging in "monkey slapping time". There's an outcry. Something Must Be Done. The Christopher Commission or its like is convened. Anti-corruption measures are proposed. Memory fades, and they never really get implemented. Lather, rinse, repeat.
You can go back to 1902 with this shit.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Some of these replies are so fucking ignorant that I don't even know where to begin. ...OK, I'm taking a deep breath here. I promise the rest will not be a rant or a troll-fest.
Some are saying things to effect of "The guy was breaking the law, so he deserved it!" What about the fact that the officers who behave as such, meting out their own justice whenever it suits them? Are they obeying the law, or are they breaking it also? Why is one any better than the other? Should I, seeing an officer behaving badly, beat the living shit out of him, or should I record him acting badly and report him to his authorities?
By the way, I have seen this argument from both sides. I have been thrown on many hoods of many cruisers for no good reason. I have been harassed by police officers who later claimed "they were just bored". Also, 3 of my uncles are cops, and every one of them is crooked. Then again, when I was falsely accused, one particularly stand-up cop was my strongest advocate, and the charges were dropped. So what I'm saying here is that cops require no special modicum of trust outside of that which we afford them in their commission as an officer of the law.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
A much more widespread problem. However, I think the problem is circular. If the public were a bit more polite to the police, in general, the police would be a bit more polite to the public. Still, I think police should make the first move in rectifying the situation.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
One winter back in the 1990s in Manitoba, there were some cops who picked up a local teenager, drove him to the outskirts of town, and left him there. It's important to note at this point that during a Manitoba winter, the temperature gets down to -30 celsius and the wind chill can easily bring it further down to -50. Unsurprisingly, the kid froze to death and died. Guess who covered it up? Every single cop in the entire city. No heroes, no whistleblowers, just a blue wall of evil, evil people.
Then it turned out that they did this regularly with anyone who was homeless, perceived as a troublemaker, or "First Nations". It took an extensive public inquiry to determine what happened and collect enough evidence to make a case. A good, decent, honourable cop would have spearheaded the investigation and crucified his colleagues for committing such a heinous act in inhumanity. A shitty evil cop would avoid doing an investigation because he doesn't give even the slightest thought to justice, the law, or even Human life.
Stonechild Scandal.
So what was the final outcome? The officers responsible were suspended WITH PAY, and the family got an apology from the current police chief. That's what a Human life is worth to the police: early retirement and some hollow words from someone who has nothing to do with the situation whatsoever.
Or, and this one is particularly good, my Dad's affair; the woman's husband was a high-ranking, highly-decorated detective. When they both decided to divorce their current partners, this pinnacle of the community, this man of honour and justice, came to kill my dad. Fortunately my father and his bride-to-be had made haste out of town, because they were pretty sure that he would do exactly that. Funny how a man so willing to commit murder would rise so high in the police... he later took custody of his children illegally, and spent the next decade convincing them that their mother was pure evil. And of course, being a cop, he was never held accountable for any of it and was able to have the custody made official (judges hate cheating women; oddly enough, cheating men seem to do just fine in court :roll: ).
Suffice to say, no cops have ever stood up for me or my rights. They shut down parties that I go to. They've ignored me the few times I've needed to call the police for thefts at my store. They spend 90% of their time hunting down grow-ops -- and then they auction off the siezed hyrdoponics equipment to line their pockets, putting it back in the hands of drug producers. Then they do nothing about the heroin dealers who operate in the open on Main and Hastings. Everyone knows they are there, you can watch deals go down as you drive past. You'll step on needles as you walk through the area if you're not careful (not to mention tripping over the junkies sprawled everywhere). The cops do nothing, other than to lobby the government to shut down treatment programs. Yes, you read that right. They lobby the government to shut down treatment programs. These are evil, evil men and women.
I could go on and on... examples of police corruption shouldn't be this easy to find! They should be rare aberrations! Not the status quo.
You've obviously never engaged seriously in judo, wrestling, or other sports where serious restraint is involved. Getting that much pressure on the carotid and sustaining it is very difficult with something blunt, like a knee. Squeezing and even brusing a windpipe is far simpler, and it will cause the restrained person to panic. Even a "law-abiding" citizen will often panic iin such a situation. Punching him at the time is not only adding insult to injury, it's criminal assault. And playing the macho game of "don't you move, bitch, or I'll punch you again" can break down the restrained person is extremely dangerous, because not only will some victims of such handling panic and lash out unpredictably, but it means the next cop or guard who faces that person is in far more danger, because they know they have nothing to lose: unless they escape, they're going to get hurt, anyway. Unfortunately, I see your attitude far too often in people who've never actually been restrained by a cop, or had to restrain soomeone violent. And people like you are usually the first to wind up bent over for the soap in a prison shower, pretending they know how to fight or how to handle danger and learning the hard way that the other guy just doesn't care if you know where a carotid is. Oh, and by the way? The carotid pinch actually takes about 30 seconds to make someone unconscious, less if they're struggling and burning oxygen wildly, more if they can keep their head down and neck clenched to protect the arteries and throat.