what is happening here?

[Sideroxylon]

Know your rights.

 

[ddt]

No. I want police to have an inkling as to whether something is seriously wrong with an individual, be able to perform some emergency care like applying a tourniquet, and have some basic experience trying to communicate / take care of individuals with impaired cognition. Rather than leaving someone who has been shot or given a concussion on the ground for 20 minutes. No, it does NOT take advanced medical training to slap an automated blood pressure cuff or pulse ox on an individual to find out that - oh yeah, their BP is dangerously low or their HR is irregular. Certified Nursing Assistants here in the States are not empowered to perform medical assessments. They are empowered to take vitals and summon appropriate personnel when something goes wrong.

Personally, I'd rather see that the police have some basic de-escalation skills and the nous not to beat anyone unconscious who doesn't obey their commands. As long as they don't have those core skills of their profession, the above seems a pipedream to me.

 

[Mumbles]

No. I want police to have an inkling as to whether something is seriously wrong with an individual, be able to perform some emergency care like applying a tourniquet, and have some basic experience trying to communicate / take care of individuals with impaired cognition. Rather than leaving someone who has been shot or given a concussion on the ground for 20 minutes. No, it does NOT take advanced medical training to slap an automated blood pressure cuff or pulse ox on an individual to find out that - oh yeah, their BP is dangerously low or their HR is irregular. Certified Nursing Assistants here in the States are not empowered to perform medical assessments. They are empowered to take vitals and summon appropriate personnel when something goes wrong.

One reason I keep pointing out that half of all police shooting victims are actually mentally ill - and that police are often told of their mental illness before confronting them - is that many PDs aggressively refuse to do this sort of basic measure. So what then?

(And again, if you see or know someone having an episode, call the local fire department or hospital directly. Point your guns and scream" seems like a astoundingly poor way to deal with such a person, and yet here we are...)

 

[caveman1917]

Know your rights.

Or just clash

 

[caveman1917]

In regards to the police section: Of course it does, that's why we have for example paramedics that attend a call out, they have the training and knowledge to make good medical assessments, stabilize people and see they get the correct medical attention. And now you want the police to have way beyond first aid knowledge.... Wow.

True, police medics are often seen diagnosing protesters with not-beaten-to-pulp-enough-yet syndrome.

 

[Roboramma]

I'd recommend searching for "Obstruction".

http://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/criminal-defense-law/obstruction/
https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2011/title13/section13-2403/

EDIT: I should add that I've seen some conflicting sources as to what Johnson was charged with. But the majority seem to agree he was actually charged with "Hindering a Prosecution" under Arizona criminal code Section 13 Chapter 25 rather than Obstruction. So, my bad on that point.

As far as I can see he wasn't refusing to aid in either:
•Securing an arrest.
Or
•Preventing the commission by any offense.

He was standing instead of sitting. Did that prevent the securing of an arrest?

 

[Shadowdweller]

As far as I can see he wasn't refusing to aid in either:
•Securing an arrest.
Or
•Preventing the commission by any offense.

He was standing instead of sitting. Did that prevent the securing of an arrest?

Johnson was seen accompanying and had admitted to accompanying the individual the police had identified as being involved in an alleged break-in. IOW, they had probable cause. The police at that point were treating him as a potentially violent accessory as they tried to identify what had happened and who had been involved. A firearm had been reported and Johnson had admitted to carrying a knife (probably a pocket-knife). From a police standpoint (by the reports of the officers involved), a sitting position was preferable because it would impair attempts to either run away or attack the officers involved. I'm guessing the command to sit in the corner was out of some desire to isolate to whatever extent possible in that area. After the take-down Johnson was screaming loud, interruptive obscenities and threats at the officers as they tried to question his companion from...a whole 10 feet away.

 

[Roboramma]

Johnson was seen accompanying and had admitted to accompanying the individual the police had identified as being involved in an alleged break-in. IOW, they had probable cause. The police at that point were treating him as a potentially violent accessory as they tried to identify what had happened and who had been involved. A firearm had been reported and Johnson had admitted to carrying a knife (probably a pocket-knife). From a police standpoint (by the reports of the officers involved), a sitting position was preferable because it would impair attempts to either run away or attack the officers involved. I'm guessing the command to sit in the corner was out of some desire to isolate to whatever extent possible in that area.

None of that supports your contention that he was obstructing justice.

After the take-down Johnson was screaming loud, interruptive obscenities and threats at the officers as they tried to question his companion from...a whole 10 feet away.

I don't see how what he did after being repeatedly punched in the head can be used to justify that beating.

 

[Shadowdweller]

None of that supports your contention that he was obstructing justice.

A person is committing ‘refusing to aid a peace officer’ if, upon a reasonable command by a person reasonably known to be a peace officer, such person knowingly refuses to aid such peace officer in:

Wrong. Minimizing threat of attack or escape is within the purview of a "reasonable command" or lawful order when a suspect or person of interest is detained for a potential crime. Hence handcuffs when being arrested. You don't see how interrupting questioning of another individual is obstruction?

I don't see how what he did after being repeatedly punched in the head can be used to justify that beating.

Who said anything about the legal penalties for noncompliance justifying the beating?

 

[Roboramma]

Wrong. Minimizing threat of attack or escape is within the purview of a "reasonable command" or lawful order when a suspect or person of interest is detained for a potential crime. Hence handcuffs when being arrested. You don't see how interrupting questioning of another individual is obstruction?

Standing against a wall rather than sitting isn't interrupting questioning of another individual.

Who said anything about the legal penalties for noncompliance justifying the beating?

Certainly not me. I didn't say anything about the legal penalties for noncompliance.

You brought up the actions that he took after the beating. Why? What relevance do they have to the questions being asked in this thread?

 

[Mumbles]

Standing against a wall rather than sitting isn't interrupting questioning of another individual.

If he's in some amazing position by...leaning, then how is he just there while they're beating and choking him, rather than..whatever he was supposedly ready to do? Jump all the way down and dash away or something...

(Also, I didn't hear the cop say, "Hey, I just want to be sure you can't up and run off, I'm investigating this call.", at which point they could just talk through it, especially once all the other police show up. People will often avoid sitting on a dirty floor if they have no idea why they're supposed to do so...)

 

[Shadowdweller]

*double post*

 

[Shadowdweller]

Standing against a wall rather than sitting isn't interrupting questioning of another individual.

You brought up the actions that he took after the beating. Why? What relevance do they have to the questions being asked in this thread?

After the take-down Johnson was screaming loud, interruptive obscenities and threats at the officers as they tried to question his companion from...a whole 10 feet away.

You don't see how interrupting questioning of another individual is obstruction?

Here ya go. Re: relevance - because when I pointed out that Johnson was, in fact, guilty of obstruction for noncompliance (in this case), the claim was challenged. (Interrupting isn't noncompliance per se, but Johnson was doing BOTH). So I provided the legal definition of obstruction per Arizona law and the rationale for why and how Johnson was obstructing. This is distinct from the question of whether the beating itself was necessary and/or appropriate under the circumstances.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Personally, I'd rather see that the police have some basic de-escalation skills and the nous not to beat anyone unconscious who doesn't obey their commands. As long as they don't have those core skills of their profession, the above seems a pipedream to me.

(And again, if you see or know someone having an episode, call the local fire department or hospital directly. Point your guns and scream" seems like a astoundingly poor way to deal with such a person, and yet here we are...)

All too often escalation is ENTIRELY on the part of the police. Part of the unspoken expectations of CNA work and clinical time is the ability to get resistant and hostile individuals with impaired cognition to perform ADLs without the use of violence or excessive restraint. Which is one of the reasons I think some sort of modified version is desirable for police officers. "Demonstrate to the public that you are capable of obtaining compliance from resistant individuals WITHOUT the use of excessive force before we empower you to actually use force on our citizens."

 

[Roboramma]

Here ya go. Re: relevance - because when I pointed out that Johnson was, in fact, guilty of obstruction for noncompliance (in this case), the claim was challenged. (Interrupting isn't noncompliance per se, but Johnson was doing BOTH). So I provided the legal definition of obstruction per Arizona law and the rationale for why and how Johnson was obstructing. This is distinct from the question of whether the beating itself was necessary and/or appropriate under the circumstances.

Okay, so to be clear, your claim is that he was obstructing justice after the beating, correct?

To make myself more clear: You don't claim that he was obstructing justice before the beating occurred?

 

[Shadowdweller]

Ok, look: I am neither a police officer nor a lawyer. It is entirely possible I'm getting some of the terms here wrong; or garbling information. Or just plain don't know what I'm talking about. However, my understanding is as follows:

Okay, so to be clear, your claim is that he was obstructing justice after the beating, correct?

To make myself more clear: You don't claim that he was obstructing justice before the beating occurred?

Not quite: What I am claiming is that he was obstructing BOTH before and after. Before: Refusal to sit; After: Interruption.

Why he is obstructing before: During detention (e.g. the "Terry stop" - see Planigale's post on the matter), police have the power to place reasonable restraints on the detainee. Police are, for example, allowed to place detainees in handcuffs if they feel threatened.

Many people associate being handcuffed by police with being arrested and read Miranda rights. However, there are several different situations, including but not limited to being arrested, in which police may place you in handcuffs or other restraints without violating your civil rights.
<snip>
For officer safety purposes. The same rationale that allows officers to handcuff occupants of a premises being searched also applies to other situations in which an officer feels he or she may be at risk. As a training bulletin used by the Los Angeles Police Department states, “The handcuffing of an arrestee is not based on rigid criteria. It is determined by the nature of each situation as perceived by the officer.” If an officer feels that placing a person in handcuffs is the best way to ensure his or her own safety, then a court would not likely find that the officer had violated the rights of the person being detained.

In this particular instance, the officers involved have reported that they were ordering Johnson to sit down for this reason (restraint). Citation:

“Johnson’s body language was projecting he was preparing for a physical altercation,” one of the officers wrote in the report. “It appeared Johnson was trying not to sit down in order to retain a position of physical advantage by remaining on his feet.”

My understanding is that refusing this restraint (i.e. refusing to sit) constitutes obstruction, since Johnson is refusing what is considered "a reasonable command by a person reasonably known to be a peace officer" in "securing an arrest".


And, once again, this is divorced from the question of whether multiple police officers punching the guy to the floor was an appropriate or justifiable response.

 

[Nessie]

I say this is bollocks;

"“Johnson’s body language was projecting he was preparing for a physical altercation,” one of the officers wrote in the report. “It appeared Johnson was trying not to sit down in order to retain a position of physical advantage by remaining on his feet.”

There is nothing threatening about his body position at the time. Indeed he cannot launch a speedy, surprise attack when leaning back on the wall and he appears to still have his phone on him which he is distracted by.

The officers are just pissed off that they literally see him standing up to them.

 

[MikeG]

Ok, look: I am neither a police officer nor a lawyer. It is entirely possible I'm getting some of the terms here wrong; or garbling information. Or just plain don't know what I'm talking about. However, my understanding is as follows:

Not quite: What I am claiming is that he was obstructing BOTH before and after. Before: Refusal to sit; After: Interruption.

Why he is obstructing before: During detention (e.g. the "Terry stop" - see Planigale's post on the matter), police have the power to place reasonable restraints on the detainee. Police are, for example, allowed to place detainees in handcuffs if they feel threatened.




In this particular instance, the officers involved have reported that they were ordering Johnson to sit down for this reason (restraint). Citation:My understanding is that refusing this restraint (i.e. refusing to sit) constitutes obstruction, since Johnson is refusing what is considered "a reasonable command by a person reasonably known to be a peace officer" in "securing an arrest".


And, once again, this is divorced from the question of whether multiple police officers punching the guy to the floor was an appropriate or justifiable response.

They beat a guy unconscious. There is never any excuse for that. Your efforts at excusing their behaviour is bizarre, and I simply don't understand the motivation.

 

[Nessie]

They beat a guy unconscious. There is never any excuse for that. Your efforts at excusing their behaviour is bizarre, and I simply don't understand the motivation.

I do not see Shadowdweller as entirely excusing the cops behaviour. He is just trying to claim the cops were justified to make Johnson to sit down, they were not justified to use the level of force they did to achieve that end.

I say the cops were not justified at making him sit down at all, let alone beat him when he refused. The position he put himself in, leaning back and holding his phone meant he was a reduced threat as much as when sitting down. Not that he was a particular threat anyway. One guy against numerous cops with batons, guns etc. If those cops are worried about the situation, they are too fearful to be police officers. If they cannot negotiate him to sit down, they are too bad at communicating to be police officers.

 

[Shadowdweller]

They beat a guy unconscious. There is never any excuse for that. Your efforts at excusing their behaviour is bizarre, and I simply don't understand the motivation.

I do not see Shadowdweller as entirely excusing the cops behaviour. He is just trying to claim the cops were justified to make Johnson to sit down, they were not justified to use the level of force they did to achieve that end.

I'm not excusing anything. And I'm talking about a legal standpoint here.

There is nothing threatening about his body position at the time. Indeed he cannot launch a speedy, surprise attack when leaning back on the wall and he appears to still have his phone on him which he is distracted by.

I say the cops were not justified at making him sit down at all, let alone beat him when he refused. The position he put himself in, leaning back and holding his phone meant he was a reduced threat as much as when sitting down. Not that he was a particular threat anyway. One guy against numerous cops with batons, guns etc.

Maybe the police were pissed off, or just trying to assert their egos. Thing is, from a legal standpoint, your opinions on the matter are completely and entirely irrelevant. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the police have the authority to place a reasonably detained individual in restraints if they feel threatened. And yes, this is a scary and broad power to give someone. If you live in this country and don't like the law, cool, go change it.