what is happening here?

[luchog]

Don't forget taxicab drivers/chauffeurs. Does anyone think that if taxicab drivers beat up a 'noncompliant' passenger, that they would be able to escape prosecution because they thought the noncompliance 'endangered' them somehow?

Don't forget convenience store clerk. Depending on location and shift, a convenience store clerk is up to a dozen times more likely to be shot than a law enforcement officer.

While Law Enforcement Officer is definitely a dangerous job, it's generally not in the top 10 most dangerous, although it is almost invariably in the top 20. But even that statistic is misleading, since the overwhelming majority of line-of-duty deaths and injuries for LEOs are traffic-related, not attacks by violent criminals.

 

[Nessie]

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



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.

I live in Scotland, where it is perfectly OK and pretty much standard practice to handcuff someone on arrest, even if they present no apparent threat at the time. That person then remains cuffed until processed and either goes to a cell or for interview. Only then do the cuffs come off.

Anyone in a custody suit also has to be held by the accompanying police officers. That is normally the police have hold of the arrested persons arms.

If a prisoner refuses to cooperate, reasonable force can be used to get them to cooperate, by that I mean they can be pulled up if they refuse to stand or pulled if they refuse to go to a cell.

What was seen in the video would not take place in Scotland. Someone arrested would not be standing freely, uncuffed and playing on their phone whilst in a custody suit.

 

[Nessie]

Don't forget convenience store clerk. Depending on location and shift, a convenience store clerk is up to a dozen times more likely to be shot than a law enforcement officer.

While Law Enforcement Officer is definitely a dangerous job, it's generally not in the top 10 most dangerous, although it is almost invariably in the top 20. But even that statistic is misleading, since the overwhelming majority of line-of-duty deaths and injuries for LEOs are traffic-related, not attacks by violent criminals.

Indeed and what this video shows is too many police officers are coward bullies in uniform.

 

[Shadowdweller]

*deleted*

 

[paulhutch]

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.

Thanks for the citation I see the laws' title is Refusing to aid a peace officer not obstruction of justice, a different crime. I was only looking at Federal and my local Massachusetts laws and they don't seem to have a similar horribly bad law mandating the public help the police or face criminal penalties.

I think it's very bad to force people to assist law enforcement. I am not required to do so under local or federal law and lawyers have advised me personally to never speak with police without a lawyer present. Although in ordinary cases I do help e.g "Did you see a guy run by here?" "Yes, he went that way."

 

[Shadowdweller]

Thanks for the citation I see the laws' title is Refusing to aid a peace officer not obstruction of justice, a different crime. I was only looking at Federal and my local Massachusetts laws and they don't seem to have a similar horribly bad law mandating the public help the police or face criminal penalties.

Check the section headings. "Refusing to aid a peace officer" is a type of Obstruction per Arizona law. It's not, to the best of my understanding, unbounded power of command - that is, they have to be "reasonable" orders; and there are a whole host of exceptions where you theoretically do NOT have to obey...constitutional or other limits on unreasonable search/seizure, self-incrimination, self-identification, etc. Although all too often police have methods of making you pay if you actually exercise such rights. There actually IS a similar law in MA, although the penalties are relatively light. Here's a citation:

Section 24. Whoever, being required in the name of the commonwealth by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, police officer or watchman, neglects or refuses to assist him in the execution of his office in a criminal case, in the preservation of the peace or in the apprehension or securing of a person for a breach of the peace, or in a case of escape or rescue of persons arrested upon civil process, shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one month.

Notably said penalties do not include "being beaten to a pulp".

 

[paulhutch]

Check the section headings. "Refusing to aid a peace officer" is a type of Obstruction per Arizona law. It's not, to the best of my understanding, unbounded power of command - that is, they have to be "reasonable" orders; and there are a whole host of exceptions where you theoretically do NOT have to obey...constitutional or other limits on unreasonable search/seizure, self-incrimination, self-identification, etc. Although all too often police have methods of making you pay if you actually exercise such rights. There actually IS a similar law in MA, although the penalties are relatively light. Here's a citation:

Notably said penalties do not include "being beaten to a pulp".

Thanks again, I see that it's a hang over from English Common law so still on the books in many places. From what I can tell nobody has been prosecuted in MA or most places in more than a century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusing_to_assist_a_police_officer

Obstruction of justice is a very different crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

 

[Dave Rogers]

So let's get this straight. A police officer, in the US, is under no legal obligation to put himself in danger in order to assist a law-abiding citizen; but a law-abiding citizen is under a legal obligation to render assistence to a police officer, even when this places him or her in danger. And a police officer is entitled to use deadly force if they feel threatened, without the legal burden of meeting a "reasonable man" standard, but a law-abiding citizen is expected to meet such a standard in order to claim self-defense. Have I got that right?

Dave

 

[pgwenthold]

So let's get this straight. A police officer, in the US, is under no legal obligation to put himself in danger in order to assist a law-abiding citizen; but a law-abiding citizen is under a legal obligation to render assistence to a police officer, even when this places him or her in danger. And a police officer is entitled to use deadly force if they feel threatened, without the legal burden of meeting a "reasonable man" standard, but a law-abiding citizen is expected to meet such a standard in order to claim self-defense. Have I got that right?

Dave

Blue lives matter. Others not so much

 

[Shadowdweller]

From what I can tell nobody has been prosecuted in MA or most places in more than a century.

That's possible. Perhaps I have mistaken the significance of the "refusal to aid" issue. But things like this happen with some frequency. If, thankfully, fewer presumed suicides.

 

[Nessie]

So let's get this straight. A police officer, in the US, is under no legal obligation to put himself in danger in order to assist a law-abiding citizen; but a law-abiding citizen is under a legal obligation to render assistence to a police officer, even when this places him or her in danger. And a police officer is entitled to use deadly force if they feel threatened, without the legal burden of meeting a "reasonable man" standard, but a law-abiding citizen is expected to meet such a standard in order to claim self-defense. Have I got that right?

Dave

It certainly looks that way, which explains a lot about why cops get away with killing citizens and citizens cannot get away with anything.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

What was seen in the video would not take place in Scotland. Someone arrested would not be standing freely, uncuffed and playing on their phone whilst in a custody suit.

In the video the guy that the cops beat up wasn't under arrest. Not before they started beating him up, at least.

 

[quadraginta]

So let's get this straight. A police officer, in the US, is under no legal obligation to put himself in danger in order to assist a law-abiding citizen; but a law-abiding citizen is under a legal obligation to render assistence to a police officer, even when this places him or her in danger. And a police officer is entitled to use deadly force if they feel threatened, without the legal burden of meeting a "reasonable man" standard, but a law-abiding citizen is expected to meet such a standard in order to claim self-defense. Have I got that right?

Dave

Pretty much. Yeah.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No - the police should have called for medical staff who can do a medical assessment and then decide if further treatment was required.

Next you are going to be want them to be bothered to record and properly autopsy every death in custody. That is down right unamerican.

https://www.kqed.org/news/11633330/autopsy-doctor-quits-alleges-sheriff-interfered-in-death-probes

After he ruined football with all that traumatic brain injury nonsense.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Noncompliance when an officer is questioning you about your possible involvement in a crime is obstruction of justice, btw. Which unsurprisingly is what Johnson was ultimately charged with.

Yep the constitution is for losers. Right to remain silent not in their police department.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Mesa, again!

Do these guys not learn? Utah, please, take your people back!

They have learned that they can get away with most anything. So they don't need to worry about minor things like this.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Of course there is for cops, it is fun and damn funny.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In the video the guy that the cops beat up wasn't under arrest. Not before they started beating him up, at least.

But then he bled on their uniforms, that is destruction of police property.

 

[Pterodactyl]

Don't forget convenience store clerk. Depending on location and shift, a convenience store clerk is up to a dozen times more likely to be shot than a law enforcement officer.

While Law Enforcement Officer is definitely a dangerous job, it's generally not in the top 10 most dangerous, although it is almost invariably in the top 20. But even that statistic is misleading, since the overwhelming majority of line-of-duty deaths and injuries for LEOs are traffic-related, not attacks by violent criminals.

I keep seeing this statistic bandied about.

When you guys are saying "most dangerous" you're meaning shot or killed.

But how about assaulted?
Surely a police officer is more likely to get beaten at work than a power lineman or a shrimpin' boat captain.

 

[Nessie]

I keep seeing this statistic bandied about.

When you guys are saying "most dangerous" you're meaning shot or killed.

But how about assaulted?
Surely a police officer is more likely to get beaten at work than a power lineman or a shrimpin' boat captain.

At risk of harm in general. How many police drown or get electrocuted?