what is happening here?

[Mumbles]

You do wonder if this had been a middle class middle aged white woman in business wear would they have insisted on her sitting on the floor, or would waiting as asked be sufficient?

Do the police in the US have a right to demand witnesses sit on the ground?

Quite possibly - these guys are known to be over-the-top violent towards everyone, apparently, shooting people begging not to be shot, beating up grandmas, and the like. Seems like they treat the entire community as an invading army, rather than, you know, just people going about their business.

You're correct, just looking at national statistics on how police treat people by skin color, of course (and as always, Native Americans get worse treatment than black Americans do, and half of all police killings are in response to people with mental illnesses), but this group in particular seems like equal opportunity violence.

 

[Darat]

Quite possibly - these guys are known to be over-the-top violent towards everyone, apparently, shooting people begging not to be shot, beating up grandmas, and the like. Seems like they treat the entire community as an invading army, rather than, you know, just people going about their business.

You're correct, just looking at national statistics on how police treat people by skin color, of course (and as always, Native Americans get worse treatment than black Americans do, and half of all police killings are in response to people with mental illnesses), but this group in particular seems like equal opportunity violence.

I understand how it develops into a "us v them" mindset in the police. Think about it most of their time they are dealing with criminals and other such naughty people, it does mean they will tend to see everyone they come across as a criminal but that is why you need really good training and oversight. (Not saying the UK excels in this - we don't.)

 

[Mumbles]

I'm not actually certain from the video that the police did not in fact remove the knife prior to the take down. He wasn't stopped for just being there - the police were detaining both the guy and his friend under suspicion of a break-in (with sexual harassment undertones due to being related to a supposed ex-girlfriend). Neither is it clear that the guy was actually beaten unconscious; there's a short period of time where he goes quiet and COULD have been unconscious or not, after which he rapidly starts obscenities.

The police should nevertheless have checked pupils, etc, for complications of a concussion afterward even so...given that he WAS punched in the head and hit his head on the way down. They did not.

1) If they did take the knife, then there's no need to beat him down over the exact position he took. If they didn't, then...they decided it wasn't a threat, and we're at the same result. The few times I've dealt with cops, I *always* tell them about my pocket knife, and make no move towards it. Why? I want them to have no justification whatsoever if they do decide to beat me - which I go in assuming they will, because it's happened before.

2) I'll continue to state that they beat him unconscious until *they* show otherwise, because that's what it looks like to me. At this point, I'd consider this police force entirely out offhand, and just assume the worst of whatever they get involved in. If there are good cops on that force, then it's on them to help clean things up..

 

[Mumbles]

I understand how it develops into a "us v them" mindset in the police. Think about it most of their time they are dealing with criminals and other such naughty people, it does mean they will tend to see everyone they come across as a criminal but that is why you need really good training and oversight. (Not saying the UK excels in this - we don't.)

The problem is, quite a bit of US police training actively tells the cops involved that they should treat every encounter as potentially fatal, that they must absolutely control everything around them, and so forth. This is often taken voluntarily, but I'm always concerned when I see multiple such incidents - is that sort of thinking encouraged by higher-ups in the PD?

 

[Craig4]

The problem is, quite a bit of US police training actively tells the cops involved that they should treat every encounter as potentially fatal, that they must absolutely control everything around them, and so forth. This is often taken voluntarily, but I'm always concerned when I see multiple such incidents - is that sort of thinking encouraged by higher-ups in the PD?

No, it's encouraged by the former US Military Special Forces contracting companies many departments go to for training in your link. He's not the only one. This is what happened when we scraped the old "Use of Force Continuum". Where you started with minimal force (presence/requests for compliance) and worked up to deadly force.

There's no sound but I have to wonder if anyone said, "Hey dude, have a seat for a minute okay" before the beating started. Did they lead with yelling commands and or threats?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No, it's encouraged by the former US Military Special Forces contracting companies many departments go to for training in your link. He's not the only one. This is what happened when we scraped the old "Use of Force Continuum". Where you started with minimal force (presence/requests for compliance) and worked up to deadly force.

There's no sound but I have to wonder if anyone said, "Hey dude, have a seat for a minute okay" before the beating started. Did they lead with yelling commands and or threats?

Most of the videos they use to "teach" are available on youtube. Often it involves some lone officer who makes some errors (or not) during an encounter with heavily armed and unstable subjects and gets gunned down. There's one with a clearly deranged Vietnam vet with a M1 carbine gunning down a lone officer that is especially unpleasant and stays with you, as the audio includes the belabored breathing and pleas of the dying officer before being finished off by the rifleman. The videos are played and played and played and endlessly picked apart.

It teaches officers to be terrified and assume the worst extreme in every encounter and anything but complete control is an unacceptable danger. It's an absolutely toxic mentality that puts the public at great danger.

 

[3point14]

Most of the videos they use to "teach" are available on youtube. Often it involves some lone officer who makes some errors (or not) during an encounter with heavily armed and unstable subjects and gets gunned down. There's one with a clearly deranged Vietnam vet with a M1 carbine gunning down a lone officer that is especially unpleasant and stays with you, as the audio includes the belabored breathing and pleas of the dying officer before being finished off by the rifleman. The videos are played and played and played and endlessly picked apart.

It teaches officers to be terrified and assume the worst extreme in every encounter and anything but complete control is an unacceptable danger. It's an absolutely toxic mentality that puts the public at great danger.

Someone remind me again what the most dangerous jobs in the US are.

 

[Random]

Someone remind me again what the most dangerous jobs in the US are.

Last I checked the top five were Logging, Fishing, Pilots, Roofing and Trash Collection.

 

[bignickel]

Last I checked the top five were Logging, Fishing, Pilots, Roofing and Trash Collection.

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?
Why then do we allow it from the boys in blue? I don't remember voting on any law that said the public must always be compliant with police commands or suffer a beating.

 

[lomiller]

No, it's encouraged by the former US Military Special Forces contracting companies many departments go to for training in your link. He's not the only one.

This isn’t just a military mindset being misapplied to policing. Even in the US military itself this attitude is a major source of failure for some types of mission. The way US military are trained is great for a full on combat mission but they deal with civilian populations they are trying to befriend in ways that will invariably make enemies. “Try and be friendly but keep a loaded weapon pointed at them to keep the situation under control” isn’t a viable way to befriend someone.

 

[Shadowdweller]

First, noncompliance with random cops is not a crime, won't even get you a ticket in most cases.

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.

1) If they did take the knife, then there's no need to beat him down over the exact position he took. If they didn't, then...they decided it wasn't a threat, and we're at the same result. The few times I've dealt with cops, I *always* tell them about my pocket knife, and make no move towards it. Why? I want them to have no justification whatsoever if they do decide to beat me - which I go in assuming they will, because it's happened before.

I'm not actually trying to make the claim that that sort of take-down was justified if it's unclear.

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

If the police are empowered to use physical violence against civilians, they should either be personally trained to recognize potential danger signs resulting from that violence or have qualified individuals who are readily on hand. This does not necessarily require in-depth medical training. Many jurisdictions already require some degree of first aid knowledge. I'd personally like to see that include at least the equivalent of CNA certification, including clinical time in a geriatric / memory care unit. But ya know...

There's no sound but I have to wonder if anyone said, "Hey dude, have a seat for a minute okay" before the beating started. Did they lead with yelling commands and or threats?

I posted a link with sound upthread. Here's another, with the sound superimposed on the security cam footage. Those are actually almost the precise words the officer DID in fact begin with.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Mesa, again!

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

Or like the last one, let the Arizona cops from all the other cities and counties take care of it

 

[paulhutch]

Noncompliance when an officer is questioning you about your possible involvement in a crime is obstruction of justice, btw.

Citation please, nothing I could find backs up that claim at all, thanks in advance.

 

[applecorped]

A tellin' me I got to beware.

Stop.



Hey, what's that sound?

 

[Shadowdweller]

Citation please, nothing I could find backs up that claim at all, thanks in advance.

I'd recommend searching for "Obstruction".

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

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:
•Securing an arrest.
•Preventing the commission by any offense.

A person who complies with this section by aiding a peace officer shall not be held liable to any person for damages resulting, provided such person acted reasonably under the circumstances known to him/her at the time.

A “peace officer” typically refers to an employee of the state, county, or a municipality. This might be a sheriff or other law enforcement whose duties include searches & seizures, arrests, preventing and detecting crime, and executing criminal and civil warrants.

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.

 

[Darat]

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.

Sorry but that sounds more like the old "he accidentally fell down the stairs we don't have on the way to the cells, several times".

 

[Planigale]

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.

It is an interesting argument as to whether standing quietly as opposed to sitting
is hindering a prosecution.

The main issue is that beating him unconscious seemed to be to force him to sit down. he could have been arrested for an offence when standing up, cuffed then sat down.

From another site

An officer’s “brief and cursory” holding and questioning someone is a detention. An example is a cop stopping someone who is behaving suspiciously in order to ask a few questions. The suspect isn’t free to leave, but he also isn’t under arrest, at least until the officer develops probable cause. ...
An arrest, on the other hand, involves the police taking someone into custody through a more significant restraint on movement. The quintessential example involves the use of handcuffs and an advisement that the suspect is under arrest. nvestigatory stops (or “detentions”) must be no longer than necessary and officers must investigate with the least intrusive means that are reasonably available. When an officer prolongs a detention beyond what is brief and cursory and broadens it, then the detention may turn into a de facto arrest—that is, an actual but not official arrest. Courts consider a variety of factors in determining whether a detention has ripened into an arrest, among them:

• the amount of force the police used
• the need for use of force
• the number of officers involved
• whether officers suspected the suspect of being armed
• the manner in which officers physically handled the suspect (including the use of handcuffs), and
• the length of the stop.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...her-you-ve-been-arrested-simply-detained.html

So initially he was detained. He was briefly questioned and searched. At which point if he was no longer free to go he was under arrest. Being told to sit down then being forced to sit would confirm he was under arrest. The police need to have reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence to arrest him.

If the police had reasonable suspicion that his friend with the backpack had committed an offence then I guess that they could argue that he was aiding an offence and they had grounds for an arrest.

In this case does the local police investigate themselves or do they get a neighbouring force to do so? Is this something that the state police are always called into?

 

[Brainster]

In this case does the local police investigate themselves or do they get a neighbouring force to do so? Is this something that the state police are always called into?

Most large police forces in the US have an internal affairs division that is responsible for investigating complaints against officers. Mesa is a pretty large city with almost 500,000 people, so I'm sure they will handle it.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If the police are empowered to use physical violence against civilians, they should either be personally trained to recognize potential danger signs resulting from that violence or have qualified individuals who are readily on hand. This does not necessarily require in-depth medical training. Many jurisdictions already require some degree of first aid knowledge. I'd personally like to see that include at least the equivalent of CNA certification, including clinical time in a geriatric / memory care unit. But ya know...
...snip...

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.

I do think police stations should have medical staff on hand to be able to make medical assessments. But are people going to pay for that?

 

[Shadowdweller]

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.

I do think police stations should have medical staff on hand to be able to make medical assessments. But are people going to pay for that?

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.