Punching the back of the neck is acceptable detainment techniques for LEO's?

[redantstyle]

JCA,

no desire to quibble with you, but i still think the the shin is across the neck. it looks like he tried to strike the trap with knee and slid down a bit.

regards.

 

[blindsage]

The level of force for batons, tasers, hand and so on are not for "when our lives are threatened"...thats what the pistols are for.

I didn't say they were. I said the type and level of force of sticking a baton 'up' anywhere would not be acceptable except under those conditions.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Because you have the right, duty and obligation to use force to do your job does not make any use of force you decide to use acceptable.

No, it doesn't. Hyperbole, you know. When people yell "Kill the ump" at a baseball game, they don't really want someone to kill the umpire, and they'd be horrified if someone did.

I was far from sadistic when I worked in law enforcement, as were most of my compatriots. But we had a job to do. If the job is to arrest someone, they're getting arrested. That can be as simple as spreading 'em out on the hood of my cruiser, patting them down for weapons, and hooking them up - or it can be a tussle. But the point is that there isn't going to be a discussion, or a debate, and there certainly is not going to be a fair fight.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

JCA,

no desire to quibble with you, but i still think the the shin is across the neck. it looks like he tried to strike the trap with knee and slid down a bit.

regards.

Hey Redantstyle no problem either way it is difficult to tell.

All the best.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So if they had tried to shoot him and missed, it wouldn't have been an excessive reaction?

That officer would need more range time.

Or a candidate for Stormtrooper school? (Sorry, had to.)

 

[Archangel M]

I didn't say they were. I said the type and level of force of sticking a baton 'up' anywhere would not be acceptable except under those conditions.

Oh come on now! If you didn't know that he was being hyperbolic than we have a major communication difference goin here.

When I say I "put a boot up his ***" it doesnt mean I stuck my foot in his rectum.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh come on now! If you didn't know that he was being hyperbolic than we have a major communication difference goin here.

When I say I "put a boot up his ***" it doesnt mean I stuck my foot in his rectum.

Which will completely ruin a good pair of corfams.

 

[MJS]

Well, he sure didn't kneel on the neck. Watch it again, a little bit closer. He absolutely was not striking to the back/shoulder. I don't understand some of the comments on this issue. This is not interpretative. You can plainly see the cop punching the guy in the side of the neck. You can plainly see him drop his knee into the guys neck. There is no debate over that. You can say that he kneeled, but that's not correct. He may not have dropped with all of his bodyweight, but it still had that moving behind it. It is still a potentially life altering or even ending strike. Because yes it was a STRIKE. Regardless of the drunks resistance, if somebody was punching me in the side of the neck you damn right I'm going to resist. It's only natural. These officers were out of line. I'm not saying that they shouldn't detain someone, but there is a point where you are not detaining someone any longer, and your assaulting them. This man didn't resist. They walked over and they pulled him out of his chair, and threw him on the ground and began to punch him in the neck. One thing that is being overlooked are the things that you can't control. That being pain, and injury. You get punched in the neck, it hurts your hands want to cover that area to stop the attack, nothing that you can do to stop that reaction from happening. Especially when your being struck repeatedly. So they can say that he was resisting and you can say that he was resisting, but I will maintain that he wasn't. Because I don't see that in the video, and his body is reacting to the pain that he is recieving from the excessive punches and the subsequent knee dropped in his neck.

It looked to me, like he was resisting as they began to take him down, and that is when the punches started.

It seems to be, becoming pretty evident that unless they are arresting small women and children our police forces suck! 4 of them can barely handle one drunk. Come on!

Lack of training? Possibly, and it was mentioned in other posts that the training isn't extensive. He was intoxicated, but apparently he was coheriant (sp) enough to struggle. As I said, I'd have opted for OC or a taser that a few were carrying over the hits.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

So if they had tried to shoot him and missed, it wouldn't have been an excessive reaction?

In this situation, it would be an excessive reaction. But, also realize that I stated that the amount of force used in proportion to the amount of resistance.

Let me put this another way. If a particular type of weapon is seen as reasonable, then the amount of injury sustained by the suspect based on the continued or lack of continuance of resistance by a suspect is the determiner of whether the force is excessive.

In this case, if personal body weapons (hands, feet, head) are considered an appropriate tool for use in this situation, then the determination of whether the force was excessive is based on two things, whether the suspect was resisting (or continuing to resist) and amount, and the amount of injury sustained by the suspect.

I will see if I can find the case law which speaks to this.

 

[MJS]

So I got it working again and I watched it about another 3-4 times. Couple of things, uhm it is not definitive if he pushed one of the police officers away or not. Again like it was said by 5-0 kenpo a guy does step in the way right at that moment. However, one thing that I did not catch earlier, was why are there soldiers present? And why did one of them look like he was wanting to jump in and do something to the perpetrator, like help out the cops. Again, once this guys hands were grabbed, he was pretty much in the air, and the first strike comes to his head. HE is then taken down to the ground, where the officer on his left arm gains control of it, and that's when the punches come to his neck, with the yell, "Quit Fighting, quit fighting, quit fighting." He is then accosted with a knee to the neck and the words stop fighting, and if you'll notice his left leg, comes up off of the ground. YOu'll notice also that this officer also intentionally turns this persons head to the right, and applies pressure on the back right side of this man's skull, before dropping his knee. However, I will change my position as I am now more awake than I was at 6 o'clock this morning and state that it can be argued that he was attempting to resist to some degree. ALthough, with four men on top of you, one of them punching you and eventually kneeing you, I don't see how there could be too much resistance. THey must have known that this guy was like a super soldier or something. SO that being said I will concede that this man may have been resisting, I still however maintain, that the knee for me personally was one step too far in this instance. Especially since the mans whole body compressed or sunk into the ground. YOu most definitely can see the weight drop on the individual. I will not say that I was wrong, because I wasn't. I also would like to add, these cops all 8 of them, 4 on top of the individual and 4 more watching plus 2 soldiers standing by in the wings, acted more like a group of thugs than they did professionals. I say this because of the video itself. What I can determine from the video, right off of the bat, I see an individual who sitting in a chair minding his own business, when one cop is approaching with 2 more behind him says, "LEt's go hoss", and a fourth joins in with 2 soldiers dead on there heels. If these officers were not in uniform, from the video alone you would figure they were a gang of thugs going after the little guy for a little bit of fun. That's my take, and you can rip it up all you want. Oh, and once he was on the ground, he may have been fighting to keep his arms from being handcuffed by moving them around, but I do not personally constitute that as fighting. Because for all we know this man may have been innocent of all alligations against him. Innocent until proven guilty right?

Part of this was blocked by the guy in the red shirt, but it seems to me that is when the resistance started. What this boils down to is simple....as I said in another post, if people stopped being a-holes and just cooperated initially and sorted it all out later, half their headaches wouldnt exist. Why resist? It isn't clear why this guy is being removed, but there must be some reason, and IMO, that reason is key to this thread. Doing anything other than allowing them to cuff you is resisting.

 

[GBlues]

Resisting arrest is resisting arrest. You can call it a pancake if you like, but it is still resisting arrest.



Doesn't matter.



Presumption of innocence does not equal freedom from arrest. People get arrested all the time for things they are found not guilty of later on in court. That does not give them the right to resist arrest.

If it did, anyone who was being arrested would simply state "I'm innocent, therefore I will fight you putting on handcuffs, and you can't do anything about it, because I'm innocent." Nope, doesn't work like that.

You get arrested, your *** is going to jail. You can go peacefully or you can go to the hospital to get your face stitched up first, but you're going to jail. You make bail, you get an attorney, and you get found not guilty, more power to you - but that doesn't make the arrest wrong, and even if I had to twist your head around three times and beat you like Rodney King to get the cuffs on you, too bad, so sad. Nobody has the right to resist arrest, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

I can't tell you how many times I was confronted by angry citizens saying things like "I demand to know what you are arresting me for," and then thinking the subject was open to debate. It isn't. You don't get a vote, you don't get a say, you can't argue me out of it. Save it for your lawyer and a judge. I arrest you, you go to jail - period. Keep your yap shut and it will probably do you good, because any unwarned spontaneous statement you make WILL get used against you, and NO I do not have to read you your Miranda rights first.

Stupid citizen assumptions:

1) You have to be in agreement that you're being arrested. You don't.
2) You have to believe you did something wrong. You don't.
3) You have the right to see the witness, the evidence, etc, against you when you're being arrested. You don't.
4) I have to read you your rights. I don't.
5) You get a phone call. Not now, sunshine, ask the turnkey when you get to jail.
6) I have to tell you what I'm arresting you for. I don't.
7) You do not have to comply with my orders. You do - and more importantly, you will. If I'm breaking the law or infringing on your rights, you can sue me and get my badge, etc - once you get a lawyer and file suit. Not today, sunshine.
8) You can decide whether or not you're under arrest. Nope. If I say tag, you're it. Come quietly or get mussed up - but you're coming either way.

Now let me tell you something sunshine. You absolutely do have to read me my miranda rights, once I've been arrested. Go tell that crap to somebody else. But, hey thanks for the tip, about false arrests. It's cops like you that kill the innocent guys next door because the swat team got the wrong address on the warrant, while the **** bag next door scoots out of town. You tell me I'm arrested and I'd better have done something, cause you'll HAVE to kill me to get me in jail Period. And I love number 8 must be that nobody ever gets away from the cops, there supermen. That's why there aren't any wanted posters anywhere's right. Cause once you say tag you always get your man. What a crock.

 

[jks9199]

I've been advised that some people are perceiving a "Blue Wall of Silence" going on here.

I'm pretty confident in saying that there's nothing of the sort. I think it's telling that those who have the professional training and experience are pretty much in agreement that, even if it wasn't handled quite the way they would have, the use of force in question was reasonable and appropriate. If you search, you can find plenty of cases where we don't all agree on a particular situation, so I think it says something that we do here. Whether that's something about the training we receive, or policing in the US in general, or how outsiders perceive it, I don't know. But it says something.

And it puts me in mind of an event that happened in my area a few years ago. An officer makes a traffic stop on a car, and arrests the driver for DUI, and a few other charges. The driver, a petite female who happens to be a cupcake baker, resists, and in the struggle, falls to the ground, landing on her face. Her nose is broken, and she goes to the press.

She's interviewed by a TV news crew; she's sitting in a huge, overstuffed chair, wrapped in blankets, and looks tiny. Except for the two huge black eyes that accompanied the broken nose... YIKES. The cops look terrible.

Except it turns out even her friends that were with her that night are admitting that she was drunk, being worse than obnoxiously rude, and resisted arrest. The FBI is even invited in to review the case -- and finds no misconduct.

Lots of people don't hear about those last details, though. They didn't get the press coverage... though the girl certainly did fall out of the press coverage pretty quickly.

 

[Archangel M]

Now let me tell you something sunshine. You absolutely do have to read me my miranda rights, once I've been arrested.

Tell YOU what "sunshine" that sentence alone tells me that you dont know squat about what you are talking about. That is one of the most misunderstood (by the masses) things about police work out there. I typically hear it from smartass teenagers or clueless "jailhouse lawyers"

Let me guess..you think that if I dont read you Miranda rights then somehow you get to walk away from all charges right? Puaghhahah!

I dont HAVE to do any such thing.

If you are under arrest AND I want to question you (and I want to use what you say) THEN I have to read you Miranda. If you are free to go OR if I dont want to question you then no Miranda is required (hell I've probably only Mirandized 1-5% of any of my arrests).

Every clueless loudmouth that whines "you didnt read me my rights!" Gets the reply..."You have the right to remain silent....NOW USE IT!"

Miranda Rights for Idiots

 

[jks9199]

Now let me tell you something sunshine. You absolutely do have to read me my miranda rights, once I've been arrested. Go tell that crap to somebody else. But, hey thanks for the tip, about false arrests. It's cops like you that kill the innocent guys next door because the swat team got the wrong address on the warrant, while the **** bag next door scoots out of town. You tell me I'm arrested and I'd better have done something, cause you'll HAVE to kill me to get me in jail Period. And I love number 8 must be that nobody ever gets away from the cops, there supermen. That's why there aren't any wanted posters anywhere's right. Cause once you say tag you always get your man. What a crock.

Miranda only applies when two elements are present: custody and interrogation. If you're arrested, and the officer is not asking you questions about the offense (booking related questions don't count -- stuff like name, DOB, etc.), Miranda rights aren't implicated.

And, yes, it is possible to escape. Of course, you'd better be absolutely, 100% certain that a judge is going to agree that the officer didn't have probable cause to support the arrest -- because if he did, no matter the eventual outcome of the case, you're wrong. And, even though the initial charge may fall apart -- escape and assaulting an officer/resisting arrest or whatever it's described as will hold up. And probable cause is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It ain't even close.

It's really simple; all that's needed for arrest is that the arresting officer have the authority to make the arrest, and has probable cause to support the arrest. It's a courtesy to explain why you are being arrested -- but all that's really necessary is for the cop to attempt to take you into custody.

While Bill Mattocks's comments are a bit glib, there's a lot of truth to them.

 

[Archangel M]

And, yes, it is possible to escape. Of course, you'd better be absolutely, 100% certain that a judge is going to agree that the officer didn't have probable cause to support the arrest -- because if he did, no matter the eventual outcome of the case, you're wrong. And, even though the initial charge may fall apart -- escape and assaulting an officer/resisting arrest or whatever it's described as will hold up. And probable cause is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It ain't even close.

It's really simple; all that's needed for arrest is that the arresting officer have the authority to make the arrest, and has probable cause to support the arrest. It's a courtesy to explain why you are being arrested -- but all that's really necessary is for the cop to attempt to take you into custody.

Yup. And something people have to realize as well is that "probable cause" is not "guilty". I hear the old "innocent until proven guilty" applied to arrest situations FAR too often. Guilt or innocence is determined by a Judge and/or Jury, not police officers. We just need PC.

And if you dont think we hear "Im innocent man" from almost everybody we deal with...well you need to do a few ride-a-longs.

You very well could be innocent, THAT doesn't mean that the Officer doesn't have PC. If you fight thinking that your innocence means that the officer is "unlawfully arresting" you, you could be dead wrong. It would suck to face jail/prison time for resisting an officer when you were indeed innocent of the charge he was trying to arrest you for.

Arrest does not equal guilt.

You dont have to be "guilty" to be convicted of resisting arrest.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Now let me tell you something sunshine. You absolutely do have to read me my miranda rights, once I've been arrested. Go tell that crap to somebody else. But, hey thanks for the tip, about false arrests. It's cops like you that kill the innocent guys next door because the swat team got the wrong address on the warrant, while the **** bag next door scoots out of town. You tell me I'm arrested and I'd better have done something, cause you'll HAVE to kill me to get me in jail Period. And I love number 8 must be that nobody ever gets away from the cops, there supermen. That's why there aren't any wanted posters anywhere's right. Cause once you say tag you always get your man. What a crock.

It looks like others covered this pretty well. But no, I don't have to read you your Miranda rights unless I intend to question you. More often than not, I don't intend to question you, because I already have a good idea of what happened. I book 'em, I'm not a detective. Let the DA figure it out.

And all I can say is that nobody I ever tried to arrest got away from me. If I put my hands on 'em, they came along with me, with or without a scuffle. That's not to say we didn't sometimes have a nice dance in between, and I certain got a few of my uniforms torn and glasses broken. And I was no superman - but I have (had) a few things bad guys don't. Weapons, training, partners, and the radio. It makes for a good combination.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's a courtesy to explain why you are being arrested -- but all that's really necessary is for the cop to attempt to take you into custody.

I usually informed them after they were in the back seat of my squad. For some reason, telling people they are under arrest for, say, DUI or PC Intox tends to cause them to fight. Because they're perfectly innocent, they say.

 

[Thesemindz]

You get arrested, your *** is going to jail. You can go peacefully or you can go to the hospital to get your face stitched up first, but you're going to jail. You make bail, you get an attorney, and you get found not guilty, more power to you - but that doesn't make the arrest wrong, and even if I had to twist your head around three times and beat you like Rodney King to get the cuffs on you, too bad, so sad. Nobody has the right to resist arrest, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

You're just wrong Bill.

Citizens do have the right to resist unlawful or illegal arrest. That right has been upheld by courts throughout our history, up to and including the supreme court.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

When an officer is acting ouside the boundaries of the law, citizens are not obligated by that law to allow themselves to be manacled and transported to crime scene B.

Now, all that aside, when Officer Bill comes to my door to arrest me, unless I think my life is in imminent danger, I'll be going with him peacefully. Because someone gave him a gun and a badge and limited, insufficient training, and told him to go enforce laws he doesn't fully understand and he's already made it perfectly clear that if I don't abide by his unlawful demands, he'll torture me until I do.


-Rob

 

[Archangel M]

Problem is most people wouldn't know the difference between a lawful and unlawful arrest if they had a guidebook....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You're just wrong Bill.

No, I'm not. Your quotes are old, and nearly all states in the USA have since abrogated the right to resist unlawful arrest - one exception being Mississippi.

It was true - common law dating back to the time of the Magna Carta established the right of citizens to resist, with force, unlawful arrests. And it was true in the USA in most places, although uncodified by law (it was considered 'inherited' by common law).

Over time, courts and legislatures began to reconsider the right of the citizen to resist unlawful arrest. First, because the weapons involved had become far more deadly. An officer ordered to arrest a subject must do so. If the person resists with force, the officer must use MORE force and so on until the person being arrested is dead - or the officer is. This was not true in days when an officer carried perhaps a truncheon. The second reason was that in modern times, a person arrested who does not offer resistance is not likely to be killed. They will have access to the courts, to an attorney, and to bail. In other words, they have recourse to the law if their arrest was illegal. Thus, the need to turn an arrest situation into a deadly-force incident just because the subject thinks they are innocent or that the arrest itself is unlawful is no longer necessary.

Citizens do have the right to resist unlawful or illegal arrest. That right has been upheld by courts throughout our history, up to and including the supreme court.

And since abrogated. Those rights were common law rights, and they no longer exist (except in Mississippi). 38 states have eliminated the right to resist unlawful arrest by legislative action, and the rest (except Mississippi) by court judgment.

Please ask an attorney - any attorney should be able to answer you. Or the city attorney of your town. Anyone with a law degree.

When an officer is acting ouside the boundaries of the law, citizens are not obligated by that law to allow themselves to be manacled and transported to crime scene B.

Yes, they are. I presume by "crime scene B" you mean the hoosegow.

Now, all that aside, when Officer Bill comes to my door to arrest me, unless I think my life is in imminent danger, I'll be going with him peacefully.

Thank goodness I'm not in law enforcement anymore, eh?

Because someone gave him a gun and a badge and limited, insufficient training, and told him to go enforce laws he doesn't fully understand and he's already made it perfectly clear that if I don't abide by his unlawful demands, he'll torture me until I do.

Ah yes. Arrest = torture. I see.

I can't claim I know everything about the law. I'm not an attorney. And my information is dated, I haven't worked in law enforcement since the late 1980's. However, I've got two years of criminal law education as an undergrad, and a bit more at the master's level. That's more than a lot of cops. I'm not sure what you think officers of the law need - a law degree themselves?

But no, in general, you can't resist an unlawful arrest legally. In Mississippi, perhaps.