Two Cincinnati police officers used “horrible judgment” and may have violated department policy when they used their Tasers in an early August scuffle, say experts who reviewed body camera footage obtained by The Enquirer.
The Aug. 8 incident prompted an extraordinary intervention by the Hamilton County prosecutor in an external city investigation into the use of force and a major showdown between City Manager Harry Black and police union President Dan Hils.
Two experts – a professor and an expert witness/consultant – reviewed the footage for The Enquirer. The experts, both retired police officers, both said that neither the use of force nor the subsequent controversy had to happen.
They added that the officers clearly did not follow the city police policy of de-escalation when confronting two young men in their mother’s living room in Clifton Heights.
And then once things escalated, the officers never stated they were arresting the two men and instead pulled their Tasers and eventually used them – a potential violation of CPD’s official use of force policy.
The incident and its aftermath left both men with their first criminal convictions. One of them also suffered a collapsed lung during his arrest; he was recovering from back fusion surgery at the time.
CPD officials declined interview requests to discuss the incident and denied requests to interview Officers Richard Sullivan and Lawrence Johnson, citing an ongoing internal investigation.
Maybe not a text book encounter or arrest, but 99% seldom are. Was there a better way to approach this, probably, but then hindsight is what could have been and always the easiest rock to pick up and throw when you’re personally not involved in that situation. I saw two uncooperative and potentially violent individuals (as demonstrated) that wanted to ‘hold court’ on the constitutionality of the officers presence in a home, then exhibited their lack of cooperation and degree of resistance along with a screaming family member in the background. I can see this encounter going South real fast unless the officers established control to safe guard their lives regardless of the belief whether the officers presence was legal or not, that is for the courts to decide, not the suspects! I recognize there are so many facts missing and unknown to the readers and this is just a video in the typical style of demonizing LEO with just 5 minute clip for a call that was much more involved that 2 officers tazing 2 individuals just for saying “wait a minute”. Paid experts will say anything they are paid to say or get their resume padded…
Agreed…..
Agreed. Doubtful these are experts with true experience in handling angry unreasonable persons who are committing a crime of trespass. I am positive there is more to this story.
I agree with CommonSenseMIA. At some point these experts need to recognize that bad guys also hide weapons in their houses (in addition to weapons of opportunity). If they don’t control this situation they will become victims themselves. I don’t know about Ohio law, but even in the Peoples Republic of California once someone obstructs or interferes with aninvestigation, we can arrest them (PC 148). Once the decision has been made to arrest, PC 835 takes effect: A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.
“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.”
And your point is???
The female called the police. The suspects refused to allow the officers to conduct their investigation (obstruct/interfere). One of the suspects charges at the female, while the officers are trying to control the situation. The officers had the right at that point to minimally detain and/or arrest for their blatant obstruction. Then they begin putting their hands on the officers when the officers are trying to protect the female from harm/keep things calm. They absolutely had the right at that time to detain/arrest.
You add your comments about how it is ok to kill cops for an unlawful arrest. While I appreciate intelligent dialogue, especially those that are fact based, your comments however don’t apply in this situation or help build relationships between officers and citizens. When an officer reads your comments it can create an “us vs them” mentality. Which only furthers the national rhetoric about LE being the bad guys (which is a false narrative created by the media).
I am guessing you have never worn a badge and had to enforce the law. I could be wrong, but most likely not. Until you decide to put on some boots, and go get in the trenches with some unsavory people who will try to harm you, please don’t add unnecessary comments.
Lastly, before you try to justify your comments and apply them to this situation, review Graham v Connor. The legal standard for an officers use of force:
Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer
a. Officer with same or similar training and experience
b. Facing similar circumstances
c. Act the same way or use similar judgment
2.) Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied
a. No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later
b. No hindsight evaluation
3.) Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation
4.) Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time
That’s all I have to say.
And your point is???
My point is as Team & Com has said, a law upheld by the Supreme Court is now useless…no more innocent until proven guilty, and no responsibility for the actions of bad cops. (But there was a time….)
Same with the Constitution…more iron clad guarantee’s that are now useless…
The evolution on how we got to the mess we have now…
John, I see that case law thrown around all the time by those who read the first few lines stating a person can resist what they perceive as an unlawful arrest and run with that. Of course, being the legal eagle you are I’m sure if check with your law office staff of paralegals they can easily find that case law is over 100 years old, has been struck down by numerous courts, and offers no defense on any basis to resisting arrest in today’s world, but I won’t bore you with the subsequent case laws reflecting that fact, please have your staff look it up!. However, if you still insist and want to test that case law based on your premise that you alone decide what is lawful and what is not during the course of being arrested, let us know how that turns out for you. Remember, some lessons can be a painful experience. There is an old saying in law enforcement, “You may beat the rap, but you’re still going to take the ride!” (ref. on the way to jail) Good luck, sir.
That case law was struck down long ago. In fact many states have legislated the exact opposite. Here is one example (see section 2 below). Even when a person knows the arrest is unlawful, they must submit to the arrest. That way the matter can be settled in court as opposed to the dangerous and dynamic setting of the scene of the crime.
18-8-103 Colorado Revised Statutes
(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:
(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or
(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.
(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts “under color of his official authority” when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.
(3) The term “peace officer” as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted.
Any “expert” who bases his or her conclusions about any incident, whatever the incident is, solely on a video is a fool or a pimp.
Looking at the headline … Why are prosecutors looking at potencial policy violation issues? At what point did failing to follow policy equal a violation of statutory law?