Look, I’ll allow the cops could, and perhaps even should, have played it a little more reasonably. That’s a judgment call.
No one can say the cops acted illegally. They didn’t. They had probable cause to believe the man might harm himself.
Why do you suppose the paramedics made a point of informing the police of the man’s remark, by the way? If it was so crystal clear that the man was joking, why do you think they made a point of passing it on? I mean, as a joke, it’s not like it’s such a knee-slapper that it has to be shared, right?
I thought the definition of evil was “morally reprehensible,” or “wicked.”
Oh, no, wait. Maybe it’s “making up definitions of words to suit my own ideas.”
Newsflash: it’s not “evil” to help yourself at the expense of others. It might well become evil, depending on how much “expense,” and how much “help” are involved. An actor auditions for a play and wins his role at the expense of all the other actors who wanted that part. A businessman bids for a contract and wins it at the expense of all the other that wanted that work. None of these are evil, except perhaps to a uber-Marxist.
We as a society certainly have a right to set limits for our police, and, indeed, to tell them they have to be willing to get bruised to help someone who needs it. But we convey those expectations through our laws, rules, and guidelines. Our laws are the broadest strokes, made by our elected officials in our name. The rules and guidelines are promulgated by our executive and the people appointed to serve in leadership posts in his departments.
So we can’t just pluck defintions out of the air and declare they fit. We have, as a society, already created the laws, rules, and guidelines applicable to this encounter. Were THEY violated?
It’s because they were covering their arses. My guess is that they’d been told, “If anyone threatens violence, e.g., threatens to kill themselves, notify the police.” If they hadn’t done that, and if the 1% chance had happened and the 64-year-old had killed himself, then they would have been in trouble.
Yesterday at work, I became so frustrated with a situation, I stood up and announced to my colleague, “I gotta get out of here or I’m going to kill somebody.”
I’m sure glad he didn’t narc me out to the Marin County cops … I never would have got that report done.
And guess what? If one of your coworkers HAD called the cops to report that they were concerned about you and their safety because you said you were going to kill someone, what do imagine would have happened?
(A) Cops reply, “Unfortunately for you, that’s hearsay. We can’t do a thing. Bye now!”
(B) Cops show up and investigate. Briefly detain you for their safety. Further action depend on whether or not you obey their lawful commands or refuse.
I get the humor, and I get the attempt to trivialize the situation.
But seriously. Coworker calls police, says he’s concerned for his safety because you said, “I gotta get out of here or I’m going to kill somebody.”
Do you picture you’d be able to brush by police with “What the fuck is this? I’m late for a conference call?”
I mean… you DO recognize that they’d want to talk to you, and when they did so, they’d want to briefly pat you down to make sure you had no weapons - right?
Seriously. Yesterday … if I’d returned from my walk around the building to find cops waiting to arrest me, I probably would have clammed up and gone downtown, but I would have probably had to have had a medical visit because my blood pressure would be through the roof … and I’d have to have a long talk with my retarded colleague who wouldn’t know cynical sarcasm uttered in frustration if you hit him across the face with it.
There would be several issues to discuss after a cluster-fuck like that took place … and I don’t think it would be me with egg on his face.
Where and when I was trained, we called that reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. What, BTW, are your street credentials. I’ve made no secret of the fact that it was a sometime duty for me, and it seems to me that you’ve moved right on past that, and have mis-represented that I ever called my self a sworn officer (it was a duty, not a career - do try to get that straight, will ya?) but I’ll let that pass, if you’ll answer me this: I want to know - How much time have you actually enforcing law? Have you ever walked into someone’s house, knowing a domestic incident was ongoing, and knowing that there were firearms in the house? Ever stand outside a bar with a dog handler at your side and a crowd of unruly and angry drunks in your face? Ever go fishing in a harbor hoping for a fugitive, but fearing a body? Ever find yourself wrestling - and losing to - huge angry coked-up suspect? I have.
So now - Tell us your street experience. Answer up, or piss off.
Anyway, call bullshit all you want - at this point I think that either 1) you do not understand the difference resonable suspicion and probable cause, or 2) you’re arguing to win, having already demonstrated by your own cite that you’re wrong. Or both.
I also note that you’ve misrepresented the victim’s statement - you stated that the old man threatened to shoot someone - himself. He did not. He made a clearly hypothetical statement about what he would do if conditions were different. I’ll grant - Have already granted - That his statement was suspicious, and demanded further investigation. But he didn’t get that investigation, did he?
No. I have extensive criminal law experience, but it’s all courtroom. My street crime experience is several ride-alongs and one attempted mugging in which I was the victim.
To the contrary, I understand precisely the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion is a level of suspicion less than that of probable cause, but great than a mere hunch or unparticularized suspicion. Reasonable suspicion exists when an officer can point to specific, articulable facts and the rational inferences from those facts that show that the subject has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. This justifies a brief detention known as a Terry stop, after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Probable cause, as I defined above, exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. (Hollis v. Com., 216 Va. 874 (1976)).
So: can hearsay establish probable cause? Not reasonable suspicion, but probable cause?
You said, or at least strongly implied, that you believed it could not:
Can hearsay serve as the basis for probable cause: Yes, or no?
OK, I’ll go along: Some coworker calls it in. The cops come and approach Mr. Batty, saying “We’d like to speak to you”. Now they can judge for themselves his threat level, based upon his reactions. If he runs away or if he reaches into his pocket, he likely gets tased. Fine by me. But if he replies “What’s up?”, I’d expect the cops to engage him in conversation. What I would not expect them to do is come to his desk (assuming he’s sitting at a desk) and immediately loudly demand that he stand up and put his arms behind his back.
In the instant case we have a man who was recently injured, probably in pain, sitting in what appears to be his living room. Other than an utterance he made some unknown time ago to a paramedic, while he was being treated for his injury, there is no apparent threat of imminent harm to himself or anyone else. Two police officers are present (the legality of which has not yet been established) presumably investigating the threat. The man is making no threatening gestures, and there is no weapon in evidence. Further, his wife is present and she at least passively (she certainly isn’t telling the cops to stop him before he hurts himself) or even actively denying any threat (we know she told them that he has a heart condition, perhaps attempting to dissuade them from causing him upset, perhaps to dissuade them from employing the taser; we do not know if she also told them “He didn’t mean anything!”).
One of the cops is screaming for the man to stand up and put his hands behind him. The man remains on his sofa. The cop continues to scream, threatens the man with the taser, and brandishes it at the man. It’s aiming laser is visible on his chest. The man still makes no threatening move, nor does he verbalize any threat. He simply fails to stand up.
Now we could argue here whether or not the man was frail, whether or not he was in pain, and whether or not he was confused either from the trauma of his injury or by the actions of the officers. We have no evidence other than the video and our own judgment of how we ourselves might have acted if we were in that situation. But I think it would be reasonable to believe that the old guy really doesn’t know why such a big deal is being made, nor why the cop is going off on him like he was. Similarly I think it would be UNreasonable to believe that there was any credible chance that the guy was going to leap up off the couch and attack the officers, or dive out a window and commit mayhem on the streets. Indeed, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask ourselves and the cops, So, what was the big hairy deal, anyway?
Still, eventually the man did move to comply with the officer’s demand to stand up. He pushes himself up from his couch, using his arms for support. And at that point, while screaming for him to put his hands behind him, but without waiting for him to steady himself on his feet and do so, the cop tases him. Then as the man convulses on the ground, clearly not in control of his own body, the cop continues to scream and demand actions that the man is in no condition to perform, the cop tases him again. And again.
Now friend Bricker, I know your propensity to turn everything into a matter of law. You’re doing it again here. But I feel no need to pick those particular nits with you, since IANAL. So for the sake of furthering this discussion I will concede that, given the latitude of judgment provided to cops under the law, this situation was probably within its strict letter. And also, again for the sake of advancing the discussion, within any applicable departmental guidelines as well.
But I believe the real discussion, here and in so many other threads, isn’t about the letter of the law. Instead it is about the morality of the actions of the players. Was this the right thing for cops to do in this circumstance? (I say emphatically NO.) Next, given the variety of other circumstances wherein cops must exercise judgment including those noted upthread wherein different actions by the cops would IMHO be justified, what additional laws or guidelines could we develop so that cops in future situations could be directed to make better judgments and take less reprehensible actions.
I doubt any reasonable observer fails to feel moral outrage for this particular incident. And I believe that reasonable observers also know that such a judgment is not a blanket condemnation of our laws or of our public servants. Demonstrably, in many, many situations, our laws and our public servants do an admirable job. Still, there remain some situations that are problematic. It seems valid and beneficial to explore means by which this circumstance could be improved, by modification of our laws and/or our administrative guidelines. This is one such situation.
I did this once in the 80s, on my first flight as a teenage kid. Everyone knew I was joking, no repercussions, no nothing… I dunno, I kinda wish it was that way again, when jokes were safe and for the most part, seen for what they were. What a different, more reactive, more fearful world we live in now! So deadly serious!
Well, I certainly don’t have the street-cred of cops like Tranquilis, but I disagree. I think they’d immediately, but respectfully, ask him to stand up, keep his arms away from his sides, and pat down the outer portions of his clothes to check for weapons, at the same time asking him if he had any weapons on him.
I further believe that if he refused to stand up and hold his arms away from his sides as they asked him to do, that would escalate the situation and they would order him, unequivocally, to stand, and if he failed to do that, they would shortly use physical force or a taser to enforce compliance.
So you do - at least in the theoretical. I’m less confident of your understanding in actual application.
Here lies the problem. I do not believe, based upon the evidence provided, that the officers in this incident had sufficient information to come to the conclusions they apparently came to. I have experiential and academic (albeit limited, but real none-the-less) support for my reasoning. I beleive they would have been justified to - and probably had the duty to so do - investigate further and expanding on their understanding of the situation.
I did indeed say that. And as I was trained, no. I was trained that it was a basis for reasonable suspicion. I was trained that further investigation or direct observation was required to establish probable cause and that the person ordering an act by someone whom did not personally have probable cause became liable for the decision to act. IOW, If I don’t have probable cause, no matter that I may be suspicious, but my supervisor directs an action (arrest, confiscation, entry, search, etc.), then he or she then becomes liable for that decision.
In this incident, I see an angry old man - Not a suicide in-progress. Nor do I see any reason to believe he had a weapon, nor access to to a weapon. IOW, direct observation was not sufficiently informative. Further investigation was needed to establish probable cause.
(BTW, I don’t doubt that the officers thought they were doing their duty - They were just doing it wrong)
While we’re at it: I have another, and even larger problem about this whole business. The use of force. Frankly, had one of my Masters-at-Arms or Federal Police used that level of force, under the circumstances as witnessed, I’d have written them up for Dereliction and failure to follow orders. They grossly violated the Deadly Force Policy under which we worked. I don’t know what these officers have for a deadly force policy, but here’s the one I worked under:
In order:
The man was elderly and recently injured. Tasers have caused fatality in a non-trivial number of cases, especially with people of less-than-robust health. They have also led to injury from collapse, convulsion, and the striking of solid objects whilst being tased. The wife informed officers of an existing heart condition. Taser use was deadly force under the circumstances.
Lesser means were most certainly avaialbe, could have been reasonably attempted, and were not.
The risk to the subject was most certainly increased. As the officers were attempting to make a detention for his own good, I do not see that this was consistent or proper.
NO ONE was in “imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm” here. Not, at least, until the officers used their tasers.
That’s fine, since reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause; if hearsay can provide probable cause, then a fortiori it can provide reasonable suspicion.
But consider the tip. A citizen flags you down and says, “That man running down the street just grabbed me, stuck his hand up my shirt, and then said he was going to rape me!”
That’s hearsay - you didn’t see the event. It’s her statement, offered to you for the truth of the matter asserted.
Yet it’s obvious that based on her word, YOU have probable cause to arrest the man. It’s not a situation where you’d need to detain the guy and and investigate further. I mean, you could certainly choose to do that, but assuming the guy said or did nothing inculpatory during the detention, you’d still have probable cause to arrest him.
From a legal perspective, no, his statement is sufficient to establish probable cause. I grant you that it may well have been the better practice to investigate further. But just because he doesn’t have a weapon on him, probable cause doesn’t vanish. A gun is not such a rare thing to have that it’s assumed to be unlikely. How many places in a house can hide a gun? Even if they briefly looked around, how would that dispel their belief that he might have access to a gun?
Tasers are not (so far as I am aware) classified as deadly force. Even the expert quoted in the report seem to say otherwise:
“Intermediate weapon” and “deadly force” don’t seem to be the same thing. So I question your assumption that tasers are considered “deadly force” by this (or any) department.
Well, the whole “respectfully” thingy differs from the case under discussion. Not to mention the fact that here you suggest “physical force or a taser” without knowing how physically imposing Jack Batty may be but whine defensively about cops using a taser to avoid possible bruises when the subject of the discussion is an old guy who has trouble standing up.
What I see you doing here is everything you can to avoid making any judgment whatsoever. You offer absolute certainty for “their legal authority”. And you understand that others “might be arguing that it wasn’t good police work, that even though they had the legal authority, they should have done more checking, or something. Maybe so.” Well, duhh, that is exactly what is being argued. But you still conclude “I have no way to judge that.”
Sure you do. Watch the tape. See the circumstances. Observe the outcome. No, you cannot see or hear every single detail of every single party involved for every single moment beginning an hour before the guy fell down the steps. (I’m reminded of Arlo saying “They took pictures of the escape, the getaway, northwest corner, the southwest corner. And that’s not to mention the aerial photography.”) So no, you don’t have 27 eight by ten color glossy photographs with a paragraph of explanation on the back of every one. To say nothing of plaster tire tracks, footprints, or dog smelling prints. But there’s enough in that video for anyone who isn’t being deliberately obtuse to see that the situation could – and should – have been handled better.
You offer no disagreement, counselor? Or do you actually support it? I am certain you know just how different those are.
But there’s enough in that video for anyone who isn’t being deliberately obtuse to see that the situation could – and should – have been handled better.