Michael Bennett detained

[bigpern23]

Feels like this needs its own thread since it has ****-all to do with the President or politics.

I'll pick up with the most recent post:

Apparently, the po-po have their own videos:

TMZ

The thing that struck me about that video is that the Undersheriff doesn't address Bennett's allegation that an officer put a gun to his head and threatened to blow his head off. That's a pretty big allegation (for which we have no evidence at this point).

He basically says the officers were Hispanic, and thus, race was not involved. He also make sure to point out how the officers evacuated people of all races.

But his description of Bennett's "suspicious behavior" - crouching behind a gaming machine and then running out of the casino - appears to fall in line with exactly the behavior of just about every other patron shown in that video.

I don't really know what to make of this situation but I expect we'll end up seeing more video in the near future.

 

[MisterCreosote]

For the record, I'm just naturally suspicious of anyone who makes a spectacle of himself on social media, like Bennett did here. And then the media took it and ran with it for hours before even seeking comment from the police.

That being said, the police statement doesn't really make sense without these accompanying videos they claim to have.

The whole thing just seems weird. Most cops won't pick a near-riot situation to harass someone entirely based on race. They also probably didn't get a description of a possible shooter who was 6-5, 280.

Who knows. I don't trust anyone's telling the whole truth.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Like everyone else, I don't know exactly what happened. I have seen a video of the chaos, and the video of a couple of seconds of him being cuffed on the ground, but that is it. What bodes well for the cops on this one is that they are being reasonably transparent and seem to be addressing it publicly.

 

[DanOregon]

It is entirely plausible that Bennett felt he was treated poorly and the officer felt he did his job the way he was trained to do it. The narrative that "someone is lying" is a waste of time. Frankly, I assume the police officer has more experience in dealing with these situations that Bennett does. Bennett was likely as freaked out as anyone else was. I think it is quite believable that a white woman his age acting the same way he did wouldn't have been cuffed or treated as he was.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I don't look so much at what the officer was trained to do. I care about the law and Bennett's rights.

To detain him that way, the officer needed reasonable suspicion. I know that is a bit of a nebulous standard, but it's the standard. Given the situation, I can easily see a case for the officer having had reasonable suspicion, if they saw him run out of the casino.

He was only in cuffs for 10 minutes, which is the way it should be if it is done right, because you are edging up against the fourth amendment. An actual arrest can only be made if they have probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime. They really may have simply detained him based on what they were seeing. ... determined that he wasn't involved in a crime fairly quickly. ... and let him go. It sucks for an innocent person, but the impact on Bennett was negligible at best.

 

[hondo]

You can't claim you were singled out because you were black when the majority of the people seen fleeing the casino are black.
His behavior -- hiding behind the slots, running, then hiding behind a barricade -- is what warranted suspicion. If he was not involved with a shooting, what prompted his actions?

 

[JC]

You can't claim you were singled out because you were black when the majority of the people seen fleeing the casino are black.
His behavior -- hiding behind the slots, running, then hiding behind a barricade -- is what warranted suspicion. If he was not involved with a shooting, what prompted his actions?

Fear.

How do you react when you hear gunshots?

 

[qtlaw]

Saw a screen grab which appears to confirm Bennett's account about a gun being drawn on his head. Not sure what would justify that; that appears wrongful at this point.

As for running and hiding?? That's some serious Monday QBing; ; you hear what you think are gunshots are you going to stay calmly in the open??

Racial profiling? Yeah, sure appears to be that.

Last tangent, the letter from the union president raising the spectre of Bennett's protest? That has absolutely zero relevance. The officers at issue most probably were unaware of Bennett's personal beliefs at the time of the incident (or if they did, then they've got an even bigger problem because then they outright discriminated against him for his personal beliefs). As I've said previously, a minority, a white supremacist, a poor white person, a rich person, each are entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else and entitled to be treated accordingly.

 

[DanOregon]

Police are trained when serving a warrant or making an urgent stop to be very clear in their directions. Part of it is to overwhelm the person being addressed that now is not the time to ask questions, but to comply and only comply.
In some situations they go straight to number 2.
The Use-of-Force Continuum | National Institute of Justice

 

[hondo]

Saw a screen grab which appears to confirm Bennett's account about a gun being drawn on his head. Not sure what would justify that; that appears wrongful at this point.

As for running and hiding?? That's some serious Monday QBing; ; you hear what you think are gunshots are you going to stay calmly in the open??

Racial profiling? Yeah, sure appears to be that.

Last tangent, the letter from the union president raising the spectre of Bennett's protest? That has absolutely zero relevance. The officers at issue most probably were unaware of Bennett's personal beliefs at the time of the incident (or if they did, then they've got an even bigger problem because then they outright discriminated against him for his personal beliefs). As I've said previously, a minority, a white supremacist, a poor white person, a rich person, each are entitled to the same civil rights as everyone else and entitled to be treated accordingly.

Why wasn't he just running straight out the doors -- like everyone else was, white or black?

 

[JC]

Why wasn't he just running straight out the doors -- like everyone else was, white or black?

That's what you would have done I assume?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Why wasn't he just running straight out the doors -- like everyone else was, white or black?

Where is your evidence that everyone else ran straight out the doors?

 

[User 4332]

Police are trained when serving a warrant or making an urgent stop to be very clear in their directions. Part of it is to overwhelm the person being addressed that now is not the time to ask questions, but to comply and only comply.
In some situations they go straight to number 2.
The Use-of-Force Continuum | National Institute of Justice

Umm, good luck trying to discuss the use-of-force continuum rationally on SJ.com

 

[qtlaw]

Police are trained when serving a warrant or making an urgent stop to be very clear in their directions. Part of it is to overwhelm the person being addressed that now is not the time to ask questions, but to comply and only comply.
In some situations they go straight to number 2.
The Use-of-Force Continuum | National Institute of Justice

That's nice an all, but number one, as a lawyer, that is an attempt to comply with the law, its NOT the law. NIJ, I don't know it from adam but I'll at first glance conclude its a nice association of law enforcement agencies promoting, guess what?, their own interests.

The continuum I saw had three or four steps before use of force; using a gun to someone's head? That's the last step, not the first step.

See, going back to my crim procedure class nearly 30 years ago, I'm still pretty sure that you're not supposed to draw your weapon unless:

(1) imminent threat of bodily harm to officer or others.

That's the legal test.

Unarmed person running away? Not imminent threat to anyone. See, even if you saw someone shoot someone else, then DROP the gun and run away? You don't get to shoot them in the back.

Even assuming the account of him acting "suspiciously, hiding behind a barricade", that doesn't ever justify GUN TO HEAD.

 

[The Big Ragu]

That's nice an all, but number one, as a lawyer, that is an attempt to comply with the law, its NOT the law. NIJ, I don't know it from adam but I'll at first glance conclude its a nice association of law enforcement agencies promoting, guess what?, their own interests.

The continuum I saw had three or four steps before use of force; using a gun to someone's head? That's the last step, not the first step.

See, going back to my crim procedure class nearly 30 years ago, I'm still pretty sure that you're not supposed to draw your weapon unless:

(1) imminent threat of bodily harm to officer or others.

That's the legal test.

Unarmed person running away? Not imminent threat to anyone. See, even if you saw someone shoot someone else, then DROP the gun and run away? You don't get to shoot them in the back.

Even assuming the account of him acting "suspiciously, hiding behind a barricade", that doesn't ever justify GUN TO HEAD.

What you said about that link being guidelines for law enforcement agencies who are trying to comply with the law. It isn't the law.

Re: "Not an imminent threat to anyone" ... the police can't know who is armed or not armed or who is a threat until they detain them and pat them down. Also, there is a difference between drawing a gun ... and shooting someone.

Re: Gun to the head. ... Bennett said the cop put a gun "near" his head. And the video is really inconclusive, other than it looks the cop had his gun drawn. I'm not minimizing this and it wouldn't be out of character for a cop to yell something like, "I'll blow your f'in head off." But I doubt there is anything there civilly for Bennett for that. Legally, they could detain him the way they did, and it really sounds like without probable cause that he had done anything illegal, they released him pretty quickly.

 

[Alma]

Modern policing is one big action movie.

 

[qtlaw]

What you said about that link being guidelines for law enforcement agencies who are trying to comply with the law. It isn't the law.

Re: "Not an imminent threat to anyone" ... the police can't know who is armed or not armed or who is a threat until they detain them and pat them down. Also, there is a difference between drawing a gun ... and shooting someone.

Re: Gun to the head. ... Bennett said the cop put a gun "near" his head. And the video is really inconclusive, other than it looks the cop had his gun drawn. I'm not minimizing this and it wouldn't be out of character for a cop to yell something like, "I'll blow your f'in head off." But I doubt there is anything there civilly for Bennett for that. Legally, they could detain him the way they did, and it really sounds like without probable cause that he had done anything illegal, they released him pretty quickly.

I respectfully disagree about the difference between drawing a gun and shooting in the context of violation of someone's civil rights.

Two step analysis here:

1. Detain and pat down? You've got to have some reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity is afoot." That's the standard IIRC.

Did they even have reasonable suspicion that Bennett had committed a crime? From the accounts I've heard, have not seen any indication of that. Hiding behind a barrier? That's not reasonable suspicion, nor most importantly the standard I want enforced. Even if so, okay, you can cuff him.

2. Draw Gun? Now even if there was reasonable suspicion, there must be additional justification for drawing your gun and threatening someone. Under the law, you do not blur the lines into well there was No. 1 so automatically get to draw your gun. Its an assault, which is threatening imminent harm.

Finally, without probable cause, that doesn't mean that the police then say "sorry I threatened to kill you without any right" go on about your way. That's not how its supposed to work nor the standard I want enforced. There was very little to justify No. 1, and nothing apparently to justify No. 2, under the standards established by the Supreme Court.

 

[tapintoamerica]

I suspect this one is going to go away now that the season's about to start. Has Bennett responded to the most widely released video, in which you can surmise a second officer (10 ft away) is aiming his weapon at Bennett but you don't hear the threat of blowing the head off?
I'd like to know if Bennett is saying the threat was, in fact, made but was issued before (or after) the portion seen on the video. His choices are to repeat the threat was made; concede that he didn't really hear said threat; or let it go. I'm guessing he'll opt for the last of those three options.

 

[poindexter]

Police Body Cameras Show Michael Bennett Was Not Racially Profiled

 

[cjericho]

I respectfully disagree about the difference between drawing a gun and shooting in the context of violation of someone's civil rights.

Two step analysis here:

1. Detain and pat down? You've got to have some reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity is afoot." That's the standard IIRC.

Did they even have reasonable suspicion that Bennett had committed a crime? From the accounts I've heard, have not seen any indication of that. Hiding behind a barrier? That's not reasonable suspicion, nor most importantly the standard I want enforced. Even if so, okay, you can cuff him.

2. Draw Gun? Now even if there was reasonable suspicion, there must be additional justification for drawing your gun and threatening someone. Under the law, you do not blur the lines into well there was No. 1 so automatically get to draw your gun. Its an assault, which is threatening imminent harm.

Finally, without probable cause, that doesn't mean that the police then say "sorry I threatened to kill you without any right" go on about your way. That's not how its supposed to work nor the standard I want enforced. There was very little to justify No. 1, and nothing apparently to justify No. 2, under the standards established by the Supreme Court.

You realize they were responding to a call about gun shots being fired right? Pulling a gun out would not be the final step. Firing the gun would be the final step. It is understandable that Bennett may have been worried. But you don't think it's understandable that he looked suspicious? He was crouched down and then police saw him running. If you're a cop and respond to a call where gun shots are fired and you see a guy crouched down and then running, that's not suspicious? Any time police respond to a call where gun shots were fired, or what sounded like gun shots being fired, what needs to occur before they draw their gun?

Police Body Cameras Show Michael Bennett Was Not Racially Profiled

edit: didn't realize Poin posted the same link