by Julietta Bisharyan
SACRAMENTO – One video shows Sacramento police officers choking a young black man while arresting him during a recent George Floyd protest.
The young man was later identified by Sacramento police as 18-year-old Tyzhon Johnson. He was arrested on suspicion of looting and of resisting arrest by police officers.
In the video, an officer is shown lying on his back on a sidewalk with his arm firmly wrapped around the man’s neck. The man tries to pull the arm off his neck and at one point starts hitting the wall of the AT&T store next to them.
As multiple bystanders try to intervene, officers push them off the sidewalk with their batons, repeatedly yelling, “Move!” One of the officers has a rifle slung on his back and another begins pointing his at the crowd.
“Tell him to stop! You’re choking him!” yells the woman taking the video, Zakiyah Guillory.
The officer keeps the man in a choke hold as the sound of police sirens and screaming drown out the video.
2️⃣1️⃣5️⃣ Sacramento, CA: how many SPD cops does it take to choke out one black man? I'm counting 2-3
— T. Greg Doucette (@greg_doucette) June 4, 2020
“You want to kill him! For what?” shouts another woman.
According to Guillory, she was driving home from a peaceful protest that night when she saw a young man, carrying two duffel bags, running from the police. He tripped on the sidewalk and an officer jumped on him, putting him in the choke hold.
After Guillory started recording the situation, an officer pushed her into the street.
“You f—ing pushed a girl for no f—-ing reason! Why the f—- did you push me to the ground?” she screamed as she got into a car with others.
Guillory mentioned that she saw groups of white teenagers stealing items that night and wondered why the police didn’t pursue them as forcefully as they did Johnson.
“I couldn’t sit there and be silent, especially after peacefully protesting about George Floyd, a man who was killed by being choked,” Guillory said. “This is the reason we’re out there, and they go and do the same exact thing?”
The Sacramento Police Department permits officers to use the carotid restraint control hold, which is performed by applying pressure to the sides of the neck with an arm. The hold can block blood flow, causing someone to become unconscious.
“The video captures the end of an incident where officers were attempting to effect an arrest for looting,” said Officer Karl Chan. “Prior to this, the suspect had fled on foot and officers engaged in a foot pursuit, The suspect then began to fight with the officers. The use of force has been documented and will be reviewed per department policy as with any use of force.”
Neck restraints have come under great scrutiny following the death of Floyd, who was killed by a white Minneapolis police officer after he pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck for over eight minutes. “I can’t breathe” were the final words of both Floyd and Eric Garner, another black man killed by police, and the phrase has become a rallying cry against police brutality.
More footage from Sacramento captures police officers opening fire on peaceful protestors. The video is from an Instagram livestream posted on Twitter with over 161k views.
In the video, protestors chant, “Take a knee!” at the officers lined up in front of them. Several appear to begin to kneel as the crowd cheers loudly. Seconds later, the sound of shooting blares and multiple protestors begin to flee the scene.
Smoke can be seen spreading and multiple rubber bullets shoot through the air into the crowd.
“How was that even necessary?” writes one user in the comments. Another person mentioned that Sacramento didn’t even have a curfew during the time of the incident.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Who among us could pursue a suspect that had been fighting you, catch up to them and restrain them, and then turn on a dime and be calm? And that is what police are ask to do, and should do, everyday. And many fail. I don’t know how a human being can do that when emotions get pumped up in physical altercation. That some cops are able to do that amazes me.
Or are you saying we should allow looting because it’s permitted because of years of structural racism so let the looters take stuff?
Yes and the guy in Buffalo tripped. I don’t know if the police account is accurate – I have seen a lot of inaccurate ones this week and last, a lot that put police actions in best possible light that have turned out to be untrue. Moreover the witness had a different account.
Alan,
The question is not would any of us be able to do that. Of course not. Just as most people could not stand calmly at an operating table watching blood from an accidentally cut blood vessel pour over their hands and calmly call for suction and a clamp. This is what their job entails. This is what they sign up for. This is what we pay them to do. If they cannot do this specific job, then they should not be assigned to this specific duty.
None of this means we should just “allow looting”. It does mean that the penalty for so doing should not be death administered on the street.
I agree. I was pondering was a difficult job that is, and how difficult to find a team of people able to do that.
Clearly
David: Is the following a response to Alan M.’s question?
No that was my answer to the first portion of his comment – that we have conflicting stories and police have not necessarily have given accurate accounts in the last two weeks on the use of force.
I ignored the last question because I considered it obnoxious, but my response would be to note the witness showing the different way the police responded to different people engaging in the same conduct.
I’m not seeing that in the video. If it did occur, is the conclusion automatically “racism”?
I think your response was that it was an obnoxious question, even if someone had to extract that response from you while you deny it was a response.
So . . . what do you find obnoxious? I asked because I had a friend justify looting that way, and have read of activists having a similar point of view. Not a view I share, so I was asking because it makes no sense to me.
David
I do have a major problem with the article as posted. The headline states Sacramento Police Officers Choke Protestor.
The article then goes on to describe the individual constrained as having been suspected of looting. Protesting and looting are two distinctly different activities. One is a valid exercise of one’s 1A rights, the other is a crime. The two should not be conflated allowing those who would like to delegitimize the former to deliberately misconstrue the situation.
Fair point.
Hi Tia,
Looting is a form of protesting, so I believe the article’s headline is accurate.
Gerissa,
I fundamentally disagree. If that is true, do you consider shoplifting because you are too poor to afford what you want a form of “protest”? Also, we do not have enough information to judge this individual’s motivation and should not be projecting our perspective on his actions.
Hi Tia,
While looting is generally a crime, in the context of the George Floyd protests, it is being done to show that our country values property/consumer good over human lives, namely black lives. I believe it’s worth acknowledging looting as a legitimate form of protest during these times. While we can’t say for sure that this individual was looting for the protests, it can be inferred considering that there was a protest happening in the nearby Sacramento area. The headline does not attempt to call him a “peaceful protestor,” just a protestor. Protesting comes in different forms, peaceful or not.
I don’t think I’ll make a comment here, other than highlighting this one. It does address my question to Gerrisa, and it’s at least an interesting point of view.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard this point of view expressed so clearly and unabashedly, before.
Or looting is just looting in order to steal and get things for free.
Is looting people’s homes also considered a legitimate form of protesting, or just businesses?
Now here, folks, is a person with a completely different world view than my own.
I will say I agree with her statement that looting can be a form of protest. I don’t consider it a nonviolent form, but interesting some people do, similar how some considered spiking trees in Humboldt as nonviolent (I disagree, but just saying). It is also possible looting, even near a protest, is just looting.
And my apologies if I got your identified-as sex wrong in the pronoun. I do try to be neutral on that and don’t know the name or your preference and the shot-clock ran out.
That is (also) an interesting comment.
Irresponsible reporting by the Vanguard.
Protesting, looting and irresponsible reporting may all be different, but today they are all complicit in supporting each other.
Actually while you can quibble with the headline, the article itself is pretty thorough. The issue as raised is the necessity to put someone into a choke hold under those conditions and the disparate response to the black man as opposed to a white group of teenagers who were engaged in the same activity and not forcefully pursued.
How do you know that, or what the reason is – assuming it’s true?
I’m going off the witnesses statement: “ Guillory mentioned that she saw groups of white teenagers stealing items that night and wondered why the police didn’t pursue them as forcefully as they did Johnson.”
I was questioning your automatic acceptance of that statement.
Hi Ron,
One of the “faults” of journalism is the need for a witness. As journalists, I believe it’s our responsibility to use our better judgement to decide which witness and witness statements to use. I believe this witness saw something malicious and ill-natured taking place, and decided to use their voice to reveal what they saw, which isn’t always an easy thing to do. In this case, I’d like to know what problem you have with the witness’ statement. Why is your first inclination to believe that the witness gave an invalid statement?
I believe that she saw white looters. I don’t think there’s enough information to determine any reason regarding the following:
In regard to your earlier comment, do you believe that looting is a “legitimate” form of protest? (In other words, should it be legalized?)
(I did find that earlier comment interesting.)
Not just that, but it doesn’t say the same cops were there observing both white and black looters and chose the black ones to pursue, so it’s unclear if they would have also pursued the white looters if they were present. That’s how this gets so muddled, so fast.
It’s how others (with preconceived notions, whatever they are) can arrive at erroneous conclusions.
That’s a legitimate question. But, it is different than kneeling on a handcuffed man’s neck for 9 minutes.
True it is different, but the issue overall is the frequent and potential unnecessary use of force directly primarily at people of color. That this doesn’t rise to the level of another, doesn’t not excuse this one.
“Honest” question: What might the police do in situations like this, instead?
First of all, I think use of force should be limited to cases of actual public threat. A lot of these incidents start with a relatively minor initial offense and escalate.
Second, in a lot of jurisdictions for example they have made it a policy not to do a high speed pursuit unless there is a real threat to public safety. They simply document the incident, get the identification and get them later.
So, in the case of property crimes, you’re proposing that no force be used to detain suspects?
Just let them go, as you seemed to suggest in your response to Alan M.?
That’s true, regarding suspects fleeing in vehicles (which often result in death/injury to innocent bystanders, as well).
There is (usually) no way to get the identification of someone fleeing on foot. (And if I’m not mistaken, you also generally oppose increased video surveillance, as well – which might help identify suspects.)
And, even if there was some way to subsequently identify those committing crimes, wouldn’t the police (eventually) have to confront them in some manner?
Or, do they simply continue letting them go, because they’re not personally threatening someone (until confronted by the police)?
Maybe they can ask them to “please” come down to the police station? 😉
The question I think you should ask is: Is it worth using force on someone who stole a few hundred dollars worth of property?
Just to be clear, it does seem that you’re suggesting that force (however that’s defined/employed) should never be used to detain suspects for property crimes. During, or after a crime is committed.
I think you’re in the minority, regarding that view.
Nor do I understand if you’re proposing something “instead of” using force, other than not enforcing the law regarding property crimes.
Taking it a little further, why even have laws regarding property crimes, if there’s no recourse?
Most people don’t resist arrest. Most people don’t flee the police. When they do factors should be weighed on how to respond.
Not seeing evidence regarding that claim, but it’s irrelevant regarding the question asked.
Not seeing evidence regarding that claim, nor does it apply in this situation.
Is “fleeing” considered resisting arrest?
“Honest” question (repeated from earlier/above): What might the police do in situations like this, instead?
(I have yet to see you respond to that question, asked multiple times in different ways – and by more than one commenter.)
How about a straightforward response, instead of continuing to dance around the question?
In addition you are missing a rather obvious problem with your argument. What the officer did, use of the chokehold, is now banned by not only to Sacramento police but increasingly by more and more states Inc California and police departments across the country. In other words the officer today could not even do what he did two weeks ago. So now how do you deal with it?
I don’t have an “argument”. I asked a question, to which you don’t seem to want to respond.
A different issue, compared to the question I asked.
I don’t know – that’s why I asked you. But since it’s now apparently been banned, I assume that police (in general) will attempt to use different methods of “force” (that some will nevertheless object to). Perhaps they’ll be less-dangerous methods.
My prediction is that we are going to see most departments phase out use of force except where there is a real safety concern.
That could be.
What do you suppose that will mean regarding enforcement of laws in regard to property crimes?
In other words, will such crimes (essentially) be legalized?
Remember that most crimes are not caught in the act. If they end up having more people running from the police, they might end up increasing penalties for fleeing. Also remember most encounters are caught on video, so even fleeing may not lead to avoidance.
I don’t see how “penalties” can occur, without the possibility of “force” (enforcement) at some point.
Another commenter just chimed in above, stating that looting is a form of “protest”. (An interesting comment, don’t you think?)
“I don’t see how “penalties” can occur, without the possibility of “force” (enforcement) at some point.”
So you’ve never heard of police coming to arrest someone with a warrant after the crime has occurred and probable cause thorough identification gives them the name and location of the suspect? You’ve never heard of a summons? thse almost always are executed without force.
Of course I have.
Of course I have.
I don’t know if that’s true, but “force” is an underlying possibility, under current law.
What do you propose, if law enforcement cannot (ultimately) use force to ensure that others comply with the law? What motivation would a suspect have to comply?
What if they just say (e.g., when presented with a summons), “thanks, but I think I’ll pass”?
Maybe it’s because ‘there shouldn’t even be police’ in DG’s mind, so the question ‘does not compute’.
Sacramento’s cops have been out of hand since Stephon Clark’s murderers were given a free pass and returned to duty.
BTW, the proper name of this potentially deadly hold i a Rear Naked Choke hold. Several decades ago when I was taking self defense courses the instructor, a retired US Marine and Olympic judo competitor warned us that when properly applied 7-8 seconds made it a “sleeper hold” 9+ possible homicide.
Gerissa,
I fundamentally disagree. If that is true, do you consider shoplifting because you are too poor to afford what you want a form of “protest”?
Ron,
So, in the case of property crimes, you’re proposing that no force be used to detain suspects?
Not speaking for David, only for myself. I would propose an alternative. I value human life above property. Given that my recommendation would be. It seems the property was recoverable as in this case, I feel pursuit and capture, if it can be done safely is warranted. If capture cannot be accomplished without life-threatening force, then I believe the suspect should not be pursued at that time. If he can be identified by camera footage & captured safely later, good. If not, the police should simply chalk it up as an escaped suspect. For me, looted property is not never worth a life.
You’re describing various scenarios, here.
I’m asking a more fundamental question, based upon the article and some of the comments:
Should “force” (enforcement) be “off-the-table”, in regard to property crimes (during, or after a property crime is committed)? (I think that’s what some are advocating for, on here.)
How do you “capture” someone without force? (Assuming that they’re not cooperating.)
I think the normal answer is that it is unnecessary to “capture” a suspect.
The logic and possibilities are:
1. If you are a suspect and you don’t report yourself to the court, photos and videos of you get published everywhere in search of your identity. If you want privacy, go to the court yourself.
2. Once a case is open, if you don’t appear in court, you become guilty of the crime. If you want a fair trial, you should appear in court.
3. Once you are guilty, the government and all cooperative private establishments can blacklist you and serve as an agent of justice to collect your property. They could all happen at the same time. If you want to choose which piece of your property would pay for the damage, you pay up before they take action.
4. If you really have no properties to pay off your property crime, you continue to be blacklisted, and your debt grows with interests.
5. If you are a repeated offender, above certain total value or growth rate, you may become a wanted person. Any one can turn you in for a reward.
6. If you are captured, and there is no sign that you could repay your debt, you may choose to be executed or exiled. Incarceration is not an option. Incarceration just means that a private citizen offers to you to stay in their “prison” while they agree to pay off your debt. You don’t get to choose incarceration unless someone offers you that option.
No “police” is required to do any of the above.
Wrong… all points…
Everything you said is contrary to to Constitution, Federa/lState/Local laws and common sense…
And moral law… sounds Nazi…
Isn’t Point 1 already done?
When the police can’t identify a suspect, the police would post their photo or video online and ask people to identify them. Even if the police does not do so, people are doing that already. The people is free to share what they know and identify each other.
“Sounds Nazi”:
I don’t know about Nazi, but the Communist way is this:
If you commit a crime, your family will pay for you also. If the government wants you to be a slave, they tell you that if you refuse they will kill your family. As a result, you become a “voluntary” worker.
That’s not how it works and not what’s being suggested.
Hey – can one take steps to “build up” the reward (e.g., using the steps you outlined), and then turn oneself in? You did say “anyone”. 😉
Kind of puts a new perspective on it.
Nazi? What?
Yeah, my bad… but thought “ignorant/malicious/insane” wouldn’t pass the ‘filters’ and go into ‘moderation’… I apologize for my poor choice of words in the post you refer to…
Ron
I was not describing “various” scenarios. I was responding to the situation described. But I will go with it. I am not against “any force”. I am against life-threatening force when no one’s life or safety is at stake as in the case of purely property crime ( breaking windows, defacing property, looting). If no one’s life or safety is at stake, the police should not be creating a life or safety issue. They should not be putting their own life at risk and then claiming they “feared for their life”. They should not be using lethal force when there is no lethal threat. Is that more clear?
Yes – thanks. Not sure, but I believe that was “technically” already the law. That is, the police were never supposed to use more force than what was necessary.
However, I believe that they will also use “more” force than those resisting. Some people don’t seem to understand that, and/or don’t “accept” that. And, it can escalate.
You have one person on here who doesn’t think that looting should be against the law, in such circumstances. I would assume that this person (also) believes that police should not detain someone who is breaking a law that they don’t agree with. (Regardless of the method used.)
Lately, I’ve seen videos which show bystanders attempting to provoke the police during arrests. Unless someone’s life is unnecessarily in danger, this heightens tension and danger. Perhaps folks should consider that, before doing so.
Last night, I saw Trump make some comments regarding outlawing choke holds, in circumstances where an officer’s life is not in danger. (Something like that.) I found it interesting that the comment came from him.
In fact, even if the police are doing so, I have yet to see a situation in which provoking them (at that time) “lessens” the danger.
It was really sad to listen to the bystander attempting to point out that Floyd’s life was in danger, and was ignored. And yet, that person did so in a manner which seemed “appropriate” at the time.
Instead, the officer he was speaking to remained “focused” on the bystanders, instead. I suspect that they’re trained to do so, in such situations.
Again, a really sad thing to watch.
Long ago on another comment section, I frankly called David on his views of what he considered appropriate law enforcement actions for property crimes and for police protocol for apprehending suspects for crimes when the suspect is not immediately known to be a danger to others.
After some back and forth my determination was that David does not assess much (certainly much less than me) victim harm to most property crime, and thus does not support anything but passive policing and judicial response to most property crime.
This is not hard to reconcile with a general liberal progressive worldview. Liberal progressives have drifted more toward advocating for more socialism these days… frankly, more collectivism. The general view from this cohort is that income and wealth is too concentrated at the top and that we require more wealth distribution because, you know, things are not fair enough.
For anyone owning this belief, it would make sense that they would also see property crimes like looting and running away to duffel bags full of loot to be the type of suspected criminal activity that does not justify law enforcement pursuit leading to required physical compliance measures. Certainly life has not been fair to the looter… those he took from actually had the stuff to begin with… so we know they were better off.
I keep trying to wrap my head around the vision of a world where liberals take away your right to personal self-defense, they defund the cops and prevent the remaining law enforcement from pursuing or detaining suspects that loot and rob.
You think I am joking, but I fully expect some mob-based claim that door locks are racist… and it will be discussed as a serious topic on the campuses and our leftstream media.
I think we have been seeing that liberal utopia on the TV these last several days… and it is taking up permanent residence in Seattle. Doesn’t THAT look appealing and fair!?
Personally, I am open to modified police protocol, but people that steal other people’s stuff need to be chased, detained and busted. Frankly, if they don’t think that treatment is fair, then just stop stealing other people’s stuff.
Without touching everything you say here, even “poor” people have “stuff” (that I assume they don’t want damaged or stolen). As with “rich” people, I believe there’s also a propensity for violence if that occurs.
. . . and that’s not true with people of lesser means? Have you ever heard of a drive-by shooting in gang territory? Often over a drug deal gone wrong or perceived as such? Drugs are stuff y’know.
That was my point. “As with . . .” (As in, “not limited to”.)
Pardon, I misread your comment and though someone else wrote it. I hit “delete”, but the shot clock failed. So I’ll just say . . . NEVERMIND.
Why yes low-income people have stuff… and one can argue that the value of that stuff is much higher to the victim because of the greater difficulty to replace it. But then that is not fair that low-income people are more greatly impacted by the theft of their stuff than are businesses and higher-income people because, you know, that those “victims” have property insurance.
Celine Dion after Katrina:
I remember after Katrina people were called looters for breaking into a store to get bottles of drinking water. In such an emergency I understood that. I mean if your life depends on it your going to do what you are going to do.
I also understand that many people are poor and many are having a hard time with the economy shutting down but that is different. It is not life or death. I have no sympathy for that type of looting. I also have no sympathy for the property destruction of small businesses whose owners are simply trying to make a living. The argument that looting is protest is a non-starter for me. It is theft.
Still the cops shouldn’t be choking people out. They have plenty of other tools at the ready and too many people have died needlessly as the result. Looting is bad but killing looters is worse.
Ron
“I also understand that many people are poor and many are having a hard time with the economy shutting down but that is different. It is not life or death.”
I really wish that statement were true. However, at the current time, it may be life or death without those who have enough being aware of it. For someone who is stealing items to sell to provide food or medication for their family, it may literally be life or death, while what we see is someone stealing a TV.
Perhaps a little prevention, in terms of providing food, housing, medical care, and medications for our entire community, not just those who look and talk like us, would save us a lot of destruction in times of desperation for those at or near the economic bottom. But, oh my God, no, that is socialism!
Point out again – no one has addressed the fact that the move here permissible when it occurred, is now banned by Sac PD and Davis PD and by California and NY and increasingly other states and jurisdictions. Given that, it’s not a hypothetical, it’s a real question about how to effect an arrest where the public safety risk is low but the the suspect is resisting. I submit that police are no longer going to be able to use lethal or near lethal force (that doesn’t mean you can’t apprehend suspects in such cases).