Did Johnathan Deserve To Die?

[VXIII]

On Jan. 17, Ted Rose called the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department for help with his mentally ill son. By the end of the night, his son was dead at the hands of a deputy.

Nearly three months after the fatal shooting of 24-year-old Johnathan Rose, his family is speaking out about what they witnessed that night and raising questions about the actions of the deputy who ultimately shot Johnathan.

"Our whole life has been turned upside down," said Johnathan's mother, Dee Rose. "It's like a nightmare you can't wake up from."

Some details of the encounter are not disputed by Rose's family or the Sheriff's Department, such as the fact that Johnathan and the deputy were in a violent struggle just before the shooting.

However, sheriff's officials say there are "inconsistencies" between the account given this week by Ted Rose, who witnessed the entire encounter, and the recorded statement he gave detectives the night of the shooting. And Sheriff Scott Jones said he believes the shooting was justifiable, albeit tragic.

"I think the shooting was within law, within policy and certainly the decisions (the deputy) made that night were within his discretion," Jones said Thursday.

According to his family, symptoms of Johnathan's severe mental health challenges began showing up when he was about 14 years old. He was diagnosed with social anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders, and his fear of crowds kept him mostly at home or in the car, his family told The Bee in an emotional interview at the offices of their attorney, Moseley Collins.

His family described Johnathan as sweet, loyal and gentle. But on a few occasions he had shown physical aggression, they said.

Twice while living in Placer County, the family had called 911 for help with Johnathan. The interactions with law enforcement were positive, the family said, once landing him in a mental health facility. The other time, officers defused the situation and left, the family said.

Last fall, for financial reasons, the family moved from Roseville to North Highlands, which meant Johnathan's mental health services transferred to Sacramento County.

Deputy started violence, father says.

The day of the shooting, Johnathan arrived home upset and agitated after several grueling hours of mental health assessment, Ted Rose said.

There was little food in the house, and the family's financial stress was palpable, said Ted Rose, a 50-year-old pastor, who no longer works full-time because of medical issues.

After Johnathan threw a bag of fast food against the wall, his father decided to call 911, worried the behavior would escalate. That was the only physical act of violence by his son, Ted Rose insisted to The Bee.

He told dispatchers his son was "5150" and he was not sure if his son had taken his medications.

According to sheriff's homicide detectives who investigated the shooting, deputies were informed via in-car computers that Johnathan was "being violent," had "shoved" the caller – Ted Rose – and was "throwing stuff."

About 45 minutes later, Deputy David McEntire arrived. By then, Ted Rose said, his son had taken medication and gone to bed.

Ted Rose alleges that at the door, the deputy "barged" past him and yelled at his son to wake up and get out of bed. Johnathan did so, turning toward the wall with his hands behind his back to be arrested, Ted Rose said.

When the deputy ordered Johnathan to the ground, Ted Rose said his son, a severe germophobe, tried but again stood and faced the wall with his hands behind his back.

According to Ted Rose, the deputy tackled Johnathan, pushing him into the wall. When Johnathan tried to stand, the deputy hit him in the head with his flashlight, knocking him to the bed.

That's when Johnathan began to fight back, his father said. Ted Rose said he tried to intervene but the deputy shot Johnathan.

Hearing gunshots, Dee Rose and the couple's 27-year-old son, Ted, ran into the room. All three allege that when the elder Ted Rose hysterically asked the deputy why he shot Johnathan, the deputy looked "shocked" and said "I don't know."

Homicide Detective Brian Meux said backup officers found McEntire's nose bleeding, his glasses knocked off, his radio microphone displaced from his shoulder and his uniform shirt ripped open.

Meux said McEntire is "not a small person" and that his injuries "indicated to us this was a pretty violent encounter."

Detective Rob Tracy said he interviewed Ted Rose at the hospital that night and that "parts of his statement to you are different than information given to me that night."

He declined to elaborate, saying he felt it was "inappropriate." Other sheriff's officials said others, including attorneys, would have to sort out and interpret the discrepancies.

Detectives did say, however, the initial recorded statements by Ted Rose and McEntire were fairly consistent.

Tracy noted that detectives conduct interviews as quickly as possible after such incidents "to try to capture recollections when they are freshest in a person's mind."

As is standard in any officer-involved shooting, the incident was reviewed by homicide detectives to determine McEntire's criminal liability and by internal affairs to determine whether he violated any department policies.

Those reviews are still in progress, but Jones, who was recently briefed on the case, said he has no information yet to suggest any wrongdoing.

Johnathan's family and their attorney have raised questions about why a deputy would respond to a "5150" call by himself, without backup. Jones said there were "a lot of very valid reasons" McEntire might have felt that was safe, including the amount of time that lapsed since the 911 call and the lack of followup calls in that time.

"Would (having backup) have changed the outcome? I don't know," Jones said, "but certainly that's something that could have kept the officer out of harm's way and mitigated the sense he felt (that he needed to shoot)."

Jones said he has no plans to issue any mandates in response to the incident, but said it is an opportunity to "figure out how we can do things better, … more safely."

He also said he has sympathy for the family and for the deputy, who "knows he took a son from the family as well."

"You have victims on both sides here," he said. "I feel terrible … because Johnathan is not a bad guy. He's a guy with (mental illness)."

The Rose family say they are preparing to file a complaint against the county and, if necessary, a wrongful death suit.

Collins, their attorney, cites the incident as an example of why District Attorney Jan Scully's office should continue to investigate officer-involved shootings.

Scully announced last summer that because of budget cuts, her office wouldconduct such reviews only when asked by an agency concerned about controversial circumstances.

Ted Rose said he feels his son was wronged – by the deputy and by sheriff's officials who have portrayed Johnathan as the aggressor.

"We owe it to the honor and dignity and memory of his name to get the story out," he said. "He wasn't a perfect boy, but he didn't deserve (this)."

Father demonstrating how Johnathan was standing passively against wall.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/08/439...tys-fatal.html

[Chinchillazilla]

Poor guy sounds similar to me in many ways. I would definitely try to cooperate with cops if I were ever in a position like this, but I have a thing about being touched. Sometimes I freak out. I don't get violent, exactly (I wouldn't call it that anyway), but I do struggle involuntarily sometimes. I imagine it would be worse if I were handcuffed or feeling threatened by the size of a cop.

I obviously don't know all the facts, but I feel that Johnathan should be alive. This is kind of a "There but for the grace of God" situation for me. :(

[VXIII]

Personal space is different for everyone, what really got me thinking is the detectives comment about he feels really bad because Johnathan wasnt a bad guy, I guess it is OK to shoot as long as your shooting a "bad" guy, I wonder where those lines are drawn at, I would have like to have thought a "bad" guy would be someone with a weapon or threatening, makes me wonder if a "bad" guy is anyone accused of a crime and in that case its just fine if you shoot him. Ill make sure I dont drive too fast going through Sacramento.

[VXIII]

A Sacramento, California area family is mourning the death of their mentally disabled son, who was shot to death by a sheriff’s deputy after the family had called the sheriff’s department for help in restraining him. Newspaper accounts suggest the deputy ordered the young man—a severe germophobe—onto the ground, which sparked intense struggling. After a tussle, the deputy shot the man in front of his family.

As is typical, the sheriff defended the officer and said that he was well within his rights to use deadly force, which is no doubt true given that current law gives officers wide latitude to restrain and even kill people.

Comb through newspapers across the country and one will find many incidents of officer-involved shootings and aggressive behavior by the authorities, who, as an aside, increasingly look like paramilitary rather than community officers. Police say society has become more dangerous, but crime rates are falling even during tough economic times. The number of officers killed on duty is at record lows.

In my view, the reason for the incidents is the nature of policing has changed. Following the 9/11 attacks, officers have convinced themselves that every member of the public is a potential threat. Every local police department is awash in grants from “Homeland Security” to buy the latest toys and weaponry. Attitudes have changed and the local police aren’t your friends any more.

From a practical standpoint, these incidents remind us to think carefully before calling for police help. From a policy perspective, it’s time for a wide-ranging debate about use-of-force issues that’s not dominated by police unions and their political courtiers.

This is from the Los Angeles Daily News this week: “Abdul Arian, the 19-year-old Winnetka man killed in a hail of police bullets on April 11, was buried Tuesday at the Pierce Brothers Valhalla Memorial Park in North Hollywood. … [M]any attendees who knew Arian expressed anger about the way he died, following a car chase through the San Fernando Valley that ended on the 101 Freeway ... .”

I’ve written about such shootings at the hands of deputies and police officers. Sometimes they are justified, but often the killings leave me wondering whether those officers would have reacted as they did had it been their child driving the car or their mentally ill son squirming on the ground.

Many people have been outraged at the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida and liberal critics have blamed those “stand your ground” laws that allow the use of deadly force by ordinary citizens when they are under attack rather than forcing them to retreat before defending themselves.

Such laws might embolden people, but I wish these critics—who insist on putting a racial tilt on a matter that has far broader implications—would also look closely at government-sanctioned use of force. If “stand your ground” laws embolden armed citizens, what happens when armed officials are given the broadest legal latitude to kill and also are protected by their departments and their unions?

Police officers sometimes have to use deadly force. We all understand that. It’s an oftentimes tough job. But we keep seeing the fruits of America’s slide down that slippery slope toward a police state: 6-year-olds searched at airports, armed police patrolling the halls of junior high schools, drones deployed over U.S. skies to crack down on crime, SWAT teams arresting the sellers of unlicensed raw milk, armed agents shutting down peaceful medical marijuana clinics, code officers and other regulatory agents granted the powers and weaponry of peace officers, trigger-happy police who seem to reach for their weapons before trying other, less-deadly alternatives.

We’ve become a society of checkpoints and searches and increased surveillance wherever we go. We have federal officials who monitor bank accounts and gain added powers to snoop on us, broad anti-terrorism laws that allow the authorities to detain citizens indefinitely without due process. Many conservatives applaud these expansions of power because of their concern about terrorist threats and street crime. Liberals applaud them also, given how eager they are to use government to “improve” our society. The more laws and regulations one passes, the more authorities one needs to enforce them.

Whatever happened to civil libertarians, who must be in hiding somewhere? Why aren’t Christians—who are more than willing to flex their political muscle on gay marriage and other issues—talking about the impact of these policies on the least among us, or thinking seriously about those in jails and prisons?

We’re creating a brutal and inhumane society. This is from a recent Los Angeles Times article: “A Los Angeles County commission investigating jail abuse heard tearful testimony … from clergy and civilian monitors who worked in the lockups and said they witnessed deputies assaulting inmates and bullying witnesses to keep quiet. One jail monitor broke down as she recounted being intimidated by a deputy whom she said saw beat an unconscious inmate. A weeping jail chaplain described deputies calling him a rat after he reported another beating.”

When officials misbehave so egregiously, it undermines our society and our form of government in deep and disturbing ways.

Ultimately, it is up to we, the people, to push the pendulum back in a more sensible direction. Since 9/11, Americans have placed their security over their freedom, but I’m sensing an understanding of the problem among serious people from all political perspectives.

When Americans think about public employee issues these days, they think about the pension crisis. But as serious a problem as that is, the biggest public-employee issue relates more directly to who we are as a people and what kind of society we want to live in. We need to demand that the authorities behave more like members of our community and less like an invading army.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/2...a-police-state

[Rydo Larsson]

i know they do it diferent in the us but the fact he has mental health issues and he had calmed down and went to bed was there any need for the officer going into wake him up and asking him to get on the ground and whatever ?

[VAS1326]

i know they do it diferent in the us but the fact he has mental health issues and he had calmed down and went to bed was there any need for the officer going into wake him up and asking him to get on the ground and whatever ?

No the officer had no business going in the house if the home owners told them the situation was resolved. If he wanted to speak to the man he should have asked the parents to wake him up and have him come out to the living room.

I think even if he was fighting the use of a deadly weapon was inappropriate. First I'm sure he was informed the man had mental issues. Second; I'm assuming he had other gadgets to get him to stop struggling (taser for example) once the fight ensued. I agree with the family why did he go in alone? The call he responded to was a man showing violent behavior. He should have known the risk of entering a potentially violent situation and waited for back up.

I would like to know what statements the father made to the investigators right after the shooting. They are saying he changed his story but won't say how or what exactly he said. I would like to know if the father told a completely different story the night of and now is changing it to make it look worse than it already does for his lawsuit or is he telling the truth and the police don't want to admit it.