on the ground right now I have to go to Jerusalem I'm a prophet guys I'm a prophet people I'm a prophet people please I gotta go to Jerusalem get on the ground drop the knife k*ll me I tried once it didn't work k*ll me don't be scared of me I'm a cop bro police officer so it's a little bit different what am I doing wrong officer we got a call for that um I might uh using it it's a it's no blood it's a treasure it's a it's a you can look at it it's not a weapon sir so I can look at it it's not a weapon sir it's not a weapon it's not a weapon sir it's not a weapon it's not a weapon it's clean it's clean but it scares it's clean I'm not holding it or anything I'm not I I I know we are allowed to open open carry not in the airport I'm not on the airplane sir not in the airport on July 8th, 2024 Cleveland Division of police responded to a suspicious person call at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport what followed raises three distinct legal questions the lawfulness of the weapon the adequacy of the seizure and the reasonableness of force applied to a person in mental health crisis the first question is whether the subject's knife was lawful at this location Ohio generally permits open carry of knives with no statutory blade length restriction however Ohio Revised Code Section 29 23 1 22 prohibits deadly weapons within airport facilities the statute's reach turns on location the public landside terminal before TSA screening checkpoints occupies a legal gray zone that state courts have not definitively resolved officers on scene were not required to resolve that ambiguity before acting a visible weapon combined with noncompliance satisfied the threshold for an investigative detention under Terry versus Ohio okay excuse me excuse me what excuse me you got another knife on you excuse me John turn around excuse me turn around excuse me watch out watch out you watch out watch out watch out watch out watch out get on the ground on the ground right now get on the ground get out of the ground get on the ground get out of the ground watch out watch out go I'm being peaceful I'm being peaceful I'm being peaceful I'm being peaceful no you're not I'm being peaceful no you're not I'm warning you it's an emergency get on the ground on the ground right now I have to go to Jerusalem I'm a prophet guys get on the ground I'm a prophet people I'm a prophet people please I gotta go to Jerusalem get on the ground I have to go to the on the ground on the ground on the ground I have to go to the on the ground stop it on the ground do not reach for anything I don't have a weapon sir do not reach for anything on the ground on the ground do not reach get them down do not reach get them guns down on the floor do not reach get them guns down on the floor on your face I'm gonna get up turn around turn around put them down now turn around put put him down turn around put him down turn around I got my hands behind my back so put him down turn around you turn around there's an emergency overseas and I need to go there now turn around please just turn around that's it I love you bro please tell him bro I gotta go overseas I don't wanna go to school trouble dude please bro I don't wanna go to school trouble bro drop it I gotta go overseas bro I'm gonna go overseas please do not let them let me go with you on that plane please I gotta go do not drop the knife sir one more time drop the knife drop the knife k*ll me I tried once it didn't work k*ll me the second question concerns the constitutionality of the seizure itself under Terry versus Ohio 392 United States 1 1968 an investigative stop requires reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot that standard was met at initial contact a dispatch call plus a visible knife in a restricted facility established the legal predicate for the stop once officers issued ground commands and drew weapons the encounter converted from a Terry stop to a full Fourth Amendment seizure requiring either probable cause or exigent circumstances the subject's refusal to drop the weapon his erratic behavior and his expressed suicidal ideation stating quote k*ll me and I tried once it didn't work provided the exigent circumstances necessary to justify the escalation the third and most significant question is whether the force applied met the constitutional standard of objective reasonableness under Graham versus Conner 490 United States 3 86 1989 Graham instructs courts to weigh three factors the severity of the crime at issue whether the subject posed an immediate threat and whether the subject was actively resisting or evading all three factors were present in varying degrees a potential weapons violation a knife in close quarters and sustained non compliance across more than three minutes of active commands drop it stop it please drop it stop it drop it that drop it get him stop it please stop it get the f*ck out get the f*ck out get the f*ck out son of a b*tch get him Brody no get him bro no I got it I got one I'm not resisted grab your other hand I'm not resisted I'm not resisted however Graham also requires that force be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene not an officer trained only in compliance enforcement but one trained to recognize a mental health crisis the subject's statements were not indicators of aggression grandiose religious delusions a stated mission to travel to Jerusalem and explicit suicidal ideation are clinical markers of acute psychiatric distress federal courts have recognized this distinction in Voss versus city of Newport Beach 892 Federal Third 1024 The Ninth Circuit held that when officers have time and safety permit de escalation obligations are heightened in mental health encounters while the 6th Circuit which governs Ohio has not adopted as expansive a rule the principle is codified in Cleveland Division of Police Policy and in the International Association of Chiefs of police model framework from initial contact to the First Ground Command approximately 45 seconds elapsed no crisis intervention team officer was audibly requested no attempt to establish rapport a name and acknowledgement of distress is captured in the record that gap matters legally in champion versus outlook Nashville 380 Federal 3rd 8 93 6th Circuit 2004 the court held that continued force after a subject is no longer actively threatening may itself constitute a Fourth Amendment violation officers here did not cross that threshold the subject remained armed and non compliant until physical restraint was achieved but the speed of escalation absent documented de escalation effort is a point of legitimate constitutional scrutiny the subject's post restraint statements that he was not resisting that he loved the officers that he was himself a police officer are not legally determinative of the force question but they are relevant to the civil liability analysis under 42 United States Code section 1983 a plaintiff may bring a civil rights claim for use of excessive force qualified immunity would shield officers only if the constitutional right violated was not clearly established at the time of the conduct given the volume of six circuit president on mental health crisis encounters and the explicit suicidal statements made before force was applied a qualified immunity defense in this case would face meaningful challenge Ohio Revised Code Section 51 22.10 authorizes officers to transport a person to a hospital for emergency evaluation when that person appears mentally ill and represents a danger to themselves or others both criteria were met before physical force became necessary the failure to initiate that process earlier in the encounter is the central institutional question this footage raises they're trying to change me into a dog they're trying to change me into a dog they're trying to change me into a dog I gotta go to sleep it's more serious than you know OK it's more serious just be quiet just be quiet for a minute all right hush I love you guys bro I love you guys I'm not here to hurt you bro don't be scared of me I'm a cop bro I'm not here to hurt you bro this wasn't improvised let's examine what the law authorizes and what it doesn't the responding officers receive a grade of B minus the initial stop was constitutionally sound the decision not to deploy lethal force against an armed non compliant subject reflects professional restraint that must be acknowledged the deduction stems from the pace of escalation and the absence of documented crisis intervention protocol which fell short of both department policy and the heightened standard applicable when mental health indicators are present the subject receives a grade of C+ his actions carrying a weapon at an airport facility and refusing lawful commands created the legal predicate for the entire encounter the grade reflects those facts under Ohio law without assignment of moral culpability given the manifest evidence of acute psychiatric distress The Cleveland Division of police receives a grade of C at the institutional level the outcome no lethal force is a significant positive however the absence of a mental health response protocol for a 4:28 in the morning airport call reflects a systemic gap that this footage makes visible three lessons emerge from this encounter for law enforcement practice and legal analysis first suicidal ideation changes the force calculus when a subject states an explicit desire to die the tactical and legal framework shifts from threat suppression to crisis containment time spent on verbal engagement is not time wasted it is constitutional compliance second location matters in weapons law officers should be trained to distinguish between restricted and unrestricted zones within airport facilities under Ohio Revised Code section 29 23 1 22 a confident assertion of law that is factually uncertain undermines the legal foundation of any subsequent arrest third civil liability follows procedural gaps the absence of documented de escalation effort and CIT activation does not automatically establish liability but it removes the institutional evidence that would support a defense documentation is not a bureaucratic formality it is legal Protection let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more content on police court interactions