wheel

https://www.thedailyjournal.com/artic...EWS01/90128022

The songs which the cop had on are priceless.

**title might be off,

Panthers007

Drogo, huh? Isn't he named in the World Court in The Hague for war-crimes in Bosnia? What a swine. Got himself a female cyclist, after dark, on a dark road. I wonder how many are buried out there...

StrangeWill

Read current threads nub, or you'll end up like this cyclist.

Wanderer

Yep, she's gonna be a rich girl..... Typical "my dicks bigger than yours" police brutality."

These gestapo tactics happen far too often.

All three of them should be booted from the force, and replaced with cops with brains....

invisiblehand

Why not include the officer's statement too?

https://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/...=2009901290310

Anyway, hitting (punching? hard for me to tell) her in the head after two LEOs had her largely restrained is over the top, IMO. Everything up to that point is probably within reason.

Standalone 

"Sprayed himself with the Mace..."

Wanderer

And, he is already somewhere else. Millville will get stuck with the judgement against him.

Two wrongs do not make a right! Brutality was clearly not necessary.............

Like Blago, those three should not be allowed to be in law enforcement - they are a blight on the good name of good cops.

longbeachgary

the word chicken ***** comes to mind. At the very end the fool that sprayed himself punches her in the head as he walks by. Milville's bravest.

San Rensho 

No lawsuit here. She pled guilty to resisting and crack possession. Its going to be really hard to get a jury to give her money based on those facts.

Wanderer

Pleading guilty to one crime, does not excuse the crimes perpetrated on her.....

buzzman

you have a limited understanding of the law. her guilty plea has nothing to do with the abhorrent manner in which she was apprehended.

And cops that behave in that manner can hardly be trusted with regards the initial charges. One can imagine how much intimidation she might have received prior to her guilty plea. Here in Boston we had some cops shoot the wrong guy, when they figured it out they tossed an unregistered, unlicensed hand gun under his car. It was pretty much accepted by every one until the victim's wife approached a lawyer who was a former decorated Boston cop, who smelled a rat and successfully sued the city of Boston.

Any cop as stupid as these three could just as likely carry a small amount of cocaine for just such an occasion and with proper intimidation, a court appointed attorney and enough naivete on the part of the woman arrested she'll plead guilty just to get out of there.

The US has the best judicial system in the world but I think we kid ourselves when we turn our heads when it fails and, from what's obvious from this video, in this case- it did.

These cops deserve to be fired at the very least and the woman deserves to be reasonably compensated for such an assault done under the cover of "law enforcement."

San Rensho 

Uhmm, no, I have an all too good understanding of the law. Not to pull rank, but as a lawyer that practices civil litigation, much of it personal injury, I would not take this case.

Not because I don't believe she was wronged, but because of the practicalities of the case. As a lawyer, I have to convince a jury to give this woman money. Juries don't like to give crack heads and convicted felons money, sorry, but thats the reality of the legal system.

If the cops beat her so badly she was in a wheelchair or horribly disfigured, then yes, the outrageous behavior of the cops could win her sympathy and a jury might give her money. Yes, she got her neck stepped on and kicked in the face, but it would be hard to find a jury to give her money even based on those facts.

apricissimus 

Legal question here (IANAL):

Would her lawyer be able to prevent the jury from learning about her criminal record if he were able to convince the judge that it had nothing to do with the abuse she got from the officers?

San Rensho 

In Florida, conviction of a felony is always admissable to show character. Normally, the crime that the person committed is not admissable, but here, it would likely be admissable since the issue is the same in the criminal case as in the civil case, whether she was resisting arrest. Her pleading guilty is usually considered conclusive proof that she did resist arrest.

And even if the crack conviction does not come in, the cops could still testify that they found crack on her to prove that she was high and acting crazy and that they were justified in the use of force.

Felony conviction+crack possession=zero from the jury.

apricissimus 

Honestly not trying to be argumentative but...

Isn't it possible that even if someone resists arrest, the police can still go too far? It would seem to me with my untrained legal mind that a resisting arrest guilty plea would not automatically rule out abuse by the cops as well. In this specific case, I have a hard time seeing how hitting the woman in the head helps get her under control.

And is possession all the cops need to show that the woman was high at the time? It may even show that she didn't smoke crack. I mean, she still had it on her, didn't she? (Okay, that's a bit of a stretch I know, but it still disturbs me that mere possession can be used as evidence of intoxication.)

Maybe they can use her riding on the sidewalk as further evidence of her mental incapacity

apricissimus 

This thread needs uke, champion of sidewalk riders everywhere.

dwilbur3

Your arguments make sense, but I'd bet heavily he's still right: the jury is going to give the cop the benefit of the doubt. Your average American is going to be a lot more sympathetic to his situation than a convicted crackhead. And race is going to work in his favor too.

dwilbur3

And then Longfemur can come in and say that all sidewalk riders deserve what she got.

San Rensho 

And I'm not taking your thoughtful posts as argumentative.

You are right that she could bring a civil lawsuit and she would not get thrown out of court by the judge. It would go to a jury, but my point is I don't think a jury would give her anything.

I agree the cops went too far and their actions could amount to unlawful use of force, but the jury is going to balance their sympathy for the crack head with their sympathy for the cops.

In general, a jury's opinion of cops is very good, and you have to do a lot to show them as lying, violent scum and get the jury on your side. Defense counsel will always argue to the jury "Don't ruin the life of this fine public servant, who faces mortal danger every day protecting you and your family and keeping you safe, by bankrupting him with a huge verdict in favor of the crackhead."

And, in general, juries don't like convicted felon crack heads and you are going to have to make them really sympathetic before a jury gives them money. The only way a jury is sympathetic is if the cops really f@cked her up for no reason, which is not the case here since she admitts to resisting arrest and she really didn't suffer horrible injuries as a result of the incident.

buzzman

I'll defer to your rank and amend my statement to "you have an understanding of the realities of our legal system."

However, as I am sure you are aware the practicalities of the case do not equate with what is actually "the law" nor fairness. The fact that most juries will have a bias and judge the facts based on race and prior convictions and will more than likely decide in favor of the officer does not preclude the fact that a wrong was committed and the law broken by the officers in question.

If you are as aware of the practicalities of law enforcement as you are about the court/legal system I'm sure you can guess that the cop targeted this woman and chose to stop her for the "sidewalk riding" offense as an excuse to do a stop and search. It could be the cop is familiar with this particular woman or they are strictly enforcing laws in order to keep that particular area (the arts district) free of crackheads, homeless and other "undesirables". Had this woman turned out to be an actor leaving a show, a playwright or a visual artist leaving a gallery opening her work you can bet the jury would side more heavily in the cyclist's favor even if she had a small amount of cocaine or marijuana on her person particularly if the jury got the impression he stopped her based on racial profiling.

The law is designed so as to separate certain circumstances from pertinent evidence but certainly how a jury interprets the facts and how well the attorneys present can make the difference.

While you may not take a case like this I'm sure there are plenty of attorneys who would ( thank goodness).

I'll be curious to see which way it goes.

EnigManiac

There is already an active thread on this story: https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/506556-riding-sidewalk-deserves-beating.html

StrangeWill

Which just shows: Be an idiot and take taxpayers money, awesome.

CB HI

How do many locations get their names for jury pools - from tax filers. So if your a taxpayer on a civil case jury, how much of your tax money do you want to give to a crack head breaking several laws in your community.

In this case, with no permanent damage, and the medical bills already taken care of by the city in conjunction with the arrest; I would find in favor of the crack head and give her an award of $100 to cover her pain and suffering.

CommuterRun

I agree with San Rensho. As a member of the public, if I served on a jury for this case I would be inclined to give her nothing. Taking into account that she has chosen to be a criminal, a crack-head with prior convictions. Now if she suffered permanent injury and/or disfigurement I may be inclined to award her some paltry amount. But why give her anything when it's known that she's just going to blow it on more drugs?

buzzman

when serving on a jury our responsibility is to uphold the law not express our approval or disapproval of particular lifestyles or use our participation in the jury as the means by which we can push our own particular agenda or personal opinions or biases.

Were this to go to a jury trial the police officer (s) would be on trial not the cyclist. We are all (yes, even crackheads with prior convictions!) protected by inalienable constitutional rights (in this case at least the 4th and 14th amendment would apply).

The kind of justice many seem to be advocating in this case can be seen in places like Saudi Arabia and Somalia where a group of people standing around a "criminal" and stoning them is an acceptable form of punishment.

In this case how "reasonable" the search and seizure was still hangs out there for me- but since she pleaded guilty that becomes a moot point but there's little question in my mind excessive and unreasonable force was used in the arrest of this woman and that and only that is the crime a jury would be asked to weigh.