Originally Posted by
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
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.