OK OK, we jab a lot, but now I've got a REAL question for you.

I'm at home, enjoying my time off from work for a while, and my best bud from work calls me and says he's on the way to the hospital, following the ambulance that has his prisoner in it. About an hour prior, he got out with 3 adult males fighting in the middle of the street. All 3 males then approached Brendall (cop) and they all began fighting. Brendall is 6'6", 300 lbs and a former college football player (offensive line). He's a strong mofo and was able to escape relatively unharmed.

Anyways, as he was placing handcuffs on the first guy, the guy resisted and began to pull away. Brendall kept telling the guy to stop, but the guy kept resisting. Not sure the exact physics of everything, but Brendall ended up taking the guy to the ground and now Suspect #1 has a broken foot. Suspects #2 and #3 continued to fight EACH OTHER while Brendall was dealing with #1. Apparently they heard the crunch of #1's ankle and peacefully surrendered to Brendall.

He's unhurt and extremely jacked up right now, but now he's afraid of a lawsuit for excessive force, since the guy's foot/ankle is broken.

Anything to that? Or since the guy resisted a lawful arrest (he was being arrested for public disorderly conduct and it was later found out he had a couple warrants) does it even matter?

We're told, by state law, that we can use that amount of force "reasonable and necessary" to effect an arrest. Well.... Brendall wasn't trying to effect the arrest by breaking the guy's foot, that's a by-product of the struggle from him resisting.

I told Brendall he didn't have anything to worry about, but he's only been here 6 months and this is his first real fight.... amazingly, no one wants to fight him 'cause of his size.

Anyways, appreciate the input!!!

azzhat 😛

'..he's on the way to the hospital, following the ambulance ..'

------------------------------------

That's what lawyer do. Calling on Pacman is the right movbe here.

^LMAO

Can't wait to get Pac's take on this.

Quick update.....

Nothing is broken in Stupid's foot, but all 5 main bones that make up your toes are dislocated. Apparently some minor surgery is also required to fix this.

Hope everybody's skin color was th same, or Al Sharpton will be in town by Midnight.

^ 1 of the 4 people involved was not of Al Sharpton's color.

(crossing fingers that Brendal is Black and Mister Mangled Hook-Toe is White).

^ Negative, Ghost Rider.

Umm Brendall was on duty at the time the fight took place right?

I mean this wasn't a bar fight he participated in that lead out to the street was it?

LOL, yeah he was on duty.

MY toes are dislocated? How TF he'd do that from SC?

Seriously, just spotted this for the first time, and unfortunately, I can't give you a concise answer. Not without pissing off the attorneys in your state.

OK, no really seriously, the answer will depend on just what happened and what the laws of your state are. Plus there is at least the possibility of federal claims, such as violation of civil rights. I have only the faintest understanding of the latter, so I couldn't tell you whether there is anything to the hash out in federal court or not. Some times it's just a matter of strategy, such as whether one court tends to be a hostile place to litigate such matters while the other is pretty decent.

As for possible state claims, I'd have to do hours of research on SC law to begin to be able to opine on the likelihood of success for a lawsuit. Generally if it's an accident and the LEO in question was using reasonable force and was also taking reasonable care (i.e. not acting negligently), I'd think he/she would be in the clear. However, SC may have specific laws or appellate decisions addressing that as well as what kind of immunity (usually limited) LEOs have in performing their duties. Furthermore, there would seem to be a significant issue of contributory negligence on behalf of the suspect, which could potentially reduce or even wipe out any award (again, this would depend on SC law...some places rely on a percentage calculation for contributory negligence, while others--at least in some instances--utilize a rule that any contributory negligence negates a claim...or at least a few did last I looked into the subject).

Additionally, going back to the facts...there is a reason you guys write reports. It's so the rest of us have an idea of what the hell happened. Until I saw statements from the three perps and your colleague, I really couldn't assess what likely transpired. And as you know, any kind of physical scuffle or alleged assaultive behavior usually happens in a short span of time, with eyewitnesses giving stories that vary anywhere from a tiny bit to miles apart.

Yet all of that still boils down to whether the guy or an attorney with whom he consults can extract any money from the county, state, whomever.

I had a client years ago that tried to sue me basically to try to extort a settlement. He had already sued other parties, got $500 (or so I've been told) from the county just to shut up and go away, and he tried to sue me and 2-3 other attorneys. He completely fabricated his claims (some of which were clearly refuted by the record), screwed up service on me three ways (served it by mail, after the court denied him permission...to a PO Box...at my place of work). The 3 year statute of limitations had expired over 3 years before...in fact, it was closer to seven years after the trial. Plus, he filed it in a different county and then missed deadline after deadline set out by court rules for certain documents and hearings.

I had to spend hours of my own time, burn vacation time, spend a bunch of my own money, etc. to defend myself. Insurance wouldn't cover it because it was way past the statute of limitations. Not that I'd want to make a claim anyway, as that would have screwed my rates.

We finally made a motion (the attorneys representing the other parties with me there pro se) to dismiss the week before the scheduled trial date. The judge came out into court, addressed the lack of proper service, then wondered aloud whether she could even dismiss it since it had never been served properly.

It was all I could do to keep from rushing the bench to smack her.

So...did you buddy do anything to expose himself to actual grounds for a suit? I'd need more facts and a better understanding of the applicable law to know. Would having a feeble case prevent the perp from suing? I'm sorry, you must be new to America, right?

There...now hopefully I've kept you off the streets and out of trouble for five minutes. Go warm your butt.

Seriously?

Pac has posted all around this thread, but still hasn't hit this one?

Actually, he's probably on the phone with Jesse and Al.... WONDERTWIN POWERS UNITE!

Wow.... just wow..... haven't read your post yet.... but THAT was freaky!

That's why I leave you guys crying and quivering on the witness stand. You never see me coming.

:)P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's my general understanding that, as far as the state courts are concerned, if a suspect gets injured during an attempt to resist an arrest, 98.2% of the time it's his/her own damn fault for resisting.

I've had a half dozen or more resisting cases, and most involved the suspect being injured during the fight (I don't f*ck around). I've yet to be sued. Ever single one of them has pled before trial and I've never had to testify. But, like you said, we write reports. I'm very specific, and at times verbose, with my reports. I don't like to leave any doubt as to what happened and I can articulate my words well.

My worry with Brendall is not that he violated rights or used excessive force. My worry is that report-writing is probably his weakest skill and I'm afraid he won't specifically articulate exactly what lead to the resistance and ultimately, the injury. You know as well as I do that a lawsuit may come 2 or 3 years from now..... and with a vague report, it gets REAL hard to try and defend yourself when something happened that long ago.

I don't think anything is going to happen. Especially because Brendall LITERALLY just called and said he wasn't going to even charge the guy with resisting. I got mad at him, but it's his call. Supervisors agreed with it, so whatever.

Thanks!

14. Author: pacman357 Date: 12/30/2008 10:35 PM Reply

blah blah blah blah blah. You never see me coming.

wait for it............

That's what SHE said!!!

I've seen so many reports written by so many LEOs in 20+ years that obviously they run the gamut from really detailed and articulate to minimal and filled with spelling and grammatical errors. I realize that there are some things that some LEOs do well and others don't. For that matter, same goes for private investigators (I used to work with one, an old school Harley guy, who hated drawing diagrams and sucked at it but who, despite looking like an old-fashioned badass, was quite adept at interviewing kids).

However, isn't there someone who can sit Brendall down and work with him on writing reports? Hell, it might even lead to fewer trials. For example, I've had many times where talking with a LEO before trial, reading a report from an investigator who did, or even on cross during trial, found out there was more to the story than appeared in the report. While that does some times present a serious opportunity for defense counsel to make a big deal about it (especially if they know what they are doing), more often than not, I find myself asking silently "well, why the hell didn't you say so?".

I prosecuted for a small city for about six months, under contract. The city attorney's office and horrible work attitude from staff drove me away, but working with the city cops was actually the best part of the job. A couple good ones I already knew took me aside and said what they like and dislike in dealing with prosecutors...it was basically communication. Tell us why you're reducing or dismissing a case so we can do a better job next time. That sort of thing.

There were a few times I thought I'd have to cut a deal or dump a case, but asked the cop if there was more information, or asked a specific question where I thought there was a gap in information. Then I'd find out I still had a viable case and could pursue it. I'd make a point of letting the officer know why that was important, and suggest a way to better address that in the report.

I have to wonder if there isn't a supervisor or prosecutor that could help Brendall. May save his badge some day.

I don't want to get into talking about our supervisor..... bad things might become of me!

I've talked him through it on the phone, he should be OK.

He should have used the tazer on bachelor #1, the nightstick on #2, and winked at #3 with the Rem 870.

Then, old Brendall wouldn't have to have played footsie with the dude.

^ Ya know, we talked about that. With 3 guys coming at him, I personally think he would have been justified using a lot more force than just breaking a foot.