excessive force of arrest

[BPatheal]

a friend was stop by the police when he made a turn near where the scene of the crime at that moment. my friend was reaching for his identification and suddenly the police thought he was reaching for a gun, by then there were several police officers sorrounding him. he was told to step out, was frisk that moment. with this incident he had a cut on his head, scratch on his check, leg and elbow he was taken to the hospital for the head injury. my friend had no intention of running away, he was taken to the police station for more questioning, he ask for an attorney but the officers basically told him that he is not cooperating with them. my friend spend the night in jail with 5 charges mentioned to him then later was drop and he was release. I took some picture of him after he was release.
could he file a civil rights suit against the
city for the brutallity?

[whipsnake]

when pulled over by thev police, you keep your hands in plain sight until you are told what to do.( especially at night.) any thing else can be interpretted as an overt action, and the police will use any means needed to secure and control the area in the intrest of personal safety.

[qadaq]

You've said he was surrounded by several officers. Were his hands in plain sight to the officers? For example, was there an officer to this right rear that would have seen his hand approaching his wallet? Did he reach fast or slowly? If his hands never left the sight of one of the officers and it was a leisurely movement I'd talk to an attorney, especially if they'd already asked for ID. By the way, they're right. He wasn't cooperating, as he shouldn't in my opinion.

[JETX]

'qadaq', you never cease to amaze me!!!

You say, "was there an officer to this right rear that would have seen his hand approaching his wallet?"

If there was, he would have had to be on the floorboard in the back seat!!! If you had read the original post, you would have realized that the person WAS STILL IN HIS CAR!!!!

You say, "Did he reach fast or slowly?"
For someone who claims his 'Dad' was a LEO, 'that' is a mighty dumb question. I assume that no one had a stopwatch going to time the 'speed of his movement' and he will obviously say, "I w-a-s m-o-v-i-n-g r-e-a-l s-l-o-w" and the officer (the only opinion that counts) will say, "hewasmovingreallyreallyfast!".

Finally, you say, " If his hands never left the sight of one of the officers and it was a leisurely movement..."
You have OBVIOUSLY never been at a 'crime scene' late at night, adrenalin already pumping, when you see what looks like a suspicious car/action nearby and have to respond IMMEDIATELY without any knowledge of whether this person(s) are involved or not. You ALWAYS assume the worst WITH CAUTION, then once the scene is under control, determine what the facts might be. And a 'suspect' who is belligerent, uncommunicative, or even battling, is NOT going to get the benefit of ANY doubt.

[qadaq]

You're right. I missed it. The guy was still in his car, although the guy could have seen the hand going for the back pocket through the passenger's side window depending on the car. Given that the speed of the movement was immaterial. He was apparently in the process of doing what he was told when he was injured, unless you wish to argue that the cop belted him through the window before asking him to get out of the car. That sounds even more like excessive force.

[JETX]

'Qadaq', one thing you seem to keep overlooking in these posts... we very seldom hear the full story.

You say, "unless you wish to argue that the cop belted him through the window before asking him to get out of the car." NOTHING in this post, or any follow-up's indicates that anyone was 'belted' or even beaten up. The post DOES say, "he had a cut on his head, scratch on his check, leg and elbow he was taken to the hospital for the head injury."

We don't know (but the statement seems to imply) that a 'scuffle' ensued in the process of trying to subdue or control the suspect. A telling statement is included in the original post, "he had no INTENTION of running away" which leads one to believe that he DID run away. And if so, those 'injuries' are well within the scope of a flying tackle!!

IF the 'suspect' had (1) kept his hands in the clear, (2) NOT argued or been confrontational, and (3) done what he was ordered to do, I have to assume that NONE of this would have occurred. And, then later, after the situation had 'died down', charges were NOT filed and the only one hurt had a few scratches which he may very well have 'earned' anyway.

[qadaq]

I would prefer to respond to the facts as given than make rash assumptions concerning what isn't said. If a poster is lying to us then the advice we give based on what they told us is worthless to them and they gain nothing for lying. If we guess at what the situation "really" is then give advice based on that when the poster is actually being completely honest with us then our information is worthless and they gain nothing even if they're telling the truth.

This is not a lawyer client relationship here. You'll not be held accountable for what you say. Simply answer the question they ask. If they lie, it's their problem. It's quite possible the cops were convinced that he was the perpetrator, expected him to resist and slammed him down on the car to intimidate him into not resisting. The injuries are also consistent with that.

This happened to my dad. He got a call about some escaping bank robbers in a certain type of car, two suspects. The exact make and model comes speeding down the highway. He and his partner stop the car, get two men out of the car and subdued. In my dad's words, "We were not gentle". Then the call came through with a description of the suspects. Wrong race. Not even close. They spent the next half hour calming the two people down (One was about to unload in his pants!) and apologizing. Oh yeah, they let them out of the ticket.