$40M lawsuit: Ferguson police used excessive force

[Mustng]

$40M lawsuit: Ferguson police used excessive force

5 plaintiffs also charge false arrests of innocent bystanders
Published: 17 hours ago

(Associated Press) A federal lawsuit filed Thursday says police in Ferguson and St. Louis County used excessive force and falsely arrested innocent bystanders amid attempts to quell widespread unrest after the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Police departments are acquiring major battlefield equipment that emboldens officials to strong-arm those they should be protecting. “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality” (Autographed) chronicles how we got to this point.

The five plaintiffs in the suit in St. Louis include a clinical social worker who said she and her 17-year-old son were roughed up and arrested after not evacuating a McDonald’s quickly enough. They also include a 23-year-old man who said he was shot multiple times with rubber bullets and called racial slurs by police while walking through the protest zone to his mother’s home, and a man who said he was arrested for filming the disturbances.

Read more at 40M lawsuit Ferguson police used excessive force

OMG! This is crazy! What part of “disperse” do you not understand…what part of “ be off the streets after midnight” do you not understand? These same fools were bringing their children to a very tense situation. Really???

I watched this unfold, I know the neighborhood, I disagree that there was excessive force. I thought they done a good job to control the crowds.

What the police failed to do was stop the looting and destruction of buildings/businesses. Officer Wilson was the only one who done what he set out to do....STOP THE THREAT!

This is just a quick get rich scheme, they will never win this case

I would hate to be a cop nowadays

 

[Moonglow]

I would never want to be a cop...

 

[LurkingGrendel]

With respect to the OP, I think you’re conflating a view different things

Regarding the lawsuit by itself, certainly the 40M dollar amount seems excessive at first glance. I’m not litigious by nature, I’m sure you’re not either, (nor are most Americans for that matter) and as such we collectively tend to look at anyone suing another for large dollar amounts with great suspicion. I’m not even arguing such suspicions are completely unwarranted.

That stated, taking one of the plaintiff’s allegations as an example, what would be the correct amount of remuneration owed a citizen if it’s proved in a court of law she and her son actually were roughed up and unlawfully arrested for not evacuating a McDonald’s quickly enough?

Obviously that will have to be proven in a court of law, but as an intellectual and empathetic exercise, assuming the allegations are proven true what would you ask for in compensation for the physical violence, the emotional trauma, and the unlawful arrest inflicted upon you and your son?

To put it mildly, I wouldn’t be happy about it. A lawsuit might very well be an option I would exercise.

Putting the lawsuit aside for a moment, I’m not interested in debating with your or anyone else about whom is “right” or “wrong” regarding the actions of The Ferguson Police Department. I’d only ask you to consider that it’s possible to have a different opinion about many facets of the situation that are every bit as “fair” as the one you hold.

I for one am not comfortable with the increasing militarization of our police. I question whether having our police armed and armored as if they’re preparing to assault an enemy compound in some far flung battlefield is really the best way to both interact the public whom they are sworn to serve & protect, while simultaneously working to uphold the law and when necessary enforce order. I feel the net harm of such militarization may outweigh any positive considerations.

I’m not at all unsympathetic to the challenges of being a police officer. It can be a miserable and dangerous profession. That stated, we hold police officers to a much higher standard of accountability due to the tremendous power they wield. In some cases, literally life and death. That’s one of the reasons I’m an advocate for cameras in police cars as well as on an officer’s person. It helps protect them as well as the public. I believe it was former President Reagan whom famously stated “trust, but verify”, and that more or less encompasses my attitude towards our police. They have my respect & they have my trust; but it’s a two way street. They are ultimately here to serve & protect. This is not a police state. We do not have to unquestioningly surrender our freedoms or civil liberties solely because someone orders you to do so.

Some of the words and actions of (some) Ferguson police officers caught on camera both by news media as well as citizens were highly alarming. Many of those actions are of highly dubious legality and constitutionality.
To your blanket question, “what part of disperse do you not understand”. Well, that’s kind of illustrative of my larger point. I don’t think it’s that simple. If you had a legal and constitutional right to assembly and the police unlawfully order you to disperse, punctuating those demand with tear gas canisters, it could certainly be argued you now have a real, legal grievance which is going to have to be adjudicated in some manner.

Conversely, if the police are trying to enforce order in a dangerous situation where individuals committing violent acts are mixed up within an otherwise peaceful protest, well that gets pretty messy, too. Being a police officer is a tough job. But again, we hold them to a much higher standard, deservedly so, than of those whom they police.
I truly believe it’s a lot more complex than being “for” or “against” one group or the other. With respect, I think that’s kind of missing the entire point. I.e. It’s possible to be “pro” police while simultaneously (perhaps even loudly) asking some very pointed questions that may even result in punitive action being taken against some individual officers.

As for Officer Wilson, the last of the three related but also disparate issues under discussion, I have no good answers. Yes, I believe the police have a tough job, deal with a lot terrible things, and if he genuinely felt his life was endangered had every right to defend himself with lethal force. And, Michael Brown did not have a firearm and was shot a number of times.

The rest of it gets complicated awfully quickly.

I’m in no hurry to leap to conclusions blaming the officer and am somewhat disgusted by the rapidity with which some are looking to blame the victim. At the very least any fair minded person would have to admit the circumstances are troubling and will require a thorough and objective investigation.

I’m completely fine with any outcome from that investigation so long as it’s an objective conclusion in alignment with the facts; wherever they may lead.

 

[Peach]

Too early, the investigations are not complete; otherwise I agree with much of the above.

 

[boedicca]

And here we have the real motive of the Sharpton-Jackson horde...

 

[Moonglow]

And here we have the real motive of the Sharpton-Jackson horde...

Black exploitation movie money?

 

[Mustng]

"will require a thorough and objective investigation."
Lurking Grendel reassure me that will happen. I only pray...

 

[LurkingGrendel]

I believe it will, Mustng.

There are far too many interested parties, at local and state as well as Federal levels, scrutinizing what is now a very high profile case to reasonably suspect that anything other than a thorough and objective investigation will take place.

I dislike factually unsupportable speculation, and particularly abhor such when it’s clearly motivated by bias as has unquestioningly been the case among those whom are in full throated and unquestioning support of either Officer Wilson OR Michael Brown, but if pressed would say that I have more faith in our criminal justice system than many seem to. To expand a bit:

I.e. IF a crime seems to have been committed by Officer Wilson and after careful examination of the facts as presented by an ADA to a grand jury they feel an indictment is warranted, then there will be a trial and Officer Wilson will be able to present a robust defense. There’s far more we do not know than we do, but from what I’ve been able to learn about this particular incident coupled with some passing familiarity with the law, I think Officer Wilson has a very good chance of escaping any criminal liability even if the state should charge him. The why is an involved topic for another thread but let it suffice to say that, rightly or wrongly, police officers have a wide degree of latitude when dealing with a suspect and if he posits an affirmative defense of self-protection in the end there will presumably not be a whole lot that can be argued contrarily.

And IF the investigation determines that no crime has been committed, then as awkward and uncomfortable a result that may be for some, he’ll escape criminal accountability for Michael Brown’s death.

As I relayed earlier I have no strong feeling about the matter one way or the other save that I have the same troubling questions a lot of other people have. I wasn’t there, and contrary to what most of what I’ve read seems to indicate neither was anyone else other than Officer Wilson, Michael Brown, and possibly an eye witness or two whom have given conflicting accounts of the incident. Which is hardly surprising for a number of reasons that do not immediately denote anyone is deliberately lying or attempting to cover up the truth.

In my opinion, it’s possible to both have empathy and support for a police officer whom (presumably) didn’t wake up that morning looking to shoot someone, while at the same time acknowledging that an unarmed man is now dead and that he deserves some empathy and support as well.

All of that aside, I believe the investigation will be thorough. It will be objective and based upon the facts that can be proven and based upon the law. I’m not pulling for any particular outcome. I’d simply like to believe, and generally do believe, that the truth often has a way of coming to light. Truth has no political bias and is not hoping for a predetermined outcome of any sort.

 

[Iceweasel]

When was the trial? Lawsuits aren't all won by the plaintiffs, the fact that only 5 jumped on the gravy train speaks volumes.

 

[LurkingGrendel]

What trial are you referring to? Who claimed that all lawsuits are won by the plaintiffs?

In the original posting there’s a link to the story via AP and reprinted at WND.com that reported a federal lawsuit had been filed by five plaintiffs alleging the use of excessive force and of false arrest. That’s all.

For a number of reasons it’s unlikely this type of action would ever see the inside of a courtroom. But I digress.

I posed a bit of a summation about this issue with a couple of questions a bi earlier I’d like to share with you as well, Iceweasel.

“Regarding the lawsuit by itself, certainly the 40M dollar amount seems excessive at first glance. I’m not litigious by nature, I’m sure you’re not either, (nor are most Americans for that matter) and as such we collectively tend to look at anyone suing another for large dollar amounts with great suspicion. I’m not even arguing such suspicions are completely unwarranted.

That stated, taking one of the plaintiff’s allegations as an example, what would be the correct amount of remuneration owed a citizen if it’s proved in a court of law she and her son actually were roughed up and unlawfully arrested for not evacuating a McDonald’s quickly enough?

Obviously that will have to be proven in a court of law, but as an intellectual and empathetic exercise, assuming the allegations are proven true what would you ask for in compensation for the physical violence, the emotional trauma, and the unlawful arrest inflicted upon you and your son?

To put it mildly, I wouldn’t be happy about it. A lawsuit might very well be an option I would exercise”.

I’m not so certain that “only” five individuals jointly filing a federal lawsuit at this time speaks volumes; it only really speaks for itself. Have you found a news link somewhere outlining a law firm actively soliciting individuals to join a class action suit? While it’s certainly possible, I haven’t seen anything like that. This appears to be only what it appears to be.

I.e. These are the five people alleging a number of legal and civil rights violations and are seeking remedy through the courts.

If their claims are baseless or factually unsupportable they’ll end up with nothing. As they should.

If however the claims are true, they have every right to seek damages. Both compensatory and punitive.

You don’t agree? If you were in their circumstance, what would you do?

 

[Iceweasel]

What trial are you referring to? Who claimed that all lawsuits are won by the plaintiffs?

The officer hasn't been convicted and anyone can sue anyone. Putting any weight on the fact that a suit was filed is stupid.

In the original posting there’s a link to the story via AP and reprinted at WND.com that reported a federal lawsuit had been filed by five plaintiffs alleging the use of excessive force and of false arrest. That’s all.

For a number of reasons it’s unlikely this type of action would ever see the inside of a courtroom. But I digress.

Yes, you digress a lot. If there is no guilt it's unlikely to see the inside of a courtroom because it will be thrown out, like most other bogus suits by ambulance chasers.

I posed a bit of a summation about this issue with a couple of questions a bi earlier I’d like to share with you as well, Iceweasel.

“Regarding the lawsuit by itself, certainly the 40M dollar amount seems excessive at first glance. I’m not litigious by nature, I’m sure you’re not either, (nor are most Americans for that matter) and as such we collectively tend to look at anyone suing another for large dollar amounts with great suspicion. I’m not even arguing such suspicions are completely unwarranted.

That stated, taking one of the plaintiff’s allegations as an example, what would be the correct amount of remuneration owed a citizen if it’s proved in a court of law she and her son actually were roughed up and unlawfully arrested for not evacuating a McDonald’s quickly enough?

Obviously that will have to be proven in a court of law, but as an intellectual and empathetic exercise, assuming the allegations are proven true what would you ask for in compensation for the physical violence, the emotional trauma, and the unlawful arrest inflicted upon you and your son?

To put it mildly, I wouldn’t be happy about it. A lawsuit might very well be an option I would exercise”.

I’m not so certain that “only” five individuals jointly filing a federal lawsuit at this time speaks volumes; it only really speaks for itself. Have you found a news link somewhere outlining a law firm actively soliciting individuals to join a class action suit? While it’s certainly possible, I haven’t seen anything like that. This appears to be only what it appears to be.

I.e. These are the five people alleging a number of legal and civil rights violations and are seeking remedy through the courts.

If their claims are baseless or factually unsupportable they’ll end up with nothing. As they should.

If however the claims are true, they have every right to seek damages. Both compensatory and punitive.

You don’t agree? If you were in their circumstance, what would you do?

I'd wait for the facts to come out instead of letting the media whip me up into a frenzy. You never saw class actions suits advertised? Wow.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I don't think the police department used near enough force.

If I owned a business in Ferguson, I would be suing the city, for the police department, not being allowed to do their jobs and protect my business. And, I suspect some insurance companies are looking into that already.

 

[JFK_USA]

I don't think the police department used near enough force.

If I owned a business in Ferguson, I would be suing the city, for the police department, not being allowed to do their jobs and protect my business. And, I suspect some insurance companies are looking into that already.

I know. I mean why should police allow black people to have their 1st amendment rights? That's just crazy! They should totally be beaten up for protesting.

(And to answer your obvious racist reply, no looting is not protected under the first amendment. However what this suit alleges is that the police used excessive force in trying to disperse people who were trying to exercise their 1st amendment rights. I know, you think blacks aren't people but let's pretend they are.)

 

[Iceweasel]

I know. I mean why should police allow black people to have their 1st amendment rights? That's just crazy! They should totally be beaten up for protesting.

(And to answer your obvious racist reply, no looting is not protected under the first amendment. However what this suit alleges is that the police used excessive force in trying to disperse people who were trying to exercise their 1st amendment rights. I know, you think blacks aren't people but let's pretend they are.)

As we will pretend you have a functioning mind. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to take over public or private property or resist lawful orders by LE. And so far, no one has provided any evidence that the orders were unlawful. Feelings aren't evidence.

 

[Kondor3]

And here we have the real motive of the Sharpton-Jackson horde...

 

[JFK_USA]

As we will pretend you have a functioning mind. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to take over public or private property or resist lawful orders by LE. And so far, no one has provided any evidence that the orders were unlawful. Feelings aren't evidence.

Where were they "taking over"? They can protest in a public street and sidewalks, that is allowed under the First Amendment. You just don't want people you disagree with expressing their views.

 

[Iceweasel]

As we will pretend you have a functioning mind. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to take over public or private property or resist lawful orders by LE. And so far, no one has provided any evidence that the orders were unlawful. Feelings aren't evidence.

Where were they "taking over"? They can protest in a public street and sidewalks, that is allowed under the First Amendment. You just don't want people you disagree with expressing their views.

No, I don't want malcontents blocking access to public and private pathways. Your rights stop where another's begins.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I don't think the police department used near enough force.

If I owned a business in Ferguson, I would be suing the city, for the police department, not being allowed to do their jobs and protect my business. And, I suspect some insurance companies are looking into that already.

I know. I mean why should police allow black people to have their 1st amendment rights? That's just crazy! They should totally be beaten up for protesting.

(And to answer your obvious racist reply, no looting is not protected under the first amendment. However what this suit alleges is that the police used excessive force in trying to disperse people who were trying to exercise their 1st amendment rights. I know, you think blacks aren't people but let's pretend they are.)

I could care less what color they are, you are the one worrying about color. I just know, if I owned a business, and people started ransacking it, I would have shot first, asked questions later, and not cared one bit, if it was a black, white, male or female. A criminal is a criminal, no matter what color they are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

With respect to the OP, I think you’re conflating a view different things

Regarding the lawsuit by itself, certainly the 40M dollar amount seems excessive at first glance. I’m not litigious by nature, I’m sure you’re not either, (nor are most Americans for that matter) and as such we collectively tend to look at anyone suing another for large dollar amounts with great suspicion. I’m not even arguing such suspicions are completely unwarranted.

That stated, taking one of the plaintiff’s allegations as an example, what would be the correct amount of remuneration owed a citizen if it’s proved in a court of law she and her son actually were roughed up and unlawfully arrested for not evacuating a McDonald’s quickly enough?

Obviously that will have to be proven in a court of law, but as an intellectual and empathetic exercise, assuming the allegations are proven true what would you ask for in compensation for the physical violence, the emotional trauma, and the unlawful arrest inflicted upon you and your son?

To put it mildly, I wouldn’t be happy about it. A lawsuit might very well be an option I would exercise.

Putting the lawsuit aside for a moment, I’m not interested in debating with your or anyone else about whom is “right” or “wrong” regarding the actions of The Ferguson Police Department. I’d only ask you to consider that it’s possible to have a different opinion about many facets of the situation that are every bit as “fair” as the one you hold.

I for one am not comfortable with the increasing militarization of our police. I question whether having our police armed and armored as if they’re preparing to assault an enemy compound in some far flung battlefield is really the best way to both interact the public whom they are sworn to serve & protect, while simultaneously working to uphold the law and when necessary enforce order. I feel the net harm of such militarization may outweigh any positive considerations.

I’m not at all unsympathetic to the challenges of being a police officer. It can be a miserable and dangerous profession. That stated, we hold police officers to a much higher standard of accountability due to the tremendous power they wield. In some cases, literally life and death. That’s one of the reasons I’m an advocate for cameras in police cars as well as on an officer’s person. It helps protect them as well as the public. I believe it was former President Reagan whom famously stated “trust, but verify”, and that more or less encompasses my attitude towards our police. They have my respect & they have my trust; but it’s a two way street. They are ultimately here to serve & protect. This is not a police state. We do not have to unquestioningly surrender our freedoms or civil liberties solely because someone orders you to do so.

Some of the words and actions of (some) Ferguson police officers caught on camera both by news media as well as citizens were highly alarming. Many of those actions are of highly dubious legality and constitutionality.
To your blanket question, “what part of disperse do you not understand”. Well, that’s kind of illustrative of my larger point. I don’t think it’s that simple. If you had a legal and constitutional right to assembly and the police unlawfully order you to disperse, punctuating those demand with tear gas canisters, it could certainly be argued you now have a real, legal grievance which is going to have to be adjudicated in some manner.

Conversely, if the police are trying to enforce order in a dangerous situation where individuals committing violent acts are mixed up within an otherwise peaceful protest, well that gets pretty messy, too. Being a police officer is a tough job. But again, we hold them to a much higher standard, deservedly so, than of those whom they police.
I truly believe it’s a lot more complex than being “for” or “against” one group or the other. With respect, I think that’s kind of missing the entire point. I.e. It’s possible to be “pro” police while simultaneously (perhaps even loudly) asking some very pointed questions that may even result in punitive action being taken against some individual officers.

As for Officer Wilson, the last of the three related but also disparate issues under discussion, I have no good answers. Yes, I believe the police have a tough job, deal with a lot terrible things, and if he genuinely felt his life was endangered had every right to defend himself with lethal force. And, Michael Brown did not have a firearm and was shot a number of times.

The rest of it gets complicated awfully quickly.

I’m in no hurry to leap to conclusions blaming the officer and am somewhat disgusted by the rapidity with which some are looking to blame the victim. At the very least any fair minded person would have to admit the circumstances are troubling and will require a thorough and objective investigation.

I’m completely fine with any outcome from that investigation so long as it’s an objective conclusion in alignment with the facts; wherever they may lead.

That stated, taking one of the plaintiff’s allegations as an example, what would be the correct amount of remuneration owed a citizen if it’s proved in a court of law she and her son actually were roughed up and unlawfully arrested for not evacuating a McDonald’s quickly enough?
Big Mac, large fry, medium drink.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What trial are you referring to? Who claimed that all lawsuits are won by the plaintiffs?

In the original posting there’s a link to the story via AP and reprinted at WND.com that reported a federal lawsuit had been filed by five plaintiffs alleging the use of excessive force and of false arrest. That’s all.

For a number of reasons it’s unlikely this type of action would ever see the inside of a courtroom. But I digress.

I posed a bit of a summation about this issue with a couple of questions a bi earlier I’d like to share with you as well, Iceweasel.

“Regarding the lawsuit by itself, certainly the 40M dollar amount seems excessive at first glance. I’m not litigious by nature, I’m sure you’re not either, (nor are most Americans for that matter) and as such we collectively tend to look at anyone suing another for large dollar amounts with great suspicion. I’m not even arguing such suspicions are completely unwarranted.

That stated, taking one of the plaintiff’s allegations as an example, what would be the correct amount of remuneration owed a citizen if it’s proved in a court of law she and her son actually were roughed up and unlawfully arrested for not evacuating a McDonald’s quickly enough?

Obviously that will have to be proven in a court of law, but as an intellectual and empathetic exercise, assuming the allegations are proven true what would you ask for in compensation for the physical violence, the emotional trauma, and the unlawful arrest inflicted upon you and your son?

To put it mildly, I wouldn’t be happy about it. A lawsuit might very well be an option I would exercise”.

I’m not so certain that “only” five individuals jointly filing a federal lawsuit at this time speaks volumes; it only really speaks for itself. Have you found a news link somewhere outlining a law firm actively soliciting individuals to join a class action suit? While it’s certainly possible, I haven’t seen anything like that. This appears to be only what it appears to be.

I.e. These are the five people alleging a number of legal and civil rights violations and are seeking remedy through the courts.

If their claims are baseless or factually unsupportable they’ll end up with nothing. As they should.

If however the claims are true, they have every right to seek damages. Both compensatory and punitive.

You don’t agree? If you were in their circumstance, what would you do?

First of all, I wouldn't have put myself OR my child in that position. "Oh sorry son there are rioters and looters out and about, well eat at home tonight, let the police get things under control then go to McD"