stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Not sure when this arrest actually took place, I think it is "one of the first" so to speak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKi_u_VzF68 I think that this video has not been released until now, though.
Not sure when this arrest actually took place, I think it is "one of the first" so to speak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKi_u_VzF68 I think that this video has not been released until now, though.
Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.
Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?
That isn't my understanding of how it works.
The citizen in the video is an idiot.
If he wanted to file a complaint against the cops he should have hired an attorney to represent him and he should have had his attorney file the complaint.
In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.
Notice that it took several months before the charges were dropped. The authorities are hoping that you violate one of the terms of your release during this period (which is usually much longer than just a few months) and once you do so you can be found guilty of that violation even if the original charge was bogus. This is how our criminal justice system works here in Amerika.
Wrong!In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.
It seems like you are suggesting there is an venue outside of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with which to sue, which seems odd. Perhaps you would provide us with this information?
The citizen in the video is an idiot.
If he wanted to file a complaint against the cops he should have hired an attorney to represent him and he should have had his attorney file the complaint.
In the comments section below the youtube video are many recommendations to sue the cops. Any lawsuit would have to be approved by the DA before being allowed to proceed, which would never happen.
Notice that it took several months before the charges were dropped. The authorities are hoping that you violate one of the terms of your release during this period (which is usually much longer than just a few months) and once you do so you can be found guilty of that violation even if the original charge was bogus. This is how our criminal justice system works here in Amerika.
I was. I wasn't aware there was a way to sue for deprivation of civil rights except by suing for deprivation of civil rights in a "Section 1983" lawsuit.I presume you are referring to Augustin's post?
Just for clarification, are you saying that a civil suit against the officer and/or his department must be approved by the District Attorney before it can proceed in civil court?
That isn't my understanding of how it works.
The system varies from state to state and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so a blanket statement (like I made) isn't very accurate or informative. And I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert and that I most certainly don't know about specific jurisdictions, other than that of where I live in Montana.
Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.
Administrative remedies include (but are not necessarily limited to) the following: (1) reporting the incident to internal affairs division of the police department (what this gentleman was apparently trying to do), and/or (2) reporting the incident to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or a municipality's Attorney General.
Once you have made a report, most states also require the DOJ, AG, or the internal affairs division to give you a written notice of your right to sue the police.
Typically, if the incident is reported to the local DA pursuant to an administrative remedy rule, the DA will file the complaint in the "round file."
I called the man an idiot because I believe that anytime one has physical/in person contact with the cops they are putting themselves at unnecessary risk.
Unless you are extremely knowledgeable in administrative law (very unlikely for the average Joe) you most definitely need an attorney to help you. How your complaint is worded is a major factor in how the complaint will proceed. In addition to helping with the verbage of the complaint an experienced attorney will be able to explain the law, guide you through the legal process, and help protect your rights.
Also, importantly, some states have "false charge" laws. False charge laws make it a misdemeanor to knowingly file a false police misconduct allegation or lawsuit against a police officer, a municipality, or a supervisor. If you file a false charge, you can be punished with jail time, fines, and/or community service.
It is a common tactic for the cops to file a false charge as a way to get the complaint to go away.
In summary, it is my belief that before you go and mess with the cops you'd better have your act together, right from the get-go. Rushing in a rash manner like this man did is rather ignorant, and potentially dangerous, in my opinion. Only with a good attorney will you have you act together.
P.S., stealthyeliminator, I do agree with your comments about the cops but I refrained form commenting about their actions so I wouldn't be attacked YET AGAIN as being a cop basher.
My spidey sense tells me you are mistaken.Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.
My spidey sense tells me you are mistaken.
Perhaps, Again, I'm not an expert. But this is how it works in my neck of the woods.
FORUM RULES
(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
In an effort to thwart further irrelevant opinions on the topic, I offer this for your consideration:
How is my opinions about why an attorney is best used to file a complaint off topic?
As for the forum rule, perhaps you should cite the law yourself rather than posting a one word reply like "Wrong!." A single word reply is basically a dumb tweet, not an intelligent reply. I explained how the system works where I live. If you are so certain that I'm "wrong" please cite me what is right, or explain it using full sentences.
I did not say off-topic, I said irrelevant opinion, and this statement was not what I was referring to.How is my opinions about why an attorney is best used to file a complaint off topic?
Hence my calling your attention to the forum rules.I explained how the system works where I live.
That's not how it works. You made the point, you need to back it up.If you are so certain that I'm "wrong" please cite me what is right
I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken in that assertion. You would please provide us with a cite to authority that supports your claim (as required by Forum rules)? Thanks cupcake., or explain it using full sentences
Your sense and mine as well.My spidey sense tells me you are mistaken.
Name ten. As far as I know, if you're suing the state and/or it's agents in Federal Court, the state hasn't got jack to say about it other than, "what time is the deposition?"Most states require victims to first go through all appropriate ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES before they can sue the police.
P.S., stealthyeliminator, I do agree with your comments about the cops but I refrained form commenting about their actions so I wouldn't be attacked YET AGAIN as being a cop basher.
Perhaps, Again, I'm not an expert. But this is how it works in my neck of the woods.
You'd rather be called a LAC or patriot basher? Perhaps you didn't mean it in the way it came across, but I took issue with you calling the man an idiot... Perhaps it was not the best choice to turn around and physically return to the police department, but I don't think that calling him an idiot is an appropriate response... Not to mention the fact that whether it was ill-advised or not, he was still completely within his rights and was breaking no law what-so-ever. I don't think that it would have been predictable that he'd be arrested. The arrest was not just unlawful, but in my opinion egregiously so. This wasn't a case of, well, he "technically" wasn't breaking the law but was doing something similar to something that would have been breaking the law. The fact of the matter is that he didn't even come close to breaking the law. If I were in the truck with him, knowing the laws that I currently do, I would not have advised him against going back to file a complaint. I would have seen no big reason to try and persuade him not to. Only a completely ignorant sorry excuse for a law enforcement officer would have made that arrest...