My arrest video involving officer who didn't identify himself

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was on the civil suit. Two years is the limit. I tried contacting an attorney and they said I had a great case but they didn't have time to have their investigator properly look into everything. It was well over a year after my arrest before we even received this videotape from the prosecutor, even though it was requested within a week or two after I retained my attorney (which was less than a week or two after the arrest).

Once the trial was about to start, after I refused a deal to plead to unlawful carry and give up my gun rights forever, that's when my attorney looked into the tape a lot more clearly. He noticed at that time that everything the officer did was incorrect and saw that I was clearly on the ground when I was tased. He immediately told me to get an attorney but it ended up being too late.

You have to realize that my attorney was going 100% on the incident report until the tape came and he finally got around to reviewing it in detail. Due to the amount of lies in the report and not having the video tape on hand, I honestly feared that if I tried to take action against him, it would make them try to press me harder for the insane criminal charges or try to get me to drop the civil suit or they wouldn't drop the charges.
 
If you've got a "slam dunk" civil case such as you describe, it really makes no difference what they do with the criminal charges since they're going to slam dunk lose the criminal side on the same basis that you're going to slam dunk win the civil side.

Sounds to me like your attorney either sucked or was blowing smoke up your butt and didn't really think you had a case either. I don't buy the whole thing about there not being enough time either. The case doesn't have to END by that date, it has to START. Filing the paperwork doesn't take 2 weeks.
 
Last edited:
Not all there

I had an canine officer try and pull an attempting to flee charge on me. Fortunately for me two local officers responded to the call so while the canine officer tried to stroke his lack of masculinity I was in handcuffs Bs ing with the two other officers about their department carry weapons as which they preferred. I was uncuffed and home in a few minutes and on the phone to the canine officers supervisor who reviewed the dashcam video and isuued the repremand the following week to the canine officer.

You simply can not let legal issues drag like you did.
 
That was on the civil suit. Two years is the limit. I tried contacting an attorney and they said I had a great case but they didn't have time to have their investigator properly look into everything. It was well over a year after my arrest before we even received this videotape from the prosecutor, even though it was requested within a week or two after I retained my attorney (which was less than a week or two after the arrest).
Click to expand...


You contacted AN attorney who said his people didn't have the time and that was it? Well, if you went to one attorney and his people didn't have the time to review the case, then probably no other attorney would have any time either. :rolleyes:
 
Thanks for filling in the blanks sentiency, it makes the situation much more clear.

The officers actions are extremely questionable and, I agree that if your story is accurate, the arrest was un-warranted. However, the way your lawyer handled this and, indeed, the way you failed to follow up was equally as damaging to you. IMO The legal profession, much like the medical profession, is such that if you have a serious situation going on, both parties must participate in the case equally and, if you see a problem with the way you are being treated, seek other opinions. Just like any other person you hire to do a job, if they are not giving you your monies worth, fire them and get someone more competent.

You were a victim of a bad police officer/ organization and, of your own lawyers ineptness. The former you had no say in, the latter is one you could have changed at any time had you been vigilant.
 
No offense intended, but what, exactly, is "suing" going to help? The department will have to pay, the dog will slink over to the next town and hire on with their department, and life will go on. That's not the option I would pursue.
 
JERRYS wrote;
so many here make a judgment based on only one side of the story.
Click to expand...

I made a judgement based on the evidence supplied: The dashcam video and, the OPs statement. While the statement is certainly ambiguous, the dashcam video stands on it's own merits.
 
I made a judgement based on the evidence supplied: The dashcam video and, the OPs statement. While the statement is certainly ambiguous, the dashcam video stands on it's own merits.
Click to expand...

so youre forming an opinion on incomplete information? that's ok as long as you acknowledge so.
 
I'm just going to eat popcorn in the back.

What the OP described is, IMHO, not outside the realm of possibility, but the possibility that the officer was entirely reasonable in his actions also exists, and there's not sufficient information to make a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt judgment at this point.

Yes, there's dash cam video, but video doesn't catch everything, and sometimes what it leaves out is all the context.
 
JERRYS Wrote;
so youre forming an opinion on incomplete information?
Click to expand...


My opinion is based on the sum of the information we have available, whether incomplete or not, it's all we have. The OP asked for an opinion based on that evidence and, he has received responses accordingly.

that's ok as long as you acknowledge so.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
My opinion is based on the sum of the information we have available, whether incomplete or not, it's all we have.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the problem here: we don't have the whole story, and we don't really have enough evidence to make a judgment or offer advice.

As such, there's really not much to discuss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top