Madison (Alabama) Officer Eric Parker has been suspended and charged with third-degree assault after an incident that left Sureshbhai Patel, 57, paralyzed with a spinal injury. Parker and other officers were responding to a report of a suspicious man. A videotape shows Parker and other officers pulling up near Patel in two patrol cars while Patel was walking on other people’s property. When he tried to step away, Parker threw him to the ground causing the spinal injury.
Patel has regained movement except in his right leg according to his complaint. He had just recently arrived in the country to take care of his 17-month-old grandson.
When confronted, Patel said ‘no English’, and repeated his son’s house number. However, his movement away from the officers led to the take down.
The video tape below could offer Parker a defense that he was trying to immobilize a suspect and threw him on what appears grass. It can be argued that such a take down would not normally result in a serious injury.
The better angle can be found in this videotape from the dash cam:
Patel was not a suspect in a particular crime. He was not armed and was clearly unable to communicate. Moreover, his movement seemed very slight before prompting the take down by the officers. It is clearly excessive in my view, but there is likely different opinions on whether this should be charged as a crime as opposed to litigated in torts? What do you think?
Well, if the tape makes it to court, he is going to be able to afford all the expensive he needs and a few toys in whatever language he speaks.
Let’s look at what the facts present us. This man is a suspect in a criminal trespass. While the officers did not see him engaging in this act, it is reported that he had and he apparently matches the description. The officers have reasonable suspicion to detain him to investigate this alleged crime. During this investigation the man is not free to leave during that time for a reasonable period of time.
It appears there is a language barrier. During the stop, the man several times walks away and is told, whether or not he understands is uncertain. It is not always the case where people claim to not understand but who in fact do. I have no conclusive evidence as shown to me here. But we will for the purpose of argument stipulate it does.
It appears but I am not certain that he is frisked for weapons. That is justified at this point in my view.
He is told repeatedly not to walk away. HIs doing so is not aggravated but is something he should be prevented from doing during the investigation.
After being warned about being thrown to the ground, he later is and rather roughly. The officer shoved him onto the grass not the sidewalk.
For what I think about this? Based on the preceding this is my opinion.
The disabling injury suffered by Patel was highly unexpected given the type of takedown he experienced. I do not believe that anyone anticipated this happening. Such a takedown of a person resembling Patel would not cause this type of injury in nearly all cases.
The question is whether the officer had justification to use force in this manner, aside from the injury sustained and was this reasonable to begin with.
There did not appear to be any aggravating circumstances that would justify a takedown such as this. Ordinarily, given the events that transpired, my view of this matter is that the following, and others similar are better choices of force given the circumstances:
Holding on to Patel by his clothing
Making him sit on the curb with his legs crossed.
Placing him into handcuffs
Walking him over to a patrol car and have him sit on the back seat facing out.
If Patel was suspected in a burglary or other more serious offense where a flight risk would be a serious matter I might give more leeway on whether the takedown was justified.
Now this brings us to a matter of law. Had the Patel been suspected of an aggravated crime, the use of force would have been more easily justified given the totality of the circumstances. The severe injury was not anticipated and reasonably could not have been at the time. So it comes to a question of if the officer was justified in the type of force. For this type of situation, in my view the prosecutor felt the circumstances were not justified, therefore the force was unlawful. If the force was unlawful the officer could be criminally liable for Patel’s injuries.
From a practical point of view, had not injury occurred, I very much doubt that a prosecutor would bring criminal charges against this officer. Perhaps Patel could argue a civil action, if injuries did not occur, and the officer could be disciplined but in my view unless there were other circumstances he would probably not be punished severely.
Yet, when someone acts recklessly and even at a minimum outside the law they are responsible for any injuries despite the injuries being unexpectedly great. This can be a mitigating factor in court however.
It came down to really the injuries that were the engine in this. One reason to consider beyond the apparent is to why this officer was criminally charged by the prosecutors is that now the county can single out the officer and shift the blame to him saying he was a rogue in an attempt to mitigate the liability. It sounds harsh and unrealistic but I believe it was a factor in deciding how to address this event.
What do I think will happen?
The department and the officer will certainly pay out in the civil court. It is just a matter of how much. I believe it is less likely a jury will convict the officer given the unanticipated nature of the injury and that the defense could introduce enough doubt this was an act that could have been excused and not aggravated that it would be enough for either a hung jury or an acquittal.
WHAT can you REALLY EXPECT any more??????
There are so many ex-military, as well as ex-CIA personnel, from torture/detention, and black sites who have been promoted and embedded into Homeland Security and Law Enforcement positions, who operate above the law now…..(& who would have been tried in Nuremberg trials had their crimes occurred and been exposed in Nazi Germany).
They don’t just hide behind badges now either.
They hide behind churches and military secret societies to advance their careers, while engaging in lucrative covert drug and gun running as well, and nobody has the guts to expose these criminal operations, as well as their politically targeting activists, journalist and other individuals for crimes. Kay Griggs was only one of their targets who has you tube videos people can watch.
My recommendation is to get out of the country while you still can, you aren’t going to see America like it used to be.
These three cops have to be three of the dumbest f—ing people on the face of the earth. The man says “no English” and one cops say to the other two “he does not speak English.” Then all three cops keep asking him questions in English. I hope the man become a millionaire via a lawsuit and the cop who threw him to the ground gets convicted of assault.
It’s a criminal offense that should pay off well in a civil suit, as long as Patel gets a good attorney. There are plaintiff’s attorneys who sell their clients off for much less than they should get in order to be in good standing in the good ol’ boys club. The way it works is, the case is worth $2 million. The plaintiff knows nothing of the system and trusts his attorney. The plaintiff’s attorney, currying favor w/ the power brokers, sells his client out for $700k. Then, the power brokers scratch the sleazeball attorneys back on a future case. Happens ALL the time, and this case is prime for it. Happens all the time, folks.
There is a crisis in law enforcement training, and this is just another example.
– Police officers are increasingly separated from the community they serve. Either for economic reasons (can’t or won’t live in the community they serve), politically or mentally the desire by some/many officers and departments has led to an Us vs. Them mindset.
– The Lost War on Drugs has led to a number of negative consequences. Armoring up to deal with the worst case scenario regardless of how realistic it is is the first. We’ve seen this with SWAT teams that not only are used for violent felons, but for drug dealers that inevitably have firearms in their house, but also for things like poker parties and even hair salon regulatory inspections. No knock warrants are issued like candy that have an implied bias of guilt. So the officers raiding a house believe the people inside are guilty until they prove their innocence. Worse than this though is the mindset that has developed in departments across the country that criminals and drug dealers or users, regardless of severity, are less than human. It’s only natural in a war than you dehumanize your opponent. And we’re seeing it happen here as well. It’s how you get DEA that sees no problem with identity theft to impersonate someone online, or officers that can shoot humans almost as readily as they can shoot a dog.
– Speaking of shooting, look at the training programs for police academies and police science. I looked at one in Illinois recently. About 120 hours in shooting, defense driving, physical defense, and other use of force tactics. Less than 10 in negotiation and de-escalation. It’s entirely understandable why officers are so quick to use force when that’s all they’ve been taught. And how much of that training emphasizes the mortal danger aspect of the job?
– I remember years ago the show Hill Street Blues. The morning briefing always ended with “let’s be careful out there”. Entirely reasonable considering the dangers of the job. Today being careful has been replaced with the other catchphrase of “Let’s do it to them before they do it to us”. If officers are trained in the academy and by fellow officers to have a mindset that violence is preferred because the bad guys (which seem to be everyone without a badge in their pocket) are just waiting for the opportunity to be violent to officers. Little is said of the statistics that shows the opposite.
I could easily go on. But here’s the catch: Many police officers don’t see any need to discuss this, or look for opportunities to change. PoliceOne.com is a website that only allows commenting by officers or law enforcement professionals. Recently after comments on their boards that encouraged violence or showed the negative side from people assumed to be police officers became more public, they closed their comments to viewing unless registered. Of course they are welcome to do so. But it sends the wrong message to me that instead of trying to address the over the top comments that were seen by the general public, they close the comments and revert to more secrecy. That’s the wrong approach in my opinion. Video is bringing lots of negative attention to the illegal or immoral acts of SOME officers. It’s time to do the same with the training and mindset of the officers that look at the criticism and wish for it to go away instead of addressing it head on. Law enforcement needs to remember that their tactics can be dictated by the public if we chose to do so. So the choice is clear. Participate openly, or watch from the sidelines while the public tells you how and with what tools you can do your job.
Use of force needs to be de-emphasized. This situation could have easily been resolved if they had taken the time to realize they couldn’t communicate with the man instead of rocking and rolling to the beat of a country song.
Where is the common sense in these officers, much less the humanity? The man was walking down the sidewalk and not being threatening in the least. It was obvious that he couldn’t speak English. He is elderly. He isn’t doing anything other than existing…..as far as we can see in the video.
SO……since you don’t understand him and he looks different from you…. the answer is obviously to slam him to the ground?
/facepalm
We are becoming increasingly aware that often the first police response (to anything but abject submission) is violence.
That is not acceptable to the majority of Americans.
Cops are our public servants – up to them to either make a case to justify this violent approach, or better, move away from this default to violence.
KBFlorida is absolutely correct. This man was simply walking down the sidewalk, and was not on anyone’s property. Since when is that a crime? This is probably a lily-white neighborhood where some paranoid bigot called in the police when they saw an innocent person of color walking down the street. These officers had absolutely no probable cause to tackle this unarmed man who had done nothing illegal. It was obvious he couldn’t understand their commands, yet they continually shouted questions and commands at him in English. They earn the Moron of the Year Award for sure.
“Indian grandfather injured by Madison police sues over excessive force”
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/indian_grandfather_injured_by.html
Charge them, sue them, bring them to heel. They serve — they don’t rule.
Third degree assault. A misdemeanor charge for attacking a man without cause, throwing him on is head, and paralyzing him.
Somehow I doubt Alabama authorities are so lenient with less connected citizens.
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/02/13/india-disturbed-by-citizens-treatment-in-alabama (“Indian Grandfather Beaten by Alabama Cops”,
“Indian government ‘extremely disturbed’ by citizen’s treatment by police in Alabama.”)
“He don’t speak a lick of English,” one of the officers says… (from the USNews article)
Yep, America’s finest. And remember, “If you see something, say something.”
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/indian_citizen_stopped_by_madi.html
From the above article:
“The caller, who lives in the neighborhood did not recognize the subject and thought him to be suspicious,” reads the statement released by police.
Hank Sherrod, attorney for the family, this morning said the man was not walking on other people’s property nor looking in garages.
“This is broad daylight, walking down the street. There is nothing suspicious about Mr. Patel other than he has brown skin,” said Sherrod.
I always ask myself would I or any other regular Joe get charged with a crime if I had done what the cop did. If the answer is “yes” then the cop should be charged criminally.
Clearly he was trying to lead them to his relatives house, he kept pointing there, walked toward the house probably hoping the dumb cops would follow him. They knew he couldn’t understand them yet they keep jabbering at him. What morons. Our nation’s finest? “Stand up, stand up, you’re Ok.” OMG.
A mistake, such as seeing something that the officer reasonably perceived might be a gun, may be appropriate for a tort action. However, until criminal charges are sought when officers use great force in situations where there are no indications that such force is needed, the balance of officer safety vs. public safety will remain too far tipped in favor of officer safety.
It’s assault. And stupidity. Why couldn’t they go to the address Patel was reciting and check it out? Seems as if police are treating the general public as the enemy at first sight.
From the waddling gate of the officers it appears they are in poor physical condition. Often those types of officers employ preemptive action to avoid physical exertion.
Patel wasn’t “walking on other people’s property”. HE WAS ON THE SIDEWALK..
Why does it increasingly seem that merely breathing in the vicinity of a police officer can be construed as cause to use force?