Quote:

---

SACRAMENTO, Calif. Greg Gross, a Northern California man who was paralyzed after he was arrested, handcuffed, and then slammed to the ground, won a $20 million settlement earlier this month against multiple defendants. It is one of the largest police brutality settlements in the state's history, according to officials. The 65-year-old Army veteran who lives in Yuba City, sued the police department in 2022 after police officers used "pain compliance" techniques and expressed disbelief when he repeatedly cried out, "I can't feel my legs." Police officers also dismissed Gross when he said, "I can't breathe," while being held facedown on the lawn outside a hospital, video released by Gross's lawyers shows. The lawsuit alleged that former Yuba City Police Officer Joshua Jackson was responsible for breaking Gross's neck, leaving him paralyzed after he slammed him to the ground during the traffic stop. It also names fellow officers Scott Hansen and Nathan Livingston, and Yuba City. The lawsuit alleges Hansen assisted in Jackson's repeated brutality and that Livingston failed to intervene. Yuba City's portion of this settlement amounts to around $17 million while the remaining $3 million will be paid out by other defendants in the lawsuit, including Jackson. However, the city is largely self-insured for these types of liabilities.

---

wasnt he being aresyed for dui and hit and run

Old Army Ghost said:

---

wasnt he being aresyed for dui and hit and run

---

Pretty sure he dindu nuffin. He couldn't breathe either

Old Army Ghost said:

---

wasnt he being aresyed for dui and hit and run

---

And? That deserves paralysis?

You slam to the ground so hard it breaks his neck???

If you want to put him on the ground, lever your foot behind his knee and push forward so that he loses the ability to stand. Then you put him in a seated position where he can breathe and you can defend your actions to a jury.

Old May Banker said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

wasnt he being aresyed for dui and hit and run

---

And? That deserves paralysis?

---

that's the kind of thing that's bound to happen when enough people fight with the police and resist arrest. It doesn't make sense to ask if they deserved it, like the officers purposefully paralyzed him. If your kid is jumping on the bed, and falls off and breaks their neck it doesn't matter that they don't deserve to be paralyzed. That is what can happen if you engage in risky behavior.

I don't disagree, but there's not enough video in the clip to make that judgements IMO.... maybe he was fighting them like hell previously. If so, the jury must not have seen it.

Sad part of the story is that when this happens the tax payer is the one who foots the bill to all the accident and injury attorneys

Old May Banker said:

---

I don't disagree, but there's not enough video in the clip to make that judgements IMO.... maybe he was fighting them like hell previously. If so, the jury must not have seen it.

---

He's in handcuffs and not a threat to anyone. They admittedly were using pain to make him comply.

He's suing the hospital and nurses/Drs as well.
I didn't see any updates on those suits.

But to me that's even more egregious than the cops' behavior. "Trained" medical professionals laughing, not paying attention (one nurse was on a phone call), scolding the patient to basically shut up about his legs…

Dr shrugging his shoulders after he got a negative response about a neck brace…

All caught on camera. The lawyer who caught this case might as well have won the power ball.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

wasnt he being aresyed for dui and hit and run

---

Pretty sure he dindu nuffin. He couldn't breathe either

---

Well they did break his neck while he was in cuffs, so....

Guess we have to put broken neck as a possible consequence of the arm-bar takedown. My guess is that this is a Freddie Gray type deal. Looks like the officer took him down face first (notice bloody nose) on grass and not concrete. I could understand a broken neck if he went down crown of head first. Looks like a one in a million shot and he hit it just right (or it was like Gray and his neck was already broken maybe from the car wreck). It sucks to be paralyzed, but don't drive drunk, don't commit hit & runs, and you would never have been in that position. No one is saying this guy deserves to be paralyzed, but don't get so drunk that you get arrested then resist the officers and this never happens.

My question is, he is a paraplegic so why is he bedbound? Why can't get get in a wheelchair and be mobile? His arms clearly work.

If that was my father.....


......I'd do some seriously evil things to a few people.

BigRobSA said:

---

If that was my father.....


......I'd do some seriously evil things to a few people.

---

It doesn't bother you that
1) he put himself in that position by breaking the law
2) you did not see the takedown and that it was on apparently soft grass and not the sidewalk?

Often video doesn't tell the whole story.

Video with significant events missing definitely doesn't tell the whole story.

Why leave out video??? Seems as though the youtube poster has an agenda/bias.

Being a vet isn't really significant here. If the cops screwed up or it was an accident, non-vet vs vet doesn't matter, just an emotional appeal.

InfantryAg said:

---

Often video doesn't tell the whole story.

Video with significant events missing definitely doesn't tell the whole story.

Why leave out video??? Seems as though the youtube poster has an agenda/bias.

Being a vet isn't really significant here. If the cops screwed up or it was an accident, non-vet vs vet doesn't matter, just an emotional appeal.

---

The video was made by his attorney who won the civil suit. My question is, how does that officer have $1 million to pay?

Bocephus said:

---

The video was made by his attorney who won the civil suit. My question is, how does that officer have $1 million to pay?

---

Nope
You can win in civil court, collection is a different thing though.
Ask Ron Goldman.

InfantryAg said:

---

Often video doesn't tell the whole story.

Video with significant events missing definitely doesn't tell the whole story.

Why leave out video??? Seems as though the youtube poster has an agenda/bias.

Being a vet isn't really significant here. If the cops screwed up or it was an accident, non-vet vs vet doesn't matter, just an emotional appeal.

---

Obviously the full video was enough for a jury to award $20MM...

Meh. In principle I agree, BUT a jury found OJ innocent so you never know. Safe to say, the video his lawyer put together did not show enough for some of us to definitively say the officer was at fault.

The actions and reactions of the cops and medical staff are detestable.

Bocephus said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

If that was my father.....


......I'd do some seriously evil things to a few people.

---

It doesn't bother you that
1) he put himself in that position by breaking the law
2) you did not see the takedown and that it was on apparently soft grass and not the sidewalk?

---

No.

Let me piledrive your head into soft grass....let me know how pleasant it is.

Bocephus said:

---

Meh. In principle I agree, BUT a jury found OJ innocent so you never know. Safe to say, the video his lawyer put together did not show enough for some of us to definitively say the officer was at fault.

---

You're a cop, aren't you?

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Meh. In principle I agree, BUT a jury found OJ innocent so you never know. Safe to say, the video his lawyer put together did not show enough for some of us to definitively say the officer was at fault.

---

You're a cop, aren't you?

---

Yes. He is convinced that Angela West is still guilty of a DUI and supports the lying cops even though her toxicity screens came back zero on alcohol and illicit drugs.

Bocephus said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

If that was my father.....


......I'd do some seriously evil things to a few people.

---

It doesn't bother you that
1) he put himself in that position by breaking the law
2) you did not see the takedown and that it was on apparently soft grass and not the sidewalk?

---

Agents of the state paralyzed an unarmed man in handcuffs. There is nothing he could have done in that state that merits paralyzation of the man.

So no, what came before doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The police are not judge, jury and executioner.

Irish 2.0 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Often video doesn't tell the whole story.

Video with significant events missing definitely doesn't tell the whole story.

Why leave out video??? Seems as though the youtube poster has an agenda/bias.

Being a vet isn't really significant here. If the cops screwed up or it was an accident, non-vet vs vet doesn't matter, just an emotional appeal.

---

Obviously the full video was enough for a jury to award $20MM...

---

Juries don't always reflect the truth. And the amounts awarded often don't have any realistic equivalency to the incident.

I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve compensation. I'm not saying the cop is not at fault. I don't know because I just watched an edited video to promote a specific point of view. Some would call that propaganda, and I'm not using the term pejoratively.

Why not show the whole video? Because it doesn't help your client in the court of public opinion.

What I have inferred from the video is that the guy resisted and the cops used empty hand control techniques (eg pain compliance) which is on the lower end of intrusiveness of use of force options. Then either 1- One cop used a reasonable amount of force and the guys neck was broken by accident. -or- 2- One cop used an unreasonable amount of force and broke the guys neck as a result of the excessive force.

There were multiple body cams and I would have to see at least one angle of the incident from the start to make an actual determination. I am sure the jury saw all of it, but it's not in this video, because even if the cop was wrong, his attorney doesn't want the public to the guy being drunk and belligerent because then the public is less sympathetic. The end of the video showing after the incident was written and directed for a very specific purpose.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

If that was my father.....


......I'd do some seriously evil things to a few people.

---

It doesn't bother you that
1) he put himself in that position by breaking the law
2) you did not see the takedown and that it was on apparently soft grass and not the sidewalk?

---

Agents of the state paralyzed an unarmed man in handcuffs. There is nothing he could have done in that state that merits paralyzation of the man.

So no, what came before doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The police are not judge, jury and executioner.

---

No one said he deserved to be paralyzed. I'm a big believer in that you choose the action, you choose the consequence. When you start breaking laws and resisting the police, I lose a lot of empathy for you. Doesn't mean you deserve to have your neck broken by the police (which may have happened) but if I was a juror that would impact my decision on the payout. To each their own.

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty of anything. Cops don't get to treat citizens like what we saw in that video. This isn't hard. It's actually pretty basic.

The law enforcement officers on this board never say anything that makes me feel any better about these excessive force cases.

InfantryAg said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Often video doesn't tell the whole story.

Video with significant events missing definitely doesn't tell the whole story.

Why leave out video??? Seems as though the youtube poster has an agenda/bias.

Being a vet isn't really significant here. If the cops screwed up or it was an accident, non-vet vs vet doesn't matter, just an emotional appeal.

---

Obviously the full video was enough for a jury to award $20MM...

---

Juries don't always reflect the truth. And the amounts awarded often don't have any realistic equivalency to the incident.

I'm not saying the guy doesn't deserve compensation. I'm not saying the cop is not at fault. I don't know because I just watched an edited video to promote a specific point of view. Some would call that propaganda, and I'm not using the term pejoratively.

Why not show the whole video? Because it doesn't help your client in the court of public opinion.

What I have inferred from the video is that the guy resisted and the cops used empty hand control techniques (eg pain compliance) which is on the lower end of intrusiveness of use of force options. Then either 1- One cop used a reasonable amount of force and the guys neck was broken by accident. -or- 2- One cop used an unreasonable amount of force and broke the guys neck as a result of the excessive force.

There were multiple body cams and I would have to see at least one angle of the incident from the start to make an actual determination. I am sure the jury saw all of it, but it's not in this video, because even if the cop was wrong, his attorney doesn't want the public to the guy being drunk and belligerent because then the public is less sympathetic. The end of the video showing after the incident was written and directed for a very specific purpose.

---

We do need to get away from the verbalizing that I'm in control etc. That is not helping anyone. As I've said before, if they think they're in control but they're doing what you want them to do then you're still in control.

Mary Bailey said:

---

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty of anything. Cops don't get to treat citizens like what we saw in that video. This isn't hard. It's actually pretty basic.

The law enforcement officers on this board never say anything that makes me feel any better about these excessive force cases.

---

If this guy was actively fighting the cops before this video segment, how would you propose they get control of the guy???

I'm inferring that you are not familiar with the case law on use of force, so I don't know what anyone can say that would make you feel better.

What's pretty basic is that you can not resist an officer who is making a lawful seizure. If you do, the officer can use a reasonable amount of force, as defined by case law and legislative law. If the force is excessive, the officer and agency will face consequences. Sometimes it is not enough consequences, but I wouldn't bet my career or my freedom on it.

Use of force NEVER looks pretty, regardless if it is justified or not.

InfantryAg said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty of anything. Cops don't get to treat citizens like what we saw in that video. This isn't hard. It's actually pretty basic.

The law enforcement officers on this board never say anything that makes me feel any better about these excessive force cases.

---

If this guy was actively fighting the cops before this video segment, how would you propose they get control of the guy???

I'm inferring that you are not familiar with the case law on use of force, so I don't know what anyone can say that would make you feel better.

What's pretty basic is that you can not resist an officer who is making a lawful seizure. If you do, the officer can use a reasonable amount of force, as defined by case law and legislative law. If the force is excessive, the officer and agency will face consequences. Sometimes it is not enough consequences, but I wouldn't bet my career or my freedom on it.

Use of force NEVER looks pretty, regardless if it is justified or not.

---

They paralyzed him!! That video should make you very uncomfortable as an officer and a citizen. If it doesn't, you might have been in the business too long.

Mary Bailey said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty of anything. Cops don't get to treat citizens like what we saw in that video. This isn't hard. It's actually pretty basic.

The law enforcement officers on this board never say anything that makes me feel any better about these excessive force cases.

---

If this guy was actively fighting the cops before this video segment, how would you propose they get control of the guy???

I'm inferring that you are not familiar with the case law on use of force, so I don't know what anyone can say that would make you feel better.

What's pretty basic is that you can not resist an officer who is making a lawful seizure. If you do, the officer can use a reasonable amount of force, as defined by case law and legislative law. If the force is excessive, the officer and agency will face consequences. Sometimes it is not enough consequences, but I wouldn't bet my career or my freedom on it.

Use of force NEVER looks pretty, regardless if it is justified or not.

---

They paralyzed him!! That video should make you very uncomfortable as an officer and a citizen. If it doesn't, you might have been in the business too long.

---

At what point in the video did they paralyze him? Plz explain. You saw a video put out by his lawyer, that didn't even show the takedown. For all we know he broke his neck in the car accident and then a simple arm bar takedown (which is done millions of times per year without causing paralysis) was blamed for his own actions. You will notice on the video that he twists his neck when he is on the ground. Perhaps that did it.

The jury saw enough to blame him and all officers involved, so you would like to think there is plenty of evidence supporting that claim. It is what it is. If I was a juror I wold find some fault with him for causing the incident to happen. I understand why others only see him as a victim though.

Mary Bailey said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty of anything. Cops don't get to treat citizens like what we saw in that video. This isn't hard. It's actually pretty basic.

The law enforcement officers on this board never say anything that makes me feel any better about these excessive force cases.

---

If this guy was actively fighting the cops before this video segment, how would you propose they get control of the guy???

I'm inferring that you are not familiar with the case law on use of force, so I don't know what anyone can say that would make you feel better.

What's pretty basic is that you can not resist an officer who is making a lawful seizure. If you do, the officer can use a reasonable amount of force, as defined by case law and legislative law. If the force is excessive, the officer and agency will face consequences. Sometimes it is not enough consequences, but I wouldn't bet my career or my freedom on it.

Use of force NEVER looks pretty, regardless if it is justified or not.

---

They paralyzed him!! That video should make you very uncomfortable as an officer and a citizen. If it doesn't, you might have been in the business too long.

---

I don't think you're being honest if you're trying to frame this as the police giving a perp his just desserts. From their perspective, their mandate is to apprehend the guy. Whether he's ultimately found guilty or not is of no consequence.

My question to you is, do you think the police officers had a right to his cooperation? And from a practical standpoint can we as a society reasonably guarantee the health and safety of people who fight to keep from being taken into custody?

I thought it was interesting that in the moment he was realizing he couldn't move his legs, he said he was sorry.

Bob Lee said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. Being arrested doesn't mean you are guilty of anything. Cops don't get to treat citizens like what we saw in that video. This isn't hard. It's actually pretty basic.

The law enforcement officers on this board never say anything that makes me feel any better about these excessive force cases.

---

If this guy was actively fighting the cops before this video segment, how would you propose they get control of the guy???

I'm inferring that you are not familiar with the case law on use of force, so I don't know what anyone can say that would make you feel better.

What's pretty basic is that you can not resist an officer who is making a lawful seizure. If you do, the officer can use a reasonable amount of force, as defined by case law and legislative law. If the force is excessive, the officer and agency will face consequences. Sometimes it is not enough consequences, but I wouldn't bet my career or my freedom on it.

Use of force NEVER looks pretty, regardless if it is justified or not.

---

They paralyzed him!! That video should make you very uncomfortable as an officer and a citizen. If it doesn't, you might have been in the business too long.

---

I don't think you're being honest if you're trying to frame this as the police giving a perp his just desserts. From their perspective, their mandate is to apprehend the guy. Whether he's ultimately found guilty or not is of no consequence.

My question to you is, do you think the police officers had a right to his cooperation? And from a practical standpoint can we as a society reasonably guarantee the health and safety of people who fight to keep from being taken into custody?

I thought it was interesting that in the moment he was realizing he couldn't move his legs, he said he was sorry.

---

We definitely cannot guarantee the health and safety of people who are fighting against being taken into custody. One of the biggest issues facing society today imo is that we now expect the government to save us from the consequences of our actions. You OD on drugs and then fight the police and die, well they should have saved you. We literally have families suing for that now.

To answer your question, he was required by law to cooperate. Of course, the penalty for not cooperating is not getting slammed to the ground so hard you break your neck and are paralyzed. If you were his lawyer and that was the case, wouldn't your video show that takedown over and over and over?

Has anyone thought about the $14 million not being enough?

Once the attorney has taken his 30%, he'll have 14 million, or so,left. Healthcare prices are not leveling off or coming down, period. If he lives more than 10 years, I bet he doesn't have enough funds to pay for the care that will be necessary---I think!

I say I think because the care involved may be outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.