fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

Bob Lee said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

If you think it's a "natural consequence" for police to use so much force to arrest a guy that they paralyze him, then we can't even begin to have a discussion. Not to mention the jackassery they pulled after they paralyzed him. Terrible.

I hope the hospital pays out big as well. They were also terrible.

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

If you think it's a "natural consequence" for police to use so much force to arrest a guy that they paralyze him, then we can't even begin to have a discussion. Not to mention the jackassery they pulled after they paralyzed him. Terrible.

I hope the hospital pays out big as well. They were also terrible.

---

Paralysis is firmly on the list of things that can happen if you fight with the police. I don't see anything particularly vicious about the way the situation was handled. You just don't like the result.

Bob Lee said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

If you think it's a "natural consequence" for police to use so much force to arrest a guy that they paralyze him, then we can't even begin to have a discussion. Not to mention the jackassery they pulled after they paralyzed him. Terrible.

I hope the hospital pays out big as well. They were also terrible.

---

Paralysis is firmly on the list of things that can happen if you fight with the police. I don't see anything particularly vicious about the way the situation was handled. You just don't like the result.

---

You're right. I don't like public servants paralyzing people. I'd say that breaking someone's nose and neck is vicious.

Now show me video of him fighting the police. It must be out there. This wasn't a jury award. The police department admitted fault.

https://news.yahoo.com/were-just-against-police-brutality-021800655.html?ref=upstract.com

Quote:

---

"We are not against police. We are for police. Police are necessary, and I am grateful for the job that they do. We're just against police brutality when it happens," Collins said.

As an example of this sentiment, Collins presented Yuba City Police Chief Brian Baker with a $20,000 check for the California Peace Officers Memorial Foundation.

During the press conference, Baker delivered an apology to Gross for Jackson's conduct and spoke about actions the police department has taken to prevent future instances of excessive force.

"I have replayed the events that transpired on April 12, 2020, in my mind countless times. You have been in my thoughts since this tragedy was brought to my attention. I'm disappointed by the actions of a few select members of our organization on that day. The actions taken by specific officers are indefensible," Baker said. "The Yuba City Police Department is committed to delivering a high standard of service to our community through professionalism and treating others with dignity and respect. Unfortunately on April 12, 2020, we missed the mark. And for that, Mr. Gross, I am sorry."

According to Baker, since this incident, the police department has implemented regular, random audits of body camera footage. Officers found not utilizing their body cameras during interactions with the public are held accountable, he said.

"Every use of force incident that we have is reviewed by supervisors and managers within the organization. Since this event occurred, members of our staff have received deescalation training along with numerous discussions regarding how we deal with people without using inflammatory comments or words," Baker said.

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

If you think it's a "natural consequence" for police to use so much force to arrest a guy that they paralyze him, then we can't even begin to have a discussion. Not to mention the jackassery they pulled after they paralyzed him. Terrible.

I hope the hospital pays out big as well. They were also terrible.

---

Paralysis is firmly on the list of things that can happen if you fight with the police. I don't see anything particularly vicious about the way the situation was handled. You just don't like the result.

---

You're right. I don't like public servants paralyzing people. I'd say that breaking someone's nose and neck is vicious.

Now show me video of him fighting the police. It must be out there. This wasn't a jury award. The police department admitted fault.

https://news.yahoo.com/were-just-against-police-brutality-021800655.html?ref=upstract.com

Quote:

---

"We are not against police. We are for police. Police are necessary, and I am grateful for the job that they do. We're just against police brutality when it happens," Collins said.

As an example of this sentiment, Collins presented Yuba City Police Chief Brian Baker with a $20,000 check for the California Peace Officers Memorial Foundation.

During the press conference, Baker delivered an apology to Gross for Jackson's conduct and spoke about actions the police department has taken to prevent future instances of excessive force.

"I have replayed the events that transpired on April 12, 2020, in my mind countless times. You have been in my thoughts since this tragedy was brought to my attention. I'm disappointed by the actions of a few select members of our organization on that day. The actions taken by specific officers are indefensible," Baker said. "The Yuba City Police Department is committed to delivering a high standard of service to our community through professionalism and treating others with dignity and respect. Unfortunately on April 12, 2020, we missed the mark. And for that, Mr. Gross, I am sorry."

According to Baker, since this incident, the police department has implemented regular, random audits of body camera footage. Officers found not utilizing their body cameras during interactions with the public are held accountable, he said.

"Every use of force incident that we have is reviewed by supervisors and managers within the organization. Since this event occurred, members of our staff have received deescalation training along with numerous discussions regarding how we deal with people without using inflammatory comments or words," Baker said.

---

---

It's a sickness of society. They settled because they didn't like their chances in court. That doesn't mean the drunk hit and run driver isn't culpable for his own injuries.

Bocephus said:

---

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.

---

Maybe stop while you're way behind.

Bob Lee said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

I couldn't, in good conscience, be a cop. Evidently they're overwhelmingly a group of mentally deficient asshats who can't arrest an old man without causing paralysis.

Are you a cop?

Mary Bailey said:

---

Are you a cop?

---

No

BigRobSA said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

I couldn't, in good conscience, be a cop. Evidently they're overwhelmingly a group of mentally deficient asshats who can't arrest an old man without causing paralysis.

---

Rob, that is perhaps the most illogical thing I have ever seen you post. Actually, I think the only illogical thing.

Evidently, overwhelmelmingly... Where's are the statistics you derived that from?

The issue here is whether the cops used excessive force or not. You and others here seem to imply the cop did this on purpose. I definitely did not see that in the video. If he had done that on purpose, he should be in prison.

As the case has played out, that is not even an accusation that is being made (outside of this board). When subjects don't comply an officer is allowed to use a reasonable amount of force. A reasonable amount of force may lead to injuries, that doesn't make it unreasonable.

If a cop uses a takedown on someone who is actively resisting them, the person resisting may get injured. They may even accidently get a broken arm that was not the intent of the cop to do. That is still a reasonable amount of force, so long as the cop didn't purposely break the arm.

If a cop uses a takedown on someone who is passively resisting (eg refuses to move, but not fighting) that would most likely be an unreasonable amount of force. Any injuries would then be on the cop.

Not complicated when you take the emotions out.

The chief of police said the officers were wrong. The cop broke his nose and neck. They ignored his pleas after they paralyzed him. You're defending the indefensible. They SETTLED for $20 million. This wasn't even a jury award.

https://www.newsweek.com/65-year-old-army-vet-files-suit-after-cops-allegedly-break-his-neck-leaving-him-paralyzed-1666467

Quote:

---

Timothy T. Williams Jr., a police tactics expert who spent nearly 30 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, said that based on the video, the officers seemed to overreact.

Pain compliance, such as using a wrist lock, is a common technique with someone who is resisting, he said. But in this case, Gross was already in handcuffs and being escorted to a patrol car.

"Apparently he just wasn't moving fast enough for them," Williams said.
"From what I observed, there was no need for pain compliance," he added. "There was no need to drive him to the ground."

He also questioned the officer twisting and suddenly raising Gross' handcuffed arms.

"That's something that during my time wasn't taught," said Williams, who served from 1974-2003. "If you don't know what you're doing you can remove it (his shoulder) from its socket."

---

Quote:

---

Williams said officers seem to have acted improperly by ignoring Gross' repeated complaints about not feeling his limbs.

"You don't make that assumption. You're not a doctor, you don't know what the person is going through," Williams said.

---

https://news.yahoo.com/were-just-against-police-brutality-021800655.html?ref=upstract.com

Quote:

---

During the press conference, Baker delivered an apology to Gross for Jackson's conduct and spoke about actions the police department has taken to prevent future instances of excessive force.

"I have replayed the events that transpired on April 12, 2020, in my mind countless times. You have been in my thoughts since this tragedy was brought to my attention. I'm disappointed by the actions of a few select members of our organization on that day. The actions taken by specific officers are indefensible," Baker said. "The Yuba City Police Department is committed to delivering a high standard of service to our community through professionalism and treating others with dignity and respect. Unfortunately on April 12, 2020, we missed the mark. And for that, Mr. Gross, I am sorry."

According to Baker, since this incident, the police department has implemented regular, random audits of body camera footage. Officers found not utilizing their body cameras during interactions with the public are held accountable, he said.

"Every use of force incident that we have is reviewed by supervisors and managers within the organization. Since this event occurred, members of our staff have received deescalation training along with numerous discussions regarding how we deal with people without using inflammatory comments or words," Baker said.

---

Sometimes cops are wrong. This time that had terrible consequences. It was their responsibility not to maim him. They failed.

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

If you think it's a "natural consequence" for police to use so much force to arrest a guy that they paralyze him, then we can't even begin to have a discussion. Not to mention the jackassery they pulled after they paralyzed him. Terrible.

I hope the hospital pays out big as well. They were also terrible.

---

If you worked at a hospital how many times would you have to hear someone lie to you about being paralyzed before you instantly became skeptical? 1,000? 5,000? Knowing that the cat scan they would have to do in order to check costs thousands, and that your tax dollars pay for it. How long would it rage until you became jaded?

Remember when he said he couldn't breathe? Did he die of asphyxia or was he lying? I do not blame the hospital staff for not believing him.

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

If you think it's a "natural consequence" for police to use so much force to arrest a guy that they paralyze him, then we can't even begin to have a discussion. Not to mention the jackassery they pulled after they paralyzed him. Terrible.

I hope the hospital pays out big as well. They were also terrible.

---

If you worked at a hospital how many times would you have to hear someone lie to you about being paralyzed before you instantly became skeptical? 1,000? 5,000? Knowing that the cat scan they would have to do in order to check costs thousands, and that your tax dollars pay for it. How long would it rage until you became jaded?

Remember when he said he couldn't breathe? Did he die of asphyxia or was he lying? I do not blame the hospital staff for not believing him.

---

Unreal.

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

Mary Bailey said:

---

The chief of police said the officers were wrong. The cop broke his nose and neck. They ignored his pleas after they paralyzed him. You're defending the indefensible. They SETTLED for $20 million. This wasn't even a jury award.

https://www.newsweek.com/65-year-old-army-vet-files-suit-after-cops-allegedly-break-his-neck-leaving-him-paralyzed-1666467

Quote:

---

Timothy T. Williams Jr., a police tactics expert who spent nearly 30 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, said that based on the video, the officers seemed to overreact.

Pain compliance, such as using a wrist lock, is a common technique with someone who is resisting, he said. But in this case, Gross was already in handcuffs and being escorted to a patrol car.

"Apparently he just wasn't moving fast enough for them," Williams said.
"From what I observed, there was no need for pain compliance," he added. "There was no need to drive him to the ground."

He also questioned the officer twisting and suddenly raising Gross' handcuffed arms.

"That's something that during my time wasn't taught," said Williams, who served from 1974-2003. "If you don't know what you're doing you can remove it (his shoulder) from its socket."

---

Quote:

---

Williams said officers seem to have acted improperly by ignoring Gross' repeated complaints about not feeling his limbs.

"You don't make that assumption. You're not a doctor, you don't know what the person is going through," Williams said.

---

https://news.yahoo.com/were-just-against-police-brutality-021800655.html?ref=upstract.com

Quote:

---

During the press conference, Baker delivered an apology to Gross for Jackson's conduct and spoke about actions the police department has taken to prevent future instances of excessive force.

"I have replayed the events that transpired on April 12, 2020, in my mind countless times. You have been in my thoughts since this tragedy was brought to my attention. I'm disappointed by the actions of a few select members of our organization on that day. The actions taken by specific officers are indefensible," Baker said. "The Yuba City Police Department is committed to delivering a high standard of service to our community through professionalism and treating others with dignity and respect. Unfortunately on April 12, 2020, we missed the mark. And for that, Mr. Gross, I am sorry."

According to Baker, since this incident, the police department has implemented regular, random audits of body camera footage. Officers found not utilizing their body cameras during interactions with the public are held accountable, he said.

"Every use of force incident that we have is reviewed by supervisors and managers within the organization. Since this event occurred, members of our staff have received deescalation training along with numerous discussions regarding how we deal with people without using inflammatory comments or words," Baker said.

---

Sometimes cops are wrong. This time that had terrible consequences. It was their responsibility not to maim him. They failed.

---

Sometimes people are responsible for their own suffering. It's not always someone else's fault. I noticed no one slammed him to the ground after the point at which he couldn't move under his own power.

BigRobSA said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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?

---

Which is why I could not in good conscience be a lawyer. At least not that kind of lawyer. His paralysis was not a penalty per se, but a natural consequence.

---

I couldn't, in good conscience, be a cop. Evidently they're overwhelmingly a group of mentally deficient asshats who can't arrest an old man without causing paralysis.

---

Overwhelmingly? 175 million citizen contacts a year and you believe one incident is overwhelming? What do you do for a living? Does it involve any kind of statistical analysis? I don't think you could be a cop either.

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

Mary Bailey said:

---

The chief of police said the officers were wrong. The cop broke his nose and neck. They ignored his pleas after they paralyzed him. You're defending the indefensible. They SETTLED for $20 million. This wasn't even a jury award.

https://www.newsweek.com/65-year-old-army-vet-files-suit-after-cops-allegedly-break-his-neck-leaving-him-paralyzed-1666467

Quote:

---

Timothy T. Williams Jr., a police tactics expert who spent nearly 30 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, said that based on the video, the officers seemed to overreact.

Pain compliance, such as using a wrist lock, is a common technique with someone who is resisting, he said. But in this case, Gross was already in handcuffs and being escorted to a patrol car.

"Apparently he just wasn't moving fast enough for them," Williams said.
"From what I observed, there was no need for pain compliance," he added. "There was no need to drive him to the ground."

He also questioned the officer twisting and suddenly raising Gross' handcuffed arms.

"That's something that during my time wasn't taught," said Williams, who served from 1974-2003. "If you don't know what you're doing you can remove it (his shoulder) from its socket."

---

Quote:

---

Williams said officers seem to have acted improperly by ignoring Gross' repeated complaints about not feeling his limbs.

"You don't make that assumption. You're not a doctor, you don't know what the person is going through," Williams said.

---

https://news.yahoo.com/were-just-against-police-brutality-021800655.html?ref=upstract.com

Quote:

---

During the press conference, Baker delivered an apology to Gross for Jackson's conduct and spoke about actions the police department has taken to prevent future instances of excessive force.

"I have replayed the events that transpired on April 12, 2020, in my mind countless times. You have been in my thoughts since this tragedy was brought to my attention. I'm disappointed by the actions of a few select members of our organization on that day. The actions taken by specific officers are indefensible," Baker said. "The Yuba City Police Department is committed to delivering a high standard of service to our community through professionalism and treating others with dignity and respect. Unfortunately on April 12, 2020, we missed the mark. And for that, Mr. Gross, I am sorry."

According to Baker, since this incident, the police department has implemented regular, random audits of body camera footage. Officers found not utilizing their body cameras during interactions with the public are held accountable, he said.

"Every use of force incident that we have is reviewed by supervisors and managers within the organization. Since this event occurred, members of our staff have received deescalation training along with numerous discussions regarding how we deal with people without using inflammatory comments or words," Baker said.

---

Sometimes cops are wrong. This time that had terrible consequences. It was their responsibility not to maim him. They failed.

---

Up until about 5 years ago, Dallas settled with everyone who claimed excessive force even when the officers did everything right. They actually sought out victims who never filed a complaint. If they used excessive force in this case, then they would be charged with official oppression or the equivalent charge in that state. They used reasonable force that evidently had a horrific outcome. I would still like to see the takedown but it is a moot point. Not my tax dollars going towards it.

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

---

Quote:

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms.

---

This is false. Here ya go, officer.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23974-quadriplegia-tetraplegia

I read in another article that the guy can move his arms, but doesn't have full use of his hands. I got the sense that he wouldn't be able to wheel himself around in a wheelchair without some help. He said he mostly lays around in a hospital bed in the middle of his living room.

Dumb policing. How about going after BLM thugs robing the stores.

Cops look like little *****es who need their asses beat. I get the guy may have been an ******* but God almighty I seriously can't feel they were threatened by a 65 yr old dude. I'm also a huge supporter of most officer's but some of them just have little d--k syndrome who do not deserve respect.

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

---

Quote:

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms.

---

This is false. Here ya go, officer.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23974-quadriplegia-tetraplegia

---

Has a video been posted yet of him fighting cops?

samurai_science said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

---

Quote:

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms.

---

This is false. Here ya go, officer.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23974-quadriplegia-tetraplegia

---

Has a video been posted yet of him fighting cops?

---

No.

Bob Lee said:

---

I read in another article that the guy can move his arms, but doesn't have full use of his hands. I got the sense that he wouldn't be able to wheel himself around in a wheelchair without some help. He said he mostly lays around in a hospital bed in the middle of his living room.

---

So he gets a motorized wheelchair. There are people with his exact symptoms who drive cars in Dallas with modified steering wheels.

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

---

Quote:

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms.

---

This is false. Here ya go, officer.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23974-quadriplegia-tetraplegia

---

Quad = 4 and refers to all the limbs. He clearly has use of two of them at least to some extent. Pointless to argue semantics

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

---

Quote:

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms.

---

This is false. Here ya go, officer.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23974-quadriplegia-tetraplegia

---

Quad = 4 and refers to all the limbs. He clearly has use of two of them at least to some extent. Pointless to argue semantics

---

Some quadriplegics have use of their arms. His hands are affected. You can see the muscle wasting and awkward movements in them. It's not semantics. It's medicine. It's perplexing that you're even arguing this. Just admit you were wrong.

Quote:

---

There are also two main ways, complete and incomplete, that quadriplegia can happen.

• Incomplete quadriplegia. This means that the quadriplegia blocks some but not all signals from getting through. That means a person might still have some ability to move, feel sensations or control automatic body processes (such as bowel and bladder function). This happens with about one-third of traumatic spinal cord injuries.
• Complete quadriplegia. This means whatever causes the quadriplegia blocks all signals from getting through. That means a person loses muscle control, the ability to feel sensations and their brain can't manage any automatic processes that rely on brain signaling to work. This happens with about 20% of spinal cord injuries.

---

Educate yourself on quadriplegia lest you encounter one in your job and injure them out of ignorance.

Bocephus said:

---

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.

---

Fortunately you'll never be on such a jury. And if you're such a big believer in actions/consequences then why don't you apply it to the LEO equally?

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

---

Quote:

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms.

---

This is false. Here ya go, officer.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23974-quadriplegia-tetraplegia

---

Quad = 4 and refers to all the limbs. He clearly has use of two of them at least to some extent. Pointless to argue semantics

---

Some quadriplegics have use of their arms. His hands are affected. You can see the muscle wasting and awkward movements in them. It's not semantics. It's medicine. It's perplexing that you're even arguing this. Just admit you were wrong.

Quote:

---

There are also two main ways, complete and incomplete, that quadriplegia can happen.

• Incomplete quadriplegia. This means that the quadriplegia blocks some but not all signals from getting through. That means a person might still have some ability to move, feel sensations or control automatic body processes (such as bowel and bladder function). This happens with about one-third of traumatic spinal cord injuries.
• Complete quadriplegia. This means whatever causes the quadriplegia blocks all signals from getting through. That means a person loses muscle control, the ability to feel sensations and their brain can't manage any automatic processes that rely on brain signaling to work. This happens with about 20% of spinal cord injuries.

---

Educate yourself on quadriplegia lest you encounter one in your job and injure them out of ignorance.

---

Lmao!! I spent years volunteering at a rehab hospital and not a single person ever used THAT definition for quadriplegics. Now I'm in hospitals every day of the week and have still not ran into a nurse or doctor who uses the term in that way. I'll make sure I use the proper terminology in the future though lest I hurt someone's FEELINGS.

cheeky said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

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.

---

Fortunately you'll never be on such a jury. And if you're such a big believer in actions/consequences then why don't you apply it to the LEO equally?

---

In what manner?

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

---

Quote:

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms.

---

This is false. Here ya go, officer.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23974-quadriplegia-tetraplegia

---

Quad = 4 and refers to all the limbs. He clearly has use of two of them at least to some extent. Pointless to argue semantics

---

Some quadriplegics have use of their arms. His hands are affected. You can see the muscle wasting and awkward movements in them. It's not semantics. It's medicine. It's perplexing that you're even arguing this. Just admit you were wrong.

Quote:

---

There are also two main ways, complete and incomplete, that quadriplegia can happen.

• Incomplete quadriplegia. This means that the quadriplegia blocks some but not all signals from getting through. That means a person might still have some ability to move, feel sensations or control automatic body processes (such as bowel and bladder function). This happens with about one-third of traumatic spinal cord injuries.
• Complete quadriplegia. This means whatever causes the quadriplegia blocks all signals from getting through. That means a person loses muscle control, the ability to feel sensations and their brain can't manage any automatic processes that rely on brain signaling to work. This happens with about 20% of spinal cord injuries.

---

Educate yourself on quadriplegia lest you encounter one in your job and injure them out of ignorance.

---

Lmao!! I spent years volunteering at a rehab hospital and not a single person ever used THAT definition for quadriplegics. Now I'm in hospitals every day of the week and have still not ran into a nurse or doctor who uses the term in that way. I'll make sure I use the proper terminology in the future though lest I hurt someone's FEELINGS.

---

Unreal. This guy knows more than the freakin' Cleveland Clinic. And actual quadriplegics! You're embarrassing yourself at this point. But message Cole (YT guy above) and let him know he's not a quad. I'm sure he'll be excited to hear it!

How do so many people with egos so huge that they can't admit when they're wrong become cops? It's basically an epidemic at this point. Terrible.

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

Mary Bailey said:

---

Bocephus said:

---

fasthorse05 said:

---

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 may be involved outside of the $14 million. Attorneys here can clarify my statement.

---

Attorneys can get 35% plus expenses so it will be more like $10 million left (quite sure this figure will go down on appeals). I'm still confused why a para is confined to the bed.

---

He's a quadriplegic. He does use a wheelchair but is mostly in bed due to pain.

Quote:

---

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?

---

How do you think his neck and nose were broken if it wasn't by the cops?

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms. He is a paraplegic which means he can get around in a wheelchair which means he is not bedridden. That was a lie by the attorney in order to get more money. Trying to claim he needs round the clock nursing to Jack up the payout. Simply not being able to use your legs would suffice Imo.

As I said before, the fact that he has a bloody nose indicates to me that he hit the ground face first which makes me doubt that as the cause of the broken neck. If he had gone down crown of the head first, it would have made a lot more sense. One of the reasons police are trained in this takedown is bc it is highly unlikely to cause a neck or back injury. I've repeatedly said that it seems more likely that he broke his neck in the car accident, which was either exacerbated by the takedown or caused by the takedown. If it WAS caused by the takedown then WHY didn't the lawyers video show that? Jury saw everything and we did not, so you would have to assume there was more proof that it was caused by the takedown.

---

Unreal.

I'll wait for you to post a link to support your claims. I've posted two. You should start by researching quadriplegia.

---

Maybe you should look up the definition of quadriplegic first

---

Quote:

---

If he was quad, he wouldn't be able to use his arms.

---

This is false. Here ya go, officer.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/23974-quadriplegia-tetraplegia

---

Quad = 4 and refers to all the limbs. He clearly has use of two of them at least to some extent. Pointless to argue semantics

---

Some quadriplegics have use of their arms. His hands are affected. You can see the muscle wasting and awkward movements in them. It's not semantics. It's medicine. It's perplexing that you're even arguing this. Just admit you were wrong.

Quote:

---

There are also two main ways, complete and incomplete, that quadriplegia can happen.

• Incomplete quadriplegia. This means that the quadriplegia blocks some but not all signals from getting through. That means a person might still have some ability to move, feel sensations or control automatic body processes (such as bowel and bladder function). This happens with about one-third of traumatic spinal cord injuries.
• Complete quadriplegia. This means whatever causes the quadriplegia blocks all signals from getting through. That means a person loses muscle control, the ability to feel sensations and their brain can't manage any automatic processes that rely on brain signaling to work. This happens with about 20% of spinal cord injuries.

---

Educate yourself on quadriplegia lest you encounter one in your job and injure them out of ignorance.

---

Lmao!! I spent years volunteering at a rehab hospital and not a single person ever used THAT definition for quadriplegics. Now I'm in hospitals every day of the week and have still not ran into a nurse or doctor who uses the term in that way. I'll make sure I use the proper terminology in the future though lest I hurt someone's FEELINGS.

---

Unreal. This guy knows more than the freakin' Cleveland Clinic. And actual quadriplegics! You're embarrassing yourself at this point. But message Cole (YT guy above) and let him know he's not a quad. I'm sure he'll be excited to hear it!

How do so many people with egos so huge that they can't admit when they're wrong become cops? It's basically an epidemic at this point. Terrible.

---

Must be the same way people in your profession struggle to comprehend the phrase "pointless to argue semantics."