If you do not follow the instructions concerning our policy on external links
your submission will be sent to the spam folder.
In his federal civil rights lawsuit, for which he served as his own attorney, the plaintiff claimed that the primary officer jerked his hands behind his back, pushed him, "tripped [him] to the ground," "jumped" on his back, and punched him in the head and face, loosening a tooth. Then a backup officer Tasered him. Then the first officer resumed the beating--all while the offender, despite a history of "displaying violent tendencies toward police," was non-resistant and compliant.
What's more, he had a video to back up his story.
Or did he?
The time-stamped, 12-second footage he presented as evidence in a summary judgment hearing was of "poor quality, with blurry images," "unidentifiable faces," and an unexplained origin, District Court Judge James Beaty Jr. noted last month.
The video showed two males in short-sleeved uniforms bent over an "unrecognizable" third person, whose only body part visible in the camera frame was an arm being held by one of the men. A "fist or arm" of one of the males seemed to be "falling against the downed individual." A voice swearing and asking, "What are you hitting me for?," could be heard on the sound track, but there were "no sounds of scuffling, thrashing, other voices, or the impact of physical blows," no "exclamations of pain," and no reactions from the alleged victim that were in time with the apparent beating, the judge said.
Patrol car video submitted by the defendants showed that the accused officers actually were wearing long-sleeved uniforms. In the background, the accuser's black car was visible, whereas no car could be seen in the plaintiff's film. Plus, there was no fourth person in the dash-cam footage, although, the judge said, whoever took the plaintiff's video "would have to have been standing nearly on top" of the action to capture the angles shown.
In sum, the judge found, the suspect's video "is not authentic and cannot be an accurate representation of the events of Plaintiff's arrest." In short, it was a fake.
Nice try, guy.
Summary judgment granted.