This is bad, really a crying shame.

[ronwill]

Tried to read the article but got a "File not found" message. They must have removed it.

 

[coloradokevin]

Really? A series of claims made in a newspaper article by the plaintiff's attorney is now everything required to form an opinion? If so, we've really lowered our standards as to burden of proof.

Now, if the video evidence does indeed support the accusation, they have a case. The fact that charges were dropped is encouraging in that regard, but not in and of itself indicative. As I said before, I want to see the tape.

Agreed.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions here simply because the officers are being sued. The average career patrol officer probably gets sued a dozen times in their career. I was sued twice in my first two years on the job, and nothing came of either suit (one was over a parking ticket!).

Also, the last line of the story leaves it open for some ambiguity... It sounds like he may have been convicted on a resistance charge. It says that: "his aggravated assault charge was dropped to resisting arrest. The assault charge was dropped on when Lisa Decker, a prosecutor for the state, signed a motion to dismiss, which stated: "After reviewing the videotape, it has been determined that this case should not be prosecuted". So, the assault charge has been addressed, but not the resistance charge. If he plead to a resistance, or was found guilty, I feel little sympathy for him.

 

[Justin]

This thread is three years old.