Black Man Sues Chicago Police Accused of Brutalizing Him After Stopping Him....

In Chicago, as in most places in the US, as a pedestrian in a public place, he has no obligation to speak to the officers at all. He doesn't have to present ID, give his name, or any other information. They have no legal cause to physically touch him in any way unless they are charging him with a crime and arresting him. [More info]

Unless he has been legally detained, which they must announce and have an articulable crime they reasonably suspect him of committing, he can simply walk away from them, not answering any of their questions at all. They cannot search him, other than a "Terry frisk", until they have arrested him.

"Resisting Arrest" is a secondary offense. One cannot be guilty of resisting arrest until there has been an arrest made. There certainly cannot be a RA charge as the only charge.

My opinion: His rights were violated, and he should sue their pants off. They'll investigate themselves and find no wrongdoing. He'll get a fat settlement, and they'll admit no fault. That's just how it goes.

 

They don't need justification to interact.

 

1. Specifically.
2. It was his body movements, not the look on his face.

 

They do need justification to place their hands on him. He has no legal obligation to participate in any interaction until he has been legally detained.

 

Until he started acting crazy?

 

They judged him to be a suspect because of the way he looked, and that lead to "resisting an arrest" ... when they had nothing to arrest him for. That's simply violating his 4th amendment. Do stick to what them cops wrote down in their own police report of what the reason was.

 

You say that, while the cops put down in their own police report that it was the look on his face

 

Is 'acting crazy' a felony, or a misdemeanor? Acting crazy is perfectly within his rights, as long as he doesn't commit a crime while doing so.

Police in the US may only legally detain you if they have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that you are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a crime. When doing so, they may perform a Terry frisk (pat down on the outside of your clothes only) and place you in handcuffs, and prevent you from leaving for a REASONABLE amount of time for them to investigate whether you have committed the crime for which you have been detained.

After that, you must be released or arrested.

It is my understanding that the reason they articulated for stopping him is because they had reason to believe he was illegally concealing a weapon. Once they determined he was not, he should have been released unless they had RAS for additional crimes they needed to investigate.

No one in this video behaved well, however, the gentleman acted within his rights and the law, whereas the police did not.

He has a 1st amendment right to say what he wants and 'act crazy', a 4th amendment right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and a 5th amendment right to not cooperate in his own incrimination. All of these were forcibly violated.

 

I think we all realize that non of your replies drags in how exactly this was within the 4th amendment.
It really is just an unfounded pro-cop opinion that's not founded on anything except your feels.

 

I fail to understand how you can construe anything I have said in this thread as "pro-cop".

 

The post is meant for "reasonable" rob.

 

Hence why I'm here.

 

No, they interacted with him because of his look, formed their grounds to justify search and then he crazily decided to resist earning himself a night in the cells, What is wrong with people, why don't they just co-operate?

 

It says in the police report that he was stopped for "look on his face", and the cop took hold of his throat within 3 seconds when you look at the body cam footage. That makes it so that they breached his 4th amendement. They always intended to grab him and he had zero time to act crazy between being stopping and the first moment of the cop moving his hand to the throat.

Why can't cops respect peoples constitutional rights?

 

People in the US are under no obligation to cooperate in their own incrimination. He had no obligation to answer any questions, or cooperate in any way. He would have been smart to allow them to violate his rights without resisting because that would put him in a better position to recover his damages, however, the initial stop was unlawful, the assault and battery was unlawful, the seizure and incarceration was unlawful. His rights were violated, and he will recover a big fat payday because of it if he chooses to pursue it.

I do realize that police in Britain have much more power when interacting with subjects of the Queen. Here in the US, they are sworn to respect and defend citizens constitutional rights, and when they don't, as in this case, they open their department to civil rights lawsuits.

Qualified immunity protects the individual officers from lawsuits, and they use this to be able to ambush and bully people with impunity who's looks they don't like. That's another topic for another thread, but it badly needs reform to hold individual officers accountable when they knowingly and intentionally violate people's constitutional rights.

 

My prediction for the outcome of this encounter:

Chicago police and the FOP will investigate themselves, where they will find no wrongdoing. Mr. Kennedy's lawyer will serve them with an intent to sue. In response, the city will pay a handsome settlement in an undisclosed amount to Mr. Kennedy in exchange for his silence on the matter. The officers involved will suffer no disciplinary action, and will go out the very next day and violate the rights of another citizen. The entire case will disappear from the public radar. Wash..rinse..repeat..