Posted on 07/06/2007 11:55:40 AM PDT by radar101
SAN DIEGO ---- A federal jury ruled last week that Vista sheriff's deputies used unreasonable force and unlawfully arrested two teenage brothers in a February 2005 incident at the Vista Village shopping and entertainment center.
Jurors set the total amount of damages suffered by the brothers at $400,000 ---- $200,000 each. The jury ruled, though, that one of the brothers was 25 percent responsible for what happened to him, leaving the total damages awarded at $350,000.
Senior Deputy County Counsel Ricky Sanchez said Thursday that no decision has been made about whether to appeal the case.
DeJoyce "Joy" Johnson, the mother of the two teens, said in a telephone interview Thursday that they were "ecstatic" about the verdict, which she said "vindicated" her sons and restored some of their faith in the judicial system.
"I wanted my boys to see justice can and will prevail if you go about it the right way," Johnson said of her reason for pursuing a lawsuit.
Johnson said that her oldest son, Fred Johnson, now 18, cried when he learned of the verdict and told his mother that the jury believed him, which was important to him.
The Johnsons moved from Vista to North Carolina in November 2005, largely because of the incident that was the basis for the lawsuit, DeJoyce Johnson said.
Documents filed with the court stated that the incident began after 10 p.m. Feb. 25, 2005, as sheriff's Deputies Lisa Jenkins and Maureen Perkins spoke with groups of young people outside the Krikorian movie theater about the city's 11 p.m. curfew and the need for the people in the groups to have transportation home.
DeJoyce Johnson said her sons were outside restaurants near the theater after a movie they saw ended about 10 p.m. The teens were part of a group of five or six black youths, Johnson said.
Johnson said she was at a Bible study that night. When it ended, she called her sons and realized they had been trying to reach her by phone. That is when she learned deputies had detained them, she said.
The Johnson family's attorney, Michael Marrinan, alleged in a trial brief filed last month that deputies appeared to think that Elijah Johnson, then 14, was being a "smart aleck" when he responded to the deputies that he thought the curfew was at midnight. Although he had committed no crime, deputies handcuffed him, searched him and took him to the sheriff's office at the Vista Village center, the Johnsons alleged.
Sanchez alleged in the county's trial brief that Elijah Johnson responded to deputies in a "verbally abusive and hostile manner," denied having identification, and "suddenly reached into his pockets." Deputies grabbed his hand because they did not know if he was armed and escorted him to the nearby sheriff's office to contact his parents because his resistance to the deputies "could have a tendency to incite other minors in the group," Sanchez alleged in the trial brief.
Two deputies later brought Fred Johnson to the sheriff's office as well, and he called his mother at the deputies' request, the trial briefs stated.
Marrinan alleged in the Johnsons' trial brief that deputies then "started to get in Fred's face" and became angry when he refused to tell them what he discussed with his mother. Sanchez alleged that after the phone call, Fred Johnson was "verbally abusive and physically aggressive towards the deputies."
Marrinan alleged that the deputies yanked Fred Johnson out of his chair, forced him down to a counter and took him to the ground. He was "hit, kicked, stomped and beaten by deputies" when he resisted, was hog-tied with a dog leash and eventually was taken to Juvenile Hall, the Johnsons alleged in the trial brief.
Sanchez alleged in the county's trial brief that deputies told Fred Johnson he was going to be arrested for disturbing the peace and obstructing them from managing other juveniles at the Vista Village center. He then struggled with deputies, two of whom were injured as they wrestled him to the ground and handcuffed him, Sanchez alleged.
Elijah Johnson was not prosecuted. Fred Johnson was charged with felonies in Juvenile Court, but a judge there acquitted him, finding that deputies had no justification for detaining either of them, Marrinan wrote in the Johnsons' trial brief. Fred Johnson spent 40 days in Juvenile Hall, his mother said.
The verdict form from the federal civil trial shows that jurors decided that deputies Jenkins and Perkins unlawfully detained and arrested the brothers, interfered with or attempted to interfere with their constitutional rights, and used unreasonable force. The jury, however, decided that the deputies did not commit battery on the brothers and that Fred Johnson was negligent and partially responsible for what happened to him.
Contact staff writer Scott Marshall at (760) 631-6623 or smarshall@nctimes.com.
Exactly how much are you willing to pay to have an officer come to a call? Free market place and all. Officers like doctors will require a substantial fee to see you and to cover their malpractice insurance. You can damn bet cops aren’t paid nearly enough to cover the insurance for their their charge to use deadly force. Perhaps, we should check your credit rating to determine if you require services.
How do you deal with it? What should Lisa and Maureen, probably not senior deputies, not highly paid, possibly not college graduates with degrees and clinical experience in adolescent psychology, and almost certainly not among the highest paid members of the community, how should they handle it. What is a reasonable expectation to have of somebody who has a respectable chance, if she makes the wrong decision, of being killed, maimed, disabled, or at least bleeding a little?
You know, Democrats seem to feel that the United States ought to be prepared to absorb a few bombed buildings and hijacked aircraft, and a few thousand murdered citizens without taking steps to defend herself. Of course the Democrats who think so have not been murdered, but let that pass.
There seems to be a similar line of thought about police work. Cops should be prepared to make absolutely sure that there is no chance they are leaping to conclusions about what a juvenile is going after when he makes a sudden move to his pocket, and if a few cops are disfigured, crippled, or killed every year, hey you want omelets, you gotta break legs, uh eggs.
If that's the job description for law enforcement, how much would you want to be paid to take the job?
Please reread the post to which I am responding. He is referencing an out of control DA who pressed charges in the face of overwhelming exculpatory evidence. These people, and rogue judges, should be liable personally when they step so blatantly outside of their professional responsibility.
Cops, on the other hand, have to make life-and-death decisions with little notice. I would not like them to have to watch their legal six when doing so. However, when one of them commits actual crimes (as does happen), he should be prosecuted criminally and liable to his victims punitively. “The People” shouldn’t be on the hook for more than actual damages... punitive damages should come from those who need to be punished.
She went ballistic ~ hit me with a frying pan ~ right upside the head, and now we've got a SWAT team on the front lawn.
Doggone.
As the laws become more and more draconian expect to see fewer Officers (and a lot more supervisors of course) and much more real crime. My understanding is that there are areas of LA that Police won’t respond to for routine calls.
BTW, they have a sign out on I-5 warning folks to not run down the Mexicans.
The observation you point to is quite ordinarily made ~ after all, Mexicans are in the majority. Everybody else best be aware of that and step off the sidewalk onto the roadway as they pass.
Why would we posit that? What arrest? There's a difference between detention and arrest. And what if the alleged felony is alleged to have occurred AFTER the detention or arrest? The logical and temporal relationship between arrest and alleged felony is not simple or clear. And SOMEBODY thought there was reason to keep the little angle Fred in Juvie for 40 days. What's up with THAT? Deputies don't get to make that call. YOu don't keep someone in Juvie for almost 6 weeks without a judge or a magistrate getting involved at some point.
And don't get snowed by the writing (and presentation) of the article:
Fred Johnson was charged with felonies in Juvenile Court, but a judge there acquitted him, finding that deputies had no justification for detaining either of them, Marrinan wrote in the Johnsons' trial brief. Fred Johnson spent 40 days in Juvenile Hall, his mother said.Does the reporter connect two unconnected things, the acquittal and ANOTHER finding that he should not have been detained? OR is the reporter concluding that an acquittal means there was sno justification for detention? And then the poster bolds part of the sentence, but leaves in normal face the part which tells us that the bolded part is what the kid's lawyer says, NOT necessarily what actually happened. It's a REPORTER remember? When reporters are not busy giving away military and intelligence secrets to our enemies, they don't as a rule line up and form a cheering squad for cops.The only reason, then, that a suit could have gone forward is because the sheriff's deputies first acted in an irresponsible manner. Yes, they should get sued. Suits go forward on, what, "probable cause", "reason to believe"? They're decided on, the standard is, a "preponderance of the evidence", right?
Maybe the way to look at this is: People are electing scoundrels as sheriffs, municipalities are hiring scoundrels and police chiefs, and sheriffs and police chiefs are hiring fools and scoundrels ans deputies and officers. Do you have any thoughts about how to improve the situation?
But, just between us, what did you have in your pocket?
Find a line of work he is compentant at.
Bingo. I am more concerned about cops out of control than punks out of control. Against the punks I can defend myself . The cops have the system to protect them. Things such as the incident in the article happen too often and usually go unpunished.
You mean like spelling?
Do please tell us how to check a vacant house/ construction site being burgled? How should a single cop and a dog go about it so that there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER that anyone will be hurt? I mean, after all, you are so quick to judge this excellent officer to be incom - uh, how did you spell it? incompentant, there, that's it, that you must know enough about it to judge him on the basis of the sparse information I provided. Impressive. About as impressive as your orthography.
Tell us what he did wrong, and how he should have done it. Please, I want to learn! (He didn't lose the suit, incidentally. But, of course, you know so much that you knew that, and knew he was "incompentant" anyway.)
And, of course, my favorite question: how much should a compentant LEO be paid and what kind of insurance should be provided for him and his family? Are they paying that in your community? What are you going to do about it?
Okay, you wise and knowing people have me stumped. What exactly is "incompentant" or "out of control" about shooting BACK at a suspect who shot at you and hit your dog?
Actually, I got by the photo of the S&M guy and read the article. I think paying for a root canal every week would be better than being an NYPD cop.
I certainly don't have a problem with a cop returning fire after being fired upon by a felon.
My comments re out of control police were in reference to the article
You yourself suggest that your friend may not be up to the next incident he is faced with because of his experience. If that is the case, he should find another line of work...for his own good as well as the public
As to your saying that my friend may not be "up to" the next deadly force encounter he is involved in, I wish you would think some more I(and, well, differently, like for example, MY way .... ;-) )about what we are discussing here.
The guy is directed to respond to a "suspicious circumstance". When he does, he is fired upon and returns fire, getting a spinal cord hit on the bad guy. (Being fired upon tends to have an effect on the adrenal medulla, and all the more because with cops it's not all that frequent.) Since in this county the PD and the SO were all directed to train and aim for COM hits, spinal cord hits are not a surprise, but are what happens when a cop successfully follows departmental policy.
For doing his job as trained and as requested, the cop is taken off the street -- and out of his career path -- for around a year. THEN he is sued. And if I understand civil law at all, there are few circumstances in which your shooting and hitting me would preserve you immune from the expense and disturbance of a civil suit.
So now I am saying that the result of his doing his job in a professional and successful way is that he is, in effect, punished. And you are characterizing him as not 'up to" the job any more and suggesting that he look for other work. And you are doing this in the context of a discussion in which you mention "cops out of control" as a concern of yours.
Turn this around and make what actually happens to a cop who does his job part of the job description. You know what I mean,
Wanted: Person who is willing to suffer significant financial and emotional penalties, and posssible jail time and career loss or interruption, and that's for doing the job RIGHT and AS REQUESTED or ORDERED!And you're worried about COPS out of control? (So am I, actually, but it interferes with my rhetorical -- and orthographical -- flow here ....) Might it not be time to start worrying about a citizenry and a polity out of control? What do you think of someone who says, "I want you to do this, and will fire or penalize you if you do it." What comes to mind first? "Personality Disorder"? That's what communities are saying to their LEOs.
All y'all: Get on the mailing list of the Force Science Institute in Mankato MN. You wanna learn the reality of deadly force encounters, that's a good place to start: Neurology, Psychology, and physics about what happens when a finger tightens on a trigger, and so forth. Interesting stuff.
Now I’m confused. Are you speaking for yourself or your friend. If your friend is as conflicted about his job as you describe, he should find another line of work. If you are, what difference does it make. All your rhetorical questions don’t matter to me.
News: This kind of thing is universal. After comparing notes with an Oklahoma State Trooper, a retired Oregon Sheriff, a retired Columbus Ohio PD officer, and retired Orange County (CA) sheriff deputy, it is everywhere. The biggest factors: The Federal Government and the ACLU constantly sticking their nose in, and liability.
They are over paid and a lot of them are in jail are on there way for selling drugs and etc.
Hold on to that simple confession: You're confused. It is almost Socratic in its simplicity and honesty.
I offered no rhetorical questions. My point is that you anti-cop guys are essentially clueless about the reality off the questions you raise. You are to local law enforcement as the Dims and liberals are to Foreign Policy. Y'all have a standard and expectation for local LEOs for which y'all are not prepared to pay and which has no meaningful connection with reality. You all generally prefer complaining and blaming to thinking about the problem, understanding it, and coming up with reasonable solutions, that is with taking up the responsibilities of citizenship in a republic. Blaming and hating cops is fun. Thinking is hard. It's essentially an economic issue.
See, if thinking were a value here, you'd see that it's the people who hired my friend who have the conflict, since they punish what they require, and penalize those who do what they hire them to do.
Your take is entirely credible to me. The same unwillingness to confront the surd of international relations in a world where killing is sometimes cheaper than negotiating is, if anything, more widely shared when people think about local law enforcement. There is an infantile or border-line expectation that if the beat cop isn’t perfect he is to be despised and excoriated, and an unwillingness to look at and to consider what it means to hire people at inadequate wages to be perfectly objective and fair when some *ss-h*le is throwing lead at them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.