Will a bodyguard be charged with assaulting an officer if he’s defending his client from police brutality?
If a policeman thinks he can get away with police brutality, what are the odds (absent video evidence) that the courts won’t back him up when he claims obstruction and assaulting a policeman?
If there is proof, it’s a fine line the guy is walking and unlikely he can win. What constitutes “excessive” force has to be pretty obvious. Hitting a police officer unnecessarily hard in defence may constitute assault. preventing him from performing an arrest is obstruction. Even getting in the way is obstruction. It’s up to your judge or jury whether they are tolerant of this sort of activity.
The safest course of action is probably to stand back and file a complaint later.
(Of course, up to the trial and if convicted, the guy could lose his gun permit, which would mean he’s screwed if that’s a job requirement, etc. Anytime you take on the system, you do so at your peril.)
I’ve always wondered how many direct eyewitnesses it would take to break the “wall of blue” that policemen enjoy. If two policemen start committing acts of brutality, how many witnesses does it take before a judge/jury is likely to rule against the policeman’s story. Is 4 direct witnesses enough? 8? Or does it take an infinite number?
Of course the bodyguard will be charged. It would then be up to a jury to decide if he were justified in defending his client. Can’t really think of a scenario where he wouldn’t get charged even if the charge was BS.
I have no idea but I’ve wondered this before too. what quantity/quality of witnesses does it take to contradict a cops word? with witnesses quality matters too I assume.
one video camera is all it takes, but those aren’t always around.
There are bodyguards and then there are bodyguards. There are the tall, muscular, angry looking guys and there are guys who’ve had training in what is legal and what isn’t, psychology, unarmed and armed defense, situational awareness, and the like.
Depends on the jury ,and to some extent where the trial is. In the Bronx , one would be enough.
Exactly. You can jump in and become a co-defendant and basically not make much of a difference, or stand back and observe and be a witness during the multimillion dollar lawsuit, with impeccable credentials, a background in law enforcement or professional security, and NO CHARGES PENDING to yourself.
They are now. That’s one thing the smartphone has changed about LE/civilian interactions for the better. Damn near everybody can post a video of anything, and cops can’t stop them without escalating the situation out of control.
Just out of curiosity, how would one go about finding and hiring a trained professional bodyguard? (Don’t need answer fast.)
It’s a tough call. Look at the Rodney King video. I saw someone refusing to obey police instruction to stay still and going after the cops (albeit on his hands and knees). Clearly many (most?) disagree with me so you’re asking 12 individuals to make a judgement call on whether it was brutality or not.
And let’s add in the fact that the law is not logical. You could very well have a case where it is brutality and everyone agrees it’s brutality but the law says you have to let him beat on your client because at the time it had not been ruled by a court as brutality. That sort of law would not surprise me.
There is/was a case in the SF Bay Area BART transit system where the BART cops had the guy face down, arms behind his back. There were heated words exchanged, involving the N* one, used by both the shooter and the victim.
There was a train full of passengers, many of whom were using their cell cameras.
The shooter claimed he thought he had his Tazer (yellow) in hand, not his pistol.
He shot the guy in the small of his back - an execution, pure and simple.
The Prosecutor originally charged him with some form of manslaughter. Then, one bit of video came forth, and the charge was changed to 1st Degree Murder (there had been bad blood between the two).
The news simply referred to the new video as providing “info previous videos had not” for explaining the change.
My guess: the new video showed the cop releasing the safety and/or racking the round.
Now we have cops getting their towns to pass laws making it illegal to photograph cops “performing their duties”.
Keep the cameras rolling kids, and that blue wall will crumble.
Prior to Melvin Belli, the standard of proof for medical malpractice was “getting x doctors to swear that the treatment was not appropriate for the time and place”.
I wonder when “malpractice insurance” was invented.
Malpractice may have swung too far the other way, but it’s better than what it was in the 1950’s, where you needed to personally know a nurse in every hospital, lest you get the guy who killed more than he cured.
I’d look for keywords like “Executive Protection” and “bonded” for a start. Maybe ask the local police for recommendations.