Suing the Police for EXCESSIVE FORCE – FIS Live No. 20



The Civil Rights Lawyer explains how and when a citizen can sue the police for excessive force under federal civil rights law. It seems that everyone has an opinion on police use of force in recent months. In this video, I’ll explain the law of excessive force, which dictates when a justified use of force becomes an unlawful use of force and a federal civil rights violation. This has been my primary practice area the past decade or so, so I’ll point out some of the practical lessons I’ve learned along the way.

Read more at thecivilrightslawyer.com

source

33 thoughts on “Suing the Police for EXCESSIVE FORCE – FIS Live No. 20”

  1. Police officers are indemnified by the city or state agency that they work for. Like you said by you suing the police officer he will be indemnified by his employer. I thought you had to sue the police Agencies not the police officers per say. I do get what your saying now good piece of information thank you. I get what your saying about when you would sue agencies as opposed the suing a police officer.

  2. Whenever you HEAR A """PIG"" OR ""PIG'S"" say STOP RESISTISTING, you know somebody's getting a ""SHIT"" BEAT out of them or CHOKED the "SHIT""out of them.. and then these """PIG'S""" will charge you with ASSAULT..

  3. Thank you! I was just assaulted by a cop for sitting at a stop sign near my home. I have no criminal history! I have had so much anxiety because he charged me with obstruction and violence and force! All because he didn't like that I told him he was harassing me. When the other officer asked me what I was doing there he grabbed me before I could answer and assaulted me when I told him to get off.

  4. I and my good friend are in the area of serving a service for fReEdOm and liberty. My friend is daniel chiotis which you have had a conversation via youtube channels. I was also curious if you are the same fine gentleman who was recently in John fIlAx and I joined a group of "people" .

  5. Foot soldiers(badges) incessantly maintain they are judge, jury and executioner on the street.

    De-Escalation Training, Level of Force/Engagement Protocols(policy), Psychological Monitoring, Use-of-Force Complaints, Internal Affairs/Office of Professional Conduct Investigations, State "Code', Federal Code, etc… With so many written and interventional policies and law, it is amazing the act of excessive force is so subjective in discussion and defense of it.
    Self-defense claimed by a policy enforcer is ridiculous. Particularly when all reports state there are (more than one) other enforcers on-scene. Policy enforcer "safety" is no law. The right to resist an unlawful arrest is inalienable. Court protects doing so: Bad Elk v. US(1900). But, as stated above, there are always more than one enforcers and it turns into a free-for-all without self-control or recognition of duty or law. Judge, jury and executioner…

    "We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred is a wedge designed to attack our civilization." FDR Jan. 9, 1940

  6. An auditor I watch has a problem. He’s a blind veteran and was arrested for resisting arrest. He tried to appear in court with his assistive devices. The officers wouldn’t let him enter the building and was arrested for failure to appear. You can look him up on YouTube under Blind Justice, he lives in North Carolina. He was put in a max prison. Judge required $50,000 cash bail and to remain under house arrest until the next hearing. Please, can you help him or direct him to someone who can help.

  7. If the constitution had any jurisdiction in law at all it died with the signatories and oaths to it are meaningless without privity. It’s tough for lawyers to see the forest through the trees but that’s the whole point and why practicing law is regulated. To assure their scam is secure. It’s just organized crime calling itself a government. Statutory law is bound by the UCC and according to UCC 1.207 if a person makes a reservation of rights reserved, they can then compel the court to bring forth a victim or dismiss. This literally wipes out most statutory law and all victimless crimes. The absence of a rights reservation results in a loss of natural rights by concepts of waiver or estoppel. They’re just organized criminals. All of it. Man has no dominion over ruling other men and evidence for consent of the governed does not exist.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top