Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

This is an extremely disturbing video of what happened yesterday in Oakland, California at an Occupy Oakland protest. A young Iraq war veteran named Scott Olsen, age 24, is potentially brain injured thanks to a police officer throwing something that some people are alleging to be a flashbang grenade, i.e. a bomb, into a crowd of people. When a crowd of young people rush to help save him it appears that the police officer throws a second bomb at the crowd. At this point, the police department have issued a press release denying use of flash bang devices but others dispute this.

Flashbang grenades are NOT a non-lethal use of force as some police departments would have you believe. They are deadly. Just this year in Charlotte, North Carolina, a SWAT officer by the name of Fred Thornton was killed when a flash bang grenade exploded as he was securing his equipment in the trunk of his patrol car. Certain city police departments, including the New York City Police Department have banned the use of flash bang grenades because they kill innocent victims.

Sadly, certain police departments in Georgia use this dangerous device and have unjustifiably injured innocent Georgia civilians. For example, we've had clients with gruesome burns all over just because a police department in our state has unjustifiably thrown these bombs in the bedroom windows of innocent Georgia citizens while sleeping.

The video clip is an absolute example of police misconduct that violates the Constitutional rights of United States citizens. Shame on Oakland Mayor and Chief of Police for allowing such an unacceptable, illegal and unconstitutional use of force!

Hopefully, Scott Olsen, the 24 year old young man and Iraq war veteran who was injured by police yesterday, will pull through and recover without lasting damage to his brain. It is shocking that what he escaped on the streets of Iraq he came home to on the streets of America.

We do not live in a regime like Syria where dictators abuse their citizens without recourse. The Fourth Amendment of our United States Constitution protects persons from such such unlawful activities. Additionally, our civil justice system, as is guaranteed in the Seventh Amendment allows us to seek redress for violations of our Constitutional rights. Shame on the city of Oakland if in fact it is true that a police officer was allowed to throw a flashbang grenade at a crowd of people. These bombs due more than stun. They seriously maim and kill.

Good Georgia Lawyer calls on the Mayor of Oakland and Chief of Police to stop this unnecessary violence, do the right thing, and protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

UPDATE: Oakland Police Department is denying that these were in fact were flashbang grenades. We hope this is true. But regardless, the above video clip shows unacceptable use of force against citizens and a clear violation of Constitutional rights.

This is a video clip that would be hilariously funny if it was not so true. This is a conversation between an injured person and an insurance company adjuster. The insurance company adjuster represents the drunk driver who caused the injured person's broken legs and brain injury.

Many people make the horrible mistake of trusting the insurance adjuster who represents the person that hurt them. No matter what type of injury case you are involved in, this is the worst thing you can do. The insurance adjuster is not on your side! Their only goal is to try and get you to settle for as low of an amount of money as possible.

No matter how nice they may seem, they are not your friend and they do not have your best interest at heart. Do not give them a statement. Do not sign any release forms. Do not talk to them or anyone else before talking to an attorney.

Sometimes we meet injured plaintiffs who thought they could "out smart" the insurance company and settle their case themselves. Unfortunately, they do not understand who and what they are going up against--and the result is very damaging.

As you can see from this video, the insurance company's standard defense will be to try and deny that their insured had anything to do with causing your injuries as well as to deny that you are really even injured. And if you are injured, they will scour your past medical records and argue that your injuries had something to do with a pre-existing condition.

Don't go it alone! If you are suffering any type of problem make sure you seek counsel to understand all your rights and to protect your legal interests.

On Monday, February 21st, seven prison guards from Macon State Prison were arrested on charges of beating Mr. Terrence Dean, a client of Williams Oinonen LLC, so badly that he sustained brain injuries and was partially paralyzed.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation found that the guards had assaulted Mr. Dean: Georgia Bureau of Investigation spokesman John Bankhead stated that the seven prison guards-- Christopher Hall, Ronald Lach, Derrick, Wimbush, Willie Redden, Darren Douglass Griffin, Kerry Bolden and Delton Rushin -- were arrested Monday after they reported to work at the prison.

The GBI investigation began amid reports that guards attacked inmates at two state institutions - Macon State Prison and Smith State Prison near Savannah. The alleged assaults came at the end of a six-day protest and work stoppage at nearly a dozen facilities.

All seven guards were charged with aggravated battery and violating their oaths of office.

The arrests follow a prison strike within Georgia's Department of Corrections. In December, inmates in at least four prisons throughout Georgia refused to work until conditions improved. Williams Oinonen LLC represent multiple clients who have been victims of these recent prison guard beatings.

The New York Times spotlighted the recent arrest mentioning Mario Williams, the attorney heading the case from Williams Oinonen LLC. Additionally, our firm was pleased to see that the Atlanta Journal Constitution also wrote a very substantial article on the prison guard arrest.

The Alabama State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) with the family of Michael McIntyre, a young black man who was shot and killed after being gunned down five times in the back by Tallassee, Alabama Police on December 29th, is calling for the Department of Justice and FBI to conduct a thorough investigation into their son's death. Tallassee is a small rural town in eastern Alabama with a population of 5000 and a racial makeup of 80 percent white and 18 percent black.

News reports stated that the Tallassee police was serving a warrant at an apartment where Michael was visiting a friend. Michael did not have any warrants for his arrest, nor were the police looking for him. Witnesses reported that they observed police officers chasing Michael, the lead officer having a gun in his hand and that they did not observe Michael having a gun or threatening the police with a weapon as he ran from them. The police attempted to taze Michael and then shot him in the back as he was running away from them. The Alabama Bureau of Investigation reported to the family that police's first shot landed in Michael's upper left back, the second shot went directly into his spine, the third into his left buttock , the fourth shot went into his aortic valve, and the last shot landed in his upper left buttocks.

Reports stated that the police claimed that Michael McIntyre had produced a pistol as he was running away from the police and a gun was later found by the scene. However, the family emphasized that witnesses they interviewed never observed Michael with a gun as he was being chased by the police, and that witnesses also reported that they observed the police back a white SUV up to Michael's body and carry something from the back of the SUV towards the body immediately after the shooting.

An investigation was conducted into the shooting by the Alabama Bureau of Investigation. The family expressed concern that the District Attorney had already scheduled the grand jury hearing for February 19th, only seven weeks after the shooting had taken place, and had been scheduled even though the ABI had not completed the investigation by the middle of that same week. The Grand Jury failed to indict the responsible police officer as a result of the evidence presented by Randall Houston, District Attorney. The family of Michael McIntyre expressed their concern as to the investigation and grand jury proceeding: "It seemed as if the District Attorney was in a rush to acquit the officer before the investigation had even been concluded," said one member of the McIntyre family.

This was not Michael McIntyre's first experience with police violence. Only a few years earlier as a teenager, he had been a victim of police brutality from the Tallassee Police Department which resulted in the officer being disciplined for police misconduct and the police department settling a civil lawsuit that was brought against them.

In Tennessee v. Garner, the United States Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourth Amendment, when the police are pursuing a fleeing suspect, they may only use deadly force to prevent escape if the officer has probably cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. The family believes that neither was the situation in Michael's case.

The family is calling upon the DOJ and FBI to conduct a further investigation into the death of their son, because the evidence showed that the police shot Michael five times in his backside as he was being chased down, and because witnesses observed that Michael did not threaten the police nor brandish the gun which later appeared by the body. Furthermore, the McIntyre family expressed alarm because neither the police, District Attorney, nor ABI would release the name of the officer who shot and killed their son. Michael McIntyre was a father and leaves behind two little daughters in addition to his mother, father, sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

According to Alabama State Conference NAACP President Benard Simelton, the State Conference and the National NAACP are also looking into this incident to determine what actions should be taken. "We have too many of our young men being killed like animals and nothing is done...now is the time to speak and seek answers and justice. The NAACP is the oldest Civil Rights organization in the United States and has for decades fought for justice and equality under the law and protection of individuals civil rights, and we want to ensure justice is served in this situation."

The Oinonen Law Group and Betts & Associates law firms of Atlanta, Georgia have been retained by the family to represent them in a civil rights suit. The family is now officially requesting an investigation by the DOJ and FBI into the killing of Michael McIntyre.

Last month the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied two Florida police officers motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Sanchez v. Hialeah Police Dep't, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27607 (11th Cir. Fla. Dec. 16, 2009)

A young man, Erik Sanchez, had sued them in federal court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. In his suit he contended that the City of Hialeah Police Officer Del Nodal had violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force by repeatedly striking him in the head with a baton and that fellow Officer Garrido failed to intervene. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity for the police.

The position Officer Del Nodal argued was that his reaction was objectively reasonable when he opened the car door, punched Sanchez in the eye, and sprayed him with mace after Sanchez broke the police car window. However, as Erik Sanchez, a minor at the time of the attack explained, Officer Garrido pulled Sanchez from the car, ordered him to the ground filled with broken glass, and repeatedly struck him with a baton after macing him. Sanchez also alleges that Officer Del Nodal of striking him 10 times with his baton -- with 5 blows going to his head -- resulting in at least two head lacerations requiring 15 metal staples to close, causing heart abnormalities, and life threatening injuries.

The Court of Appeals ruled that a jury, taking the facts in a light most favorable to Sanchez, could reasonably find that Officer Del Nodal violated Sanchez's right to be free from excessive force and that qualified immunity does not apply.

Under the law of analyzing the applicability of qualified immunity, the Court has at its disposal a two-step process. Traditionally, a court first determines whether the officer's conduct amounted to a constitutional violation. Second, the court analyzes whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the violation.

The Court in this particular case analyzed the claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard." Thus, the question was whether the officer's conduct is objectively reasonable in light of the facts confronting the officer. Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is 'reasonable' under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.

The Court explained that the analysis requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Additional considerations include: (1) the need for the application of force, (2) the relationship between the need and the amount of force used, (3) the extent of the injury inflicted and, (4) whether the force was applied in good faith or maliciously and sadistically. Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2008)

Notably, the Court of Appeals explained that they consistently have allowed an excessive force claim to go forward where an arrestee was handcuffed, posed no risk of danger to the officer, and was not resisting arrest. Sanchez v. Hialeah Police Dep't, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27607 (11th Cir. Fla. Dec. 16, 2009)

Continue reading "Police Officers Denied Qualified Immunity In Police Brutality Civil Rights Case" »

Two New York Officers were suspended recently when a videotape surfaced displaying them beating a handcuffed suspect. The video was shot by a witness looking out an apartment window in the Bronx on January 5th.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said he decided to suspend the officers as soon as he viewed the video: "We simply are never going to tolerate something like that,'' Kelly said. "We are going to take swift and firm action when we see activities of that nature.''

A federal statute known as Section 1983 is one of the main civil rights laws victims of police brutality and misconduct rely upon. This law was first passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was intended to protect African Americans from vigilante groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. It is now called Section 1983 because that is where it is located within the United States Code. Section 1983 makes it unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law.

Continue reading "Civil Rights Law Protects Against Police Brutality and Misconduct " »