Posted on 10/11/2013 5:21:56 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Cassandra Feuerstein of Chicago was thrown face first by a Skokie officer into a concrete jail cell bench, suffering multiple injuries, her lawyer says. Feuerstein was arrested in March on suspicion of driving under the influence.
A Chicago woman arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence has filed a lawsuit alleging police in Skokie, Ill., violently threw her into a jail cell, shattering several bones in her face.
Cassandra Feuerstein, 47, was arrested March 10 and charged with DUI after police found her sleeping on the side of the road as she sat behind the wheel of her car.
Surveillance video released Wednesday shows a calm Feuerstein being taken out of a jail cell for processing by a male officer.
According to Feuerstein’s lawyer, Torri Hamilton, seconds after her client asked to call her husband and children, the officer hurled the 110-pound woman back into the cell with such force that she fell and landed face first on a concrete bench.
Bleeding profusely, Feuerstein lies motionless for several seconds before two other officers come to her aid.
"The video speaks for itself," Torri Hamilton, Feuerstein's lawyer, told the Chicago Tribune. "She does nothing to justify what this male police officer does."
Hamilton said Feuerstein filed suit because no disciplinary action was being taken against the officer. While Feuerstein pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, the State’s Attorney dropped charges made by the officer that she had resisted arrest.
Feuerstein suffered several broken bones in her face, was fitted for a titanium plate in her cheek and required reconstructive surgery as a result of the incident, Hamilton said.
"This can go from 0-60 so quickly, like this man did with someone who's clearly no threat to him is dangerous — could be dangerous with that type of power that he has," Hamilton told News 5 Chicago. "She doesn't even know - we don't even know what she's going to need in the future."
You lost your moral compass when you traded ‘peace officer’ for ‘law enforcement’.
Hmm, funny, my license from 18 year ago still says “Peace Officer.”
FWIW, it’s the same one they give out to the new kids these days.
Just a whole lot of issues brought up in comments relating to this incident. I have a poster in my office given to me by a friend which says, “If I had a proper cape and tiara I could solve all the world’s problems”. But I have neither so at this late (or early) hour will just confine my comments to the issue at hand.
According to the article, she had pulled off the road and was asleep. Why arrest her? The officer, IMO, had other choices since he appears to have felt that he had to do something. Take her keys away from her. Call a taxi to take her home and have her car towed. The officer put himself in the position of not only being her judge and jury but decided what punishment she should have.
Life is all about choices. IMO the officer made the wrong choice in this woman’s case and it maybe would not have happened had he taken the time to consider all his options before he proceeded. Did he intend to cause her bodily harm? I don’t know. That’s for someone a whole lot bigger than I to decide. I do contend that because of his actions in this particular case he should no longer be allowed to be a police officer. If I were this woman, I would not only sue the city but also the officer.
There’s enough law to mitigate any need for vigilantism especially when applied by law enforcement.
If I’m not mistaken, a peace officer is not a law enforcer.
Another weasel answer.
I said he was wrong
Wrong. I have the right on legal roads to expect the police to protect me from drunk drivers that’s what this is all about
Same as she has the right to be protected from them
Btw she was prepared to do a whole lot more damage to seine else than he did to her. Of course he didnt have the right
You have no road rights. To the contrary, you have to pay for the license to drive — not that I agree with this requirement.
You must understand the role of the law enforcer before assuming it is you they’re out to protect. Doubtful many give a rat’s behind about your welfare — and this is NOT to condemn LEOs.
Justifying the abuse by the COP for the potential abuse by the drunk driving idiot is not lawful, even if the idiot caused damage.
Don’t be a statist, stanne.
I hate when that happens.
Americans have such low self esteem sometimes. They just accept a slouchy toward socialismlike sheep
Wrong. I have to know how to drive and how not to hurt person and property. And I have to abide by those laws
They give up their country so easily
I am not a subject of the dictator in return, and as a right, as a pedestrian, I have the right to expect protection from reckless, aggressive , or drunk drivers
With over 2,300 people killed on the road in my state alone this year so far probably twice as many injured, in car wrecks so far a tually reckless and careless drivers hurt and kill a lot more people than do cops
“That is crime, not a part of the justice system.”
I respectfully disagree. The use of brutality on the part of police is an unofficial part of our justice system and has been since long before I was on this earth. Officially illegal but unofficially tolerated if not encouraged.
The only reason police brutality is now seen by the public is due to the widespread use of video devices.
CC
“Taxpayers will be getting what they deserve. They are supposed to be vigilant for misbehavior on the part of their public servants.”
Police and brutality go together like bread and butter. It’s just what the police do. The taxpayers are individually and collectively blameless: they didn’t sanction this. The only thing they might be able to effect is the extent to which they fund the police. And that’s really a something of a sophie’s choice for the taxpayers: have a robust police force and deal with the fact that they’re going to beat the snot out of people, or defund the police at the perceived risk of more crime.
I’m of the latter persuasion. I don’t want or need much in the way of police services. And I think that their usefulness in reducing crime is overrated. But I’m not everyone.
Sorry, stanne. You may think you’re speaking against tyranny, but you’re actually speaking on behalf of it.
Just because it's settled law doesn't make it right. Slavery, no votes for women, prohibition, Jim Crow, ObamaCare, etc. were all settled law.
Dollars to donuts, that officer was promoted.
You actually DON'T have that right. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
“But he probably didn’t intend to cause the serious injury he did. “
Unfortunately, to be consistent, you must then assume that by being by the side of the road, the woman didn’t intend to drive drunk.
But she was arrested, as should this guy be.
Nope.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that you don't even have a right to a cop answering a 911 call.
Police are under NO legal obligation to defend you. Even if you are being beaten by a motorcycle gang and they are members of that gang and one of them has joined in on your beat-down.
The others don't have to raise a finger to "protect and serve".
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.