Title: Cop Walks Up to Innocent Retired 63-year-old Veteran, Attack and Arrest Him for No Reason Source:
Free Thought Project URL Source:https://thefreethoughtproject.com/i ... -63yo-veteran-beaten-arrested/ Published:May 28, 2019 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2019-05-29 09:04:34 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:1811 Comments:24
Miami, FL Oscar Julien-Riou, 63, honorably served his country for 20 years and retired from the Army, he then became a nurse and continued to serve his country by treating fellow veterans at the VA Clinic. However, that country he dedicated his life to fighting for betrayed him last December when a Miami police officer attacked and falsely arrested him for doing nothing other than sitting on a park bench. Now, after the department refused to discipline the officer who attacked him, Mr. Riou is fighting back in the form of a lawsuit.
Mr. Riou is a retired Vietnam veteran who had recently retired from his job as a registered nurse after 20 years, subsequent to retiring from the Army after 20 years of service, the suit states. He volunteers at the V.A. playing the piano for Veterans in palliative care. Hed never been arrested in his 63 years of life.
The incident unfolded when Riou was sitting on a bench in Liberty Citys Alonzo Kelly Park, which happens to be across the street from the retired Army veterans home. As Riou is also a minister, he was making a video likely designed to give to his followers.
As the video shows, Riou sees the officer sitting in his car and says, theres the Miami PD, doing what they are supposed to be doing. He then continues recording his video.
He was doing absolutely nothing wrong and as the video shows, he thought he had nothing to worry about from the police. Sadly, however, he was mistaken.
For six minutes, officer Ioannys Llanes shined a spotlight toward Riou before exiting his vehicle and assaulting the innocent man.
As the video shows, Llanes began to tell Riou that the park was closed to which Riou responded, yes sir. Ill close out then, noting that he was making the video.
Riou was polite and listened to everything the officer was saying, but the officer attacked him anyway.
Youre hurting me, sir! the retired veteran tells the officer as the officer smashes him into the concrete.
The officer then accuses Riou of dropping something. However, there was nothing to be dropped and police would quickly realize this. Instead of admitting they made a mistake, the officer arrested Riou on false charges of resisting arrest, according to the lawsuit.
Defendant Llanes used unreasonable and excessive force against Plaintiff Mr. Riou when he forcibly pushed/threw him down to the concrete, manhandled him in such a way as to cause physical injury, searched him without consent, called other officers to the scene to physically apply unreasonable and excessive force in reliance on his call, forcibly put him in handcuffs when he was already under the physical control of the Defendant, detained him for over an hour, and created a criminal record for Mr. Riou by falsely charging him with resisting arrest, the suit says.
Whats more, according to the lawsuit and an image provided in it, the park has no clearly defined closing time, meaning the cop had absolutely no reason for approaching the innocent veteran, much less attacking and arresting him.
Before this incident, Riou had never been arrested or had any negative interactions with police. So much for the saying of dont do anything wrong, and you wont get beaten or arrested by police.
After giving 20 years of his life to serve our country, Mr. Riou was violated and deprived of his civil rights by those sworn to protect and serve, the suit states. He was stripped of his humanity and dignity, overwhelmingly suffering by what was done to him. He feared for his life, stating, They descended on me like S.W.A.T.! I was thinking they could kill me, and my children would never know what happened to me.'
Sadly, veterans who dedicate their lives to defending this country are all too often arrested, beaten, or killed when they come home from their service. If you truly want a glimpse into the disturbing nature of police officers abusing veterans, you can take a look through our archives, here.
Instead of admitting they made a mistake, the officer arrested Riou on false charges of resisting arrest, according to the lawsuit.
The Court rejected the Complaint five days before the article was written, and had numerous reasons to do so:
First, Plaintiff raises Section 1983 claims against the City of Miami Police Department. It is well-established that police departments cannot be sued under Section 1983.See Trapp v. Sanchez, No. 08-CV-22267, 2009 WL 2338117, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2009) (holding the plaintiff cannot proceed on a claim against the MiamiDade Police Department because police departments cannot be sued in a federal civil rights action. In Section 1983 actions, police departments cannot be sued, because a police department is merely an administrative arm of the local municipality, and is not a separate judicial entity.) (citation omitted)). Indeed, in Florida police departments are not legal entities subject to being sued. See Fulkerson v. Russell, No. 3:17-cv-560-J-34JRK, 2017 WL 6041954, at *23 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2017) (citing cases). Plaintiff is advised to review any amended complaint to ensure it complies with applicable law.
Second, while the Court will not rigorously screen the Complaint at this time, a cursory review of the Complaint suggests Plaintiff could better formulate his allegations to provide Defendants sufficient notice of the claims for relief being asserted. A shotgun pleading makes it virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). Shotgun pleadings fail . . . to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriffs Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (alteration added; footnote call number omitted). Plaintiffs counsel is advised to review the four types of shotgun pleading highlighted in the Eleventh Circuits Weiland decision before filing an amended complaint.
Finally, while this Districts Local Rules do not appear to have specific spacing requirements for documents filed through CM/ECF (see Local Rule 5.1(b)), the undersigned and many of her colleagues have adopted Local Rule 5.1(a)(4)s requirements for conventionally-filed documents to also apply to documents filed through CM/ECF. That Rule states that all documents shall have not less than one and one-half (1½) spaces between lines. Id. The irregular spacing throughout the Complaint, which at times is clearly less than one and one-half spacing, makes it difficult for the Court to parse through the allegations. In an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall comply with the spacing requirements of Local Rule 5.1(a)(4).
Attorney Rawsi Williams started numbering her paragraphs on page 4.
In the caption, on pages 1 and 2, and in paragraph 10, the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff Mr. Riou "sues Defendant LLANES in his individual capacity."
In paragraph 6, the Complaint indicates that, "Upon information and belief, and at all times material hereto, Defendant LLANES participated in the unconstitutional violations and other wrongful acts that occurred on December 10, 2018 at approximately 7 PM, at which time he was acting in the course and scope of his employment under color of state law."
If the Officer acted within the scope of his employment at all times, he is covered by limited immunity and cannot be sued in his individual capacity.
Paragraph 96 of the Complaint indicates that,
LLANES knew or should have known that MR. RIOU was non-threatening when MR. RIOU complied with LLANES order to leave the park.
Paragraphs 143, and 164 of the Complaint indicate that,
"MR. RIOU complied with LLANES order to leave the park."
Compliance with an order to leave the park indicates that he left the park.
However, paragraphs 152 and 173 of the Complaint indicate that,
LLANES unlawfully prevented MR. RIOU from leaving the area of the park bench where MR. RIOU was sitting and Alonzo Kelly Park itself and confined MR. RIOU to the park and back of the police car handcuffed pursuant to LLANES unlawful arrest against MR. RIOUS WILL and without MR. RIOUS consent or permission.
The Complaint three times (¶¶ 29, 239, 240) erroneously cites a Miami City Ordinance to argue that Alonzo Kelly Park was closed from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and that "The police department shall cause proper notice to be placed in the main entrances to the city parks, playgrounds and properties referred to in the preceding section, warning the general public that such properties are closed during the hours therein recited."
Of course, Alonzo Kelly Park was not a City park, but a County park. The signage appearing above with the article is also Exhibit A of the Complaint. It reads, "WELCOME TO YOUR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PARK," and "RULES & REGULATIONS ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE TO CHAPTER 26, COUNTY ORDINANCE 01-35, CIVIL PENALTIES 8-CC."
The hours cited in the Complaint are erroneous, the cited Ordinance is for City parks, and City police are not required by the City ordinance to maintain signage at County parks.
The shotgun pleading just goes on and on, finally ending at page 62. When the Court dismissed it and required a refiling by May 29, 2019, defendant's attorney filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint [Docket 6]. She screwed that up too, resulting in Docket 7 by the Court:
PAPERLESS ORDER denying 6 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend due to the failure to submit a proposed order, as is required by the Local Rules. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (CMA) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
One might think the attorney would know the local rules for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It appears to be the only Federal court she has been admitted to practice before.