St Charles County-Assault and Tampering with Evidence

[treven21]

They were on a man hunt dumbass. You were not the only one they did this too.

[Pafoofnik1]

@treven21: How many people who refused consent to search did they arrest?

[joycloud]

I find it funny that some of you are condemning the victim , and even the courts said he was in the right. Will you give up your rights so easily? It starts with the little things. Look up some info on how the holocaust started. The Jews willing gave up some basic rights and we all know where it ended.

[cuddinpete]

Your a dumbass!!!!!

[charonal]

Finally, the charges against me have been dropped and this video was an important part of that happening.

Turns out that the officer who wrote the report, lied. He claimed that I assaulted both him and the first officer seen in the video.The video, of course, disproves that. Perhaps thats why he tried to erase the video.

Just as Shyness stated. Police are NOT your friends. Are all cops bad? No. But untill the good ones start to turn the bad ones out, we the people have no way of knowing.

[Shyness2000]

This video shows that police officers are NOT your friends but rather they just enjoy arresting people. This is one example of communism and police state.

[Shyness2000]

but also bear in mind that there are some police officers who are good but always exercise your rights because you don't know which police officers are good and which ones are corrupt. One thing I would advise is never talk to the police and never consent to a search. If the police officer asks questions, don't answer, tell him that I want a lawyer and that I refuse to answer any questions. Plus always lock your car if a police officer stops you The police have no right to ask for your keys.

[JeepintheMud02]

Its a shame stupidty isn't painfull!!!!!!

[JeepintheMud02]

Personaly I grew up in St. Charles County and I know most of the Sheriffs Deputy's And all in all they followed there set guidlines to the book. In all honesty you were hostle towards the Deputys from what the tape shows. If you have nothing to hide then why get ignorant to them when they are trying to do their job. I mean come on Its your fuck up, not theirs. You wanted to be a smart ass and personaly I hope your civil case gets laughed out of court...

[mccd06]

Sounds like you have it all figured out. So I say again, good luck. I don't think that the conservative and police favoring courts of St. Charles County are going to see it your way but I'm sure that the attorney that took your case pro bono (since its such a strong case) shares your views. Best of luck to you. Please post once the criminal portion is concluded and let us all know how it turned out for you.

[charonal]

Also, Further, where officers know that a serious felony has just been

committed, the question is narrowed to whether there is a reasonable suspicion that the person

under observation is connected with the crime. State v. Gascon, 119 Idaho 923, 928, 811 P.2d

1103, 1108 (Ct. App. 1989).

So now I'm somehow connected to the crime? Your reaching in an effort to justify the police actions.

[charonal]

In such cases as those you have listed, officers must act according to a neutral plan and search all vehicles passing through said "checkpoints". I have video evidence of them allowing several vehicles through the checkpoints without searching the trunks of those cars, many of the same color as mine.

Furthermore, State v. Gerrish involved a crime that had happened 8 min prior to the stop, not several hours to days.

[mccd06]

Good luck with your impending criminal charges and "lawsuit". It seems that your going to need it because the case law is certainly not on your side. Just remember, God protects fools and children and it appears that you fit into at least one if not both of those categories.

[mccd06]

"Traditionally, courts have sanctioned checkpoints designed to cope with extraordinary situations that demand an intrusive stop to satisfy compelling state interests. For example, officials have been permitted to erect traffic stops to apprehend fleeing felons, State v. Gascon, 119 Idaho 932, 812 P.2d 239 (1991); State v. Gerrish, 96 Or. App. 582, 773 P.2d 793 (1989), decision aff'd, 311 Or. 506, 815 P.2d 1244 (1991)"

-Criminal Practice Manual, Nov. 2008, sec. 30:13

[sh0ey]

You have got a brass pair, charonal. The police certainly violated your civil rights and the assault on you was typical. 2 sure ways to evoke a violent and/or vindictive response from cops is to, a: Question their authority or disobey, and b: film them with a camcorder. I hope they drop all the fabricated charges against you and that your lawsuit is successful. Citizen vs Police is a tough task,no doubt. Angry cops can deliver all kinds of pain and trouble upon anyone, anytime.u got brass balls.

[charonal]

Suspect wanted for QUESTIONING.

Suspect was considered "armed and dangerous" but nothing states he had an assault rifle on him. The paper never even mentions an "assault rifle"...Nice embellishment.

And this has what all to do with me or my car? Was the suspect found in a car?

There was nothing illegal in my car. I was exercising my right to refuse consent, so why did the officers seize my video camera? Why did they attempt to erase the tape?

[charonal]

And that doesn't even go into the fact that the police were not searching every car trunk, only some. What about my car made them want to search it in particular? Why search some car trunks, but not others?

[LtDan115]

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

O'FALLON, Mo. -- A manhunt is underway this morning in O'Fallon, Mo., for a man wanted in connection with the murder of a 12-year-old Madison, Ill., boy.

Police have cordoned off an area near Highway K and Interstate 70 in St. Charles County in their search for Marcus T. "Butterhead" Powell, 27.

The whole story is to long to post here. Short story is massive manhunt for suspect with assault rifle who killed a kid and now the police have to deal with you.

[charonal]

Besides the obvious "HUH?" response to your post.

Based on your "argument", you run a risk anytime you get out of bed. Could slip in a puddle of drool from your dog, smack your head against the dresser, and split your skull open.

Life is full of risks.

[drlsgt2]

ok, since all of your testimony towards the incident is obviously geared towards attempting to prove officers of the law acting out of "character". Lets say for sake of argument, while u were doing your little "experiment", what if the person in front of you refused entry to their trunk also. And seconds later, the accused murderer gets out of her drunk with a semi-automatic weapon and and attepts to kill officers (who r now dealing with you) and plugs you full of holes! You live, but paralized.

[charonal]

And you still have not shown where its against the law to refuse consent.

Again, if you, or anyone else wants to waive your rights and consent to a search, regardless of the situation, that's is your right.

I, on the other hand, always refuse consent. Nearly every defense lawyer in the nation would advise their clients to do the same. Period.

[myloveybunny]

Charonal,

You are obviously intelligent, why not go to law school so you can defend those, whose rights have REALLY been violated??? This traffic stop bullshit, is nothing, in the big picture of life!

[cuj1nco]

obtuse !!!! your the one driving through a valid checkpoint for no other reason than trying to bait police with your misunderstanding of the law. really did you have nothing better to do.

Anyway we can argue back and forth over and over obviously we see the incident differently. So do you have a court date cause i would love to see how this unfolds in front of a judge.

[charonal]

When you continue to imply that I tampered with the video, when you can see the officer in question doing it, yes, that's obtuse.

Or are you trying to say that I somehow, while handcuffed and in the back seat of a squad car, used telekinesis to rewind the tape, press the record button, place the camera in the trunk of my car, and then mentally forced the officer to open the trunk several minutes later, and turn it off?

Yes, I would say that's obtuse.

[cuj1nco]

i did hear someone state im gonna tear you up motherfucker, however it appeared to be during the struggle. are cops not allowed to use fowl language ? I also heard an officer having to repeat himself telling you to go to the ground so should we assume you were resisting ?

[charonal]

Repeat himself?

First off, the officer never stated that I was under arrest. Secondly, his "down to the ground" statement is in rapid succession, thus its an assumption that I resisted when in fact I was trying to break the fall with my knee. As to the struggle, that was after the officers had already assaulted me. Even during the assault I was using "sir".

[charonal]

I believe that I saw one in the squad car when I was being transported, though I couldn't testify to it. There are, however, several street mounted video camera's in the county, so I would hazard to guess that the answer to your first question is "yes".

As to why they didn't break the camera, again, I can only guess but maybe because they thought they had already destroyed the video, by recording over it, thus no need to physically destroy the camera. Again, this is only a guess.

[cuj1nco]

does st charles county even have dashcams or require thier officers to have recording equipment on. and if you were arrested im sure they called that out. and no video doesnt lie but the person who is editing it can decide what is shown and what isnt. during the incident the camera is on top of the car if it was such a malicious assault why wouldnt they have just broken it period.???

[charonal]

Again, you assume that I was the one who did the editing.

The officer who did the editing can be seen twice on the video. First time when he turns off the camera the first time, and again when he pulls the camera out of my trunk and shuts it off again. You can hear the police radio in the background, you see his face, can even hear another motorist asking if he can get back on a road. All of this after I was already in handcuffs and being transported.

Stop being obtuse.

[charonal]

Also, as the audio portion of my video shows, at no time was I told that I was under arrest prior to the officers grabbing the camera, then me, and throwing me to the ground. Not only was it not "called out", but you can hear the first officer stating "I'm gonna tear you up motherf*cker!"

[charonal]

As to the tickets issued, I've listed those. I've got nothing to hide.

Would it be any surprise to anyone that the "officers report" would tell a different story? This wouldn't be the first time that officers have "forgotten" the facts in their reports. Thus why its important to have video, as it doesn't lie.

How much would you like to bet that there are no audio or video recordings from the officers department in regards to this case?

[cuj1nco]

i see no evidence on your tape of tampering except for a black screen and your jumpy time line. There is also no evidence that the officers assaulted you since we cant see what happens after the officer puts his hand on your camera. You say you were assaulted but i bet if we read the officers report it will say alot different. You say you were arrested for not giving consent ? again if we say the TRUE charges listed I bet that would not be one of them

[charonal]

You will only see what you want to see, that's very obvious through this whole exchange.

You see the officer pull the video camera out of the trunk 14 min after I was arrested and shut it off, for the second time. First time he did so was right after the arrest, which you can see his face there as well.

[charonal]

Again, to bring this back to the subject at hand, this is a matter of consent. You went off on a tangent of the search, and not even very convincingly when case law is argued, when this is about if an arrest based on refusal to consent is legal. You have provided nothing that states, or would lead one to believe, that refusal of consent is a crime.

That is what I was arrested for.

You still have given no legal reason for the officer tampering with the video, nor for the assault on my person.

[cuj1nco]

I think your fighting an uphill battle on this one. this isnt a st george incident. the officers were acting in good faith and in the interest of public safety. I think they are going to come out on top in this one.

[charonal]

Every case is unique in its own right. You believe they were acting in good faith, and that is your right. I disagree. In the end, we will see which is right.

[cuj1nco]

so by your own posting 3 and 4 would apply. the prevention of escape and immediate danger to the public. As to your ill vs gates that is pertaining to evidence being used against you in criminal prosecution. They were not checking vehicles for evidence of any crime you commited and a Murder chased and then lost in an area would present a clear and immediate danger to the public. You seem to think they were searching vehicles in an attempt to find evidence against you.

[charonal]

Absent "hot pursuit", you need probable cause that one of the others apply. Under the legal definition of probable cause, which I provided for you, Illinois vs Gates, there must be a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in that particular place, IE my car. When asked, the officer could not articulate said probable cause. That's there on the video. Again, simply not knowing where their suspect was is not probable cause in regards to my car.

[charonal]

The Gates test (Ill. vs Gates) has been held to apply to warrantless searches of cars.

U.S. v. Blackman, 904 F.2d 1250 (8th Cir. 1990).

Illinois vs Gates is held as the legal definition of "probable cause", which is required absent "Hot Pursuit".

[cuj1nco]

And as far as weather you believe it to be reasonable or not does not mean it is not reasonable. Thats what the 12 jurors are for.

[charonal]

There weren't 12 jurors in my vehicle at the time of the stop. You are right on one point though, it really doesn't matter if I though the search was reasonable or not, because I didn't give consent. Consent has nothing to do with "reasonableness". It has to do with a citizens rights, which are protected by the Constitution. As I stated before, reasonableness never rears its ugly head in matters of consent.

[cuj1nco]

In order for a situation to qualify as an exigent circumstance the situation or circumstance must "include danger of physical harm to an officer or others, danger of destruction of evidence, driving while intoxicated, hot-pursuit situations and individuals requiring rescuing" (Harr, Hess, 2006, p. 234).

what im saying is in this case i do not believe the officers needed your consent to have you open your trunk because of exigent circumstances.

[charonal]

Hot Pursuit doesn't apply due to the need for it to be "immediate and continuous". Absent "hot pursuit", probable cause is required for the others to apply, and there was no probable cause that I required rescuing, my vehicle contained any evidence, or that I presented any danger to the officers or the general public.

I fully understand what your saying, even if your glossing over the issue at hand.

I was arrested for refusing consent.

[charonal]

"The task [of the judge reviewing the actions of the police officer] is to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances known to the police, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in that particular place."

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)

Probable Cause

[charonal]

"Police entered Defendant's home to arrest him for DWI only minutes after a witness had observed him in an apparently intoxicated condition fleeing from a car he had been driving erratically which had gone off the road. HELD: "The claim of hot pursuit is unconvincing because there was no immediate or continuous pursuit of the Defendant from the scene of the crime."

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984)

When "Hot Pursuit" isn't.

[charonal]

A warrantless intrusion may be justified by:

(1) Hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; or

(2) Imminent destruction of evidence; or

(3) The need to prevent a suspects escape; or

(4) The risk of danger to the police or to other persons inside or outside the dwelling.

** In absence of Hot Pursuit, there must be probable cause that one or more of the other factors were present."

Warrantless Search Law Deskbook-Paul R. Joseph (1998)

Exigent Circumstances

[myloveybunny]

Only because idiocy, isn't a crime! It's obvious, you were simply looking for easy money, by means of a bogus lawsuit. Frankly, this is a total waste of time and money, for law enforcement and the court system. Does the phrase: "get a job", measn anything to you???

[charonal]

Just because money motivates you, please dont assume that it motivates everyone.

[lckydiablo]

pointless arguing with someone who knows nothing.

Im done feeding your fetish of messing with people who have to protect the sorry likes of you at times.

Just remember

"You hate us till you need us"

good luck on your endeavors there smart guy.

[charonal]

This is now the third time you have stated that?

Rather than attempt to talk down to me, perhaps you and your "friends" could just state case law where I'm wrong? I've been very forthcoming with case law to prove my side of this "argument".

I've attempted to deal with you intellectually and politely, regardless of your despite.

[cuj1nco]

what you are not getting is the right to UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. Leaving a containment area where a murder suspect is located and officers asking you to open your trunk is neither an unreasonable search nor is it any type of seizure.

[charonal]

Cuj, perhaps you should read the title of the video again, as well as its discription.

You seem to be getting confused as to what is going on. A forgivable offense due to the way Ickydiablo has attempted to muddy the subject.

This is about CONSENT.

[charonal]

Actually, your answer would be "No".

As far as consent is concerned, there is no expectation of reasonableness attached. Any citizen, regardless of the circumstances, may refuse consent at any time, and may even withdraw consent at any time, even after consent has been given.

[cuj1nco]

Actually reasonable is defined by the supreme court. Would a reasonable and prudent person and the courts feel the search in which all events and circumstances will be included was a violation of your rights. Your answer will be no. Considering that a thousand cars passed through this checkpoint and your the only fool who thinks he knows his rights failed to comply with the officers orders

[cuj1nco]

The real question is why would a fool like yourself drive through a LEGAL checkpoint/containment area set up for a child killer. Just to say no to a LEGAL and REASONABLE request by an officer. Are you that starved for attention ? Or does your job pay so low this is the only way you can attempt to make money.

[charonal]

If you believe it to be reasonable, then its your right to waive consent. I, however, never give up my rights, regardless of the circumstances.

Your other assumptions are just that, assumptions. Your entitled to them, but does not make them fact.

[lckydiablo]

the incident in question is on tape. which shows professionalism on that officers behalf and you just provoking him which he did not bite. He continued to do his job with in his legal rights. And yes with the camera that close, you are interfering with an investigation. the officer says what are you doing when you stepped up on him? did you push him or what? where was the other officer? how many cops were there? so many un-explained things.

Give me the date and time. I would love to see this.

[charonal]

Now stating "No" in a calm, even tone is provocation? Continuing to assert ones Constitutional rights is provocation?

The camera was in my hand, alongside my body, and I was the individual the officer was attempting to elicit consent from, so bit hard for you to claim it was interfering.

I also never "stepped up on him". I exited my vehicle, at his demand, which I even state "excuse me" when I exit due to the officer not backing up to allow me to exit.

Dec 3rd, 6:30pm.

[charonal]

Actually, cuj1nco, they did search the vehicle. If it was simply a matter of a "plain view" search, the officer completed that once the car door was opened, upon his order.

[cuj1nco]

first of all dumbass the police were not searching the contents of your vehicle. they were only checking plain view areas and as outlined by your beloved ussc a specific container that is capable of containing said contraband. I went through the checkpoints and the police did not attempt to look in glove boxes or under seats. They simply asked us to open the trunk to ensure public safty as well as apprehend the suspect. I see no evidence of police tampering with anything only your edits.

[lckydiablo]

Fourth, tampering? the whole incident was on tape? so how was that evidence tampered with? and was it turned into the department as evidence?

The original disc cannot not be proved it went from the camera to here. and there are time problems on your video. but guess that's what your public defender is for. Wish i knew your court date so I could watch you embarrass yourself.

[charonal]

The reason there are time problems is due to the officer, who's face you can see, rewinding the video and attempting to rerecord over it. The time date stamp shows this was done after I was in custody, thus it would have been impossible for me to have done it.

You are welcome to come to court and view the original if you believe there is some difference between the two.

[lckydiablo]

First of all, like I said you don't get it.

Second of all, your camera was in close proximity of that officer, which technically can fall under interfering with a police investigation. Which some lame people like you don't understand their limits to recording.

Third, what assault? you whining like a girl and not listening to the clear and direct order to get on the ground? Obviously he repeated himself, so you didn't listen. None of this assault was on tape.

[charonal]

The camera was not in close proximity to the officer, it was in my left hand, which was down around my left hip, thus why the camera is pointing up. The Officer placed himself within close proximity to me.

As to the "order", that's after said officer states "I'm gonna tear you up motherf*cker!", and was communication between him and his partner, as they both had their hands on me by that time.

[charonal]

None of which applies. I simply refused consent to a search. Period. A constitutionally protected right that is backed up by USSC case law, as I've given examples.

I've not contested if the search was unconstitutional, just that the arrest, assault, and tampering with evidence was. The arrest was based on my refusing the search, the video shows the officers assaulting me as well as attempting to erase the video.

Two questions you have continued to dodge.

[lckydiablo]

Last Comment:

You obviously do not get it and will not get it cause your one of those stubborn subjects that even when they are wrong they will continue to think they are right and grow into a bigger tool then they really are.

Do us all a favor and quit your crying and put up legit stuff to argue about because my four year old son is smarter then you when it comes to case law.

Slap your public defender for taking a fool like you.

Good luck on the dead end street your going down.

[lckydiablo]

There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched

[charonal]

"First, the police may of course undertake no nonconsensual

residential search or seizure without a showing of probable cause.

Therefore, a court reviewing an entry without a warrant by the

police on the basis of exigent circumstances should first determine

whether probable cause exists that the premises contain

contraband or evidence of a crime."

Just not knowing where their suspect was is not probable cause in regards to my vehicle.

[charonal]

"2. Warrantless searches are unreasonable, subject to a few well-defined exceptions. Among the recognized exceptions is probable cause to search coupled with exigent circumstances.

3. Exigent circumstances may allow the warrantless search of a car when probable cause has been established to justify a search"

State of Kansas vs ROBIN RICHMOND

[lckydiablo]

Furthermore,

Fourth amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. From the comment below and the articles I have read from your local media that this murder led police in a pursuit, hijacked a car, drove thru a police check point and ran into a area that he crashed. Police set up roadblocks to set a perimeter.

So now you have Probable cause for the check point and a fourth amendment exception, not that's its needed.

[lckydiablo]

You obviously don't get it smart guy.

and why do you have a lawyer when your a law dictionary yourself?

Anyways done wasting my time and feeding your little ego.

Good luck with your case.

And feel free to tell us all what is being left out of this video and your details. Like every other video out there, there is always something left out.

Kudos to that department for acting with in their legal right.

[charonal]

Too much reading for you?

An officers legal rights do not include assaulting the public without physical provocation, tampering with evidence, nor arresting the public for asserting their constitutional rights.

Maybe if more of you understood that, less of you would wind up on Youtube.

[charonal]

Furthermore,

"... The appellate court reasoned that a consent was a waiver of a person's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that the State was under an obligation to demonstrate, [412 U.S. 218, 222] not only that the consent had been uncoerced, but that it had been given with an understanding that it could be freely and effectively withheld"

SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE

[charonal]

Us vs Drayton affirms a citizens right refuse a search. There are many other case laws as well that affirm said right. That was just the first one that came to my mind. Perhaps you should read it?

As to shutting down comments, you fail.

And there was no video editing by me. Nice try though. My lawyer has seen the DCR original, which is one of the main reasons he took my case. Oh, and he was a Prosecuting Attorney.

I think my wife would get jealous if I had a girlfriend.

[lckydiablo]

If your know the law so much, you would know that your little US v Drayton has nothing to do with this.

And yes I am a cop and I love to get on here and shut comments down from attention craving people like you driving around with your little camera.

Oh and nice video editing on times there.

If anyone is lame and sad, its you.

You and all you no life losers need a girlfriend.

[charonal]

To humor your comment, though it deserves none.

The cops wasted their own time.

I refused consent. Period. They are the ones who decided to take it to the extent that they did. They were allowing many vehicles through the roadblocks without searching those trunks.

They didn't like the fact that I said "No", and that I had a video recorder. Otherwise, why grab for the camera first? Why attempt to tamper with the video?

[tashml]

Dude...did you forget to mention that there was a manhunt for a murder "butterhead" who killed a little boy and you were wasting the officers time in a potentially dangerous situation. The schools were closed b/c of this. Quit wasting valuable officer's time especially when there is such a dangerous situation going on.

[charonal]

wouldn't happen to be one of the officers in question, would you? Noticed that you just made this account. Wouldn't be so that you could reply to this video would it?

Zero video views.

Account created Nov 21, 2008 (today)

Cops trolling video's of cops abusing the public is just sad.

[charonal]

tashml

Joined: November 21, 2008

Last Sign In: 3 hours ago

Videos Watched: 0

Subscribers: 0

Channel Views: 0

[chandlercop]

So, you have frequent 'interactions' with the police??

Tell me the reason for the stop. It does not seem that clear to me...Thanks.

(no reason to be adverserial...)

[charonal]

Your being confrontational as well as assuming much. I never stated I had "frequent" interactions with the police. As a matter of fact, I haven't even had a ticket in well over 5 years. Stops do happen, and its always a smart idea to have some record of it.

If the reasoning for the stop isn't real clear to you, after watching the video, what makes you think that its any clearer to me? Thus why I refused consent.

[chandlercop]

How did you manage to get stopped by a cop, and just have a video camera handy?

The initial stop is not shown.

I will concede that they were wrong for recording over.

[charonal]

If you were paying attention, the officer states the alleged reason for the stop.

Officer directed me to stop in the middle lane, then asks to search my trunk, where I state "No".

And the camera is always in my car. I need no other reason than to have an impartial observer to any interactions with police, as they have been known to "forget" or "misremember" facts.

[charonal]

What more of the story would you like?

The video is there. It shows the officer attempting to rerecord over it.

Even after searching the car, they found nothing. The alleged charges were "refusing a lawful search", "assault on an officer", "resisting arrest".

Video shows that I didn't assault either of the officers, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed a citizens right to refuse consent (see UNITED STATES v. DRAYTON), and based on that, the arrest was illegal.

Whats missing?

[chandlercop]

It seems to me we are not getting the whole story here....

Oh, yeah, copwatch is hilarious. Some real winners posting there..lol...

[reportingpoliceabuse]

Real bad ass cop and I love it how he is going to tare you mother fucker up. Fuck them and I hope you sue the shit out of them from the low life cop who stopped you to the jail personnel who refused you medical treatment!! welcome to copwatch and keep us posted.

[charonal]

I was handcuffed at 10:03am. Handcuffs were applied so tight that my right hand went numb. When I complained about this, officer told me "That's too bad!"

After being released from jail, 24hrs later, emergency room doctor diagnosed me with "Paresthesia", Chest wall contusion and contusions to my right wrist.