A 69-year-old panhandler in Atlanta who sustained a life-changing injury after he was tased by a police officer in the city has been awarded by a nine-figure judgment by a jury. Civil rights advocates note that despite the historic victory, the officer, who the court decided used excessive force, is still employed by the city.
Jerry Blasingame’s conservator Keith Edwards sued the city of Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Department, and one of its officers, Jon Grubbs, on behalf of his client, filing the civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 7, 2019. The ask was for his medical bills (both past and future) acquired as a result of the police-involved injury that made him a quadriplegic with little use of his arms to be covered by the defendants
On Tuesday, Aug. 16, after three years of litigation, a federal jury sided with the 69-year-old, saying Grubbs used an unreasonable amount of force, violated police department policy, and violated his civil rights when he tased the elderly man in the back after he ran away from Grubbs on July 10, 2018.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports attorney Ven Johnson said he was “very grateful” that the jury held Grubbs “accountable” for his actions.
Blasingame was awarded a total of $100 million breaking it up with $60 million coming from APD and $40 million from the officer himself. The Georgia division of the NAACP described the .award as the largest in an individual civil case connected to civil rights violations by law enforcement
Johnson said, “We are very, very grateful to this amazing jury and so proud of the amazing work they’ve done in holding this officer accountable and getting justice for Mr. Blasingame.”
One of the lawyers representing Atlanta and the officer, Staci J. Miller maintained throughout the trial, while the man’s injuries are unfortunate and tragic, the officer was within his rights to use the Taser based on his judgment. She argued it was not a case of intentional excessive force, but a “consequence” of his acceptable policing based on his assessment of “exigent circumstances” that could endanger others.
Miller said the incident was the consequence of a series of actions, not an example of an officer intentionally using excessive force.
“We cannot start from the consequence,” said Miller. “We have to start from the action, the totality of the situation.”
Data published by the U.S. District Courts state less than 1% of federal civil lawsuits ever made it to trial before a jury, leading Craig Jones, a civil rights attorney, to say, “While only a small percentage of lawsuits actually go to a jury trial, sometimes that is the only way they can be resolved.”
According to the lawsuit, Blasingame was asking for money near Windsor Street, close to downtown Atlanta when he encountered Grubbs and another officer. He, an unarmed Black man, was walking up to cars making his petition. The two cops arrived and told him to stop.
Blasingame moved out of the street to a guard rail. Grubbs then exited his patrol vehicle and approached Blasingame, who fled, leading Grubbs to pursue him.
The lawyer asks, “Grubbs gets out of the car and starts chasing my client — a 65-year-old man— and for what? For potentially asking people for money?”
Shortly after running after the older man, Grubbs deployed his Taser and struck him in the spinal area while he was 10 feet away. Blasingame, impacted by the voltage of the stun gun, fell.
“Due to the tase and subsequent fall, Mr. Blasingame became unconscious and was bleeding profusely from his head,” the complaint read.
11 Alive reports, Johnson said, “Since he’s not under arrest, he can run or do whatever he wants to do,” Johnson said. “Jerry then fell again, face forward, face planted in smashing his head, multiple facial fractures, brain injury and broke his neck.”
Police bodycam showed Blasingame lying on the ground unconscious and without movement. Grubbs called for medical professionals to come to the scene. Once the EMT arrived, they took Blasingame to Grady Memorial Hospital’s trauma center, where he was treated.
Blasingame’s lawyers argued Grubb’s use of force, particularly considering the man’s age and he was running away from the officer and posed no threat of danger, was excessive.
The counsel was able to lift APD’s policy on officers’ use of Tasers, which says, it should not be deployed on an individual “actively running on foot from officers on hard surfaces or rugged terrain, visibly pregnant women, the elderly, small children, or visibly frail persons unless exigent circumstances exist.”
Years later, Blasingame has a severe spinal cord injury and can no longer use his limbs. While he does have extremely limited use of his arms, he cannot use his legs at all, leaving his lawyer to describe him as being a “prisoner in his own body.” The injured man has accrued more than $14 million in medical bills and now requires 24-hour care at a residential facility because of his injuries and his future care is anticipated to be approximately $1 million a year for the rest of his life.
The lawyer said in his closing arguments on Thursday, Aug. 25, “You run from the police, you get what you sow. That’s what some people think. But that’s not so.”
According to POST, the state police certifying agency records, Grubbs has been working for the force since 2014 and remains employed by the city. His POST record listed him as having no sanctions and as a police officer in good standing.
APD records state he was placed on administrative leave and the department launched a deep dive into the case. However, six months before an internal investigation was completed, he was allowed to go back to work on the street.
Georgia NAACP President Gerald Griggs believes this verdict should move the city to terminate the cop.
“Do you really think that it’s a good idea to have somebody that’s a $100 million liability on your force still interacting with the citizens?” Griggs said.
Johnson believes winning the case proves one thing, “Jerry Blasingame matters.”
The defense still has a motion for a judge’s consideration. The city’s counsel seeks a directed verdict overturning the trial outcome.
A ruling from a judge on the outstanding motion could amend the jury’s verdict.
