edited: Tasering at Club Nationals Afterparty

Good luck on your trial, Mike. If you've really got a good lawyer, I think you'll come out alright. I hope your case gets this thug's badge taken away for good.

gerber wrote:

After I blew the .18, they all laughed thinking they could somehow use that against me but I reminded them that it's not illegal to drink and what transpired that evening had nothing to do with the fact that I was.

I'm not saying you're guilty or anything like that, but they can use a BAC of .18 against you, and probably will. Despite how well you think you were.

Next time wait till after the incident and then press charges for extreme use of force. I mean that's water under the bridge, but if we're all going to take something away from this it isn't "YEAAAHHHH let's go out and get punk cops"

The lesson is, get everyone that saw it. Maybe take a quick cell phone video. And then everyone press charges afterwards, cause if you put yourself between a pissed cop and someone you'll probably end up injured.

gerber wrote:

I VOLUNTEERLY did a BAC test due to the fact I never considered myself impaired to any degree. After I blew the .18, they all laughed thinking they could somehow use that against me but I reminded them that it's not illegal to drink and what transpired that evening had nothing to do with the fact that I was.

It's not illegal to drink, but it is illegal to be intoxicated in public. And it just doesn't look good. Good luck with your defense, but don't expect this line of reasoning to get you far. If anything it makes you look like you were argumentative, which makes the out-of-control and resisting arrest stories stronger.

gerber wrote:

I VOLUNTEERLY did a BAC test due to the fact I never considered myself impaired to any degree. After I blew the .18, they all laughed thinking they could somehow use that against me but I reminded them that it's not illegal to drink and what transpired that evening had nothing to do with the fact that I was.

Here is the problem. You said that "they all laughed", does that mean that there were several cops that supported these actions? If so you are in big trouble. We have several cops (conspiracy) that all say the same thing vs. several people partying and drinking to the point of blowing a .18. The odds are not good.

Lancelot - Thank you for your kind offer to donate to Mike's defense fund - The Mike Gerber Legal Defense Fund and forward your check c/o Indra Turnbull, 114 North Cove Drive, Peachtree City, Georgia 30269.

And by the way, as we all know these threads can get out of control and everyone likes to put their viewpoint forward and have their say - and, don't get me wrong, one of the very reasons blogs and threads like this exist. However, when someone reads every day other people's account of what happened (many of whom were not even there and would not have known Mike from Sam from Joe Blow even if they were), who erroneously state that he deserved what he got by being in the bathroom in the first place (when he was not); he was sticking up for his best friend (someone he did not know prior to the event); etc., it is extremely frustrating. Therefore, I can totally understand why he felt it necessary to put the record straight.

I have had the opportunity to read all the witness statements - a vast majority from people who did not imbide that evening and were stone cold sober at the time the event occurred. They 100 percent support Mike's version of what happened - and, irrespective of whether one had had a couple of beers and legally was over the limit (I do not believe there were any charges that related to operating a vehicle at the time all of this happened!), the actions of the officer were unwarranted and totally irresponsible.

I have two sons aged 22 and 19 to whom Mike has been a big brother and an incredible role model since the passing of their father from cancer five years ago. I can categorically state, knowing my sons as I do, like Mike (and like their mother) they too would not have been able to stand by and watch another human being be ill-treated in an unjustifiable manner. I know if I or they had been there and had witnessed the same thing, we would have been the first to question the officer's actions - and not been timid about it. I, and my late husband, taught our sons not to be ostrich's, not to turn your head when your fellow human being is in trouble. Several years ago, I happened to find myself in a situation where an old lady was mugged on a downtown Atlanta street in the middle of the day amidst a crowd of people. Apart from myself and one other individual, not one of the other bystanders did anything to either help her or apprehend the thug that attacked her. It appalled me. The "I don't want to get involved" mentality is prevalent and quite frankly I am proud of Mike to have spoken out when he witnessed injustice. Maybe if a few more people had done the same thing at the same time, Mike would not have become the object of the officer's attention and focus - being aware that it was more than one individual who questioned his treatment of Sam and he may have backed off or at least dealt with Sam and moved on.

So, let's now put this thread to rest. Everyone has had their say - expressed their opinion - it is now getting old. Let Mike and his witnesses have their day in court where the facts will speak for themselves and a jury of his peers can judge based upon the facts and not comments as to body weight/number of beers/being drunk; the legal versus moral implications of someone being in a ladies rest room; and so on and so on.....

If anyone is seriously interested in keeping up with Mike's siutation, you can email me or any of his team mates whose email addresses you might know and we will be more than happy to keep you informed. To those of you who have already contributed toward Mike's defense, I would like to express both his and our since and deep appreciation.

I would also like to reach out to anyone who may have any photos or video of what happened to Mike or further individuals who may have witnessed what happened to contact me (indra@rbosolutions.com) as, although we do have several witness statements already that totally substantiate what Mike related in his message, you can never have too many. So, if you did not speak up at the time, here is your chance to support a truly caring fellow athelete who would be the first to do it for you.

Thank you.

sweathog wrote:

It's not illegal to drink, but it is illegal to be intoxicated in public. And it just doesn't look good.

It is illegal to drink in most public places and it may be illegal to be publicly intoxicated in Mason, Ohio. But this was a private party not the Wal-Mart parking lot.

Indra wrote:

I have had the opportunity to read all the witness statements - a vast majority from people who did not imbide that evening and were stone cold sober at the time the event occurred. They 100 percent support Mike's version of what happened - and, irrespective of whether one had had a couple of beers and legally was over the limit (I do not believe there were any charges that related to operating a vehicle at the time all of this happened!), the actions of the officer were unwarranted and totally irresponsible.

Just to clarify your post...

- BAC isn't just used for operating a motorvehicle. Public intoxication is also against the law.

- Very few if any people are saying that Mike deserved anything that happened to him, however there are a few people that didn't want to rush to judgement on a situation they've only heard one side of. It's not their fault they didn't jump the shark after reading 1 post.

- There has been a fair amount of bashing of the police community as a result of this one reported incident. I doubt anyone on here actually believes your friends guilty or anything of that nature but you can understand why they'd be upset that everyone is lumping law enforcement officials together now as violent ogres as a result of misguided oppinions.

You have a cop who has a record of questionable behavior to say the least and a lawyer, a college coach and a few others who were completely sober. The odds are very good.

When almost all the stories on one side make sense and seem believable and the cops stories just don't add up, it makes it that much better for Mike's chances.

Little guy who is completely harmless and a cop who is 6 foot 4 with a past history. Yeah, right. Only a corrupt judge would mess this one up.

when is the court going to hear this casE?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but this won't be as easy as you think. Mike didn't even know the guy the cops were taking out of the bathroom. Mike just sees cops pushing him around and confronts the cops. Now, the cops are trying to deal with the bathroom guy and all of the sudden have some drunk guy coming at them questioning what they are doing.

Trust me, the cops will really play-up the .18 BAC. They will say Mike was very intoxicated and threatening.

I'm not saying Mike deserved what happend, but most judges will take the word of sober cops over drunk, disorderly citizens.

Punk Cop wrote:

others who were completely sober.

.

This can only be proven if they took a breathilizer as well. I am not saying you are wrong, but it will not be considered in court. The .18 blown by Mike is a proven fact and will be considered by the court.

Would Mike have jumped in if he was completely sober?

Stop typing COPS and read his response. You are being an ass because you failed reading comprehension.

There was one cop, ONE cop with a history of aggressive behavior that initiated this cascade of events. Please re-read the response until you get this through your thick skull. There will be no other cops to collaborate the initial interaction because there was just ONE COP. While there were sober witnesses (plural) that support Mike irregardless of if he was drunk.

CHECKING IN wrote:

This can only be proven if they took a breathilizer as well. I am not saying you are wrong, but it will not be considered in court. The .18 blown by Mike is a proven fact and will be considered by the court.

So you are drunk until proven sober? I really don't think that is how the law works.

I guess Im drunk at work wrote:

So you are drunk until proven sober? I really don't think that is how the law works.

The courts are blind, so you can neither claim they were drunk nor sober. So if the state makes a claim such as there was a group of individuals who had been drinking and these witnesses were near that group...no one can refute that claim. They can't say they were drunk, but they can't say they weren't.

the other guy freaking out....COPS was implied by former testimonies that we've heard. That multiple COPS went in the bathroom, and one COP in particular brought the guy out... This doesn't mean there was only one cop ever present, just that Mike questioned what one cop was doing.

As for this case being a slam dunk...

I don't think it will be either. Trust me, .18's going to get you. The worst part is you have all these witnesses that you're figuring to be your best case. The state is going to use that against you believe it or not, because these people not only saw you get tazered (which is good for you) but they saw you walk up to a cop who was in the middle of handling a situation(which is bad for you). Reguardless of if the cop was using excessive force you're not supposed to nose in. You wait and press charges later.

Lastly the judge will ask you what you were doing, for which I don't think you have a story that's going to float.

"sticking up for a stranger" isn't going to impress a judge.

You may get your charges reduced is my guess, but don't be suprised if you end up with everything sticking to you.

You're probably not guilty of anything, but you're going into the courts to battle the cops. So it's not looking too promising in my oppinion.

I realize that the issue of his BAC is important and I'm sure that it will be considered relevant in court, but I have to question why it should matter. Either he did or didn't assault the police officer (or do whatever else he's being charged with). Whether or not he was drunk is independent of whether or not he did what the cop claims. Are certain actions considered to be assault when you're drunk, but totally legal when you're sober? I feel like the charge should be about his actions, not his state of mind while carrying out said actions.

well so the arguement is about whether or not he assaulted the officer. basically.

both sides disagree, so they're going to try to describe Mike's state of mind as being drunk and uncooperative.

Much the same as people on here without knowing this officer have portrayed him to be enormously bigger than mike with a history of violent offenses.

my question is how much does the falseness of the police report matter?

All of the witness stories that have been shared (both in the forum and the cincy enquirer article) have said that the police report is false. At least from what I have read, correct me if Im wrong, Mike never touched the officer (which the report said he did to his left arm) or threw his drink. Also, I would imagine they could definitely verify whether he was cursing (whatever that is defined as) in the hospital by asking the hospital employees.

Obviously, a court is going to favor a cop's credibility over a citizen who had been drinking, but how much dispute between eye witnesses and the police report does it take before the cop's credibility is lost in the court's eyes?

Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to say is: why is being drunk and uncooperative any different from just being uncooperative without being drunk? Being uncooperative is what he's being charged with. Whether or not he was drunk doesn't change whether or not he was uncooperative.