The kid's hands weren't up. He was yelling at the officer and refusing to comply at which point he was taken to the ground. Had he complied it wouldn't have been necessary, proven by what happened to the other kid that did comply. Good luck winning a lawsuit, but Atherton's insurance will probably settle as it will be cheaper than defending a lawsuit. And that's what he and hi lawyer are depending on.

Just the latest example of an offender claiming to be the victim. Unfortunately, here in California, that often works.

The Minor "KC" had already been sent home for misbehaving, and he kept mouthing off after law enforcement arrived. KC yelled at the officer and refused to comply with a direct and reasonable order. I hope Atherton fights the lawsuit, there are certainly places where there's a lot of police misconduct but I didn't see any issue here.

"If he would have only complied." Where have we heard that before?

Menlo Lifestyle:

you can try to spin it all you want. If he had complied he wouldn't have been taken to the ground. That's a FACT, reinforced by the person with him that complied. He was handcuffed and sat down.

@Menlo Lifestyle is right in a sense. Every time cops rough up a citizen, the police story is going to be the citizen had it coming to them. "Had only he complied." If this kid had been an honor student walking home, having done nothing wrong, minding his own business, and the cop beat him to within an inch of his life, there would still be such a story. I think we all know this is true.

But in this case we have a video showing the police action was not inappropriate given the student's behavior. The police officer did not use unreasonable force. The police officer was not rude, or otherwise out of line. The student refused to comply, and the officer used the least force he could to stop the student from walking away.

By the way, this video would not exist otherwise. If the student did nothing wrong, there would not be a video of the police throwing him down on the ground, because police do not record (or delete and say they never recorded) videos that put them in a bad light.

For example, a few years ago the Atherton police department "allegedly" roughed up a Stanford professor who was out walking. The Almanac reported on it. There was no video by any of the three officers involved because the officers involved interpreted the "shall record" language of the police procedure manual as "you decide to record", whereupon it was supposedly changed to "must record" because "shall" isn't clear. Riighht…