Wait a minute. Hold on. Don't grab me like that. >> No. Hold on. No. Hold on. No. Hold on. >> You do not swipe MY HANDS FOR ME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? >> OH. Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. Help me, please. Oh god. Oh god. >> We're laughing because you fell pretty hard after pushing an officer, man. I find that funny, man. You don't touch officer, man. You don't touch an officer. You did do that. >> That's bad. >> I guess you don't drive on the wrong side of the road either. This is Tyler Griffin. On April 5th, 2019, Atlanta police officers stopped him outside a private driveway. What happened next would leave Griffin with a serious injury and years later raised some very uncomfortable questions about how these officers were evaluated. >> What are you doing, man? >> What do you mean, what am I doing? >> Tell me what are you doing? >> Wait a minute. Hold on. Don't grab me like that. >> No, hold on. >> No, hold on. No, hold on. >> You do not swipe my hands for me. You understand? >> Griffin had already gotten out of the vehicle, but within seconds, the situation went from a tense traffic stop to physical force. And what happens in the next few seconds becomes the most important part of this entire case. >> Oh. Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. Help me, please. Oh god. Oh god. Oh god. Help me please. Oh. Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. Help me, bro. >> What's wrong with you, man? >> My left foot is >> What's wrong with your left foot? >> It's tangled or something. I don't know. >> A lot of weight on it. >> A went to get him out of the car. >> A's kind of like, "What are you doing?" And he And like put your hand like that. >> I did like 50. >> Right. Right. >> Hey, man. Come on, man. Get on up. Here's his skin marks. [laughter] >> At this point, Griffin is telling officers something is wrong. And then one officer makes a comment that is going to look very different when the entire case is examined later. >> I have to get up. Come on. >> We're laughing because you fell pretty hard after pushing an officer, man. I find that funny, man. You don't touch officer, man. You don't touch an officer. You did do that. >> That's bad. >> I guess you don't drive on the wrong side of the road either. >> Oh my god. >> Break it up, man. >> You ready? You got that side. 1 2 3 go. You're not even trying. Come on, man. >> Why you putting your weight on the foot that's supposed to be hurt? >> I'm going to die. I wouldn't have to do that to you guys, >> bro. I don't even know you. That's the bad thing. I'm not >> You're the bad thing. Let's go. >> OH MY GOD. OH MY GOD. >> COME ON, MAN. YOU LITTLE GIRL RIGHT NOW. >> What's wrong with you, MAN? >> OH MY GOD. [screaming] >> DOING THAT ON PURPOSE, MAN. >> He doing THAT ON PURPOSE, DUDE. HE KEEP rolling that rolling on the side on purp. >> It hurts when you roll your own ankle. >> OH MY GOD. YES, IT DOES. >> NO, MAN. >> Oh my god. Oh my. >> On June 15th, 2020, Griffin filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city. Officer Donald Vickers, Officer Matthew Abad, and others. The city designated Sergeant Quentyn Ree to testify about the officer's personnel records, in particular his evaluation report. On October 20th, 2020, Ree was questioned over Zoom by Griffin's lawyer, Matthew Khan, while several lawyers for the city also joined the call. >> Can you see uh plaintiffs exhibit 33 on your screen? >> I do. And um it it's a six-page document. So, uh and and that would include the date on which Vicers uh tackled Mr. Griffin, wouldn't it? >> I I don't know. I don't know anything about the case. So, >> and there's the problem. The evaluation period includes the exact date when Vickers tackled Griffin. So, the attorney isn't looking at some unrelated review from years earlier. He's looking at the very period in which this incident happened. >> All right. So, we'll flip to uh the second page here. Do you see the the first goal of APD is is care a RE and it says represents the department in a courteous and professional manner section. Right. >> Correct. Isn't it true that the person performing this evaluation can put anything they want in that comment section? >> They can. >> For example, if if the officer being evaluated was not courteous. >> Correct. >> Do you see where uh where it says works with a sense of urgency, treats everyone fairly and with respect? >> I do. >> And the the reviewing officer gave vicers a four here, it looks like. Is that right? Yes, sir. >> The department's own evaluation system gave reviewers a place to document problems. That matters because Vicker's actions from that night in question don't exactly model that of courtesy and respect >> to the first page with the the key. A rating of five is outstanding, which is basically perfect. Uh, correct. >> Correct. >> And then four would be highly effective, which basically means that the officer did a really good job. Is that right? All right. I'm going to go down. Can you see goal four on your screen? >> I do. It says professionalism >> displays concern and empathy when interacting with citizens. >> I see that. >> And do you think that that's true for for Vickers? >> Uh I have actually I have seen him empathize with people before. He can be very uh he can be very sensitive. >> This is where the contradiction starts becoming difficult to ignore. ers be sensitive >> um on several occasions particularly with uh children >> the in this category for professionals in the reviewing uh employee gave vicers a four >> and this is where the case starts becoming much bigger than one officer's decision Griffin's lawsuit wasn't just about what happened in those few seconds on the driveway the lawsuit included a claim against the city of Atlanta itself arguing that department policies or practices contributed to what happened >> my left foot is >> What's wrong with your left What? >> It's tangled or something. I don't know. But it's got what? >> A lot of weight on it. >> Just a little bit. >> A little heavier when it's drunk, too. >> That's all right, man. A went to get him out of the car and a's kind of like, "What are you doing?" And he And like put your hand like that. >> I did like 50. Right. Right. >> Hey man, come on. Get on up. >> Here's his skin. [laughter] >> Can I help you do what? >> Oh, get up. Come on. Come on. I help you get up. Come on. >> We're laughing because you fell pretty hard after pushing an officer, man. I find that funny, man. You don't touch officer, man. You don't touch an officer. >> You did do that. >> Sergeant Reese, did you hear Officer Vickers bragging about how he did like 50 and tackled Mr. Griffin? >> I mean, I I didn't hear that comment. I was looking at the video and and I didn't hear him say that. He may have said that. >> Well, did did you hear Vickers point out the skid marks and then laugh at Mr. Griffin as he sat on the ground? I did hear him say something about skid marks and I heard him laughing. Yes, sir. >> There was no need to rely entirely on Reese's memory of what happened years earlier. The federal court later noted that the most significant events were clearly captured on Vicker's body camera, giving lawyers the opportunity to show exactly what happened. >> That's not very professional or courteous, is it? >> No. With No, it's not very it's not very nice to uh to to behave like that at that time. Did [clears throat] you hear Vicer say we're laughing because you fell pretty hard after pushing an officer man? >> I heard him say it. And >> that's not very courteous or professional either, is it? >> It's not very nice. No. >> Do you think anything that you saw in that video is funny? Hurt citizens and then laugh at them? >> No. >> Do you think that Vickers displays concern for citizens in Pliff's exhibit 2.2, which is the video you just watched? Vickers had been with the Atlanta Police Department since 2006, but this wasn't his first controversy. In 2010, while off duty, he was charged with reckless conduct after an incident involving a semi-automatic rifle and three men. According to reporting, he was briefly placed on administrative leave and later returned to the department. So, when the Griffin case came along in 2019, Vickers already had history. >> He said he was concerned about his his ankle or foot. Um so he shows some degree of of concern but you know his behavior is we would have a discussion >> and what would that discussion be? The >> discussion would be about how you talk to people and and how we carry ourselves on a uh incident scene >> and do you think that Vickers displays empathy in Planiff's exhibit 2.2? >> I don't know. I I mean to some degree sure he's showing he's concerned about the guy's injury. He wants to know what's going on with him. Is he uh being smart with him? Probably. So, >> the court record shows that Griffin was pursuing claims against Vickers and Abad individually while also trying to hold the city of Atlanta responsible under a municipal liability theory. That doesn't automatically mean the city was legally responsible. It means Griffin was arguing that the problem went beyond one officer. And that's why these performance evaluations matter so much. Because if a department repeatedly tells itself that everything is fine, it becomes much harder to spot the officers who aren't. >> Oh. Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. Help me, please. Oh god. Oh god. Oh god. Help me, please. Oh. Griffin was being followed by officers in an unmarked vehicle during a stolen car investigation. He didn't know they were police and pulled into a private driveway. As an armed officer approached, Griffin was still trying to understand what was happening. Then Vickers tackled him before Griffin ever saw him coming. >> Oh my god. [screaming] >> Oh my god. Oh my god. Help me. >> Uh, did you see Abad making Mr. Griffin walk around on a broken ankle? >> I saw Officer Abad walking him. I don't I didn't know if he was making him walk. I don't I saw him walking with him. Yes. >> Uh did you hear Mr. Griffin cry out in pain? >> I did. >> Did you see Abad roll his eyes? Uh Mr. Griffin's crying? >> I didn't see him roll his eyes. >> And the injury wasn't minor. Griffin's ankle was broken during the encounter so badly that it required emergency surgery. Doctors had to put his ankle back together with a long metal plate and 10 screws, [music] leaving him with permanent hardware holding the broken bones together. Think about that for a second. What began as Griffin trying to figure out why an unmarked vehicle was following him ended with a broken ankle, emergency surgery, and permanent hardware in his leg. >> I don't know whether he was concerned about it or not. It seemed like he was he had reservations about whether the gentleman was really injured or not. I don't know whether he felt like he was being sympathetic or not. It seemed like he felt like the individual was probably playing a game with him. At least that's what it the video seemed. >> Was was he would you say that he was being empathetic to Mr. Griffin? >> I don't even know how to answer that question because I don't know whether he felt like he was being empathetic or not. Um obviously he didn't make him continue to walk. He should certainly um not force him to walk on an ankle if if that is in case broken and I don't know whether it was or not. >> Nobody needs a law degree to understand the basic problem. If a person says they're seriously injured and later medical evidence confirms a broken ankle. The obvious question is whether officers should stop moving that person around and get medical help. And that's essentially where Sergeant Ree ends up. >> And if I'm mis mischaracterizing it, please let me know. But is is it your testimony that um once Abad learned that Mr. Griffin was hurt, he should have stopped making him walk around? >> Yeah. It's not the policy of the Atlanta Police Department to force somebody to walk when they're injured on um injury. We don't do that. >> Can you tell me what what an empathetic police officer would have done in that situation? empathetic police officer would have been able to determine whether or not the individual was telling the truth that they actually have an injury calls where folks profess to be injured and they're not. I think Abad was trying to determine that. At least that's what it looks like in the video. And then um an empathetic officer would call for what we refer to as a four ord in order to come and treat the individual. And this is one of the most damaging moments for the defense's narrative because Ree isn't saying, "Well, that's just how officers sometimes handle things. He's establishing a standard. If somebody is injured, you don't make the injury worse. You get medical assistance." >> And I was just going to I'm going to share my screen with you one more time. Can you Can you see Planiff's exhibit 30 on your screen? >> I do. >> Have you ever have you ever seen uh this X-ray scan before? >> I have not. Would would it surprise you uh taking that that knife? Am >> I surprised by it? No, because you're showing it to me, but it looks like he's got a few pins in his uh in his ankle. Looks like he probably had a a broken ankle. >> Would you agree that it'd be pretty messed up to make someone walk around who who had that sort of injury? >> Yes. Body cam footage can capture the moment force is used, but it can also capture everything that happens afterward. And sometimes that second part tells you more about an officer's attitude than the initial use of force. That's exactly why Griffin's attorneys kept returning to the post tackle footage. >> All right, I'm going to show you another video clip, but so what the video I'm about to show you ought to be plaintiff exhibit 5.3. When he got to the back here, what was he doing? >> Trying to turn around. He got stuck in the gravel. If he wasn't stuck in the gravel, he would have ran me over cuz he kept hitting the gas. >> Yeah. >> I damn near shot. I was about 2 seconds before bullets back up. >> Sir, did you hear Abad say, quote, "I damn near shot him." End quote. >> I heard him say that. >> Did you hear Abad say, quote, "I was about two seconds from putting bullets into his window." end quote. >> I did. >> Would it have been okay if Abad shot Mr. Griffin? >> You know, that would be based upon the totality of the circumstances. >> And suddenly the case takes another turn. That was not a minor comment. >> You know, our intention is never to shoot anybody, but not knowing I don't I don't know why they were on this call. I don't know a lot of information about this call uh other than what I've seen in the video snippets. So, I couldn't make a judgment call on that. whether or not it would be good to shoot them. >> Well, let let me ask you this then. Uh, at any point in the videos that I have shown you, would it have been okay for Abeat to shoot Mr. Griffin? >> I didn't see anything that would have said, you know, you you you should go ahead and shoot at this time, but again, I didn't see the entire video. I heard the engine revving when Abad was approaching, but that's all I heard. Take note, police officers are authorized to use deadly force in situations where the law allows it. But simply saying afterward that you felt threatened doesn't automatically make the shooting lawful. >> Yeah, I would say at this point he he should not shoot. He should not have shot him and he did not. >> Do the words that we just listened to uh sound like the words of a police officer who treats people with respect? I think that the words that Abad used were words that uh he felt at the time based upon the emotions of the situation. Is that but is that how someone who respects people talks? >> Again, it doesn't show a lot of empathy if that's the word that you're looking for. The department had already evaluated these officers. So, the lawyers weren't just questioning what happened that day. They were questioning how officers involved in an incident like this could still receive such high performance ratings, pointing to what may be a much larger flaw in the department's evaluation system. >> Will you agree that these performance evaluations are completely meaningless? >> No, I would not agree with that. >> You you won't agree to that? >> I do not agree to that. Will you please explain to me then, Sergeant Reese, uh why these performance evaluations don't reflect the defendant's poor performance? >> Again, performance evaluations are a snippet of their entire year's activities. You would have to ask the raider whether or not he took this into account when he was issuing this performance evaluation. They would be taken into account when conducting a performance evaluation. but should be considered. >> But we haven't looked at anything that would allow the reader to understand that there were poor performance. >> I would say based upon the fact that the raider did not give him a five, he rated, he realized that there were some areas that needed some work. Every officer is like that. But >> so you can an Atlanta police officer can march around a citizen with a broken ankle and then still get a four, which means that he's done a very good job. >> Should be considered in a performance evaluation. Whether or not it was, I do not know because I did not issue the rating. >> And this is where the rating itself becomes important. The department didn't have only one button that said good officer or bad officer. There were multiple levels. So the question becomes whether this incident should have pulled the evaluation downward >> for someone to get a four which means they did a very good job if they have done something like making a citizen with a broken ankle walk around on that broken ankle. >> I really don't have much else to add to that. I think it should be taken into account and be considered. Whether or not it was I do not know. But that's and that is an answer to a question, but it's not an answer to the question that I'm asking you. Somebody should be able to get a four when they behaved the way that you've seen in these videos. That and that and just to to clarify that is taking into consideration the the behavior that you've seen. Do you think that it's possible for that person to get a four? It's not about whether the officers had a good year overall, but whether this specific conduct could coexist with a rating that says they were highly effective. >> Don't have anything else to add to the to my my previous comments. >> So, the the city of Atlanta thinks that the behavior that you saw in those videos warrants a very good job. >> The performance evaluation is a totality of all of the officers actions. Do I believe that there was area for improvement in this in this particular case? Yes, there was. >> But there was nothing on those performance evaluations that said that these officers need improvement, was there? >> Based upon the fact that they did not receive a five would indicate that they there was room for improvement. >> Can you see pliff exhibit 34? >> I can. So, I'm looking at the key here, the definition of ratings, and it looks like there there is uh a rating that indicates that the officer needs improvement, and that's a two. >> Two key call outs from that testimony. The department representative acknowledges that there was room for improvement for this specific officer and the evaluation system had a place for it. >> And that's the officer meets most, but not all of the expected performance standards. Do do you see that? >> I do. And then there's there's even one more above that that says successful slasheffective. That's a three. >> Yes, sir. >> So, if the reviewing officer intended to factor in this misconduct that you've seen and determine that they need improvement, they could have given him a two, right? >> He could have given him a two. >> If bad cops get good reviews, isn't it true that those bad cops look like good cops on paper? Yes, it's not. >> Back in 1989, the Supreme Court's decision in Graham versus Connor set a simple rule for excessive force cases. Courts look at what was happening in that moment and ask whether a reasonable officer would have used the same level of force. They consider things like how serious the situation was, whether anyone was in immediate danger, and whether the person was resisting or trying to run away. What the officer was thinking or intending doesn't change that standard. And that made Reese's answer even more important. He had just admitted that nothing in the video justified shooting Griffin, even though Abad had said he came close to doing it. At the same time, the testimony raised another question. If the officer's actions had room for improvement, why did the department give them such high performance ratings? >> Sir, do you think that Vickers was justified in his use of force in Pliff's exhibit 1.2? >> I was, as I was going to say, that is not how I would have handled the call. >> So, I'm sorry. Would that be a no? Vickers was not justified in his use of force. >> So there there are a couple things here. I would not have handled the call that way. I did not see in the video. I didn't see that. All I could hear was he said, "You don't swipe at me or you don't take a the idea of him being pushed uh him pushing his partner." Um but would I have handled the call that way? No, I would not have. Again, I would have handled it differently. I don't know whether he I wouldn't have done it that way is what I is the way I would leave it. >> Sir, I'm asking you a very specific question though. Is that excessive force? >> I don't I and I'm trying to be as honest with you as I can. I don't know. >> He says he wouldn't have handled the call that way, but he isn't willing to make the final legal determination. And that's actually an important distinction. A police supervisor can criticize an officer's decision without personally deciding the constitutional question that ultimately belongs to the court. >> I don't know if Vickers thought that he was going for his partner. I don't know if Vickers thought that he might have a weapon and he might be going back to the vehicle. I don't know what Vickers was thinking. Would I have done it differently? Yes, I would have done it differently. >> Planist exhibit 1.2. Was the force that Vickers used in that clip excessive? >> I don't have anything else to add. I wouldn't have handled it that way, but we are different individuals. >> And that's the question the entire case has been building toward because Griffin didn't just sue the officers, he sued the city. >> All right, no further questions for me. >> The civil lawsuit eventually settled for an undisclosed amount. But while that litigation was still ongoing, the case took another turn. On August 16th, 2022, Fulton County Grand Jury indicted Officer Vickers on felony charges of aggravated battery and violating his oath as a public officer over his actions during the tackle. After the indictment, the Atlanta Police Department relieved him of duty. More than 2 years later, on November 13th, 2024, the Fulton County Superior Court formally closed the case without prosecution. As part of the agreement, Vickers gave up his Georgia law enforcement certification and agreed never to apply for it again. permanently ending his career in Georgia law enforcement. Let us know in the comments who failed Tyler Griffin Moore, the officers involved, or the department that continued to rate them so highly. See you in the next one.